Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

WP:RS Check - The Saga Begins

I removed Frykberg's Antiwar.com cite. Antiwar.com is a partisan blog and should not be used except when speaking about itself.--Cerejota (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures again

I performed following edit, but the change was reverted. Can we reach some fair compromise, without pushing kick and ban big buttons? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

yes we can, but get consensus for such changes as they have been disputed already. I dont particularly like the photo there now, but it has been long-standing and you should seek consensus for its replacement. Nableezy (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK could you explain why you object to proposed change? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont object, what I object to is the removal or replacement without discussion. It is good that you started a discussion, and I am sure people will be along to discuss this. But please do not remove that picture without getting consensus for it. Nableezy (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I see fruitful discussion. Hopefully you do not push kick button as fast this time. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

you need to wait for other people, but i dont give a shit anymore about this so do whatever you feel like. but you and me dont make a consensus, and you should wait for other people to respond. Nableezy (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I always respected your opinion on Wikipedia rules, but this is somehow strange interpretation of BRD process. Step 1 is being bold does not require any discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BRD is cool but you were B again before everyone was finished with the earlier D. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you. Still this is different change. This is why we're so fruitfully discussing this change. I understand that revert (R) should be discussed (D). Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada, your edit summary for the image replacement said "Don't add kids pictures please. Not appropriate". Here is the relevant policy WP:IUP#Privacy rights. Do you think the inclusion of this posed image taken in a public place is inappropriate with respect to the policy ? Is the image an intrusion of privacy ? We've been here before. Have you looked at other pages in WP that include the images of child victims of various conflicts, massacres etc ? To describe this one as "not appropriate" seems unreasonable to me. Then again, maybe no one cares anymore. I'll go with the flow. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Nice to see you again. When I look at bees and ants no such problem at all :) Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada you are getting quite ridiculous. I'm beginning to think you are not right. Are you ill? I don't mean the good ill, i mean the oldness type ill.

There was consensus on putting Shaliat on Ceasefire here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_39#Israel_ties_ceasefire_to_Shalit

I REPEAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS - somebody pleaseee tell me how to say this in Hebrew. THERE WAS CONSENSUS. The big bang started the consensus and it blew up into this fruitful addition do you agree? What the freak is wrong with you man? You are about to make me curse and all, have you noticed I DONT CURSE?

There was consensus on the flag here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_40#Belligerents_2

DO YOU AGREE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS FOR THESE ISSUES??? if you say no, that is alright man, i will find a way to translate these things to you in Hebrew. Stop the smoking, we are not in peace time, stop the peace pipe, put it away.

This is getting too freaking old Agada. Stop it at once, just freaking stop it man. What the freak are you on, not because i want any, but because i want to avoid it. sheeze, oh man my freaking natural buss is almost gone because of you. somebody ban me already before i go off on this dude. BAN ME BEFORE NABLEEZY PLEASEEEEE. Then the state of the article can be solely be blamed on him. BAN ME!!! what is it that i have to do to get bannnned!? Cryptonio (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Love you too. Even more than always :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

no no no no non n onon n ono non no no non no n... just stop it, no empty threat here, but i will pursuit your actions under the 'collective bargaining agreement' that we all are under. just one more 'out of place' 'reactionary' 'faulty' 'incoherent' ANYTHING out of you and i will pursuit this. knowing you, it's going to happen tomorrow. it just have to happen, everybody here wants to move on to other articles, i have a long list of things i want to do in here. just stop it dude, stop it, stop it. it's been going on for too long. no more rational conversation with you, no more wasting time, no more, either you "win" or i find somebody to deal with you. im telling you, if i have to take this 'outside' the "house"(we've been keeping your actions 'inhouse') i will, and knowing you, most likely it's going to happen tomorrow...no more crap from you, freak this bullcrap, freak it all. Cryptonio (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Your latest edit is incoherent. let it be. tomorrow is another day. Cryptonio (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good night, Cryptonio. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You could try לילה טוב = Layla tov = Good night and then slam the door. hmmmm...similar to Arabic. Okay, who stole the word from who ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sean, you're absolutely right. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just say it with a Hebrew accent. THERE WAS KHONSENSUS!!

I think layla exists in most Semitic languages. On a side note I discovered an interesting fact recently, Arabic and Hebrew have almost the same name in Arabic. Arabic is العربية(Al-'Arabiyah) and Hebrew is العبرية(al-'Abariyah). Just a switch of the fourth and fifth letters with each other. cool --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree about Semitic roots :). There is a song with the same name played by Eric Clapton. And we have not touch yet Dune by Frank Herbert New Age style transformation :). Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada, I'm not sure if it was intentional or not but your fruitful discussion is crawling with lizards and insects. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A general point. The R does not need discussion, once the R is performed, the B needs the D to reach consensus. Being bold is fine, but once reverted please do not continue making the same edit that does not have consensus once reverted. Nableezy (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The remnants of Qassam rockets that were fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel.

Getting back to the subject matter at hand, I have a problem with this picture of the rockets as presented. First of all, it seems to have a claimed copyright here, despite being posted at wikipedia. Second, it was taken back in February (maybe July - 02.07.) of 2008. While it might be relevant to the general situation between Israel and Gaza, it is not specific to this conflict. However, the blurb Agada used to present the picture did not mention this, making the posting somewhat misleading. I've posted his version to the left. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The copyright isnt an issue, claimed to have been uploaded by the original author releasing it under GNU license. The date is an issue though. Nableezy (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, and in case nobody's noticed, Agada restored the picture of the rockets here half an hour after Nableezy first reverted him with the following edit summary: "(Per talk. No objections.)" Since there obviously were objections at the time (Nableezy's) I consider this to be a bad faith edit summary. I've restored the page to the way it was before.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

...to be clear, when I said "I'll go with the flow" I was hoping the flow would be consistent with guidelines or at least include a rational explanation of the reason for a change from the rocket damage image to a replacement image. Obviously it can't just be based on an 'it's inappropriate' argument. After all, I think the article would be greatly enhanced by replacing all of the images with Howard Hodgkin paintings but that's just my personal view of what would be appropriate. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree about technicalities, I disagree that pile of Qassam rockets near Sderot municipality is irrelevant to this conflict in general and Rocket attacks into Israel section in particular. This pile became a symbol since many world leaders took a picture near it and the pile is getting bigger. Call it Israeli propaganda if you want :). Current picture with kid in the center try to do emotional tricks. Thus the image is problematic at least. In my eyes "kid" image informational relevancy is questionable to the "rocket" section. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted the change, again, for the same reason, that being that the child in front of the wall had some consensus to be there and that there is no consensus to replace it with this picture. Agada, please stop replacing the picture. I'm not opposed to the picture being there (with an honest edit summary that makes it clear that these are not rockets that were fired during this conflict), but I am opposed to removing the picture of the girl without discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you say the pile is getting bigger. Do you live near the pile? If so, maybe you can get us an updated picture.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that "child in front of the wall" is relevant to "rockets" and while it had some consensous - consensous could change. Do you think that pile of rockets near Sderot is irrelevant to this section? Do you really want more up to date image? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The key word there is "could". "Could change". I don't think the picture of the rockets is irrelevant, but I do think it should be honestly labeled. If we use the picture of the rockets the label should not imply that those rockets were used during this conflict, but should make clear that they were fired almost a year before the conflict started (Feb. 2008). It would go better in the background section. The real problem I have, is with you, Agada, repeatedly removing the picture of the girl before even attempting to find a consensus about its inclusion. If you want to start a vote, let's start a vote.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If label is the problem, I'm all for changing it. What do you think would be "honest" label of Sderot Qassam rocket pile? Try not to be personal please and assume good faith. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, if we include the picture of the rockets I think the caption should include the information the rockets were fired before February 2008 so there is no confusion. Since you think I've been "personal" let me try to explain myself. I accept that you are new to wikipedia and therefore unaware of certain policies and standards of editing. However, I've found some of your edits disruptive. I consider the repeated removal of the picture of the girl with non-descriptive edit summaries to be somewhat sneaky. In fact, if you look way back in the archives somewhere you will find a discussion where it was discussed whether the removal of images without edit summaries should be considered per-se vandalism. Your repeated removals of information from this article claiming "per talk" when really there was no discussion, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I also find to be sneaky, and in bad faith. The reason I can say you should know better is because you were told on your talk page not to do this, [7] yet you continue to do so. Why? If you have a good reason for making these edits please explain yourself. By the way, it's nothing personal.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. Why do I bother is not always clear to me too :) I generally in love with Internet technology. Try to assume good faith, I'm new to Wiki-editing and fix my mistakes. In any way, I explained verbosely, in my eyes we could get without any picture in this section. Couple of weeks "no picture" consensous hold pretty well. People could always use Youtube to get some visualization about subject. Would you be ready to switch "child in front of the wall" with "rocket pile near Sderot municipality". Maybe we could get our hands on more updated picture of this pile. Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I suppose that you are correct. After you originally removed the picture without mentioning what you removed in your edit summary,[8] the rest of the people who watch this page didn't do anything for two weeks. I blame myself for not catching it sooner. Don't get me wrong, I welcome your edits. The more people who are interested in improving this article, the better it will be in the long run. I personally agree with you in thinking that the picture of the girl in front of the wall looks posed. But it is apparently the only picture we have of actual damage done in Israel during this conflict by a Gazan rocket. For that reason alone I think it should be included. I wish we had other picture options, but the old picture of the rockets doesn't suffice as an adequate replacement. Again, I think we could include the picture of the rockets in the background section but it should be made clear that they were not fired during this particular conflict.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody mind this picture of a Grad rocket exploding in Beersheba?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the real reason why Agada is removing the image of the young girl. Perhaps he is ashamed of obese people representing his people... I don't like to assume much. But surely approval of removing the pic by you Cdogsimmons would spark an outcry from the pro-Israeli side. Just thought to let you know in advance. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the picture of the explosion. I think anything that shows the military aspect of the conflict is good. Also, would the contentious Grad rocket image fit in the background section?Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good picture of the rocket. Yes yes, include that baby. Cryptonio (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We could also move that pile of rockets picture into the background section. and of course label it that they were fired before this conflict. in the agitation of finding pictures from Israel, i think we may have let this detail pass us by. The picture must be clearly labeled. Cryptonio (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that the grad rocket pic was missing from the article. When/why was it taken out and by who? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How should the caption go if the rocket image is used in the Background section?Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was probably taken out some time ago, cause i don't recall it in my memory as recent(i guess you are saying that it was in the article already). Cryptonio (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it was in the article already. [9] --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, something like "Rockets fired from Gaza into Israel before this conflict"? Maybe someone has a better quote than that, but that looks good to me. Cryptonio (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. If the formating doesn't work, caption is poor, or if it is still disputed I'm sure someone will say something.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) WikiBlame says the grad rocket pic was removed here. It should be restored. It's a good one. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of a funny story how Annotate CVS neutral feature became Blame at newer version control systems like SVN and Wikipedia :) Thank you for your help. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Having worked with several corps that explictly state that they don't have a 'blame culture' and who genuinely work that way I can say with some confidence that not having a blame culture is silly. I'm all for it. The more blame the better. Everyone screws up and especially men I'm reliably informed. Also blame competitions are good fun. Agada, if you wanted to trade that rocket explosion pic or rocket pile pic for the girl in front of the wall pic it's fine by me. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Sean, we're all human and its in our human nature to err. In my eyes the weak side of the blame culture emphasizes facts like who errs more, instead of dealing with fixing the actual error :) I still believe that the Internet has corner for free informational encyclopedia at Wikipedia and corner of visual effects at Youtube. Corps (as you put it) are temps and rotten. Thank you again and hope to meet you at Sudan :). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref tag check - No witty comment because this is janitorial bullshit you guys should be careful to take care of

Ok, lots of improvement in use of the {{cite news}} template, but still lots of issues with multiple references and one instance of two separate references named the same.

When posting a reference, first verify that it is not already in use, by hitting "edit" and using the browser's find command (If you use WikiED, then you can use its GREP function.) If its already in use, simply add <ref name=ref-name /> where you want to cite the source. No need to put the whole info all over again.
When naming a ref, use a descriptive name. I prefer to use the format "source-topic", but anything goes as long as it is unique, and has a good chance of remaning unique. Using "source-date" is bad, because there is the possibility that another article form the same source and date be used, as has happened. Same with using the "source" only. Etc.

These are not trivial things, and you all should be careful to learn the tools and use them correctly. --Cerejota (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cube-shaped microshrapnel weapon

I know that we already have weapons sections but I've brought this up already and I think it gets lost in the noise. I think everyone should read the Amnesty International weapons report that I linked to earlier.[10] I'm surprised that nobody else has been interested in the cube-shaped microshrapnel weapon. Unlike DIMEs, AI says they have actual proof of use. It is also interesting to read their take on DIMEs. I'd add this all myself but the hyphen in "cube-shaped" will require the removal of a semicolon for balance and I can't decide which one of those I like least. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Any other websites aside from AI that contain this information? For weapons, we should be citing directly from news organizations and preferably the military themselves. Generally speaking, advocacy organizations are not reliable for these sorts of conclusions without sharp demotions like "alleges, accuses, etc.." In the event that this is included, I predict it will be reverted based off lacking evidence. Can you find another source to support info? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC reported on HRW's investigation. The thing that bugged me about the Amnesty International report was the "purpose-made" shrapnel line. This source actual goes into detail. It wasn't designed as an anti-personnel weapon but it was used as one. Furthermore, investigators found that many of the missiles used in such strikes contained tiny, sharp-edged cubes of purpose-made shrapnel, which are scattered as the missile explodes. Mr Garlasco says these were designed as anti-tank weapons, but are often used by Israel for targeted killings, as they "do they job well" - the blast is confined to a small radius, the missiles are relatively light and can be mounted on unmanned drones. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7905320.stm As long as it is worded correctly and put in the proper section it looks valid.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Is this bad? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I see it as a weapon perfect for taking out targets without too much collateral damage. AI looks at it as "misuse of a conventional weapon" AI also list everything but bullets in their report, though. AI is so biased I don't see how we can use them without a second source or "AI alleges". We almost need to retitle "International Law" section to "Reactions from Aid Agencies" but it is an "accusation" and could be used if worded correctly.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First, AI is a RS. Second, biased against who? The introduction of the report states that they have "found evidence of war crimes and other serious violations of international law by all parties to the conflict." That they have found more by Israel does not make them biased against Israel. Nableezy (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case they were biased. The source failed to mention something that did not victimize the Palestinians. Some RS screw up. I read a horrible supposedly non-editorial article today from a Scottish newspaper that read like a Stephen King novel. As mentioned before, AI's is on the lookout for perceived injustices. It is not their mission to be partial to who they see as the primary aggressor. Might be a fine organization but using them as a source without using some caution is not fair to this article.Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an entire section in the report detailing the wrongs of Hamas, Unlawful use of indiscriminate rockets by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, but really what other violation of international law has anybody said that Hamas has violated? You want them to make shit up just to get the word count even? AI may be biased, but if so they are biased against violations of international law, not against either 'side' in this conflict, or really any conflict. Nableezy (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was being a little sarcastic in my comment up above so don't take it completely the wrong way. The point was that aid organizations are throwing accusations out. I don't mind it being in this section but at the same time it is a little odd seeing the knee jerk reaction (AI especially). It is to the point where it almost warrants its own section since they are not filing lawsuits and their claims are not being used by anyone to hold Israel accountable for what they say are crimes.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So now they lump the IDF and Hamas together? Look, it is truly retarded to argue AI isn't biased. I know you like AI because they paint an agreeable picture of Israel from your POV but there really isn't much to discuss here. AI is a reliable source, but reliable does not = free pass. We cite things according to what they are, and AI is an advocacy organization with a critical bias against Israel. We might as well google up on pro-Israel charities if these are the kinds of precedents we are willing to set. In terms of reliability, JPOST > AI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I already said I wouldnt call you or your opinions retarded anymore, I wont. But Amnesty urged arms embargoes on both Israel and Hamas. I dont really care that you think AI is biased against Israel, all that means to me is you agree with ngo-monitor, another group of people whose opinions dont mean shit. Nableezy (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the provided link, there is more to the story than AI "urging" an arms embargo on both parties. Have you read the report? I have. Twice. I was simply correcting your inaccurate assessment. Just because one identifies AI as biased does not mean they agree with an NGO-monitor. I don't understand your logic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It means they agree with ngo-monitor that ai is biased against israel. pretty simple logic. Nableezy (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

and the jpost is by no means more reliable than ai, that is purely a subjective opinion, and i really dont want to get into whether or not that opinion is retarded. Nableezy (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't expect RS to be unbiased. At least no more than WP editors are. See media bias for example. Although I personally think that an RS should be named if it is making an allegation of something it investigated itself. I'd expect that of a newspaper. But I will say that Amnesty is not perfect. You'll notice that they say the missiles were seeming launched from "unmanned drones". But really, is there any other kind of drone?[11] --JGGardiner (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness though: Do we want a long version or a short version for this particular paragraph and what is the most appropriate section?Cptnono (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm deeply disappointed, JGGardiner. This means you do not read Wodehouse, whose novels, especially those with chapters on the Drones Club, depict any number of unmanned drones, if the adjective is read in the verbal sense of 'to unman'. Seriously, all mainstream reliable sources from the New York Times to the Wall-eyed Street journal get things wrong on a daily basis. The pleonasm does not disqualify Amnesty, which has long been regarded as a very reliable source. One should correct for language, where such lapses occur, but here some editors are making judgements, from a personal perspective, about RS, to challenge it. This is improper. AI is an advocacy organization with a 'bias' against all countries (almost all countries qualify) that violate international legal conventions. Israel does, so does the US, Iran, Russia, and Togo, etc.(count to 198). It is not 'biased' against Israel. It is critical of Israel for the same reasons it is critical of Israel's enemies. Both, in crucial areas, violate laws they pay lipservice to. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you clicked on my link because your response was partly serious. But I am quite familiar with Wodehouse and even his conflict writing:

"Full details were not to be expected, though it is to the credit of the newspapers that, with keen enterprise, they had at once set to work to invent them, and on the whole had not done badly." --JGGardiner (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no way you are going to convince me and I assume a fee others that AI is neutral or writes all reports in appropriate language. Regardless, It doesn't matter for this topic. BBC had a decent report so we have a good source. Again, I don't see a problem with he cube shaped shrapnel. However, it got press due to the accusation so that should be how it is included.Cptnono (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't the AI been submitted to an RS report forum? Just because one unique source happens to be an RS does not mean we quote everything they say exclusively. There is certainly a heiarchy for reliability, if there a signficiant dispute between AI and say...err..BBC, we would logically go with BBC and quote AI in its exact context. Get it? But for the record, AI is NOT a media organization, they have no obligation to report objectively and is a clearly-defined special interest group. Thus, we quote them according to what they are, not what they aren't. RS-certified isn't a free pass to everything. Such limitless power is rather alarming, especially with a group so partisan as Amnesty International. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International, like Human Rights Watch, generally put more effort into ascertaining facts, weeding out attempts by lobbies of any kind to manipulate data for political ends, than any official government source, which by its nature 'spins' facts. Unlike governments, they do not have limitless power. Indeed, what they report is rarely reported. If you are alarmed by their 'power', you must be in an absolute panic about anything any government says. For governments represent power, whereas these bodies are independent bodies examining the exercise of power. When Hezbollah and Israel, the US and Iran, get irate about the same organization, the conclusion is obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 March 2009

Way to stay on topic. If you refuse to even consider that some reports are not perfectly inline with Wikipedia guidelines then there is no reason to discuss it further. Are we putting in any info on controversial munitions? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7905320.stm Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to derail discussion, but AI is NOT neutral and objective when it comes to Israel. Many of reports have been renders false, manipulated, or downright malicious in the past decade. They do not belong to any ethics committee, they follow their own agenda and will knowingly ignore notable info if it disagrees with their goals. So, again, we quote them for what they are, not what they "seem to be", not our interpretations, what they are: a "charitable"/advocacy/activist organizations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an opinion. One that is truly special. What you think they are and what they actually are, according to RSs, are 2 entirely different things. Nableezy (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[od] same old, same old, re AI [12] Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

uhh, who gives a fuck what that man has to say about a highly respected organization that has called out Arab and Muslim countries for the abuses that they committed as much, if not more, than it has called out Israel? I sure dont. Nableezy (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How quickly would Palestine give up its 'support'(the perceiving bias) from the UN and other organizations, for the 'support' of the US. It would be like trading rhetoric for weapons. What can words do in this century? what is the difference between 'can' and 'will do'? These Un organizations have "humanitarian" as part of their names. It means it helps people that can't help themselves. Freak, the head guy of the humanitarian office visits Gaza, and all Israel wants them to see is the 'remnants' of rockets fired from Gaza, WTFreak? Dumb wikifan, dumb as you can be. You are not being selfish, for if you were really looking after yourself, you would know what's bugging you and looking at you funny. This lack of respect for the UN(even bush went off on them) is the reason why the UN can't solve any problems except the distribution of aid. And mind you, in Gaza is not just AID, in Gaza the UN is more like the main contributor of Gaza's GDP. These people survive thanks to the UN(and of course, Israel's allowing this aid to go through). Dumb wikifan, just plain dumb. Cryptonio (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You can not say things like that. Seriously that is totally uncivil. Especially on an article that is under ARBPIA. Walk away and take a deep breath if you have to but I don't want to see another attack like that. Savour it if you need to because it is going to be the last. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. You shouldn't say stuff like that here. You could email it to him through his user page. No, what I meant to say was that it is a bit uncivil and wikifan is entitled to his opinion. You need to rephrase it so that the word refers to an argument rather than a person. e.g.

OLD: You eat too many donuts and are fat.
NEW: Your argument eats too many donuts and is fat.

That way, peace will prevail over these lands.

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good advice but you'd have a harder time converting this one. As you can see it isn't the first time Cryptonio has said something unacceptable to Wikifan. S/he should be thankful that Wikifan has been so forgiving. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jg keeping taps on this lil bout of ours. Seriously, i do need to realize certain things. wikifan is not the man i would consider for my 'greatest rival' moniker. That aside.

I think i was right on when it comes to his continual barrage of the UN and the accompanying organizations. Someone could very well have 'EARNED' that opinion or right to speak of those organizations in that way, but from wikifan's mouth the best thing that has come out has been...that aside.

In way shape or form, did i brought this upon myself. Similar to Agada's "dumb blonde look" method of deleting/editing, wikifan's allows his views to shape the way this article needs to look like. Not once, has he taken Wiki's position and perspective. Anything that i might conjure up, will appear to be unacceptable to wikifan. Now, simply because wikifan has taken the approach detailed by Sean above, doesn't mean he has been more civil than I. I am not going to waste anybody's time bringing forward what happened in the past, like some lawyer would, or better yet...That aide. But i will say that, wikifan finds corn where beans should be, and dresses on mondays how he should dress on sundays. anyways, i won't tell you what my behavior would be in the future since i am not witch and when it comes to wikifan is dependent on wikifan. what a waste of time this has been. Cryptonio (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued negotiations

I removed 3d paragraph of this section, see edit diff. The first sentence was Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that Israel would not agree to any potential ceasefire that did not include the freeing of Gilad Shalit I re-read the source it did mention "truce". From other hand Israeli PM offered cease-fire (not limited in time) on January 17 2009, without mentioning Shalit, see other RS. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Both articles are from the BBC, perhaps it is wise to use the most recent article? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, when a source has two versions, use the most recent.--Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources is about Ehud Olmert saying there will not be any ceasefire without Shalit being released, the other is about Hamas saying Shalit wont be released without Palestinian prisoners being released. But either way, this can be sourced to a thousand different refs, and Agada needs to stop removing things he does not like. Nableezy (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am offended by this picture. I do not have a mustache and my face is not fat. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

and it has bad grammar. Nableezy (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

..also the non-vertical walls and wooden supports mean that it should be a hard hat zone and there are numerous trip hazards around the edge of the room. Someone might get hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture removed per consensus. Do not click on this link! --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

..yes, wise move. safety first. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Those better be safety glasses or else he could have his eye out..

OMGWTFPOLARBEAR!!!--Cerejota (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully new version closer to source. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not say 'economic blockade'. They say ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I read the source carefully and the source says:

Israel does not agree to truce without Shalit: Israel will not agree to a truce in Gaza unless an Israeli soldier held by Palestinian militants is freed, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said.
Cease-fire is in place since January: A punishing three-week Israeli assault on Gaza aimed at stopping militant rocket fire on Israel ended with separate ceasefires in January.
In order for truce to be a stable one, ceasefire should not have any time limit: But Israel reportedly wants any ceasefire to be open-ended.
The rest is expected truce result, i.e. lifting economic blockade: Any truce is expected to see Israel gradually open the borders to Gaza, ending the blockade.

This is why I think that previous wording does not reflect the source in any way. Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you originally change it from truce? Nowhere does it say economic blockade. It is not an 'economic' blockade, and I htought we dealt with this in the past when you tried to put 'economic' blockade in the background. Nableezy (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, let's strike economic (Cordesman term), maybe we could mention neutral open the border. I still think we should use truce. I do not remember changing truce to ceasefire though. Let's make it clear ceasefire is definitely wrong. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Galloway to the rescue

Does anyone think anything about this should be anywhere in the article?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236603390290&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Basically an aid convoy led by Galloway arrived in Gaza. Galloway made comments condemning the Israeli actions in the ~~war~~ Israel-Gaza conflict.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The convoy reached the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing on Sunday, but it was delayed due to the Egyptian security forces' objection to the delivery of non-medical aid. The activists spent the night in El-Arish, where, reportedly, locals pelted them with stones and also sprayed anti-Hamas graffiti on their cars. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. Luckily the Israeli security forces stepped in to help get the things through. By the way, have you been reading about propaganda techniques recently ? Sean.hoyland - talk 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The 'Viva Palestina' vehicle convoy, bringing medicine, food, clothing and toys same article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Galloway should leave Britain and enlist with Hamas? lolololol. They seem like him more than his government does. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He would be missed e.g. "As for Gordon Brown - I've described him and Blair as two cheeks of the same arse" or "I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns".....classic stuff. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to like this guy.....................not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oy! He is my favorite egomanical alcoholic self-agrandizing politician. Should have seen him in Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK) acting like a cat. Besides, he out-debated (no fucking small feat) Christopher Hitchens with the classic "You’re a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay". Anyone who can take it Hitchens on his terms has two solid pair of gonads.--Cerejota (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

alcoholic ? steady on, he's as dry as the empty quarter. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That always seemed like a strange comment to me. Galloway insulted Hitchens for being a member of a party that was the largest in his own coalition at the time. Now that takes at least three of them. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

well, it was probably the former-ness of his trotsky-ness that annoyed george. still, there's no excuse for beige suits. also, i'm hoping Special:Contributions/Histopher_Critchens is the real deal. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just in case Sean wasn't clear enough. HANDS OFF GALLOWAY! :) Cryptonio (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag on Attacks on Israel from outside gaza.

what sup with that? expanding it? more like removing it if it needs further expanding. unnecessary tag, on a substance less part of the article. i'm all for removing that tag, and eventually(hopefully in a couple of days, removing the tags on the article itself, except that of course that people feel the article is not neutral). Cryptonio (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

International Law

The opening to the international law section seems like unneeded commentary and doesn't match the sources. There are cites from 2004 and 2006 mentioning the "occupation" then the other two sources which are more recent are Israeli rebuttals. The lines also don't match the rebuttals very well. Is this information needed in this particular article? If so: Are there any talking points that are essential? Should it go under the Israel subsection? I'm OK with deleting but could also see it fitting if we can find sources mentioning this particular conflict and used better.Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its needed because the various organizations have made explicit reference to the obligations of an occupying power as it relates to this conflict. Ill get some sources in a bit. Nableezy (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's needed in some form for context for the reason Nab gave. There's a dependancy between legal obligations/violations and occupation status e.g. allegation that mining in occupied West Bank=pillage=violation of GCIV as per recent Yesh Din high court petition. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every accusation/allegation has been disputed by the Israeli government and many challenges have failed or reduced to hypocrisy/selective-rhetoric, legal according to experts like UN-Holmes, etc... Aside from the recent mine-scandal, almost all of the criticisms are being repeated by "unique" sources, giving the false impression that there is a laundry list of objective "experts" when in reality most are feeding their anger from Hamas and the pushy Arab League in the United Nations, further blurring the line between truth and propaganda. Yeah, my point is, I think it would be good for us to expand on those who defy the allegations of "atrocities blah blah" simply for balance. Just a thought. *awaits flaming* Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

..blimey, I only said that it's needed for context what with this being an encyclopedia and everything. Sounds like you need a holiday. Ever thought of going here ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, encyclopedia. Sean, in about 6 months this article will be halved, including the pictures. Trust me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sudan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 15:13 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont trust you, and I personally will work to ensure that scenario does not come true. But besides what you hope this article will look like in 6 months, and more to the point of what it is now, this specific topic, is Gaza occupied, is not disputed by anybody but Israel. The UN, and all its various bodies, the usual suspects in human rights organization, and even the US say that Gaza is currently occupied (see CIA word fact book: West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied). Just because Israel says something it does not make it so, and we already say that Israel disputes that Gaza is occupied. Nableezy (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re this excerpt from the Int Law section, "Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters." -

Do Gaza and Egypt have legal control of the 12 kilometer Gaza-Egypt border? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Egypt controls that border, that is the so called 'Philadelphi Route'. Nableezy (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Half might be a stretch but at least a quarter will be gone and rightfully so. I would be shocked if there were not relevant sources so I am personally hoping we move it into the Israeli section and clean up the first 3 paragraphs. The structure is wacky for those right now.Cptnono (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Busy day at work, will look for specific sources once I have some time. Nableezy (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Thank you for your response, "Egypt controls that border, that is the so called 'Philadelphi Route'." -

1) Don't Egypt and Gaza have joint control of their 12 kilometer border, like neighboring countries normally do? I.e. Gaza can legally restrict entry from Egypt just like Egypt can legally restrict entry from Gaza?

2) Also, why call the Gaza-Egypt border the Philadelphi Route in the article? It seems somewhat cryptic to a reader of the article. Why not call it the Gaza-Egypt border? Wouldn't that be much clearer to a reader? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought it's better just to call it the Rafah Border Crossing. The Philadelphi Route name isn't used anymore is it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sean, slightly different meaning in the two. The Philadelphi route is not just that crossing, it refers to a a so-called buffer zone between Egypt and Gaza. Bob, Gaza does not control it, Israel gave control to Egypt in the 'disengagement' of Gaza. I would be fine with saying '(with the exception of the border with Egypt)' but one user was rather insistent on using Philadelphi Route. Gaza can restrict those entering, but Egypt exercises control over that section of land. Nableezy (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I didn't read the whole context of this discussion. I went for my normal "No it isn't. What are we talking about by the way?" approach which only works 50% of the time but saves me time by not having to understand the whole context of a discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Re "Gaza can restrict those entering, but Egypt exercises control over that section of land." -

It sounds like there is a section of land, all along the 12 kilometer Gaza-Egypt border and inside Gaza, that is called a buffer zone, and Egypt has legal control of that. Is that the situation? And is there a similar buffer zone all along the Gaza-Israel border and does Israel legally control that buffer zone, if it exists? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel has a buffer zone between Gaza and Israel, which is really a certain amount of space on the Gaza side that is a 'no-mans land'. The legality of that is a complicated issue, in that an occupation is 'legal' so long as the rule of military occupation are followed, and I really am not qualified to speak on the complexities of international law and the various treaties that Israel is a party to. And Egypt's control isn't exactly 'legal' more de-facto. Egypt was handed control over the Philadelphi Route as a part of the 'unilateral disengagement' from Gaza, and as part of that was required to police the border and prevent smuggling of weapons. But I really dont see where you are going with this, Egypt is not considered by anybody to be an occupying power in Gaza, whereas Israel is. Israel controls more than its border with Gaza, it also controls Gaza's airspace, coast, and territorial waters. And as the occupying power they have responsibilities under international law to provide adequate assistance to Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nableezy, thanks for making everything personal. Really, thanks. It certainly encourages collaboration and in no way shape or form creates a sense of division or typical partisan ploys shielded as civility :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are talking about, except my response to 'in about 6 months this article will be halved, including the pictures. Trust me.' Now, unless you have something to add to an otherwise serious conversation, leave me alone. Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"I dont trust you, and I personally will work to ensure that scenario does not come true" Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Which was a direct response to 'in about 6 months this article will be halved, including the pictures. Trust me.' If you want to continue this take it up on my talk page, where I can feel free to ignore you there instead of making everybody ignore you here. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an honest observation. the POV-pushing can only continue for so long. You really think the pictures are going to stay indefinitely? Or the fluff in the casualty and legal section? This isn't a matter of trust, it's simply a realistic fact. You focused on one point and totally dismissed everything else, not the least bit surprising. I don't have the will for this so please continue with the "objective" and "neutral" approach. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :D

Name one bit of 'fluff' in the casualty section. Why are the pictures POV pushing whereas their removal is somehow a good thing? This is all your own opinions on what is or is not needed, and as such I dont really care. You have been saying often that the pictures will go, just be patient. I personally will not bow to persistence of some users trying to hide things they dont like, so yes, I will not trust you when you say that the article will be halved including the pictures, because I personally will try to make sure that you are unsuccessful in doing so. Nableezy (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Thanks for the info. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Been a pleasure Bob, I rather enjoy having rational conversations. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball season is about to start(and by golly, about freaking time). The season last about 6 months, so it seems very possible all of the usual suspects will be here as well. I have no fear of fear, for fear is not useful. Except of course, to stay alive in dead-end situations. I stated this from the beginning, "the less pro-israel the article looks, the more anti-israel will it look like, it is the standard". And of course i already let wikifan know about 'victim hood' and 'aggressor syndrome'. For all we know wikifan probably has a PhD on something. get it, on "something". Cryptonio (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Freak this, this is how i roll. If you are waiting for someone to fall and hit their head, i will show you that i can hit my head, without falling.

"I pledge no allegiance, to no flag, specially the one from the United States of America, for a thought like that couldn't be more idealist. And for its actions, as a federal government against the world, supposedly under a Zeus(which i know nothing of), with complete immunity(for the world is deaf towards the UN) and arrogance even against itself." Cryptonio (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

er... "Richard Falk, The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, released a statement accusing Israel of violating international humanitarian law both in regard to the obligations of an occupying power and in the requirements of the laws of war". Per the source in the Israeli section: http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01 (this is the one where he claims collective punishment, targeting civilians, and disproportionate response. http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/F1EC67EF7A498A30C125752D005D17F7?opendocument . The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has a great rebuttal to that statement but I think it would be best to figure out a better outline for the first 3 paragraphs before inserting statement slike this every other line. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel%E2%80%99s_Right_to_Self-Defense Cptnono (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Falk is a nutty but his accusations run very deep and across the legal spectrum. It's clear there is very little legal merit in a case for war crimes, with the exception of the use of white phosphorus, but that is an entirely different discussion. The UN has basically isolated itself from Falk, fortunately. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

you need to remove the BLP vio in your last comment. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you dont I will, you cannot say a living person is 'nutty' anywhere on wikipedia, not just article space but even your own user page. Nableezy (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can. He is nutty, it's my opinion. Dozens of notable organizations and experts agree. Am I going to impose this POV on the article? Of course not. He worships Iran, believes in 9/11 conspiracies, and compares the situation in Gaza to Nazi atrocities. What do we call these kinds of people? Oh yeah, nutties . Look, this is my opinion. It shouldn't even be in this talk discussion but I'm only trying to explain to you that there is plenty of evidence to support by opinion, and I'm not violating any rules. Now, can we get back to editing? Kthxbi. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So should we not be using Falk in the article? He was already in so I kept it but I agree he has said some ~~crap~~ opinions that differ from my own in the past. All of the mention he gets in the first paragraph is seconded by other sources so we can use them instead. I wouldn't mind breaking it down into:

Occupation stuff
Civilian homes, buildings, infrastructure destruction
Killing police (maybe put Hamas infrastructure here instead of above?)
WP
Other weapons AI is mad about (tank shells, anti-tank shrapnel, maybe add WP to this instead)

Did I miss anything? Order wasn't specific, just throwing them out there.Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, of course he stays in the article. He is a United Nations Special Rapporteur, a dubious appointment on the United Nations part but still nonetheless true. I just prefer we include more disputes from the war criminals for balance. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we are in the bizz of 9/11 - http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=87982&sectionid=3510203

"Israeli connections to 9/11, according to the New York Times, can be traced back to the five 'dancing Israelis' who were witnessed jumping and high-fiving with shouts of 'joy and mockery' as Flight 11 and Flight 175 slammed into the World Trade Center in New York.

The Israelis were reportedly held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released after they were suspected of being Mossad agents.

Citing two former CIA operatives, the Forward weekly then reported that at least two of the detained Israelis were found to be members of a Mossad surveillance team.

"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11," the weekly stated. Cryptonio (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what your point is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should be a tad more than just simply curious. Cryptonio (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't know what your point is, I can't be anything more than curious about it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious because I don't know is very different than I want to know. Cryptonio (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should have read the article first crypt: According to a recent aarticle published in the American Free Press weekly, the revelation that the cousin of alleged 9/11 hijacker Ziad al-Jarrah was in fact working as a longtime Mossad agent is proof that Israel had a hand in the terror attacks on US soil. American Free Press - lolz Lol crypt, you just google "Evil zionists + 9/11." From what I've learned, Mossad warned the United States government that as many as 200 terrorists were slipping into this country and planning "a major assault" in August of 2001. Anyways, I felt I was obligated to correct such a blatantly inflammatory and malicious accusations. Back to Falk, if anyone interpreted my complaints as a request to remove him as a source, please understand that is not what I am suggesting. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am simply curious at what your point is. Although you should also be curious. To say Israel warned of '200 terrorist' is to say 200 Arabs have traveled to the US since aug 2001. How in the hell do you want me to take anything that Israel says about 'intelligence' seriously? Cryptonio (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough, 9/11 has nothing to do with this unless you find multiple RSs saying it does. Lets keep things on topic please. Nableezy (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ignores* So, any ideas about Falk? I'm sifting through the various criticisms from Israel but it's pretty standard, does anybody have something notable? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Falk goes in the Falk article, here we have responses to his accusations, not responses about the accuser. Nableezy (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And hold on hold on, since when using the word Zionist is wrong? we can't "read" what others say simply because they use that word? to refer to Israel's actions? i'm not going your route and define what a Zionist is or what Zionism is all about. I expect the readers to know such things. Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

not the place for this, yall want to exchange emails and carry this on privately that would be appreciated. Nableezy (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We could throw him in with all of the other accusers but don't need to mention him so much. The statement from the Israeli Foreign Minister and the report from Center for Public Affairs could be mentioned as "in response to critics..."Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The response from Isra Forei Minis must address the criticism that is mentioned in the article(and made throughout this conflict). In plain words(and you guys love plain words) we can't just out of the blue start up a section on what Israel thinks or Israel's 'standard' position on these matters. such attempts should be vigorously challenged. Cryptonio (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What if someone responds to Falk's direct statements? Not just criticizing Falk in general examples but references to this particularly conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoever notable says something about the charges made that should go in, keeping in mind due weight. Responses are certainly relevant, though it will take some work to properly structure the section. But having accusations of bias and general criticism about the individual or institution making the accusations does not belong here. Nableezy (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing Falk? like " He worships Iran, believes in 9/11 conspiracies, and compares the [http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/4835_Israel_on_OPT_at_HRC.pdf situation in Gaza to Nazi atrocities."? Israel's rebuttal must be consistent in addressing what the criticism is. If there is something that address the criticism directly(as in by name) more than welcome.

A point here to consider though. If by chance, there are counter-rebuttals pointed out in these sources, that turns the article into a dissertation, and by chance, commentaries that assume judgmental attributions on this matter(without a trial) will have to be consider, for it would be very difficult to judge who should have the last word. when we get there, i'll point out what i mean, in case people are curious. Cryptonio (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the "wanton" destruction paragraph. It was kept short (although others tried to expand it to three paragraphs) and doesn't give undue weight to either sides statements. I would prefer to break out the Falk this and Falk that paragraph into associated paragraphs. Does anyone object to the outline mentioned above?Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, take a look at the section(i guess, the only eyes that you guys have will have to do). things like these are already included "A study by military analyst Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies claimed that Israel did not violate the laws of war during its operation in Gaza.[254] Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist and frequent critic of Israel, wrote that Cordesman's study lacked credibility.[255] Deliberations by the IDF during the conflict resulted in a decision that striking homes that may be used to store weapons when "sufficient warning" is given to the residents falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate.[256]"

Which makes these discussions even more questionable, for what is it that the section is missing that we may need to add? ohhhh, i get it, it is not what's missing but what needs to be deleted or removed. The "structuring" that Cptnono has proposed should be open to the public for consideration before it takes effect. At the very least(considering his abilities), open for consideration. Cryptonio (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And by proposal I meant a rough draft, not an outline. Cryptonio (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually hate the statements by Cordesman and Finkelstein. They are notable enough for their own articles but compared to some of the international leaders and agencies making statments these guys are nothing. I assume they are in jst to contradict eachother.Cptnono (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stronger language from Israel is not only necessary but will also raise the level of the article considerably. Cryptonio (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I too am tired of creating a section where critics engage in a never-ending 1up festival. According to Finkelstein, Cordesman's analysis is unreliable because it does not consider Btselem and United Nations reports and relies solely on Israeli reports. A valid point, but [http://www.cfr.org/publication/18527/gaza_war.html I've read through the research and it is seems Cordesman also used Arab officials and Hamas reports when available. Finkelstein's reads like an op-ed and does its best to discredit the Israeli military simply because it is Israeli while enumerating every humanitarian cost, whereas Cordesman is focused on the legal aspect. After recording evidence he believes: "These [targets]], however, are legitimate military objectives in spite of their very real humanitarian costs. Point is: Cordeman is a military strategist and Finkelstein is a political scientist with a notorious anti-Israeli edge. Either way, both opinions should be included. Though I think a little googling will find supporters for Cordesman's report. Practically everything in this article has been challenged by x pundit, remember that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I started working on some notes for this section and realized that the dead police lines were taken out of context and Israeli rebuttals were left out completely. GarbageCptnono (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rough Draft

It is a very rough draft so don't get your feelings hurt if it does not include your favorite lines. Also, beer and proper writing are not good buddies so style and grammar need improvement.

I could not find related info on the occupation stuff (I'm sure someone can)
removed listing of different human rights agencies (we have sources for that and I don't really mind if Falk goes back in)
removed commentary that received a complete paragraph
removed silly stuff from police paragraph.
Grouped sections together a little
Not too much was actually cut

Various human rights observers have accused Israel of using disproportionate force and war crimes in Gaza which some consider an occupied territory. Israel's response is that the operation was an act of self-defense

Israel was criticized by B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch for targeting of public buildings including the educational institutions, interior and foreign ministries, police stations, and the parliament building. Israel argued that the buildings were part of the Hamas infrastructure. The IDF justified the strike on Gazan police stations since some police participated in military activities. Human Rights Watch argued that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat.[253]

Amnesty International stated that Israeli troops had engaged in "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes. Israel's military said civilian buildings were destroyed because of military "substantial operational needs" such as when they were booby trapped, hid tunnels, or were fired from. Both Amnesty International and Breaking the Silence claimed that demolitions had been carried out when there was no immediate threat to soldiers.[262]

The Red Cross was critical of Israel's failure "to care for and evacuate the wounded" during incidents where the IDF did not halt military action to allow aid workers access to wounded civilians.[250] The Red Cross also equated IDF soldiers forcing residence to stay in homes they had taken over to the use of human shields.[251]

The Israeli military used white phosphorus munitions in the Gaza strip.[257] The IDF originally denied this but acknowledged use after the conflict. Israel claims the use was in compliance with international law. The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as to illuminate areas during night[258] or as a smoke screen. White phosphorus spread burning phosphorus, which burns at over 800 degrees Celsius, over a wide area up to several hundred square metres. The weapon has a potential to cause severe and painful burns or death.[259]

Amnesty International was also concerned with the use of other munitions in civilian areas such as tank shells, rockets that spread cube-shaped shrapnel, and shells that disbursed flechettes. Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include rebuttals/disputes to each accusation if available? Also, I think the phosphorus portion can be trimmed. No need to go into such detail, clicking on the article will reveal secondary information. Also, I think the AI might have misread the article in question:

Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. From what I know, the IDF insists they only implemented strikes against military targets (with anticipated exceptions naturally). Is this outdated? Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or knowingly putting civilians at risk. . Again, if we're going to become dependent on AI there are plenty of partisan Jewish equivalents that we could use to balance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Took out the last sentence. It was perfect a few weeks ago but someone wanted to use the line.Cptnono (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttal wise, we could go into more detail on the civilian buildings destroyed for "operational needs" by adding a few commas. I was worried about going to far (watching out for my POV too much maybe) Couldn't find a rebuttal to the 2 Red Cross lines. The last paragraph is touchy so I didn't want to go too far with it.Cptnono (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I no longer keep up with the edit history, so I don't really care if it was in the article for 3 years. For more than 2 months the background lead said 12 Israelis died in prior rocket attacks. 12! Yeah, way to go guys. Rebuttal wise, we go by what the IDF and any other notable organization say. Am I right? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

tinkered with the civilian homes line.Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tinkered with Red Cross paragraph. Requests were made twice to gain access to civilians but Israel was busy fighting a war. Balance looks OK.

A wikilink on flechettes should suffice instead of going into detail. The AI report is easily arguable so didn't give it much weight. Expect this to be a concern.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if a brief 2 sentence "Flechette shells are not illegal under international humanitarian law. Critics argue that the imprecision of the weapon...blah blah blah" type clarification is merited...don't have a source though. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

2 lines could work. We could also go into further detail on AI's report but I was being cautions.

Per sources for flechette shells: It sounds like the concern was with the individual operators not differentiating between who was and who was not an enemy (human error not weapon error). The munition is not forbidden under international law. Human Rights orgs are concerned with its in civilian areas. 9 or 10 civilians have died. Israeli Supreme Court ruled it OK and it the army has argued that it has used the weapons very selectively. they are standard weapons for most armies. the IDF established a commission of inquiry to investigate whether there were cases in which flechettes and white phosphorous were misused. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1347525,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/israel-palestinian-territories (<-biased) and reports http://www.btselem.org/english/Firearms/Flechette.asp (<-not biased compared to AI)Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of lines seems enough to me. Yes, they're not designed for use in civilian areas especially like the West Bank apparently. Maybe they should allow some settlers into Gaza. The OC Central Command might ban the weapon there too. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 07:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a funny thing. When we added the thing about flechettes it was the only general tank complain we had. But AI and HRW now have the exact same complaint about all tank shells that they do about flechette tank shells. But nobody seems to have bothered including that. Our article seems to have a bias against conventional weapons. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a link for the all tank shells are bad news stuff ? Are they complaining that the IDF are arming their troops now ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is in the Amnesty report for example. In the "Tank Ammunition" section.[13] I can't find the HRW report on their website but this BBC story mentions it (in the "Tank Shells" section)[14]. But Cptnono is right below, they don't say tank shells are bad stuff. More of a tanks don't kill people, people kill people sort of thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to white phosphorus, I would think the concern seems to be that Israel is in violation of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which restricts the use of incendiary weapons. It should be pointed out that Israel is not a signatory to Protocol III. [15] However, if they were I think that with regard to International Law, the concern would be, not that Israel is targeting civilians, but that they used white phosphorus on a military target near a concentration of civilians. Under Protocol III, Article 2, section 2, "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons." Under Protocol III, Article 2, section 3, "It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects." [16] "Concentration of civilians" is defined in Protocol III, Article 1, section 2, as "any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads." However, like I said, Israel is not a signatory to Protocol III, so that issue under this convention seems moot.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The people making the claims of war crimes with respect to WP specifically say that while Israel is not a signatory to that or other treaties specifically banning the use of WP its use on civilians is still disallowed by treaties that Israel has signed that restrict the use of weapons that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants. Nableezy (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about Amnesty International? They say here, "Amnesty International considers that the repeated use of white phosphorus in this way in densely-populated civilian areas constitutes a form of indiscriminate attack, and amounts to a war crime." However, the reference to International Law that they cite to says: "Such use of white phosphorus is prohibited by Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits indiscriminate attacks, and by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which relates to incendiary weapons." Israel is not a signatory to either of these laws (Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions and Third Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons). Not to make an original research issue out of it, but are these the only laws Israel is supposedly guilty of breaking? Because, with all due respect to the AI which I have a great deal of respect for, it's my understanding of international law that unless the law has become customary international law, a nation actually has to submit to some other authority in order to lose its sovereignty over the matter. This issue should be clarified.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look, I specifically put in tank shells as well as the cubed-shaped shrapnel since I knew this was a concern per the report and other editors.(wasn't in before). The paragraph should say the other HR agencies now since it is not just AI now.

Is there anything wrong with the WP paragraph I proposed. We can add all sorts regarding Israel being good or bad ut it will just leangthen it which isn't needed.Cptnono (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sean: "If we bowed to your demand today, we would be asked tomorrow the ban the army from using teargas and sound bombs," one of the judges quipped." also, AI's report was bitching at foreign nations supplying both sides and the misuse of conventional weapons: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/en/5be86fc2-994e-4eeb-a6e8-3ddf68c28b31/mde150122009en.html Cptnono (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That report is quite good for Cerejota's milhist stuff. Sound bombs ? Jeez. Still, AI have a point. It's like beer. If you don't buy it you won't drink it. Solves all beer related problems (apart from the lack of beer problem). Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might like that particular line by the judge. The reports basically say that the IDF used brutal weapons. Sharp metal darts meant to take out infantry has got to be terrifying but use of the shells is not a war crime. It was Corporal Somethingstiens aiming like a jackass or being rash and firing too much in civilian populated areas. Also, the line where the kid got hit by a on a roof: Why was he on the roof anyways? Like an drunk guy in Florida who goes swimming when a hurricane is approaching.Cptnono (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Somethingstein. My first year German prof. taught me to remember that EI is pronounced as in Eisenhower. IE is pronounced as in Diefenbaker but if you're not Canadian you probably don't know who that is. I'm only a spelling Nazi when it comes to German words. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And I should say AI doesn't write reports about the occasoinal errant shell. They believe there is a permissive policy. Or worse. They blame the generals and colonels rather than the corporals. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to incorrectly cite the protocol, I provided the whole paragraph in its exact form. Whether or not Israeli violated x law is irrelevant (though they clearly did not, or not to the extent of accusation), only analysts/experts/notable people matter. All I'm saying is we're becoming too dependent on one side when there is a wealth of information to balance. Dare I say, "sick of POV-pushing!"? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AA Milne said something similar: "I have been told by women that it is great fun putting on a new frock but I understand that they like going out in it afterwards." It's a shame that he's remembered only for Pooh. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, do you not like this line: "The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as..." If not, how can we fix it while still asserting that ~~certain~~ many observers have expressed the concern?Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me, I'm only applying what the protocol actually says, and contrasting it with AI/Falks/IDF statements. According to the protocol, white phosphorus is a legimiate weapon in the pretense of war, i.e, against military objectives. This Israeli's justification. Falk and AI believe the IDF were either deliberately or carelessly targeting civilians. Almost every modern military in the world uses white phosphorus as it is a very tactical asset, it's not a foreign agent or illegal weapon. So no, saying x is banned under international law is technically a half-truth without including explicit details. Also, we should cite the protol in its exact form, international law isn't a standard document for those who don't know. Better to be factual than vague. I think we should condense the critics as they have expanded unduely (i.e, critics such as Falk, AI, etc...) accuse Israel of x, assuming they're accusing the country of the same violation. But numerating every violation by each critic regardless of repetition is unfair and POV. We might as well load of loony Israeli propaganda if it's going to be an information fallacy. I don't think we want a situation where the entire paragraph is simply one laundry list of crimes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, the rough draft de-emphasizes perhaps the strong language that most be use in the law section. Almost as careless as if talking about, i don't know any other part in the article except the lead. I will be in favor of removing the excess in the WP para. If WP was used 'legally' in this war is of no concern to this section. Although I do believe that there might be a stronger language from Israel concerning WP's use(other than the generic, "we use all weapons according to international law etc.").

Concerning the trainees(police), this "but the IDF was unable to provide any information to substantiate this allegation." is perhaps what's keeping the para from being balance, as is the para allows for a better ISrael's response.

I thought that the rework was going to address many points at once, in a different manner(understanding the difficulty) but it seems now, that we could all save ourselves a lot of trouble by maybe go on a para by para approach. Although i am following Sean's discussion, i still believe in keeping a close eye on this matter, and since i am of the opinion that the section looks just fine to me, my 'slow' participation cannot be taken against me or seen as being unproductive or in plain words, "against progress and the natural way of the world". Cryptonio (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The para by para approach seems what we may in fact be already bugged in, so that's oka. What i really want to say is, that the 'worked' para should be presented here and waited for approval from everyone. Discussions are fine is what i'm trying to say. just that pardon if i am not all the eagerly involved. Cryptonio (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your question Cptnono above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I despise the section due to a few easily addressable issues (occupation preamble, Falk falk falk falk paragraph, incorrect police paragraph, and random two guys contradicting each other paragraph). A complete overhaul is not needed but those things are screwy so I tinkered with them. In response to WP, that was recently worked and I believe there was consensus for it a week or so ago. I see what Wikifan is saying but I am concerned with adding too many lines. Adding stronger language and an extra line as a rebuttal is not a good way to reduce its footprint in the section.Cptnono (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The rough draft is definitely rough. There is no justification for removing Professor Sand's statement, he makes an important point that cannot be expressed in fresh language hence the quote. There is no undue weight problem here either.

This sentence [..."you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved" as in the case of the Israeli strike on the police station] is correct, I don't see no justification for removing this line along with the rest of "silly" police stuff. All this information is in the BBC article, I should know, I added the text in question myself.

You really should not be calling other people's work silly and garbage when you produce worst crap. Drunkenness is not an excuse. I don't approve of this rough draft. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't take offense to it. I wasn't complaining about the writing I was complaining that they used information out of context. The editor essentially lied when adding in that info. I have no problem calling that garbage. I attempted to put a skeleton together that was neutral in hopes that it would get expanded productivley. You have had another knee jerk reaction since that is all you know how to do. Stop discussing with me on this page if you can't do it without flying off the handle.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about Falastine Cpt. Anyways, all I am concerned about his balance. Obviously some people naturally see a nasty and inaccurate picture of Israel as balanced and neutral (it's REAL and uncensored!) but I agree the section does need an over haul. There really is no excuse, with so much information available, it shouldn't be too hard. Perhaps if we listed points in bullet form and then worried about sentence structure later, cause that seems to be the major problem. A user disagrees with the format and we're forced to start over. Maybe start simple...? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation is false. I added the police info, it is not out of context and it isn't a lie. You can't just throw accusations out there and not expect a negative reaction. Maybe if you kept your posts civil perhaps you will get more positive reactions. Just a suggestion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool your jets man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You added in info and used the lines out of context while completely leaving out valid responses from Israel. I'll go through your addition line by line and tell you where it looks like you did it wrong. I admit to not being neutral and have adjusted my editing to error on the side of caution. You refuse to do that and continue to attack me for being uncivil when you are as well. I could care less if you think I am rude and don't take too much offense when you are. I don't want to spend my time bitching at you when it is much more fun to actually improve the article. I'll put up my line by line response to the current paragraph tonight when I have a chance. I am sure another editor or two can figure out what lines of it need adjusting and what don't.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono don't waste your time. You won't win this one, trust me. Falastine is not famous for apologies. :D If it truly bothers you feel free to report his clearly inappropriate conduct, but I'd prefer we just focus on the article. Ignoring incivility isn't against the rules. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is little chance of Falastine and me agreeing but it is OK since other voices always chime in wich hopefully will lead to some sort of consensus. Since editors are concerned with neutrality and weight on both sides of the skeleton (I almost think that is a good thing), we can do it paragraph by paragraph per the suggestion above. It was bound to get bogged down with so much contentious info being in and out. I'll throw up my thoughts on a few lines currently in this evening.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I would really appreciate if you would stop butting in my personal disputes as I do not butt in your personal disputes which is probably numbering around 200 now. Besides your criticism of me is like vomit telling flowers you stink. I don't think anyone really takes you seriously at this point. No offense to you cptnono, but you are becoming more and more like wikifan12345. Just stop making condescending remarks. You are going to have realize that people take offense when you accuse them of lying. I have no problem with you disputing the edits and if the information I added is erroneous then I would apologize for it or at least be silent about it as you fix it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember wikifan patting himself on the back for never reporting anyone no matter how bad the editor treats him. It is because if he did report someone, he is the one more likely to get banned. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, we've bitched at each other before but you come across as someone who is attempting to fix the article. We all have our POV moments and we certainly all have our dickhead moments. We'll probably have them again but... oh, my bad, we were supposed to be ignoring it. Thanks for trying on this one.Cptnono (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets get back to the point. My view is the occupation information should be kept close to as is, so I disagree with the now removed proposal on that. But lets go paragraph by paragraph and see what we can agree on. Nableezy (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to break shit to put it back together. I made a separate discussion below for the police getting bombed pr graph. Full on expand on my base if possible but I don't see how the current version is good enough to be in the article.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Cordesman

Decided to make a new section because I felt it was important. This relates to the internal law and overall assessment of the situation. Cordesman wrote a 90+ page analysis of the war. It touches on not only the legal aspect, but the political and social realities. Also contains a vast amount of information on the media campaign and Arab opinion. Considering he's been involved with the United States government, Georgetown University, authored over 50 books (mostly about the Middle East), and served in UK, West Germany, Turkey, Gulf States etc... as part of NATO, I think his POV is rather notable. I'm surprised he isn't in the article yet. Thoughts in how we might incorporate his analysis in the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We cite that report already in a few places. Nableezy (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To a due extent? Link me because it's hard as #$#@# to navigate through the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes to a due extent. However, once more academic papers are available, I think we could have a nice sub-article on academic debate. ALso, the material definitely belongs at Anthony Cordesman

As I have said before, this war is paradigmatic, and academic source will emerge on it with unprecedented vigor. I guess everyone is waiting to see how 2009 develops, because it might yet restart... Shalit/Blockade is basically the name of the game.

In the meantime I must say I am very impressed with Wikifan raising this, its exactlly the type of crap I would like to see moar of, rather than yet one more NGO/UN "oh noes! civilians deied!!!" report (not that there is anything wrong with them, but this is a war, and encyclopedia articles on war generally focus on things like hardware used, tactics etc - and this war will be notable for much more than ~~babycue~~ babies burned and stomped by tanks).

And of course, Wikifan and everyone is invited to contribute such sources, even if they are not in the article to my User:Cerejota/OpCastLead milhist page (do not confuse with User:Cerejota/Operation Cats Lead). I am collecting such sources with the express purpose of once this solidifies from news into history, changing the material from news sources to histographical sources. Of course, not unilaterally, but there is material that might not yet belong which might in the future, either in this article or related sub-articles as they emerge. My number one thing being sought is an official order of battle from the IDF... and medals given out if any, and notable combatants that do not warrant BLP treatment... I have some related stuff but not real RS. --Cerejota (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My real point is we are scrutinizing credible experts like Cordesman while handing out passes to AI, Human Rights Watch, etc... for "reports" on the situation. If expert says x and uses x example to support, saving emotion and powerful rhetoric for a rainy day, I believes he deserves significant voice. I'm trying to think from a wikipedia-perspective here, mind you. Cerejota, if you are so concerned about solidifying news into history, and you wish to apply this standard to Cordesman, then you are obligated to erase half this article. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am not scrutinizing sources. I am all for expanding such sources: I actually have an unqualified agreement with your point. I also know that the consensus process is slow, and hence in perspective the process will be eventual. I am simply offering my Userpage as a storage for such sources so they don't get lost in the shuffle. I think you need to truly believe that I am not neutral, but I am not part of any of the sides you happen to have - never forget that in the end I am a milhist nerd. --Cerejota (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, the problem I have with your approach to AI, Falk etc is a bit like this. You are devaluing the credibility of credible sources because you see emotion when in fact that emotion is absent from the sources and present in your reaction to the sources. If AI were responsible for measuring ugliness and they said to someone "your child is ugly" because their child actually was ugly and could be shown to be so by statistical analysis, the emotion would be in the parents reaction to the statement rather than in the statement itself. AI, Falk etc are just doing their jobs just like traffic cops have a strong bias against people speeding or DUIs. Punching the cop when he gives you a ticket is quite amusing but it isn't a sensible reaction, some might even say nutty. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was simply giving an example, emotion or not. Grouping AI and Falk is suspect, eh? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In my hemisphere cops sometimes have biases against dark-skinned types too. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that AI and Falk are anti-semitic racists ? If so you should check out the talk page at Talk:Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Blanket revert by editor not active in talk because it's quite entertaining if you enjoy a bit of banter. They might benefit from some one liners. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I was just saying you picked a funny metaphor. Not everyone thinks traffic cops are completely unbiased. But maybe it works in Thailand. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. No, it doesn't work in Thailand either. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You really should have said it is like a soldier at a checkpoint just doing his job with a bias only towards public safety. :D --JGGardiner (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just told my neighbour that their child was ugly and they didn't seem that bothered about it. My whole argument seems to be falling apart. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to Cordesman. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Casualties 3 in the infobox: controversial debate

Currently, in edit mode this section reads:

|casualties3=One [[Egyptian army|Egyptian]] border guard officer killed and three guards and two children wounded.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=605368&sid=126|title=קצין מצרי נהרג מירי אנשי חמאס סמוך למעבר רפיח|last=סוכנויות הידיעות|publisher=nana10.co.il|language=Hebrew|accessdate=2009-01-01}}</ref><ref name="egyptian1"/><br /> }}

1. The "notes removed earlier" refers to this, which I believe should be included here (or at least, something similar):

Over 50,800 Gaza residents displaced.^[1]

Over 4,000 homes destroyed; around $2bn worth of damage to Gaza^[2]

I remember a discussion, but I don't remember an overwhelming consensus, so I would like to re-open this discussion. I believe those notes should be reinstated, at least in some form.

2.Can we clean all the hidden comments up. As far as I know, there are two attacks: First, one border guard killed and one wounded, by Palestinians (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BR24Y20081228) Second, two Egyptian children and two police officers wounded by shrapnel from Israeli bombs "(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LB23204.htm).

3. Information on foreign casualties should surely go here, especially as the border guards are included? This used to be in the article: "Two foreigners, a Ukrainian woman and her child were among the killed civilians in Gaza." Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and readded the notesJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the bullet points don't seem to be working - any ideas why? It just displays the asterisk sign.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the reintroduction in the notes section the number of foreign casualties, it should be noted that among the 960 civilians killed where the Ukranians, also there was an earlier discussion about two months ago to put in the notes section how many policemen there were among the number of killed palestinian combatants, that also should be introduced.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that both Palestinian and IDF sources were used in the infobox, which is good as they differ. However, in the first note, only Palestinian sources are cited. Is there no Israeli source to that claim? I also think that it could be good to explain that IDF has not identified all the killed as either civilians or combatants which explains why summing up the two figures does not give the Israeli number of totally killed. --KMA "HF" N (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my last suggestion: It could be explained in a short note. --KMA "HF" N (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New Casualty and damage figures

I was looking through the news articles today and I noticed there are some new numbers out. The PCHR has a final tally of 1,434 killed including 960 civilians (288 children, 121 women) and 239 police.[17]

As well, this other Reuters story has the number of homes destroyed at 5,000.[18] We currently report 4,000 (4,100 in the Effects article). --JGGardiner (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Houses destroys are considerable estimates. ~4k-5 is basically the same in this context, Reuters did not go into too much detail. Update the numbers, but make sure it says Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in big bold letters. Wish there were more credible reports outside of the IDF which most organizations ignore. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth mentioning (without spelling Nazi) that PCHR civilian definition is problematic at least. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Problematic if a source says so. No doubt it violates every basic law of journalistic integrity simply because it co-exists quite nicely with Hamas, but it is the source everybody is citing. Tragic indeed but we go by what the sources tell us. If the IDF would release more information and reports on casualties (they released a big one a couple of weeks ago) we could include more on the disputes, but tagging PCHR as "problematic" is unverifiable without a challenging report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are sources praising the PCHR for its reliability and independence from any government. Personal opinions on their integrity are both unfounded and irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay well I've just updated PCHR figures where we already use them. This is the actual PCHR report by the way.[19] Their civilian wounded number is only three more than the MoH so no big deal, although I'd prefer them to the MoH if that is okay. They are more recent, thorough, specific and perhaps reliable. I'd also like to update the houses number if that's okay. We already discuss the subject and I think the recent Reuters story is better than the older BBC one. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224

The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat :situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.

Maybe problematic research is POV. Still maybe we could get this clarification into Disputed Figures section again, in order not to confuse the reader. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your definition of problematic research and a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. We dont present any numbers as fact, we clearly say this number is from this source. That is not POV. Nableezy (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Somehow I still believe that when Wikipedia says civilian it means so. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

JG, no we haven't discussed this. BBC goes into an in-depth analysis of the casualties while Reuters offered a 1 sentence update with 5,000 instead of 4,000 houses destroyed. Can you find another source to cooaborate such findings? Remember, Reuters does not have reporters in Gaza. They are simply selecting what is available, so if 5,000 is the number it should be everywhere. Yes, please put this into a disputed figures section or the casualties section. Palestinian sources tend be disputed always but the fact that UN sided with MoH and PCHRC, which BBC/CNN/Fox/etc... followed, makes it more difficult to simply say it is "problematic" even though it is. Reliable sources have nothing to do with truth. :D I don't think we should be citing PCHR beyond physical numbers, we can't legitimize further without penalizing other references (i.e, being forced to expand for balance). We only quote these sources because they are the only ones that report on behalf of the Palestinians, Hamas has offered minimal information on # killed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia also does not have anything to do with what you think is the truth. It has everything to do with RSs, an update is an update, but here are some other sources for '5000 homes': The Australian, The Independent, and The Guardian. Nableezy (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan knows all about V... that he ignores is another matter.--Cerejota (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had to laugh at how casually FOX was put in with BBC and CNN (which probably shouldnt be mentioned with BBC either), thanks for that. Nableezy (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there wasn't consensus for the houses destroyed, that's why I asked. I understand why you prefer the BBC. But I think that that the Reuters figure is recent. It may be wrong but it is from a good RS. We don't normally require them to show their work. The BBC source we currently use is now almost two months old. So I think that their analysis is outweighed by the more resent Reuters figure.

As for the PCHR numbers, I only updated instance where we already quoted PCHR figures. The only that hasn't been included is the civilian wounded number but like I said, is only three more than the MoH number that we do have in the infobox. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that a problem? Fox News doesn't have nearly as much bias in the Middle East as the BBC does. Both are rather incomparable considering BBC is globalized and is almost 100% original reporting whereas Fox mostly selects foreign/competing news organizations for reports on the Middle East and outside the United States, at least for their online service. But again, little details never matter. :D Btw, the sources you listed above never cited the PCHR, one said "Palestinian", the other said "Palestinian officials", and the Australian came from the AFP. It gives the false impression that this is being scrutinized by a significant number of independent journalist when in reality the territory is fenced off to everyone with the exception of the UN and reporters that tag along. Wikifan12345 (talk)

I really dont get your point, because the BBC actually has reporters it is somehow bad? Whatever you say, fine. Back to the point, you seriously are arguing using a report from more than a month ago instead of one from now that has been reported in multiple RSs? That is what you are saying? Or is it because it comes from 'Palestinian officials'? Or you just dont like Reuters because they do original reporting? Nableezy (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I never said that. Anyways, JGG wanted to change 4,000 to 5,000 based off one sentence from Reuters. That was my complaint. Thanks for your help. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. So do you dispute using the Reuters source for 5000 homes? Nableezy (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. BBC did an extensive review, Reuters basically said "destruct destruction 5,000 homes" opposed to BBCs 4,000. Is there any evidence to corroborate the findings? Like, PCHRC, Hamas, Israel, UN, some government entity besides a one sentence text bite? +/- 1,000 is quite a lot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Reuters figure is certainly useable. They're an RS and they said it. The BBC figure is somewhat deficient in its age. I also don't see any indication that they did research. Indeed, the early date of the story, printed the day after the conflict "ended" would suggest that they were handed the figure by Gazans of some sort. So in my opinion the Reuters figure is best. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the point, because it was covered in depth in the past does not make those numbers set in concrete. Reuters has provided an updated number, that is all that is needed to be known. Nableezy (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. this has nothing to do with "set in stone", BBC published a thorough and lengthy report on the casualties, mostly using PCHR and UN estimates. Reuters does neither, it simply ups the casualties by 1,000 without any sources or even "according to X." What happens when we find another source published tomorrow that says 4,000 homes in a single sentence? Do we just switch it out?! Come'on, this isn't logical. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we're looking at different stories. This is the BBC report we currently use to support the 4,000 figure.[20] I don't see any evidence of their research process presented. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the paragraphs and paragraphs elaboration? Yeah, ok. Certainly more than random one sentence. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually is one sentence on the number in the BBC article. And that article is based on numbers from over a month ago. I do not understand why it would be resisted to use numbers from now from a RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan argues for the sake of arguing, he doesn't check the sources ever or know what he is actually arguing against. Just don't waste your time, yours and JGG's time could be put to better use. :D --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

<ignores> Falastine...again</ignores> Let me put it this way, In January 2009 USA today said 5,000 homes were destroyed. Christian Science Monitor reports 5,000 in January as well.. January 26k, NY times says 4,000. Amnesty International says 4,000 in January. Feb Washington Post says 4,0000. Do you seem where I'm going at here? There is an unsettling inconsistency, with +/- 1,000 changing regardless of time. What separates Reuters from the above sources? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the most recent. I thought much would be obvious. Nableezy (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally missed the point Nab. Multiple sources said 5,000 on January, but others said 4,000. In February, several organizations declared 5,000 homes were destroyed, while others said 4,000. It is clear what is recent is totally irrelevant to the reports, as estimates have gone up and down in a non-chronological fashion. I say we go by what has become the general consensus and most widely reported, which is 4,000 from my observations, or to be more accurate, "thousands...." since there is an obvious lack of consensus by these journalists reporting "news." Also, if you read one the sources above, it said the 5,000 estimate came from a Hamas government official. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay wikifan is finally ignoring me. I asked him to do so many times but he never did. Now my wish finally came true. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I ignore people who are uncivil and mean. Would you prefer I report you? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As somebody who stumbled across this 'discussion' after reading the article... damn. It's surprising anything gets done if you guys act this way. Though I think the wikifan guy (girl?) totally has the best flair for obsequious propaganda. Tal-ġonna (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

nothing much gets done. and just so you know, the definition of the word propaganda has been fiercely argued back here (not much got done in that conversation either) Nableezy (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me break it down for ya'll. Murdering innocent men, women and children in cold blood is evil. And wth is up with 'Operation Cast Lead'???? weirdness. Tal-ġonna (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure many users here would agree with you Tal, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Understand, I would just love to argue with you day and night, so don't consider this a partisan dismissal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not condescend to it. Speak to me never. Tal-ġonna (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, welcome to the party. You might want to read WP:MORALIZE and especially look up at the talk header about the sanctions in place here. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That isnt the best attitude to have if you want to contribute. All of us have our biases, and while we are supposed to keep it out of the articles it does not always stay out of the talk page. Though wikifan is right on one thing, we should not be discussing our personal views on the truth or morality of such events here, here we discuss how to make an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources so that the information is verifiable and adheres to a neutral point of view. If you want to lend a hand please feel free and feel welcome, there will be heated disagreements and the occasional insult (though we are not really supposed to do that either. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Um its like totally my RIGHT as a free human being (i do not liv in israel or palestin) to voice my OPINION even if it disagrees with yours. god, u shud have learned this stuff in kindergarten. i wasn't trying to mess up your article or this mess of a convo. so go bak to pretending to be sage and watever and ignore a fresh new outlook (MINE) for all u know i cud have brought peace to this page. now you'l never know. Tal-ġonna (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is your right to voice your opinion, depending of course on where you are trying to speak and what you say, and I mean this to be friendly advice (trust me, I have gotten into it with wikifan plenty of times), you do not have that right here. What you type in these pages is in effect private property and your speech and actions can be censored and blocked. Like I said, we could use all the help we can get in making this article worthy of the title of an encyclopedic account of the events, but if you want to lend a hand you should familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Nableezy (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yur making Wikipedia sound like Israel. Only without the halva. Tal-ġonna (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a troll. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

..and thanks to Enviroboy for stopping that nonsense, much appreciated. Although, this edit summary was quite amusing (my bolding).
04:43, 13 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Charles Daniel French ‎ (→Political career: he is FRENCH. lern to read.) Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"It's surprising anything gets done if you guys act this way." Agreed and ashamed. Can you fix it for us, Tal-ġonna?Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You could check his talk page for an indication of what that answer may be. Nableezy (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone worries we influence readers, check out this edit: "cast lead cold" Plus he got indef blocked. So I think we're making a difference. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC

That is one the best things I've read here...ever. I may have to save that for my user page. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We could always use "between 4k and 5k" and include both sources. Gosh, i know that i'm capable of putting everything aside and look at this article "persistently" from wiki's POV(i know this line is getting boring) and it would improve things for the better i'm sure. like for example the thought that Cerejota brought up about "academic" heads replacing all sources on this page "eventually". which makes me think about the actual work that we are doing now. can it all be consider "marginal"? well, not necessarily if you compare it to other articles(of worthier praise etc). and the best it could actually look like, it would be a paper from Noam Chomsky(you guys bring up all of this guys to the table, i still constantly rely on this dino).

Which brings me up to this other point(not completing, i think, my previous thought, which makes me sad, but i am really tired right now, plus i failed to bench 2 reps@190 but did 1@195 soon after), that we bring up these charges against both Israel and Palestine, does it really matter who we "quote"? I mean, if the UN brings up this charges(or any other organization) does it really matter if we use instead other parties that are bringing perhaps the same accusation? and even more, if they both "quote" the Genevas? so, so what if Falk is the one who we quote, any other "academic" head would basicly "pivot" off the same "protocols" already in place.

Then, we are quoting and bringing up 'news reports', in editing this article, from where are these supposed 'heads' going to find their information? are they going to investigate themselves? Cerejota makes me lose sleep over these things. I wish he could elaborate further on this matter, it might save us alot of time. anyways, back to being tired. Cryptonio (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've read Noam "positively"(if you know what I mean) and the guy has a love affair with the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times and The London Times. Anyways, perhaps i felt cheated out of something. Maybe Cerejota meant, just the sources, and not necessaraly the content of the article. now of course i'm not blind either, things 'should' change but to what?I wish someone could slap Cerejota silly and deliver him to me. And have you seen the sources on these papers and books? maybe i'm missing something here. perhaps we should work on converting 'this' war into something like WW2? "The battle of Downtown Midway" "The Gaza City Airlift" do we have to traumatize the article in that way?...For those youngies out there, you better get a degree, these 'heads' like to put down smart people 'without' an education(if you know what i mean. Cryptonio (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Noam likes to analize the papers in order to let us know "what the papers really meant to tell us". I mean, how could something like that get in an article like this? 20 years from now, how the world will look at this conflict? umm...casualties, the pre-historic jets used, the tanks(always the tanks) and photos. no, the only reason why i like details on weapons is because I'm a man, i really believe that is the reason, because i'm a pacifist by trade and don't really care about these freaking weapons of destruction. if we go that route(and Cerejota is just waiting to pound on that tab) i say we quit now and let Cerejota do all the work. yup... Some mission from 'the seven'? you know, the elite seven soldiers from Israel that defeated 250 Elite Hamas ninjas? i ignore novels. Cryptonio (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Chomsky an RS for Wiki by the way in the foreign affairs field ? I've often wondered and never checked. I can however confirm that termites don't distinguish between his books and others when it comes to cellulose sourcing. Probably doesn't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Laughs...if he was allowed 'anywhere' in wiki, boy oh boy. I would love to bring him into this conflict(yeah right, if people throw a fist against the UN, they would kill Noam). Sadly, of course, since he is as cerebral on middle east topics as ANYONE that could be brought up. He gets triple deep even on meaningless points like who stole x-mas. And his attacks? boy oh boy. No, seriously, i was only using him as ref point. And a good one at that, because I would consider anybody else that speaks on these subjects as a watered down mouth piece. While others like Falk speaks of accusations, Noam would leave no doubt the guilty is guilty on any ground. It is why, the current version of Inter Law looks so appealing to me. The best that we could possibly admit(using these watered down "heads" like Falk) without getting too judgmental. And cut the act Sean, you know you have read Noam more than your comics collections. :) Cryptonio (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, me has the digits to da dark houze. Don't ask me where i got this(short boring story). Falk who?

Noam on Vietnam(and of course, etc.)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Noam on Vietnam(and of course, etc.)

"I shall give you one last example of how the record of deaths is suppressed. The standard estimates of deaths in Indochina...

Ramachandran: Over which period?

Chomsky: They usually start in 1965, because the U.S. does not want to admit that it started attacking Vietnam in 1961. In fact, there were probably 70,000 or so people killed in the late 1950s. According to the official chronology, however, the war started in 1965, when you can claim that the North Vietnamese got involved (before that the U.S. was just bombing South Vietnam). The general estimates from the early 1960s to 1975 are in the neighbourhood of 2 to 4 million for all of Indochina. It is not a precise number by any means because nobody looks.

Ramachandran: Two to four million is a pretty wide range.

Chomsky: And what do you count? Do you count the people who are still dying of U.S. chemical warfare? The U.S. deluged the place - South Vietnam, not North Vietnam - with poisonous chemicals. Nobody counts the effects of having wiped out most of Quang-ngai province, an agricultural area - who cares? Whatever the estimates are, it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of several millions. When people in the United States are asked to estimate the number of Vietnamese dead, the median response is 100,000, a number that gives you the impression of the way the culture works. For example, if in Germany you asked how many people died in the Holocaust and they said 200,000, you would think there is a problem in German culture. This is comparable, but it is our atrocity, and therefore the intellectual classes and the media and anyone responsible for controlling thought and opinion suppress it. They don't know themselves and they don't want anyone else to know. It is going to be the same in Afghanistan. The humanitarian catastrophe is traceable to the United States and its allies, and therefore it is not going to be investigated. That is almost a historical law."

On "war".

""Intelligent bombs" in Iraq, "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo. The U.S.A. never used the word "war" to describe that. Now they are talking about war against a nameless enemy. Why?

At first the U.S. used the word "crusade," but it was quickly pointed out that if they hope to enlist thier allies in the Islamic world, it would be a serious mistake, for obvious reasons. The rhetoric therefore shifted to "war." The Gulf War of 1991 was called a "war." The bombing of Serbia was called a "humanitarian intervention," by no means a novel usage. That was a standard description of European imperialist ventures in the 19th century. To cite some more recent examples, the major recent scholarly work on "humanitarian intervention" cites three examples of "humanitarian intervention" in the immediate pre-World War II period: Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland. The author of course is not suggesting that the term is apt; rather, that the crimes were masked as "humanitarian."

Whether the Kosovo intervention indeed was "humanitarian," possibly the first such case in history, is a matter of fact: passionate declaration does not suffice, if only becasue virtually every use of force is justified in these terms. It is quite extraordinary how weak the arguments are to justify the claim of humanitarian intent in the Kosovo case; more accurately, they scarcely exist, and the official government reasons are quite different. But that's a seperate matter, which I've written about in some detail elsewhere.

But even the pretext of "humanitarian intervention" cannot be used in the normal way in the present case. So we are left with "war."

The proper term would be "crime"-perhaps "crime against humanity," as Robert Fisk has stressed. But there are laws for punishing crimes: identify the perpetrators, and hold them accountable, the course that is widely recommended in the Middle East, by the Vatican, and many others. But that requires solid evidence, and it opens doors to dangerous questions: to mention only the most obvious one, who were the perpetrators of the crime of international terrorism condemned by the World Court 15 years ago?

For such reasons, it is better to use a vague term, like "war." To call it a "war against terrorism," however, is simply more propaganda, unless the "war" really does target terrorism. But that is plainly not contemplated because Western powers could never abide by their own official definitions of the term, as in the U.S. Code* or Army manuals. To do so would at once reveal that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients.

Perhaps I may quote politcal scientist Michael Stohl: "We must recognize that by convention- and it must be emphasized only by convention-great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic," in accord with the literal meaning of the term. Under the (admittedly unimaginable) circumstances that Western intellectual cultures were willing to adopt the literal meaning, the war against terrorism would take quite a different

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])."

form, along lines spelled out in extensive detail in literature that does not enter the respectable canon.

The quote I just gave is cited in a survey volume called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George and published by a major publisher 10 years ago, but unmentionable in the United States. Stohl's point is then illustrated in detail throughout the book. And there are many others, extensively documented from the most reliable sources-for example, official government documents- but also unmentionable in the U.S., though the taboo is not so strict in other English-speaking countries, or elsewhere. "

Dude, i could go on and on and on. If by chance, anyone wants to get their hands on 'anything' Chomsky, let me know! Cryptonio (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've probably read almost everything he's written. It would be foolish not to. It's also true that I spend more time reading Chomsky than my set of Chris Ware's Acme Novelty Library comics despite the outstanding quality of that work. I regard Chomsky as an reliable academic source on these matters albeit with strong views but I'm curious what WPs official position is. I had a quick look at the WP:RSN which didn't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think Chomsky is an RS. But if an editor wants to include something so specific that only one person has said it, it is quite possibly "undue" and needs specific attribution if it belongs at all. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yae yae, keep me informed on that stuff, i'm dying to find a place for this(yeah right).

Last one, i promise.

The major recent academic study of humanitarian intervention

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"The major recent academic study of humanitarian intervention is by Sean Murphy, Humanitarian Intervention: The UN in an Evolving World Order. He’s now an editor of the American Journal of International Law. He points out, correctly, that before the Second World War, there was the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1928 that outlawed war. Between the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter in 1945, there were three major examples of humanitarian intervention. One was the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and north China. Another was Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, and a third was Hitler’s takeover of the Sudetenland. They were accompanied by exalted and impressive humanitarian rhetoric, which as usual was not entirely false. Even the most vulgar propaganda has elements of truth. What you have to do is look at the U.S. reaction. So in the case of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and north China, the official U.S. reaction was, “We don’t like it, but we don’t care, really, as long as American interests in China, meaning primarily economic interests, are guaranteed.”

Same with Mussolini. The State Department hailed Mussolini for his magnificent achievements in Ethiopia and also, incidentally, for his astonishing accomplishments in raising the level of the masses in Italy. This is the late 1930s, several years after the invasion. Roosevelt described Mussolini as “that admirable Italian gentleman.” In 1939 he praised the fascist experiment in Italy—as did almost everyone, it’s not a particular criticism of Roosevelt—and said it had been “corrupted” by Hitler, but other than that it was a good experiment. How about Hitler’s taking over the Sudetenland in 1938? One of Roosevelt’s major advisors was A.A. Berle. He said that there’s nothing alarming about the takeover. It was probably necessary for the Austrian Empire to be reconstituted under German rule, so it’s all right. That’s a typical remark. That’s the way every monster is described, a moderate standing between the extremes of right and left, and we have to support him, or too bad. That’s a famous remark of John F. Kennedy’s about Trujillo reported by Arthur Schlesinger, the liberal historian and Kennedy aide. Kennedy said something like, We don’t like Trujillo. He’s a murderous gangster. But unless we can be assured that there won’t be a Castro, we’ll have to support Trujillo. The threat of a good example or it’s sometimes called the virus effect. The virus of independent nationalism might succeed and inspire others. Actually, the war in Vietnam started the same way. When you ask whether a certain action is or is not a case of humanitarian intervention, you should at least approach it with a sense of history and an understanding of what’s happened in the past. Then you have to evaluate the case on its own terms. You have to ask, for example, whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was a case of humanitarian intervention? When you ask that question, in this case, I think you find quite the opposite. The bombing was undertaken with the expectation that it would lead to a very sharp escalation of atrocities and had nothing to do with humanitarian goals. The opposite is very passionately claimed, but with no credible evidence or argument, to my knowledge. We can ask the same question about the other main atrocity that was being carried out at the time, namely East Timor. The standard line is, even if you were opposed to the war in Yugoslavia, there’s one good thing about it, namely that it served as a precedent for the intervention in East Timor, and we all agreed that that was good. So that was one favorable thing. The only trouble with that is the facts, which are totally different. There never was any intervention in East Timor in any serious sense of the term, hence it couldn’t have been a humanitarian one. The U.S. and Britain withheld any interference with Indonesian atrocities until after the worst had taken place, continuing to support the Indonesian army. It was not until after the Indonesian army withdrew (having been informed by Clinton that the time had come) that they were willing to allow a peacekeeping force to enter. That’s not intervention. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put hat/habs on these with show tabs or else you will get hate mail. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

:) i was about to delete them myself to tell you the truth. Some people are diabetic, and that stuff is glucose rich. thanks for that bro, imma save those hat/habs thingies, they will surely be useful in the future. well anyways, hit me up with some reading material. Cryptonio (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, is some of that a copyvio? --JGGardiner (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but does Noam Chomsky even believe in copyrights? Nableezy (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Only the words. The spaces and punctuation are okay. Also, if Cryptonio claims self-defence I think it should be okay. Anyway, aren't copyvios protected by parody laws ? If so, he just needs to add "..NOT!" to the end of each section. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

^ "Gaza homeless toll 'hits 50,000'" news.bcc.co.uk 19 January 2009 Link retrieved 19-01-09
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7845428.stm

[1] "Gaza homeless toll 'hits 50,000'" news.bcc.co.uk 19 January 2009 Link retrieved 19-01-09

[2] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7845428.stm

[1]

[2]