User:Labellesanslebete
Hamas
Unnecessary footnote Footnote 91 seems excessive. It describes the funerals of people who died on the Gaza beach. No one disagrees the people died.Labellesanslebete (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Number of Victims of Gaza War I'd like to change footnote 143. It links to a statement from Olmert saying he feels sorrow about the deaths. It has no relevance to the sentence which summarizes the PCHR casualty report. I'd like instead to link to that report.
http://pchrgaza.ps/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf
At the end of the paragraph, I suggest the following brief addition: "Bloggers checked the PCHR list against online records with results paralleling Israel's." Followed by a footnote with the link to those findings. Each name was checked against news stories, Hamas and other martyrdom sites, other NGO reports and shows their corrections.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-of-those-civilians-killed-in-gaza.html
The reason I'm interested in adding this is most articles have accusations against Israel written as fact, with emotional descriptions. A defense by Israel may follow in the final paragraphs. As we know, most readers learn the headline and part of the story.
This is a point by point listing which can be checked by anyone. None of the bloggers are associated with the Israeli government.
An example of the material is the death of Anas Fadel Na'im who was listed as #519, Civilian in PCHR's report. He is memorialized on Al-Qassam's English forum as a member of the Qassam Brigades, a wing of Hamas, which makes him a combatant. There were hundreds of these proofs that the PCHR lacks neutrality.Labellesanslebete (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Blogs arent reliable sources, and see WP:OR. nableezy - 19:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) That is a good point about blogs. Thank you. What about eliminating the footnote to the irrelevant Olmert statement in favor of a link to the actual report?Labellesanslebete (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)