Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

White Phosphorus

- In International Law: Israelis : “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 or as a smoke screen. Meanwhile, the weapon has a potential to cause particularly horrific and potential injuries or slow painful death” -- This second sentence is written not in an encyclopedic manner, but instead attempts to force the reader to envision horrific pain and suffering. The pain an individual suffers when they die is not relevant to claims that Israel used a particular weapon inappropriately. Kinetochore (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed "...horrific..." line and replaced it with what is already used in the white phosphorus article. I have not seen a source that states Israel has used it as an anti-personnel weapon and think this should also be noted unless I am incorrect.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: It is actually stated pretty clearly but please edit if the new wording makes it sound as if it was used incorrectly.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why dont we just remove this paragraph entirely: "Meanwhile, the weapon burns quite fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. It also can function as an anti-personnel weapon with the compound capable of causing serious burns or death. Medical personnel must be specifically trained to treat such injuries and may themselves be exposed to phosphorus burns. White phosphorus spread burning phosphorus, which burns at over 800 degrees celsius (1,500 degrees fahrenheit), over a wide area up to several hundred square metres.[368]". Interesting though it may be, the article is plenty long without including the life story, history, etc of random weapons. No other weapons are described in this manner in the article. Kinetochore (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? Because pro-Palestinian editors would not let that fly. Realistically, I don't think think there is a source supporting Israel's use of the munition in an anti-personnel weapon. It is a concern under international law due to its "horrific" effects so it should be mentioned just not with too much weight. Rework the line while keeping in the relevant information and see what happens.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No Cptnono, it's not about being pro-X or pro-Y. UN 15 Jan. report says:

At approximately 1000 hours, Israeli shells struck the main UNRWA compound...Approximately 700 Palestinians were taking refuge in the compound at the time

After the war, the UN analyzed the explosives and said:

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

This is not about fanhood, it's about facts. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What it should be and what it is are not the same.Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the report. I'm curious to see if they really meant that the compound was shelled with white phosphorous in an attempt to kill people there or if during the shelling some of the ordinance which was intended as a smokescreen inadvertently fell onto the compound. It reads as the first but the report was preliminary and did not go into much detail. I would hate to say Israel used it as a weapon (which they deny) just because one coordinator typing up his initial findings did not go into enough detail. I would like to see follow-up documents before giving it too much weight in the article if its use is to confirm the munitions were used for anti-personnel purposes.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

follow-up: "the Israeli media reported that the IDF acknowledged it had used two different types of ammunition containing phosphorous during its operations in Gaza. According to media reports, the IDF is investigating the misuse of one of these types in Beit Lahiya." Basically, the UN OFTCHA is reporting on news reports. http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/23a6bb80e4fa654f8525754600533635!OpenDocument Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're now attacking the OCHA reports!!!? Please understand and have knowledge about what you're talking about before saying such empty statements. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am. Don't get snippy. The investigation is not complete and the department has not shown that they have sent out fact finding personnel yet. At this time, they aren't done looking into it and have said so. As for the Amnesty International quote, there are just as many sources not stating it even close to those terms. We can throw sources at each other all day but as it stands from the dozen I looked at:

• Israel has used it but claims it is being used properly
• Most news sources (not aid agencies) say that they are following the law but that its use in such a densely populated area is a concern. This may border on breaking international law.
• Civilians have been affected and it burns them.

I don't see what the problem is. A few lines can be added but that should finish it.Cptnono (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why the devastating effect said by the ICRC that White phosphorous cause "horrific and potential injuries or slow painful death" should return. Cause there have been reports that civilians have been affected, and non-refutable reports that White Phosphorus has hit civilian areas. (Amnesty International sent a fact finding team consisting of weapons experts. And the UN when said it was hit by white phosphorus shells, it said it on its behalf, not on behalf of news agencies as you state). I'll return the ICRC statement back. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

follow-upx2: The International Committee of the Red Cross released a statement backing IDF claims that it was not used as an anti-personnel weapon. Until there is hard evidence either way, we should be careful with how we word it. A line regarding international aid organizations having concerns with its use in highly-populated areas should be mentioned since it has received plenty of press and is a notable concern.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What about this, from the report you linked in follow-up1:

Several hospital and clinics in Gaza reported the treatment of patients with severe flesh burning, breathing difficulties and throat spasms, which may have been caused by white phosphorous.

And from Amnesty:

Israel use of White Phosphorus against Gaza civilians is clear and undeniable.

The effects of WP on civilians should not be marginalized. You're talking about intentions, I'm talking about using the weapon against civilians as reported by several organizations. Wikipedia is not about intentions and the IDF statemetns are already given the White phosphorus paragraph. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering whether the effects are just as "horrible" when used "against combatants"? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're debating against a reputable and WP:RS report with WP:OR thesis. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically you are accurate in that that is the title of the "press release." It is also true that the article does not quote the "weapons expert" as actually saying "against civilians." In fact nowhere in the article is the concept of "against civilians" actually used. "Used"? Absolutely. "Against civilians?" Not in that article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Duh, you're lawyering over here. It stated crystal clear that the results posted by Amnesty are found by their team of weapons experts. They do not need to quote their own experts, they report on their behalf. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

er, you are not reading carefully. The article as quoted did not say they had a team of weapons experts. It said: "a weapons expert who is in Gaza as part of a four-person Amnesty International fact-finding team. If press releases are anything like media headlines, they are often incorrect and are written by different people than those who write the article. The devil is in the details. There was one weapons expert, and he, according to the article, said nothing about the use of wp "against civilians." Odd their headline does not reflect the article in such an important matter. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, you're providing more and more of different OR thesis that have no place over here (whether they are right or wrong). Anyway it's said clearer in another Amnesty report:

Amnesty International delegates have found indisputable evidence of widespread use of the chemical white phosphorus against Palestinian civilians in densely populated residential areas in Gaza.

--Darwish07 (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am not being clear. I have no problem with another line regarding the density concern (in fact I just agreed with another editor about this a few hours ago) and a line of detail going in about the effects of going in. The term "horrific" is potentially leading according to two other editors plus myself. Go ahead and add a line or two just don't make the wording overly dramatic. Don't blow it out of proportion and read too much into only certain sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the term "horrific" isn't mine, it's the ICRC one. Don't blame me, complain to the International Red Cross if you see that their understandings of white phosphorous effects on civilians are wrong. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not complaining. I'm stating that three editors think it might lead the readers and that is why it was removed. IRC is a great organization and of course a valid source. However, it has an agenda just like other aid organizations and isn't subject to criticism like a newspaper is for the wording they use in their reports. As I've said, throw in some information about the effects of the weapon just be careful with what terms you use. I don't see why this is complicated in any way.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you're attacking the International Red Cross saying since it's not subject to criticism for its wordings (WP:RS for such claim?), so we should be "careful" and downgrade their statements cause those people have an "agenda". If you have a criticism for the ICRC statement from a WP:RS, fine, provide it after the ICRC description. "not subject to criticism"!? so should we wait for CAMERA approval before posting the ICRC statements? I'm sorry, I stand by my ICRC reference and its description. If you have another references provide them instead of attacking the ICRC saying "agenda" and such bluff. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time in as many days that editors here have been insulted using CAMERA. Cptnono is only talking about what many of us here have been saying, that Israel denies that it used this as an anti-personal "weapon against civilians." I have brought this up myself previously, as has AgadaUrbanit. We can all think for ourselves. Where do your "talking points" come from? Please leave the insults at home. As for the ICRC, they are not so neutral. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bringing up the word "CAMERA" is not an attack on itself. Cptnono said "[ICRC] isn't subject to criticism like a newspaper is for the wording they use in their reports". I replied in amazement, if we do need others criticism to post ICRC statements!!? CAMERA is brought here cause it's the most notable organizations for "crticising" media, so my wordings are logical and is not an attack by any means. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Those statements can be attributed to ICRC in the article. aka: "According to the ICRC, the weapon cause "horrific burns or slow death" if used against civilians". By the way, even the UN OCHA took such description and posted it to their reports (with ICRC attribution). --Darwish07 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is used in heavely populated areas. Whitwashing it will look bad if not missleading. Please do not POV-edit. Brunte (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Another instance in the humanitarian crisis section of writing not fit for an encyclopedia: "Several hundred greenhouses were levelled, and olive groves, citrus orchards and sheep pastures razed. A third of Gaza's farmable land has been devastated" -- Words such as "razed", "levelled" and "devastated" are excessive, vague, and angry words, and so are unfit for an encyclopaedic article. Kinetochore (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

look for atribution, and if not in article put it in. Then it become encyclopedic Brunte (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Kinetochore. Parts of the articles, such as those outlined above, are propoganda that is embarrassing to this project that calls itself an neutral encyclopedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda for who? But I agree that lot of text can be summarized, without push any POV. About propaganda, what is not sourced from RS? Find it tag it ref. Brunte (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll speak about the first two points, cause those were my edits. Excuse me User:Brewcrewer, watch your language and allegations before saying such ridiculous statements. The statement about White Phosphorus effects on civilians was directly extracted from the International Red Cross website. The psychological state was extracted from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports. Those are one of the highest quality reports and can never be described as propaganda. I'm not a propagandist, and throughout my editings here, I've chosen one of the most reputable reports like ones from Amnesty International, UN OCHA, International Red Cross, UNFPA, World Health Organization, Oxfam, CARE and others around the internet. You've attacked the wrong Wikipedian. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys are right. I'm being way too whiny. I refactored the additional "comment". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Peace, it happens. Wish you the best. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should debate "intent" by the IDF, I think we should instead dispassionately cover verifiable reports of WP use and WP injuries in Gaza. RomaC (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now regarding the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is not considered a neutral source by many and has not been so considered for a very very long time. This has nothing to do with CAMERA's position, it is simply factual. I did a little Googling, in hopes to find sources outside ourselves to try to help you appreciate this. These are not necessarily RS but they will educate you on a different perspective. Take this comment by Debbie Schlussel

"And don't forget how the International Red Cross treated true non-combatants--concentration camp inmates under the Nazis, including millions of Jews. So nice, that concentration camp victims weren't worthy of this "neutral" organization's help (and cooked in the ovens, instead), but Islamic terrorists are worthy by the ICRC's warped standards. Some neutrality. And it's hardly neutral the way ICRC treated Israel over the years." [1]

Now when she was talking about "terrorists" she was talking about Hezbollah in 2006, but it is true that the record shows they did nothing for Jews in WWII, and they have demonstrated bias ever since. See also [2] & [3]. Please educate yourself. This is a very real perspective on ICRC by one party in this war or conflict. Please do not poo-poo other editors' perspectives. Mutual respect is one of the main pillars on which wiki is supposed to rest. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you need to educate yourself, the ICRC is one of the most reliable sources we have on this planet, and if you want to take that up in the RS noticeboard good luck. And as has been said before, google only gets you what you are already looking for, the fact is the ICRC is considered one of the most neutral observers in the world. To avoid a personal attack I am not going to comment on the rest of your post. Nableezy (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes perhaps I shouldn't have bothered with the Debbie Schlussel site. It is right there in the wiki article on the ICRC. ICRC calls them "mistakes and shortcomings". Since then, it spent years keeping Israel out of the organisation because it refused to allow her the use of the Magen David emblem, despite having accepted the Red Crescent as symbolic for the Muslim nations. The ICRC has been notoriously unable to see a Israeli prisoner held by Hamas, Hezbollah etc, yet can see Palestinian prisoners in Israel virtually at call. So as to the neutrality of ICRC in this conflict (and thus its reliablity) I am not so sure. Maybe. Most reliable on the planet? I don't think so. To their credit though, they acknowledged that to their knowledge Israel has only used wp in a legal way. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To the issue of intentions -- it is of course absolutely relevant.

"The analysis of the 22-day conflict in Gaza by Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies finds "impressive improvements in the readiness and capability" of the Israeli Defense Forces since the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006, and unequivocally states that Israel did not violate the laws of war despite the large number of civilian casualties among the Palestinians." Study: Israel did not violate war laws, Anthony Cordesman (my bolds) Now we have a couple of dispassionate sources that disagree with each other. hmmmm..... You might want to read/look at this article [4] entitled "Ethical Dilemmas in Fighting Terrorism" -- by IDF Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin in 2004. These are the rules that Israel fights from. Perhaps you can show us the rules that Hamas uses to deal with such "ethical dilemmas"? Israel denies using WP against civilians and until that evidence has been presented and studied it should not be in there. This is the same thing that happened in the 2006 Lebanon War with allegations of secret weapons, and depleted uranium etc. These things were really investigated and turned out to be nonsense. It is the mentality that accuses first, proves (or not) later. It works. Perhaps eventually it will be seen for what it is, but in the short term, most people hear and believe, and never check page 10 for the correction. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but Israels denial is not the final word. That denial is given proper weight. To think that Israels word be taken above the word of numerous human rights groups, including the ICRC which may very well be the most respected name in the game, is not based in objective reality. Nableezy (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if you want to consider ICRC 's reliable for this issue, they said Israel did NOT use WP in an illegal way, ie against civilians. [5] I am not arguing that I would not compromise on using some of these sources despite the fact that they may well be biased. Nor have I said that Israel's word must be taken. But it should be given considerable weight until it is proved otherwise. Allegations without study do not count. Amnesty International is a "peace" organisation. Just how qualified it is to determine whether WP has been used against civilians is very much in doubt in my mind. I realise that the middle east is not America, but Israel deserves a fair trial before it is convicted, just like any other entity. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AI is fully qualified, it may be the second most reliable source in the world for this issue, behind only the ICRC. Nobody has convicted Israel of anything in this article. But Israel's denials are not on the same level as reports from such sources as AI and the ICRC. I dont even care what the issue here is about, I havent looked at this in a while. But the idea that because Israel denied a charge by a human rights organization that somehow makes it so we should say that Israel has not done that thing is asinine. Nableezy (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And what you wrote above demonstrates a serious flaw with these type of discussions. You want to accept a source as reliable based on what they say on a given topic. You would accept the ICRC as reliable because they said 'they said Israel did NOT use WP in an illegal way', but would reject other human right sources as unreliable because they have said something else. You cannot pick and choose when to use certain arguments when they contradict each other. If you think the ICRC or HRW or AI is unreliable then show us how it is unreliable, you cannot say that because you either disagree or agree with their assessment that changes your perception of their reliability on each individual discussion. Nableezy (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07: I'm not attacking anything and you are just being rude by putting those words in my mouth. I think my last few responses were relatively polite so now I'm telling you that you are out of line. Your tone is not called for so just knock it off. Stop taking one statement from why it might be a concern and discounting the big issue. Stop debating and fix the article. If you can't do either why are you even in the discussion? Yes, the IRC has an agenda. They would not be doing their job if it was any other way. Not a big deal. Again, go ahead and put a line in regarding the effects of WP but do it in a way that does not overbalance the article.Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't put words in your mouth Cptnono. You said ICRC "has an agenda ... [and] isn't subject to criticism like a newspaper". You imply that the Red Cross does not respect neutrality, on purpose, casue it has an "agenda". That's why "agenda" mean, "agenda" means avoiding true neutrality on purpose. Yes, this is an attack on the organization credibility. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, The whole Israeli explanation is put on full: "[Israel said it] wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics." and you're complaining of adding this small statement "According the ICRC, the weapon causes horrific burns or slow death if used against civilans". --Darwish07 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For reaching consensus, I even offered that instead of just stating the "horrific burns or slow death" statement as fact, we'll attribute it to the ICRC (to lessen its effect). You ignored it and blamed me for rudeness. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the ICRC statement, but substituted their "horrific burns" sentence with "severe burns". I hope consensus is reached now, and you can believe that I'm editing in Good faith. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli 'investigation' is outgoing according to this. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5575070.ece - Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza. “Yes, phosphorus was used but not in any illegal manner,” Yigal Palmor, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, told The Times. “Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is holding an investigation concerning one specific incident.” "The incident in question is thought to be the firing of phosphorus shells at a UN school in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip on January 17. The weapon is legal if used as a smokescreen in battle but it is banned from deployment in civilian areas. Pictures of the attack show Palestinian medics fleeing as blobs of burning phosphorus rain down on the compound. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00471/Phosphorous_471959a.jpg . Just to stress this point to Tundrabuggy. You can't spin this just yet. Cryptonio (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli investigation, while should be compiled and reported The IRCin full here, does not affect, or challenge the credibility of other independent analysis by Amnesty International, or the UN analysis of the Unexploded ordnance in the 15 Jan. Israeli shelled UN compound which asserted that the compound, which was sheltering 700 Palestinians', was hit 155m White Phosphorus shells (the most dangerous kind of White Phosphorus ammunition). --Darwish07 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I again object to the inclusion of the following line: "The weapon has a potential to cause particulary severe and painful burns or slow painful death". I agree that this is factually correct, and I agree that this was in the ICRC report, but it is absolutely irrelevant info, and is a pov push. It is not acceptable to explain that a weapon that one side has been accused of using inappropriately is a terrible and horrific weapon. All weapons have the potential to cause particularly severe and painful deaths - all weapons are horrific. Singling this weapon out as causing painful deaths over others is very leading, and so is inappropriate. If the reader of the article wants to know more about the nature of this weapon, he/she can learn more in the White Phosphorous article. Kinetochore (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason why this weapon has been discussed so much by the human rights organizations is precisely because of the effects it has on the people exposed to it. It is relevant because these organizations have made the effects of the weapon central to their objections to its use in such a manner. Nableezy (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The IRC is not neuteral. They are a credible source but are looking for instances of human suffering. That is their job so it is what it is. Regardless, the validity of the IRC really isn't the important issue for this section right now. Severe is an excellent replacement for horrific and there is not any argument that a line regarding the harmful effects should be included..Cptnono (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I told you above I substitued the word "horrific" with "severe" as a compromise and to reach consensus. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinetochore, welcome back to discussion. I'll try to address your concerns point by point cause your comment contains a lots of ones:

• "I agree that this was in the ICRC report, but it is absolutely irrelevant info, and is a pov push": How do you claim it's irrelevant when It's discussed in an ICRC article that is exactly created for the conflict we're editing and debating about?
• "...is a terrible and horrific weapon. All weapons have the potential to cause particularly severe and painful deaths": You're mis-representing the source and have missed a key word. The source didn't say "painful death", it says "painful slow death". This makes a huge difference, and that's why it's mentioned. So, Are you claiming that "All weapons can create horrific and painful injuries or slow painful death"? If so, do you have a WP:RS supporting such claim?
• "If the reader of the article wants to know more about the nature of this weapon, he/she can learn more in the White Phosphorous article.": There's a big explanation of how the WP weapon is legal and how it can be used without harm (as lightining or smoke)and so on and so forth. There must be sentences to balance this information out. Without the weapon effects sentence (which is extraced from a relevent ICRC article after all), the paragraph seems as if the weapon is a bed of roses over Gaza. The positives must be balanced with the negatives, this is a basic rule of Wikipedia. --23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have compiled a response to each of your responses:

• I agree that it is absolutely relevant that the ICRC is concerned about the use of this particular weapon. I contend that the process by which the ICRC decides what weapons are illegal or inappropriate for use is irrelevant. The ICRC is not saying that they accuse Israel 'of using a weapon which has the potential to cause slow painful death', though I agree the weapon does have such a potential. They are accusing Israel of violating international law by using this weapon inappropriately. The "...slow painful death..." extra sentence is an explanation, a rational, if you will, behind why this weapon became illegal in the first place. I again reiterate that it is factually correct, but not relevant. If a reader is curious as to why the ICRC or international Law does not approve of this weapon, they can look it up under the White phosphorous article.
• Absolutely many weapons can cause slow painful deaths, if they are used to that purpose. A gunshot wound to the foot of a man in a war zone who cannot seek immediate treatment, a grenade blast seriously wounding an individual, and serious shrapnel wounds all have the *potential* to cause slow painful deaths. Would you not agree? Surely you must agree that individuals who die in these ways are in agonizing pain as they die. I ask you, why must the reader know that this weapon in particular, over many other weapons, has the potential to cause slow painful death? The reader must instead know that this weapon is of concern as its improper use violates international law.
• Regarding your third point, I agree with you completely that article balance and neutrality is an issue of serious concern, and must be looked into with great care. Specific to this issue, I don't see any point in the paragraph which makes light of the seriousness of the allegations, making the weapon seem like "A bed of roses" as you put it, but if there is such imagery in the paragraph, I urge you to remove it or reword it. Moreover, I do not see this "...slow painful death..." sentence as a negative per se, but as something which is irrelevant entirely (see above), as this weapon is a concern because its improper use is in violation of international law, not because it causes slow painful death. Moreover, there is already a sentence detailing a 'negative' as you put it- the sentence “It is a concern under international law due to its potential use as an anti-personnel weapon” provides this relevant context, and, I would argue, is crucial to the reader’s understanding of the issue.Kinetochore (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• There has been another Amnesty report that said clearly that there is "indisputable evidence" of WP used "against Palestinian civilians". In the same report it's said that ".. children, were brought in with white phosphorous burns that refused to heal.". There are serious allegations of civilians affected and burnt by the weapon. Thus, the dangerous effects stated by the ICRC if civilians got burnt by WP must be reported. This is not a hard equation:

  Independent reports stating "indisputable evidence" of civilians attacked and burnt by WP (including "children") ===> the effects of WP on civilians should be reported and never understated

• You didn't provide WP:RS sources that supports your alleged claim that: "All weapons has a potential to cause particularly horrific and painful injuries or slow painful death." You're basing your logic on un-supported claims. See WP:V.
• I didn't remove your "concern" statement, and using this statement alone is not enough (see point 1).

Let's have it clear over here. I made compromises and downgraded the ICRC statement from "horrific" to "severe" to reach consensus (and peace of mind, frankly) with the pro-Israel team. There has been wide reports of civilians burnt by WP and used directly against them, thus the weapon effects should be included. I'm tired of debating; I've been debating this all day long. I have provided independent, reputable, and unchallenged references and clear logic, while others are just providing OR thesis. I'm not debating nor providing any compromises further. You're showing clear cases of WP:CENSOR and WP:ITBOTHERSME. You want it removed? go to a Wikipedia judge. I have more reports and logic that can convince any judge in the world. I assure you I'll win the case if you opened one. I'm tired of everyday, a new editor comes out of the blue and state his "issues" while he did zero real edits to the article. Enough. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to object to the ICRC being described as non-neutral, or that they are looking for instances of human suffering. I think there mission is to actually prevent instances of human suffering, that they highlight an issue does not make them non-neutral as regards how they treat the parties to the conflict. That they look for evidence of human rights violations does not make them non-neutral. If they can be shown to be biased against anything other then human rights violations then they could be considered non-neutral. Nableezy (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

-Darwish07, I know. That is why I mentioned it. It looks good that way. You're coming across really on edge.Cptnono (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think he is pissed at you, some of the other arguments have been pretty aggravating though, as you likely have been on some of the other ones coming from 'the other side'. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been overly aggrevated and a jerk a hanful of times for sure! Usually it takes one person reminding me to watch myself and a few less beers and I fall back in line. He has been continuously been itching for a debate for over a day. Not trying to hurt his felings just wanted to let him know since I was already agreeing with his edit.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That came out wrong, I meant to say that you may have been aggravated at some of the comments from others, not that you were making aggravating comments. Nableezy (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I figured something like that. I just wanted to try to not look like too big of a dick by explaining myself!Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: This article reads that Israel only used white phosphorus in a completely legal and moral purity of arms way and any civilians inadvertantly hit with white phosphorus were complete accidents because that's what the IDF says. Even though every other observer claims that Israel is lieing through its teeth on this point. How terribly pro-Israel POV of you all. Well done. Jacob (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am having a hard time civilly putting into words how counterproductive, immature, and just plain rude your recent edit was. Go ahead and add a source to properly state "though every other observer claims that Israel is lieing through its teet..." The section was edited heavily over the last few days for the purpose of making it more neutral. If you feel it was overbalanced the best way to fix it is to add a valid line. And before you complain about POV you should check your own mindset on the issue. Time spent reading the article, sources, and wikipedia policies would also be helpful to understand how far off the mark you are.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we fix this by simply covering the reports of WP injuries in Gaza? It is difficult to determine and probably impossible to prove IDF intent. RomaC (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I like how it is so will not change it myself. Although my personal views are that it was reckless, it is not for me to interpret the intent as you mention. Doesn't hurt my feeling if another user wants to throw in info on the injuries (good idea, by the way) or an additional line regarding to balance any perceived POV. Not saying I won't edit it if is off but for now I am happy with the section.Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this really an effect of the conflict?

In the effects section, this is a subsection:

Israel

The Israeli Home Front Command issued detailed emergency instructions to Israeli citizens for preparing for and dealing with rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip. The instructions included orders to stay within a certain distance of bomb shelters based on proximity to the source of the rockets. Residents adjacent to the Gaza border were instructed to remain in fortified rooms.[339] Israelis ascribed their low civilian casualties to an orderly public response to these instructions.[340] Hamas Grad rockets' increased range of 40 km put more than 700,000 Israelis within strike range,[341] prompting 40% of the residents of the southern city of Ashkelon to flee the city,[342] despite official calls to stay.[343] Beginning December 27, schools and universities in southern Israel closed due to rocket threats.[344] Palestinian rockets landed on Israeli educational facilities several times during the conflict,[345][346] with no casualties except for cases of shock.[347][348][349][350] Studies officially resumed on January 11. Only schools with fortified classrooms and bomb shelters were allowed to bring students in, and IDF Home Front Command representatives were stationed in the schools;[351][352] attendance was low.[353][354][355] The largest hospital on Israel's southern coast, Ashkelon's Barzilai Hospital, forced its critical treatment facilities into an underground shelter after a Gaza-fired rocket struck beside its helicopter pad on 28 December 2008.[356]

My concerns:

• 1) This refers to Israeli preparations for rocket attacks. It is hardly major effects.
• 2) This is given virtually equal weight as the gaza humanitarian crisis. Which is clearly ridiculous

I think this section should be drastically reduced and possibly removed. These effects are quite minor. But I know that ifd I remove even one word, it will be instantly reverted. So I'm putting it here for discussion. Thanks.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to make a point by a pro-Israel editor. This is understandable (not wiki OK though) given the extra attention paid to the humanitarian crisis. The opening lines might be able to be reworked and fit into the background section but are not really an "effect". The education lines are valid in the section. That was a concern due to the conflict. Overall it is still a little bloated so it should be worked on.Cptnono (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Cptnono (including the "understandable" part), except on the "extra attention" to the humanitarian crisis (which, for the record I opposed as a section name) - the effects on Gaza, the main battleground of the conflict, are central to the article by any objective criteria. I am just saying that we should not be comparing apples and oranges. Sourthern's Israel was not were the bulk of this war was fought, it was in Gaza, and Gaza mainly - hence, it is obvious that there will be more mention of effects in Gaza, buecause there where more effects, period. To accept this fact is key to being able to develop a good article.--Cerejota (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these school concerns on the Israeli side command paragraphs of attention but do deserve some mention. Most of the immediate "effects" of the conflict are seen in Gaza so there will be more info regarding that side of the border in this section.Cptnono (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You both have good points. I agree it's obvious that due weight requires us to give more room to the Gaza effects than to the Israeli effects, but I don't agree that the current length of the Gaza section should be used as a standard with which to measure the desired length of every other part of the article. Since the drastic cutback and spinouts a while ago, several of the sections here have remained too short, including the Gaza effects section. It was only when I re-added some material on Gaza humanitarian aid, for example, that that issue was even mentioned in the article - and how could an article on the conflict not mention the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of aid donated as a direct result of this conflict? In other words, we should add to the Gaza effects, not remove from the Israeli effects.
I agree with Cptnono that the closure of schools is an effect, but I'm skeptical of the strict interpretation of "effect" that leads him to suggest removing the sentences on Israeli preparations. For one thing, I think the sentences are important in explaining the following material on schools; but more importantly, the preparation sentences deal with a very basic issue to this conflict: how Israelis dealt with the danger the conflict posed to them. Thus, the sentences should be in here somewhere (and I understand Cptnono to agree with that in principle - correct me if I'm wrong), and the Effects section seems the most natural place for them. Why would the background section, which Cptnono suggests, be better? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. 500,000+ Israeli citizens choose to either spend 9-10 hours in a crowded underground bomb shelter while terrorists...I mean, *freedom fighters* bomb their city, or flee the homes they live in. In reference to Ashkelon, I think it's more than notable. They're been experiencing rocket attacks for more than a year, and as the article says, this war has forced hundreds of thousands of citizens to leave their homes, but this is not the first time. It's not given "equal weight", it's simply stating facts. Do you not find a half a million people running out of their homes not important? Just because Israel doesn't situate their civilians near Hamas targets to inflate casualties and gain world-sympathy does not mean it isn't notable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I think we're giving way to much pretense on blood-shed. The casualties have yet to be independently verified, so let's focus on the clear facts for now. Let's hope this doesn't turn into another Battle of Jenin.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't totally disagree: you a propping up a strawman. No one here (that I have seen) want to remove this information, which is relevant. However, being in a shelter is not comparable to being blown to pieces. SO the 500,000 in shleters deserve less coverage than even the 13 Israeli dead, who in turn deserve slightly less coverage of the hundreds of dead, who in turn deserve less coverage than the major destruction of infrastructure in Gaza, which in turn deserves less coverage than the humanitarian crisis the destruction created.

As has been said before, the war is asymmetric, and the coverage should consequently be asymmetric. NPOV doesn't requiere symetric presentation of asymetric events.--Cerejota (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I'm not contesting the main thrust of your argument, and I'm certainly not agreeing with Wikifan, but your comment contains what I see as a serious flaw. Being in a shelter is not comparable to being blown to pieces: true. SO the 500,000 in shelters deserve less coverage than even the 13 Israeli dead: not (necessarily) true. One parameter in notability is the number of people affected, and on that parameter the bomb shelters beat the casualties by a factor of 40,000; not necessarily enough to counteract the parameter of severity-of-effect, but it might be. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the rocket attacks, Israelis seeking shelter is not restricted to this event. That is why I thought background might be better. It is a concern but has been for awhile now. If there was an increase in Israelis being stuck in shelters it should be mentioned.23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

Yes but the nature of the shelter-seeking changed once the conflict started. I'm not against mentioning the pre-conflict shelter-seeking in the background, but that would not fulfill the need to mention the shelter-seeking during the conflict, which is more important. These are the details:

• Home Front Command instructions. Pre-conflict: residents near Gaza should be within 15 seconds of shelter (not positive about this). Conflict: res. near Gaza should be in shelters, res. as far away as Beersheba should be within certain distance of shelters.
• Refugees. Pre-conflict: much of Sderot and smaller communities close to Gaza emptied. Conflict: much of larger cities such as Ashkelon emptied.
• Schools and colleges. Pre-conflict: open (Sderot schools fortified or something). Conflict: closed until Jan 11, followed by low attendance. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't restricted to this event, but neither is Hamas stealing UN donated food, but we still include it in the article. Just because something has happened before/happened again/will continue to happen does not mean it should be excluded. I don't understand your reasoning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your taking points look good. I see no problem, if it can be integrated into the article without being a list and accompanied by good sources. I think you should go for it.Cptnono (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, this is what you say above: "Cerejota, I'm not contesting the main thrust of your argument, and I'm certainly not agreeing with Wikifan, but your comment contains what I see as a serious flaw. Being in a shelter is not comparable to being blown to pieces: true. SO the 500,000 in shelters deserve less coverage than even the 13 Israeli dead: not (necessarily) true. One parameter in notability is the number of people affected, and on that parameter the bomb shelters beat the casualties by a factor of 40,000; not necessarily enough to counteract the parameter of severity-of-effect, but it might be."

So, you're genuinely saying that you would rather be killed than have to go in to a bomb shelter? Because I know which I consider more serious, and I can't believe you don't think death is more serious than an inconvenience.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course death is more serious than being in a bomb shelter. I said: "Being in a shelter is not comparable to being blown to pieces: true." Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed down the section in accordance with opinions expressed above. Jalapeno reverted saying this was against the consensus

Here is his edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=269714142&oldid=269712556

His summary: "Restoring section that was reduced by Jandrews to two sentences, contrary to consensus. God, I hate doing this"

Several people above said that this was too much detail. Cerejota, who is acting as a sort of unofficial neutral mediator, said it gave undue weight to effects on Israel, and the detail should be scaled down. I left the important effects on Israel.

you and one other opposed this. More were in favour of trimming down the paragraph.

That doesn't translate into a consensus to restore useless information about Israelis being warned to go into bomb shelters.

You seriously think that bomb warnings and "lower than usual school attendance" deserve as much space and are of as much importance as thousands of houses being destroyed, people running short of food and medicine, sewage plants half destroyed etc etc? I know you favour Israel in terms of who you support in the conflict, but surely you can't really believe the effects on Israel are as severe as those on Gaza.

Oh wait, it seems that you can.

And I don't know why you say you hate reverting constructive edits, as you keep doing it despite the fact that, sometimes, the balance of world opinion may be tipped against you.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore your tone and focus on the issue at hand. You did not "trim down" the section, you reduced it from ten sentences to two sentences, one of which was meaningless because its context was missing. This included removing content with the argument that it did not belong in the section, and without putting it into a different section; this was a violation of WP:PRESERVE. You also removed all information concerning bomb shelters and refugees, about which Cerejota said in the discussion above no one here (that I have seen) wants to remove this information. It annoys me that we have endless discussions about removing or changing a single sentence (e.g. the Gaza density factoid in the Background section), and you come along and remove entire sections of sourced material without discussion, or using a discussion that did not lead to consensus endorsing your action, as a fig-leaf. This is not the first time that you have done so. It looks like you might get consensus to shorten the information on school closures and/or bomb shelters. If you get consensus for that, I'll suck it up even though I will disagree. This is how responsible editors act. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

too much emphasis on these school closures and strikes.

more than 50,000 gazans homeless? covered with seven words and one source.

effects on schools in southern israel, where no casualties occurred? sixty eight words and twelve sources. i agree with jandrews trimming. Untwirl (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I kind of like the current version. While the negative impact on the residents of Gaza are all throughout the article with every detail expanded upon this is a good and concise description of the negative impacts on Israelis.Cptnono (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

the lack of casualties indicates Israel's willingness to prevent civilian casualties. All schools in the rocket-zone are fortified and under 24/7 alert.

I didn't see your response: Cjerot, citizens of Sderot, Asheklon, and many others have been forced into bomb shelters every other day for years as a result of Hamas and Fatah. It's documented and verified, whereas the "blown to bits" is very disputed. high casualties are coming from the hamas-controlled statisticians, whereas IDF says civilian toll is around ~250. We might know when the dust clears and independents can go in verify, or Hamas might bury the bodies and we'll never find out. Remember Battle of Jenin. All 1000+ civilian deaths being shot around the world from BBC, reuters, etc...come straight from Gaza officials.

let me quote you here: SO the 500,000 in shleters deserve less coverage than even the 13 Israeli dead, who in turn deserve slightly less coverage of the hundreds of dead, who in turn deserve less coverage than the major destruction of infrastructure in Gaza, which in turn deserves less coverage than the humanitarian crisis the destruction created. this is totally loaded with emotion and ignorance. humanitarian crisis has been going on for several months and has been exacerbated by this war and hamas' under-the-table operations, as well as UNRWA unsanctioned failures. it truly is pathetic when you have to numerate suffering based off POV interpretations and have the balls to say I'm whipping out strawman. LOLOLOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking

The subsection on roof knocking was moved from the Israeli airstrikes section to the Palestinian psychological warfare section, I don't know by who. Roof knocking was alleged by one Palestinian advocacy organization to constitute Israeli psychological warfare. Until we have other sources agreeing with the allegation, we have to treat it as what it is: warnings to civilians to keep them from getting killed in airstrikes. But even if it is psych. warfare, it is certainly not Palestinian warfare! I'm moving it back. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, even if Psych, its Israeli psych. However, this has not been established by RS. --Cerejota (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It was moved to "Propaganda and psychological warfare", which doesn't specified a 'side', so it is to be assumed it has information from both, Israel and Palestine. I have not once, in all the reading available out there, heard of an army 'warning' the other side of an upcoming attack. That leaflets were dropped denouncing a government and encouraging an uprising? everyday, and i remember once i was about to pick up one of those leaflets and my father told me not to(with a very serious face). Come on? you gotta be serious...So they receive the call, telling them to leave their houses, but guess what, with all the running and all, they forgot to pick up the leaflet advising them not to go to the mosque, which they end up at, only to find out they were re-routing them to the nearest UN shelter, because they too received the call. At the shelter, they were told there was no room for them, so they waited outside thinking that an attack to the UN shelter would never happen. But they were wrong of course, and guess what, they become one of the lucky 43. I'll keep you guys posted on sources. Cryptonio (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this didn't take long...Umm, Guardian? MSNBC? Haaretz?(with reservations)...

January 3, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/03/israelandthepalestinians-middleeast - Text messages and phone calls add psychological aspect to warfare in Gaza

"There is also a mistrust of Israel's phone calls, some of which are recorded and some of which are live, warning people they have just minutes to evacuate before they bomb the house.

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

January 11, 2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28608585/ - Israel's Gaza war adds psychological operations

"More chilling at the time for Beirut residents, however, were the strange phone calls they received during the war telling them that their woes were due to Hezbollah and they should turn against the guerrillas.

That particular technique has reappeared in the current Gaza onslaught, with phone calls and leaflets telling Gazans that their problems were due to Hamas. The leaflets include a phone number and e-mail address to call in tips about the whereabouts of militant leaders and weapons caches."

January 14, 2009 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054916.html - The unreported battle with Hamas: psychological warfare

"The most common methods include dropping fliers from the air, taking control of Hamas' radio airwaves and sending mass SMS messages."

But, to my surprise, Haaretz(who is good to me, on a 'reliable' basis) does not mention does phone calls.

January 3, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091316557303315.html - Israel continues Gaza assault

"The Israeli military is engaging in very aggresive psychological warfare. They have been dropping leaflets warning Palestinians that they have to flee their homes and warning that anyone who lives in area that could be a possible target that their home will be targeted as well. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Cryptonio (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I will expand this section as well, to include the following information. All sourced, of course. "The day before a massive Israeli airstrike killed hundreds of Hamas militants in their barracks, Israeli military radio channels broadcast talk of a "lull" and pulled troops back from the border.Israeli defense officials now say it was a psychological warfare tactic to lure Hamas fighters into the open at the start of the massive offensive against the militant group in Gaza that so far has killed 500 Palestinians." Cryptonio (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Obviously, Israel engaged in psychological warfare. Including information in the article about that in a neutral, well sourced way is a good thing, and it's a shame nobody has done so until now. The sources you brought have good material on this area. 2. I don't see the point in combining the sections on Israeli and Palestinian psychological warfare, when all the other "campaign" sections pertaining to each side are separate. Nevertheless, I have no strong objection to doing so. 3. Roof knocking is not psychological warfare. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said it was, but they are not an RS for this matter. None of the sources you brought endorse PCHR's claim, except possibly the Al-Jazeera one, in a very vague way. Even if you prove that the source endorses the claim, it can't "trump" the multiple, reliable sources we already have, including the New York Times (and I can get more if you want), that describe roof knocking as what it is: an attempt to warn civilians to keep them from getting hurt. 4. Your opinion that the warnings were ineffective is irrelevant. Even if reliable sources say they were ineffective, that does not change what they were (warnings). 5. For clarity, there were two types of phone calls: "get out of the building now because it's going to get blown up" and "Hamas is the source of all your problems; turn them in". The first should go under "Warnings" and the second under "Propaganda and psychological warfare". There may have been two types of leaflets too, though I haven't seen any mention of warning leaflets. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Jalapenos in relation to Al-Jazeera this comment by Jimbo Wales. (About pictures but the comment is applicable to text as well) I will put up the whole quote so that there is no accusation of cherry-picking)(my bolds):

I would say that these questions are not really up to me to determine, but I can offer a few thoughts which I hope are helpful. (1) Al-Jazeera is generally a reliable source as far as I know, in the sense that we normally mean it. (2) Be careful about what Al-Jazeera is being a reliable source for - i.e. did a staff photographer take the picture such that they are standing behind what it is, or did they obtain it from an activist group claiming it to be such-and-such. I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed. (3) Pictures of causualties of war of course may be pertinent, but I would immediately think of at least two cautionary notes. First, the human dignity of the person (and their family and loved ones, in case you think it doesn't matter what happens to someone once they are dead) strikes me as a relevant consideration. Second, such images can often be used to promote a political agenda.

Since some people are pure pacifists, it may be impossible to come up with a universally agreeable example of what I want to talk about next, but let's suppose, as many do, that the Allied assault on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day in World War II, are something we would consider to be a highly unfortunate necessity. (Unfortunate, since it would have been better all around if the 20th century hadn't been so violent.) Well, it is not hard to imagine some horrific civilian casualties that day, with those casualties being used as propaganda by one side (or the other, depending on the exact details)... with very little educational value in an article on the battle itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC) [6] Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Al-jazeera is a rs, and those are your bolds. al-jazeera is without doubt a rs. If they report something as a fact and not as the view of somebody else we can do the same. And just for fun one more time, al-jazeera is a rs. Nableezy (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, you are mischaracterizing those sources. That the NYT does not labels it as psychological warfare, is not an endorsement to nullified such characterization. What i mean is, that if they discuss the incident, and does not make any judgment call about it, they are only describing what those phone calls entails(perhaps even they purpose) but they do not shelter that practice from criticism. In fact, if the article(which I haven't read, please can you post it and the other sources as well you spoke about?) goes as far as bestow great nobility upon the practice the article must likely would be labeled an Op-Ed section. The articles i provided, in turn, describes the practice under the 'umbrella' of psychological warfare. They do not, make any judgment call on the practices itself(for or against it, good or evil) they simply STATE they fall under psychological warfare, which is what we need to prove in this case. That others think the practice is of great help, well even some Palestinians I'm sure have benefited from those calls, but that those calls, by their nature(and not usage) constitutes psychological warfare is undeniable. When a bomber calls in a bomb threat to a building, perhaps he wants to save lives, that's great, but will the call be judged separately from the act itself? Does he not wants 'chaos' right before the bomb goes off, and by giving authorities a heads up, doesn't he understand that the bomb might not go off at all then? Psychological warfare, to him seeing the panic and consternation is just as good as seeing flesh. They will take him seriously and fear him each and every time they hear his voice.

"There is also a mistrust of Israel's phone calls, some of which are recorded and some of which are live, warning people they have just minutes to evacuate before they bomb the house."

No judgment calls, nothing on whether is good or bad, its only describing the practice under the headline "Text messages and phone calls add psychological aspect to warfare in Gaza".

When you say, the calls are meant to warn people, you are simply describing the practice. Where are you going to file that under? Humanitarianism practices in war? and if the person does not comply, is it his fault to refuse to leave his house? if in fact he dies? and is Israel credited for 'trying' to save a life? And if his house got bombed, it must be cause his a terrorist, why would you warn terrorists that they are about to be bombed? Is Israel magnanimity reaches that far? And most importantly, does Israel uses the practice EACH AND EVERY TIME before an attack, in order to be vied as common practice, and not as selective? if used selectively, is Israel decides who gets warned and just gets bombed? isn't that what happens anyways, whether they warn someone or not? Cryptonio (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas is the source of your problems" - Propaganda

"Warnings calls" - Psychological warfare

Cryptonio (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I find your inability to differentiate between the definition of an action and a moral judgment on its nobility/ignobility disturbing. I frankly cannot see how one could even be close to being a neutral editor per WP policy without making that differentiation. Warning calls can be evil, for example if their only purpose is to gain international sympathy that will allow one to continue with one's nefarious ways without criticism; similarly, psychological warfare can be noble if it's against an evil opponent and if it's a way to avoid the kind of warfare that involves shooting people. Once what your saying gets into moral judgment it has no place on Wikipedia. 2. You can usually find mirrors of archived NYTimes articles by googling the title in quotes. 3.The articles you provided do not state that roof knocking falls under psychological warfare, except, perhaps, the Al-Jazeera article. You are reading things into the articles. For example, the fact that "there is mistrust" of phone calls does not mean the phone calls are psychological warfare, just that some people mistrust them. Is telemarketing psychological warfare? 4. Since there's a WP article on Roof knocking, this paragraph is just a summary anyway, and if you want to advance the notion that the practice is psy. war., you should do it at that article, not here. 5. We can cut through some problems by taking your statement as a starting point: when you say, the calls are meant to warn people, you are simply describing the practice. Where are you going to file that under? Simple! Under "Warnings", which is where it was before, and which is descriptive and non-judgmental. I'm doing that now, with the agreement - I believe - of Cerejota and Tundrabuggy (and the fact that they agree with each other is newsworthy in itself). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming into this late I understand. Read something the other day about roof knocking and didn't see any mention of Psychological warfare. If there is any chance that Israel's intention is actually to save lives it should not only be mentioned in this article as a propaganda tool/psy warfare. Sounds like we are interpreting the reasoning at this point which is not OK.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

we are not interpreting it as psy warfare, the guardian, msnbc, et al are, and we should include it in that section. as cryptonio stated, the existence of a source that doesn't call it that doesnt negate other sources that do. Untwirl (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Telephone calls from IDF personnel, or leaflets dropped by airplanes to people throughout Gaza ordering evacuation from their homes prior to bombings were widely reported. While in some cases homes were bombed immediately after the calls were made, others were not. Nevertheless, given the high population density in Gaza and the close proximity between homes, this has caused considerable panic and uncertainty among those receiving phone calls, as well as neighboring houses." From OCHA report Protection of Civilians Weekly Report No. 291; 24 - 31 December 2008. UN report connects roof-knocking with 'considerable panic and uncertainty' Nableezy (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hold up, I never read this whole thread, I initially responded because I had to say something about Al-jazeera not being a RS. "Roof knocking" does not belong in the psych warfare section to the exclusion of other sections. I think it could fit in 2 different sections, airstrikes and psych warfare. I think they better solution is to have it as its own (very very small) subection in israeli military activity where it is presented as what israel calls warnings to civilians that others have called psych warfare or whatever, with an even smaller sentence saying that the practice has been descibed as what by who in the psych warfare section. But it shouldnt just be in psych warfare and that is the only way we describe it. Nableezy (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that something caused panic and uncertainty is not saying that it is psychological warfare. Floods, diseases, politicians and yo' momma create uncertainty and panic. Hell, even bombs and guns cause 'em, and they're not psychological warfare, they're just warfare. For that matter, how could even the most sincere, well-intentioned warning to civilians possibly not cause uncertainty and panic? It's very easy to say that roof knocking was psychological warfare. All you have to do is go "Israel's psychological warfare tactics included telephone calls to civilians telling them to leave their homes blah blah". So far, only PCHR has done that. Frankly, I don't think the opinion of one pro-one-of-the-sides advocacy organization is notable enough even to be included in the article, but I never removed it because I didn't want to raise a ruckus. It certainly can't decide for us how to categorize things. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this from the guardian? Nableezy (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But was there something in what I said above that doesnt fit with what you said? Nableezy (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio already brought that source. I just read through it again, and, no, it doesn't say that that the warning calls were Ps.W. It does quote a PCHR employee saying that they were. I'm not sure if I understood your closing question (sorry if I didn't), but I take it you're asking if we're actually disagreeing on anything. I think so. I'm saying roof knocking should only be under "warnings" and you're saying it should be under "warnings" and "Ps.W.". Though now that I think about it, I would have no objection to moving the PCHR statement to the "Ps.W." section. With that I feel a need to repeat that I'm not convinced the statement should be in the article at all. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when is AJ a source? Is this a joke? I'm all for Arab media, but it's supported by the Gulf States, a particularly region of the world that has taken a hard stance against Israel in the war. It's also owned by a muslim monarch, not sure how important that is...but it should means that it's subsidized by the state, like BBC only less conspicuous. If our goal is to be objective, I highly contest going with AJ unless we balance it out. LOL. update: I don't know why everything is bold. Sorry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed that for you, hope you dont mind. Your last : was a ;. Take it up in the RS noticeboard if you want to contest Al-Jazeera being used as a RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Al(l that) Ja(a)z is RS. It is a fact checked, high quality, well respected news outfit, both in English and Arabic. We should be careful with some of the melodrama, and make sure (as we have to with Haaretz or Jerusalem Post and actually any source) to separate reporting from opinion, but it is high-quality RS. I am still waiting for a valid reason not to consider an RS. --Cerejota (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. Don't let Wikifan sidetrack the discussion, which has nothing to do with whether AJ is an RS. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I'm going to let a few 'details' fly(simply because this is not about me), but i will say, that my 'neutrality' is open for debate, as long as yours is also taken into consideration. Next, you said that, IF i wanted to, you could provide the NYT article PLUS other sources as well. You came back with some explanation of why you didn't do what you said you were going to do(am i reading too much into that, perhaps 'interpreting' in the wrong way?). I find it necessary, since you based your argument on what the NYT said or not, that you post, at least, that article in here of at least tells us what you are reading to base your argument. You picked up the evil/good portion of my statement, because you understood it meant connotation with POV, which is what i meant we should avoid. For Israel, the calls are 'intended', AT FACE VALUE, for certain reasons, notice that i never mentioned what those reasons where, OR if they were right or wrong. Where, in this article, can we input, per Israel's intent, that those calls are intend to save lives? WHERE? Even right now, there is nothing that says it is intended as a good will gesture. It is what? A warning anyways, it tells you that you are about to die, UNLESS you leave your house right now, and even then, is not a guaranteed that you'll live for much longer, after all, IT IS A WARZONE. I have no idea, and i doubt you do, what you meant about something i shall ignore.

I'm reading things into the article? Perhaps, because when i read the TITLE of the article, it states psychological warfare will be the subject? "just that some people mistrust them" what do you think, is the object of 'psychological' warfare? confusion, fear, alarmist atmosphere? are those who ACTUALLY trust them, any safer than the ones who don't trust them? Is Israel guarantying the safety of those who heed the calls? This is beyond amusing, where is your neutrality if you don't know about the subject? have you read the Psychological warfare article here in wiki?

Don't bring up the longevity of this "roof knocking" article here in Wikipedia. It could have very well be called "Peter lied to Paul". And since it is mentioned in this article(where else would it be mentioned?) I am discussing it in here. You have a history of ignoring other editor's arguments(you totally blew this one of). You don't understand what psychological warfare is(or perhaps you know better than all of us) and by 'naming' these tactics in one way or another does not mean it can't be 'understood' as psychological warfare.

You want to view it from Israel's POV and at the same time, you don't want anybody else to view from another point of view. You asked for sources, sources were provided that left little doubt that 'they' understood this practice as psychological warfare. You challenged those sources, by saying, that it them, there was no EXPLICIT wording that states the actions were psychological warfare. You don't have no articles that states, the tactics are not psychological warfare(what a fallacy of a thought) just your word that it isn't. The guardian and AP reporter wants to do an article on psychological warfare, and for some reason, not understading that those calls ARE not(per Jalapenos) they include those calls in their articles. They are not authoritative in this matter, so of course they weren't going to lecture on whether it was right to include those calls or not, and subsequently, make an authoritative conclusion in the matter.

"Roof knocking was alleged by one Palestinian advocacy organization to constitute Israeli psychological warfare. Until we have other sources agreeing with the allegation," This was at the beginning of this conversation, now we appear to be here "The articles you provided do not state that roof knocking falls under psychological warfare,". this proves, that more sources are not the answer, and that you are willing to be as stubborn and impede process at will. Cryptonio (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When I read the sources you brought and I argued that they do not say what you claimed they say, you called this "being stubborn and impeding process at will". Can I conclude from here that my responses to your many comments would not interest you and would not facilitate productive collaboration on the article? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood, Untwirl. I never said that we can't reference valid sources. If there are sources that dispute what you (of course I mean the sources you are looking at) are saying than they deserve a place. I already assume I will dispute the weight it is given but we can see how it is worked in until we have that discussion.Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Follow-up: I actually like the way it looks now. I also thing Roof knocking looks fantastic and is well sourced from a quick glance. I understand that some editors might want to add a few lines if they think it is unbalanced so please go for it and we can discuss it if it is done poorly.Cptnono (talk)

Fair enough, Jalapenos. But lets get to work here, we have an article that needs our attention. Right now, 'warnings' is 'sandwiched' between "Air Strikes" and "Ground Invasion" in the Military Campaign Section. Don't you agree that is not its place? Cryptonio (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Warnings" is currently a subsection of "Air strikes". Since the warnings were warnings of impending air strikes, I can't think of any better place for it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to Roof Knocking a few minutes before Cryptonio post. It seemed like the section was only related to roof knocking and roof knocking is only related to air strikes so it made sense. I also thought that it made sense since it only being used as a "warning" in dispute. Please change it if I am incorrect.Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But "warnings" was not part of the operation, which currently, the campaign is in chronological order. "warnings" is more of a 'military' tactic and deserves attention after the campaign itself. Cryptonio (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Under your rationale, the New section of Israel Propaganda and Psychological warfare would be a subsection of "Israeli offensive" since Israel's misleading of Hamas was a propaganda tactic. agreed? Cryptonio (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And the misleading propagandist tactic occurred before the Air strikes or the ground invasion. Cryptonio (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More information on these 'warning calls'...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5416012.ece - ‘Prepare to be bombed’: calls mark the start of psychological campaign in Gaza.

"“It said that if I was hiding weapons or terrorists, my house would be bombed,” Mohammed, 26, a teaching assistant, said. The software engineer, who gained his master’s degree at the University of York, had been trying to leave home for six months to study for a PhD in Turkey, but Israel had denied him permission to leave. Now it was telling him to flee, but there was nowhere to go"

"Such phone calls have become common across the Gaza Strip, in what many see as a new stage in the psychological campaign to destabilise the Hamas-controlled territory. "

"The calls are causing such panic that the Palestinian phone company has issued its own recorded messages telling people to ignore the Israeli threats. "

Israel is not alone in carrying out what the military calls “psy-ops”: Cryptonio (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG educated palestinian imprisoned by the evil zionist! oh nooeessss!!!! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cryptonio, there have definitely been "psy-ops" on both sides. There is actually a really good source not used in the new section (I think it is the NY Times story cited as #152). Unfortunately, the layout of the article is kind of weird now with two sections devoted to it along with the mention under roof knocking (not ONLY psy-ops). Is this a format concern to anyone else and if so what is the best way to fix it? I know that the first mention is currently only regarding Israel's offensive. It just seems weird having the other side's floating randomly in the article. Let me know if I am reading too much into it.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism edits: let's lock the article again please

There has been a big number of anonymous edits that's either vandalism, or just removing well-sourced material without consensus. I'm asking the administrators to consider re-locking the article again. Thoughts? --Darwish (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is too controversial to be unprotectedJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the procedure for requesting a semi-lock? --Darwish (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The most recent vandalism I see is by Jacobgreenbaum. Semi-protecting the article will not help if the disruption is being done by an already auto confirmed user.Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems you're right. I searched the latest 100 edits, and they weren't many. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate. It would have been easier if it was anonymous IPs.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

I think that currently we have some perspective and we could rework Aftermath.

• Conflict violence level dropped significantly since Israel and Hamas cease-fire declarations.
• Incidents started from day one.
• There are almost daily clashes.
• Meanwhile Hamas one week offer expired.
• Egypt brokered indirect Hamas - Israel negation media spins reported from Cairo.

Incidents list is growing and probably it is appropriate to move it into sub-article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Al Jazeera images

A user keeps removing the AJ images because of the logos. I reverted the first time and left a message at User talk:MassimoAr but it happened again so I reverted again. Can someone keep an eye on them so that I can avoid WP:3RR. ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why should we add these images to the article when they have logos of a commercial TV channel? When I first had a look at the article today, I felt I am reading an article at aljazeera.net, not at Wikipedia. The logos are in every part of the article. Images should be removed. MassimoAr (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We add them because they are free images that are verifiable. Nableezy (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But don't you agree the logos should make us make an exception? Again, it's a commercial news channel, and we should not be promoting it via our free, non-profit website. MassimoAr (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, these images are free and released under creative commons, no exceptions need to be made. We are not promoting it by showing the pictures, we are just using the pictures. Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, would you stop reverting if I bring alternative images (with same quality but no logos) and place them instead of the current ones? MassimoAr (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

These images are about casualties, do you have free images about that? The license used means we need to keep the logo on these images, so if you just wanted to remove the logos from these that would be a no-go. Why not display images you would want to use instead here on the talk and we can discuss. But we have gone through a lot of discussion regarding these images, so please do not remove/change them without discussion. Nableezy (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't, of course, find alternatives to all of them, but for example this can replace this (both are dated to 2009-01-12), and this replaces this image, and the rest remains. MassimoAr (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The first example I think the current picture is better, the other one could be replaced with this I would think, but get consensus from other editors before making the changes. But just because a picture is from Al-Jazeera is not reason to remove it, it is in fact reason to keep it. Many have demanded that any pictures that show Palestinian casualties or damage be from a RS (that doesnt seem to apply to pictures of damage in Israel, but that is another matter), so having the images from Al-Jazeera quiets those objections. Trust me, this has been discussed countless times. If you dont want to trust me, and I am generally not trustworthy according to many, feel free to peruse the archives. Nableezy (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MassimoAr, did you read the message I left you ? Have you looked at the Al Jazeera CC repository...specifically the part that says "You are required to leave our logos intact, reference this website and the license itself" ? Do you work for Al Arabiya ? Just kidding on the last one. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy on the image preferences for the 2 examples you gave. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Nableezy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you do work for al-arabiyya, get them to give us some free pictures and we would consider using those ;) Nableezy (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, yes I read your message. I got what you were talking about, but my question was why don't we simply remove the images so we don't have the logos at all? I now understand the need to include them but would still appreciate it if we have them reduced from 6 to at most 4. And yes, I define myself as pro-Al Arabiya and anti-Al Jazeera but this is not the reason why I am here. It is more about the promotion of Al Jazeera in including these images in the article, which I'm strongly opposed to. MassimoAr (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood but it took us a long time to arrive at a semi-stable situation slightly resembling a vague, lukewarm consensus on the images but more like a temporary admin ordered ceasefire in reality. There were casualties amongst editors as a result of the image conflict. Given the rareness of suitable/free/CC images I'm not sure reducing the AJ logo count should be high priority particularly if it compromises the article. Also 4 is a magic number in the bad sense. Why not 5 ? Also, can we include this image 35px somewhere in the article? No reason. 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Sean.hoyland - talk

Vetting RS in article

(Section reproduced from Archive_30, I've been away for a few days)

We've managed to create an article with close to 400 footnotes. With that many references, I'm sure all would agree that some issues are bound to come up with some of them -- misattributions, broken cites, or RS from breaking news source but that is later retracted or repudiated. I'd like to propose that this section be used to point out such instances. If any issue is posted here, and is then undisputed or consensus is reached supporting the post, the RS and/or its related article content will be corrected or removed.

Feel free to add any you find, I'm starting with one here. If your issue is higher-concept than just a reference problem, then please do NOT put it here, put it in its own section or a relevant existing section. I want to keep this section to discussions about simple RS issues. If any ideological arguments start here, they should be cut as outside of scope!

Abbas - collective punishment

• Israel has been accused of collective punishment by ... Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[344] ... The RS doesn't say that Abbas accuses Israel, just that he wants the event looked into. Furthermore, the precipitating event was later repudiated (i.e., no school shelling). I propose removing the ref. This leaves Abbas in the list of accusers as unsupported, so unless we get an alternate ref, he should be removed form the list of accusers in the sentence. Dovid (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If that source isn't clear, replace it with this one: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268573,00.html Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No go, wrong conflict. Your ref is to a 2006 article. Dovid (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This one talking about the blockade:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned Israel's blockade as "collective punishment".
"When you deprive the people of water, electricity, and humanitarian goods, even air, the people must explode, and they live in a besieged strip," Abbas said in a speech in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Jan. 26.
From Al-Arabiyya, Jan 2008 (surely an Arab source is reliable enough to quote an Arab official, right?) Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's in response to the blockade initiate by Egypt and Israel in 2007. Dovid is right, the source doesn't say Israel has been accused of collective punishment by Abbas in relation to the actual fighting against Hamas. However, I'm sure there is a source somewhere that says that because I doubt Abbas would say nothing unless it was a vehicle to piss off Hamas. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You are right about that, I thought this was in relation to the blockade as casus belli for each side. But the countering section it is in appears to be making issues of past international law concerns, or even Israeli views on Hamas in general, such as:"also defines Palestinian attacks as terrorist in nature, because they kill civilians in order to "sow terror" within the broader civilian population. This would violate the Geneva Convention's Laws of Armed Conflict." I think it is fair to include both sides grievances as it relates to international law as to their stated casus belli. Nableezy (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"section it is in appears to be making issues of past international law concerns, " -- then they don't belong in this artcle, do they? Anyway, this discussion is getting out of hand, as I stated at the top of this section, it is meant to point out bad RS that shoudl be removed. So far, I don't have any replacement RS, nor opinions that the RS is good. Heck. I'm still waiting for someone to knock down some other ridiculous RS!Dovid (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Dovid, trust me it gets worse before it gets better. Wait, that's a lie. It never gets better, it will only get worse.

08:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk)

I gave you a RS above, if you dont think it applies because it is talking about the blockade let me know that. Nableezy (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, true, and sort of in line with the paragraph used to cite it, but the only place it could go in this article is in the background. It doesn't show that Abbas is among the list in the paragraph currently.Dovid (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

2many

Can we cut down the references in the opening? We don't need that many sources for Israeli's opening barrage and several other lines that are not really debatable. It looks like editors got a little carried away at the beginning and cited every news agency that mentioned the conflict. Does it hurt anyone's feelings if we keep get rid of some? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I mentioned that once before. Can you provide a specific list of those that should collate and those that should blow? There will probably be some minor arguing about the choices, but we can quickly clear that up.Dovid (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is on some of the statements we run into people demanding to remove it without providing more and more sources. I am down to remove repetitive sources but it is difficult to do that when some demand 10 sources for one statement. Nableezy (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, to start, do any of the following need multiple sources (A simple yes or no since I would like to start with the easy ones and leave any debating out of this simple formatting discussion):

• The campaign's aim was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel and included the targeting of Hamas' members and infrastructure.[22][23][24
• A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[32][33][34]
• Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[35][36][37][38][39]
• The Israeli operation started with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip, carried out by the Israeli Air Force and navy[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
• Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.[62][63][64][65][66] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• International reactions during the conflict have included calls for an immediate ceasefire as in the United Nations .... and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid.[70][71][72][73] (there is a link to an article devoted to it. Are this many sources necessary?Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to do the Israeli Casualties section. Source 322 is used 4 times within a few sentences and there too many other sources. Where is the correct place to put 322 and can any of the others go away?Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just did one that might look controversial but is not. Removed 2 of 9 sources regarding opening bombardment that were primarily related to the protest boats instead. There is already a section with valid sources describing that incident so removed the sources from here. 7 is still too many sources.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just removed several sources regarding weapon stashes being in homes and mosques. Only one remains now due to dead links and unrelated sources. I could see 1 more being necessary if this is debatable. I bet there are a few already in the article in other sections.Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

man on a mission, respect captain. Nableezy (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

but i would say add a note that there are more sources for the statement and not to remove without another reason. Nableezy (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Slowly cutting it down (2% of bytes last night!). Just did three edits not signed in. Please don't revert for suspected vandalism.Cptnono (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone give me advice on to handle the following problem? Events are being mentioned in duplicate and triplicate at times it seems. Noticed this earlier but didn't know how much until looking at the sources (a pretend example would be seeing cite 6 next to cite 500). Besides removing some sources to unbloat the article, do we need to remove any surplus mentions of events? I assume anything in the lead is not acceptable to remove but anything else should be fair game.Cptnono (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Still 401 sources and over 175000 bytes. I am sad.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

primary /secondary sources

I question the use of UN reports, AI reports, etc on the grounds that they are primary sources [7]. My understanding is that they ought to be referenced from a wiki reliable source, but not the direct report. Could be wrong, but those actual "reports" could be placed in the "External References" section. Thoughts please. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" UN and AI reports have been used but are close to the event and are not always neutral. There should be no problems if editors do not cmopletely rely on these sources and follow-up any interpretation with secondary sources.Cptnono (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I question whether or not the UN and these organizations qualify as primary sources, they are reporting based on the information of other primary sources and their own research, much like any newspaper. The IDF, the MoH, any of the government agencies we quote would be primary sources. I also would like to say again that I think the UN, AI and HRW and all these other human rights groups are thoroughly reliable, and indeed neutral. Their reports face some of the highest scrutiny in the world, that they have retracted statements in the past shows that they do concern themselves with reliability. Nableezy (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, I have no idea whether or not they actually are considered primary sources. But we definitely use a primary source if we say what is the source explicitly and that source represents a notable opinion. Statements from such groups are certainly notable. Nableezy (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that IDF and MoH are are also primary sources. Certain departments within the UN and different aid organizations are only focused on the humanitarian issues. Although I would consider them reliable, they are typically one-sided in their analysis. They only focus on victims and write their reports in that tone. I do not fault them for it since it is their job and at the end of the day it is usually for noble causes.Cptnono (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think they are one-sided in their analysis. They just reach a conclusion based on all the evidence available to them. That they are focused on humanitarian issues does not mean that they can't accurately report on those issues. I understand people who claim they are biased, but really every single country in this world has claimed HRW or AI is biased against them, every single one does so when they are the subject of a report on them. To me that adds to their reliability rather than detracting from it. Nableezy (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting answers. @Cptnono, that makes sense to me. Interesting, the idea of accuracy being verifiable by the average educated reader, hmmm. @Nableezy, AI I believe was the group that sent 4 people into Gaza, one of which was a "weapons expert" and then it (AI) reported on the findings of that weapons expert on their website. That makes AI a primary source -- and means we need a newspaper which makes the claim "AI accuses Israel of using wp against civilians" since that information comes from a primary source and "cannot be verified by a reasonable educated person without specialist knowledge". Thus without a secondary source, this should be left out based on above wiki policy. Regarding IDF and MoH, those are primary sources but they are the subject of this article, for their statistics (like their opinions) are both included. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say AI would be a primary source if they had either fired the weapon or been fired at with the weapon. They relied on the expertise of a weapons expert to determine what happened, just as any other secondary source would do. Newspapers send reporters out into the field all the time, that does not make them primary sources. And a primary source can be used without having been quoted in a secondary source if we directly and explicitly cite it to them. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that AI has accused Israel of using WP against civilians is completely verifiable, whether or not Israel did use the weapon against civilians is not (at least currently). I think you are misunderstanding what the limitations on primary sources are. We can report a primary sources views, which I am not sure AI is one, as the views of that source without a secondary source reporting it as well. I would think the reasoning given here would be as applicable to AI as it was to HRW. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

TB, I agree, use of primary sources should be contingent upon them being supported by secondary sources. Use of IDF, PMoF, AI, HRW, and ICRC figures and opinions is clearly supported by the secondary sources in existence in the article, and by a trivial perusal of web-available news items on the war. Perhaps editors should add the references that supports the use to the appropriate line to ensure proper verification. No need to remove, the sources are there.

On the issue of verifiability, lets be careful what we are verifying. Opinions of international human rights organizations are just opinions, but relevant, encyclopedic, and notable opinions are important to provide a comprehensive view of the war. Ignoring them would be like ignoring the IDF's view. If we include a sentence that says "Israel used WP as an offensive weapon", and only verify it with AI, well, thats iffy. But if we say "AI is concerned about offensive use of WP", thats encyclopedic. Of course, we should give it due weight, and include direct counterclaims if needed, form sources as euqaly or more relevant and notable as the one being critized.

And yes, wikipedia not only assumes good faith, but also assumes intelligent - if unknowing about the topic - readers.--Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Stating "so&so claims" is much different than stating the claim then citing the claimant's source. Also, it really comes down to neutral writing for me. These are great agencies but they are looking for one thing and one thing only. Therefore it is easy to lead the reader when using their claims. It has a place but needs to be properly balanced. And agreed, their opinions are valid and backed by facts. Unfortunately, their interpretation/commentary of the facts may not be neutral.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any claims by AI or HRW or such organizations that are presented as fact? besides population density, and you cant blame me on that I tried Nableezy (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing, we should be careful when stating that there is a controversy on principles, when there isn't one. We all can agree that water makes you wet...--Cerejota (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Their claims have been presented as fact on the talk page and we need to keep that from happening in the article.Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I haven't seen a single instance of anything reported by AI, ICRC or HRW reported as a fact in the article. It has always been "According to X, ...". If you found any, just add an attribution statement. I think you're warning about a non-existent situation, unless I'm mistaken. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was agreeing with the editor that started this discussion section then other editors decided they wanted to argue it. I'll drop it for now and fix it as I see it.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This talk page has never been a bed of roses for anyone ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Was editing while you were. I was trying to clarify that it wasn't mean arguing, just discussion against from Nab.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here are my concerns. Now I am not saying that these sources are not "reliable" but that they are "primary" and that we should be using "secondary" sources, as I understand it. I could be wrong and I look to be educated, but here would be a list of (footnote) sources that I am not sure we should be using here:

• Footnote numbers: 8, 145, 146, 147, 257,261,264,287,290,306,323,327,328, 365,375 referencing:

OCHA oPt ("United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory")

376. AI

374. ICRC

347. HRW

353. UN Human Rights Council

80. Human Rights Watch

82. World Health Organisation

96."Official Statistics About the lull Zionist Violations From the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Information Office" {arabic} Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Information Office. 2008-12-18.

128 Peoples Health Movement?

68. an article presumably written by "Khan Younis"

Ok the last was just a mistake by someone. I'd fix it but I am not permitted to edit the article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Now in reference to footnote 128: it references the casualty count of Dec 27th. There are already 2 other references. This one isn't needed, and is blatantly biased. Among other things it accuses Israel of being "morally reprehensible." Israel may or may not be, but this is not a neutral source and should be dumped. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, if we explicitly cite the material to the organization we can use the primary source. We cannot make any commentary on the material that a secondary source has not made. But we can say what an organization has said if explicitly cite it to that organization using a primary source. And again, I would point you to this discussion where this very topic was discussed as relates to HRW. We can use their reports and say that they are their reports. There is nothing in any policy that says we cannot. Nableezy (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, Can you point to a single Wikipedia policy that says you can not say "Izz el Din el kassam, military wing of Hamas reported 128 violations of the truce" and then cite a report by Izz el Din el kassam that says "128 violation of the truce is reported below: ".? --Darwish07 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't actually see the edit... you are right, if we can cite the IDF we can cite the "military wing" of Hamas, as long as it is cited to them. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to a single wiki policy that says we can not use the UN reports, the most neutral reports available? --Darwish07 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at this [8] as well as this note [9]. Maybe I am not interpreting it correctly but it seems to me that this source is clearly a primary one. And in fact the article relies a LOT on this one source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The OCHA source -- I count references to their reports at least 28 times. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And? OCHA is not one of the involved parties here, how are they even a primary source? They are a bystander, an observer, one that reports on the actions of others. And even then, how many of those 28 times do not make clear that it is from OCHA? Nableezy (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I am pointing to with the concept of "primary sources." Wouldn't a UN report be a primary source? Those UN reports claim to come from "The occupied Palestinian territory" as well, which is interesting. I am not saying they are not reliable, just that they are primary. Does any other source quote from them? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

'Occupied Palestinian Territories' is standard terminology for Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is true for nearly the entire world. Nearly every government that I can think of, including most surprisingly the US in the CIA Factbook, calls Gaza occupied territory. I personally do not think it is a primary source, I think they meet the requirements of RS, and I think that can be proven through the same means of the HRW RS/N discussion I posted a while back, and I further think they are a secondary source, though I may very well be wrong on that. But that is irrelevant, we are allowed to use primary sources to reflect the views of that source. If you have a part of the article were we use the source to make a statement of fact, bring that up. But we can use these sources to reflect their own views. Nableezy (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is great. I have been going through sources the last couple of days and this is related. "128: it references the casualty count of Dec 27th. There are already 2 other references. This one isn't needed," I would like to get rid of this one since it is already properly sourced not because it is a "primary" source. Does this one edit hurt anyone's feelings? (Obviousley hesitant on this one without discussion) Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you dont mind, split your comment, but I would be cool with removing that source. The UN ones and the like I think needs more discussion before removing those though. Nableezy (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Darwish07, it is clear when looking at their websites that the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory are only looking for human suffering in the occupied territory. They are reliable but don't explain the complete story since they are focused on their primary objective. Maybe this has come up on Wikipedia before and maybe it hasn't. All I know is that we need to be cautious when using them as a source.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are primarily looking for human suffering, that is what Coordination Humanitarian Affairs is, what else could it be. But that does not mean they are biased in their coverage of this aspect. We cant use just this office for everything, but when talking about 'human suffering' or humanitarian issues I cannot think of a better source. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So using your terminology, the World Health Organization is "biased" causes its "primary focus" is peoples health, thus not explaining "the complete story"? Come on. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here I quote and embolden what I would consider the relevant passages in wiki:

Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

Note 7 Definitions of primary sources:

The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.

The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."

It is certainly possible that each of these references are used with care, and not interpreted without a secondary backup, according to policy. I would have to investigate further. But I will say that the OCHA references are cited almost 30 times, thus could be seen as failing this part of the policy "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, even assuming that the UN reports are primary (which are not), you're misunderstanding the limitation of citing primary sources. From the policies:"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". This means like going to the bible article and add some passages from it without a reference that did so; just citing the bible itself. Let's assume this particular passage puts the bible on very bad light or very good light, then we've done primary source interpretation; we've imposed our view of the bible by choosing this single sentence of it without a reference doing so. But when citing an incident from the UN report (say the farmer killed on 18 Jan.), are we interpreting the UN report in anyway?? Are we trying to draw new conclusions about the UN from the UN report?? If the CNN said "the UN reported that on 18 Jan., a farmer was killed", did they interpret the data in anyway new way? No, cause there's absolutely no room for any interpretation from such reports. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact that's a very good example. If CNN says "the UN reported" that is acceptable (secondary source), but when we at wiki assert that the the man was a farmer, based on what the UN reported, we are interpreting from a primary source. The idea that this person was a "farmer" as opposed to a "militant" cannot be verified by the average person as noted in wiki policy. Thus we quote CNN, and leave the primary sources for an external reference not in the foots as a source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See that is the thing about them not being primary sources. These reports are relying on primary sources, it is providing interpretation about those primary sources, as a secondary source does. Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also by your deduction method, Al Jazeera is a primary source cause; it had a team of reporters that was inside Gaza itself during the whole war. So does the AFP; they are the ones that took the most pictures we see in news agencies, and Reuters cause it have two reporters in Gaza, and ... .. You see? --Darwish07 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because we don't agree doesn't mean my argument is wrong. Sorry, Darwish, that is not the way the world works. Obviously it doesn't mean I am certainly right but I think an unbiased person can see that certain organizations are biased towards one point of view regardless of their attempt to do the right thing or how notable they are. Regardless, neither of us will yeild on this one so it can be dropped unless others feel like chiming in. Even then I doubt there will be a change.

This has also devolved into a weird argument about the policy itself. The policy is being warped in an attempt to win a debate which is not productive. It is really simple, editors disagree on the prevalence of a few sources in this article. Most importantly it should be pretty easy to fix by replacing them with other sources when possible and not adding them to lines which already have more than one source. Does anyone have concerns with that?Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, and Darwish should probably unwind a lil bit, I have my own help for that tho. I think you have a valid point, but I see it as these organization being biased against health issues (WHO) or humanitarian crises (OCHA), that doesnt equate to being biased against Israel to me. But I do agree the policy is being twisted around to win an argument, and also agree that on many of these problems a solution to remove any objections is easy to find. But I think you will agree that we can use these sources, even if they are primary sources, with an explicit reference to the organization providing them. You said earlier that their views have been presented as fact on the talk and we have to make sure that they are not in the article, I am perfectly cool with that sentiment. But to say we cannot use them at all is a tad unreasonable, isnt it? Nableezy (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We all agree that we have to add attribution, and I understand your concerns Cptnono. Just an exception, when the UN says a "farmer was killed", no need to say According to the UN; the UN acts as a perfect WP:RS here just like AFP, DPA or others, and can be cited without attribution. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

May I also add that I'm sorry if I've been needlessly unfriendly in the discussion above. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. And agreed. I don't think it is necessary to say "The UN says..." when it isn't an arguable incident. The orgs mentioned are going to be used sometimes and I think that is completely OK.Cptnono (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

moar tag lameness

Some one put the {{POV}} tag. This is redundant with the {{activediscuss}} tag already in place, which includes POV as the first point of discussion. Placing this tag without regards of things like existing tags is a typical troll move. Don't be one. --Cerejota (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I put the tag there. I think the neutrality is disputed is far more reflective and accurate then: This article is currently being developed or reviewed. Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, unverified, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes

Neutrality is disputed is far more descriptive for what's going on (check the talk, virtually everything is argument). I don't necessarily think it's redundant...it's just simply less descripitive. Similar articles such as Israel and the apartheid analogy and al-durrah have the neutral tag, not the rather tame and weak "active discussion." Now, if things were getting done and disputes were edging towards solution, then I would say ok with the current tag, but from what I can tell it's going to be along time before that happens so the neutral tag should stay. That's my opinion, please don't call me racist for it. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't called you a racist, nor has anyone here: so show diffs or I'll get you a waaaambulance ;).

That said, we can remove {{activediscuss}} and then put five or so tags, which would then probably would have to be grouped under {{article issues}}, which would indeed be less succint than {{activediscuss}}.

You see my point? If the only thing disputed things were the neutrality issues, as is the case with Israel and the apartheid analogy, that would be different, but there are multiple issues. And yes, we are having an active discussion, which is different from the paralysis induced by POV-pushing perma-tagging of Israel and the apartheid analogy - were the existence of the article is questioned in neutrality grounds (I think it is the only case in all of wikipedia - and probably the record holder in survived AfDs, to the point that it can't be deleted).

As to the appreciation of the tag as "tame and weak" such militant views are probably part of why things are not "getting done and disputes were edging towards solution". If one poisons the well, sure as hell the horses will die: so part of the solution is actually de-escalating and using "tame and weak" descriptors for our differences. A small gesture never hurt, but goes a long way towards a solution. After all, if what we want is an NPOV encyclopedic article, why the need for drama? Is not like we are fighting the war here. Are we? --Cerejota (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to poison the well. I want a NPOV of view article, but that's not what it is. The article is extremely neutral-challenged as demonstrated by this paralyzing talk. I'm sure it might offend those who don't think this article is POV-pushed, so naturally that might lead to more conflict....but then the problem is obviously something more sinister. Point is, not calling the article for what it truly is for fear of reprisal is rather weird don't you think? Also, I wasn't meaning you called me racist...I was referring to others who might come into the discussion. Sorry for the confusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

notice on source fixing

I am doing a bunch of Wikifairy/Wikignome fixups of the refs tags:

1. Fix to be well formed - a bunch of references are in clear misuse of the "ref" tags.
2. Fix errors
3. I will ignore semi-well-formed
4. I will not remove anything, even if I disagree with it - likewise, my edits should not be interpreted as supporting or opposing inclusion in future debates.
5. This means I will probably be doing dozens of edits. Please understand that these do not fall under WP:3RR. If you feel they do, say so before taking offensive action, but understand that my interest is to fix technical problems, not content.

I hope this will keep things less dramatic. :D As always feel free to leave a message here or my talk if you feel one of my edits was bad.--Cerejota (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I did do one edit of substance: changed "Palutube: Hamas video site" to "Palutube: pro-Palestinian video site" - the site doesn't claim to belong to Hamas. Nice one, dawgs, nice one...--Cerejota (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

From the New York Daily News: "Hamas, meanwhile, unveiled its own YouTube knockoff called Palutube.com..." Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we add the AlJazeera Creative Commons Repository instead? They're way more professional. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be hestitant before including sources by advocates of the sides, as opposed to sources by the sides themselves. I brought a reference above showing that palutube is a Hamas site, but if it isn't it shouldn't be here right now. The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be here, but every time I checked, their site was down. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it (palutube). It's a propagandistic website with no content and amateurish language. --Darwish (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's the only Hamas source we have, and Hamas was one of the sides in the conflict. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I assure you that I've searched every part in the website and I haven't seen a single word that mentions Hamas. All Hamas official websites, which I'm familiar of, have the Hamas logos clear, like Izz el Din el kassam website and its official reports. But this one (palutube), has nothing. Really, not even a single Hamas word in the "about us" section. --Darwish (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

May I also add that the videos there are not by the website themselves. This is just a video sharing website where users upload some random videos here and there. Arabic is my native language, trust me. --Darwish (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I trust you. This is all very intriguing. I found two more RS references: Haaretz says the site was "set up" by Hamas, and Christian Science Monitor just says it was launched by "the Palestinians" in the context of an article on cyber-warfare in the conflict. I think that if the site was set up by a party in the conflict in order to present that party's perspective, it should be in the list, even if the content was uploaded by independents. I'm curious though: the Haaretz article says it shows videos dissing Fatah, which would indicate a Hamas source. Have you found any videos like that, or any other videos on the site that seem to have been made by Hamas? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are those kind of silly videos showing Abbas "with an affair" to Condollessa Rice and with weddings Arabic music running in the background and so on. There's no serious stuff and the pattern of silliness spreads to most of the other videos as well. --Darwish (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that would certainly indicate a connection to Hamas, as Haaretz and NY Daily News claim. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the connection, Fatah isn't really liked in the Arab world anyway and is usually viewed as betrayers, so its normal to have this kind of silly videos around. Especially to the kind of people who usually use websites such as palutube, they believe those secular governments must be made fun of and attacked day and night. --Darwish (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, is this somewhere in the article IDF youtube. I think it would pair nicely with any AJ/Hamas propaganda video site. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been in the article from the start.--Cerejota (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Incdidents during ceasefire

I've not hidden my disdain for the Incidents section in general but never realzed how ridiculous the Incdidents during ceasefire has become. It is a list of every rocket fired or bomb dropped. We don't need to check google news alerts every morning for yet another incident in an attempt to convince others who the bad guys are. Can we shorten this signifigantly? A paragraph about both sides keping it up at times should do the trick. If all this is notable we could could also split it off into another already creatd sub article. I propose losing the almost-a-list format and shrinking it down. Would like to hear any suggestions on the best way or objections.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

agree Nableezy (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. Just take care for undue weight. I propose this intro:

Violent incidents continue to undermine the cease-fire which was unilaterally implemented by Israel on 18 January, and later the same day by Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

And then adding small summarization of the incidents. Things like:

Following an incident in South Gaza when an Israeli patrol was attacked and a farmer killed, all Gaza crossings were shut down.

And so on... --Darwish (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. In regards to the summaries, are there any that are not notable enough to include (a rocket launched but there were no injuries, for example) or is there a way to group them into paragraphs with a common theme so each is not listed individually?Cptnono (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess maybe try to find reports from news agencies that sum the situation by themselves, instead of listing what happened incident by incident, thus saving some of your summarization efforts (which, from experience, may not be as easy as it seems). --Darwish (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In many cases, like today Khan Younis incident, IDF spokesman releases names of claimed militants and organization they belong to. We could cross reference this data with reliable sources' reports. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is laid out perfectly in the topic above: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Aftermath Maybe it would be best to just state that their are ongoing conflicts without going into much detail. I really don't even mind if we keep in that Israel broke it first and closed the border at times since that an be seen as pretty notable.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we need to think in historical mode and conflict is on going. I guess my point is unverified banner is still attached to this article and if details are published by Wikipedia details should be verified. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Something like this would make me happy in the ceasefire section while the ceasefire incidents section is removed.:

A Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khan Younis following the Israeli declared cease-fire. It is believed the fatality is the first one on either side since the cease-fire went in effect.[261]

"Tit-for-tat" attacks continued from both sides causing damage along with casualties to combatants and civilians. This prevented the borer from opening.[268]" Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns. I'm pretty satisfied with proposed wording. Couple of points for improvement:

• Jan 18 morning "Hamas vow to fight on" reaction "in an area where militants had fired mortar bombs in defiance of a unilateral Israeli cease-fire" should be mentioned as events context, describing this particular incident.
• Combatant vs. Civilian could not be verified so I'd leave "farmer" out. Though B'Tselem talked to his brother.
• "First" is not a part of NPOV lingo. Thus also should not be included.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My edit looked inline with the wording originally in place but I see what you are saying in regards to the Reuters link. We could reduce down to just "limited attacks continued from both sides" but that would cause concern to other editors I assume. Can you rework the wording that I proposed with your suggestions and then we can go from there?Cptnono (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If AgadaUrbanit does not have the chance to do it over the next day or so I'm going to blow out the section. It will be a short paragraph under the Ceasefire section. Olease let me know if there is anything you really really want, if it should be spun off into its own article (it will still just be a list of headlines there), or if you hate this proposal.Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I removed the sentence "As a result of the bombings, 4,000 Gazan buildings were razed and 20,000 severely damaged" from the lead for several reasons, the most important being that its source made no mention of these facts. Other reasons include language (what is the difference between razed and severely damaged, and the word razed is vague and angry) and it was already mentioned that buildings were targeted earlier in the lead. If anyone objects, feel free to re-add, but make sure wording is neutral, it is not a repeat of things already said, and that its properly sourced.Kinetochore (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you make the wording of a fact neutral? This is a recurring theme in this article - people seem to think that any fact that puts Israel in a bad light is biased and should be removed.

I object to your accusation. I absolutely am not saying that we remove things that put Israel in a bad light, nor is this the reason why I originally removed the statement (see above). I agree that neutral may not have been the correct word for this situation, but I am concerned with the inappropriate use of words to convey and perhaps misrepresent facts (i.e. with the use of excessive and vague words such as 'razed').Kinetochore (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I disagree with your removal of this sentence, because even if that source is not correct, that information was sourced. Perhaps someone accidentally removed the source. Therefore you should just put a citation needed tag - and why don't you try to find a reference yourself?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source which backs up the claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7836869.stm Could you please reinstate the sentence with this new reference added? ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have readded a sentence to this effect, but replaced the word 'razed' with the word the BBC actually uses, which was 'ruined'. Please let me know if there are further issues. Kinetochore (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

that's fineJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents: IDF to doctor: Mistakes happen

Performed following edit according to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3666897,00.html See edit diff http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=268654304&oldid=268654166 AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is from Israeli foreign affairs.[10] They say the soldiers believed there were spotters (they were taking mortar and sniper fire) in the doctors house and so it was targeted directly. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that also, casts serious doubt on the reliable sources that had reported Qassam shrapnel in the three sisters' bodies. RomaC (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was also suspicus about that. After the questioning of WHO and HRW abow maby this source should get a closer look if it is RS. You got the link to the article? Brunte (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the following line yesterday as the news broke: "An IDF report claimed a tank had fired two shells at suspected militants in the upper level of the doctor's home.[249]" There seems to be a little bit of redundancy with the recent addition but it should be easy to fix. I am still for axing this section completely but if it is in it should at least be up to date.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you use 'claimed"? Its a report, isnt it? Brunte (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this. You use words not in the sorce! Is this an attempt to povedit and falsly claim militants was in the house? Dont falsify the article! Brunte (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be better if editors assumed good faith and did not yell with bold text and exclamation marks. If for example you see "claimed" simply change it to "said" and then post here about what you did. RomaC (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Militants, what militants?. 'Suspected' in the upper level of the doctor's home is bad enough argumentation to destroy a house with civilians. Cptnono:s editing itself is bad as a few lines below IDF is alreadw reportedly admiting the shelling and blameing someting else. I react on POVediting. Brunte (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop overreacting. Israel said there were spotters there. If you want me to use that exact wording fine.Cptnono (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel claimed. Any dead "spotters" reported? Let me guess. Who usually use their house upper levels? Brunte (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your tone, POV, and overreacting over a few different topics on this page are frustrating. Please feel feel to edit anything I put in but any conversation between us will be counterproductive. Feel feel to get the last word in but after that I consider any discussion over and no longer wish to engage in anything further with you.Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's try not to be personal here. Let's discuss facts. It's clear that IDF performed investigation and admitted its mistakes. No army in the world would take incoming fire and not respond to threat just letting its soldiers to die. Saying that the IDF response was clearly problematic. One mother of wounded Israeli soldier treated in the same hospital got hysteric witnessing the doctor press conference in Tel HaShomer (Sheba) hospital. She demanded that the hospital would not give "Anti-Israeli platform" to the doctor during war time. Next day both of them met again, she apologized and expressed regret about doctor's unthinkable loss, and they had much more relaxed conversation. She mentioned that 4 IDF soldiers were killed by friendly fire and said that during war mistakes unfortunately happen. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit this is very touching - and am a born cynic. A father and a mother joined only in their respective unthinkable pain, being able to converse as civilized people. That should be an example for all of us. War is hell, man.--Cerejota (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I still hate this Incident section and only wanted it updated so it would have the correct info. We can get rid of it all together or should move it to a more appropriate section as far as I'm concerned.Cptnono (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This incident got enormous traction in Israeli public discussion. People were hearing and seeing doctors reports in media. Once tank was moved away from doctors house according to his request routed via reporters to IDF. He was requested to evacuate his family from active war zone number of times. I have no problem on its inclusion as long as its description reflects reality. Do you see what I mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the info being in the article somewhere. I have been requesting the whole section be removed but the content should stay somewhere if it is notable. I was able to integrate 3 of the incidents into other sections of the article where they were already mentioned and belonged but I don't know the best place for the remaining bullet points. The "Incident" title seems off, it is kind of a list, and it doesn't fit into the article well. I originally was against the Dr. incident being included a week ago but other editors expressed that they considered it notable.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

English is not my native tongue, but I got an impression that definition of Incident is disputed and investigated. Is not it so? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an occurrence, happening, event etc. The literal definition places it as being dependent something else of greater importance. The concern is that it has turned into "Bad Things By Israel". We can't list every event and we certainly haven't attempted to list negative stuff Hamas has done in the section. A previous discussion was archived where it went into greater detail.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents sections looks to me like allegation against Israel and it's important that we reflect Israel and international community, like UN for instance, position on it. Let the reader decide. Maybe we should find better NPOV name for this section if you say its ambiguous. I'm open for suggestions. The reality is that you just need to click Hamas wiki link to know its military strategy. It's not big secret and also all over this article. Still sometimes I also feel that there is false symmetry between Hamas and Israel regarding international law and military strategy in this article. We definitely need to improve it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You worded it pretty well there and I see what you are getting at. Overall, the few incidents remaining should be able to fit somewhere else still. I am pretty sure that there is consensus that the content is notable enough (maybe not I'm not sure) but changing the title of the section doesn't fix the integration into the article concern I think I am more concerned with the format than content for these few bits of info at this point.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Incidents" in MILHIST are significant events within a conflict/battle/war. The asymmetrical, offensive (in the MILHIST sense), nature of the war means that all incidents are a result of Israeli operations - but this can only be construed as a list of "Bad Things By Israel" if we do not word it in an NPOV voice. Of all people, Tundrabuggy has been pretty consistent in realizing and doing this, for the most part uncontroversially - removing weasel words, verifying what the sources say, etc. There is no doubt that the "Incidents" need work, but they happened, have sub-articles, and are considered notable by RS. We do not choose to include them in an arbitrary, POV fashion, but based on what the RS said. Be aware that I am also on the look out for bias against Israel, because antisemitism is a real thing - however usually the most egregious crap gets edited before I get to it, but not always as is the case with "Antisemitic incidents", which is not a list of "Bad Things By Anti-Israelis", but instances of true antisemitism resulting of this war - above and beyond the usual run-of-the-mill background noise of antisemitism. I think we should be able to handle cringe worthy material that is not positive to our views but are clearly relevant.--Cerejota (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are my some of concerns about this section, which I don't think is written with a neutral point of view: "...he had just lost three daughters and a niece (1)in the fighting, (2)prompting numerous calls of concern to the station from people who know him. Two (3)surviving daughters were transported for treatment of their wounds to Tel Ha-Shomer Hospital in Tel Aviv. The Israeli army's investigation, (4)approved by Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi ..." (1) This seems euphemistic, wasn't it the shelling of their home that killed the girls? (2) We don't cover any other responses to any other incidents, so focusing only on a sympathetic response by Israelis shows a bias. (3) We don't say where other injured people were taken, so so focusing only on a humanitarian response by Israelis shows a bias. (4) Is this detail required? For consideration. RomaC (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, I never tried to hide my flag under false NPOV. Still I respect Wikipedia rules. I made some mistakes in the past and would like to apologize again for femicide joke, I agree it was not appropriate and could be understood as such. It was not my intention. I'd like to update you that my wife and my daughter are still alive despite the fact of me being dangerously and systematically near them. I hope you know how to forget and forgive. I respect your opinion and edit skills.

To the point of your argument. Everybody in Israel knows the doctor and where he lived from his almost daily interviews in the media. Once I heard him talking, as doctor, about "curing" the situation on the ground. Nobody denies that IDF forces were taking incoming fire from immediate vicinity of the doctors house. IDF released names of targeted Hamas fighters in more then one case during this conflict. The doctor was requested number of times to evacuate his family from active war zone. As soon as doctors house was hit he was evacuated into Israel and treated in the same hospital Israeli soldiers are treated. Tel HaShomer (Sheba) is same type of institution as Shifa, only location is different. Mistakes do happen during war. War is ugly see Walz with Bashir, for instance. Did Hamas knew about the doctor house GPS coordinates? No army in the world would take incoming fire and not respond to threat just letting its soldiers to die. Still I fully agree that IDF response was questionable at least. I propose to add all information available in NPOV way and let the reader decide.

I'm open for your suggestions and welcome them into discussion. Do you want to propose alternative wording? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Realistically, is this one instance even worthy of being in the article? Forget the wording and forget the sources, was this so notable that it deserves inclusion here with all of the other issues that are actually important to the conflict? In my continued attempt to kill the "Incident" section I must ask: does this deserve a place in this article?Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, could you verify for us that indeed the IDF asked the doctor to move his family from the 'active war zone'? could you also please, verify that the Israeli army came under fire from the vicinity of the doctor's house? thanks... Cryptonio (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, antagonism in your voice? Peace man. No such argument from my side. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, news reports and the IDF report mentioned what was thought to be spotters on the upper floor and fire from an adjacent house. I think both are in the sources if you want to double check. I think that is all of the verification required for the line referencing the claim. The rebuttal afterward is fine too. We could still remove it all together if it isn't notable enough.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i'm disappointed in you Agada, aren't you the 'verification' guru? Shall I remind you of your constant pleading about verification of this kind? you know the one where you ask for verification on something that IS included in the article itself? spotters? that was not my request...re-read please. Agada, you of the high standards of encyclopedic value material, shall we take Israel's word? should we believe their investigation? Truth, you've been asking for it all of this time, can we find verification that INDEED the IDF received fire from the vicinity of the doctor's house? what about the call? even if the investigation came from a 'reliable' source, does it mean we should just post information of that nature, without verification? should we take Israel's word on this matter? call records? Palestinians themselves stating they've heard fire from the vicinity? spotters? they turned out to be girls. Agada, my friend? in this matter we have an Official IDF response, what should we do with it? is it our burden then, to find out if the investigation was a farce, in order to remove Israel's response? We should make a note, that Israel's claim cannot, for obvious reasons, be verified. Agreed? Cryptonio (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"During the counter-fire opened by the IDF forces, suspicious figures were identified in the upper level of Dr. Abu El-Eish's house and were thought to be spotters who directed the Hamas sniper and mortar fire." Actual section of the Israeli report as reported by CNN(http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/04/gaza.idf/) They say they 'thought' were spotters. Fair enough, plus there is no additional information if in fact there were spotters. If there were, they probably left before the Israeli attack right? of course, Hamas would do something like that, specially knowing who the girls were. SO the spotters weren't found in the rubble, only the girls were. Fair enough.

"The probe also showed that troops spotted figures at the top floors of the building helping to direct Palestinian fire at Golani forces". Quote from the YNET article.(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3666897,00.html). SO, in the actual report, they 'thought', they were 'believed' to be spotters, but in here, the IDF KNEW they were spotters. Were those spotters found in the rubble? no, they ran before the Israeli attack. Well how long did it take those missiles or whatever reach the target? About 5 minutes. And during those 5 minutes the actual spotters left, leaving only the girls there? Yup. Couldn't the girls have left too? No. Hamas members told them to stay there, and in fact tide them down as well. SO, Hamas members in the doctor's house, had enough time to tide those girls up, and then run, even though the group of fighters they were helping were already targeted? Why didn't they leave the doctor's house right after the adjacent house was targeted? Well, they thought they had not been spotted, so they stayed, long enough to tide down the girls and then leave right before the Israeli shells reached the doctor's house. They could have also been killed, and their bodies recovered and retreat by other Hamas members. Were there any other blood found in the rubble besides the girls? We can't confirmed that. But is very much possible. Cryptonio (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep this section from being archived and to remind people: Is this guy even notable enough for a section in the main article? We chat about the best way to put it in the article but should it even be here anyways?Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I support moving the doctor incident into the Incidents article. Current wording looks "leading" and POV. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it some time than go for it unless there are any objections.Cptnono (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Objection here. It is revelant and belongs where it is. That a Palestinian doctor, calls in a TV program, and cries his heart out because of this tragedy? IN ISRAEL?...perhaps we should add that many Israelis called in and showed their concerns to the doctor. Cp, thanks for not taking action in this issue, i know i was silince when you asked about revelancy, but i'm glad you understood the silence as not being in agreement with you. Cryptonio (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it is a hot issue so didn't want to rock the boat to hard on this one. I think it is an amazing story but question if it is notable enough for this article. I would like to get rid of it or move it to another article but if someone can work it into another section of the article I would have much less of a concern.Cptnono (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway incident mentioning needs to be balanced. Currently it is hard to understand how IDF managed to evacuate the doctors family into Israel, IDF does not even know where doctor house is located. :) In addition "pamphlets with Israeli warnings" are just part of Zionist propaganda. Sorry for rocking the boat. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be balanced it needs to be removed (not necessarily the content just the section). In the perfect world we will find proper places for the events. I just really hate the formatting. And to continue rocking the boat, the Zionists might have their propaganda but the Palestinians have bleeding heart liberals to fight for them. It will be an epic media battle :) Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This incident was not added to the Incident article before being deleted. Am I right? Cryptonio (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was already. I just copied the text from the history to insert in there but it looks like you already caught it. Good looking out.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)