Talk:Gaza War

Comments on RfC implementation proposal

from Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_67#Comments_on_RfC_implementation_proposal

RfC question

Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article? Nableezy 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC answer

Wikipedia follows reliable sources and should have a balanced coverage of different points of view, so the result is include Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement

Each side combatants military codenames should be included in the lede. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources (refs 2-4 are used to support Attack on Gaza article name, Arabic language sibling of this article, automatic translation by Google).

1. The military wing affiliated to Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades released a statement ... on operation they called "Oil Stain" Secondary source, Ma'an News Agency, Published Thursday 25 December 2009, English
2. A resistance In the context of what it calls the campaign "oil slick scorching" or "battle of the Criterion", revealed the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas, for the losses caused to the Israeli occupation since the start of the aggression known campaign "Cast Lead" in the Gaza Strip on 27 last December and until the announcement of the cease-fire in Jan. 17 في إطار ما أطلقت عليه حملة "بقعة الزَّيت اللاَّهب" القسَّامية أو "معركة الفرقان" ، كشفت كتائب القسام ، الجناح العسكري لحركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس ، عن الخسائر التي الحقتها بالاحتلال الإسرائيلي منذ بدء العدوان الذي عرف بحملة "الرصاص المصبوب" على قطاع غزة في 27 ديسمبر الماضي وحتى الإعلان عن وقف إطلاق النار في 17 يناير . Secondary source, Moheet, Published 11 January 2009, Arabic
3. Start of the invasion of Gaza and the resistance to address the «Battle of the Criterion» بدء اجتياح غزة والمقاومة تتصدى بـ «معركة الفرقان» Secondary source, Ad-Dustour, Published 04 January 2009, Arabic
4. Battle of the Criterion ... Qassam killed nine Israeli soldiers in separate operations Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 04 January 2009, Arabic
5. Battle of the Criterion (Hamas's name for the 2008-2009 conflict with Israel) Secondary source, NOW Lebanon/Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Published 5 January 2011
6. Dr. Khalil al-Hayya, a member of the political leadership of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement: "The enemy wants to be the battle of the Criterion, shame and humiliation of dignity of our people, but God wanted her to our pride and dignity and stable... Secondary source, Mafkarat al Islam, Published 06/January/2009, English, reflecting on Senior Hamas leader Khalil Al Hayeh
7. Prior to Cast Lead, Hamas made much of its military preparations for conflict with Israel. Since the conflict, it has claimed victory, in what Hamas leaders are calling “the Battle of the Criterion” (al-furqan). Khaled Mashal spoke in these terms on January 21, 2009: This is the first war that our people has won on its land—the first real large-scale war.... Secondary source Washington Institute for Near East Policy , Published December 2009, English
8. December 30 2008, al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas, it is expanding its operation, launched by the "oil spot" and the bombing of Mujahduha for the first time the city of "Beersheba" territory. Original text: قالت كتائب القسام الجناح العسكري لحركة حماس إنها وسعت عمليتها التي أطلقت عليها "بقعة الزيت" وقصف مجاهدوها لأول مرة مدينة "بئر السبع" المحتلة. Secondary source Palestine Today news agency, Published 30 December 2008, Arabic
9. Since the beginning of “the Battle of the Criterion” (al-furqan) launched warplanes Zionist attacks against police posts, killing hundreds, not overlooking Re-Qassam Brigades, Original text: فمنذ اللحظة الأولى التي بدأت فيها معركة الفرقان، بشن الطيران الحربي الصهيوني هجمات ضد مواقع الشرطة مما أدى إلى استشهاد المئات، لم يطل رد القسام، فرد سلاح المدفعية بقصف مواقع العدو، وأجبر الصهاينة على الهروب تحت الملاجئ ، ودب الرعب في قلوب الذين كفروا، فازداد المحتل في استهداف الأطفال والأبرياء، فقتل الأطفال والنساء والشيوخ، واستهدف المساجد والساحات، ليستر هزيمته. Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 02 July 2010, Arabic
10. The Zionist entity gathered forces are enough to occupy dozens of countries, but we didn’t abandoned our land, our people stood with us in defending our land in the battle of the Criterion. Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 19 January 2009, English

Proposal

The Gaza War, code named Operation Cast Lead by the Israeli military and Operation Oil Stain or Battle of the Criterion by the Gaza resistance....

AgadaUrbanit, what you are doing here is disruptive. The RfC above asked a question and provided three sources that indicate clearly which names were being proposed for inclusion in the lead. That RfC has now been closed by an uninvolved admin who determined there was consensus to iinclude these names. Now, you are attempting to hijack the results of that RfC to propose yor own preferences for the names to be included using primary sources that do not even support yor contention that these terms are synonyms. Please back away from the horse and drop the stick. Tiamut^talk 12:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said. nableezy - 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Naturally those are not synonyms, like OCL and GM are not synonyms. Those are names used by each of the combatants, per RfC. Both primary (ref 4,7) and secondary (ref 1-3, 5,6,8) sources were provided, per WP:PSTS. In any way we attribute the names so a primary source is not a concern, I believe. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the RFC by selectively quoting what you wish to see in it. The RFC was about GM and OCL, not anything else. "Operation Oil Stain" is a reference to a salvo of rockets launched two days before the conflict this article covers. Most of the sources you gave above are not reliable sources, for example sh22y.com is a forum, islammemo.cc gives no indication that it is a reliable source, saying most of its news is translated by google, the piece from http://www.voltairenet.org/ is actually from the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, a partisan think tank. That said, if you want to discuss the inclusion of other names please open another section. This RFC was about GM and OCL, not anything else. The statement of dispute at the top of the RFC makes that clear, as do all of the comments within it. nableezy - 17:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, nableezy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Operation Oil Stain" is not a reference to a salvo of rockets launched two days before the conflict. See reflection of secondary source #8 for usage of "Oil Stain" on December 30 2008 by al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That source does not say what you think it does. If you are going to use foreign language sources you should ensure you actually know what they are saying. It says "The al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, announced that it is expanding its operations, which were launched by the "oil stain" and the bombing by the mujaheddin of the territory of Beersheba for the first time". It does not say that "Oil Stain" continued, it says that it was the first part of a larger conflict. nableezy - 05:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• My understanding of source #8 is that name Oil Stain was used on December 30 2008 by al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas in context of extending their operation to include Beer Sheba.
• This appears consistent with English language source #1, December 25 2008 quote: "Al-Qassa Brigades threatened to enlarge the "Oil Stain" to get more thousands of Israelis "under fire"."
• My understanding is that source #2 attributes both Oil Stain and Battle of the Criterion to al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas on 11 January 2009. This source is also used to support both names in Attack on Gaza article introduction.
• Alternative translation to quotes are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The first two sources are about things that happened days before this conflict, the third one has an inaccurate translation provided by you via google, the next one also has an inaccurate translation, the next 3 are unreliable sources, the last one is from a partisan think tank that could be used for attributed statements of opinion but not for facts. Please open another section if you wish to discuss names unrelated to what was discussed in the RFC. The RFC was about the well-sourced statements that the Gaza War was known as OCL by Israel and GM by Gaza. The sources make this clear, the RFC is clear, the close is clear, the only thing that is making any of this unclear is your insistence on bringing unrelated noise into a discussion that has gone on for far too long. But if you insist, at least do it in a new section and try not to muddy this one up with such noise. nableezy - 17:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, nableezy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Along with the names mentioned above, "War on Gaza" and "War in the South" were used more than "Gaza Massacre"(by a ratio of tens of thousands to one). "What both combatants call it" has been brought up before and I again will say that Hamas did not use any public/media relations to disseminate an operational title for the conflict. Since "Gaza Massacre" used sparingly in RS it deserves little prominence. Highlighting the titles used way more frequently is the only neutral way to go about it.BTW, would still love to hear just one editor say that they have actually heard this term used in person on any Arab street and not just on blogs)Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources, "not just on blogs", specifically say the name used by Hamas and Gazans was the Gaza Massacre. This is not an issue of what al-Jazeera called it, what the Israeli media called it, or what you call it, this is about what did the involved parties call it. Reliable sources say that they called it Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre. Whatever theories you have on a media management strategy not being employed by Hamas are completely irrelevant. The RFC is closed and a consensus has been established. If you wish to seek a new consensus by all means feel free. But Im done dealing with these arguments that have no basis in policy or fact. To repeat, reliable sources say that the name used by Hamas and Gazans was Gaza Massacre. Do you have any sources that dispute this? If you would like to discuss adding more names you will need to go through all the crap you made me go through. You will need to provide the same quality sources, with the sources saying who called it that and make a case for why that groups chosen name should be included. You will have to establish a consensus for including whatever additional names you wish to include. You cant now say that a different set of rules apply to names you would like to include now that one that you do not like is included. nableezy - 02:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Reliable sources were provided for Hamas/al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas usage of Oil Stain before and during the conflict and Battle of the Criterion during and years after the conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if that were true, and it isnt, that was not good enough to include Gaza Massacre. I see no reason why you should not be required to reach the same standard that you applied to others over the course of years. nableezy - 16:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by George

Is this another RfC or just another discussion? Regardless, what's the point in adding what the combatants called the conflict, versus just including what the people called the conflict? I think we should include the most common name for the event used globally, the most common name for the event used by Israelis, and the most common name for the event used by Gazans (assuming the latter two are different from the global term). I don't know for sure what those terms are, but the current lead indicates that those are "Gaza War", "Operation Cast Lead", and "Gaza Massacre", respectively. Do any of those not correspond to the common names? ← George ^talk 03:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to provided sources the war was called by many names. My guess would be that per WP:NPOV all verifiable names should be included. Including only one name and ignoring others appear to me as Wikipedia policy violation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in the RfC, the problem of common names can be somewhat messy and arbitrary. But Nableezy brought some actual RS to the table. So we don't just an example of people saying "Gaza War" but a source that says GW is the common name there. For the other names, we just have individual examples. That isn't as good. Sometimes we are forced to use those in the absence of RS but here we don't have to. I think it is a valid point to bring up in general, though one I don't agree with. But with all the I/P fighting going on I don't think this is the best way to follow up the RfC. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that source #2 attributes both Oil Stain and Battle of the Criterion to al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas on 11 January 2009. This source is also used to support both names in Attack on Gaza article introduction, though was not brought to RfC discussions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect, and your use of a source in a language that you do not know is curious at best. nableezy - 12:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, that source makes a distinction between OCL and "Oil Stain" and "Battle of the Criterion". nableezy - 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon my confusion on this subject, but I'm not too familiar with it, having missed the earlier RfC. A few questions:

• What is the common name for the conflict among Israelis? Is it "Operation Cast Lead", or is that strictly the term used by the IDF. If we're using the phrase used by Gazans, the "Gaza Massacre", I want to be sure we're also using the phrase used by Israelis - not just by the IDF.
• What is the single best source for explaining what "Operation Oil Stain" was? I've never been good at filtering through walls of references, so I'd rather just see the best source you've got. I Google'd the phrase, and after combing through several pro-Israel blogs, a few reader comments, and some less-than-reliable sources, it sounds like "Operation Oil Stain" was an operational name used by Hamas for rocket attacks made against Israel on December 24, following the end of the ceasefire on December 18 and prior to Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" response on December 27, rather than a term used to describe the Gaza War itself. It's not clear to me how long "Operation Oil Stain" lasted, but it sounds like it was somewhere between a single day and a week. This phrase might make sense in the background section of the article, but I don't think it's a term for the war itself.
• What is the single best source for explaining what the "Battle of the Criterion" was? I Google'd this one too, and it's a bit more confusing. There are far fewer sources that mention it, and some of them even predate the Gaza War, making me wonder if this isn't a phrase used to describe the broader I-P conflict, or even a phrase with no specific meaning, similar to the English idiom "a battle of wills"[1], "an ideological conflict", or "the battle between good and evil", which obviously aren't real conflicts, though they might be used to describe them. The closest thing I could find to explain what the "Battle of the Criterion" was is a post from the website of a pro-Israel think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) here, which describes it as "Hamas's name for the 2008-2009 conflict with Israel". Similar to the sources for "Operation Oil Stain", however, the phrase seems more like pro-Israel blog fodder than something used by reliable sources, and I'm hard pressed to verify WINEP's description. ← George ^talk 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats about right. As far as the name in Israel, it varies. The media used Cast Lead and War in the South when it was ongoing, though whenever I read about it in the Israeli press now it is called Cast Lead, but my exposure to the Israeli press is both limited and in English only. nableezy - 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A common name used in the Israeli press was "War in the South". That is sufficient for inclusion since it means it was a common name disseminated throughout the populous there. "Operation Oil Stain" appears to be just before the conflict. "Battle of the Criterion" is hard to find but the Arabic Wikipedia shows it for some reason. It would be useful if Arabic speakers used the sources provided above to see if the translation is correct. However, a common name in the Arabic press that we have already verified was "War on Gaza". Not using those names since an editor is not finding a recent article appears to be a double standard since we have met verifiability.

I would be fine with not including "Operation Oil Stain". If Arabic editors can verify "Battle of the Criterion" (I assume you do want to verify names even if they are not tantalizing) then maybe it should go in. So even though we have addressed verifiability, we have failed to address neutrality. We do not include "Gaza Victory" (from a dude with Hamas) due to prominence so if we are going to keep "Gaza Massacre" then we have to address the same concern. We had the names used more than "Gaza Massacre" before. Time to add them back in and this is all fixed. It sucks that so many names have to be listed but if we are going by verifiability and neutrality then it is something we are stuck with. The simple fact is that "Gaza Massacre" was less than other names by a staggering ratio even when we tried using Arabic translations (I assume people remember the long list provided but let me know if we need to do it yet again). Of course, we could go back to removing all alternate names if editors wish to stop arguing about it. It was an easy and neutral solution. Maybe that is what the next RfC will be about since we seem to have them every few months regardless of what the previous one said.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, based on what you've written, maybe we should look at replacing "Operation Cast Lead" in the first sentence of the lead with "War in the South", mention "Operation Oil Stain" in the background, and instead mention "Operation Cast Lead" later in the lead (without making it bold, as operations are subdivisions of wars). I'd also be curious if someone who can read Arabic can explain "Battle of the Criterion". It just sounds like too much of a literal translation (or mistranslation) of "battle of ideologies" or similar to adopt it without better sourcing. I don't really differentiate between "Gaza War", "War in Gaza", "War on Gaza", "War of Gaza", and so on. Articles like that on the Vietnam War don't start out listing "Vietnam War" and "War in Vietnam" as alternative names, and names that are just reordered aren't really alternative names.

Regarding the prominence of "Gaza Massacre", could you give me some more context around your argument (or point me to that list you're talking about)? Cheers. ← George ^talk 06:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources, any at all, that say that "Gaza Victory" was used as a name by Hamas? Not a source where somebody said that there was a victory in Gaza, or said The Gaza victory has ...? Until a reliable secondary sources says this was a name used by Hamas I see no reason to include that. You cant now apply a different standard for other names because you dont like the ones in there now. Reliable secondary sources specifically give this as the name used in Gaza. The end. You continue to bring up a straw man, saying that the English google results of one name outweighs another. That would matter if GM was being placed as an English name, but, again, it is not. It is placed in the lead as the name used in Gaza, exactly what RSs say it is. Not as the name used by al-Jazeera or any other network, but as the name used by Gaza. For that reason, and for that reason alone, it is in the lead. You will have to meet the same threshold that you forced on me over these past years. A source of somebody using a name is not sufficient. 20 such sources are not sufficient. If they were not good enough to include GM they are not good enough to include any other name. A google search comparison is meaningless, reliable sources give these as the common names. If you have other reliable sources that either dispute this or specify that there are additional common names used by Israel and Gaza then great. But until then, these are the names that are included. nableezy - 14:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Other editors need to comment on this before it gets archived or I pull the trigger on reimplementing use of all of the names (including Gaza Massacre). I understand that AU may not have done this RFC well but there was consensus to have those names in before and it is the only neutral way to keep Gaza Massacre in. And yes George, we did have a source that specifically made a point of "war on Gaza" being an intentional representation of the conflict ("on" makes a clear statement as subtle as it might be). See: this source and this source that go as far as discussing the names. Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

References

1. The military wing affiliated to Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades released a statement ... on operation they called "Oil Stain" Secondary source, Ma'an News Agency, Published Thursday 25 December 2009, English
2. A resistance In the context of what it calls the campaign "oil slick scorching" or "battle of the Criterion", revealed the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas, for the losses caused to the Israeli occupation since the start of the aggression known campaign "Cast Lead" in the Gaza Strip on 27 last December and until the announcement of the cease-fire in Jan. 17 في إطار ما أطلقت عليه حملة "بقعة الزَّيت اللاَّهب" القسَّامية أو "معركة الفرقان" ، كشفت كتائب القسام ، الجناح العسكري لحركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس ، عن الخسائر التي الحقتها بالاحتلال الإسرائيلي منذ بدء العدوان الذي عرف بحملة "الرصاص المصبوب" على قطاع غزة في 27 ديسمبر الماضي وحتى الإعلان عن وقف إطلاق النار في 17 يناير . Secondary source, Moheet, Published 11 January 2009, Arabic
3. Start of the invasion of Gaza and the resistance to address the «Battle of the Criterion» بدء اجتياح غزة والمقاومة تتصدى بـ «معركة الفرقان» Secondary source, Ad-Dustour, Published 04 January 2009, Arabic
4. Battle of the Criterion ... Qassam killed nine Israeli soldiers in separate operations Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 04 January 2009, Arabic
5. Battle of the Criterion (Hamas's name for the 2008-2009 conflict with Israel) Secondary source, NOW Lebanon/Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Published 5 January 2011
6. Dr. Khalil al-Hayya, a member of the political leadership of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement: "The enemy wants to be the battle of the Criterion, shame and humiliation of dignity of our people, but God wanted her to our pride and dignity and stable... Secondary source, Mafkarat al Islam, Published 06/January/2009, English, reflecting on Senior Hamas leader Khalil Al Hayeh
7. Prior to Cast Lead, Hamas made much of its military preparations for conflict with Israel. Since the conflict, it has claimed victory, in what Hamas leaders are calling “the Battle of the Criterion” (al-furqan). Khaled Mashal spoke in these terms on January 21, 2009: This is the first war that our people has won on its land—the first real large-scale war.... Secondary source Washington Institute for Near East Policy , Published December 2009, English
8. December 30 2008, al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas, it is expanding its operation, launched by the "oil spot" and the bombing of Mujahduha for the first time the city of "Beersheba" territory. Original text: قالت كتائب القسام الجناح العسكري لحركة حماس إنها وسعت عمليتها التي أطلقت عليها "بقعة الزيت" وقصف مجاهدوها لأول مرة مدينة "بئر السبع" المحتلة. Secondary source Palestine Today news agency, Published 30 December 2008, Arabic
9. Since the beginning of “the Battle of the Criterion” (al-furqan) launched warplanes Zionist attacks against police posts, killing hundreds, not overlooking Re-Qassam Brigades, Original text: فمنذ اللحظة الأولى التي بدأت فيها معركة الفرقان، بشن الطيران الحربي الصهيوني هجمات ضد مواقع الشرطة مما أدى إلى استشهاد المئات، لم يطل رد القسام، فرد سلاح المدفعية بقصف مواقع العدو، وأجبر الصهاينة على الهروب تحت الملاجئ ، ودب الرعب في قلوب الذين كفروا، فازداد المحتل في استهداف الأطفال والأبرياء، فقتل الأطفال والنساء والشيوخ، واستهدف المساجد والساحات، ليستر هزيمته. Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 02 July 2010, Arabic
10. The Zionist entity gathered forces are enough to occupy dozens of countries, but we didn’t abandoned our land, our people stood with us in defending our land in the battle of the Criterion. Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 19 January 2009, English
11. "Rockets from Gaza". Human Rights Watch. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/D7E5DD676BDCF47C8525760B004A4870. Retrieved 17 December 2011. "(1) "معركة الفرقان" في يومهاالعشرينرداً على المحرقة المتواصلة ... القسام يقصف مدينة "بئر السبع" المحتلة بصاروخي غراد .. مما أوقع أربع إصابات اثنتان بحالة الخطر الشديد [al Furqan battle in day 20: a payback to the continuous holocaust: Qassam hits occupied Beer Shiva city with two Grads, causing four injuries, two of which are very serious. (2) According to the website of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the group launched 345 Qassam rockets, 213 Grad rockets, 402 mortar rounds, and 82 rocket-propelled grenades and similar shells during the conflict. “Summary of al-Qassam Operations during the 23-day al-Forqan Battle,”" , Secondary source, Human Rights Watch
12. "Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission". UN. http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/A64490.pdf. Retrieved 18 December 2011. "Al-Qassam Brigades’ website reports that, during the conflict, they killed 102 Israeli soldiers (“The outcome of al-Qassam operations during the Battle of al-Furqan” (in Arabic), available at: http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/special_files/al-furqan/30.pdf)." , Secondary source, UN
13. "Palestinian groups continue firing rockets "in response to Israeli massacres".". BBC. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-191450521/palestinian-groups-continue-firing.html. Retrieved 17 December 2011. "The Al-Qassam Brigades, military wing of Hamas, said that after a week since the start of the "Battle of Al-Furqan [the criterion]" it has managed to fire 302 rockets, at an average of 44 rockets daily" , Secondary source, BBC
14. ...the Cast Lead Operation or al-Furqan Battle as named by Israel and Hamas respectively... Secondary source, book Studies on the Israeli Aggression on Gaza Strip: Cast Lead Operation / Al-Furqan Battle" by Abdul-Hameed al-Kayyali Published in: 2009
15. Maximilian Felsch (November 2011). Die Hamas: eine pragmatische soziale Bewegung?: Eine transnationale empirische Fallanalyse der Hamas in den besetzten Gebieten, in Jordanien, im Libanon und in Syrien. Waxmann Verlag. p. 106. ISBN 978-3-8309-2611-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=etqL8p6pwC8C&pg=PA106. Retrieved 24 December 2011. "German: Der Gazakrieg wurde von der Hamas als „ma'raket furqan“ bzw. als furqan-Schlacht geframt. Ismael Haniyeh gebrauchte den Begriff ma'rakat furqan..., English: Gaza War was titled by Hamas as "ma'raket furqan" or as furqan battle. Ismael Haniyeh used the term furqan ma'rakat..." , Secondary source, Maximilian Felsch, Dipl.-Pol.
16. Jean-Pierre Filiu. The Arab Revolution. Oxford University Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-19-992084-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=5F0PRbLdewIC&pg=PT178. Retrieved 29 December 2011. "... the "Cast lead" operation as Israel names it. The Arab media just call it "the war on Gaza"..." , Secondary source, Jean-Pierre Filiu

On WP:V

Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you unarchive a 6 month old discussion? Stunned, bewildered, shock, those are my thoughts right now. Besides those thoughts, I have no idea what you are asking for thoughts on. nableezy - 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Those additional three sources cited in the article body and ten sources mentioned above and on WP:RSN discussion conclude the discussion on WP:V, providing better translations for Battle of Al-Furqan [the criterion] "معركة الفرقان". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources say that such a name was used by Hamas or Gazans, while the several sources cited explicitly say that the name used by both was Gaza Massacre. You, for years, refused to allow examples of usage of Gaza Massacre to be used to include Gaza Massacre as the name used. You cant now say that the very standard that you rejected should now be applied because you dont like the well sourced name currently in the article. nableezy - 19:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've consolidated and enumerated available sources under References sub-section. So you're still a bit skeptical, despite Ref #2 above: Secondary source, Moheet, which is being used to cite "Operation Oil Stain" and "Furqan Battle" alternative names and attribute those names to Hamas's Qassam brigades at Arabic language sibling article? It is possible to improve the sourcing, while explicitly saying Hamas's name for Gaza War is... :

• Ref #14: ...the Cast Lead Operation or al-Furqan Battle as named by Israel and Hamas respectively...
• Ref #15: ... Gaza War was titled by Hamas as "ma'raket furqan" or as furqan battle. Ismael Haniyeh used the term furqan ma'rakat...

Both sources #14 & #15 are secondary. Please note #14 is a book titled: Studies on the Israeli Aggression on Gaza Strip: Cast Lead Operation / Al-Furqan Battle" by Abdul-Hameed al-Kayyali , see Cast Lead Operation / Al-Furqan Battle naming duality. #15 is by Maximilian Felsch, Dipl.-Pol. , who's academical expertise is in the area of Hamas research, according to his works. Felsch's book contains a paragraph discussing Hamas's naming, see page 106. Would that be enough? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add al-Furqan based on ref 14 that is fine. That doesnt replace the other names however, which remain well-sourced. nableezy - 01:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest per available sources:

A:

The Gaza War, known as Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) in Israel and as the Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎)[36][37][38] in Gaza or called the Battle of al-Furqan [the criterion] (معركة الفرقان‎) [39][40] by Hamas

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because one of the sources says Hamas calls it The Gaza Massacre, so implying that GM is not used by Hamas is incorrect. The sources say that both Gaza and Hamas have used GM, and that Hamas has used BF. Not that Hamas only used BF. nableezy - 22:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about [36] Raimond Gaita source? According to quote provided in sources:

Israel calls its war in Gaza Operation Cast Lead. Hamas calls it The Gaza Massacre, as do some Arab States.

[37] & [38] attribute the name to Islamic world and Arab world respectively

All other sources also agree, the name is not Hamas specific.

From other hand Furqan could be attributed only to Hamas per available sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, BF can be attributed to only Hamas. But GM can also be attributed to Hamas. By phrasing the sentence that it is known as X in Gaza and Y by Hamas you imply that Hamas does not call it X. You are, I am sure, well aware that there are a large number of examples of Hamas calling it GM, so to make such an implication is refuted both by the secondary source that says Hamas calls it GM and by the numerous primary quotes from Hamas leaders calling it GM. Your proposed solution is not only making BF Hamas specific, it is implying that GM is Hamas exclusive. nableezy - 23:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, if we're rigorous with sources then:

B:

The Gaza War, known as Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) in Israel and as the Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎) in Gaza[37][38] and by Hamas[36] or called the Battle of al-Furqan [the criterion] (معركة الفرقان‎) [39][40] by Hamas

Alternatively:

C:

The Gaza War, known as Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) in Israel and as the Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎) in Gaza[37][38] and called the Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎)[36] or Battle of al-Furqan [the criterion] (معركة الفرقان‎) [39][40] by Hamas

[39][40] mention Hamas only So we can not use them to attribute in Gaza.

I personally prefer A since it is more readable and less cumbersome, but would not object B and C also. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A is not accurate, and you seem to neglect including the current formula in your list of options. It suffers from none of the defects of the three options you provide. It is not inaccurate, as A is, and it is not needlessly repetitive as B and C are. And Hamas is, lest we forget, in Gaza, so if Hamas uses a name, then so to then does at least part of Gaza. The same is not true of the reverse, which is why option A is inaccurate. nableezy - 23:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain your position on point: "[39][40] mention Hamas only so we can not use them to attribute "in Gaza""? What do you suggest?AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I already have. Hamas is, lest we forget, in Gaza, so if Hamas uses a name, then so to then does at least part of Gaza. And you havent addressed the point that your favored wording implies an exclusivity for GM that does not exist. nableezy - 00:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is WP:OR not supported by [39][40]. In order to satisfy WP:V, more concrete sources required to attribute BF in Gaza. Currently we can not do that. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it isnt, it is simple English. Either way, option a is unacceptable, it is not accurate. Options b and c are terribly written, but if you insist on this route then you can choose either of those. nableezy - 00:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? To write at least part of Gaza ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

D:

The Gaza War, known as Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) in Israel and as the Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎) in Gaza[37][38] and called so by Hamas[36], also called the Battle of al-Furqan [the criterion] (معركة الفرقان‎) [39][40] by Hamas

This is probably most accurately reflecting sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"CL in I and GM and BF in G" is perfect for the fist sentence. Incomplete, but we don't need completeness in the lead. The other alternatives are unreadable, sorry. --ElComandanteChe (talk)

The thing is, Che, the way Wikipedia works, one must find published material to counter published material. You might get away with adding your own observation, but that is "original research" and is liable to deletion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The idea looks interesting, could you elaborate in details? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

BF could be attributed to Hamas, so OOS per refs #1 and #2 above. I had my doubts about OOS, but see the first line in War on Gaza

قعة الزيت اللاهب[29] أو معركة الفرقان [30] [31] كما تطلق عليها المقاومة الفلسطينية

Operation Oil Stain [29] or the Battle of Al-Furqan [30] [31] as it is called by the Palestinian resistance.

So we could say, per available sources:

or called Operation Oil Stain (قعة الزيت اللاهب) [ref#1][ref#2] and the Battle of al-Furqan [the criterion] (معركة الفرقان‎) [39][40] by Hamas

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Are you missing your usual opponent? I'm asking, because as you probably noticed, I don't play WP:THIS-WP:THAT games. So, can we remain with readable lead section, please? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lets see if there are any objections. We better seek readability within the framework where name used by each of the combatants is included in the lead. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On WP:WEIGHT

Google news archives hits per name cited in Arabic language War on Gaza article

Name	Query Page Link	Number of news ghits	Percents (%)
Gaza Massacre "مجزرة غزة"	link	977	1.2%
War on Gaza "الحرب على غزة"	link	80,400	98.3%
Operation Oil Stain "بقعة الزيت اللاهب"	link	16	0.02%
Battle of Al-Furqan [the criterion] "معركة الفرقان"	link	382	0.4%

Pie Chart for table above

Per WP:COMMONNAME: In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage among reliable sources. When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

None of these searches are specific to Gaza or to Hamas, whereas the several sources cited in the article explicitly say that the name used by Hamas and Gazans is Gaza Massacre. WP:COMMONNAME is about choosing an English article title, and the most common name in English for these events is Gaza War. You are not, as far as I can tell, discussing the article's title, so the reference to COMMONNAME is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is WP:LEAD which says significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. The title Gaza Massacre is, according to several reliable sources, the name used in Gaza and by Hamas. It is a relevant, and significant, foreign language name. It is not in the article because it is what was used by al-Jazeera or other pan-Arab news sources, it is in the article because it is the name used by one of the parties of the conflict. And reliable sources explicitly say that this is the name used by that party. For years you argued that showing usage of a title was not enough to include tha title in an article. Now that the name that you for so long worked so hard to expunge from the lead is backed by several solid sources you want to go back on your prior argument. Sorry, but no. You and several others set a standard for what names can be included, and that standard is having reliable sources explicitly denote that this is a common name by an involved party. I had brought 20 examples of Hamas officials calling the conflict the Gaza Massacre, and that was not good enough. That same standard will apply here. A comparison to other Arabic names found through a google search is irrelevant as it is both not specific to Gaza and not given by a reliable source as a common name by an involved party. nableezy - 19:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead says Gaza Massacre is the name used for the article subject in the Arab world. The Google search results are showing the opposite, unless I'm missing something, which is highly possible for I speak no Arabic. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead says that because somebody made this unsupported edit. I would favor that edit being reverted and the version that had been stable since the RFC on the issue restored. nableezy - 21:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. I also looked into the sources given for this sentence. The first one doesn't open, the 2nd says "in Islamic world" and the third "in Gaza and Arab world". Do we have sources more coherent to what we are trying to do here? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotes for the sources are here. I think those are sufficient, and there was a general consensus in that RFC that they are. I can look for more, but not for the next couple of days. nableezy - 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the 4 links on top of the RFC, 3 of them are the ones used in the lead, the same ones I've mentioned above. The forth is also saying "Gaza and the Arab world", which looks a bit inconsistent with AU's findings. I guess, for now, we shall try to find more/different sources and get back to this discussion later. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You said you couldn't open the first, that is why I linked to a place that has a quote from it. AU's "findings" dont trump reliable sources, which explicitly give a name and attribute it to a group. nableezy - 21:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thank you. I'm a bit confused now for what we shall consider a sources of quality do not withstand the basic verification. I don't think we (or I myself) shall conclude anything at this point, but do some more research, and then see if any of this makes sense. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean by what we shall consider a sources of quality do not withstand the basic verification, could you explain that please? nableezy - 22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my poor English. There is a difference between what the sources given here (the same sources used in the article) are saying, and what Google search shows. Meanwhile it looks like a verification failure of the sources under discussion, but I don't see the whole picture yet. By "verification" I don't mean the verification of the fact that the sources are cited correctly, but the crosschecking of what the sources are saying.

• Also, meanwhile I've been searching the official Hamas site for the combinations "مجزرة غزة" (Gaza Massacre) [2], "الحرب على غزة" (The war on Gaza) [3] and "معركة الفرقان" (Al-Furqan battle) [4]. As you can see, the first one returns nothing meaningful, the second and the third do. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC) edited 12:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Meanwhile I've searched Google books for "Gaza Massacre" (~200 results), looking for anything similar to what the 3 sources under discussion are saying, like "called Gaza Massacre by Hamas/in Gaza/in Palestine/in Arab world/etc.". The search yielded nothing but 2 of the same 3 sources. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• The search of the English site of Hamas military wing yields 7 results for "Gaza Massacre" and 109 results for "Gaza War". The Arabic site of the same organization yields 19 results for "Gaza Massacre" and 528 for "Gaza War". --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You would have to look at each result to see what the source and what the context is, but either way, there are several reliable sources that give this as the name. We arent charged with cross-checking sources, if there is an actual source that conflicts with the ones provided then there would be an issue, but as it stands nothing but a few google searches by WP editors contradicts or even conflicts with the cited sources. But here is another source (footnote page 5). A google search cannot be taken as something that can dispute a reliable source. nableezy - 02:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, I looked into each result in google books (but not into the Brigades site). On springerlink: thank you, good find. On WP:OR: this is quite clear for me, that's exactly why I'm so confused at the moment. The situation as I see it now is as following: we've got a primary sources <-> secondary sources conflict, but I'll keep searching. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The most intriguing point here for now is how really the subject is called by the people of Gaza strip, and if there any widely accepted term among the intellectuals. To answer this question I searched the sites of the universities located in Gaza. While reading no Arabic is a huge limitation, I still was able to find some references. Fore example, the Center for Oral History of the Islamic University of Gaza has a webpage dedicated to the subject, named "الحرب على غزة" (War on Gaza). Additionally, searching this site yields a lot of research material about "الحرب على غزة" (War on Gaza) and almost nothing on "مجزرة غزة" (Gaza Massacre). The picture is similar for Al-Azhar University, this being an example. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To me it is still weird that not a single editor has said "I have been there and they call it the "Gaza Massacre". I know at least one editor who has been there and they have refused to say it. That editor even leans anti-Israel. The name has been in this article since the beginning. It was removed for a little bit but when a handful of sources (not even close to the conflict) mirrored it we got justification for it being in. I twas called the "Gaza Massacre" on blogs. On Western blogs. By kids and pseudo-intellectuals. Time to stop buying in to the online propaganda formulated by rich white college kids and "NGO"s with a drum to beat. No one called it the "Gaza Massacre" in the field. They called it a "massacre" and that is all that should be said here. Describing it as a massacre is completely appropriate. But faking a name has caused too much turmoil. Describe it as a massacre but drop the pretense associated with bolding in the first couple of lines. The stats shown above make the case better than I can. Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cptnono- I'm not sure the stats do make a convincing case. According to Wikipedia the population of Gaza is 1.6 million, while the population of the Arab speaking world is 280 million. I think these figures have to be taken into account when looking at the overall Arabic usage of the different terms. Dlv999 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There are not many RSs publishing from the Gaza Strip so we are stuck leaning on the surrounding area. We still don't have a source from within Gaza calling it the "Gaza Massacre" do we? I know there was a single leader who referred to it like that but then it was referred to as the Gaza Victory. Cptnono (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hamas site calls it "Gaza War" and "Al Furqan" (see above), so Gazan scholars (see above) do. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This conversation has shown that "War on Gaza" is used so much more than "Gaza Massacre". We do have a handful of sources calling it "Gaza Massacre" but they are not related to the subject or region for the most part. It is not surprising that those sources mirrored Wikipedia since it has been in for so long. But we are not here to change history. Every single title used more often should be included or "Gaza Massacre" should be removed. Thank you for the research ECC.Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cptnono - You raised the issue of circular sourcing during the RfC. The RfC decision was to include the term. I don't think it makes much sense to bring up the same argument six months down the line to overturn the decision. Also I don't think original research by editors can cast doubt on multiple Reliable Sources. If Reliable Sources contradict each other, then that would be another matter - but as far as I am aware, this is not the case. Dlv999 (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

On WP:COMMONNAME

According to ref #16, Secondary source a French scholar, specialized in contemporary Islam:

• " .. the "Cast lead" operation as Israel names it. The Arab media just call it "the war on Gaza"... "

Maybe Arabic language War on Gaza article "الحرب على غزة" name is not strange after all. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Arab media was not a party to the conflict, Gaza was. The name used by Gazans and Hamas is what counts, and the names in the article are what sources say is that name. nableezy - 22:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hamas use of civilians as human shield

Read the following paragraph:

" Israel maintains that Hamas uses civilians, and a specially childrens, as human shield, as a part of its war doctorine. The IDF released a video taken by an UAV drone during the war documenting Hamas militant launching a rocket from a civilian house's roof and then using children led by adult to escort him to avoid being targetted by the IDF.

Later, the IDF and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs compiled a film accusing Hamas in a systematical use of civilian infrastructure and civilians as human shield. The film includes photoes and videos documenting Hamas uses of human shield, as well as incitement of children and using them for paramilitary activity and even as suicide bombers. "

Here are the videos:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vHDyuSTneA
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Oqo_wmuGo

User:Dlv999 removed them with the claim that IDF is not a reliable source. I strongly disagree.

1. First, governmental sources are legitimate sources. Many data and statistics are provided by such sources (such as population of states).
2. Second, do you say it is wrong that Israel accused Hamas of using civilians as human shield? The MFA compiled a film, and it is well attributed to it. Do you claim that the entire film is a fake? Some of the videos and photoes there were also broadcasted in news channels (such as the scene of grabbing the child by a militant or Hussam Abdu Bilal's suicide bombing attempt). It is true also for the first film taken from an UAV: do you claim it is a fake? If so - you must prove it! Otherwise one can remove anything he wants by claiming it is a fake or a conspiracy.
3. Third, these videos are reliable.
4. Fourth, Israel has the right to claim claims, we shouldn't erase something only because Israel said it. The article should mention Israel's claims (and this paragraph does it, "Israel maintains...", "...compiled a film accusing Hamas...") a specialy when they are backed by videos and photoes. In this case, like many other, the claims are correct.

MathKnight 18:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, the second video appears to be pure propaganda. But apart from that it does not mention operation cast lead or the Gaza war once. It was posted on you tube on the 11th Jan 2009, from what I can tell, the section on human shields does not use any footage or photographs from the Gaza War, nor are there any claims made about Hamas practices during that conflict. I don't think this video has any place in the article.

The first video has more of a case as it is an allegation made by the IDF about practices during the Gaza War. My issue here is that it is far from clear that the video shows what MathKnight claims in his proposed edit.

I don't have any issue including Israeli government claims about Hamas use of human shields, but I think there should be documented reliable sources. How were the claims received and reported in mainstream sources for instance. How much weight should they be given in the article? Also it should be noted that the mainstream human rights organisations (amnesty international, HRW) and the UN fact finding mission investigated these allegations by Israel and all found them to be unsubstantiated, this was widely reported in the media. Dlv999 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't enough time right now to give a long detailed answer so I'll write briefly and hope someone will supplement me. The first video - we both agree it has a place here, you may formulate "a video allegdly showing a human shield use by Hamas militant" or something like that. For me, it is pretty clear that the video proves IDF case.

The second video indeed deals with human shield issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and present a video of a militant grabbing a child and walking with him, which was taken during Cast Lead and was broadcast on Channel 2 News as well.

As for Amnesty, they have lost credibility recently (see Muaazam Beg affair and their hunt after George Bush). They never doubted any claim made by Hamas or the Palestinian "witnesses" and didn't even bother to check the accusations against Hamas. They intentationally ignored the films documenting Hamas use of children as human shields and booby-trapped schools and mosque. Amensty had clearly taken the side of Hamas even before the investigation started.

As for the Goldstone report, Goldstone himself retracted the accusations against the IDF.

MathKnight 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Surley the IDF is a promary source, and not independant or third party? We neeed third parry RS for this. This [5] is a better source. Or this (which also puts the accusation into context [6],Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the videos are permissible and relevant. As to them being a primary source, you can always attribute them to the IDF and describe them as IDF footage.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Police

Ankh, could you please explain to me further your justification for your significant deletion of sourced information from the Gaza war page. Specifically please explain why you feel that the section-Effects (of the Gaza War), subsection- Casualties, should be restricted to the "legal discussion" and not the actual events themselves as described by multiple RS. My view is that the actual events, as well as the legal interpretation of the events are both important. There is a separate section and sub article devoted entirely to legal aspects of the Gaza war[7], so I see no justification of trying to limit the Effects of the war section to legal arguments, which in any case can only be made in light of the facts. Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are attempting to introduce to the paragraph a description of events during the Gaza war. As such, it is confined to discussing the legal status of Hamas policeman, and overall casualty figures. Note that there is a redirect to the main article "Casualties of the Gaza War" by this article, and information regarding casualties is mentioned throughout the article. It is therefore inappropriate to insert information regarding specific military attacks in a paragraph labelled Casualties. Note that an introduction of description of actual events will need to be balanced with information describing Israeli casualties and Palestinian rocket attacks.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, my introduction of that passage was in response to your own introduction of details of four Police officers that were allegedly policemen and were also Palestinian militants. I find it highly problematic that you would introduce these details of four specific policemen and not about the hundreds of others that were killed. i.e. the scores of Cadets that were killed on their graduation day including traffic cops and band musicians. A significant issue with the overall casualty figures is whether to include the police in the figures. I think it is reasonable to document the number of Police killed and what proportion of the total deaths this equated to. I also think it is reasonable to give a brief account of the circumstances of these killings as according to RS the legal arguments around whether police are legitimate targets is based on individual circumstances and RS also makes clear that blanket decisions cannot be made on police being legitimate targets. Also could you please clarify the source for your edit about the four police officers. Thanks Dlv999 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I was addressing Israel's legal argument, relating to the "IDF made clear that it regards police under the control of Hamas in Gaza to be inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count." The details of the four Police officers that were allegedly policemen is mentioned in the UN report as part of a legal defence regarding the targeting of police, discussing the dual role of the police. Should you wish to expand on details of Israeli attacks and that they also harmed "traffic cops and band musicians" and details of facilities targeted, you are introducing previously unrelated material to the paragraph and as such, a counter balance is necessary.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ank, to my mind it is not balanced to include the evidence Israel presented in its defense to the UN fact finding mission, without also presenting the evidence that was presented to the UN fact finding mission that contradicted Israel's position - especially when you consider that the mission found that the wight of evidence showed in targeting police Israel had committed a "violation of international humanitarian law". All the information about the attacks on traffic cops and musicians was evidence given to the UN mission, which the mission referred to in its conclusions. Your recent edit to me seems nonsensical. Almost the whole passage has zero relevance to the section topic - Casualties. Also I think the discussion of the facts of police killings should be before the legal arguments, which are based on the actual events that occurred. Dlv999 (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to self-revert and restore information to the article. The information is sourced and pertinent. If you want to balance it, do that. Your reasons for removing it don't make sense in my view. This article is covered by sanctions and WP:1RR. Could you please try to edit as neutrally and constructively as possible. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1. The article was discussing police deaths and clearly concludes with the UN and Palestinian position that the Gaza police were a "civilian law-enforcement agency and that Israel's blanket targeting of the Gaza police violation of international humanitarian law". As such, I expanded on Israel's argument as cited in the UN Report.
2. You decided to extend the remit of this paragraph to specifics of an Israeli strike and the death of civilians.
3. The "evidence given to the UN mission, which the mission referred to in its conclusions" does not automatically pertain to the legal status of Hamas policeman, and certainly not your selection
4. "Almost the whole passage has zero relevance to the section topic - Casualties." I am in agreement, as I stated on my reversion, but it is YOU that wished to expand the topics covered in this paragraph to civilians deaths and strike specifics.
5. It was therefore necessary to balance with equivalent Israeli civilians deaths and strike specifics. It is unbalanced to provide specific examples of strikes causing Palestinian deaths without similarly elaborating upon the brief mention in the passage that "Ten Israeli soldiers were killed, along with three civilians". I too "think it is reasonable to give a brief account of the circumstances of these killings" and wonder as indeed you have "why you feel that the section-Effects (of the Gaza War), subsection- Casualties, should be restricted to the "legal discussion" and not the actual events themselves".

I would urge you to actually read and understand the nature of the paragraph before rushing to insert new material. I have made a minor change to your amendment because you decided to interpolate strike specifics in the middle of the delineation of the legal positions
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes, and you chose to present a piece of evidence to support the Israeli position without including any of the weight of evidence that contradicted it. This in my view is unbalanced hence my edit which included the opposing evidence.
2. As I said I was just including the evidence that contradicted the Israeli evidence that you included.
3. It doesn't "automatically pertain", it pertains because the cited RS says it pertains. Read the RS, according to them police can only legitimately be targeted when they are actively engaged in fighting. In its conclusion on this point the UN mission specifically cite the incident I added to the article.
4. If you admit your edit is irrelevant , why did you add it?
5. My edit only refers to casualties, which is the topic of this section

I did not "interpolate strike specifics in the middle of the delineation of the legal positions." I added a brief description of the uncontroversial facts as per RS. The legal positions are made on the basis of the facts thus it makes sense to put this passage before the legal discussion and not after it. As for your other comments, I am fully aware of the nature of the passage, and I don't make knee jerk revisions or edits - in fact unlike some I don't ever revert RS'd additions without gaining a consensus first. Dlv999 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1. How is "Human Rights Watch stressed that blanket decisions must not be made about police being legitimate targets," and "the Gaza police were a civilian law-enforcement agency and that Israel's blanket targeting of the Gaza police was therefore a violation of international humanitarian law" not "including any of the weight of evidence that contradicted it"
2. I stated that the edit was irrelevant to the prior form of this paragraph. I clearly mention but you wished to"expand the topics covered in this paragraph" ,and so therefore it is now relevant.
3. Like you stated, I too "think it is reasonable to give a brief account of the circumstances of these killings" and wonder as indeed you have "why you feel that the section-Effects (of the Gaza War), subsection- Casualties, should be restricted to the "legal discussion" and not the actual events themselves". Can you specify any particular content you object to, that is not "a brief account of the circumstances of these killings" and not referring to "actual events themselves" that you have acknowledged have a place in the article.
4. If you do not believe your insertion interrupted the flow of the legal arguments I shall revert to how you originally presented it. I just thought this way was preferable
   Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1. In my view, the HRW statement is an opinion from a RS on the basis on which the legality decision should be made. It offers no comment on Israel's action during the War. The UNFFM quote is the conclusion of the mission after hearing all of the evidence. In my view it is biased to single out a single piece of evidence to contradict the conclusions of the mission without including the weight of evidence that led them to their conclusions.
2. Personally I don't think a lot of the passage is relevant to the actual 3 casualties, but I will not remove without prior consensus.
3. Thank you for your decision, I hope we can move forward with our editing and continue our discussions on the basis of sources, rational discussions and assumptions of good faith. Dlv999 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please not that casualties means "A person killed or injured in a war or accident, A person or thing badly affected by an event or situation". Why do you claim that there were only 3 casualties, and therefore much of the passage is irrelevant.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if that is the definition you are using perhaps you should write a brief summary of the "casualties" on the Palestinian side, as per your own definition. Dlv999 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran as a belligerent

I read the cited source for this claim [8] and it seems a bit thin to me. It is basically a propaganda speech by the Ayatollah. The relevant piece of rhetoric is this “We got involved in the anti-Israeli issues, which resulted in victory in the 33-day and 22-day wars,”. I don't think this reaches the level of evidence required to show Iran was an active belligerent. Most likely (if there is any truth to the rhetoric at all) he is referring to funding and supply of arms. But if that is enough to count as a belligerent, then the US should be put on the side of Israel because they have been funding and supplying Israel with weapons for decades. Dlv999 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

it says they were involved, but not how. So it does not say they were a beligerant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran's involvement
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed's are not RS. Dlv999 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Also again it does not say Iran was a co-beligerant. Just Iran supplies and trains Hamas, well the USA supplies equipment and training to Irrale.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=56886Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran is not a belligerent to be listed in the infobox. Usually only notable forces are listed, not logistic support or tiny support & training forces like the Revolutionary Guard officers.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)