This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just to notify everyone, in effects section, cutting this paragraph from
On December 27 a rocket hit a house in Netivot, killing one and wounding five. Another rocket hit a synagogue in the Eshkol Regional Council on the same day.[1] On December 29 a Grad rocket hit Ashkelon, killing an Israeli-Arab construction worker and seriously wounding three other people.[2] Rockets killed two more Israelis after nightfall.[3]
On December 30 a Grad missile landed in an empty kindergarten in Beersheba, causing damage.[4] On the following morning, a rocket hit the Makif Alef high school in the city. Neither incident resulted in casualties, as schools in the area were closed due to rocket threats.[5]
On January 3, rockets hit, among other targets, an apartment building in Ashdod, wounding two, as well as a playground in Ashkelon and a cafeteria in a kibbutz bordering the Gaza Strip.[6] On January 6, a rocket hit Gedera for the first time, injuring a child.[7] On January 11, several rocket barrages were fired during the temporary cease-fire, one hitting the outer wall of a kindergarten in Ashdod and another exploding adjacent to a school in Sderot which had recently been reopened.[8]
to
On December 27 a rocket hit a house in Netivot, killing one and wounding five. On December 29 a Grad rocket hit Ashkelon, killing an Israeli-Arab construction worker and seriously wounding three other people.[9] Rockets killed two more Israelis after nightfall.[10]
If we included details of every rocket attack that caused damage, we'd have to do same for Israeli attacks.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
In general, I agree we do not need to list every attack, and I commend your efforts to shorten the article. But a couple of the rocket attacks you removed were among the most serious/notable in the conflict (especially the attacks on the schools). Also, we provide statistics in the humanitarian section of the article on X number of Gaza mosques, health facilities, schools, etc, targetted or damaged, but to my knowledge no such stats are available for damage in Israel during the conflict, and so examples should be provided regarding rocket attacks on similar notable Israeli facilites. Kinetochore (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The most serious and notable attacks in Gaza were moved to the timeline article, I think that would be appropriate for the details on these as well. We should say X number total but not need to say an individual rocket struck an individual house in this article. Nableezy (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The most serious and notable attacks by Israel (or at least those considered as such) are still in this article. The same should be the case for Hamas attacks. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hooray. I always favor reducing the fluff.Cptnono (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The most serious attacks by Israel are not covered in any detail in this article, at least from my quick reading of it right now. Which ones are in the article? Nableezy (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Two notable specific IDF attacks discussed in the article, with specific facilities that were targetted named, per Nableezy's request:
On January 3, the IDF shelled the Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque in Beit Lahiya after the evening prayer. Witnesses say that over 200 Palestinians were inside the mosque at the time of the attack.[105][106] Thirteen people, including six "believed to be under the age of 18," were killed, and 30 wounded.[106][107] Israel has accused Hamas of using this and other mosques[108], to hide weapons and ammunition,[106][109] and as cover for firing on the IDF.[110]
On January 15, Israeli artillery started a bombardment of the city while fighting was still going on in the streets. Three high-rise buildings were shelled... Among buildings shelled were the al-Quds hospital, Gaza's second-largest, in the Tal al-Hawa neighborhood.
I don't see why we can't also include notable hamas attacks on specific facilities (i.e. schools and synagogues).Kinetochore (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, did not see those during my quick read. I think these could be pared down as well. Nableezy (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
if schools are going to be mentioned, maybe we'll also need to list some of the Israelis notable attacks on Gaza schools:
Amnesty and John Holmes: One of the best schools in Gaza (The American School) was completely reduced to rubble[11][12]
Where can we put such info? --Darwish (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Darwish, I doubt that you would be able to prove that RS classified these as deliberate attacks on the schools which are part of the Israeli Campaign. Wheras RS does classify Hamas rocket strikes targeted at civillian population centres as part of the Hamas campaign. But by all means, include the damaged school information in the article, under the effects section perhaps (which documents much of the damage in Gaza). Kinetochore (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry, but that doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. RS do not classify Israels attack on the schools as deliberate, but because RS classify Hamas rocket strickes targeted at civilian pop centers a part of its campaign we should have more details on that? Gaza is a civilian population center. Hamas doesnt have the ability to target anything with their rockets, those rockets have a maximum range and thats it, no targeting capability other than a general direction. Yes Hamas fire rockets with the intention of hitting 'population centers' but Israel firing rockets and mortars into Gaza is not intentionally firing into civilian population centers? If you want to say Israel did not intentionally strike the school so it should not be in the campaign section then you should also be saying that Hamas did not intentionally hit the school, keeping in mind that it is not possible that Hamas intentionally targeted a school, so it should also not be in the campaign section. Nableezy (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with more or less details. Damage to a school caused by Israel, not labeled as an attack on the school or as part of their campaign, should not be covered in the campaign section (though it could be covered in another section, provided it was notable enough to merit inclusion in this article, according to RS), wheras notable damage caused by hamas rockets aimed at population centres (though not at specific buildings) should still be covered in the campaign section, since hamas' rocket attacks on population centres have been labeled by RS as part of Hamas' strategy/campaign/military effort/etc. Regarding your point about intention, I am not really interested in a POV debate right now - it would not be constructive for the article. Kinetochore (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
But attacks on schools are not labeled as part of the Hamas strategy/campaign/military effort. Rocket attacks directed towards southern Israel certainly are, but it is impossible for Hamas to intend to hit a school, so if intention is the bar to clear then neither does it. Israel's entire military campaign is an attack on a population center (I know you like the British spelling, but the anti-Imperialist in me cant type it :D). There is a subtle difference in the criteria you are applying, saying the Israeli attacks on schools are not deliberate but that Hamas launching rockets at population centers is. But the comparison should be one of the following. Are the attacks towards population centers deliberate (in both cases yes) or are the attacks deliberately targeting schools. I dont think you can say that Hamas deliberately targeted a school (in fact I think it is impossible to say that) so if that is the criteria applied to Israel it should also be the criteria applied to Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
According to your logic, if a Hamas rocket hits an Israeli military target, this is not part of the Hamas campaign/strategy/miltary effort, since Hamas could not have hit that target on purpose. When Hamas fires a rocket that they have no control over, either everything is a target, or nothing is. Either way, that would make the rocket attacks and their consequences part of the Hamas campaign.Kinetochore (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I certainly didnt mean to say that, what I meant to say was that if intent to strike a given target is the threshold then Hamas strikes on a school does not meet that threshold. They may certainly hope that they strike such targets, but they cannot intend to. If it is the intent to strike in civilian areas, such as Sderot or Gaza, that is the threshold for such detail then both sides are intending to strike civilian areas. Disagree? Nableezy (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - though I would critise your definition of a civilian area as being too broad. Perhaps population centre would have been a better choice of words. In any case, as I mentioned above, this debate isn't going anywhere - once we end up agreeing, or agreeing to disagree, we will be still be back at square one with the article. Kinetochore (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
And this IHT article says that Israel specifically targeted the American school, which they said was being used as a launching base for rockets. There are a number of sources saying that the IDF says the schools destroyed were deliberately targeted because they were being used to either store or launch rockets. The case can be made that the Israeli strikes are intentional in that they intentially targeted and destroyed a school, while no such case could be made for Hamas attacks. Nableezy (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the placement of Darwish's list of schools, and I did say provided these schools were not labeled by RS as being attacked by Israel (as the American school was).Kinetochore (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: the most notable Beersheba and Ashkelon Ashdod rocket attacks should remain in that section, because, as is mentioned in the lead of the article, these cities were previously untargeted. Anyone disagree?Kinetochore (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. And I was the first to introduce this fact into the article, however butchered it has been. This is one of the most militarily significant events of the war, because it signifies an increase in the military capability of the Hamas forces.--Cerejota (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
And the attack on Gedera, which was also the first time the city was hit. And the attacks that killed people, because they were the most militarily successful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cerejota in that, from a military history point of view, its most important in the article to note the progression of the forces' strengths. I see the fairness/NPOV issue and I sympathise somewhat (What makes X civilian's death any more notable than Y civilian's?), but the overriding issue is the nature and progressions of the military campaigns. The Squicks (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying the rocket attacks should not be in the article, but saying one rocket hit a school, another hit a synagogue goes into a level of detail that isnt really needed to show that Hamas rockets have struck further into Israel than they ever have before. I am fine with saying x number of schools and synagogues were hit in Israel as well as y number of schools and mosques were hit in Gaza. But specifying that this attack hit this seems beyond the point that the rockets have hit deeper into Israel than in the past. Nableezy (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Novelty isn't the only reason individual Palestinian attacks should be included in the article. Palestinian rocket attacks were an important part of the conflict, and this is the only paragraph giving any indication to the reader what the hell they were: what kind of places they hit, how often they happened, how often they physically injured people, etc. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
i can see both perspectives here. 1)rocket attacks, especially those showing increased range and capability, are notable aspects of this conflict 2)destruction or damage to schools and synagogues/mosques is emotive, and therefore widely reported in reliable sources 3)there is a seeming slant in the level of detail provided to individual schools in israel when compared in number to the amount of destuction of same in gaza
so, i propose that the most notable rocket attacks be included, with the detail of whether they ere schools, synagogues, ice cream shops, etc. simply for the reason that, if it just says "building," we would be leaving out a widely reported fact to create an illusory "balance." also include WP:RS detail in the palestinian section, whether it was an "intended target" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)untwirl(talk) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair and balanced - and needed to comply with NPOV and ensure that no bias is entered. I dare you to prove it didn't start with the big bang.--Cerejota (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Ummm....what?? Are you serious? Cybersteel8 (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Tell me, what do you think?--Cerejota (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That's just silly. You can't just reject a cyclic model just cause you don't agree with it. NPOV would probably just be to use something like "time immemorial". --JGGardiner (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The reliable sources I read say that the cyclic model is witchcraft. Big bang is the truth.--Cerejota (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah? Well Conservapedia, the most reliable of sources, says your theory has more holes than the firmament. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The topic of this article is not "yatching" or "affirmative action", so Conservapedia is not an RS in this case, because they have a controversial defense of "non-white holes".--Cerejota (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I haven't actually checked Conservapedia's Gaza War article but I suspect they say it began with the Fall of Man. And that's pretty close to what you're saying. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, http://www.conservapedia.com/Gaza they skirt the issue altogether. However, they link to The Guardian (???) and say "The Gaza Strip is a small strip of land 360 square kilometers, and has a population of 1.4 million people, making it one of the most densely populated places in the world." They are a bunch of pro-Palestinians, it seems.--Cerejota (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
They're just pro-Armageddon. Actually Nableezy was kind enough to direct me to the Conservapedia article on the subject.[1] You probably got lost because it is just titled "Cast lead". Apparently you can satisfy their MOS by dropping the word "opeation". But you still have to maintain CPOV. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually sent you there hoping you wouldnt come back. Thought you might prefer that article as a starting point for your involvement. Might be less stag-like. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia is cool and everything. But I just can't figure out how to "edit in tongues" without it looking like vandalism. So you're stuck with me for now. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as kittens go, that one is rather... ugly. Can't we use a cuter one, please? *Dodges tomato* The Squicks (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Its always you pro-Pretty Cat people pushing your POV all over the place!--Cerejota (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE says we have to balance ugly kittens with pretty ones. Or at least a puppy. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No, puppies belong in 2006 Lebanese Lovefest.--Cerejota (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Streamlined Background Section
I tried to streamline the background section without changing the content. This mostly consisted of removing or consolidating redundant info or removing stuff that was out of place. Given that its a somewhat contentious section and that many of the redundancies contained facts favorable to one side I thought it best to get some feedback here before making the changes. Its about 25 percent shorter now.
The agreement required Hamas to end rocket attacks on Israel and to enforce the lull throughout Gaza. In exchange, Hamas expected the Blockade of the Gaza Strip to end, commerce in Gaza to resume, and truck shipments to be restored to 2005 levels, which was between 500 and 600 trucks per day.[19][20][21] Israel tied easing of the blockade to a reduction in rocket fire and gradually re-opened supply lines and permitted around 90 daily truck shipments to enter Gaza, up from around 70 per day.[22] Hamas criticized Israel for its continued blockade[23] while Israel accused Hamas of continued weapons smuggling via tunnels to Egypt and pointed to continued rocket attacks.[24]
The UN recorded seven IDF violations of the ceasefire between June 20 and June 26, and three violations by Palestinian groups not affiliated with Hamas between June 23 and 26.[25] On December 18, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, reported 185 Israeli violations during the lull period.[26] The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reported a total of 223 rockets and 139 mortar shells fired from Gaza during the lull, including 20 rockets and 18 mortar shells before November 4.[27] It notes that "Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire" until November 4, when the ceasefire was "seriously eroded."[28] Rocket fire decreased by 98 percent in the four and a half months between June 18 and November 4 when compared to the four and half months preceding the ceasefire.[29] Hamas denied responsibility for the rocket fire and imprisoned some responsible individuals.[19] However, Human Rights Watch complained that some of the responsible militants were summarily released without explanation.[30]
===Conflict escalates===
On November 4, 2008, Israeli forces raided a Hamas-dug tunnel near the Israel-Gaza border. The IDF claimed the tunnel was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers while Hamas asserted that the tunnel served defensive purposes.[31] As six of its members were killed, Hamas considered the attack a “massive breach of the truce.”[32][33] Subsequently, rocket attacks targeted at Israeli cities near Gaza sharply increased during November 2008, approaching pre-truce levels.[34] According to a November 17 article in The Daily Telegraph, "since violence flared on November 5, Israeli forces and militants, some of them from Hamas, have engaged in almost daily tit-for-tat exchanges."[35]
On December 13, Israel announced that it was in favor of extending the cease-fire, provided Hamas adhered to the conditions.[36] On December 14, a Hamas delegation in Cairo proposed that the parties return to the original ceasefire arrangement: Hamas would undertake to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if Israel would agree to open up the border crossings, not to reduce commercial traffic, and not to launch attacks into Gaza. At an Israeli cabinet meeting on December 21, Yuval Diskin, head of Israel's internal security agency, said he thought Hamas was "interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms[...]. It wants us to lift the siege of Gaza, stop attacks, and extend the truce to include the West Bank."[37]
On December 20, Hamas officially announced that it would not extend the cease-fire which had expired on December 19. It cited the Israeli border blockade as the primary reason and resumed shelling of the western Negev.[38] Israel said that it had begun to ease the blockade, but reimposed it when Hamas failed to end all rocket fire and weapons smuggling.[39]
On December 23, senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar reiterated that Hamas was willing to renew the cease-fire under the original terms. That same day the IDF killed three Palestinian militants, claiming that they had been planting explosives on the Israel-Gaza border.[40]
On December 24, more than 60 Palestinian mortar shells and Katyusha and Qassam rockets hit the Negev.[41] Hamas code-named the rocket attacks "Operation Oil Stain" and claims it fired 87 rockets and mortar rounds at Israel that day.[42]
On December 25, after Israel had "wrapped up preparations for a broad offensive," Israeli Prime MinisterEhud Olmert delivered a final warning in an interview with the Arabic language satellite channel al-Arabiya. He said "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it. We are stronger."[43]
On Friday, December 26, Israel reopened five border crossings between Israel and Gaza to supply fuel for Gaza's main power plant and to provide about 100 truck loads of humanitarian aid, including grain and other goods.[44] That same day, militants fired approximately a dozen rockets and mortar shells from Gaza at Israel, one accidentally striking a northern Gaza house, killing two Palestinian sisters and wounding a third.[45][46] According to Israeli defense officials, its subsequent December 27 offensive took Hamas by surprise, thereby increasing militant casualties.[47]
I like it since it seems more related to this particular conflict. The '08 ceasefire violations is a good starting point. We could even cut out some of the data unless we want that much detail.Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
As someone who added a lot of things to the lull section, it kills me to see it cut. But I agree that it must be done for the reader's sake. This looks pretty good. The Squicks (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:V Check V: Attack of the Killer Vs
Okay so this is another random check. This time the very long sentence says |Israel has been accused of collective punishment by United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)'s Richard Falk;[249] of targeting of civilians by Falk, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas"[2] and it goes on. But I'm just checking the Abbas source. It actually doesn't say what Abbas' specific accusation would be but rather that he had "ordered officials to look into taking Israel to international courts over the (school shelling) incident." That could mean targetted killing but it could also mean disproportionate force or other things. We can't assume which. At least not with that source. Is there a better one? --JGGardiner (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You can remove Mahmoud Abbas from the sentence until we find a source. I know that Abbas has accused Israelis of committing war crimes so I will see if I can find a source on that. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is the source for the accusation [3]. I will add it now.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly Gaza strip does not have any military. And according to Wikipedia also not government (missing Gaza Strip -> Governance ref) . Likely Southern Israel does not have any military. Infobox already mention both in Location.
In 2006 Lebanon War the main Belligerent on Lebanon side of the conflict is Hezbollah, probably because dudes with guns used yellow flags and belong to Hezbollah organization. Still Hezbollah is not a country but armed political party in Lebanon coalition government.
In this conflict dudes with guns on Gaza side, according to reliable sources, were using green head bands. So did commanders.
This is why I propose to change Belligerent to Hamas and its military wing. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Agada, the belligerents change was not agreed to, I dont know where you got that idea. There have been many discussions about this, and I cannot see how you got the idea that it was agreed that it should list Hamas as the belligerent and only Hamas. The last agreement on this was changing it from a list of Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, and a few others to Gaza. You want it to say Hamas get consensus for that. Nableezy (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
agree with you. Let's add all armed groups, supported by reliable sources quotes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I see that we do agree on Hamas. Please bring sources supporting inclusion of Fatah, PFLP, and a few others to Gaza. Commander names would be nice too. 10x for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
No, we do not agree. I agreed in the past to change it to Gaza from a list of militant groups. I still support keeping it as Gaza. Gaza has a government. I dont even understand what you mean by 'southern Israel does not have a military' as the location is not the determining factor in what the belligerents are. I think the Lebanon War listing is incorrect, though it does have a stronger argument than this conflict, because Lebanon has an army that was not, for the most part, engaged in hostilities. Hezbollah was a part of the government, and with some other factions engaged in hostilities as a militia. Here, government offices, civil police and other Gaza infrastructure was attacked. Hamas is not part of coalition government in Gaza in which it is not the ruling party, Hamas is the government of Gaza. When governments are in conflict their countries/territories are in conflict. Nableezy (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources refer to Israel's action against Hamas. Based on this, I think it is safe to refer to the belligerents as Hamas and Israel, with perhaps some other smaller groups thrown in if there is evidence that they joined Hamas in the fight.
[4] GAZA (Reuters) - "Israel sent tanks deeper into Gaza on Saturday and threatened to intensify its offensive against Hamas as both sides spurned international calls to end the conflict.
[5] GAZA (Reuters) - "Foreign powers stepped up calls on Israel and Hamas on Tuesday to halt hostilities after four days of Israeli air attacks on the Gaza Strip and rocket salvoes by the Islamist militants deep inside the Jewish state."
[6] JERUSALEM (CNN) -- "Israeli warplanes continued to pound Hamas targets in Gaza on Friday as the world waited to see whether Israel would launch a ground attack."
[7] CANADA.COM "Israel, Hamas give mixed signals on truce"
[8] MSN: GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - "Israeli jets and ground troops hammered at Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip and Islamic militants fired barrages of rockets at southern Israeli cities Friday, ignoring a U.N. resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire after two weeks of combat."
[9] LA TIMES- "Israel and Hamas ignored a United Nations cease-fire resolution Friday, with the Israeli army attacking 70 targets in the Gaza Strip and Palestinian militants firing a barrage of rockets at southern Israel from the beleaguered seaside enclave."
[10] IRISH TIMES "Israeli troops fight Hamas within mile of Gaza city centre"
[11] TELEGRAPH, UK "Gaza siege: Fierce fighting as Israel's troops battle Hamas in the streets"
[12] AlARABIYA- "In their efforts to win the propaganda war, Israel, Hamas fight their Gaza war in cyberspace"
[13] CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR -- "How Israel, Hamas define victory in Gaza" "Escalating a week-long assault against Hamas, Israel invaded Gaza over the weekend to stop the Islamist militants who continue to launch cross-border rocket attacks.
[14] ZINHUANET: "Hamas to fight until Israeli army leave Gaza" GAZA, Jan. 17 (Xinhua) -- The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) announced Saturday night that Hamas will fight until all Israeli troops leave Gaza.
[15] DAILY MAIL, UK "Israel rolls its tanks into Gaza to storm Hamas rocket bases" --"Israeli troops were today fighting Hamas on the ground after dramatically raising the stakes by sending tanks into the Gaza Strip in a bid to stop the group's rocket attack"
None of these sources refer to Israel fighting Gaza, but fighting Hamas in Gaza. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, your own links demonstrate more clearly than I could that the fight is in Gaza, and even on Gaza, but the belligerents are not once written as "Gazans" but Hamas and militants. Just a look at more than the headline will show you!
Starting with the Guardian one: [16] "aimed at Hamas bases" "The strikes come just over a week after a six-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas expired, and follow a series of warnings by Israeli officials that they were planning an operation in response to rockets fired into Israeli towns and villages by Hamas and other militant groups based in Gaza." -- Hamas said it would seek revenge, including launching new rocket attacks on Israel and sending suicide bombers to Israel. "Hamas will continue the resistance until the last drop of blood," said a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, speaking on a Gaza radio station.
This link [17] does refer to "Israel’s assault on Gaza" but adds "Despite worldwide condemnation, the population of Israel appear to be strongly in favour of the bombing campaign targeting Hamas, the ruling party in Gaza. A poll today suggested that some 95 per cent of Israel’s Jewish population supports the bombardment of Hamas. "
Your Jpost [18] refers to the "seige against the Gaza Strip" but comments on "the fighting in Gaza" -- also refers to Egyptians as saying "We all belong to Hamas" and talking about large " demonstrations waving Hamas flags."
Your Newsweek ref [19] referd to the "assault on Gaza," but the full context of that sentence goes like this: "This week's assault on Gaza, dubbed Operation Cast Lead by the Israeli military, is being billed as a clean-up job intended to keep Hamas from launching rockets into Israeli territory, " and "Yet even as Israel strengthens its position with regard to Hamas..." The assault is on a place, but the belligerent is Hamas.
The Fox News story [20] in context adds, "Israel's weeklong aerial bombardment of Gaza and the start of the ground offensive Saturday against Hamas have drawn condemnation across the Muslim and Arab world and news coverage of the invasion has dominated Arab satellite television stations.
The New York Times [21] "Israeli tanks and troops swept across the border into Gaza on Saturday night, opening a ground war against the militant group Hamas after a week of intense airstrikes." and "Since seizing control of the territory a year and a half ago, Hamas has been able to smuggle in more and better weapons. Its more sophisticated arsenal has been on display in recent weeks, and even under heavy fire the group has shown its ability to keep hitting Israeli cities with long-range rockets."
And Reuters [22] "Israeli forces on Monday pressed on with a deadly ground, sea and air offensive against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip that has cut the territory in two and France spearheaded diplomatic efforts to obtain a truce"
It is quite clear that when RS talk about the "Assault on Gaza" they are talking about a place, not about the belligerents. They consistently say that Hamas and militants are Israel's target and that it is Hamas and militants that are fighting and being fought against. These are your references. I think you would need to find a reference that says that Israel is fighting Gazans and Gazans are fighting Israel, instead of all these references to Hamas. In the meantime, I should think consensus could be achieved on this one, since no such reference has yet been presented, and we have RS that say Hamas is indeed the belligerent in Gaza. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
All right, how about the sources that say that a number of groups besides Hamas were involved, the ones used in the prior version of the belligerents changed to Gaza by Dovid in this edit? It is clear there were more groups actively engaged in hostilities than Hamas (including Fatah). Also, can you answer the following questions: 1. Is Hamas the government of Gaza? 2. When governments are at conflict are their states/territories at conflict? Even if we were to accept this idea that this was an attack on Hamas and not Gaza, which itself would be inane as Gaza's infrastructure was destroyed, not just Hamas infrastructure, then it would be an attack on the government of Gaza. An attack on the government of Gaza is an attack on Hamas. And who cares what Israel's 'targets' are, we don't reflect Israel's POV as fact just because Israel says so. And consensus was achieved when it was changed to Gaza, if you want to change it back get consensus for that. Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
All that is WP:OR and been discussed ad infinitum. What is relevant is what the RS say about who is fighting whom. Regarding Dovid's edit, you will have to ask him. Perhaps he basically wanted to say simply that Hamas was in Gaza (well at least most of them, some being in Syria and elsewhere), which is (rather) stating the obvious. At any rate, Hamas is the principal belligerent on the "Gazan" side by Wikipedia standards. I have no opinion on adding the other groups. That is up to the rest of yawl. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really, as there is not a single source that lists belligerents, all the sources say is that Israel has attacked Gaza and targeted Hamas. Seeing as you cant answer the questions Ill just have to assume you are unable to. Nableezy (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
And I just did ask him, but the discussion was here. He wanted to reduce the size and keep it concise, so he made the change after a short discussion. It has stuck until this recent spate of needing to reflect the Israeli POV everywhere. Nableezy (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict]I didn't see "consensus" over using "Gaza" as the belligerent. I didn't start these sections questioning this. Others did. I am only one of at least a few others that disagree & don't believe it is reflected as "Gaza" in the sources. Thus if I or someone else were to change it, apropos of the sources, the burden would be on you to achieve consensus for putting "Gaza" back in, especially since you have not got any sources that uphold your position. I am sure there is relevant WP policy somewhere. Could be wrong, but I shouldn't think one would require consensus to put up what the RS say. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
BRD cuz, be bold, get reverted, discuss. Nableezy (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Now you want to see a source that actually lists belligerents? The attack was on a place, the belligerents were Israel and Hamas, along with a few other groups. You are being obstructive now. Any straightforward reading of the articles ALL demonstrate that RSs consider Hamas the belligerent. After all, they don't talk about truces with Gaza, but truces with Hamas. I am not discussing this any further tonight. Goodnight for now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Me obstructionist? Ill let the obvious irony in such an accusation slide and sincerely wish you a good night. Nableezy (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No one disputes location of the conflict - Gaza Strip and Southern Israel - there are quotes about both in RS. There are Palestinian casualties and combatants of this conflict in both regions.
While Gaza strip is a part of Palestinian territories, Palestinian territories were not part of this conflict neither as location nor as Belligerents
Correct me if I'm wrong - Belligerents in plain English means "dudes with guns"
This is what I think would be a fair compromise, but it does mean bloating the infobox; say Gaza Strip with indents for the various militant groups operating within and say Israel with IDF in parentheses. Fair? Nableezy (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is OK with Belligerents bloat in 2006 Lebanon War article, I'm OK with it too. Fair compromise could be nice. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
So you are OK with my suggestion? It would make me immensely happy to amicably solve this to both of our satisfaction. Nableezy (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Took three sections and 40+ sources to convince Nab's POV. :D and now, of course, he would be "immensely happy" over a conclusion. LOL. Ok, I endorse Tundras/Agada points. Sources say it, we say it. "Gaza" is not a belligerent, it's a location. Next time we should be doing this the opposite way, where Nab gets to prove his points while sourced material remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I clearly propose to follow 2006 Lebanon War article precedent. I still have doubts about few others. Please bring sources supporting inclusion of Fatah, PFLP, and a few others to Gaza. Commander names would be nice too. 10x for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm the one who put the InfoBox combatant list on a diet. It used to have more text than some entire WP articles. That was because some editors thought that every human being involved on the conflict had to be listed by name in the box. OK, I exaggerate. But there were half a dozen groups listed, and each by the longest possible name plus flag, like [__] Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades)[1]. This was too much. I proposed dropping some of the more marginal entries, and trimming the names to the principal organization/abbreviation. It's much prettier when it doesn't wrap! So I started a discussion. Everyone agreed it needed to be trimmed, but there was little agreement as to how. The compromise between my minor trimming, and the most extreme trimming to "Palestinians," was to list it as 'Gaza (Principally Hamas).' This compromise reached consensus, I think because it was at least minimally acceptable to those who wanted to show that the primary fight was between the IDF and Hamas, and others who wished to make clear that the Israelis were broadly fighting "all/many of the Gazan people regardless of organization." The compromise doesn't toss any POV into the dumpster; it demonstrates each, and can be backed up by RS. Someone later revised it, don't know who or if there was consensus. That edit enlarged the flags and typeface, and dropped the "Principally Hamas." I believe that violates the earlier consensus, and does devalue one of the opinions discussed: that this was basically an Hamas-IDF war. I'm against this edit, content and style. The style negates the compactness gained in the earlier editing, my foremost goal in the change. I don't want to bring back the long list of participants, because its long, not nearly as important, bloats the box, and obscures what was prominent in the conflict. I don't want to leave out any mention of Hamas because they WERE by far the most prominent, I think even PFLP people would agree to that. So, we don't LIMIT it to Hamas, but we make the position of Hamas among other Gazans clear. Dovid (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with 'principally Hamas' but if it says Gaza it should be the flag of Palestine next to it. Nableezy (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I mean the flag of Palestine. As for why, because the flag used at government offices in Gaza is the flag of Palestine. Nableezy (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it? I'm quite certain they use the Hamas flag. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Nableezy, the flag is also Palestinian national flag. Agree with Wikifan12345 "dudes with guns" on Gaza side used green head bands, according to reliable sources, during this conflict. So did commanders. Some off-topic, still relevant RS quotes on recent developments:
I love flag of Palestine too. The question is this flag in right context as Gaza side Belligerent. Not all Palestinians fought on Gaza side, while "nearly all" Palestinians supported Gaza side. This conflict was not Palestinian national war. Palestinian National Authority surely did not take part in this conflict as Belligerents on Gaza side. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Israel didn't fight Fatah this round, so including the PNA flag would be an inaccurate assessment, right?
Perhaps these might help. WP:MILMOS#FLAGS and WP:MOSFLAG (which incidentally says "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen"). Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are the flags necessary in the first place? The Squicks (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick ref here. Google's "Israel attacks Gaza" gets 7m hits. "Israel attacks Hamas" gets about 1m hits. I'm all against using these methods, and expect me to disagree with them in the future, but in this case, is being argue "more sources calls it this and that". In can be said, that listing Gaza as belligerent, would have not stood up there for so long without sources(as proved by Dovid). Neither of the groups of 'sources' identifies belligerents in this matter, and is why i continue to say this is a judgment call that must be view through Wikipedia's perspective.
There is a lot that must be taken into consideration when resolving this, and it has been taken and it has been recognized(not accepted) that stating Gaza as the belligerent does not obstruct or breaks any wiki:policies. Cryptonio (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"Israel attacks Gaza" is WP:POV, even as Google search phrase. There was pesky issue of rocket lovefest :) No one disputes the location. In Mexican–American War context America would get more Google hits than US. The question is who is Belligerent. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Is "Gaza (principally Hamas)" with "Israel (IDF)" acceptable to you? Nableezy (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Almost. Somehow IDF != Hamas, like army != party, so I see two options for compromise:
(1) "Gaza (principally Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades)" with "Israel (IDF)"
(2) "Gaza (principally Hamas)" with "Israel"
I think (2) is better. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think 1 is better, but 2 is fine with me. Since I like 1 better, I am going to put that it in now, if you really like 2 better change it and I wont revert. But since it says Gaza it should be the flag of Palestine, we use the Hamas flag with individual commanders that belong to Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think according to WP:BRD (2) is better. This is default revert since there is no consensus. And we discussed it for long time. Still flag is wrong. And please don't take it personally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but if it says Gaza the flag should be the flag of Palestine. The flag of Gaza is not the flag of Hamas. Hamas is the political party in power in Gaza, it is not Gaza. I dont see where you get 2 is better than 1 from BRD, but I said I was fine with 2, if you want 2 put it in. I wont revert that. But the flag of Gaza is the flag of Palestine. Nableezy (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No it is not. The flag of Gaza is not the flag of Hamas. It is the flag of Palestine. It has nothing to do with pride. The flag of Gaza is not the flag of Hamas. Hamas runs Gaza, Hamas is not Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't following your debate so I don't know if this helps at all but I noticed that the HRW source I mention in WP:V Check IV below calls Hamas the "governing authority in the Gaza Strip". --JGGardiner (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
How very rude and uncivil of you to butt in if you were not following this 'debate'. But that quote does help show a distinction between Hamas and Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
All agree that Gaza != Hamas. And of cause Gaza strip is a part of Palestinian territories
What is flag of Belligerent in this conflict? What do you say really? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for defending me Agada. But Nableezy and I have a thing where we act like eight year-olds and play insult each other. We should probably grow up and spend more time acting like nine year-olds to fit in here. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Just in case that sounds like an attack on anyone or everyone, here's a smiley emoticon to show I'm kidding. :) --JGGardiner (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Agada, nobody agrees that "Gaza flag since Battle of Gaza (2007) is flag of Hamas and not flag of Palestinian National Authority" The flag of Gaza is not the flag of the political party in power. Thats like saying the flag of the West Bank is the flag of Fatah. No, the flag of the Palestinian territories is the flag of Palestine. Nableezy (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with Nableezy in principle, I fail to see why it is so blasted important to include any of the flags in the first place. The Squicks (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
consistency, aesthetics, not so important, but dont see why we shouldnt. but i would be fine with removing all flags from the infobox. not just one side, but if all of them go i would be cool with that. Nableezy (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines say: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags". Let's just follow that official policy. The Squicks (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't like infobox flags. They're a silly little decoration that doesn't fit in with out brutalist design anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've previously complained about the amount of detail about Hamas rocket attacks into Israel. However, I've noticed that it has now been expanded further. The main issue here is weighting : See WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.
Take this example of contrasts. This is the description of the first Israeli onslaught. To put it into perspective, over 200 people were killed. The bombing campaign was conducted by American-made F16 fighter jets. I would anticipate that a minimum of 500 strikes were made. In this description, there are approximately 250 words:
On December 27, a force including more than 50 F-16fighter jets and Apacheattack helicopters entered Gazan airspace, killing 225-292 Palestinians and wounding more than 1,000.[48][49] The IAF dropped more than 100 bombs on 50 targets,[50] which included Hamasparamilitary bases, training camps, and underground Kassam launchers. It also hit Hamas headquarters, government offices and police stations.
Destroyed building in Gaza, January 12, 2009
About 140 members of Hamas security forces were killed, including police chief Tawfiq Jabber, the head of Hamas’ security and protection unit along with at least 15 civilians. Children were reportedly among the casualties.[51] Israel justified its attacks on police on the grounds that they are "combatants." However, human rights groups say that police affiliated with Hamas do not represent legitimate targets unless they are actively engaged in hostilities.[52]
Prior to airstrikes on buildings inhabited by civilians, the IDF issued warning calls, in a practice codenamed "roof knocking". Typically, intelligence officers contacted the residents of a building where military assets were suspected of being stored. The residents were told that they had 10 minutes to leave the premises,[53][54][55] although in some cases the strikes occurred only 5 minutes after the warning call.[56] Given the high population density in Gaza and the proximity between their homes, this has caused "considerable" panic and uncertainty among residents.[57] Thirty seven houses were destroyed after roof knocking.[58]
Some Palestinians call this day Massacre of the Black Saturday[59] because of the large number of casualties. The Israeli attack was the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict with the Palestinians.[60]
In contrast, the description of Hamas's bombing campaign of Israel, a tactically equivalent set of events. To put in to perspective, around 4 people were killed. Perhaps a minimum of 30 buildings were hit. In this section, there are approximately 490 words.
The strike range of Hamas rockets had increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.[61] Palestinian militants also began to deploy improved Qassam and factory-made rockets with a range of 40 kilometers.[62] Rockets reached major Israeli cities Ashkelon, Beersheba and Gedera for the first time, putting one-eighth of Israel's population in rocket range[63] and raising concerns about the safety of the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, Israel's largest population center.[64][65] As of January 13, Palestinian militants had launched approximately 565 rockets and 200 mortars at Israel since the beginning of the conflict, according to Israeli security sources.[66] A source close to Hamas described the movement's use of stealth when firing: "They fired rockets in between the houses and covered the alleys with sheets so they could set the rockets up in five minutes without the planes seeing them. The moment they fired, they escaped, and they are very quick."[67] It is reported that 102 rockets and 35 mortars were fired by Fatah, Hamas's chief rival.[68]</blockqoute
<blockqoute>While the Qassam Brigades of Hamas were the major fighting force, other factions have claimed responsibility for rockets fired into Israel and attacks on Israeli soldiers, including Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, an armed wing affiliated with Fatah, as well as the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Quds Brigades of Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Councils.[69] A Fatah official stated that the rocket attacks by his faction contradicted the official position of Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah leader and President of the Palestinian National Authority. Abbas had called on both sides to cease hostilities unconditionally. Political representatives for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, Saiqa, the Popular Struggle Front, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Palestinian Liberation Organisation, Fatah's 'Intifada' faction, and a number of other Palestinian factions in Syria formed a temporary alliance during the offensive, issuing a statement that refused "any security arrangements that affect the resistance and its legitimate right to struggle against the occupation" and refused the presence of international forces in Gaza. The coalition also affirmed that any peace initiatives must include an end to the economic blockade, and an opening of all of Gaza's crossings, including the Rafah crossing with Egypt.[69]
On December 27 a rocket hit a house in Netivot, killing one and wounding five. On December 29 a Grad rocket hit Ashkelon, killing an Israeli-Arab construction worker and seriously wounding three other people.[70] Rockets killed two more Israelis after nightfall.[71]
On December 30 a Grad missile landed in an empty kindergarten in Beersheba, causing damage.[4] The following morning, a rocket hit the Makif Alef high school in the city. Neither incident resulted in casualties, as schools in the area were closed due to rocket threats.[5] On January 6, a rocket hit Gedera for the first time, injuring a child.[7]
On January 11, several rocket barrages were fired during the temporary cease-fire, one hitting the outer wall of a kindergarten in Ashdod.[8]
Now I know that we shouldn't have 100 times more information on Israeli attacks just because of death tolls. But frankly, in the two events above, the ratio of deaths was 50:1. Yet the information in the article is 1:2.
This is ridiculous. In some respects the article is looking good, but WP:UNDUE is the biggest problem. This is just one example. Let's get it sorted, and stop the people who are creating these imbalances. Let's work to improve the article; I think this is an area that needs to be improved.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Update: I don't think the middle paragraph of the second quoted section should be touched, but the first and second paragraphs should be amalgamated.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Apples and oranges!
The reason that the Palestinian section is longer is because the topic subject matter is fundamentally different. The Palestinian side is more complicated: (1)There were more than one group attacking, (2)Those groups have a hostile relationship to each other, (3)They attacked at different times- partly during a cease-fire, (4)Their attacks tactically escalated- closer and closer to mainland Israel over time.
I also take umbrage at the statement stop the people who are creating these imbalances. I certainly don't think that you have some kind of ideology that you're pushing into the article, and you should not accuse me and others of the same. The Squicks (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Amended. I don't see why you think I was accusing you specificallyJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Rocket attacks were the main part of the Palestinian military activity in this conflict, and if anything should receive more attention. Number of people killed does not decide alone how important something is in a conflict. For example, if a battle achieved an important strategic goal, it is an important part of the war even if few were killed in it. Palestinian rocket attacks are central to this conflict: they were the casus belli for Operation Cast Lead, they had a profound effect on life in Israel during the conflict, their frequency was used as the yardstick by which Israel measured its success in the conflict, they were mentioned by most international bodies in their statements regarding the conflict, including UNSC Resolution 1860, etc. etc. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) while it is true that "rocket attacks were the main part of the Palestinian military activity in this conflict (emphasis mine)," it is not true that they were the most notable or widely reported aspect of the conflict as a whole. if there were an article entitled Palestinian military activity in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict then those attacks would certainly warrant the greatest attention in that article. however, in this article, israeli attacks were far more extensive and received the greatest amount of media coverage, and that is the proportion we should use for this article. untwirl(talk) 19:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Palestinian rocket attacks were one of the most notable aspects of this conflict. As for amount of media coverage, here are the results of a google news search:
nice try. i'm going to assume that this is an unintentional distortion, but just looking at the first page of the Gaza rockets: 14,815 hits shows that this refers to those rockets fired since the conflict ended. untwirl(talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to do their own search if they want. Or someone can go through the hits in my search and see how many of them refer to the period before the ceasefire. Anything above 1 in 3 would indicate that the Gaza rockets received about as much media attention as the entire Israeli campaign. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
i dont see why anyone should redo your homework for you. besides, your google search was for the last month - the conflict ended, according to the article, january 19. even if you could come up with enough ghits to make them look as notable, you must take into account the casualties, damage, international reactions, and the humanitarian crisis caused by both israeli attacks and the rocket attacks to determine the most notable aspects. untwirl(talk) 22:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We don't need so much data anyways. Rockets were an important part of the conflict. We can give everything fair weight without going into so much detail. We need to stop covering every headline with so much detail especially when a fair number of these are to sell newspapers and ad space. An empty school gets covered since "SCHOOL HIT!!!!" in the headline interests readers. Some of the weight issue is based on editors using every little piece of information. The dead 3 year old (or however old she was) conversation a few days ago was a perfect example. "A kid died" was sufficient if inclusion was needed at all.Cptnono (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Not directly related to this discussion, but since you brought it up, the fact that empty schools in Israel are still getting hit by rockets is having a profound effect on daily life in Israel, e.g. this headline. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Kind of related. Put it in somewhere (effects, ceasefire violations, whatever fits best) we just don't need to say 5,831.5 bricks were damaged.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thats what I think as well. Just say there were this many rocket attacks reaching these places. This many schools, apartments, synagogues were hit with this many casualties. On both sides. All this detail can go into the timeline article. On both sides. I mean seriously, the word Zeitoun does not show up one time in this article. But we cover each individual rocket attack here. Nableezy (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The Zeitoun incident (which can't complain about lack of attention, seeing as it has its own section in the timeline article as fat as yo' momma) should probaby be in this article, not because it was militarily significant - it wasn't - but because it involved the most serious allegations of war crimes against Israel. There are currently several individual Israeli strikes mentioned in the campaign section. Interestingly, none of these strikes were militarily significant either; presumably the impetus for including them was that they all involved allegations of war crimes against Israel. The most successful Palestinian rocket attacks, however, were militarily significant, since they best achieved Hamas' military aims, and they should thus be included in the campaign section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
re: the current rocket attacks: there is already a mention that "Since the unilateral ceasefires were declared on January 17, militants have fired rockets and mortar shells from Gaza.[179][180] The IDF has responded with airstrikes.[181]"
if those recent rocket attacks are considered relevant enough to deserve individual mention, we should add details on how gaza residents are still "profoundly" affected on a daily basis. i.e. airstrikes - [[23]] and humanitarian crisis - [[24]] etc.
This is how the undue weight starts. School attendance is an effect of conflict. A quick line added is fine. Now we have to include a rebuttal in the section and then a couple lines showing the Gazans as the only true victims and tit-for-tat garbage like that until the article is 1 billion kb without any proper structure.Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Jandrews' point is spot on. This article has long suffered from a detail the blister on the Hiroshima bombardier's thumb simulated neutrality syndrome. The death toll here is 100:1, it is not "neutral" to use equal space to describe for example a) the destruction of a Gaza building, versus b) the pock marks on the wall of an Israeli building; and it is certainly not "neutral" to use more space to detail death and destruction outside the Gaza wall than inside. RomaC (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Though I understand what you are saying, I think you may want to retract the analogy. Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
UNDUE talks about balancing viewpoints about the subject, not facets of it. We don't have to discuss teeth more than toes in human biology. The rocket attacks in Israel were a big part of the subject because they provide a context beyond their mere damage. Indeed, both the Palestinian (Hamas or not) and Israeli perspectives essentially relate to the rocket attacks. Israel claims it is acting to remove or limit the threat whereas the Palestinians say they are being collectively punished for it. Or as Uri Avnery said, to "fix a price tag" on the firing of rockets. Either way, rockets are an important part of the story no matter how few people they killed. Just like Iraq's WMD program that killed zero Americans but is an important part of the Iraq War article. Search through some current articles that discuss the war and many, perhaps most will mention the rockets but very few will mention the first day bombings.
That said, some of what is in those paragraphs could be removed. I just don't think it is an UNDUE problem. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind editors that we may make editorial decisions that are not completely forced upon us by some policy or other. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This is resolved pretty easily: expand the section on the Israeli attacks with relevant sourced material. It seems to me that the section on the rocket attacks is fine in size, but the section on the Israeli attacks could be expanded, more descriptions added, etc. For example, there is very little on the ground combat. I have refrained from addressing these types of content issues, preferring to stick to lead/structure/narrative meta-issues, and wikignome/wikifairy crap, but I agree this is a problem. However, I disagree this is undue, in the sense that there have not been major removals of material: the set of editors who focus on the palestinian attacks have simply been more active and thorought in their research. Also, the lack of RS on the ground in Gaza, and lack of combat details on the par tof Hamas and the IDF make the availability of material shorter - while Southern Israel was invaded by the world's press, and Jerusalem/Tel-Aviv have permanent well staffed Bureaux for all the major wires, journals, newspapers, and news channels, including Al-Jazeera. Nothing sinister.
Nao, I agree these are apples and oranges, but sheer logic tells you that the section on the Israeli attacks should be bigger than that on the palestinian attacks, simply because of the scale. So The Squicks' argument is not convincing: the Israeli situation is as complex as the Palestinian one - there is the blockade, the previous skirmishes, etc.--Cerejota (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So you want to expand it to include even more detail on each individual attack. Lets say on 11:30 local time, 2 rockets took a 16 km flight going NNW at 67 km/h. One landed in the Negev desert approximately 12 miles from (some city). The other struck a the Golda Meir Technical High School, which had been closed on 7 of the past 9 days due to fears of rocket attacks. The gymnasium was struck, with a basketball hoop permanently damaged. I think that is the exact opposite of what is needed here. Why do we detail every single rocket attack? We do not say on January 6 1400 missiled were launched and they were as follows: 12:15, rocket from F-16 hit blah with x injuries and y deaths, z amount of property damage. And on and on for the 1399. all numbers and names used above are wholly inaccurate just used as a make believe example Nableezy (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur about the undue weight issue. I also find a problem with the wording as well. There is hardly any mention of what type of sites in Gaza were attacked while Israeli sites are named, even with the proper names: The following morning, a rocket hit the Makif Alef high school in the city. Much more schools were attacked in Gaza, we even have an image of an orphan school, someone removed orphan school from the caption BTW. I think this contributes to the disproportional text sizes. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nab: "The gymnasium was struck, with a basketball hoop permanently damaged." I actually loled. Well played. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying you haven't actually been loling this whole time? I feel so cheated. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
After all the lol is anyone up to addressing this? For example, I wonder, does this belong: "...putting one-eighth of Israel's population in rocket range and raising concerns about the safety of the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, Israel's largest population center."RomaC (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Roma.
I agree that the scale and the novel aspects of Israel's offensive merits more discussion. One way to improve it is to include that Israel is alleged to have been using a brand new experimental weapon from the US called DIME (see this page for section on Experimental/New Weapons, above, with footnotes). This new weapon created an unusual pattern of injuries on countless numbers of Gazans. Thus this aspect of the military conflict sheds light on the following aspects of the conflict: (1) the array of Israeli weapons used, (2) the U.S. source of Israeli weapon superiority, (3) the novel, perhaps never before seen in a war situation, effect of the weapons on their targets, (4) the(im)balance/asymmetry in military technology between the two sides.
Now if you don't think this merits inclusion, just consider what you would think if a group of international doctors volunteering in Sedorot, Israel, had reported that many Israelis were injured by rockets from Gaza carrying what may be a brand new experimental weapon supplied, say, by Iran, which caused a new pattern of injury and was particularly lethal.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
NYCJosh, i think(and take this as seriously as possible) that you'll help greatly in this matter if you get a hold of Cerejota(on his talk page) and talk about how best(and where) could we include these valid points that you are making. Aside from Cerejota, most editors wouldn't be able to provide the level of 'boldness' that this requires. That said, there is also a Foreign Involvement article that you could take a look as well. Cryptonio (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Both munitions can be described in a new Weaponry/Experimental Weapons/New Weapons/puppy killer weapons/whatever section. It was removed a few days ago since there were too many red flags with copy and pasting and weight and POV. I'm for both being included if someone wants to start an outline as mentioned in the discussion above. I would say just throw it in but would expect editors to revert unless it is awesomely done.Cptnono (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This section details a problem with the article. The title is too expansive so soon we start to lose focus of what we are actually talking about. It is near impossible to keep a discussion on topic here. I would like to ask one last time for other editors to say whether or not
The strike range of Hamas rockets had increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.[72] Palestinian militants also began to deploy improved Qassam and factory-made rockets with a range of 40 kilometers.[73] Rockets reached major Israeli cities Ashkelon, Beersheba and Gedera for the first time, putting one-eighth of Israel's population in rocket range[74] and raising concerns about the safety of the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, Israel's largest population center.[75][76] As of January 13, Palestinian militants had launched approximately 565 rockets and 200 mortars at Israel since the beginning of the conflict, according to Israeli security sources.[77] A source close to Hamas described the movement's use of stealth when firing: "They fired rockets in between the houses and covered the alleys with sheets so they could set the rockets up in five minutes without the planes seeing them. The moment they fired, they escaped, and they are very quick."[67] It is reported that 102 rockets and 35 mortars were fired by Fatah, Hamas's chief rival.[78] While the Qassam Brigades of Hamas were the major fighting force, other factions have claimed responsibility for rockets fired into Israel and attacks on Israeli soldiers, including Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, an armed wing affiliated with Fatah, as well as the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Quds Brigades of Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Councils.[69] A Fatah official stated that the rocket attacks by his faction contradicted the official position of Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah leader and President of the Palestinian National Authority. Abbas had called on both sides to cease hostilities unconditionally. Political representatives for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, Saiqa, the Popular Struggle Front, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Palestinian Liberation Organisation, Fatah's 'Intifada' faction, and a number of other Palestinian factions in Syria formed a temporary alliance during the offensive, issuing a statement that refused "any security arrangements that affect the resistance and its legitimate right to struggle against the occupation" and refused the presence of international forces in Gaza. The coalition also affirmed that any peace initiatives must include an end to the economic blockade, and an opening of all of Gaza's crossings, including the Rafah crossing with Egypt.[69] On December 27 a rocket hit a house in Netivot, killing one and wounding five. On December 29 a Grad rocket hit Ashkelon, killing an Israeli-Arab construction worker and seriously wounding three other people.[79] Rockets killed two more Israelis after nightfall.[80]
On December 30 a Grad missile landed in an empty kindergarten in Beersheba, causing damage.[4] The following morning, a rocket hit the Makif Alef high school in the city. Neither incident resulted in casualties, as schools in the area were closed due to rocket threats.[5] On January 6, a rocket hit Gedera for the first time, injuring a child.[7]
On January 11, several rocket barrages were fired during the temporary cease-fire, one hitting the outer wall of a kindergarten in Ashdod.[8]
should not be cleaned up? Why do we detail how many people died each day and during each attack? Seriously, this entire paragraph On December 27 a rocket hit a house in Netivot, killing one and wounding five. On December 29 a Grad rocket hit Ashkelon, killing an Israeli-Arab construction worker and seriously wounding three other people.[36] Rockets killed two more Israelis after nightfall.[37] On December 30 a Grad missile landed in an empty kindergarten in Beersheba, causing damage.[25] The following morning, a rocket hit the Makif Alef high school in the city. Neither incident resulted in casualties, as schools in the area were closed due to rocket threats.[26] On January 6, a rocket hit Gedera for the first time, injuring a child.[27] On January 11, several rocket barrages were fired during the temporary cease-fire, one hitting the outer wall of a kindergarten in Ashdod.[28] could not be put into one sentence? This many rockets over these days hit these place with this many casualties and property damage. The line on fears for tel-aviv is garbage, one of the sources says 'Deputy head of city hall Robbie Zaloff said "it's true that as of today there is no direct threat to Tel Aviv"' in Haaretz, the other doesnt say the words Tel Aviv once, it raises fears for Rehovot and Rishon. The strike range of Hamas rockets had increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.[29] Palestinian militants also began to deploy improved Qassam and factory-made rockets with a range of 40 kilometers.[30] Last sentence is a repeat of the first and the second is just a repeat of everything that follows it, that sentence should just have what damage has been caused. This whole section is just an exercise in trying to use as many words as possible to get across a simple point. But can we at least try to cover the information more concisely and not detail every single rocket launched? Nableezy (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The rockets hitting the suburbs and potentially hitting the city are important in a tactical sense. Besides that, the Attacks on Israel look like editors were copy and pasting headlines. We don't need to mention every detail. The whole campaign could be summed up in a few paragraphs if we needed. That obviously goes for both sides. Both campaign sections come across like the whole conflict: Tit-for-tat bullshit.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
could not be put into one sentence? I see your point with the last paragraph, and I would not object at all to cutting out the level of detail there. But, for the rest of the section, I don't see how it could be cut very much. Tactically/strategically speaking, we need to describe the build-up of rocket intensity and their reach as well as the intra-Palestinian problems during the war. The Squicks (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets go one by one, do you all agree the line on causing fear in Tel Aviv should be removed as unsourced because the sources do not make any such assertion and pretty explicitly say that Tel Aviv unambiguously does not face any such threat. Nableezy (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You want to use insomnia caused by rockets that would almost have to double their range to reach Tel Aviv for this? Nobody has said that Hamas has rockets that can come anywhere near Tel Aviv, maximum range that they have generally given to be 40 km. I dont even see the point of that. I am not arguing about the 1/8th part of the sentence, that can be sourced pretty easily, but this part seems a lil far fetched. Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Transparent crowbar plot move to mention the Dimona nuclear complex. Nice work by Press TV. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
For now it is just the suburbs apparently so screw it. Insomnia mention is not needed (just like the "no casualties except for shock" line that was in a week ago)Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What about that last paragraph. I think what is needed is a source or sources that say over the course of the entire campaign how many rockets were fired and where they hit with how many casualties. Nableezy (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Which can be done like such: Militants fired over 750 rockets and mortars from Gaza during the conflict [25]. Bersheeba and the Gedera were the farthest areas hit by rocket or mortar attacks (same source). The rocket attacks killed 3 civilians and wounded 187 (sourced to whatever we are using in the casualties section) and caused property damage (sourced to any of the sources used currently), including damage to 2 schools (use the two sources up there now). Does that cover everything? Nableezy (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Current Top 12 Favourite Words
For interest.
hamas 131
israel 113
gaza 107
israeli 99
rocket 60
palestinian 53
attack 45
january 44
kill 44
idf 38
civilian 37
military 36
Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:V Check IV: This time it's personal
Okay, so another randomly generate source check:
Hamas denied responsibility for the rocket fire and imprisoned some responsible individuals. However, Human Rights Watch complained that some of the responsible militants were summarily released without explanation.[26]
Checking the source, it only mentions one incident and says that they were released without charges. I think that is too specific for the general implication it carries in the article. I thought about rewriting to be clear but then it seems like a useless inclusion. So I'm removing it, okay? --JGGardiner (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
State where the quote is located etc. Cryptonio (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it is at the end of the "2008 lull" section. I removed the last section. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The source says:
We recognize that until last week Hamas took efforts to halt rocket attacks by other groups as part of the June 19 ceasefire. However, throughout the ceasefire period other armed groups have continued to intermittently fire rockets from Gaza. As the governing authority in the Gaza Strip, it is your responsibility under international law to prevent such attacks, and to arrest and prosecute those who carry them out.We also urge you to take all necessary measures to curb such unlawful attacks whether or not the current ceasefire remains in place or is extended beyond its December 19 deadline. Security forces under your control in Gaza have also demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire. On at least two occasions, Hamas security personnel arrested people accused of firing rockets. On July 10 at least three members of the Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were detained for firing rockets. All were later released however, and no charges were brought against them.
The gist of their criticism is that Hamas is supposedly a legtimate gov't but it has been failing to stop rocket attacks by non-Hamas people. I think this is notable enough to be referred to in this article in some way. The Squicks (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I said one incident but there were two. But still, that's not a general thing, is it? It just says they were released without charges. Maybe there was no evidence to hold them? I'm not sure that we should imply a general pattern, at least from what that source says. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
But the source says "at least two". And it mentions that fact after stating that Hamas has not properly filled out its "responsibility under international law to prevent such attacks". The Squicks (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Still, I don't think it really supports what was in the article. But perhaps useful for something else. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Would However, Human Rights Watch complained that Hamas has not done enough to stop the attackers. or something more like that make more sense? The Squicks (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It is kind of a funny letter. HRW seems to be groveling so they don't come out and say anything much but the implication is that Hamas hasn't really done anything. I think that's a fair impression though I imagine that some other editors might claim it is OR. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think what JG implies, is that the line was added, almost forcefully in order to 'balance' something that perhaps needed no balancing. With rockets decreasing by 98 percent, seems obvious Hamas did in fact 'tried' to control rockets from being fired. The sentence could stay IMO(if in did does stays) but it is there forcefully. It would be nice to look at this from Wiki's perspective for a chance. Cryptonio (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In terms of "balance", the whole thing seems rather silly. There's no need to get into that since the reader can make up his (I'm going to be sexist here, why not) own mind. To one, a 98% reduction is awful because it should be 100% and that makes them angry at Hamas. To another, 98% signifies to them that the whole rocket problem is nothing but Orientialist propaganda.
I added the line because I thought that (a)Human Rights Watch is a notable, respected source and (b)Their criticism of Hamas with regards to rockets is notable in this context. The Squicks (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
'balance' as perceived by me(and thus, if the line stayed so be it). One of the sources says Hamas denied responsibility for the rocket and at the same time it actually did some 'investigation' and brought in a few individuals. the question is, what role did HRW played in that investigation, that it basically states not enough was done. The 98 percent line, comes into context as proof that Hamas indeed was committed to enforcing the truce, and it did more than just simply arresting some individuals or prosecuting them, since the attacks declined a great deal(so that it let a few people go, its almost of no concern, because those people probably had nothing to do with those attacks, at least we MUST assume that.) in that context(and now, to the balancing act that i was referring to) did Israel military activities came to a COMPLETE halt after the truce? Hamas spoke against those Israeli attacks, should we bring a source from HRW that condemned those Israeli attacks? the line is pretty much POV when looked through this context, basically that neither side kept their attacks to ZERO. yet, there is a line on Hamas' side that supports nothing on this issue, but basically states the obvious(or rather a fact already included in the article, that attacks did not came to a complete stop). it is sourced though, so I don't know how far JG wants to take this. Cryptonio (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't really have an editorial outcome in mind. I was just doing a WP:V check to see if the source supported the statement in the article. In my opinion this one didn't really do that. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This is what i was referring to BTW. From the HRW source. "Security forces under your control in Gaza have also demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire."
Perhaps we should say that HRW stated that "While Hamas security forces demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire, individuals detained or accused for firing rockets were summarily released without explanation. "
Something along those lines. It would leave little doubt, that although Hamas had the power to stop these rockets, it appeared as if they choose otherwise. for whatever reason. Cryptonio (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Would Howver, Human Rights Watch has reported that while Hamas security forces demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire, some individuals detained for firing rockets were summarily released without explanation. make more sense? The Squicks (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
People rather than individuals of course. looks good to me then. Cryptonio (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was No moveParsecboy (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Operation Cast Lead — The article is based on the start of Israel's military operation. "War", "conflict", and even which side is mentioned first are all disputed so why don't we simplify it and distinguish it from other events such as the "2008 Israel–Gaza conflict"? Previous names can redirect and we can keep in other titles for the conflict/massacre/war/attack/fighting/killing puppies. Media may call it whatever they feel like on any given day but it is all based on Israel launching an offensive which was titled Operation Cast Lead. We could have named it whatever Hamas had called it if they had an official title for it and started a campaign that kept the world's attention for a few weeks. — Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Oppose - For all the reasons brought up in one of the past move discussions, cant find it now. But the reason was Wikipedia:MILMOS#CODENAME which says that operation names make poor titles, except for the most famous ones like Operation Barbarossa. Full quote:
Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa), or for military actions that were never carried out (such as Operation Green).
And it not being the most common name in English, only the Israeli media refer to it as OpCastLead with any consistency and even they often use Gaza War. Nableezy (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose As above. This would be like calling the German invasion of France article (Battle of France) "Fall Gelb" (operation yellow), or similar examples. It's not a great description of what took place and in years to come if people are looking for information about this its unlikely they would search for 'Operation Cast Lead' ; its more likely they'd search for 2009 Gaza War.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
OpposeWP:MILMOS#CODENAME is clear. It is so clear that insisting on naming this OCL approaches being pointy - unless a good reason is given for WP:IAR, because this was proposed multiple times and the overwhelming consensus was oppose.
In fact, this was the original article name, and I changed the article name without discussion and the uninvolved admins upheld this change because it was WP:SNOW: OCL as an article name is against the rules, in this case, NPOV via MILMOS. This is why the article is move protected.
In addition, the RS rarely use the name Operation Cast Lead in the title: a gnews "allintitle" date-adjusted search reveals 12 ghits for OCL, the bulk from the JPost or blogs. In contrast, "Gaza war" gets 56 ghist (again, date adjusted) or even "Gaza conflict" gets 124 ghits using the same protocol.
All said and done, the discussion should be had over at WP:MILHIST, not here, because the rules are clear.--Cerejota (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose In ten years time, no one's going to be looking up "Operation cast lead" to find out about what happened in Gaza in January 2009, not even Ehud Barak himself. Dino246 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This sounds too much like a military title and like people have pointed out it is not used or known much as this conflict/war being called that. It can however be a redirect to a new title, but if the current title is to change I still support "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza War". Knowledgekid8715:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It already is a redirect. Nableezy (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I've rarely seen this name being used in the international mainstream media. Even if it's known by some mainstream personnel these days, it will almost be forgotten after a month or two. I doubt anyone outside the Israeli and Palestinian people still remembers what "summer rain" or "hot winter" was, and soon what "cast lead" is. Choosing those rosy IDF names as the main title shows bias as well. --Darwish (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's true, not many people do know of the conflict as Operation Cast Lead. That title doesn't give any insight into what the article is about, so anybody searching for the 2008/9 conflict wouldn't recognise it as O.C.L. I know, I'm simply repeating what others have said. But I do like to show my support. Keep this section titled as it is. Oh, by the way, why is it this survey is still up? Isn't it pretty obvious what the result is? It's looking pretty one sided to me! Cybersteel8 (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Only uninvolved admins should close, as this is WP:ARBPIA.--Cerejota (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: They are two different things. An article on Operation Cast Lead would be primarily about what Israel did. An article on this conflict is about what both sides did, which is easier to present in a NPOV way. (15:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)) I'm adding a sidebox at the top of this discussion with links to previous page move discussions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. Although there are better names (Cerejota had some decent ideas), this specific unique name is better then the vague name and silly year attached to the front. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Neutral - Even though policy/guidline may say otherwise, the title of many articles is the code name. An example would be Operation Accountability. Guy0307 (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think WP:WAX doesn't apply in this case. There isn't a very clear policy on the matter, so if there is a general trend of naming articles as X, then it could apply here as well. But anyway, I'm happy to withdraw my comment anyway. Guy0307 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Any additional comments:
I guess I'll have to accept consensus no matter how faulty your arguments are. I would attempt a rebuttal if I thought there was any chance of actually persuading any of you fine gentlemen/ladies different. I know it has come up before so thanks for again voicing your opinions. Now back to the current name...Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If you have an argument for ignoring the, what I think, clear guidelines from Wikipedia:MILMOS#CODENAME, I'd be all ears, because I think the title would end this argument that the conflict started on Jan 1 2008. I think the article should cover 'Operation Cast Lead' but I dont think that is the name that is used in the sources and that pesky little manual of style says not to use operation code names. But I would certainly hear you out as to why I am wrong. But we both know I am so very rarely wrong. Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I want to know why my argument is "faulty": since most of the arguments basically re-state guidelines, then your argument is that the guidelines are faulty. That would be something you should take up over at WP:MILHIST, not here. Of course, if I am mistaken in assuming this, I apologize in advance, but then the question still remains open: what is so faulty about the arguments?--Cerejota (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, do you want to know why I disagree with your argument or are you interested in my thoughts on the policy? I think that all of the comments are more than arguable. However, I'd rather not get into a debate on this since people have their heels dug in on it. Tomorrow after a few drinks I might spit out a dozen rebuttals to why it is the best name for the article but an argument just for the sake of argument seems silly when there is overwhelming consensus against it.Cptnono (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That is an artificial division there, since my argument is the policy - if you argue against it, you will argue against policy. Get it? In other words, my argument is that we follow whatever WP:MILMOS#CODENAME says. --Cerejota (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Unlike CPT, I enjoy argument for its own sake. And I'm already full of alcohol. So here goes. While I would not defend OCL, I'm not totally sure that we're so restricted by MILMOS#CODENAME. It says that an operational title is bad when there is a suitable descriptive title. But we've frankly been unable to come up with a reasonable descriptive title and one is perhaps not objectively suitable.
In any event, MilCode is obviously considering only to articles that don't have a common name like the Battle of France mentioned above, the Polish-Soviet_war or the recent Gaza War. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
MILMOS is channeling NPOV: naming this for the operation name would be a serious breach of NPOV. As I have said, I am a big fan of WP:IAR but only where it improves the encyclopedia, not when it makes it worse, as is the case if we name the article OCL. If we should ignore WP:MILMOS#CODENAME, I want to hear a compelling argument for it, which has not been forthcoming.--Cerejota (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This article should be "Gaza war" with or without dates. But you guys can get consensus around it, preocupied with petty POV pushing from both sides (on the one side the OCL, on the other side those who want Israel in the title at all cost).--Cerejota (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's why we should ignore Milmos Code. It only applies to articles without a usual name. The subject of this article has one, "Gaza War". That's a compelling argument. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Trying to figure out if Israel or Gaza was mentioned first was the last straw for me. We can't even figure out if it should be titled a "war" or a "conflict". The operational name is the only factual name for the situation. When Hamas starts publishing reports with their name for the strife it can be given equal weight. Until then, we are stuck with the sources titling it a dozen different things.
In regards to the "policy" itself: the reasoning for not doing it is potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other. In attempting to adhere to certain guidelines we are going against its intended purpose since any alternative name apparently pushes a POV. We also couldn't push a "hooray Israel rocks!" agenda to save our lives the way the article is going.
The Military History Project's style guide is not policy. Don't pass it off as one. Bad form.
It is a guideline, which is just a tiny notch beneath policy. So do not pretend that you do not have to follow it. A guideline is still the rules. Ask the ArbCom.
Operation Market Garden or Operation Barbarrossa etc are called as such by an overwhelming majority of the RS sources, in other words policy kicked guidelines ass. Of course, for every example of articles named for operations, I can bring up articles that where renamed as per MILMOS. For example Operation Urgent Fury, know to most people as the Invasion of Grenada, and hence renamed.
That is not the case with OCL, which is not really used as a title by RS (in fact, the only consistent gnews allintitle RS use is from a single source, the Jerusalem Post). So even if MILMOS didn't exist, it would still be a bad title, due to it bordering on WP:UNDUE.
Please do not imply I am trying to mislead anyone when I am clearly not doing so. That is real bad form. If in ten years this war is solely and widely known as OCL, then we name it that way then. But now, today, the RS sign a different tune.--Cerejota (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Why cant we call it "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza War" ? Sorry to bring it up alot but im presuing it, it has the dates this happened in it, it has the word war that people want. If the problem really is because Israel is first in the title then that is just crazy (Kinda like top billing in showbiz huh?) Um what about The Russo-Japanese War? Should it be renamed "The Jap-Russian War" ?.Knowledgekid8711:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
We could, but too many people decided their own opinion matters more than the sources. Nableezy (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, so you really really like the guideline. I appreciate the notes and advice (since "guidelines are more advisory in nature") in Wikipedia: Naming conventions (events) but we have not been able to properly meet that template according to the several discussions on the name. Oh, I almost forgot: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
You're not correct about the Post being the only consistent source but that doesn't mater and I'm not going to start copying and pasting just to prove a point. Again, every source has a different name for it anyways so that is why I prefer a title based on fact so we can't argue about it.
It does not give undue weight to Israel. Some editors are worried about it when they don't need to be. Already mentioned above.
I've loosely supported "war" in the past and don't mind it partially do to it being a prevalent title in the sources. Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That directed to me? Like I said, if there is a reason to ignore the rules let me know, because I would be willing to change my mind on this. Nableezy (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that was directed at Cerejota's comments.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that if you want me to take your argument seriously, you will have to provide sources. Just stating something is not a fact doesn't cut it. Give evidence against evidence or opinion against. But naked assertion against provided evidence is an arrogant exercise at best, a red herring at worse, and an insult to our intelligence under any circumstance. If you are not ready to back up your assertions with evidence then don't bother putting us through the process. And this is not about you, a number of editors here love to engage in unproductive, circular opinion making instead of providing constructive evidence to their dissertations, as if we where here to debate and not build an NPOV encyclopedia. --Cerejota (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you just typed out a whole paragraph that says absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you are trying to say. To reiterate:
This being a war is disputed
"Conflict" being a strong enough word is disputed
Editors have expressed concern over the date format (seriously Israel just should have waited a few days to make it easy) since it is too long and may give the incorrect impression of the timing
Editors began discussing which belligerent is mentioned first in the title. That is silly
Hamas doe snot have an operational name for the conflict. They have referred to it as a massacre to the media so that should stay in somewhere
The article and media attention is based on Israel's decision to launch an offensive. That is just the way it is and has nothing to do with too much weight.
The operational name is used in both primary sources and media sources. google and google news it for verification.
Following the guideline set forth by the military history wiki project has caused more concerns than intended. "Ignore all rules" can be used since it might make the article better by using a name based on fact.
Does that re sum up my argument again or do you need more detail? I even said previously that I did not want to argue since editors were not movable on this one. You decided you want to have fun with debate time but all you have done is throw in wiki "policies" that can be disputed with other "policies". Either come up with a decent and relevant rebuttal or let it die since consensus has already spoken in your favor.Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Since consensus is clearly one way, than I think that we should let this die. The Squicks (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
heh heh, I said "snot" up above. Letting this dies doesn't hurt my feelings. I put in a proposal that I personally thought was relevant. It was clear after the first few hours that other editors did not think so. Eve though I still disagree it isn't my place to say what needs to be done. Cerejota wanted to spend more time discussing it but it really isn't a big deal if the name stays as is from my point of view.Cptnono (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I know it is disupted that the conflict was a war. But we can use war in the title without expressing judgement that this was a war. We have an article on the Cola Wars even though it was undeclared and more of a low intensity conflict. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Low intensity ? It was pretty high intensity for the families of the dyslexic koalas that died. That's my contribution to this discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh koala. I knew there was something funny in the New Coke formula but I could never put my finger on it. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I object to the completely POV title of war. That's not a war. More like a rout and a slaughter. Our side has both Michael JacksonandRay Charles, which clearly means that our side should outweigh the WP:FRINGE views of the pro-Cola meatpuppets. The Squicks (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, can I delete this or do we need an admin to close it out?Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I restored it. It's been on the page for a month. It deserves an honest discussion before it is removed (without an edit summary I might add).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus could change. You need to support inclusion. Thank you AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Back off Agada. The pictures shouldn't be in the article but another user was nearly permanently blocked for removing the pics. He received a month suspension from what I remember, so I urge you to refrain from editing pictures without a strong, strong argument. There was already a long one that went no where, so the likelihood of winning this battle is slim. But the pictures will go eventually, just not now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I know you - you are pro-Israeli. Your opinion does not matter. Maybe you should be banned too. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for leaving me an empty line here, RomaC. If you somehow missed the irony in this conversation, I'll make it clear. It is a joke. Try to assume good faith, 10x. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Labeling other editors is not constructive. Also, Agada, please do not remove long-standing pictures or other content without clear consensus. RomaC (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol what a dick. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Agada, consensus could very well change, but the discussion in which a new consensus was reached, hasn't taken place. In plain words, there has not been any agreement for the removal of these pictures. What you meant to say is, that opinions can change, from where a new consensus would arise or be reached. Well, if you want to discuss these pictures again, start by arguing and not by removing the pictures, since the addition of the pictures came to be by consensus. I wish i knew Hebrew, but then, after a week of explaining things to you, what would i do with the language?. anyways this is getting tiring, Zeus knows how patient we have been with you, but you don't any part of reasoning or common sense. Dudes with patience running on low are getting pissed at you, do you agree? Cryptonio (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio, I'm new to Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. According to Wikipedia rules - Silence implies consent. As I see it Sean tried to be bold so I reverted according to WP:BRD Do you support inclusion and why? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Silence, consensus, explained...all of these terms you use when you make changes, but it fact they couldn't be further from the truth.
Yes, I support the inclusion of ALL images and photos in the article because they portrait a visual analysis of the article itself, and that's their purpose. This particular image, shows 'one way' how rockets from Gaza affects southern Israel. Why are you against it? Cryptonio (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not think this is visual enough, maybe you should try Youtube and search grad rockets. You'll get motion pictures and air sirens sound too. Don't you just love Internet technology? Still I do not get why you support inclusion? Some think those pictures are offending to Israelis. Let's respect their feelings. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I assume the pictures of the killed Palestinian girl and the Palestinian woman with horrific burn injuries aren't as offensive to Israelis, otherwise you would have removed them as well right? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Agada, by saying "Let's respect their feelings" you just got a 1 week ban from the article as per new rules of engagement that I've imposed CP of China-style for the greater good. Much worse than that you now have to read Seismic Data Processing by Ozoogan Yilmaz (and not just look at the pretty pictures) so that you can work on Geophysical migration. Problem with this ? Submit form JZ36c to dept.4 in standard mandarin (no revisionist cantonese). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I wasn't really being bold. I was looking for article changes where there is a mismatch between the edit summary (or a null edit summary) and the actual change made. The removal of this pic was the first one I saw. I then got distracted when I realised for first time that the Maldives has it's own intriguing language, Dhivehi which seemed more interesting. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify on inclusion support? Without naming insects? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't like this picture much because it probably tells you more about poverty and poor building standards in S.Israel than it does about the very real effects of rocket attacks. If we can get a better one then let's replace it but it's better than nothing. I support inclusion for the time being on that basis. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The picture was originally put on the page back on January 26.[27] So it wasn't there for quite a month. But I still don't like Agada's edit (the summary doesn't tell us that he removed the photo). I also don't like the picture. It looks posed, but I agree with Sean Hoyland. It's better than nothing. And procedurally, I object to stealth removals.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Was there ever a consensus to put the pictures in? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessarily a useful question or useful point to start in the sense that what we have here, image-wise is an admin imposed snapshot of the ceasefire state of the article at the point when they lost patience with the edit wars. It was more of a freeze than a consensus I suppose. I don't remember major issues over this pic though. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There was this but we've had worse. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This picture is of damage in Israel, correct? After all my bitching about potentially bloating the article with dead Gazan civilians I can't be against this. It may not be winning a Pulitzer but it isn't graphic, POV pushing, unrelated, or anything else I could see editors complaining about.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What instrument should be used to remove the picture? This is the real issue here.
Most of the words in this are mine and are therefore worthless flobidising. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's be clear: As far as I know, pictures were added WITHOUT consensus Also, the discussion here is far from entering consensus-zone. In the event that this discussion qualifies as a consensus-making, then it should be a continuance of the points made in the provided link so we don't have to repeat everything. Also, since people are proposing to include Israeli photos, I find it rather funny how a plumbing job pic was suggested, LOL. While we're at, let's put this in the article: bloooooooooood. Here is the real stuff, all potentially fair-use: blah, blah, blah. Rather suspicious comparing a hole in the wall to repairing a broken pipe, hmmmm. Considering Israel has adopted most of the fair-use laws of the US, US fair use, can we use pictures from the government sites to illustrate happenings? Just a question! I don't think we should use pictures anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Everything will be repeated unless the rules of engagement change. I suggest that anyone who proposes something inconsistent with WP guidelines is banned from this article for a week and has to work on Geophysical migration (which is in an appalling state) and Fourier transform. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. Many points have been made over and over and over again, so rebooting roadblocked discussions in hopes of a strong consensus simply because users are exhausted is not how it works. Can you point out an argument made here that wasn't addressed in the previous discussions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you point out an argument made here ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Uhhh...if this is intended to be consensus then I'm assuming there are arguments, correct? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is your objective to achieve consensus on the inclusion of the image I restored ? If so, my only argument is really that it was removed without discussion and my objective was to return to a status quo (without ref to a consensus). I'm not advocating rebooting roadblocked discussions on images. I am however advocating in some kind of order of priority, extensive wp:v checks, reversal of non-mandated changes, compliance with wp:due (which I see as a systemic problem caused by a seeming inability to actually apply due weight when thinking about different sets of people...there's a word for that), compliance with wp:npov and weasel hunting. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Any images are going to have to be free use, not fair use, as far as I can tell by reading the WP:FU policy. Specifically unacceptable use of images numbers 4 and 6. Nableezy (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll bet that's the only reason Nableezy got involved in an image discussion. He's a naughty boy. I remember there were many giggles when my ninth grade social studies teacher wrote out FU in big letters during a discussion of Canadian federal union. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, last year or so a lab in China produced Copper (Cu) nanotubes (NT) and yes, they did call them that in the paper. I guess they were competing with the Bismuth (Bi) ones. I'm looking forward to wp:nanotubename. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
That even got a VULVA award from The Register, my favorite source for nerd news - [28]. But it leik old news form 2007, we in 2009. --Cerejota (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this picture being removed? I like it. It shows destruction, but has a human angle. Its done by a wikipedian. CC licensed. What's not to like? --Cerejota (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Two other photographs I suggest should be removed are footnoted 192 and 193. These are pictures of dead victims in Gaza. Aside from being in poor taste, no other wikipedia entry on war is illustrated by a close-up of a victim. We all know what death is and these pictures don't supply information a reader needs to understand the subject. A similar photograph would be a contested exhibit in a court of law in the United States. Balance would require photographic evidence of Israeli dead; but Israelis don't publish equivalent close-ups of the dead in the media.
(For such a hot topic, I think the article so far is fair in most of the evidence. You should congratulate yourselves!) (Labellesanslebete (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC))
(Moved comment to bottom) 1 picture is of a dead Palestinian girl, the other is of a wounded woman. You are mistaken in saying no other war article contains close ups, and being bad taste is a personal opinion, and honestly one without much weight. Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We've agreed on this one before, Nableezy. I think that two images of dead or injured Gazan civilians could be too much but someone could find some free to use pictures of dead belligerents (either side) or one of an Israeli civilian it would help any weight concerns. Unfortunately, no one has stepped to the plate (that includes me admittedly ). Hopefully, the two images of Gazan civilians will remind editors that an image from the other side could be useful.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
"Can you point out an argument made here ?" - Sean
You are special Sean. Cryptonio (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Aside from that comment, that made my day. I don't want to be too bold here, but it has been repeated over and over again. Pictures that shows how this conflict has affected Israelis, are more than welcome. Only excuses are brought when none are found(ridiculous, there has to be at least 1.5m pictures out there from Israel). That Palestinians were photographing their relatives as their spirits exited, its not bad taste(is bad taste even against wiki:policies?). Hold the line! PUSH! the article looks very inviting for disruptive behavior. Can we lock it up perhaps? i'll open a new section on it. Cryptonio (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Talking about disruptive behavior and special needs, Special:Contributions/212.199.189.94 in Tel Aviv keeps removing the Beersheba bombed 01.jpg image. It looks like a static IP so although I am tempted to call in an air strike to stop this behavior it would be better if they stopped doing it all by themselves. They could perhaps engage in discussion on the talk page rather than carry out what may turn out to be suicide attacks as far as their IP is concerned. hmmmm I wonder what User:Betacrucis's IP is ? What happened to him ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
OMG BETA IS A SOCK PUPPET CALL THE POPO!!!! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No, if it is Beta...and I'm not saying it is (because correlation and causation are not the same thing), Beta is doing nothing wrong by not signing in apart from perhaps being lazy or shy or has a cat on the keyboard (common problem) or trying to type with oven gloves on. It's just Po now. Budget cuts. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
^Khaled Abu Toameh (2009-01-19). "Al-Aksa Brigades: We also fought IDF in Gaza". JPost.com (Jerusalem Post). Retrieved 2009-01-20. Fatah confirmed that its members had been fighting alongside Hamas during the war.
^Khaled Abu Toameh (2009-01-19). "Al-Aksa Brigades: We also fought IDF in Gaza". JPost.com (Jerusalem Post). Retrieved 2009-01-20. Fatah confirmed that its members had been fighting alongside Hamas during the war.
.jpg)
