Talk:Al-Fakhura school shelling

article title
It's most likely that some people will judge al-Fakhura school massacre to be a POV title. Let's see.

wiktionary:massacre says "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people."

There does not seem to be a dispute about the killing being intentional. The UNRWA had given GPS coordinates of its schools to the IDF, and the IDF initially claimed that mortars had been fired from the school. This seems to say that the IDF agrees that it deliberately fired shells at the school.

Was the killing "under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people"? Is killing people in a school who are sheltering from the conflict "atrocious or cruel"? That's probably subjective, even if it's common sense to most people. The third or condition is potentially more objective. Probably the closest thing to codifying "the usages of civilized people" is public international law such as the Geneva Conventions, which clearly protects civilians, especially those who deliberately try to get out of the way of the security forces fighting each other. However, the case has not yet been tried in an international court, so WP:NPOV would probably be used to say that the civilized or uncivilized nature of the attack is not a fact, it's two versions of a fact by different reliable sources. Does someone have an Israeli (or other) source claiming, after the admittance that no mortars had been fired from the building (see ref in article), that the attack was legal?

Also, there's the question of whether or not the term "al-Fakhura school massacre" (with the various roman spellings such as al-Fakhura, al-Fakhoura, Fakhura, Fakhoura and maybe others) is the term widely used in the world about the event.

In any case, i suggest we try to have a civilised method of choosing a new title once there are enough people interested in working on the article in order to discuss a title change. Depending on whether you have a good suggestion of a title or if you think a discussion should start while looking for a good candidate, then use Template:Move or Template:Moveoptions. Boud (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Independent uses the term "massacre" in its title. Boud (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Princeton Univ. defines massacre as to "kill a large number of people indiscriminately". I think this fits that description. Keep the title. There is nothing that's not neutral about calling something what it is. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have an online reference? Boud (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amassacre&meta=&rlz=1I7GGLL_en    Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tkalisky changed the title from al-Fakhura school massacre to al-Fakhura school strike without participating in the discussion here on the talk page. S/he commented: "(moved Al-Fakhura school massacre to Al-Fakhura school strike: According to Israel Hamas militants were firing on IDF soldiers from near the school. Strike part of fighting and not "Deliberately killing unarmed civilians".)"

i don't really follow the argument. Being "part of fighting" is not an argument against the killing being deliberate, and it is not an argument against the victims being unarmed civilians. A massacre can be one incident as part of a larger war.

The IDF only seems to argue that the killing was justified, i.e. that it was justified to kill 42 people in order to kill 2 Gazan troops allegedly present "within" or near(?) the school. We could say that this invalidates the third or condition in the wiktionary definition above, since they claim that killing 42 people is justified in order to kill two Gazan troops, i.e. that killing 42 people in order to kill 2 is "consistent with the usages of civilized people".

However, the IDF doesn't argue (in any of the statements we have included so far, it seems to me) that the killing was accidental, only that it was a civilised killing, making it not a massacre. Is that what you're trying to say, that the IDF claims that this was a civilised killing? Boud (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No my friend, just that according to the Israeli viewpoint the killing of civilians was unintentional, as part of a battle between the IDF and Hamas militants hiding among them (or in their vicinity). Best Tkalisky (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename options
Al-Fakhura school strike is a ridiculous title. If people won't accept "massacre" (despite what most of the world thinks about it), then I propose we use the bland and inoffensive term "incident".

So what do people think of Al-Fakhura school incident?  T i a m u t talk 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead an changed it because the "strike" thing is really offensive and POV. Is the Israeli government claiming that the school was an intended military target? Because that's what "strike" implies. Most of the world is calling this a "massacre" and refers to the school as UNRWA school. Anyway, if people want to explore other options, we still can. I just thought that "incident" would offend no one, and decided to be bold.  T i a m u t talk 12:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We should think about moving the article to "Al-Fakhura school attack". I think attack conveys what occurred without being controversial. The use of incident is ridiculous and can mean anything from a fistfight to something as trivial as someone wetting his bed. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, what do people think about Al-Fakhura school attack?  T i a m u t talk 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support "attack" over "incident" let's cut the pussyfooting here, artillery fire into a building is an "attack." RomaC (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "attack" is certainly better than "incident". The latter is a meaningless, weasel word that is usually used to obscure an unpleasant reality, and in my view should nearly always be replaced or deleted. I'm not saying that "attack" is the best name, as I haven't read all the sources, but it's certainly better than "incident". --NSH001 (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the school was not actually attacked, which Ging and Gunness and the UN have finally confessed is the truth, why is there any discussion of calling it the Al-Fakhura school anything? If anything it should be something like "Sample Attack/Incident Against/Involving A Hamas Mortar Team Firing From A Civilian Occupied Area", as that is what the incident was, and note the proximity of the school in a subheading as with the collateral damage of the fighting in any built up area. Calling it an anything related to the school when it is clearly established otherwise is incorrect, biased, and inflammatory. 67.87.86.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

NPOV issues
Please list NPOV issues here. Boud (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV notice was placed on 9 January when the article was much shorter by User:Chesdovi. Template:POV states that: So Chesdovi, it would be helpful if you could promptly begin a discussion if you still think there are POV problems with the present article. Otherwise, "any editor" may remove the tag. Boud (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute.
 * The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.


 * Article is well sourced. Removing tag, I don't see any ongoing dispute.--Jmundo (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

possible info for infobox - 2 "hamas militants" killed?
The infobox had "(According to Israel at least 2 Hamas militants)". i added ((citation needed)). Jmundo removed both of these saying "(infobox is not a place for details, just numbers.)".

Jmundo, i assume your point is that if someone wants to restore this, then it should first be included, properly referenced in the main text, including the various POVs, and then only a very compact summary (with repeat references) should go in the infobox. If that's what you mean, then it seems reasonable to me. Boud (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will insert a reference shortly, hope you will agree. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Role in wider conflict
In this edit, Tkalisky removed the section "Role in wider conflict" stating, "Premature analysis (lets wait a day or two before jumping to conclusions)". i have restored it.

Whether or not the analyses are premature are not for wikipedians to judge. Three mainstream news media, two biased towards the United States POV, and one biased towards the Qatar POV, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and al Jazeera, and the British Foreign Minister David Miliband each made statements regarding the role of the Al-Fakhura school bombing in the wider context. The conclusions are not the conclusions of wikipedians, they are the conclusions of very mainstream reliable sources. Whether or not their statements are correct or not is their responsibility, not ours.

This section is somewhat POV at the moment in the sense that we do not have any statement by government and non-government groups from the Gaza Strip regarding how they see the role of the al-Fakhura incident with respect to the wider conflict. Can someone find such a statement? That would help NPOV the section. Boud (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is very premature since it predicts the incident is a "turning point" that will likely cause the end of the operation as the bombing in Qana etc. However it seems that the operation continues and that this analysis with high probability will be irrelevant. We can fill wikipedia with journalistic speculations but that would just confuse the readers. Thanks for understanding. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The section does not make predictions about the incident being a turning point. It presents the claims by reliable sources about the incident being relevant in the ways cited. None of the quotes use the term "turning point". Your claim about the section being "premature" constitutes original research, it seems to me. If you can find reliable sources which say that the event was irrelevant in the wider conflict, i.e. not just your own opinion (Original Research): "However it seems that the operation continues and that this analysis with high probability will be irrelevant", then we can add that to NPOV the section. Boud (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If we find a way to compact this paragraph (so that it will not be given disproportional weight) than it will be OK by me. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks OK to me in a single paragraph. Boud (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In this edit, User:Tomtom9041 deleted this section with the edit summary "Removed role in wider conflict as irrevelent."
 * Tomtom9041 - please see the discussion above. What you seem to be saying is that although the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, al Jazeera and David Miliband each judged that the al-Fakhura massacre had an important role in the wider context, you, wikipedian Tomtom9041, know that all four of them are wrong. Sorry, but that seems to me to consitute original research (OR). That's not a valid reason for removing a section of a wikipedia article.
 * A different question might be that you consider the section POV. If that's the case, then please find an opinion by a reliable source that claims that the event had no significant influence in "increasing" or "mounting pressure" and that "the clock has not started ticking" towards a troop withdrawal by Israel. Boud (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal actions - not just the same as verbal statements by politicians
In these edits, Tkalisky removed the Legal actions section title. i have reverted it.

Most of us live in countries where there are national legal systems, which have strong effects on dealing with conflict, especially regarding violent conflict. Surely legal actions related to this violent incident are of a quite different nature to general statements of condemnation which politicians make. This gives a natural structure to the section. More structure makes it easier for the reader than having an unstructured list of many paragraphs. Boud (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend, the statement by Abbas appears, just in a more compact form. Filling wikipedia with redundant statements just confuses the readers. They can go to the source and read more if they want to. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * hi Tkalisky, there are more statements regarding legal actions than just that by Abbas. i agree to avoid redundancy. This is a statement regarding intended legal action, not just an arbitrary "reaction" such as a statement with no legal actions. If any of the statements are not reliably sourced or are POV, then please NPOV them, don't just delete them. Boud (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK ,I get your point. In order to balance I also added Israeli allegations that Hamas broke international law by firing from civilian areas. Now we have statements from both sides. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me. Boud (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Massih QC statement
The wording of the statement is a little bit awkward because given what al-Jazeera paraphrases and quotes, he seems to be saying he recommends that all claims, both by Israel and by Gaza, would be part of what the UNSC should request the ICC to investigate. However, it doesn't quite say that literally. Taken very literally, he seems to be saying that only the Israeli claim that there were gunmen in the school should be investigated, and not the killings of the 40 or so people among the 350 or so who had sheltered at the school. Maybe the wording i suggested should be replaced by a quote, but i was trying to be compact. Any ideas? Boud (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela
I removed the fact that the Israeli embassy was told to leave since according to the sources it does not seem directly in response to the school strike. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TODO: ok, i'll check that. For the moment i've "The Venezuelan government expelled the Israeli ambassador.  " is removed from the text. Boud (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. Tkalisky (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this. Venezuela cited the deaths of innocent women and children. This was the worst example of such deaths (so far)Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why that statement belongs in the main article. This article refers to the school incident. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If i've got the 2 references previously used right, then we have as follows. This bloomberg reference doesn't state any specific link between expelling the ambassador and the killings at al-Fakhura. Here i agree with Tkalisky - this is not relevant for this article. The fact that Tkalisky and i can converge on our edits is thanks to policies like WP:NOR. This means, for example, that we cannot "read between the lines" of politicians' statements. This Reuters article says nothing about Venezuela. Boud (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Info Box - 42 civilians
Unless i missed something, none of the sources refered to in the infobx says that ALL casualites were civilians. Unless I am wrong (correct me if I am), we should delete this word and add what we do know (for ex. "including women and children")--Omrim (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I take your silence as a consent?--Omrim (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * references added. Boud (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I am still unable to see a source that says that all victims are civs. Haaretz specifically says that many of the victims are yet to be identified, The UN report doesn't say nothing about who the school victims are, and even the Ma'an report is the only one implying to the issue, but does not say so specifically as well.--Omrim (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that the UN report doesn't give the info, and Ha'aretz doesn't either. However, MNA does: "Ging also told the Australian newspaper The Age, “We have established beyond any doubt that the school was not being used by any militants."". How can you say that's "not specific"? i've added a second reference where Ging mentions the vetting process by which UNRWA checks people seeking shelter at the school. He says they are "hugely sensitive" about it. (For obvious reasons.) Surely in this context, "no militants" = "all civilians", doesn't it? Boud (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that original research? Many of the people were killed outside the school from shrapnel (most sources report that). Also, many sources report that militants were nearby. So even if not letting militants in the school, those outside may still be militants. I see no source (not even a Palestinian one) saying that all the dead in the incident were civilians. The fact that UNRWA dosen't let militants in the school is irrelevant for this issue for two reasons: 1) you interpret that if no militants were let in, all of the dead are civilians. You can't do that in Wiki, you can't "logically interpret" sources. You cite what is in the sources - and that UNRWA said there were no militants inside is already noted in the article. Let readers interpret that fact as they will. You can't do that for them 2) Even if you were allowed to interpret the source, your interpretation is wrong since many were killed outside the school, so the fact that militants were not allowed in the school makes your argument totaly flawed logically. Militants may have well been killed outside the school from shrapnel as many others have. I am sorry, unless I see a source specifically states that all those killed (and not those allowed or not allowed in the school) are civilians or at least "not militants" I will remove the word civilians again.--Omrim (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think all killed were civilians. Israel has claimed (and named) two militants killed, and I think that's probably true. Several sources claim that 40 or more civilians were killed. I think 40 is the best figure to be used.VR talk  03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we make the Chronology section chronological?
"Chronology" means a time-ordered series of events. For example, 10:00, 10:30, 10:45, 11:15, etc.

We don't have actual times of events, but based on the various claims, it's not hard to put them into chronological order. The 350 people who sheltered did so before the other parts of the event. Their nature as civilians only or as civilians plus two Palestinian security forces is relevant before any possible mortar firing "from within" or "from" or "from near" the school, since the security forces could not fire the mortars from the school if they were not yet in the school. Then there is the possible firing of mortars from "within"/""/"near" the school which may or may not have occurred. Then there is the attack by Israeli security forces against the school. Then there is the possible recovery of bodies of Palestinian security forces by the Israeli security forces.

Doesn't this seem chronologically correct and NPOV? Boud (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I appreciate your efforts to clarify everything but I think you overdid the subsectioning. See also in Layout: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit its flow". I will soon revert you and I ask you to reconsider. Also, it is very uncommon to refer to "Hamas militants" as "Palestinian security forces". I reverted to the common terminology in the article text and in order that we will be able to understand each other I would appreciate you using this terminology in the discussion too. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The order now is as follows: first the basic facts that everyone agrees upon (the fact that there was a shelling of the school), then presenting the debate: Israeli allegations of Hamas militants firing from the school, then UNRWA denial, and then Hamas denial. Since this is not strictly "chronological" I changed the title to "The incident". Thanks for considering. Tkalisky (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving page/deleting infobox
Tomtom9041, please discuss any moves in this discussion page. Wikipedia is about consensus. --Jmundo (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." Michael Crichton on consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtom9041 (talk • contribs) 11:15, Jun 1, 2005


 * I've restored the infobox. Does anyone have a reason for deleting it that they would care to share here before deleting it again?  T i a m u t talk 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag
This article gives disproportionate weight to the Israeli government position on this incident. It also fails to mention the heavy international dondemnation that this attack and others like it have incurred. I'm going to try to address these issues shortly, but if others have ideas on how to proceed, they are welcome.  T i a m u t talk 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the first point, given that there were about 350 Palestinian civilians sheltering in the United Nations protected school and the number of Israelis directly involved was probably just a handful, it's true that "proportional weight" in listing the facts should have probably a lot more about the Palestinian side. So in that sense, you are correct. Probably the best way of improving this would be to add more RS info, rather than trying to delete any of the Israeli government position, IMHO. Boud (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the second point: if you mean a big number of international verbal statements, that tend to be called "reactions" in wikipedia articles, even though they mostly just mean "statements in reaction", a.k.a. "comments", then this should go in the International comments section, which someone de-sectioned. So far we only have Ban's comment. Boud (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need more info to balance it out. But I also think we should add the UN view to the intro. I tried doing that but was reverted. Do you want to take a stab at it?  T i a m u t talk 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've expanded that info a little bit. I will add more as soon as I can. The Squicks (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Account
I added information about the Israeli story -- the four different versions. However, I'm not satisfied with the position of the section in the article. It ended up at the beginning, because that is where the sentence it replaces was located. The sentence gave the initial Israeli claim, but not the subsequent claims and retractions. I will move the information, put it after the "Description", and integrate it with the "Israel" section. NonZionist (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I had to remove your edits per WP:OR. Thanks for understanding. Tkalisky (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just realized that your edits were all based on . You might want to search for more reliable sources (see also Verifiability). Best. Tkalisky (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang-on. I've read about this specific aspect of the controversy before. This RS says "The United Nations is claiming Israeli military officers have admitted there was no Palestinian gunfire emanating from inside an UNRWA school in Gaza which was shelled by an IDF tank." Now, this is the UN themselves that is making this claim. The Israelis themselves are sticking to their story. Israel’s ambassador to Austria insisted just the day before the UN claim that the school was infiltrated by Hamas. The Squicks (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the Haaretz article, an "IDF investigation" concluded that "the Israeli troops firing on the building missed their targets by some 30 meters". According to the UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness, "The Israeli army is briefing diplomats privately that the militant fire from Jablia yesterday did not come from inside the UNRWA school compound, but from the outside," -- see Earth Times.  So the UN and Haaretz both say that Israel says that fire did not come from inside the school.  But now Israel is saying that it did come from the school.  So Israel HAS changed its story. NonZionist (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. Haaretz does not say that there was no fire from inside the school. What the article says is that the school was not the target. These are two different things, and your attempt to link the two without any evidence is OR. The Squicks (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that 'Earth Times' does link the two, but it is not a reliable source. I need a reliable source to claim that "Israel says that fire did not come from inside the school" if you are going to put that into the article, beccause there are many reliable sources saying the opposite. The Squicks (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, the statement "Israel is changing its story" is simply wrong. The statement "Some people [cite: these reliable sources] have accused Israel of changing its story" is completely correct. The statement "The IDF has stated that it may have hit the building by mistake while targeting the courtyard" is also correct, but it is also wrong to label this as "changing the Israeli story" since the two ideas are not incompatible-- the school could have been a legitimate military target AND it could have been hit by accident. The Squicks (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the Haaretz article closely. "The Israeli troops firing on the building missed their targets by some 30 meters".  This means that they were NOT targeting the school, and that implies that fire was NOT coming from the school.  NonZionist (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are simply wrong. Just because they did not target the school does not mean that there was no fire inside the school. This is a logical fallacy. These are two seperate facts. See what I wrote above. The Squicks (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In summary, I guess I am sort of the Russian user's side on this issue (shocking: I know). These complications that I highlighted ought to be mentioned in the article. The Squicks (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Okay, I found some reliable sources that claim that Israel did "change its story" and added it to the article. The Squicks (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Haaretz article where UNRWA spokemans Chris Gunness claims the IDF has acknowledged the school was attacked in error, it seems that the UN is changing its story too, as well as creating a direct conflict between Gunness' admission that the school was taken over by "militants" in 2007 and Ging's claim that militants were never there. Obviously it would take significant new research to confirm just when the UN abandoned the site, when they became aware it was taken over by militants (if it was before the IDF video was made available), when they reclaimed it from the militants (if ever), why they never altered its status, why they allowed civilians to take refuge in a place they had once abandoned to militants who used it to launch terror attacks, and why they denied militants had ever been present. Barring that, how about a section noting those inconsistencies in the UN story?67.87.86.250 (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

UNICEF photos
I found some photos relevant to this article as well as for the article on the Israeli assault on Gaza. There are photos of families taking refuge at the school... The photos were taken the same day (likely before) the massacre. Here are the photos  They are part of set on Flickr labeled UNICEF. I am assuming these photos were taken from UNICEF but at this point I can't seem to locate the photos on their web site. Anyway, I am asking anyone who has experience in requesting the use of photos from UNICEF or any similar organization to please let me know what the the right route is. Thanks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Take this question to WikiProject Palestine and they can help you there. The Squicks (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but also before I go requesting permission from UNICEF, I want to make sure if these photos will be accepted for this article. Meaning, I don't want to ask for permission only to run into opposition by some Wikipedians. So does anyone oppose the use of the photos in the article? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I need confirmation on whether this is the same school that was attacked. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally don't object so long as we respect copyright: We confirm that these were indeed taken by the UN itself at this school. That's the main thing for me. It would be majorly annoying to add the pictures only to have to remove them later. The Squicks (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To clairly, I don't have a problem with the pictures in and of themselves- no. The Squicks (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school
UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school Chesdovi (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What the UN is announcing is that the IDF strike didn't hit the school itself. The current lead makes it sound as if what's being retracted is the fact that the victims were people who'd taken refuge at the school; in fact, the lead makes it sound like the very fact of 42 casualties has been retracted.  Very poor wording.--G-Dett (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That the victims were people in the school at all was part of what was retracted. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What the UNRWA official said was, "41 innocent people were killed in the street outside the school. Many of those people had taken refuge in the school and wandered out onto the street."--G-Dett (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the following fact tag: "fact| None of the references indicate that the UN claimed that Israeli artillery landed inside the Fakhoura school; thus no position change. Media reports do not equal UN statements. Until a quotation can be found by a UN official claiming that Israeli fire landed inside the Fakhoura school, this statement should be deleted or modified." The current wording of the article, "the UN reversed position," lends itself to the idea that the UN initially accused Israel of striking inside the school. None of the news articles cited as references quote the UN as making such a claim. Furthermore, I have not found such a claim. The Reuters article states that the victims included women and children who were sheltering at the school. While this wording can imply that the victims were inside the school when they were wounded or killed, it is yet vague enough that it might not be very useful as a reference to the statement "stated that the attack directly hit the school."

The Al Jazeera article appears to contradict itself, stating that the Israei strike hit the school and then immediately referring to a statement by medical sources that the shells landed outside the school. The Toronto Globe and Mail article, which seems to refer to the incorrect school, appears to be a discussion about how headlines can lead to incorrect impressions of the facts and does not contain a quotation from the UN accusing Israel of firing on the school. The Time article states that "the school was hit by bombs," [later "shells" or "mortars"] but not as a quotation of the UN. In order to avoid muddying the same waters that the news media did, the article might need a stronger distinction between direct media claims, implicit media claims, and UN claims.

The Jerusalem Post article clarifies that an error on the UN website, described by the Post as a "clerical error," led to the confusion over UN claims and specified that the UN had not made a verbal claim that Israel struck the school.

The UN press conference report does refer to "air strikes on several clearly marked schools." Again, though, this is not a quotation from a UN official.

It is Israel that made a claim and later retracted it: Israel initially claimed that mlitants had fired on them from within the school compound and later had to retract that claim, a point that is not stated soconsisely in the article. PinkWorld (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

I also added a who tag and a dubious tag to the United Nation section. "Some people say" i a weasel phrase; who has criticised Ging needs to be specifie and referenced. The citation of an incident in which three were killed after using the toilet occurred not at al Fakhoura school but at al Asma school - another separate incident. PinkWorld (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pink


 * Section changed to the more neutral: In the last week of January, the UN explictly clarified that no deaths occurred within the building itself that and that the rounds in fact struck the street outside the school. The Squicks (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * However, it is true that the UN reversed itself. They intially reported the correct thing (the school was not the target), then it reported the wrong thing (based on what Jerusalem Post said was a "clerical error"), and it is now saying the correct thing again. How is that not a reversal?


 * The objective fact of the matter is that both the IDF and the UN have reversed their positions. The Squicks (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The UN falsely accused Israel of striking inside the school. This is explictly stated-- "A clerical error led the UN to falsely accuse Israel of shelling one of its Gaza schools... For close to a month, the UN accused the Israel of hitting the educational compound"-- by Jerusalem Post.
 * I corrected the section to read: In the last week of January, the UN explictly clarified that no deaths occurred within the building itself that and that the rounds struck the street outside the school, a "clerical error" in its reports had previously stated otherwise. The Squicks (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The UN didn't backtrack: Why UN 'reversal' over Gaza school should be treated with caution Wodge (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

From the very outset, the UN said that the bombing took place outside the school. UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency which administers refugee assistance in Gaza, stuck to that.

John Ging, Director of UNRWA operations in Gaza was quoted by The Guardian as saying that three shells had landed "at the perimeter of the school". This is accurate.

Another branch of the UN, its humanitarian affairs agency (OCHA) also reported in its daily output of 6 January that the missile strikes had been outside the school. In its report of the following day, however, it mistakenly said the school itself had been shelled. This error was corrected earlier this month.

Wodge (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just going by the source. We can spell it out clearer if you want.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cptnono wants to present the accusation of backtracking as fact, while it was just based on a few reports, that is unacceptable. Please wodge keep an eye on this section --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You complain alot and don't fix anything over and over again. Several sources said the UN backtracked when Gaylord clarified. Simple as that. Instead of freaking out again maybe you should look at your own POV coming into play here.Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is coming from a person who copies and pastes copyrighted text into Wikipedia articles in the most random places, no wonder why your edit proposals are always shot down. As for this "Several sources said the UN backtracked when Gaylord clarified." Seriously is that the point you were trying to make with these sentences "The UN backtracked from its claim that the Israelis hit the UN school killing 43 people. Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem, said that the IDF mortar shells fell in the street near the compound, and not on the compound itself.[36]" Because I didn't see that point and that is a bad attempt at synth, you provided no dots to connect. The claim that the UN backtracked is debated, you don't present it as fact like you did in this sentence "The UN backtracked from its claim that the Israelis hit the UN school killing 43 people." Unlike you, I gave two perspectives, the news sources that reported the allegation and the UN. I don't think you fixed anything really, and if this is how you edit all the time, then that is really worrisome. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the history before jumping to conclusions again. The line you hated so much was already in from another editor but was reverted. I reverted it back. Woodge pointed out that it was a claim and I was working on fixing it (which it is now, by the way) when you had to get all nutty again. Stop jumping down my throat and start fixing articles instead of spewing all your frustration on talk pages when you see anything that remotely contradicts your feelings.Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That link I just posted from the channel 4 news website has a clear timeline of who claimed what and when.Wodge (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Used it for a source in the Israeli explanation subsection and made sure to state that agencies claimed it was backtracking in the disputed line. Also kept the quote in since it was the catalyst for the sources complaining about the UN's needed clarification.Cptnono (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like you never had a history of inserting random quotes. You fix it and then you save. "I was working on fixing it" is an excuse I hear too often. And talk page rants and dishing insults is something I have come to know you for. Your haaretz article says an important thing that you failed to mention, according to the same source, Gaylord also "said in response Tuesday that it had maintained from the day of attack that the wounded were outside of the school compound. UNRWA said that the source of the mistake in recent weeks had originated with a separate branch of the United Nations." Part of the UN's rebuttal addresses this: "As for the report of a sister UN agency cited by Mr Rabinovich, he fails to mention that the agency in question correctly reported the facts on the day of the incident and that it was only in a subsequent weekly summary where they made an error (which was corrected without hesitation and as soon as the inconsistency came to light)." So your source says that the UNRWA did not backtrack but said there was an error on part of another branch of the UN, and the UN source says it was a clerical error that was quickly fixed so it is not backtracking on part of the UN as a whole. Feel like adding this? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It comes across like you are ranting again. I could care less if you believe me because I don't respect you, your opinion, or your editing. It is fixed now so it all worked out. If you want to continue to rant go ahead and take it to my talk page.
 * If you think there is not sufficient info go ahead and add it. The current wording isn't in to argue that the UN backtracked or not. It is in since it was a claim by news agencies. This claim was one of the reasons for the statements that this paragraph explains. Sorry it doesn't work into a point you are trying to make.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to this: "Several news agencies claimed that the UN had backtracked from its original claim that the strike had hit the school after Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school." However, UNRWA maintains that from the day of attack that they had said that the wounded were outside of the school compound; adding that the source of the mistake had originated with a separate branch of the United Nations." Wodge (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone (not mentioning names) has deleted the main point of the UN's rebuttal ("that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura"). I don't think that deletion was appropriate, infact I think it is ridiculous. I assume the person is still working on fixing it or maybe not. What do you think wodge, do you think this deletion made sense? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought Wodge's change was good. Removed 1 instance of source 36 and duplicate mention of agency maintaining they did not screw up. The sky isn't falling.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wodge, I think you would agree that we should give UN's position before AND after they were accused of backtracking. What do you think wodge?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we mention the line every other sentence. Will you be happy then Falastine? Moving the paragraphs back together until this is fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is inline with sources. Maintains Gin's innocence twice (the organization pointed out that Ging's statement was in regards to the confirmed attack on another school and UNRWA maintains that from the day of attack that they had said that the wounded were outside of the school compound). Mentions that a few different sources were critical. What is the problem?Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Compromise? I've reread it and I don't think "UNRWA maintains..." is needed but I think the finally line should be "The organization also argued that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura while Israelis authorities reported that they were firing back at militants in the school, and then later reported that they were responding to militants near the school rather in the school itself." Also, We could add after that "Jonathan Miller, the Channel 4 foreign affairs correspondent, confirmed that the mistake had been caused by OCHA"? Wodge (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the UN's response to the accusations is needed, please see my last post. I think Miller statement is also a good addition because what we have from third parties right now is simply one sided. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be happy if we do not mention UN's main argument at all? Um the clarification on Ging's quote is only a prong of their response to the accusations. What we have now is Gaylord's response that sparked the accusations of backtracking and then there is the UN response to that media debacle (the response being that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura). I don't see why we have to keep only one when they are both important to the controversy. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused now. lol. Are you saying that after Gaylord made his statement and clarifiction. That the media continued criticising the UN which required a second statement from UNRWA? Wodge (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. The title of the Haaretz article that contains Gaylord's statements is called "UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school" Haaretz along with The Australian source(see para 4 for Gaylord's statement) interpreted Gaylord's remarks as the UN backtracking. The UN then issued a rebuttal criticizing The Australian and another source for misinterpreting Gaylord's statement and Ging's statement. So even though Gaylord said that the UNRWA was right from the beginning and the source of confusion is an error on the part of another branch, the few news sources called it backtracking prompting the rebuttal from UN. That is why we should mention the UNRWA response that sparked the media mess and the UN's rebuttal in response to the media mess, preferably in chronological order to avoid confusion.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should have something like "Because of event a, Gaylord issued a clarification "...". As a result some media sources claimed that that the UN was backtracking on its initial statement which prompted the UN to issue a further statement." Wodge (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is completely acceptable. One of my concerns was that another editor's mention of the UN backtracking was removed. I don't want to blame the UN or any of its divisions for clerical errors or not being clear or anything else. I just think it is notable that some media sources were critical of them and think it deserves mention. Also, I agree the few lines regarding Israel's errors (putting it nicely) in their statements should stay. I just want the article to have the up to date facts.Cptnono (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Or how about this?

Several news agencies claimed that the UN had backtracked from its original claim that the strike had hit the school after Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school." Abraham Rabinovich of The Australian also criticized John Ging and other UN officials claiming they did not "dispel widespread suspicions" and that one of Ging's statement implied the school was hit directly. The UNRWA called Rabinovich's article "grossly misleading, inaccurate." UNRWA maintains that from the day of attack that they had said that the wounded were outside of the school compound; adding that the source of the mistake had originated with a separate branch of the United Nations. The organization also pointed out that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura while Israelis authorities reported that they were firing back at militants in the school, and then later reported that they were responding to militants near the school rather in the school itself." Also, We could add after that "Jonathan Miller, the Channel 4 foreign affairs correspondent, confirmed that the mistake had been caused by OCHA.

Wodge (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This version implies that Gaylord's statement was in response to Rabinovich's article. I think that the version that I have reverted back to keeps the chronological order and we know who said what to who and when. --22:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mind that last version suggested by Wodge at all. The UN wasn't clear enough according to some sources and UNRWA says that their division was not at fault essentially.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Other editors besides me have noticed the lack of updating this page with all of the back and forth regarding what actually happened. Maybe instead of reworking this one section it would be better to go to the root of the problem. Initial editing base on headlines could get less attention while adding a section based on the media's reaction to different reports from UN divisions, Israel, and the media. This article is really only notable on its own since it pushed Israel to go for a broader ceasefire due to international pressure since the school was actually not attacked. This hardly comes across in the article since everyone dropped it after the initial headlines were put in.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New version:

The UN, originally, said that the shelling took place outside the school. John Ging, Director of UNRWA operations in Gaza was quoted by The Guardian as saying that three shells had landed "at the perimeter of the school". Another branch of the UN, its humanitarian affairs agency (OCHA) also reported in its daily output of 6 January that the missile strikes had been outside the school. In its report of the following day, however, it mistakenly said the school itself had been shelled. This error was corrected by Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator, who stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school. As a result, several news agencies claimed that the UN had backtracked from its original claim that the strike had hit the school Abraham Rabinovich of The Australian also criticized John Ging and other UN officials claiming they did not "dispel widespread suspicions" and that one of Ging's statement implied the school was hit directly. Christoper Guiness, an UNRWA spokensman, called Rabinovich's article "grossly misleading, inaccurate." He pointed out that Ging's statement, which formed the basis for Rabinovitch's argument, was actually in regards to the confirmed attack on another school in which three people were killed, and was made before the Al-Fakhura school incident occurred. The organization also argued that they initially reported that the attack happened outside of Al-Fakhura while Israelis authorities reported that they were firing back at militants in the school, and then later reported that they were responding to militants near the school rather in the school itself.

Wodge (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple type-o: "The UN , originally ," Also, "The organization pointed out that Ging's statement was in regards to the confirmed attack on another school" is not exactly correct. The letter mentioned that one of his statements was in error but the line could be read to mean the whole piece. Is there a way to reword or remove that line? Besides that I really like it.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this sentence: "In his article, Mr Rabinovich has made one serious error on which his argument against the UN rests"? I get the impression from this that he's criticising the whole article. Wodge (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This version is all clear and accurate. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little put off by that single line but it is taken from the source being used. Maybe it just seems off going into so much detail on that one report but the accusation and request for retraction are certainly interesting. Nice work over all, Wodge. You got everything in that was requested.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad we managed to sort it out without too much arguing. Wodge (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Part 2
Are the paragraphs before the UN "backtrack" necessary? I don't know if we need to go CSI on it since all parties involved agree the school was not targeted.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article was a whole. I don't think we need separate sections for Israel, Palestinian civilians, Hamas and United Nations. It could all be summarised into a single section. I'll have a look at it over the next couple of days Wodge (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My statement
I decided to be bold and rewrite the lead. The key point is that people initially thought it was the school that was bombed (while some disagreed) and now everyone admits that it was the street and not the school. The casualties are disputed, given the fog of war
 * The UN did not "reverse" their position. Read the United Nations section in Incident Description. Wodge (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite
The al-Fakhura School incident refers to events that took place at the United Nations run school of al-Fakhura located in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip on January 6, 2009 during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. In response to alleged militant gunfire coming from beside the school, the IDF carried out a artillery attack that the UN and several NGOs say killed 42, 41 of them civilians, and that the IDF says killed 12, 9 of them civilians. The attack created a public outcry and prompted condemnation from Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon and others. The response lead to a renewed push for a cease-fire in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

Several news reports initially stated that the attack directly hit the school itself, and that the victims had taken refuge there to escape the fighting between the IDF and Palestinian militants. In the last week of January, the UN reversed position, stating that no deaths occurred within the building itself that and that the rounds struck the street outside the school. It continues to dispute the claim of militant fire coming from the school itself, while stating that militants may have operated close by. Some Palestinian residents have affirmed that Hamas militants fired shells from near the school,  while others disagree and say that they saw no such thing.

The IDF initially said that they were responding to mortar shells fired by Hamas militants from the school when they attacked the facility itself. It stated that it found the bodies of Hamas militants in the vicinity of the school after it opened fire, also stating that the militants had booby-trapped the school building with bombs. According to Haaretz, a preliminary investigation by the IDF found that the soldiers who hit the school building itself had targeted the schoolyard beside it instead, and missed. However, later stories stated that the IDF believes that it did not miss, with a spokesperson saying that they "are still sticking by our official position" that the "IDF returned fire to the source". In February, the IDF released a report saying that it had recieved fire from militants in an area beside the school and returned fire to that area.

This article
So this article has not been worked very much since it was revealed that the shells were outside of the school and that there were no casualties inside. I think it would be appropriate to delete about everything but could see reworking it since the initial report adjusted the course of the military operation. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has to be drastically restructured, but I think most of the content is still relevant. Basically, the actual incident was unnotable within the context of a war, but the way the incident was portrayed, the reaction to that portrayal, the revelation that the portrayal was grossly inaccurate and the ramifications regarding the UN-- all these are notable within the context of the war. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eliminating or modifying the current list structure of some of the sections and having a disclaimer line about the condemnation and quotes being before it was discovered that the school itself was not attacked is needed.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the shells did not hit directly inside the school, but they still killed 41 people.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of people killed in the incident is not yet known. The IDF concluded that 12 were killed, 9 of them Hamas operatives, but presumably not everyone believes the IDF's conclusion. I wholly agree with Cptnono about what the first things that need to be done with the article are. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

this article is a mess!
i came to this article to try to find out what actually happened and what the disagreements are about. but in its current state it's hard to make heads or tails of anything. the lead seems ok but the rest of the article is just a random collection of assertions and counter-assertions. sorting these assertions by who said them doesn't help much. one problem is that a lot of the statements are out-of-date but are not identified as such -- for example, all these "this is a dark day in gaza" blah blah statements were made months ago before anyone had any idea of what had happened, but the article doesn't mention this.

overall i think this article is just too long. it needs to be rearranged so that it mostly just says *what* happened and what is disputed, without so many quotes. Benwing (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA as an RS
Can someone explain why CAMERA, a controversial source widely regarded as unreliable in Wikipedia is being used to support the statement "Several people listed as civilians in the PCHR report are claimed by Hamas as its fighters" when that statement already complies with WP:V perfectly well via an uncontroversial RS, Karin Laub at AP ? The last discussion here and previous desicussion suggest great caution in the use of CAMERA as a source. That suggests that when there are alternatives we should use those. I can't see any reason whatsoever to use them here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, CAMERA is not a controversial source. It is a partisan one, but partisan sources aren't prohibited here. It is also false that it is 'widely regarded as unreliable in Wikipedia' - it has its supporters, as well as its detractors, like most any other partisan source, as the discussions you link to show. The reason to include CAMERA when other sources are making the same claim is to avoid the sneaky POV pushing that attempts to portray something supported by multiple sources as the claims of an 'Istraeli think tank'. NoCal100 (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CAMERA is not a reliable source. It can only be used to state the opinions of CAMERA, and must be done so explicitly. If you want to show how it meets WP:RS go right ahead and try. Nableezy (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your personal opinion, but that all it is. The discussions on WP:RSN do not bear out your claims.NoCal100 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Every editor not involved in editing in these areas said almost exactly what I said, but you want to raise it again go ahead. And you are also welcome to your personal opinion, but likewise it is all it is. Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There's about an even split of editors who say it can be used, and this who say it can't - and you've got the onus of proof backwards - you need to explain why it is not an RS. NoCal100 (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but don't you have to expain why it is an RS in this case ? Sources aren't an RS by default.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * CAMERA is a controversial source, it's just silly to say it isn't. Supporters and detractors support and detract for partisan reasons. Uninvolved editors were quite clear in their views. Sneaky POV pushing is exactly what I'm trying to avoid here. If you want to use it here can we at least attribute statements to their sources because they are partisan i.e. like we do for PCHR ? Can you also confirm that the CAMERA source actually supports the statement "Several people listed as civilians in the PCHR report are claimed by Hamas as its fighters" for this particular incident because I couldn't see it. I may have missed it. Another way to avoid sneaky POV pushing is to explain what 'civilian' means in the PCHR reports i.e. 'civilians' = civilians + non-combatants i.e. anyone not directly involved in hostilities as per the norms of international humanitarian law as per this ref




 * At the moment it isn't clear in the article that being a member of an organisation does not automatically make someone a 'combatant' or make them lose their protected 'civilian/non-combatant' status. PCHR calling Hamas members who they have assessed as not being directly involved in hostilities at the time of the death 'civilians' is just the standard approach used by the likes of the ICRC and other international orgs. The IDF approach is different.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with attributing claims, but at a certain point it becomes ridiculous. I'm ok with the article stating that this is claimed by the ICT and CAMERA, I just wonder what we'll do when 3 additional sources will be added, making that claim. As to your question the CAMERA article quite clearly says "The following individuals, described by PCHR as civilians or  without any classification information, were identified in Maan announcements as members of militant groups". I don't believe the standard approach of the ICRC is to call anyone not directly involved in hostilities at the time of the death a 'civilian' - and that is certainly not the way  an Israeli serviceman, killed in this conflict by a rocket that fell in a faraway base inside Israel (and hence, 'not directly involved in hostilities at the time of the death') is treated. NoCal100 (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you shouldn't be using CAMERA anyway, you should be using the secondary source that they are citing. And yes, it is the standard approach of the ICRC and I can get sources for that if needed. Nableezy (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let' see those sources. Better yet, let's see you correct the number of Israeli casualties over at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, an article you are presently edit warring over, to classify the Isreali serviceman killed in a base inside Israel as a "civilian", per what you claim are ICRC standards. NoCal100 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, I'm edit warring at the Gaza war page? Interesting. What corrections are needed there? And you wouldn't happen to be looking through my contributions would you? Nableezy (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we agree to attributing to ICT and CAMERA but why not just use Ma'an instead ? Your understanding of these matters is wrong. I suggest you read this to understand both IHL and the Israeli Supreme Court's interpretation of IHL on this issue. Basically the only difference between standard IHL and the HCL ruling is over the interpretation of what 'directly involved' means. An IDF soldier is a 'combatant' because he is in an army with a uniform etc. If he is sitting at home off duty watching TV and killed by a rocket he is a 'civilian'. Read the ruling to see what 'combatant' means. Palestinians are never 'combatants' in the true legal sense because they are not soldiers. They are always civilians (even according to Israeli law) but if they are directly engaged in hositilities they become unprotected civilians who can be attacked and are often called 'unlawful combatants'/terrorist etc.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above - but that makes the whole argument moot, since if we go by these semantics, 'Palestinians are never 'combatants'', they are always 'civilians' - so what we need to clarify is that the PHRC is using this terminology, according to which every Palestinian killed, even those killed exchanging fire with the IDF are 'civilains".NoCal100 (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really because PHCR makes it clear that their civilian category = 'civilian and non-combatant' which means civilian as per normal use and non-combatant which is a legal term that means 'anyone not directly involved in hostilities' e.g. Hamas member watching TV. Those are protected people that can't be attacked until they 'directly engage in hostilities' hence they often just get called 'civilians' which is confusing.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole "unlawful combatant" thing has no bearing here as it's part of a "who's a POW" discussion (third Geneva convention), not a "who is a civilian" discussion (4th Geneva Convention),which is pretty obvious when you call him an "unlawful combatant". Read the first few articles If GCIV. Without going into all the technicalities, it's pretty obvious that it doesn't matter if you're wearing a uniform or not.
 * By your definition, the cook at an IDF base who's never armed is a "combatant" while an armed Palestinian on his way to his position but who's not shooting anyone right this second is a "civilian". That's nonsense. You should re-read article 3 of GCIV. You're misquoting it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not his definition, it is the definition of the Israeli HCJ. But the standard definition of combatant used by the ICRC and others is somebody taking an active part in hostilities. When that person is not taking an active part in hostilities they are not a combatant. Nableezy (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really going off on a tangent. Whether or not they are actually "combatants" in the objective sense isn't really at issue here. The issue here is whether or not (1)Camera can be considered as a source and (2)The fact that some of the PCHR people counted were Hamas members should be mentioned.
 * (1) I strongly disagree with. (2) I completely agree with, so long as we do not put words in people's mouth that they did not/do not use(d). The Squicks (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why didn't I think of that? But you are right of course, and I agree (I think). Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So we have agreed to attribute statements, CAMERA may or may not be an RS but we don't really need it anyway to comply with WP:V because there are alternative sources. I disagree that who is a 'civilian' in the PHCR report is a tangent because it has great bearing here if we are trying to avoid 'sneaky POV pushing' and comply with NPOV. To No More Mr Nice Guy I would say, it's better to read the HCJ ruling rather than argue with me. It explains pretty much everything about this issue and why one side says 'civilian+non-combatant' and the other says 'legitimate target'. The meaning of words like 'civilian', 'unprotected civilian', 'non-combatant', 'combatant' etc are not self evident and there are subtle differences between the standard approach and the Israeli approach (which is why targetted killing can be legal under their interpretation sometimes). People clearly do not understand these issues very well and therefore statements like 'hamas members were counted as civilians' can be used by partisan sources presumably to discredit reports. That's fine but our job is to make sure WP isn't carelessly participating in that activity by not providing sufficient context for people to understand the issues. After all it is genuinely surprising that a 'terrorist' can get counted as a non-combatant under certain circumstances. Making it clear that PCHR use 'civilian+non-combatant' = 'civilian' is a step in the right direction.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(removing indentation) I have to agree with Sean.hoyland here (despite his lack of WP:AGF). It is important who is a combatant and who isn't because the issue here isn't if Hamas members were killed, but if Hamas members who are combatants are being counted as civilians/non-combatants by PCHR and others. This is why I used the term "operative" in my initial edit, to (try) to make it clear that these are people who were operating in the battlefield rather than an unarmed civilian who happened to be registered somewhere as a Hamas member. To be clear, I don't think membership in Hamas automatically makes one a combatant. I do think that being an active member of an armed force (say, Al Qassam Brigades) who has not surrended or is otherwise out of the fight (not in the sense of eating dinner, but in the sense of being wounded or incarcerated) makes one a combatant, and I think IHL says this both in spirit and in letter, Israeli HCJ rulings notwithstanding (are we going to go on the record here saying that the HCJ is the arbiter of IHL? I doubt it). Have a look at this for example, which is a bit on a tangent but has a definition for combatant. http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/$File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf If you have other legal opinions on this I'd be extremely happy to read them. If it doesn't talk specifically about this conflict, even better. As for CAMERA being a RS, I'm new here. Is ElectronicIntifada a reliable source on facts rather than opinions? How about other "activist/journalist" type sites? Angry Arab? Daniel Pipes? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i meant 'argue with me' in the 'use inductive reasoning with me while i'm simultaneously assuming your good faith'. :) no offence meant.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The term operative, it seems to me, does not work. When a reader looks at it, the first thing that comes to mind is 'spy' or 'agent' and so on. I strongly prefer the value-neutral term "member" since it doesn't give any such leading impressions. The Squicks (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, Sean. So lets use our collective inductive reasoning. Hit me with a few sources.
 * The Squicks, "member" tells us nothing about the combatant status of the person killed. It's too neutral. I take your point about operative, though. Since we're using a source that says "fighters", this point is moot anyway. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Here you go, including Dorit Beinisch advocating changing international law just the other day. D'OH! There are tonnes of refs on this page. Anyway, as you can see it's just the last ones that are relevant to this question. Certainly the HCJ isn't the arbiter of IHL. The reason I like those sources is that they show that even Israel recognises and uses the same categories as IHL and the PCHR. They just play with the interpretation of 'direct part' for their local interpretation.

 Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I completely misunderstood what you were saying, I think we differ only on what "direct part" means. Now, should I quote the HCJ to support what I'm saying (see forex art. 34 in http://www.btselem.org/english/Legal_Documents/HCJ_769_02_20061214_Targeted_killing_Ruling_Summary_Eng.doc), or should we look for a less involved source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is simply that for the HCJ+IDF and the critics of the PCHR figures a member of Hamas, a Hamas fighter, a policeman in Gaza or whatever term they use is always 'directly involved' no matter what they are actually doing simply because they are Hamas. This is the key point and the key difference between HCJ and everyone else. Whereas according to IHL, PCHR, Red Cross, B'Tselem and everyone (apart from the IDF) 'directly involved' means actually physically taking part in hostilities. Consequently, a dead member of an armed militant group who is killed while not physically taking part in hostilities goes into the 'civilian+non-combatant' casualty column. So the IDF and the critics of the PCHR figures say, X was a Hamas member/fighter therefore he cannot be a non-combatant therefore the PCHR figures are wrong. They do not say he was actually physically fighting at the time because that is irrelevant to the way they decide who is a non-combatant. The PCHR and everyone else says X was a Hamas member/fighter who was not actually physically fighting at the time therefore he is a non-combatant according to IHL therefore he goes in the 'civilian+non-combatants' column. This is the point we need to make clear. A person not physically taking part in hostilities is a non-combatant and is counted as such by everyone apart from the IDF because their interpretation of 'directly involved' is simply different from IHL. They are using the same words but the words have different meanings.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In summary, police cadets killed by a drone at a graduation ceremony = people 'directly involved in hostilities' for Israel and civilians/non-combatants for everyone else.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(indent) See what I meant? I used the source you suggested, and as I expected, you now say this isn't a good source. Do you have some legal opinions you can provide but won't turn around later and tell me should not be used? I find the idea one needs to be "actually physically fighting at the time" to be a combatant absurd. The guy planning operations isn't "directly involved" in the hostilities? The guy giving the order to go out and fight? "I am not a combatant anymore! I'm taking a leak! I'm not actually physically fighting at this time! You can shoot at me later when I pick up this rifle I have right next to me, which is still warm from when I was shooting it 5 minutes ago.". Is that how it works? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't said anything isn't a good source. All of the sources are good sources. The HGJ sources are perfect sources for understanding Israel's interpretation of these matters and the language they use. Their interpretation is different from the norm. Compare the sources. Look at statements by the Red Cross, HRW, Amnesty, the BBC, the UN etc etc about non-combatants. Look at statements by the organisations about the police cadets status. That's a perfact case that shows the difference between the norm and HCJ.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're back at square one. Could you please point me to an ICRC legal opinion about who is a combatant? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No ICRC refs? That's slightly disappointing. But not to worry, I did some research on my own, following your suggestion about the police cadets (which in themselves are not relevant to this article).
 * Here's what I found. In this HRW says that "Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes."
 * And here HRW says that "Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted." (emphases are mine, obviously).
 * As you can plainly see, HRW considers Hamas fighters legitimate targets whether they're fighting someone at this second or not. Later in the first ref, HRW also says its lawful to attack a Hamas military commander's office or home.
 * You seem to be confusing "hostilities" with "a specific battle". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That was slightly deceptive as the very next line says: "Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." When they are not actively participating then they cannot be legally attacked. That is the standard explanation. Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It says "police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities". If you are a Hamas fighter, you are a legitimate target no matter if you're taking a direct part in the hostilities (which doesn't mean "a battle" anyway) or not, according to HRW, as I said. See where it says "or" there? That's your clue.
 * In the future, please try to read more carefully before you accuse someone of deception. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And the very next sentence says the may be attacked "for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." You leave out a major portion of the paragraph to come to a conclusion that the paragraph itself does not make and indeed refutes. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but try not to leave out the whole story next time. Nableezy (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You understand what "or" means, right? One or more of the operands need to be true for the statement to be true. In this case, if it's true that Palestinian Policeman is a Hamas fighter, he is a legitimate target. Or to be more precise HRW is saying that Palestinian Police are not legitimate targets unless they are Hamas fighters or [some other things which are not relevant to this discussion]. Again I suggest you read carefully and stop accusing people of deception. Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I would suggest you stop taking a sentence out of context. Yes, the source says if somebody is a Hamas fighter they are a legitimate target. And the next sentence says that they, the legitimate targets, may be attacked while engaged in hostilities. So again, please stop removing all context from a sentence to make it say the opposite of what the complete paragraph says. Nableezy (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not taking anything out of context, you're trying to invent a new context that doesn't exist. HRW specifically says that "Hamas fighters can be targeted". The next sentence obviously talks about police who are not Hamas fighters. This is basic logic and reading comprehension. Moreover, the other HRW article I posted above says "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel". Read carefully. "Play a role in fighting", not "are shooting someone right this instant". This is also supported by the fact that HRW says that the home of a military commander is a legitimate target. He plays a role in fighting, despite probably not shooting at anyone at the time he's at home. So even if you were correct about the context, which you are not, you are misstating what "taking part in hostilities" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive explained why you are wrong and got a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in return. Not wasting anymore time on this, especially when you will not listen to reason. Nableezy (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and who won't listen to reason? LOL! Feel free to use whatever excuse suits you to disengage, just don't claim later there was some kind of consensus that went missing in the archives. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my fault if you cant search archives, and yeah you have that problem. Apparently when one sentence disagrees with your point you feel it is fine to completely ignore it. (And consensus isnt a vote, you just standing up and shouting no doesnt mean much) Nableezy (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And yeah, 'obviously' it is talking about police not fighting with Hamas, that is why it says "Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." Hear that? Nableezy (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you say you were not wasting anymore time on this? You got the last word in. Now I'll wait for someone who's actually interested in discussing the topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How many people killed?
Hamas says 42, Israel says almost zero, and the media goes back and forth. Is there at least a generally-accepted estimate? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know what is the estimate I'm inclined to - remember PCHR casualties report? They place the location of where each person got killed. If you do the count - 21. But that is OR.
 * Seriously, most not-Israeli sources end up with 40+. Open the articles cited.
 * Reminds me of Amnesty report. In it, they criticize IDF for shifting its version of story and ask rhetorical questions, the answer to which could be 'IDF conceals something'. Somehow they overlooked that there are testimonies of the local Palestinians, saying that there were Hamas fighters near the school. Why nobody told them to look up wiki articles? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean we could do the 2-3[IDF source] - 40,000 [Amnesty International]. I just want to add something to the template box because the lead is very vague as far as death is concerned. Can we agree on a range at least? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The least we mess with the article the better, I think. But if you think that you must - 42 according to PCHR, 12 according to IDF. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Huge POV problem
In the Responses section, the "Israel" section is three times as long as the "Palestinians" section, and the latter is devoted almost entirely to second-hand reports by journalists alleging that Palestinian civilians who wish to remain anonymous agree with the IDF position that Hamas militants were firing from the building. I don't find anonymous individuals to constitute an WP:RS. Neither do I think its appropriate to use a section that is supposed to express another POV to support that of the Israeli government. I would like to delete almost all the information there and replace it with statements by Palestinian officials on the subject. Any objections?  T i a m u t talk 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to underline the point, this is how the section currently reads:"Residents of the neighborhood said two brothers who were Hamas fighters were in the area at the time of the attack but that the mortar fire had not come from the school compound, but from elsewhere in the neighborhood.[39] The Israeli military identified the brothers as Imad Abu Asker and Hassan Abu Asker, and said they had been killed.[9] Two unnamed residents, who spoke to an Associated Press reporter by phone on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said a group of militants had been firing mortar shells rounds from a street close to the school.[24][28] Jonathan Miller wrote in a Channel 4 story that 'local residents in the street told me that militants had been firing rockets - as the IDF claimed - and having been targeted in retaliatory fire by the IDF, they ran down the street past the school.'[40] Additional testimonies from the local residents confirm that militants fired just outside the school compound.[14][15] A Hamas spokesman, Fauzi Barhoun, said initial allegations that Hamas militants had used the school to attack Israeli forces were 'baseless'.[24]"  T i a m u t talk 03:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't find anonymous individuals to constitute an WP:RS" - how about Times, BBC and NY Times? Do they constitute RS? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is reliably sourced that anonymous individuals said these things, I think Tiamut's point is why are we including what individual "unnamed residents" are saying.  nableezy  - 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Further, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Paraphrased second-hand accounts originating from unnamed primary sources do not seem like exceptional sources to me. Furthermore, all of this deviates from the fundamental point which is that there is a deep imbalance when comparing the length and content of the Israel and Palestinians section. Given that one contains lengthy statments from officials supporting the Israeli narrative while the other relies almost entirely on anonymous accounts by civilians that support what the Israeli officials have to say, one has to ask honestly: Is this anywhere close to complying with NPOV? I don't think so.  T i a m u t talk 04:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the important point is that there is evidently a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV, an absolutely mandatory policy. Editors cannot swamp an article with information that presents one POV and claim to be following Wikipedia's mandatory core policies. Neither can editors add material that favours one POV and expect other editors to address the POV imbalance it creates. That is not how it works. Everyone is equally responsible for ensuring compliance with WP:NPOV no matter what their personal views are. Remember, Wikipedia does not engage in disputes.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is rather hypocritical. Virtually all P/I articles tend to be loaded with "According to anonymous Palestinian sources" or "Witnesses described" or "An old Arab lady said..." This is most evident in Gaza War. I think editors are fishing for problems when there aren't any. We all know that the Palestinian territories have never been the cornerstone for worthwhile journalism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, what is hypocritical is someone agreeing to abide by the mandatory policies of Wikipedia and then not abiding by the mandatory policies of Wikipedia. This article does not comply with NPOV. NPOV is mandatory. Editors have worked without complying with NPOV. Editors who edit without complying with mandatory policies present an existential threat to the neutrality of information in Wikipedia. This is a very serious problem indeed.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, I might note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. And whether or not the journalism of the "Palestinian territories" is worthwhile is irrelevant to the points raised. Official statements from Palestinian officials can be found in mainstream English-language sources: there are tonnes of them. Why are we privileging anonymous civilian reports that support the official Israeli narrative on these events and labelling them "Palestinian"? How does this satisfy NPOV or even WP:V in any way at all?  T i a m u t talk 06:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If the reports are being published by reliable references, then whether the sources are anonymous or not is irrelevant. You are claiming that just because the Israel section is longer than the Palestinian one it is somehow POV? Official statements from Palestinian officials can be found in plenty of reliable sources but they are still treated as statements made by the person and not the newspaper. Just as the millions of statements made by Israeli officials in reliable sources are treated as statements by Israeli officials and not the journalists. The fact that these statements may or may not support the Israeli "narrative" (whatever that means) is totally and completely irrelevant. Just as statements made by Palestinian sources confirming the Hamas/Fatah whatever narrative is irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We select what information we are going to include in a way that complies with NPOV and V. If we fill the entire "Palestinian responses" with anonymous eyewitness accounts that reflect the Israeli narrative that there were fighters there, we are not complying with NPOV. Period. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. Imagine the entire "Israeli responses" section was devoted solely to anonymous eyewitness accounts by Israeli soldiers (fromm the Breaking the Silence report for example) telling of how they did not distinguish between civilians and fighters and just shot and everyone. Would that be okay with you? I don't think so.
 * Furthermore, as I state below, eyewitness accounts of what happened are not "Palestinian responses". They are eyewitness accounts. These should have there own section and include accounts by named witnesses, such as the examples I provided below.  T i a m u t talk 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to axe this Israeli/Palestinian narrative dispute. Testimonies made in Gaza should not be categorized according to whose narratives they confirm but the reliability of the source they come from. If you are consciously trying to weed out information to reduce the "Israel narrative" or empower the "Palestinian narrative" that is most certainly a failed goal. NPOV is not about removing information to obtain a false neutrality. But I agree, perhaps we could section out the "eye witness" accounts to simply "eye witness accounts" and then move them to the appropriate section. I.e, Testimonies against Hamas/Israel, for Hamas, etc..etc...whatever.. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eyewitness statements by people who gave their names
This report by Human Right Watch gives eyewitness statements by people who are identified by name. These arguably have a greater level of reliability or verifiablity than those from anonymous sources. Mouin Gasser, a 45-year-old teacher, said:"'I was walking on the street where the school is located in the Jabaliya refugee camp. I was 15 meters away from the school gate and I saw the people running towards me as soon as the sound of the shelling began. While I was walking I could not distinguish what kind of shelling it was because all of them took place around the same time. There were about four strikes, about a half minute between them. The shells landed just outside the school and one hit an electricity transformer on a pole just outside the school, and the shrapnel from that strike hit the people inside the school. There were different sizes of shrapnel, very sharp pieces of metal, most of them about five centimeters long. The tanks were about two kilometers away to the west in Beit Lahiya. I was offering first aid to the people on the street and at the gate of the school. We did not know how this large number of casualties came about. At the gate of the school there were donkey carts and people were transporting their belongings to the school. I did not see any militants in the area. The shelling did not cause that much damage to the building but it was the first time to see so much shrapnel spreading everywhere.'"

Shadi Abu Shanar, who worked as a guard at the school and was inside the gate of the school when the attack took place said:"'Suddenly I heard a number of explosions at the gate. I went out onto the street and found dead bodies and wounded people lying on the ground. Most of them were cut into pieces. The street was full of people. I was about to pass out because of what I saw. The shells landed in a range of 20 to 40 meters around the school. The school was full of people.'" At the very least, these should be added alongside the anonymous accounts to introduce a modicum of balance until we can find more sources to more adequately represent the Palestinian narrative. I might further note that neither these comments, nor the anonymous comments currently cited consitute "Palestinian responses" to the attack. They are rather eyewitness accounts, which perhaps merit their own section if editors insist that this information is relevant.  T i a m u t talk 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have 3rd party media to corroborate HRW report? Don't we already have HRW in the article? I'm not so sure if "eye witness" accounts are entirely reliable in the eyes of wikipedia. This isn't meticulous, empirical data being gathered by HRW but simply testimonies. I'd prefer not to give this too much weight for fear compromising the integrity of the article. I do concede that this information in some form should be in the article if it isn't already. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If "eye witness" accounts are not entirely reliable in the eyes of wikipedia, why is our "Palestinian responses" section made up almost entirely of anonymous eyewitness accounts? You were arguing that there was nothing wrong with this section. Now that I have provided you with eyewitness accounts from individuals with names, suddenly eyewitness accounts are not so reliable? If its that you prefer anonymous eyewitness accounts, I can provide you with some from Israeli soldiers attesting to the open-fire orders they got which dissuaded them from making distinctions between civilians and fighters, something that is surely relevant to this article where the Israeli government claims there were fighters in the area. No?  T i a m u t talk 09:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eye-witness accounts that are forwarded by reliable 3rd party media. Human rights group are not comparable and should be treated differently (not suspect, however). If preferred, I can provide you with information that Palestinian fighters dressed up in civil services uniforms and relied on UN buildings, hospitals, mosques, and kindergarten schools to wage war (which, btw, does not make them immune from attack by soldiers according to the Geneva convention). A small survey of "testimonies" from low-ranking soldiers is hardly reliable, especially anonymous soldiers that volunteer to make statements. There are plenty of testimonies by Gaza civilians that corroborate IDF complaints that militants forced themselves in civilian homes and living spaces. Remember when hundreds of Palestinians claimed IDF soldiers were playing soccer ball with the heads of children in Operation Defensive Shield? This never happened of course, though I imagine 300 programmed civilians crying their eyes out can be very persuasive. As a logical thinker (this is disputed) I prefer meticulous and precise data, and while testimonies and eye-witness accounts deserve some space we can't compromise the integrity of the article with a bunch of moaning from special-interest organization. IT will just be an endless fight of couching "eye-witness" account against each other - a POV war, I guess. anyways. Can we come to some compromise here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * HRW is a reliable 3rd party source. If you really want eye-witness reports there is absolutely no reason to not include these. If you dont then remove the other ones as well.  nableezy  - 15:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

→I missed almost the whole day and I see you didn't waste time. If someone was following my posts in the main article, could have seen that the whole HRW report is under serious question and here is why: "But Garlasco conceded that two of the incidents cited took place in the evening or night, something that could potentially rule out anyone seeing the small and often high-flying aircraft". Moreover, those who have basic experience with drones, will realize that those "evidencies" that "saw" or "heard" those drones are disputable at least and erroneous at most. Besides, when the territory is under theocratic totalitarian rule, the most reliable testimonies will come from anonimous men. The contrary is true for open democratic society. Now back to the core of the dispute - it is impossible to know for sure, but they apparently are independable one of another. Several news agencies collected info saying that there were Hamas fighters in the vicinity of the school. Btw, the witnesses are not necessarily anonymous, NY Times: "Witnesses, including Hanan Abu Khajib, 39, said that Hamas fired just outside the school compound, probably from the secluded courtyard of a house across the street, 25 yards from the school". What exceptional source do you want, ICRC? With all my respect, I think the whole discussion is childish and should be dropped. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because 2 drones were flown at night that brings the entire report into question? I dont follow.  nableezy  - 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. The report covers overall 6 incidents. Out of which, 2 are very contested, while other 3 are questioned too because even during the daylight it is highly improbable that an average human can see and/or distinguish by hearing a very distant drone. Even if he could, there's no certain way to determine the drone is locked on you, especially in the war-zone - maybe you see him but the drone is actually following something else. Besides, the missiles, despite Garlasco's assumtion, could be fired from other types of weapons, not only drones. But this is off-topic. I provided you with one identified witness - why are we still discussing this? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As channel 4 reporter writes: "This may sound like a lot of detail to go into - but when it comes to determining whether or not customary international humanitarian law may have been breached (as has been alleged), this is the sort of detail that can be important.". So please, let it go. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is so much expansion even necessary? This article is not about a school being shelled. The only reason this event received so much press is because it was mistakenly reported that the school itself was targeted. That has been cleared up so the only Intl Law info being added needs to be directly related to pending charges or expressed concern of civilians being targeted after the confusion was cleared up. the only other info I see being noteworthy enough for inclusion would be sources describing how the event pushed calls for a seize fire. If anything, this article needs to be reduced not expanded. At the very least, editors need to watch what info they put in since such a short article will be easy to get up to Wikipedia's preferred standards if people stop trying to plug every little story written about it.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia standards (when you say that I assume you mean featured article standards) require comprehensive coverage. I actually think that the way it is now is pretty good, we have the eyewitness testimonies, Israeli responses, Palestinian responses, and UN response. What do you think should be removed? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit, Tiamut did a good job (but not excellent, see below why) in recomposing poorly structured article. Moreover, she inserted some information she regards as valuable without removing the existing one and this is fine. However, as a general notion, I agree with Cptnono on this one. After the dust settled, and the case is pretty clear, it should be reduced, not expanded. Besides, I simply can't understand why so much space was devoted to evidence of Mouin Gasser, what is so special about it? I think it is given undue weight, it draws too much attention and before I start speculations - I ask to shrink it to due weight. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

→I allowed myself to tinker with it a little. Frankly, Tiamut, you do not have a case to say "evidencies vary". Some didn't see the fighters, but many reports say there were. What do you think the court would say, taking into consideration that the building is not a singular point in space? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If 42 people were killed, why aren't their names listed?
Name names. It's 42 people, so it shouldn't be hard to make a list.. right? We know the names of all 3,000 people murdered by Islamic terrorists on 9/11. Unless of course it's another case of Palestinian libel against Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.237.161.201 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can find names of those killed here (search for casualties on the 6th that were killed "near al-Fakhura School") or here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gaza doesn't list names of the alleged 40 victims.... wonder why?
Why isn't there a list of the alleged 40+ victims of this incident? Israel had provided a comprehensive list of Jewish civilians murdered by Palestinian terrorists, which can be viewed on Wikipedia.

The Arabs who call themselves Palestinians (Gazans are actually Egyptians) cannot provide any such list. There are only statements from families without any proof or source of the 40 people allegedly killed.

The head paragraph of this article should note this discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.85.247 (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why isn't there a list ? See WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * Lists of people killed by the IDF in the attack are available from multiple sources. See B'Tselem here for example.
 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
 * http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/middle_east/why+un+reversal+over+gaza+school+should+be+treated+with+caution/2924657

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25013734-601,00.html

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121025062556/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090106/ts_nm/us_palestinians_israel to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090106/ts_nm/us_palestinians_israel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Al-Fakhura school incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3651722%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425125726/http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/09/4/2201.htm to http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/09/4/2201.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5dewG3QSd?url=http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_07_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_07_english.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C25013734-601%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704025425/http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=1235&CategoryId=1 to http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=1235&CategoryId=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/middle_east/why%2Bun%2Breversal%2Bover%2Bgaza%2Bschool%2Bshould%2Bbe%2Btreated%2Bwith%2Bcaution/2924657
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=132960
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304833139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7814431.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Article issues
This is listed as a B-class article under the watch of five projects. The criteria (#1) states, {{tq|{{tq|The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.}} There are dead link tags dated August 2014, June 2016, and October 2018 that need addressing. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)