Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

References

THERE HAS BEEN ANOTHER ATTACK!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643759070&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.61.100 (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian casualty count

Two sources used for Palestinian casualty count in the infobox are [1] and [2] Both of them said that

• militant groups in total acknowledges 158 casualty, since this is reported in RS I believe it can be included in the article as well.
• PCHR groups militants and "civil police" together as 390 (167 police and 223 fighters), and therefore policemen deaths are not seen as civilian by PCHR count

My edit [3] reflects these, that's why I reinstated the edits after which was undone by BobaFett85 JVent (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The PCHR does not include the policemen in the militant count. "The PCHR said 894 of the dead were civilians, including 280 children and minors, age 17 and under, as well as 111 women. Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police, many of them killed on the job during Israel's surprise attack on dozens of security compounds on the first day of the war...The rest, or 223, were combatants, she said." They don't count the policemen as civilians nor militants.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen people, I am going to revert you again, before making a new edit again read previous discussions on this topic, it was discussed previously and decided to lump both policemen and militants together. The PCHR has said 390 of the dead are not civilians, and they included policemen obviously in that number. Also, you are ignoring and constantly removing a reference which cites a Hamas police spokesman who confirmed 231 policemen were killed during the war, if you would sum up that number with that claim of 158 you would get 389, which is only one short of 390. So read previous discussions before making any new edits. Once more, we put the number of both policemen and militants together in the infobox, do not separate them.BobaFett85 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen Bobafett85, I am not going to keep repeating this, it is a lie to say that the PCHR has counted the policemen along with the militants, they counted them separately. It is an inaccurate take on the articles that were cited, and the PCHR web site doesn't count the policemen and combatants together.[4] You represent it the same way the articles present it, otherwise its deceptive. As far as removing a reference which cites a Hamas police spokesman, I have no idea what you are talking about. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here let me see if this example can help you understand the way the numbers were presented in the MSNBC and CBSNews articles. There were 100 flowers (total) that were planted, 55 of them were roses (civilians) including 45 blue roses (children) and 5 pink roses (women). Of the remaining 45 flowers (total), about 25 are sunflowers (civil police). The rest, or 20, are tulips (militants). Are you going to lump the tulips and sunflowers together as 45 even though we counted them separately? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR):

• IOF Offensive on the Gaza Strip Makes it Like Earthquake Zone and Claims Civilian and Property. Jan. 22, 2009. From the table: "Deaths amongst civilians and civilian police force members who were not engaged in fighting: 1062. ... Civilian deaths: 895."

See the table in the article, and note the PCHR wording in the table: "civilian police force members." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I am not going to argue, you are going against the consensus of the majority of editors made in a prevous discussion. It was agreed to include militants and policemen together since the IDF saw them both as enemies and francly most of the police were Hamas operatives. They don't call it Hamas-run police force for nothing. Read the previous discussion before pushing your point of view. And what's that talk about flowers I realy don't get it. Here is the reference you are ignoring [5] where a police spokesman cites the number of 231 policemen killed, so that official statement torpedoes the PCHR's statement of only 167 police killed, second this reference [6] states that 390 of the dead are not civilians, stating 167 of them are police (which is obviously wrong since the official number was given by the police), so what are the remaining 223 dead according to you. Of course they are militants. But, listen if you sum up the number of 158 militants killed (claimed by Hamas) with 231 policemen killed you get 389 which is preaty close to 390. The 167 number may not even be wrong because they probably counted among those policemen only the ones that were not affiliated with Hamas, the rest of the policemen were probably counted as militants.BobaFett85

Statements like these "so what are the remaining 223 dead according to you. Of course they are militants." reveal that you haven't read the source you keep pushing and keep citing. The source you provided says "The rest, or 223, were combatants...." It is not according to me. BTW How can you reach a consensus on misrepresenting a source? Do you know the rule about in-text citations? You represent the meaning without attributing to the source any other information not provided in the source. Your claim that PCHR counts the policemen with the militants in the number 390, is a complete lie. BTW, PCHR counts combatants not Hamas militants meaning combatants include non-Hamas fighters while civilians can count in non-combatant Hamas members. Accurately representing a source is what the issue is. I don't know what the police spokesman's statement has to do with this. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs)

The idea that the militants and police are so alike that they should be merged is really an opinion and I think not the most NPOV formulation for that reason. That isn't to say it is wrong or not a fair comment. But I don't think that we even have to consider if it is right or wrong, at least not for this section. Similarly I think merging the police numbers into civilians would have the same kind of problem.

It might be appropriate for the article to have a comment from an Israeli official or a prof. or something saying that they consider police to be alike militants or legitimate targets or whatever. But it isn't neutral for us to take up that perspective and apply it broadly. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese "People's Daily Online" article [7] in English sounds like an unreliable article to me. It keeps using the phrase "police officers and police men." Why do they distinguish between the two? I wouldn't use the article as a reference. It sounds like it has been through multiple translations, phone tag, and word-of-mouth changes in meaning as it got farther away from the sources of info. I suggest reporting the info from the PCHR, MoH, IDF, etc., and letting the readers decide who, if any, are correct. I think they are still figuring things out. The CBSnews.com article that BobaFett85 linked to is a good start: [8] --Timeshifter (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen, first of all, don't be rude, I didn't accuse you of lying now did I? Be polite. Second, read this previous discussion [9], both of you, both Falastine fee Qalby and JGGardiner. It was previously discussed and agreed by five editors, including myself, that the IDF considered the cops as enemy combatants. There was a problem to distinguish militants from policemen. So we decided to lump both the cops and militants together in the infobox. The number 700 given by the IDF was agreed to hold both policemen and regular militants. And the 390 number, which is given by the PCHR, has been stated to NOT BE civilians, so they are eather militants or cops. And they even said that the 158 number given by Hamas is propaganda on their part. Furthermore I never said that the killed were exclusivly Hamas, now you are lying, there were others like Islamic Jihad. If you realy want to know, at one point during the previous discussion I myself proposed we stated combatants, instead of militants, but many editors had a problem with this because they didn't see ALL of the cops as militants so we agreed to put Militants and policemen since the number stated by the IDF 700 and by PCHR 390 includes both militants and policemen. And for last, Timeshifters discussion about the number of policemen killed given by the peoples daily. I said this before. They said that 231 policemen were killed. Wheater it be officers or just men, police is police. But if you want proof here it is. If we would combine this claim of 231 policemen with 158 militants (claimed by the militants) then we would get 389, which is only one short from 390 combatants killed which is claimed by PCHR. I started to think why 231 was claimed by a spokesman for the Interior Ministry and 168 by PCHR, then I remembered PCHR claimed 168 CIVIL policemen, and that is the number stated in their 390 claim. I came to the conclusion that they probably counted as civil policemen only those that had no militant ties. Listen, I'm telling this to both Falastine fee Qalby and JGGardiner, you can not change the fact that 390 is the number claimed by PCHR of dead combatants, including the police, and an official police spokesman stated that 231 cops died. End of story.BobaFett85 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

please read the quote again : your statement "390 is the number claimed by PCHR of dead combatants, including the police," is not what the source said.

Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police, many of them killed on the job during Israel's surprise attack on dozens of security compounds on the first day of the war...The rest, or 223, were combatants, she said."

it says "the rest were combatants" thereby explicitly stating that the police were neither combatants nor civilians. i am in favor of stating them as police, like the source does. Untwirl (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not you too now Untwirl, for God's sake people READ THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION. It was agreed that most of the policemen, not all, but most were Hamas operatives and some of them even participated in rocket attacks.BobaFett85 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this curious term 'Hamas operatives' mean? Anyone with a job within the Hamas administration is included, and 'operative' connotes a shady function in the jargon of security services. One does not call police 'operatives' anywhere else. One should not use such pointy, loaded jargon, which is part of the verbal crud of politically spinning events, aside from being lousy English bureaucratese.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said Nishidani, that term 'Hamas operatives' isn't even mine, some user used it in the previous discussion so I said it. Listen people, for the last time, the IDF stated the number of 700 killed, this includes policemen since they see them as the enemy too. Second we have the number given by the PCHR, 390 killed, which also includes both policemen and non-police militants. I cann't make it anymore clear than this. It is better to give these two numbers that sum up both the militants and policemen, and we have noted in the notes section that at least 231 of those 390, or 700, are policemen which were regarded as enemy combatants by the IDF since many of them were active members of Hamas, by that I mean they participated in rocket attacks, there are references that cover this in the previous discussion.BobaFett85 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your problem, apparently, is with the English language, not me. 'Operative' means 'secret agent', 'someone working undercover' for a organization engaged in detective work, spying etc. You can call policemen enrolled by Hamas as 'operatives', implying that spying was part of their job, only in so far as all policemen in the world are spies. Perhaps they are, but we need not induct peculiar theories about what police are into our thinking by using loaded terms to denote their functions, instead of the normal words readily available. As Gertrude Stein would have said, a policemen is a cop is a peeler.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? I never said I had a problem with you. And I know what the word operative means, don't get all high and mighty on me now. I learned English when I was six years old. I only said it this once because it stuck in my memory after another editor used the expresion in the previous discussion. I wasn't even realy thinking about it when I said it. If you realy want to know what I ment when I said it was: fighter, militant, combatant, terrorist. Jeez!BobaFett85 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

i still think we should refer to the source which said, "Of the remaining 390 dead 167 were members of Hamas' civil police ...The rest, or 223, were combatants.

ie some were police, the rest were combatants

i don't see any vagueness in that statement. the idf regarding them as combatants doesn't change what the source said. they are clearly not stated to be either civilians or combatants, just police, and that's how we should refer to them. Untwirl (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen we agreed in the previous discussion to put the count of militants and policemen together, and that number is (given by the PCHR) 390. We agreed NOT TO SEPARATE them. Why? Because we agreed that some of the policemen, if not the majority, were active members of Hamas (fighters), furthermore, we have provided a reference from a police official, not a PCHR but a police official which states 231 policemen and not 167 died. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobaFett85 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I really dont see why this has to be so hard, just include both, the IDF count with a (includes police) and the PCHR count broken down. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the 167 number of police killed, given PCHR, has been established as wrong since the police themselves said that 231 of their members died during the war..BobaFett85

Include that too, who cares? It is a tiny line in an already bloated infobox, what is one more line going to do? Nableezy (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing, the infobox is bloated as it is. Why make it any bigger. We have put the number of 700 provided by the IDF, and the number of 390, and we noted in the notes section that both numbers include the cops, but apparently the main problem is now again what we discussed before, and that is are the cops civilians or combatants, I am trying to stick by what we agreed before, to sum up both cops and militants together, and the PCHR even gave a number 390 which includes both policemen and militants.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but it just seems like a simple solution to a problem that has caused way too much contention among us. But I'll step back from this again and let yall work it out. Nableezy (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Indent dropped) It seems to me that this is primarily an argument between BobaFett, and Falastine (and maybe Nishidani). The latter opinion is that these categories are separate and possible to calculate, and should be distinct. The former's argument is that there is already a consensus to reduce the number of categories, partially due to some possible confusion over whether it is really possible to break them down, and possibly to save space in a summary-level item. Is that a fair summary? If so, please, people, let's keep the discussion on these main points, and not get sidetracked. If we aim for a new consensus based on the major arguments, and not sidebars, we'll get there quickly, and can decide on wording change, if any. If not, this will become bogged down, will not reach a new consensus, and we will per force have to take the status quo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is PCHR civilian definition in consensus?

The PCHR source is used for Civilians in InfoBox. I'm not sure that PCHR civilian definition is in consensus. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224

The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.

What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We report them as the PCHR's numbers, what else do you want? The UN, HRW, and AI are all reporting this the same, and Israel has not even disputed the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me disagree with you, Nableezy. We (Wikipedia) report that Said Siam and Nizar Rayan are Hamas and its military wing and not civilians. This looks like PCHR definition problem. I am seeking consensus. Hope you see what I mean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to define anything. We just report what the PCHR believes and then let the reader decide whether or not to agree with them. The Squicks (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks, thank you for your opinion. I don't really get it. Please explain. Do we let reader decide whether Said Siam and Nizar Rayan are Hamas and its military wing or civilians? In case there is no well known definition for those terms what do "Civilians" in InfoBox stand for? Maybe we should remove it all together? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Zakout also says that the Ministry of Health totals for wounded include cases of psycholgical trauma.[10] The PCHR does not do that and that's a big part of the discrepancy between the two. And the whole issue of "shock" wounded issue has come up a few times here. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zakout. There are lot of psychological trauma on both sides of the border. I watched Vals Im Bashir [[11]] twice today :( I recommend it very much. I hope it will get the Oscar :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I see what you say. Maybe we could add IDF numbers for civilians in InfoBox. Does it sound fair and balanced? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If sources report they are civilians, we will report them such. Most Israeli males serve in the army too, but if they got killed not during their service they would be considered civilians too I suppose. JVent (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong here, JVent. Both males and females serve in IDF. Reservists indeed are school teachers, university students, computer engineers and some even soccer players. When reservist got drafted - usually up till 1 month a year he/she put on IDF uniform join IDF forces and considered soldiers by all parties. For instance see Hezbollah seizes Israel soldiers [[12]]. They (Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser) were reservists soldiers. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

JVent, I love your attitude "If sources report they are civilians, we will report them such." I still believe that there is some objective view on who is civilian and who is combatant. Does not UN/ICRC/Geneva convention/whoever have a definition for those terms? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That would constitute original research, we report what the sources say. Nableezy (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation, Nableezy. I want to avoid original research as much as you are. That is why I started this discussion. Wikipedia should not quote sources that Earth is flat is if it is majority opinion. Majority could be confused. Is there any well known definition for who is civilian and who is combatant exists in international law? I would frankly expect that organizations like UN, ICRC or documents like Geneva conventions would define such a term, since there are laws of what is allowed and forbidden with regard to civilians during war time. I'm not an expert in this field, but my instinct is that PCHR ( and other sources like Gaza MoH ) belong to "Flat earth" camp when they include Hamas military wing personal as civilians, but maybe I'm mistaken. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So anyone, definition for civilian? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We really have to follow the sources on this, until another independent verification takes place we should be reporting the number with an explicit citation to who is providing that number. As far as 'flat earth' the UN, HRW, AI, B'tselem, and the ICRC have all quoted these numbers, with an explicit reference to who is providing them. We should do the same. To take another definition of civilian and then use that definition to determine how many people were actually civilian is OR. Nableezy (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy.BobaFett85 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A Civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. So according to Wikipedia definition, Said Siam and Nizar Rayan who both are Hamas military commanders are not civilians, despite being killed in "non-combat situations". While quotes could represent Cognitive relativism in sources, InfoBox stats should state facts and consistent with Civilian Wikipedia definition. Hopefully Wikipedia's target is being Encyclopedia and not just Urban legend. Do you see what I mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it doesn't really matter. We have to stick with the sources, we cannot substitute our reasoning for theirs. The numbers are explicitly referenced. We cannot change the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nableezy. Well, maybe it's time to admit that we do not know the civilian or combatant casualties numbers from Gaza side of this conflict at this point. I'm in no way suggesting to "fix" the source's data. We should quote sources estimates as-is and while clearly noting that Palestinian side civilian definition is "Flat earth" and does not match well known civilian term definition. This hopefully would improve encyclopedic value to this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, no. Your view that the Palestinian numbers are on the fringe is incorrect. Everybody is reporting these numbers referenced to the source. They are the official numbers of the government, they are to be treated in that way. If and when we get some independent numbers they will go in, but now the format is as it should be. Nableezy (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just tooning into this discussion but I have got only two simple questions for you AgadaUrbanit. One, tell me where it says that these two guys were NOT included in the 390 number? C'mon, they were militant commanders, off course they were combatants. And second, how is a five-ton bomb falling on your head a non-combat situation? BobaFett85 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

BobaFett85, welcome to discussion. I refer to PCHR civilian statistics, see See [[13]]: The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

None of this matters, we report it how all the sources report it. Nableezy (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I generally really appreciate your opinions, but I have to strongly disagree on this one. We should clearly note that Palestinian civilian statistics, based on PCHR research team head report, include An unknown number of Hamas military commanders. There are two well known examples. I hope you do not want to hide this fact. Cognitive relativism has its limits. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can argue and spot holes about your given point, but I will not cause Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Do you have independent WP:RS sources that exactly say that the referenced reports include "An unknown number of Hamas military commanders"? If you don't, please instantly stop such a discussion which does not have any place in Wikipedia. The currency here are reliable references, not truth. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome into discussion. Do you prefer it would state "at least two" Hamas military commanders were counted as civilians? Does it sound more fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, these guys were not "military commanders". Said Siam was the ministry of the Interior and Nizar Rayan was a spiritual leader and professor. I think we should state plainly (as I have) that these two "leaders" who were killed in "non-combat" situations are considered "civilians" by PCHR. I've removed the mention to "international law". Please provide a source which says that both would not be considered civiilians under international law if you intend to restore it. Tiamut^talk 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, somehow your view is biased. Said Siam is highest ranking military commander - he's peer is Ehud Barak both are included as commanders in Info Box. Do you see it? As for professor, he had a strange academic hobby of using his house as weapon storage. I saw footage of him in military uniform, carrying an RPG and cheering troops. Probably you call it spiritual guidance. Please see Nizar Rayan article I quote Sheikh Nizar Rayan (Arabic: نزار ريان‎, also transliterated Rayyan) (March 6, 1959 – January 1, 2009) was a top Hamas military commander - he will not be remembered as professor. I'm going to restore your undo, "according to international law" is quote from civilian definition AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you didn't answer my question, how was it a non-combat situation if they were killed by air strikes which intentionaly targeted them. You are saying that if an IDF sniper had shot them dead in a targeted killing it would be a non-combat situation. It was a targeted military assasination in a state of war. Just like a general, who commands troops from the rear where there is no combat, is taken out by an assasin during a war. But the main problem here is, can you provide proof that they were included in the civilian count, or they were not included in the combatant count? I haven't seen any references that provide proof to your theory AgadaUrbanit.16:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)BobaFett85 (talk)

Welcome BobaFett85. "Non-combat situations" is PCHR research team term. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224

The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan ... said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.

What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit. You have restored this sentence three times now:

An unknown number of Hamas military commanders killed in "non-combat situations" such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan are not civilians under international humanitarian law, but were counted as such by PCHR research team.

I have explained to you on your talk page the mutliple problems with this statement. First, where is the source that says both were "military commanders". Siam was the Interior Minister (a political figure) and Rayan a professor (and spiritual leader). Two, where is the source that says these two figures are not considered to be civilians under intl law? It's not in the article and you keep adding it anyway. Both these phrasings and points are WP:OR without sources to report them. Twice, I've changed the text to read "leaders" instead of "military commanders", removing the reference to intl law. I'd appreciate it greatly if instead of continuing to ignore the points I raise to you, that you respond to them here with sources that support your wording. Witout such sources, you cannot write this. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What I think is that the term non-combat situations is wrongly aplied by the PCHR research team. Like I said before, there is nothing non-combat about being killed by a five-ton bomb. They were Hamas leaders who were killed in targeted military killings during a war, nothing non-combat about that. However, I would probably accept that they were counted as civilians because they were not military but political leaders. One of these guys was the Minister of Interior, so in essence he was in charge of the police force, but he was not counted among the 231 police officers that were killed, the chief of police was. So he could be regarded as a politician. And the other guy was a spiritual leader. So, from that point of view they were not military but civilians, so not counted in the 390 number of policemen and militants killed. But, I don't accept we put in the notes section that the civilian death toll includes Hamas members who were killed in non-combat situations. Why? Because it was a war, and there is no non-combat situation in a war. Also, there were Hamas members that were not military but civilians, just like there are Israelis who work for the IDF but are not military but civilian support staff. If there were any of those killed we would have counted them as civilians. I acknowledge that there were civilian Hamas members killed, but don't support to note that in the infobox because it's place is in the casualties section. And please refrain from using the term non-combat situation because that is just stupid. I support both Nableezy's and Tiamut's opinions on this. Sorry, AgadaUrbanit.BobaFett85

I have to disagree. RS around the world reported Nizar Rayan and Said Siam are commanders of Hamas military. Those persons are members/commanders of Hamas armed forces (government-sponsored defense, fighting forces, and organizations), thus hardly civilians under international humanitarian law. We should clearly warn readers that PCHR civilian statistics contains unknown number of Hamas combatants both in Casualties section and in InfoBox. Otherwise I feel we'd confuse the reader and hide the truth.
CNN [14]: "Nizar Rayan, one of the main founders of Hamas and a commander in northern Gaza"
JPost [15]: "Nizar Rayyan, the Hamas military commander"
UPI [16]: "Hamas military commander was killed in an Israeli airstrike"
NYPost [17]: "He was both a military commander and the spiritual leader of Hamas' brutal military wing."
JPost [18] "Siam was the Hamas political echelon's liaison with the group's military wing, Izzadin Kassam, and was responsible for the various security apparatuses in the Strip"
Haaretz [19] "Sayyam ... head of internal security in the organization and the person responsible for the liaison between the political and military wings of Hamas."
AP [20] "Hamas confirms Israel strike killed security chief (Siam) ... who oversaw thousands of security agents in the Gaza Strip."

So does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, Let's behave in good faith to each other. I read you User page and learned that you're experienced and were already blocked four times for WP:3RR. You are a naughty boy :) (joke). I'd appreciate if you stop edit-warring with me and change article content while it is still in discussion. I think it is clearly against Wikipedia:etiquette While I argue about facts, I'm always ready to forgive and forget and work towards agreement. "No more war, no more bloodshed". Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your point in all this? That somebody who Israel claims was a military commander was killed? The sources say what they say, they say civilians. If you find a reliable source that disputes these civilian numbers you can put that in there, but the way you are presenting this is blatant OR. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, I think you need to chill out a bit and take a cooling off period. If you continue with this I will not have a choice but revert you too and you will not be edit-warring only with Tiamut but with me also. I agree to note these things in the casualties section but leave the infobox alone.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

BobaFett85, Thank you for you opinion. I've added that "non-combat" actually refer to roof knocking. Off article I might add that RS reported that during this conflict "hundreds" of such attacks accounted, based on Shin Bet intelligence information with approval of Israeli international law experts. Considering it one might wonder that "maybe" IDF (Israeli propaganda) civilian casualties numbers (~150) are much closer to reality than PCHR. And how many of "conventional" civilians are people like four of Nizar Rayan wifes or Said Siam son, much of those were forced into human shields. So let's wait for fog of war to settle down. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand what a human shield is, you are just repeating what Israeli officials are saying about the practice of Hamas. I think you should read up on this to gain a better understanding of the meaning of the term. Sleeping in your house with your family does not equal using human shields. Nableezy (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy,I hope you're not that naive. Please read roof knocking and Nizar Rayan. People do not sleep and get bombed just because Israel wants to kill civilians. Some people store rockets in their basement and use it against Israelis. They say if my family is with me, Israel will not attack and rocket stockpile is safe. Israel wants to eliminate stockpile - have a right to self defense. From Nizar Rayan article: The IDF warned Rayan, by contacting his cell phone, that an attack was imminent and urged him to evacuate his family, but he refused. According to the New York Daily News, Rayan "sacrificed his children - in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home." He put nearby civilians to risk as well.. Hope you could see my side of the story. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As for B'Tselem quotes (somehow irrelevant to this concrete discussion) I knew those facts very well. There is a lot of internal Israeli discussion and controversy, while AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) no Palestinian ever died in human shield incident (but I might be mistaken). Please note that Israeli B'Tselem intention to endanger IDF soldiers in order to protect Palestinians and guard their rights. Don't you just love it? In any case, in my opinion, B'Tselem and Israeli High Court do a good job and monitoring IDF quite well. My hope is that organizations like B'Tselem or Peace Now could exists also on Palestinian side. Anyway thank you for your remark. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say, but your sources do not support your sentence. That is really all that is relevant to this conversation. Nableezy (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties chart

Note: Data does not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants

The chart only gives the highest (Hamas-based) estimates of Palestinian casualties, as indicated in the narrative others are lower. The cited sources (eg reuters and jpost) do not say these are definite casualty numbers. The chart thus gives undue weight to a fringe source. Please fix before reintroducing. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement on the graph that 'United Nations' figures were used is incorrect. It used Palestinian Ministry of Health figures, which should be correctly attributed. I disagree though in that I don't consider it to be a "fringe" source. It's as fringe as the IDF figures, which should be taken with the equal milligrams worth of salt. The Squicks (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

File_talk:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png#United_Nations.3F

It is not only incorrect to attribute the Hamas figures to "UN, reuters and jpost", (though they cited them, it should be indicated what they cited), but it is also incorrect to make a chart using only these figures. No range is indicated, the numbers are not attributed, it is misleading and pov. It is even questionable if a npov chart can be drawn at all at this time for the Palestinian casualties. Concerning WP:FRINGE: Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the European Union, US&Canada, Japan and others. That definetly makes them a fringe source, and the data must be treated that way - i.e. not to entirely exclude it of course, but neither to have this data in the most prominent position and make it look like an undisputed reliable estimate. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and repeat my opposition to charts like this in general until the fog of war lifts little more, and for citing hard numbers: we need ranges for now.--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is the government of Gaza, their numbers should be taken with that weight. Unless you are also saying that the numbers the Israeli government have provided should also be dealt this way. Nableezy (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hamas government also demonstrably has had its capacity to keep such a body count severely interrupted by the Palestinian Lovefest of Roof Knocking Special Non-Explosive Harmless Missile-tards [insert canned jon stewart-esqe explosion animation here]. This is what I mean by fog of war. The UN will publish good figures soon enough. That said, protestations that the defacto Goverment of Gaza is lying about these figures are as predictable as they are against long-standing wikipedia practice of defering to what government's say about themselves, clearly in an article were the Israeli MFA is used as a primary source (mostly correctly), we can with a clear conciense used that of the Gaza Government. Still, convince me why this chart is a good idea?--Cerejota (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

it's got pink and orange in it which are happy colours. that's why. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But pink isn't really an NPOV colour, is it? --JGGardiner (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont care about the chart, but this repeated insistence that Hamas cannot be treated as the government of Gaza needed a response. I personally think in numbers so when I see 1330 to 13 in the infobox I can imagine the chart anyway. Nableezy (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The chart did follow your advice before the rest of us and used the "war" term up from the start. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That figures are provisory until we get official neutral review based on hospital records, and full recovery after the rubble is cleared of all bodies, was obvious from the start. A revision down by Palestinianj sources is already taking place, witness these figures from today's Guardian, which should be checked with the official sources, and entered, provisorily, into the charts and relevant parts of the article. I think the chart important. The only issue is one of updating it daily in accordance with the best sources.

The Palestinian death toll after three weeks of Israel's war was 1,285, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, or 1,268, according to the al-Mezan Human Rights Centre. Among those dead were at least 280 children. McCarthy, 'Children of Gaza: stories of those who died and the trauma for those who survived,' The Independent, 24,01/2009 Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page long ago we agreed to the chart being in the article. Many supported it, few opposed it. I changed the source on the image to say "Palestinian Ministry of Health." See the instructions on the image page for purging your browser cache if necessary. I have been updating the chart every day or two. We can point out on the chart caption that the numbers are changing, and yet to be independently verified. Just like in the notes section of the infobox. The number of Palestinian wounded seems to be in flux. See [21]. The number of Palestinian dead from a couple Palestinian sources seems to be fairly stable around 1300. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The chart is still not good. Though "Pal MoH" is included as a source, it is cited only in line with random secondary sources, and the sources are not attributed to the numbers and/or primary sources they cite. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just clarified things better in the image summary at:

File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png --Timeshifter (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pal MoH which you,Skäpperöd , call 'fringe' still happens to be an official source, since it is issued by the resident administration of the area. Israel has an interest to shape figures its way,i.e. down, as Hamas has an interest the other way round. I support the chart. When figures closer to the truth emerge, we just substitute them for the ones given by the best available sources. There is no problem here I can see. Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Official source" is not "reliable source", just because Hamas are "officials" in a tiny area doesn't make the fact vanish that they are considered a terrorist organization by the European Union, US&Canada, Japan and others, and thus have to be treated with utmost care. The least we can do is properly attribute their claims and see that we are not solely relying on their claims. Both is currently not the case with the Palestinian casualty figures given in the chart. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

An official source that has been quoted by the UN, HRW, AI, ICRC, Btselem, BBC, Reuters, . . . It is not a fringe source, it is the official numbers given by the government and it should be treated with the same weight as the numbers given by the Israeli government. To argue against that is to argue against the very idea of NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading List.

There is quite an abundance of bizarre opinions being vaunted over these pages. A few correctives to the disinformation campaign may be found in this short, rather arbitrary list of articles, which expresses opinions in the main, but manages to give much evidence that is widely shared by serious students of the area. I hope a few out there read some of them, and cull what may prove useful for further research, that may assist the reviewing of the page, esp. the Background, which is totally dishonest.

• (1) Anthony H.Cordesman, ‘The War in Gaza: Tactical Gains or Strategic Defeat,’ Center for Strategic & International Studies, January 9,2009
• (2) Henry Siegman, 'Israel’s Lies,' London Review of Books, 29 January 2009
• (3) John J. Mearsheimer 'Another War, Another Defeat,' The American Conservative, January 26, 2009
• (4) Richard Falk, ‘Winning and Losing in Gaza,’ The Nation, February 9, 2009.
• (5) David Bromwich, 'Self-Deception and the Assault on Gaza', Huffington Post, January 16, 2009
• (6) Gideon Levy, 'The next step,’ Haaretz 24/01/2009
• (7)Avi Shlaim, 'How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe,’ The Guardian, 07/01/2009
• (8) Tom Segev, ‘Cruel and meaningless wars,’ Haaretz, 23/01/2009
• (9) Eric Hobsbawm, 'On Gaza' , London Review of Books, 15/09/2009
• (10)Geoffrey Wheatcroft, 'How Israel gets away with murder,' The Independent, 11/01/2009
• (11)Gershom Gorenberg, 'The Ignored Choices in Gaza,’ The American Prospect, January 7, 2009

Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:Soapboxing and using WP to put up a list of biased sources and call it "correctives for disinformation!" It strikes me that this is absolutely inappropriate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No soapboxing. I thought that citing Anthony Cordesman, chair in strategy at the CSIS, and a known and long-standing friend, nor fiend, of Israel; David Bromwich, the Sterling professor of English at Yale; Henry Siegman, with his 16 year stint as Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress; John Mearsheimer, a Professor of Political Science at Chicago U.; Richard Falk professor emeritus of International law at Princeton; Avi Shlaim, Oxford professor of international relations; Tom Segev or Gershom Gorenberg, distinguished Israeli historians; Eric Hobsbawm, historian and president of Birkbeck colleage, London University; Geoffrey Wheatcroft, historian whose 'The Controversy of Zion' won the National Jewish Book Award, and Gideon Levy, senior editorialist on Haaretz, might help those many editors here who seem to get their information on the world from ערוץ שבע‎ to realize that the world is more complex than the stereotypes they are apparently exposed to let on, that men of great learning, reliable sources (WP:RS), are worth listening to, and that quite a few Jewish commentators and analysts share views often summarily dismissed as anti-Semitic, or Hamas-sourced propaganda. If that is bias, well, of course, you are neutral and wholly committed to NPOV, unlike them.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I find Tundra's increasing failures to assume good faith inappropriate. These sources were provided as part of seeking information to include in the article. Presenting points of views of notable and relevant figures from reliable sources is not WP:SOAPBOXing. Spare us the needless dramatics which do not promote a civil editing environment, and of course, feel free to pursue dispute resolution if you feel that people are violating policy and being disruptive. Sometimes, it is good to call people when they soapbox, but sometimes it is better to let it go. And sometimes, opinions are not soapboxing, but ways to enrich the encyclopedic mission, as is the case with the above sources. --Cerejota (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to disclose first that I'm Jewish living in Israel. I'd like to note that mentioned guys belong to "Flat Earth" minority camp. They say in company of two Jews there will be at least three opinions Don't you just love it? However, public opinion polls indicated overwhelming support for Cast Lead operation, while great disappointment from the fact that Gilad Shalit remained on Gaza soil when IDF pulled out. In my humble opinion this conflict matches all Criteria of Just war theory. The sad thing is that right wing in Israel (ערוץ שבע‎) warned in the past when Gaza International Airport was still wide open that unthinkable (at the time) will happen and Ashkelon will be attacked by rockets from Gaza. Majority dismissed those warnings as delusional and gave peace a chance. There is no Israeli military presence (occupation) in Gaza strip. Israel left not in order to return. However, current common assumption is that if nothing changes in internal Palestinian politics, Gaza-Israel conflict will escalate again and Tel Aviv metropolitan area will be attacked by rockets during this new round of violence. Pretty soon. So there are a lot of opinions. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion is not a reliable source. Scholars of world reknown, journalist-historians of repute, and journals of quality that print their views are.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is really become irrelevant, but still I hope that you do not suggest that the mentioned list is the only reliable source. The fact is there are also quite a lot of scholars of world reknown, journalist-historians of repute, and journals of quality who would disagree with opinions expressed in this "reliable" list. Most wikipedia contributors do know how to read and how differentiate reliable from biased. I stressed about public opinion, because Wikipedia guidelines call us to prefer "majority" opinion to "Flat earth" opinion. Hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You answer notions I never suggested. If you have a corresponding list of distinguished scholars to follow mine, to counterbalance things, I'd profit from it, as I think all those editing would. So plunk it down under here. You can begin with Benny Morris.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to read whatever you want and form you own opinion. Just please do not dictate to others list of what to read. Generally Israel and Jews provide wide rainbow of opinions. If I would mention every one who is critical of state of Israel policies, it would not fit into this discussion. Still they are minority which does not make them neither right nor wrong. I myself have not voted for this government. We (Israel) always discuss what was done, what to do next and what could be done better and try to be open minded and fix our errors. It is our strength. No one has monopoly for truth, not even me :) Hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Please don't abuse the English language for using the word 'dictate' to refer to an expression 'readers may', implying possibility. I suggest that far too many people editing are reading newspapers, and not authoritative voices from within and beyond Israel about the nature of the conflict. It is useful background reading. No one is obliged to read it, even if scruple implies they should. Historians of the area generally know more than us. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my broken English, Nishidani, it is not my native tongue. I did not mean to offend you (or English language) in any way. Peace man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Nishidani_ What you refer to as "correctives to the disinformation campaign" of others, is frankly a disinformation campaign of itself and simply inappropriate to this talk page. If you believe that a section of this article is "totally dishonest" as you suggest, you should be putting up specific diffs for discussion and improvement. It strikes me as a sore lack of respect toward editors here who do not share your views to label their perspective "dishonest" and a "disinformation campaign." I urge you to refactor your comments. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

wow, lack of respect. wow. Nableezy (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

like wow, yeah. Respect is one of the 5 pillars upon which wikipedia is built. I recommend reading those two wikilinks and incorporating them. In case you think I am joking about this, here is a quote to mull on: "Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. While other core principles give firm standards as to the content of articles, the civility policy is a code of conduct, setting out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". (my bolds) Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose new, streamlined and improved introduction

I've created a slightly changed version of the intro. It tries to take more of a view of a finished conflict (it can always be changed if things start up again. I've removed some unnecessary detail that are no longer relevant. I've also tried to make it more representative of the article as a whole.

What do people think?

I also think we could remove some of the multiple references. I mean, do we need 6 or 7 references for one fact?

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party, Hamas. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in parts of the Arab World.

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008. Contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade, and citing an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4 as a breach of the truce, Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.

On 27 December 2008, Israel launched an all out military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade.

On the first days of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force, supported by the navy, bombed Hamas buildings, headquarters and offices in all of the Gaza strip. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, were also attacked. Israel claims that many of these buildings stocked weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.. Since Hamas is Gaza's governing party, elected in 2006, many government buildings were destroyed, including almost all Gaza's police stations.

On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza. During the conflict, a number of serious incidents took place; the most deadly was the bombing of a United Nations school in which 43 people died. In total, there were over 940 civilian deaths, including at least 280 children, in Gaza.

Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian and army targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.

Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire with Hamas on January 18 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). Palestinian militants fired about 20 rockets over the border after the Israeli ceasefire announcement. Israel retaliated with an airstrike. Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire. On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

International reactions during the conflict have included calls for an immediate ceasefire as in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid. There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with angry protests against Israel's attack held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris.

During the conflict, 13 Israelis were killed including three civilians. On the Palestinian side, estimates differ, but the Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians. Following the conflict, more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water and it was reported that Gaza 'looks like earthquake zone'.. As a result of the bombings, 4,000 Gazan buildings were razed and 20,000 severely damaged), more than 50,800 Gazans were left homeless.

Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and law suits. In particular, Israel has been accused of intentionally attacking buildings where civilians were hiding, as well as using the banned chemical white phosphorus against civilians. The UN head in Gaza called for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lets look at the proposals one by one:

(1) The ja23 proposal would omit "parts of"(the Arab world), which must be rejected according to the npov discussin consensus now in archive 22. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK that was unintentional, I will edit it back in.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• It still neglects the issue that any English teacher will tell you that not one of the sources given indicate that any Arabs actually refer to it as anything other than a "massacre". This has been commented on by numerous editors, even on the No Original Research noticeboard. Thus I (and others) believe it should read something to the effect, that "parts of the Arab world describe the event as a massacre" (no bolds) Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case you'd have to mention that there are at least some in the west who would also regard it as a massacreJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Just as you would have to mention that there are some in the west who regard it as legitimate self-defense for Israel. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Furthermore, it still states that the 2008-2009 conflict began on December 27th, which is ridiculous. Numerous editors have commented on this as well, yet it still gets edit-warred back in. A word similar to "intensified" is one of the few words that make any sense in this context. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think AGF no longer applies here with Tundrabuggy, your repeated lie about how 'not one of the sources given indicate that any Arabs actually refer to it as anything other than a "massacre"' has repeatedly been proven wrong. For all those who did not read the above discussion or the thousand times this has been disproved in the archives, here you go:
SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [22]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [23]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [24]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [25]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera)
I cannot believe how many times you are willing to say something that you have been proven wrong on multiple times. I would encourage other readers to look at #Start of conflict for further nonsense. That you actually dispute that the term 'the gaza massacre' has been used has been thoroughly refuted. You want to make an issue of capitalization then fine, but dont come here again and again saying nobody has called it 'the gaza massacre'. It is an outright lie that you know for a fact is an outright lie. Nableezy (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made numerous good-faith attempts to explain to you why your sources do not say what you seem to think they say, as well you know. I will repeat it again as much for you as for others here who may not understand. This is not an issue of capitalization, but of grammar, and the difference between common and proper nouns in English. Ultimately it is an issue of NPOV. Your sources speak English and when they translate from Arabic (& I accept your assertion that it has no capitalization) they (your references) try to maintain the meaning despite huges differences in the language and grammar. That is why English translations capitalize "Gaza" - because they understand the speaker is naming a place. Thus they use the English to convey the Arabic as closely as possible. That is when none of the sources capitalize "massacre," it is because they are not under the impression that they are translating a name, but rather that they are conveying that Arabs refer to or describe the Gaza attack as a "massacre." If any of your sources were trying to imply that the Arabs call the Gaza attack "The Gaza Massacre" they would have written it that way in the body of the article. They are journalists and are expected to have a good command of English. This is not a quibble over capitalization, but an issue of NPOV. You cannot correctly claim that the Arabs (all or part) refer to it by that name. By claiming that it is a name, you are asserting a balance between "Operation Cast Lead" and "The Gaza Massacre." In other words, you are making an error in order to insert a POV. Acknowledging that the Arabs simply describe it as a "massacre", would require you to add that Israel and others describe it an exercise of Israel's legitimate right to self defense. Why did the journalists NOT capitalize massacre if they meant it to be a name, will you answer me that, before you hurry to accuse me of lying? And why wouldn't calling it the Gaza Massacre and claiming it is a name, despite all of your sources referring to it as a "massacre in Gaza" or "the Gaza massacre" constitute Original Research? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I point you to the definition of a proper noun: a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized (Princeton wordnet as given by google). And I hope you dont go all Clinton on me and try to give a convulated answer on what the meaning of the word 'is' is; but what does the word 'the' mean? Is it used to make a reference to a particular thing? Why that would mean 'the gaza massacre' would be a specific thing, wouldn't it? Could that possibly fit the definition of proper noun? Oh my God, it does! Does every word in a proper noun need to be capitalized? Oh my God, the definition says it doesn't! Wow, gee golly, that sure is a relief. The names that each side uses do not have to be balanced for it to be NPOV, just both sides name needs to be presented for it to be NPOV. Like I said already, if you want the word 'massacre' to not be capitalized, bring that up in a separate thread. Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you can point away, but you clearly do not know what you are talking about, sorry. A particular thing preceded by "the" is not necessarily a proper noun. "the dog" for example -- you would not capitalize dog. "the Cocker Spaniel" on the other hand, is the name of a breed, and "Goldie" is the name of a particular dog, but dogs are dogs, and while they are a "specific thing" ie a noun, "dog" is not "proper noun." Perhaps since you are so relieved that not all proper nouns need to be capitalized, you can demonstrate one that does not need to be. Perhaps we can take this discussion back down to the bottom of the page where User:OrenO has restarted this discussion making the same point I have been making right along. The capitalization issue is not an issue in itself - merely evidence that you are mistaken. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer discussing irrational arguments that have been refuted time and time again. Nableezy (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(2) The ja23 proposal would delete the sentence "Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce." This sentence however is the most npov way (without blaming anyone) to describe the pre-cast lead situation and thus should stay. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But surely, since a war broke out, it's obvious that they couldn't renew the truce?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, wouldn't the 6th month so-called "truce" indicate that war had been actually going on prior to June? I mean, isn't a "truce" understood to mean a temporary cessation of hostilities? In fact, in Wiki, "truce" refers to "Armed conflict" and so does the definition of War. Armed conflict resumed after the end of the truce. Skapperod's edit is nicely put and neutral. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(3) The ja23 proposal replaces some sources with the sentence: "Since Hamas is Gaza's governing party, elected in 2006, many government buildings were destroyed, including almost all Gaza's police stations." This is problematic as the Hamas seizure of power was not only by 2006 election, but more like in a civil war 2007. We should neither present all details of how Hamas gained power in the lead (WP:UNDUE) nor cherry-pick some details as it is done here, but leave that to the background section. The "gov buildings and police stations" passage is redundant, as it is stated in the sentence before that IAF targeted "Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices". Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the sentence is grammatically incorrect since it implies that because Hamas is Gaza's "governing party" many buildings were destroyed. Perhaps we could simply say to cover both concerns that IDF successfully targeted "Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices"? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

More like an attempted coup that was put down. Hamas is both the de jure and de facto government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(4) The ja23 proposal adds: "During the conflict, a number of serious incidents took place; the most deadly was the bombing of a United Nations school in which 43 people died. In total, there were over 940 civilian deaths, including at least 280 children, in Gaza." Picking an isolated incident, presenting only one version as also with the isolated (Hamas) casualty figure gives them undue weight, violates WP:NPOV and thus must be rejected. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well in case you didn't notice, there havn't been any corresponding incidents on the ISraeli side. I didn't hear about a school getting hit in tel-aviv killing 40 people. I don't see how its not neutral to state the facts. These incidents have been a notable part of the conflict and should be referenced in the introduction.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this Grad missile hits empty kindergarten in Ashdod? It was only good luck that there were no children in it. Obviously it was not for lack of trying. Also that UN incident should be investigated before we make such a comment since it is damning one side. Israel version of events should be included if you are going to include that in the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(5) The ja23 proposal adds "There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with angry protests against Israel's attack held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris." This again is pov-ed, in style ("angry") as in content (only against Israel), also the towns presented are randomly picked and thus given undue weight. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well what towns would you choose. I tried to choose notable ones. Protests were a notable aspect of the conflictJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(6) The ja23 proposal replaces:

• "On the Palestinian side, estimates differ. The Hamas-run Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians, while other Palestinian estimates are lower. Israel says at least 700 Hamas fighters were killed. Israeli Intelligence says that the overall death toll was less than 1,300 and that their count indicated that around 150 civilians (children, women, elderly) died." with
• "On the Palestinian side, estimates differ, but the Gazan Ministry of Health claims 1,330 died, including 904 civilians."

This must be rejected because of WP:NPOV - All figures except the Hamas figure are deleted. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, on the Israeli, side, only the official Israeli figure is listed, so only the official Gazan Ministry of Health figure should be listed on the other side.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(7) The ja23 proposal adds: "In particular, Israel has been accused of intentionally attacking buildings where civilians were hiding, as well as using the banned chemical white phosphorus against civilians. The UN head in Gaza called for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes." Again, this violates WP:NPOV, as only one side of the dispute is presented, and also violates WP:UNDUE. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You are cherry picking. My proposal also mentions that Hamas is accused of war crimes. The fact is, Israel has been accused of more, and notably accused by the United NationsJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TL; DR please people re-read WP:LEDE. I like the first line, but it should be merged with the second and third (as redundant). Mention of specific casualty figures should not go on the lede. We should not used phrases that charactize, like "angry protests". What the UN chief in Gaza said is notable, but not lede material.

Something like this, but with the sourcing and wikilinks:

“ The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party, Hamas, and of halting rocket fire that had resumed after a six month long truce ended on 19 December 2008. Hamas contends the resuming of the rocket attacks is a result of Israel not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and of the Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on 4 November 2008. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World.

On the first days of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force, supported by the navy, bombed Hamas buildings, headquarters and offices in all of the Gaza strip. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, and schools, were also attacked. Israel claims that many of these buildings stocked weapons or personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.

On January 3, 2009, a ground invasion by the Israeli Defence Forces began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by helicopter gunships, entering Gaza.

Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod.

Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire on 18 January 2009 which came in effect at 0000 UTC (2 a.m. local time). After initially ignoring the ceasefire with renewed rocket attacks, Hamas offered its own one-week unilateral ceasefire. On 21 January, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

International reactions during the conflict have included the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid.[47][48] There was a notable civilian response to the attacks, with protests against Israeli operations held worldwide, in cities including Damascus, London and Paris.

Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and lawsuits.

”

This is shorter, sumarizes the article, and is way more NPOV. Less peacock and weasel.--Cerejota (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a big improvement on the current lead. I would still say there should be mention of the fact that there have been some notable incidents, because, as I noted above, they have been one of the most talked-about features of the conflict. Also perhaps should be slightly more detail about alleged war crimes, again very important Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like this one:
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, or also part of the ongoing Iranian quest to reestablish the Persian Empire, or also part of the American quest to begin a new English Empire, or also part of Canada's quest to unleash pottymouths such as Terrence and Phillip on the world, or also part of Derkaderkastan's continued push to be recognized as the major power in the Middle East and achieve UN representation, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[31] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), with the stated intent of stopping Hamas rocket attacks and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[32][33][34] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
Nableezy (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't do leads by massive one-take revision. In all proposed versions, the second paragraph, which I find reasonable if unsatisfactory, gets clunky (Sorry Cerejota, but 'Hamas contends the resuming of the rocket attacks is a result of Israel not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and of the Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on 4 November 2008' doesn't work, not only because 'resuming' (already in the previous line) should be 'resumption' etc. It drops the truce issue, which is central etc.) I suggest any proposals take it in sequence, para by para. But preferably after the body of the text is stabilized, a summary of its contents made, and this used to reflect back on the lead. There shouldn't be any haste about this.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas-run," "other Palestinian estimates are lower"

Re [26] and [27], the language being restored here is pretty clearly inappropriate. First of all, identifying the Palestinian Ministry of Health as "Hamas-run" is gratuitous and carries no information; it simply serves as a kind of rhetorical prod to the reader, "don't trust these guys." (I imagine it read aloud in an Israeli accent; "khhhaamas" ;) It's a government ministry, it's run by the government, which is run by the party in power. Flagging that party serves no legitimate purpose and is only an attempt to lead the reader around by the nose. And what does the Jerusalem Post, a hawkish Israeli paper, report?

Tony Laurance, who heads the World Health Organization's office in the West Bank and Gaza, said the information from the Gaza Health Ministry "is likely to be close to accurate." It was "reported on a daily basis by hospitals to the central information center within the Ministry of Health," he added. That center had identifying details of the casualties in terms of names and ages and places of residents.[28]

Second, and more significantly, the text portrays a significant gap between Pal MoH estimates and other Palestinian counts. This gap does not appear to exist, and it certainly isn't docuemnted or even implied in the given sources. MoH estimates 1,330 dead of whom 900 are civilians. The PCHR, an independent non-partisan, group, estimates 1,284 dead of whom 894 are civilians. The difference in total death counts is less than 4% and in civilians less than 1%. The PCHR's estimate appears to be the most widely cited in Western reports. The vague innuendos by Israeli officials, almost all off the record, and the Clouseauian investigation by that one Italian journalist, are not "Palestinian estimates." Indeed the JPost piece I already cited notes that the PCHR's figures are "almost identical" to Hamas's.

People, cut the crap. You can't just make things up and put them into Wikipedia articles. This is pretty basic. If you want to quibble about "hamas-run" fine, but this business about "other Palestinian estimates" is, to be blunt, a lie. Please don't lie. <eleland/talkedits> 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this reflects that Palestinians are split in de-facto civil war. There is Fatah Palestinian National Authority controlling West bank and Khhhaamas-run Governance of the Gaza Strip. It was reported [[29]] two parties continued to fight also during this conflict. So for dumb Israeli as myself such clarification is required. Does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are Fatah estimates (i'm sorry, "Palestinian National Authority" estimates ;) then let's have them linked on the talk page, first. Then we would have to ask, according to reliable sources how credible are these estimates? Because I've checked for media coverage of Gaza casualty counts and haven't found anything that even mentions them. "Maybe" isn't good enough, we need to have solid sources backing each piece of text we put in this article. Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion that Fatah does have some relationship with the Italian guy who claims it's all a Hamas-PCHR-WHO-UN conspiracy to boost casualty figures, but that's my own idle speculation and is irrelevant. <eleland/talkedits> 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact is there are two Palestinian Prime Ministers and two MoHs. How do you suggest we differentiate between those? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Which one speaks for Gaza? The one affiliated with Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Both? During the conflict Fatah and independent officials even enjoyed clear majority in the media. Abu Mazen represented Gaza in cease-fire ceremony in Sharm el-Sheikh with Egypt and European leaders. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fatah speaking for Gaza is meaningless, Hamas still have to accept that for it to be at all valid. Hamas is both the de jure and de facto government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not de jure. They wrested power in a 2007 Battle of Gaza bloody coup. Now maybe the Gazans are happy with their "leadership," I don't know. It would be (in US) as if the Republicans were to throw out all the Democrats (by throwing them off rooves and taking over their offices at gunpoint, etc) and decided to run the country their way. Hardly de jure, no matter how often you repeat it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

De jure, there's no legitimate government. After abu Mazen dismissed the Hamas government, he was the legitimate government, but only for the short period allowed by the PA constitution after which new elections were necessary. He ignored that provision. Both governments are illegitimate, although the Hamas government in Gaza was at least elected, while Abbas is basically a Washington/Tel Aviv appointee, FWIW. <eleland/talkedits> 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

De jure, there's no legitimate government. And, thus, we cannot calling something that's Hamas-run "Palestinian run" or simply "Palestinian" because it would be unclear to the reader. Simply. Really, how is "Hamas-run" a POV statement? The Squicks (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "Israeli Defence Force figures" an inherently POV statement since it includes the word "Israel"? The Squicks (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The PM said Abbas had no authority to dismiss that government. As of the last elections, widely recognized as free and fair, Hamas is the governing party of the PNA. They are the de jure government of the PNA but can only exercise de facto control in Gaza. And tundrabuggy, the coup attempt was actually from the other side. Nableezy (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to say that, Tundra read up your history... But, Hamas is de facto government because the Palestinian Authority is the internationally recognized government of both Gaza and WB - de jure government. If Hamas were the de jure goverment, Egypt would open up the border at Rafah. de facto can be a subjective view, but de jure in this case is objective in the same way notability is... except the reliable sources are other nations. So calling Hamas de jure is crap until other countries recognize them, which none have, not even Iran.

Mentioning "Hamas-run" does smacks me of passive-agressive provocation, but it is factually correct: We gots to stop the storms in a teacup... stop biting the baits. --Cerejota (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then the Israeli estimates should say 'Kadima-run' or 'Israeli-government-run MOH' since that's also factually accurate.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Hamas-run"? --I see Jandrews and others' point. In this article for example, we see "government-run" not "Hamas-run." RomaC (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The proposal of ja23 to use "Kadima-run" for the Israeli side is exactly the argument to have Hamas-run or some similar phrasing in the article. This conflict is not Israel vs Palestine, but Israel vs the Hamas-run part of Palestine. There are many Palestine areas/institutions that are not involved (at least directly). Thus we need the qualification. If Hamas would perform an operation only against Kadima, and Kadima would rule a different area of Israel than Likud and have its own institutions and ministries there, we of course had to indicate that, too. But this is not the case for Israel. She is acting as one party. Palestine is not. We have to avoid disambigous wording and clearly attribute who exactly is the source for whatever. If the numbers are from Hamas, we have to say Hamas and not MoH, and don't let the reader click through other articles before he knows that the information is actually from a party of this conflict and not from "someone". We cannot assume everyone knows exactly who is in charge of what MoH. What is the problem with clearly indicating the sources? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but I think the problem is that putting Hamas-run creaetes an implicit accusation that the figures are falsified or doubtful. Particularly given that Hamas is a militant group. I think the wording is used to try and discredit statements about palestinian casualties, etc. The article is full of 'Hamas claims', 'according to Hamas', etc.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying is we shouldn't clearly attribute Hamas' claims to Hamas because people might not believe it if they know who is the source, but will more likely trust the information if they are not aware who "MoH" really is. That is pretty thin ice you are walking on. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No what he is saying is that the continued attempt to have any government office be related to the party in power is something unseen elsewhere. The MoH is a governmental institution, that Hamas is the current government is irrelevant to that. Or should we put The Labour Min of Def for Israel or the Kadima PM or FM? No we dont, we list it as Israels Min of Def. This continued insistence that we must treat the government of Gaza as something other than the government of Gaza is annoying. Nableezy (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It does seem a form of perception-shifting. We don't use USA vs Baath in the Iraq War. RomaC (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or for that matter, The GOP vs Iraq, or Cheney and friends vs Iraq. Nableezy (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And if the issue is that this was only against 'Hamas-run part of Palestine', which to me at least equals Gaza, then perhaps you should be arguing about having it say the Gaza MoH. That would at least seem to be in line with your position that because Palestine is divided that division should be noted, and at the same time representing it as it is, a government ministry. Nableezy (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]There is no question that Hamas threw out the PA and are governing on their own. It is my understanding that there is no power-sharing going on between PA and Hamas in Gaza. There is no two-party system, no opposition party acknowledged. Do correct me if I'm wrong. That may be a "democratically elected" government, but my understanding of democratic is that the voice of others is heard as well. I am also under the impression that not every Gazan is happy with Hamas and Hamas' decision to provoke Israel. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mind you , PA is transferring money for reconstruction to Hamas. However, in the latest poll, most see the responsibility for the failure of the truce to be more on Hamas than on Israel. Pretty weird for a Ma'an poll. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect. Hamas holds the majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, and that happened by beating Fatah in an election, you know something that happens when there is more than 1 party. Long story short, Fatah got pissed, attempted a coup and lost. Hamas is the, and this cannot be disputed, de facto government of the Gaza Strip, they are the governing authority. Government agencies on both sides have to be treated the same. You cannot say that the government ministry in Gaza must be suspect but we can accept as gospel the statements of the Israeli government. That is not how NPOV works. Nableezy (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre"?

Much as I don't like questioning something with 10 refs after it, the current article states:

The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

This is not supported by even one of the references. It's important to note the distinction between calling it the "Gaza Massacre" (note the capital 'M' indicating that it's a part of the name), versus the way the sources describe it: "Gaza 'massacre'", "massacre in Gaza", and "Gaza massacre". That the conflict has been described as a massacre in the Arab world is certainly supported by the sources and should be in the lead. However, the sources do not support that the conflict has been called "the Gaza Massacre" (or its Arabic translation) as opposed to being descriptively called a massacre in Gaza. Unless sources can be found to show that it has been called the "Gaza Massacre" as a name rather than a description, this sentence should be rewritten, the Arabic removed, and the text unbolded (since it's a description rather than a name). In fact, the only source I see that even uses the term "Gaza massacre" is attributed to a Hamas spokesman. I therefore suggest that the text be changed to:

The conflict has been described as a "massacre" in parts of the Arab world.

Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just started to think that the ten reffs could be lesser but I was wrong. The not a Brunte (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [30]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [31]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [32]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [33]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera)
with all that I think the current wording is fine, but you could open a discussion on the capitalization. Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would be cool with narrowing down the references to the ones above that explicitly call it 'the gaza massacre' regardless of capitalization. Nableezy (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The arabic sources use one of 2 phrases that both translate to gaza massacre, either مذبحة غزة, or مجزرة غزة‎ Nableezy (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And the name Hamas uses should be included as the name the government of Gaza uses, just as the name the government of Israel uses is included. Nableezy (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can it be shown that the conflict has been referred to by the Gaza government in any official or ongoing capacity, rather than just once as an offhand quote in a newspaper? Oren0 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Those were official statements, including one broadcast around the world on Al-Arabiyya TV. I think that qualifies as more than an offhand quote. If something is attributed to a Hamas spokesman it is attributed to Hamas which is government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Nableezy, ergo Caps. As for "...in parts of the Arab World" what exactly is the point of including this qualification? I saw a quick discussion that more or less forced a compromise that "Arab World" ought to be qualified somehow. "...everywere the Arab World" would be problematic, but the general statement "...in the Arab World" is not. It's a matter of grammar and sets and subsets, for example the general statement "Pizza is popular in Italy." is correct, but something like "every single Italian loves pizza" is not correct. We do not have to "compromise" and say "Pizza is popular in parts of Italy." Keep it simple and real. RomaC (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

i dont read arabic, but there was a long discussion about this and the editors who do know it said that there is no capitalization in arabic. in context, if the source says "the gaza massacre" then we should capitalize it. Untwirl (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It would be textbook original research if the English sources we cite don't capitalize the M but we do because we claim they can't properly translate Arabic. If a fair number of sources capitalize the M, we can as well. At least looking at the current sources, not one of them capitalizes it. All we can do is report the information the same way reliable sources do, which is no capitalization. Oren0 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deja Vue all over again, OrenO. I have been trying to say this for weeks and indeed put this up further up on the page but I will repeat it here because there is so much hablar, hablar, blah that it is best to repeat it rather than expect someone new to keep up with the discussion. It is either completely misunderstood or an attempt is being made to obfuscate:

:::::I have made numerous good-faith attempts to explain to you why your sources do not say what you seem to think they say, as well you know. I will repeat it again as much for you as for others here who may not understand. This is not an issue of capitalization, but of grammar, and the difference between common and proper nouns in English. Ultimately it is an issue of NPOV. Your sources speak English and when they translate from Arabic (& I accept your assertion that it has no capitalization) they (your references) try to maintain the meaning despite huges differences in the language and grammar. That is why English translations capitalize "Gaza" - because they understand the speaker is naming a place. Thus they use the English to convey the Arabic as closely as possible. That is when none of the sources capitalize "massacre," it is because they are not under the impression that they are translating a name, but rather that they are conveying that Arabs refer to or describe the Gaza attack as a "massacre." If any of your sources were trying to imply that the Arabs call the Gaza attack "The Gaza Massacre" they would have written it that way in the body of the article. They are journalists and are expected to have a good command of English. This is not a quibble over capitalization, but an issue of NPOV. You cannot correctly claim that the Arabs (all or part) refer to it by that name. By claiming that it is a name, you are asserting a balance between "Operation Cast Lead" and "The Gaza Massacre." In other words, you are making an error in order to insert a POV. Acknowledging that the Arabs simply describe it as a "massacre", would require you to add that Israel and others describe it an exercise of Israel's legitimate right to self defense. Why did the journalists NOT capitalize massacre if they meant it to be a name, will you answer me that, before you hurry to accuse me of lying? And why wouldn't calling it the Gaza Massacre and claiming it is a name, despite all of your sources referring to it as a "massacre in Gaza" or "the Gaza massacre" constitute Original Research?

I am beginning to feel like I cannot make myself understood. Am I clear to you?- Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And I repeat again:
I point you to the definition of a proper noun: a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized (Princeton wordnet as given by google). And I hope you dont go all Clinton on me and try to give a convulated answer on what the meaning of the word 'is' is; but what does the word 'the' mean? Is it used to make a reference to a particular thing? Why that would mean 'the gaza massacre' would be a specific thing, wouldn't it? Could that possibly fit the definition of proper noun? Oh my God, it does! Does every word in a proper noun need to be capitalized? Oh my God, the definition says it doesn't! Wow, gee golly, that sure is a relief. The names that each side uses do not have to be balanced for it to be NPOV, just both sides name needs to be presented for it to be NPOV. Like I said already, if you want the word 'massacre' to not be capitalized, bring that up in a separate thread.
Nableezy (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That there is one of something does not make it a proper noun, nor does it mean that it should be capitalized. If my family has one dog, it is "the family dog" and not "the Family Dog." The reliable sources refer to it with a lower case 'M' and so should we. Oren0 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it had to be capitalized, but this is most certainly a proper noun (which does not have to be capitalized). The closest comparison I can think of would be this. Hamas leaders, when referring to the State of Israel, generally refuse to use the word 'Israel'. The instead prefer the term 'the Zionist entity'. It cannot be argued when a Hamas spokesman says 'the Zionist entity' he is referring to the State of Israel, and 'the Zionist entity' is a proper noun. And entity is never capitalized in that situation, in any English translation that I read. There being one of something does not make it a proper noun, but by referring to a specific event with a name, here said conflict and name 'the Gaza massacre' that does make the name used a proper noun. I am not arguing about capitalization, but tb has repeatedly asserted when the quotes are referencing this situation as 'the Gaza massacre' that it is not the name given. I think that is patently false. Nableezy (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually your own example speaks against you. "Zionist" is capitalized as an ideology, but "entity" is not. specifically because they are making the point that they are not "naming" Israel ie The Zionist Entity would be "recognizing" Israel by another name. By using small-case entity, they are making a point that "entity" in this case generic though a "Zionist" one. "massacre" is any massacre, though it is the Gaza one. 'The Zionist entity' is not meant to be a proper noun, (ie a name) and it isn't. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand English. That is really all that is needed to be said. Your position has been rejected, give it up. Nableezy (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'separate thread' part was from a different thread, so feel free to bring it up here. Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oren0, do you think that the quotes I cited above refer to it as 'the gaza massacre' as the name? forget about capitalization for now. Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting about capitalization for a minute, it seems that most editors support the use of the term and I'm willing to abide by that consensus. As you can see, I have cleaned up the lead to only reference the citations that actually call it "Gaza massacre" by name. Oren0 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, perhaps we should move on from whether or not it is a name used and determine whether or not to have the massacre capitalized. I am not going to state an opinion at this point, really because I think both sides are valid and I have to turn it over in my head a few more times. But the rest of yall just idly watching, state your piece on whether or not you feel the 'Massacre' should be 'massacre' or 'Massacre' in 'Gaza Massacre'. And if you could include a rational explanation that probably would be helpful. Nableezy (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Oren and Tundrabuggy that we have no reason to capitalize "massacre" since the English-language sources don't. I would also add that a qualifier, such as "in parts of (the Arab world)" is necessary. English Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera Magazine, for example, simply don't call it that. Palestine News Network and Gulf News do. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we really fighting over capitalization? We wikipedians can get silly sometimes. Fact is, you guys should give up an accept the fact that calling this a "M/massacre" is pretty much the same, the equivalent, and as encyclopedic as calling it Operation Cast Lead. Its called verifiability, not truth. And the disingenousness of arguing the sources do not say this is beyond belief. Don't insult your intelligence by making silly arguments like that anymore. Sometimes, repeating a lie doesn't make it become truth, it just makes you a worse liar. --Cerejota (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth is right. The sources use a lower-case m and I believe that to be a meaningful distinction. If you think that this discussion is silly, why are you participating in it? Also, please don't call people liars. Oren0 (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel I have breached policy, take it to WP:DRAMA. Calling a spade, a spade is not a personal attack. However, to focus in content, the reality is that people want to remove the name, provided by more sources than 99.9999% of the content in wikipedia, given by a significant percentage of the world's population to the conflict. And they do so by promoting positions that breach the spirit and the words of wikipedia's policy on content, fail let the reader's decided for themselves and create quid pro quo WP:POINTy "if you let this you have to let this other thing". All ofthese things are dishonest and dishonesty is a lie. The Israeli name for the conflict is given more prominence, is less sourced, and used much less in reliable sources than even "Gaza attacks". Yet common sense dictates we give a formal name from a state actor more prominence than the media transmitted common name given by non-state actors, and this is done. The equivalent to "Gaza M/massacre" in Israel would be something like "Gaza War", which is what everyone in the media calls it. This doesn't need answering in the lede, because it is not used as an appreciation of the facts, but as a common name.

This capitalization thing is silly, because it only chnages the meaning in the minds of editors: any half-wit that reads the thing will care very little about capitalization... Who said I cannot join in the silliness just to point out what is obvious to any outsider?--Cerejota (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gulf News and others do capitalize Massacre. We had it capitalized for some time, so let's talk before changing what has been a stable version. Also on the qualification, "parts of the Arab World" --this superfluous qualification would only be useful as an answer to "all of the Arab World"? Further, see the very next paragraph: "Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel" --should we change this to "Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on parts of Israel"? and continue this style throughout? This is where applying the qualification in one place could lead. RomaC (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. Except, of course in titles of articles and such where all words are capitalized. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We need a qualification (eg "part of") so it is clear that "massacre" is not the exclusive term in the Arab world, all else is WP:OR. See also archive 22. An even better qualification would be "Some Arab sources refer to the event as ...". If however "massacre" is indeed the most widely used term, provide proof and it will go without a qualification. Your argument, that a sentence without a qualification ("it is called foo in the Arab world") does not suggest it's not called like that in "all" of it flaws, as this is exactly what this sentence suggests. Your argument with "parts of Israel" flaws because this would be only a meaningless geographical qualification, it does not alter the meaning whether it is included or not. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is totally obvious to me that no one wants to honestly face this issue (ie that the references do not say what is claimed) and prefer to argue the name so that they can put the Arab perspective in the lead without putting in the Israeli perspective. It seems they would prefer to pretend they do not understand this, and that we are niggling over capitalisation issues and use WP:PA. My earlier fixes were rejected.

• "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World, and as by others as Israel's legitimate right to self-defense."

• The conflict has been described as a massacre by many in the Arab world, and is described by others as Israel's exercise of her legitimate right to self defense.

• The conflict has been interpreted by some as Israel's exercise of her legitimate right to self defense, and by much of the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre

As far as I am concerned, there should be no mention of a massacre in the lead without Israel's view also being mentioned. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And that has already been shown to be an irrational position not based on reality. Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, it is mentioned, more prominently and with less sourcing. Israel calls this thing "Operation Cast Lead" (check), and it was done to "stop rocket attacks" (check) and "targeting only Hamas infrastructure and people" (check).

The public opinion in the Arab world in general calls it the "Gaza M/massacre". The equivalent response would be "The Israeli public opinion calls this "Gaza War" or somesuch, however, since Israel has a formal name for the conflict we should use that, rather than the informal media name. It is not about equivalency, but about how the conflict is named. There is assymetry in this naming, as there is in the casualties, but this is a result of the events, and we cannot artificially resolve this assymetry by making editorial decisions. Just as it is not POV to show the assymetry in casulaties, it is not POV to show an assymetry in naming. I hope I made sense.--Cerejota (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

quote Cerejota: The public opinion in the Arab world in general calls it the "Gaza M/massacre".

Well this is the key issue. Is that so? Is "Gaza massacre" the term to name the event in Arabic ("in general")? The sources provided so far do not back this assertion, though they back the statement that in parts of the Arab world the event is described as a massacre, at least by some and occasionally. I can't really believe that all/most Arabs are that inflamatory to exclusively use "massacre" and don't use Gaza "war" or "conflict" or something like that more often, but as a non-Arabic speaker I am not able to figure that out. I only know that Al-Jazeera English in its coverage used "war" and not massacre, and aren't they Arabs? Why should they translate their own terminology wrong for their English channel? But that is just my reasoning following WP:common sense and the assumption that (most) Arabs are not flamers yelling martyrdom and massacre. Or does Arab language and/or usage just plainly lack neutral words for conflict/war and alike? In that case, strike out "flamers" and "yelling". But if it is in fact such a language/culture thing, it wouldn't be right to catapult this term into Anglo-Saxon use. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, you highlighted the sentence that stuck out for me as well. The public opinion in the Arab world in general calls it the "Gaza M/massacre". That sentence really says it all. It is not a name at all, but an opinion(ie a POV). That is why it is important that the other opinion is included in that paragraph as well. It may well be described by some Arabs (and others for that matter) as a "massacre" but clearly the sources do not reflect that it is a name, or it would have been translated into typical English naming conventions, and this was not so described by the references as has been pointed out numerous times. To do so is WP:OR. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, thanks for the insight. The term martyr (شهيد) is used near universally in the Arab world for any casualties of this conflict, and indeed in the entirety of the I-P conflict. It is not because Arabs are 'flamers' it is because the term is used as an honorific. And as far as exclusive use among Arabs, I dont think that is really even nececssary to prove, we have statements from spokespeople of the government of Gaza that use this as the name. That is enough reason to have it in the first paragraph as the name used, just as the name used by the Israeli government is included. Nableezy (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. You say "martyr" is abundantly used for casualties in Arabic, at least in the I-P conflict. Is "massacre" also abundantly used for armed conflicts in general (or only with Israel?) that result in casualty? Is it thus kind of an idiom without the meaning it has in English, or is it the other way around, that per definition every act by an opponent (or only Israel?) that results in Arabic (or only Palestinensian?) casualties is a massacre? I am just curious. Does the massacre term as used in Arabic not imply that the nature of the conflict was only to slaughter Gazan civilians (which it does for Western readers like me), but is it rather a mantra categorically applied to all events where Gazans (Palestinians? Arabs? Muslims?) get killed? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not every one, not even every one that involves Israel, but generally when a large number of civilians are killed in a conflict when one side has no real army, and no airforce no navy no surface-to-air defense mechanism, and the other has all of that, they call that a massacre. Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When there are actual armies fighting, like October war (حرب تشرين) or Six-day War (حرب الأيام الستة‎) they usually use 'war' (حرب) Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And displaying the name used would not 'catapult this term into Anglo-Saxon use', it is just objectively showing what one of the involved parties called this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times. My point has always been that we need sources that name it "Massacre" but using the term in the lead is OK since it was referred to as a massacre and was stated as such. I heard on the radio today that Al Jazeera, Syrians, and Palestinians were calling it the Gaza War. If it is just referred to as a massacre while "the Gaza War" is common for locals and news agencies I see no reason for the massacre title anymore if sources can be found.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: Nableezy, seems like several editors are now against the title and have used the same rational. If you are arguing this just to win the debate (always assumed you were not) it is time to give it up. Let's find a source and be done with this finally.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not, I am arguing this needs to be included because it is the name that has been used by Hamas, the government of Gaza. It is standard practice that the name each sides government uses be included as the name each sides government uses. I would say look back at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_17#Lead_proposals and see what I actually supported for the phrasing. You havent seen me argue about this except about the name used by Hamas, except in the very beginning when the Arab media was also using this on sites like BBC and Al-jazeera. That has consistently been my position, that the name each sides government uses in referring to the conflict (and I hope I have been able to demonstrate usage as a name by Hamas) be included. That is all I have been arguing. Nableezy (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't blame me for double checking on the debate aspect of it. Just needed to throw it out there. I agree that it has been described as a massacre and don't hate the wording. I still believe (obviously my thoughts on it only) that it will not be historically known as The Gaza Massacre. The lead will need to be updated as soon as it starts being titled or more commonly referred to as the the "Gaza War ('09)" or anything else.Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I certainly have been known to like to argue, in fact my friends say I am a White Sox fan because I hate agreeing with all the Cubs fans ;) Not here though, I just think what I am saying is right, but nothing taken by that. In fact I'd say you have been pretty reasonable this whole time, so a little question like that aint gonna bother me. Nableezy (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nableezy. I just wanted to understand if "massacre" has the same meaning for Arabs as it has for non-Arabs, and if Arabs use that term the same way as non-Arabs would. From your answer, I understand

• that the term to a certain degree has the same meaning for Arabs and non-Arabs, i.e. killing a larger number of people unable to defend themselves
• that Arab usage is somewhat different, i.e. in Arab usage the term is generally applied to armed conflicts where one party is not fighting with a regular army (without taking into account the military activity of this party), while non-Arab usage is narrowed to the killing of non-fighting people without serving a military purpose.

So if I got that right, and if the Arabic word for "Gaza massacre" is indeed the most widely used name in the Arab world (which needs to be sourced), we have to

• either use "Gaza massacre" as an alternative name in both Arabic and English, but also note the differences in the Arab usage of that term. This would apply if the Arabic word "Gaza massacre" is the most widely used Arabic term and is translated into English by most/many RS as "Gaza massacre".
• or give the term "massacre" in Arabic only and translate it as "war" or something similar, following the Al-Jazeera example. This would apply if the Arabic word "Gaza massacre" is the most widely used term in the Arab world and if it is translated into English by most/many RS as "Gaza war/conflict/foo".

Skäpperöd (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you took my comment the wrong way. That was just an example of what could be called a massacre. The meaning of the word is exactly the same in both languages. I have not said it is the most common name used by Arabs. It certainly has been used by Arabs, but the only thing that matters, to me at least, is that it is used by the opposing government in this conflict. The translation is what the translation is, the arabic words are what Hamas used, and the English words are the translation of those words, both according to a dictionary, and according to sources who translated those words. We cannot just change the English translation of the word in Arabic. Nableezy (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And Al-jazeera English is by no means the English translation of Al-jazeera. It is almost a completely separate venture, and its programming is nowhere near the same. Nableezy (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, forget what I said above. If the meaning and usage is exactly the same, then it only needs to be established who is using that term and to what extend. If Hamas is using that term exclusively, it should be sourced and mentioned. If all or most or specific Arab RS use that term, too, it needs to be sourced and mentioned accordingly (which imo is not the case with the current version).

I would personally be disappointed if all/most Arabs exclusively use "Gaza massacre" for naming the event or otherwise refer to it as a massacre - that is what I regard flaming, the term then would only be chosen to imply guilt and cruelty of the opponent and make the Gazan share of the conflict forgotten. With all respect to the Palestinian arguments, but if someone arms himself with the stated aim to exterminate his neighbor and keeps throwing rockets at him ... In contrast, if eg the Zeitoun version turns out to be correct that civilians were forced into a building that was shelled thereafter with no other aim but to kill them, that would of course be a massacre. But enough of WP:SOAP, let's see what the sources say, unfortunately I cannot participate in their evaluation because I do not speak Arabic. Thank you again Nableezy for patiently explaining the Arab usage to me, I really hoped there would be a simple "technical" (linguistic/cultural) explanation and not just the inflamatory one. Now what is left for me is only to hope the sources show that not all/most Arabs are flamers. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but when I see these pictures and look at the numbers and look at what is described as a humanitarian catastrophe, I think it understandable to call this a massacre, nothing to do with Arabs being 'flamers'. Nableezy (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that not only the Arabs or Hamas calling it a massacre. I've seen sources in Europe, the USA, and even in American Jewish community calling the events a massacre. Anyway all of this is non-relevant, cause the point is to mention the war names with no business of us whatsoever to judge if it's right, wrong, propaganda, flamatory, cold-blodded, or any of those stuff. This is one of WP basic rules and everybody knows that very well. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Outcome" in main Infobox should be noted as 'Israeli victory', given that it is already noted in "Status" that 'Hamas rocket attacks largely halted' was achieved per the sole stated objective of Israel in entering the conflict

See Falklands War, Six Day War, and Battle of Salamis as precedent for the acknowledgement of victories for what they plainly are.Havvic (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Some victory. Many dead and injured with Hamas still in power and control, and the tunnels still in place. The reputation of israel also seems to have taken a beating, and no doubt the new US administration will have seen the unacceptable Israeli practice of waging war against a civilian population using white phosphorus etc. Peterlewis (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source claiming this is an Israeli victory? Or is this the opinion of some random user? Nableezy (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't do original research. Next.--Cerejota (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. Acknowledged as Israeli victory here. How can it be otherwise, noting that they've achieved their stated objective of causing Hamas to surrender the objective of exercising a prerogative to continue rocket attacks against their country, people, and territory? Think about it.Havvic (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The other side (Hamas and Gaza in general) claimed victory too. So both sides have to be put, if necessary. A lot says neither side won anything anyway, including several sources from JPost. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the objective of Hamas other than to assert its prerogative to continue rocket attacks against Israel? .. an objective that it surrendered as a result of military defeat inflicted by Israel. Perhaps you can state ONE military objective announced by Hamas that it did in fact achieve. I can't. ps. "not being completely annihilated" does not count as a plausible military objective.Havvic (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this wasn't fast enough, NEXT. Nableezy (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that a conflict where the first side ceases fire because it has achieved its announced military objectives, and the second side opposes but fails to defend against the achievement of those objectives should be acknowledged as anything other than a victory for the first side? Wow, did I miss something about Hamas being punished into submission, losing ground and material and infrastructure and personnel, and finally even committing to halt rocket attacks into Israel as a consequence of all that. If that's not the victory of Israel, then what on Earth would be in this particular case?Havvic (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The stated objective was not just 'stopping rocket fire' it was crippling the ability to stop rocket fire. I would think the 20 rockets fired between the time Israel announced its ceasefire and the time Hamas announced its ceasefire would be proof enough for you that no such crippling took place. That you disagree with this is utterly irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And Hamas has not committed to stop rocket fire, they said they would give Israel a week to withdraw and then negotiate a longer ceasefire, just like it was before this started. A return to the status quo is not a win for Israel, or at least not until some historians call it an Israeli win. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Havvic actually has a point. I think that people living on both sides of the border would not agree that situation on the ground is the same as before this war/operation. The rockets clearly stopped. There are signs that Gilad Shalit case suddenly started progressing. Israel clearly achieved it's military goals with little loss on its side. From other hand, Hamas did not achieve any legitimation, was not even invited to cease fire ceremony with Egypt and European leaders in Sharm Al Shaikh and even Egypt continues to refuse recognize Hamas as legitimate Gaza government and open Rafah crossing. So objectively speaking, Hamas casus belli blockade was not resolved in no way. You could also see Just war article for Ending a war: jus post bellum. It all matches. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a single serious objective person has called this an Israeli victory, nor shall we unless they do. This is all personal opinion that doesn't belong here. Nableezy (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All we need to acknowledge is whether the war objectives of Israel were achieved resulting from the prosecution of the conflict, or not. Referring to the article again, those objectives were, um, "stopping Hamas rocket attacks and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas" - both very evidently achieved now that the smoke has cleared and we've had an opportunity for considered assessment. And as for whether smallscale activity from the remnants one belligerent after the other has accomplished its mission and taken mercy upon it, hey, d'you think I could claim that World War 2 wasn't a victory by Russia because I still had enough people in Germany to let off a dozen or two rockets at the Russians? Be serious now.Havvic (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't do original research. Next. (rudely stolen from Cerejota) Nableezy (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That the war objective was ending rocket attacks, and that the attacks ceased consequently are not opinions originating from me, but are both backed up by citations - all too numerous to mention here - found in the article itself. Your haste to gloss over the same therefore becomes quite telling. Sourced from The Jerusalem Post, no less, a claim has been made that the outcome was an Israeli victory (rather than something lesser - like a qualified victory, a stalemate, or some other party's victory). We therefore may look to the antecedents such as the event outcomes (rocket attacks ceased, military debilitation of Hamas) and announced objectives of each side (ceasing rocket attacks vs continuing them, targeting of Hamas military capabilities vs destruction of Israel), to determine whether that claim has credibility and moreover ought to be admitted into the content of the article. Yes and Yes to both, it seems, although you would say that a final volley of 20 rockets coming over in the time that hundreds used to has some countervailing significance. The rest of us still issue the challenge 'Really? How so?'67.205.48.127 (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that say Hamas has taken a big step up as a result of this conflict. That you think Israel won is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And your source doesnt even say what you think it says. It says Olmert thinks they won, what is wrong with you? Nableezy (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas has launched a probe which is expected to be extremely critical of the failures of its military wing during the recent Gaza offensive, the respected Jane's Defence Weekly magazine said Monday. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090126/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgazaeuaidhamasjanes

Israel's war in Gaza is a military victory. But with 1,300 dead and thousands wounded, it is also moral defeat. The painful lesson: Israel can only defeat itself. Hamas leader Ismail Haniya only had to hide to emerge as the winner. See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,602424,00.html

Bottom line: Israel has scored an impressive tactical victory. But it has missed the strategic opportunity to rid itself of the menace on its doorstep. In the Middle East, opportunities don't always knock twice. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123241373428396239.html

After three weeks of relentless bombing of Gaza, Hamas, which has lost an undisclosed number of fighters as well as numerous high-ranking officials, finds it can still declare victory. In some parts of the Middle East, victory, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. See http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/01/20/what_was_the_gaza_war_about/5055/print/

Hamas held a hollow “victory” parade this week (see article), but Israel’s rampage through Gaza’s streets and skies may have reduced the allure of “armed struggle” in the eyes of both the movement’s leaders and its followers. See http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12972669

Most see the outcome as Israel victory, including Arab World commentators and Hamas itself. Everybody worried about Palestinian casualties and ask at what cost this military victory was archived. Though I have to say Iran and Syria declared that Hamas won and congratulated Hamas PM. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ISM casualty photos are self-evident

ISM casualty photos are self-evident

There are now no casualty photos in the article. Casualty photos are common in Wikipedia articles. Removing images is the same as removing text. Both are info. One is visual info.

Jimbo Wales wrote recently concerning photos in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article:

"Many pictures do not require a reliable source for the simple reason that they are self-evidently what they purport to be. ..."

See: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 43#Do images fall under WP:RS policy?

ISM (International Solidarity Movement) casualty photos are self-evident. See

• commons:Category:Palestinian casualties of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

for some of their free casualty photos in the Commons, and the resource links for more.

They are self-evidently casualty photos. ISM has been in the Gaza Strip for years. There is no reason to doubt that they are casualty photos from this war. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera casualty photos are self-evident

On 23:27, 24 January 2009 Oren0 removed an Al-Jazeera casualty photo with this edit summary: "re-remove dead girl photo, per discussion on talk. This doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose"

Jimbo Wales wrote in the same discussion:

I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed ....

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you slightly misunderstood what "self evident" is supposed to mean - the Jimbo cite you gave stated that a zebra photo is self evident regarding a claim that this is a photo of a zebra:

A zebra is a zebra. Where it gets tricky can perhaps be characterized as "images which purport to depict a unique historical event". In this particular case, where emotions clearly run very high on all sides, and the photo itself is clearly inflammatory and upsetting, I would suggest that a very high standard of care is necessary. I think that some consideration of human dignity is also important here, although not absolutely determining what should be done. (full quote J.W.)

Maybe it is also of interest what J.W. said concerning Al-Jazeera:

Be careful about what Al-Jazeera is being a reliable source for - i.e. did a staff photographer take the picture such that they are standing behind what it is, or did they obtain it from an activist group claiming it to be such-and-such. I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed. (J.W. same thread as linked above)

So just because ISM had been in the war zone does not make them a RS nor does that make their photos self-evident. Yet eg a skyline of Gaza with an explosion would self-evidently be an explosion in Gaza. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit the comments of others. See [34] This goes against WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK says that editing others' comments is allowed: "when a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read." He didn't change your content, so calm down. Oren0 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not address my comments as concerns "self-evident". Read the whole Jimbo Wales thread.

Skäpperöd wrote: "So just because ISM had been in the war zone does not make them a RS nor does that make their photos self-evident." A casualty photo is a casualty photo. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't leave a bold message if someone is helping you with the format. Where is your point in having an unsigned main section and a subsection on the same issue? Do you want someone to respond or did you just want to make a point? Note that I did not change any of your content but only corrected the format, but as you want it that messy, I'll leave it that way.

Self evident does not mean that just because someone claims it to be a casualty photo it necessarily is one. Self evident is eg that the photo is of a dead girl. The photo does not give an indication in itself where and when it was taken and why this girl is dead. I do not dispute that this is a Gazan casualty, but I dispute that the dead girl photo is self evidently such. I read the thread, I even cited the relevant parts in more deatil. "A zebra is a zebra" is the key sentence. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A RS says she is a casualty in this conflict, that should clear up any such issues. Nableezy (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course it is a Gazan casualty if a RS says so. But is it not a Gazan casualty because it is "self evident". The issue here is whether or not J.W. initiated a WP:RS revolution for images, and he did not. We cannot outrule WP:RS with attributing "self evident" to claims not supported by plain photo content. Photo content is "face of a dead girl" (self evident --> no RS needed for that statement) but not "Gaza casualty" (not self evident --> RS needed). Skäpperöd (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales did not change anything. You are trying to. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Skäpperöd. I am glad that you "do not dispute that this is a Gazan casualty." I wonder though why you reduced the image size from "thumb" to 50px wide in my comment. See [35]. Please do not edit the comments of others. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly an Al-Jazeera photo from a video in which it is clearly established this is a casulaty from Gaza. Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Inclusion arguments of reliability are invalid. This debate ends in 5, 4, 3, 2...--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please put it back in the article, and can it remain this time? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like you misunderstand why I removed this picture. I'm not disputing that it's a photo of a dead girl or that reliable sources claim her to be a casualty of war. So I don't repeat myself too much, I point you to my comments in this section. Just because a photo exists doesn't mean we have to show it. The question, given the obvious that the picture is offensive and inflammatory to some, is whether the picture demonstrates anything that words do not. The cherry picked photo of one of many victims of war serves no encyclopedic purpose and only serves to push a POV. Oren0 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my last response up there addressed that. I think we can, in a NPOV way, show the damage caused on each side. Just because the damage caused is not equal does not mean the representation of that damage is not NPOV. I would be fine with including images that represent a significant portion of the damage caused by Hamas, such as a rocket causing property damage, but that image is representative of 32% of all deaths in this conflict. It is not POV-pushing to show that, just as it is not POV pushing to show a representative picture of the damage Hamas has inflicted. Nableezy (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the photo--again-- on grounds that there is no consensus to add it, and that it contributes to making the article unbalanced and non-neutral. The burden is now on you to explain why we should keep it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that International Solidarity Movement qualifies as a questionable source. Here is the policy: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source.

Not only promotional in nature but many of us here doubt that ISM has a good reputation for fact-checking, or that it doesn't rely "heavily on rumors and personal opinions" or that its views might be "widely acknowledged as extremist". The only question would relate to just how widely is wide. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out the Hebrew wikipedia is using an ISM image in their pictures, in fact it is the only picture they have that show anything in Gaza. Google translate didnt work so well, about half the talk page was in hebrew, but I couldnt see any dispute over there as to whether that is a reliable source for an image. Also, the image of the grad rocket that we have was uploaded by a user saying it was his own picture. Why exactly should a person taking a picture and saying it was from this conflict be treated any better then an organization taking a picture and making it available to the whole world? Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And this picture is from Al-jazeera, not ISM. Al-jazeera is a RS, if they say this girl died in this conflict we can treat that as fact. Nableezy (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we attribute it and no other RS disputes this (which is not the case) - absolutely. But weren't we talking about "self-evidence"? We take the "Gaza casualty"-information from a RS, and not from the picture itself. "Al-Jazeera photo's are self-evident" is the claim made in the heading, but no they are not in any case self-evident. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware that the photos are stills taken from video provided by Al Jazeera English at cc.aljazeera.net. In those videos, the people whom we see in these stills are being interviewed by Jazeera journalists and the facts surrounding the circumstances of their injuries are discussed. Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Do you still have a problem? Tiamut^talk 13:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused, what RS has disputed that this is from this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact I think we should include Jimbo Wales full context in talking about Al-Jazeera. Specifically he said this:

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

--to translate "generally reliable as far as he knows" -- "be careful what for". Do we know the answers to the questions he raises in relation to these pictures? and secondly and just as important to me and others here in as Al-Jazeera's general reliability, he says "such images" (ie casualty photos) "can often be used to promote a political agenda." We at wiki are trying not' to promote a political agenda, and when some of us claim that the photos are unbalanced that is exactly what we mean, ie that the photos are being used to promote a political agenda. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are not qualified to translate anything. And I quote you here from a recent OR noticeboard: "It's undeniable that the BBC and Al-Jazeera are reliable sources" from Itsmejudith. Al-jazeera is a RS, if you want to ask that question in the RS noticeboard go ahead. And these were from camera shots from a staff photographer that they have released to the world, ie standing behind it. If you want to open a RfC on this picture go ahead. But it is clearly pertinent to the discussion here, and Al-jazeera is a RS. And before you go any further I want you to understand what you are trying to set as the standard for pictures to be from a RS. Every single picture that shows any damage done to Israel would have to go. Not a single one of them is from a RS. If you want to make this 'view of policy' what you are going to stick by, then what you will end up seeing just Al-jazeera photos, because as far as I know they are the only RS in the entire world that has released any photos on a free-use basis. If you want to restrict the pictures based on the source on one side, you have to do it on the other. So take a minute, and let us know what you think we should have as the standard of reliability to include photos. But you cannot object to this photo based on reliability, the facts are against you, feel free to take it up wherever you want. Nableezy (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I see suppression of these images as promoting a political agenda (at the least in the way some are trying to do it). Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of casualties

I suggest this horizontal gallery of small thumbnails as a way to show some casualty photos in the article (in the casualties section):

• 
  Girl
• 
  Child
• 
  Mother
• Boy
  Boy

Al-Jazeera. A variety of ages. We need some photos of adult men. I believe that ISM has some male casualties in their free images. need some Israeli casualty photos. We might be able to use some Fair Use images. This is a war article, and we use images from many sources, and all sides. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery for casualties inside Israel

Here are some possible Fair Use images:

• http://www.daylife.com/search/photos/all/1?q=israel+rocket+death
• http://www.flickr.com/search/?d=taken-20081226-&q=israeli+qassam+rocket&m=text

I did an advanced search of Flickr for "israeli qassam rocket" and "israel rocket death" and found no completely free images that can be used on Wikipedia. Other search terms might be tried.

Here is a possible Fair Use image of an Israeli casualty during the time period of the war:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/25451173@N08/3175691885/

I found some free images of rocket remains: http://www.flickr.com/photos/novecentino/sets/72157612460369023/ --Timeshifter (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of fair-use would be we cannot use non-free images in the same way that they were originally used, so using a picture from an article about this conflict could not be used under fair-use. Not sure though. Nableezy (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is true. But we may be able to clarify this by analyzing the Fair Use article, and the Wikipedia guidelines concerning Wikipedia's narrower view. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a better resource would be Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images_2, specifically "4. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." listed in unacceptable use. And "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." under Wikipedia:Fair_use#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. Based on that I think we cannot claim fair-use for any image with a copyright that was intended to illustrate the content, meaning we would be restricted to free-use images. Nableezy (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus to add additional photos

There is no consensus to add any additional photos, particularly in the nature of casualty photos --not of either side. The thinking and commentary on this has been enormous, with all sorts of rationale used -- eg unbalanced, undue, unsourced, improperly sourced, questionably sourced, non-neutral, family feelings, tabloid, sensationalist, non-neutral, non-informative etc etc. I know the other side has arguments in favor of putting them in, but as long as there is no consensus, please do not continue to post photos daily. While we know that consensus may change, give us a week or so for that changing. Furthermore, I believe that puts the burden on those who wish to insert material of a controversial nature. So give us a break and lets move on to the text of this article. Everyone knows that in war innocents die. Leave it alone and let's move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the casualty photos. There have been casualty photos most of the time. Most of the casualty photos are not too graphic. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor is there consensus to add them. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is that articles have photos. WP:BURDEN is for text. Photos are different, and have always been treated differently. A casualty photo is a casualty photo, and it would take a great conspiracy theory of bizarre proportions to believe that Al-Jazeera or ISM would take fake casualty photos when there is no doubt both have been in the Gaza Strip during this war. There are thousands of casualties, and there is no need to fake them. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have eliminated the galleries because they are ugly, eliminated redundant photos, added better and more descriptive captions, eliminated redundant photos (another wounded child and the guy in some other section), and provided sourcing for the captions.--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for so many casualty photos. I can see the encyclopedic value of one or two images to that effect, but more than that just becomes propaganda. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't either... but I am willing to bet that they will be continually be added in the interests of Pro-Palestinian propaganda truth Pravada. (Props if you get the Heinlein reference.) I PROPOSE a moratorium on additional casualty photos now that the conflict has (temporarily) ceased. Let us seek more reliable sources for photographs other than International Solidarity Movement. We now have time, at least until the next outbreak of violence. V. Joe (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These were all from Al-jazeera. Do you think we should remove all the photos that show any rocket damage in Israel as not a single one of them is from a RS. Nableezy (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but you can't unilaterally declare a "a moratorium on additional casualty photos." each photo and text addition to the article stand on their own merits and encyclopedic value. Untwirl (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl I can propose anything I like. I am not declaring a moratorium. I am suggesting one. As for removing photos from non-reliable sources, I don't think an explosion or a building with a bunch of holes in it are nearly as inflammatory as pictures of human remains. To use Untwirl's previous comment (let) "each photo and text addition to the article stand on their own merits and encyclopedic value" V. Joe (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

so, your reasoning is, as long as the photos don't show sympathy-inducing 'inflammatory' photos of dead palestinians then they dont have to be from a reliable source? how can you say that and then follow it by quoting me on having each addition evaluated individually on its own value? it seems that you contradict yourself. Untwirl (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Background section

I deleted this sentence:

This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.

The source cited is this article. Please note that the audio recordings from one journalist that possibly indicate that a rocket was fired from near the building she was in, do not constitute sufficient prrof for the conclusion made in this sentence. I also do not think the placement of this sentence, right after the info on Gaza's population density and high number of children, is appropriate. In any case, the way it's formulated is WP:OR. Its a total stretch of one anecdote into an infrastructural fact. Tiamut^talk 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, welcome into discussion. You know this was already discussed for a long time here [[36]] Both sources and exact wording. Let's work together towards a neutral point of view. You also welcome to suggest replacements, but please wait with remove till you get a reply. Please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Reliability of source: Haaretz is RS and that is the reason why it is quoted. This source was found in compromise during previous discussions. If you still not convinced, you could also see video footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK2bg1yNqN4 I heard UNRWA spokesmen confirming on radio interview that on footage we see Hanan Al-Masri, reporter for Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood). You could also clearly see on Youtube that it is the case, since there are other related clips by Hanan Al-Masri. Don't you just love Internet technology? I'm not an Arabic speaker. Maybe you could confirm that she tells about Grad launching near her office? She looks somehow surprised. Still not convinced? There are a lot of other footages which show rocket launching from center of Gaza city, it was reported by everybody. I hope you don't dispute this. Maybe you'd like to suggest alternative source?

Relevance: During previous discussions [[37]] Skäpperöd noted The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. So my assumption is that high population density and the unusually high proportion of children go hand in hand with use of human shields in the background section. It is worth mentioning that some areas of Gaza strip are even more densely populated than others. According to reports Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood) located in the heart of Gaza City, include among others the Reuters news agency and television stations Fox, Sky, NBC, Russian news channel Russia Today, Abu Dhabi TV and Al-Arabiya. This is clearly use of human shields on Hamas Gaza government.

Please let me know on which points you disagree. You are welcome to suggest how to make it better. Again please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. I'm going to restore this sentence and wait for your and others comments. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, you're new here, so there may be some things you do not understand. I reviewed the discussion you pointed to. I found no support for your inclusion of this material. The source sim[ply does not support the phrasing of the sentence you have introduced and its placement is dubious. When other editors disagree with your edits, the onus is on you to gain consensus for their inclusion. (Read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS) It is inappropriate for you toc continually restore material when others object to its presence and make clear their objections.

To summarize, your source does not say what the sentence you are adding says. Find a source that does first, and then we can discuss whether or not the info in that source is relevant. Tiamut^talk 18:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.

In this 'human shields'/'Hamas' propaganda, one should of course recall that the Israeli Supreme Court has twice handed down decisions condemning the IDF for the use of captured Palestinian boys as human shields in their incursive operations (2004,2005) and yet B'tselem reports that the IDF continue(s)(d) to do so, using them 13 times in 2007. Secondly, as that wise man Uri Avnery noted for the umpteenth time:

'Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.'Uri Avnery, 'The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza,' Counterpunch 12/01/2009 Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay relevant to this conflict, Nishidani. I do not really get it. Don't you know that Earth is flat? What is your point? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the goal of that blockquote was to boil it down to "Jews Israelis are Nazis." I would like to protest strongly at the inclusion of this text. I do not demand that it be struck out, but I still protest. V. Joe (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Avnery was commenting on this conflict. On a point of language, the earth is of course, round. earth can be flat.My point was, as in my edit summary, the material you distorted and made a private synthesis of (two violations of wiki rules) has no bearing on the background to the conflict. At best, it refers to the 'orders of battle' in a war, only, as Reuven Pedatzur points out, there was no war. He also remarks, and you might put this in your notes, that IDF officials privately admitted that they made no distinction between civilians and fighters.

At the start of the ground offensive, senior command decided to avoid endangering the lives of soldiers, even at the price of seriously harming the civilian population. This is why the IDF made use of massive force during its advance in the Strip. As a Golani brigade commander explained, if there is any concern that a house is booby-trapped, even if it is filled with civilians, it should be targeted and hit, to ensure that it is not mined - only then should it be approached. Without going into the moral aspects, such fighting tactics explain why there were no instances in which there was a need to assault homes where Hamas fighters were holed up. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058460.html Reuven Pedatzur The war that wasn't Haaretz 25/01/2009

I.e. high civilian casualties are a necessary correlative of low IDF casualties, and as they say in the classics, it was, to the planners, just 'stiff cheddar' for anyone in the way of that objective. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And the end of the quote from Uri Avnery, an Israeli Jew by the way, was "This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war." It wasn't a direct relation between Israelis and Nazis, it is saying that the media would have reported the same events quite differently had Germany won the war, that the media would follow the same lines that the Israelis have used about Hamas using human shields. Which he relates immediatley following that quote: "Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as “hostages” and exploit the women and children as “human shields”, they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured." I didn't read it as an equivalence between Nazis and Israelis, rather as a refutation of the repeated claim that Hamas is using 'human shields'. Nableezy (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for warm welcome, Tiamut. I'm here to learn and improve encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Please assume good faith on my part. Why do you assume that sentence placement is dubious? Did you see what experienced Skäpperöd noted? Please elaborate on this point, if you disagree! Do you suggest that source does not support that there was a Hamas Gaza government military installation of grad rocket launchers near Al-Arabia Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood)? It is use of human shields in the heart of Gaza city. I'm new so please explain verbosely. I believe we could overcome cognitive relativism and reach Wikipedia:consensus together. Really there is no need for extermination/removal. Thank you for your guidance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The source supports this sentence: It was reported that Hamas had fired rockets from the vicinity of Al-Arabiya studios in Gaza city. It does not support anything beyond that. It is also not pertinent to the background section. Nableezy (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see zero problem with the sentence. It may have been placed in the wrong section of the article, but the sentence's removal was clearly unjustifiable. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You see nothing wrong with: This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.? Besides the fact that military installations, as pointed out earlier, could not possibly include a roving group of rocket launchers, how about that it doesnt address, what I think would be the opposite POV, that Israel has chosen this area by imposing a blockade on Gaza? The source supports only this: It was reported that Hamas had fired rockets from the vicinity of Al-Arabiya studios in Gaza city. It cannot be taken to show that Hamas has chosen the heart Gaza city for military installations like grad rocket launchers. Hamas has launched rockets from numerous locations up and down the strip, there is no evidence that they chose the center of Gaza city in the source provided. Nableezy (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all "blockade" was imposed by both by Israel and by Egypt. Hamas was also involved. Hamas could as well cooperate with Fatah and leave Rafah crossing open, please see wikipedia article. Some also would argue that "commercial" blockade is less aggressive then Grad rocket fire at cities. From other hand you can not be that naive Hamas government of Gaza put those rockets launchers there. It did not get there by chance or "because of occupation". There were no military Israeli presence (ocupation) in Gaza. Frankly I see no difference between Hamas grad rocket launcher and Israeli tank both are military installations. Please get real. I also would add that RS reported that Hamas had reason to think that Israel would attack those launchers, in self-deference, especially after they were used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything you just said was a personal opinion. Your personal opinions are unfortunately not supported by the sources or the facts. This is your accusation in a form that is unsupported by the sources. Opinions cannot be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The terminology "heart of" is leading the reader and seems inappropriate, as if this area is somehow more morally superior than another area. Same thing with the term "installations", which seems to imply that tanks or assault vehicles or whatever are housed there. The sentence "Hamas' Gaza government chose this area for grad rocket launchers" would be a much better wording. The Squicks (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Special pleading. It violated WP:OR and everything else in the book. One doesn't compromise on bad edits, especially when they are put in contexts where they are irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestions, The Squicks. If "heart of" is offending (while it is used to describe where Israeli military hit in response in the article so maybe we should review it also to stay balanced) I suggest to change it to "Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City" or just "downtown Gaza City" which was used in RS to describe location of Gaza Media Office at Al-Shuruq tower. As for "military installation" it still looks fair to me, I see no difference between Hamas grad rocket launcher and Israeli tank both are military installations. Please get real. Are we getting to toward an agreement? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The source does not support what you are saying. It says there was a report of a rocket launch from the area of Al-Arabiya offices in Gaza city. It says nothing else. Other attempts to put this there have included statements from the Israeli MFA. That is a primary source and cannot be used to cite a fact, it can only be used to cite the opinion of that source, it cannot be presented as fact. And finally, this does not belong in that paragraph of that section. This is not background to the event. You are trying to put the opinion of a few people as a fact in a place where it is completely irrelevant. The very next paragraph focuses on Hamas launching rockets. This sentence cannot be supported by its citations, it constitutes OR and is completely irrelevant to the background of this event. It is not possible that something that happened during the event be at all related to the background. Nableezy (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We moved this discusion? Ok, Hi again, AgadaUrbanit. Yes, the point here is strictly reliable sources and in this case the source does not support "Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations..." RomaC (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the big hullabaloo is. The statement should be in the "Media" section, and should only state that according to blahblah, Hamas launched Grad rockets from next to the particular building in question. The extent to which Hamas launched rockets from next to sensitive buildings as a consistent policy is still being hashed out. When more info comes out we'll put it in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we did move this discussion. Glad to see you again, RomaC. Haaretz AFAIK is RS. and let me re-iterate: Hamas grad rocket launcher is military installation and did not get there (heart|downtown) of Gaza city and fired by chance. Hamas Gaza goverment deployed it there and claimed responsibility for firing. There are other RS reports of Grad fire from (heart|downtown) of Gaza city. It was not isolated case, just most obvious graphic and convincing. Please explain me in more details what exactly is the problem? If it is strictly reliable sources problem here another from BBC which is also RS AFAIK reported: analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets. See [[38]]. Human rights group consider it as taking (my wording) heart of Gaza as human shield. So how do we proceed to agreement? Could you offer a compromise instead of total elimination? 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jalapenos, Thank you for suggestion. The point here per is "high density of population" and "human shiels" according to Skäpperöd quote The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. So it belongs in background. Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This sentence:
Hamas and other Palestinian paramilitias increased the number of Qassam rockets, Grad type rockets and mortars fired from the Gaza strip into Southern Israel.
is already in the paragraph directly below this. It make no sense that you keep wanting to put this other piece of your OR right before it. This is OR and irrelevant to the section you are placing that text. Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, good to argue (about facts) with you again. Please try to consider it (again): we (guided by Skäpperöd) agreed to justify relevancy of "leading" "high density of population" "on an area of only" "almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger" quotes as relevant to background section by human shields. Deployment of Hamas Grad launcher by Hamas goverment of Gaza in downtown Gaza city could be considered human shields by many. Would you you suggest removing first paragraph of Background all together, in order to be balanced? Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not agree to any such thing. No I do not see your point, there is no argument presented at all in that paragraph, I do not see why you want to keep adding this into a paragraph that only contains pertinent information about Gaza, as the location of the fighting. The very next section talks about rocket fire, there is no point in having it here as well expect to advance a POV. Nableezy (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit (talk), your explanation above helps illustrate why editors are objecting: A good Wiki passage should not require an explanation. Best to reflect the source, not interpret it.

On a personal note if you'll excuse me, you're new here but I think you already see how this article has attracted editors who have strong POV, which is probably unavoidable with controversial articles in general. Anyway, some editors have an approach that earns them respect from both 'sides', and I think everyone appreciates that. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey RomaC, Would you you suggest removing first paragraph of Background all together, in order to be balanced? Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agada, I don't see that point at all, sorry. When I am in doubt, I only see sources. RomaC (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma, what exactly don't you understand? I propose a compromise - let's remove "leading" high density, in order to be balanced. If you don't agree please explain what is the problem with the Haaretz and BBC clearly RS sources? Verbosely please. One sided extermination/removal is not a proper solution. There are some editors which see no problem with my quote what so ever, so let's move toward a consensus. Hope you could see it now. 03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

This isnt about compromise, you want people to compromise from your starting point of having OR in a paragraph where it is not relevance and end up where you are removing information that is both well sourced and relevant. There is no compromise here that involves either solution. Nableezy (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you a little story about compromise: Once upon a time, a turtle was walking along, when a gopher popped by and said 'Hey turtle, 5+5=8!' The turtle retorted: 'No, actually, 5+5=10'. But the gopher was persistent in his argument that 5+5=8, and the disagreement between the two continued for some time. Finally, the gopher said, 'Ok, let's compromise, and say that 5+5=9.' I think anyone considering this scenario would have to conclude that it's ridiculous to imagine animals knowing anything at all about arithmetic. RomaC (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting story, RomaC. Really enlightening. How is it relevant? I'm sorry that you refuse to state what is wrong with Haaretz and BBC sources, in you opinion. Initially you removed the phrase without any discussion and now you refuse to work towards agreement. What gives you a right for unexplained Veto? Please act in good faith, according to Wikipedia:Etiquette and please assume good faith on my side. Do you have any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we have a suggestion, it stays as it is. We have repeatedly explained why the content you are attempting to add is both out of place and OR. There really isnt much more to discuss. Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What Nableezy said. RomaC (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While we talking Grad rockets, me being a nerd for military crap, I have yet to find, in my original research, any picture of a destroyed Grad launcher in Gaza. Qassams are clearly Grad-derived, but Grads are pretty specifically MLRS weapons, not single launch rockets. Can people point me to where I am wrong? I mean, it just doesn't verify.--Cerejota (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you'll allow me to out-geek you, there is a man-portable version see "9K132 'Grad-P'" on the BM-21 article. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am out-geeked indeed. Remember kids, User:Cerejota/OpCastLead is were you should store this data... There is a MILHIST angle lost in all the partisan pushing, but I'll surrender my geek credentials if we don't take care of it.--Cerejota (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose re-inststing the sentence into the population paragraph. Reason: The paragraph serves as background information for a lot of stuff covered in the article. That is the eg human shield problem, the casualties, a major aspect of Israeli planning and progress in the area, among other stuff. The information given in the population paragraph further contributes to a lot of different POVs and reasoning about the conflict as a whole and the Hamas and Israeli operations in particular, eg justifiability of military operations in that area and responsibility for the casualties. If we single out just one argument to place behind the information it looks pretty much like a synthesis to support a POV. On the other hand, I do not oppose having information about the rocket launching procedure in the article, it should be mentioned how and from where what rockets were launched (rocket launching squads, were non-portable launchers also used, was their a preferration from where rockets were launched or were they launched from most densely and unpopulated areas alike, stuff like this should be in the article). I think however that at least some of that is already covered, and I think it should rather go into the Palestinian militants subsection of the campaign section as far as it concerns the actual fighting, and what is introduced in the background section (which covers the previous rocket attacks) should be carefully evaluated following WP:UNDUE - eg was it of any value for the conflict and the Israeli military decisions where exactly the rockets were launched? Would it have changed anything if they launched their rockets always and only from let's say 2971 Main Street Khan Younis? It is however worth mentioning if non-portable launchers were installed inmidst of civilians, making the area a potential target. Was that the case? Then introduce into the next paragraph in the background section (maybe after the "resumed their rocket and mortar attacks" sentence) and source. If only portable launchers were used, that should be mentioned within some other sentence (eg "squads with portable launchers resumed their rocket and mortar attacks"), more weight would be undue for the background, but more detailed information regarding launching tactics and devices are certainly relevant for the campaign section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an not sure I have understood your point, since it is not phrased with sufficient clarity. There is an extensive amount of material in the serious literature that the demographic density of Gaza is one of the main concerns of forward planners in Israeli. The architect of Sharon's unilateral engagement identified this as one of the key factors in Israel's policies, and one of the reasons why war would ensue. The military data to hand so far is that the IDF's plan did not foresee discriminating against civilians and paramilitary people: the main objective of the way the assault was conducted was to reduce to an absolute minimum (it was politically unacceptable to suffer high casualties given the forthcoming elections) deaths among the ranks of Israeli soldiers, while doing maximum damage to the enemy. One must distinguish government press declarations of intent, from what IDF spokesmen are reported as saying off the record. Rockets have to be launched in the open. One doesn't trudge out of an area offering cover into an open field to launch rockets, since, tactically, this would mean that all units launching rockets would be killed instantly, and the number of units engaged in this suicidal assistance to the enemy (the IDF) would be wasted to virtually zero from the outset. In all known wars, military units do not offer themselves up, in a clear line of fire, to their enemies. I know the press is drenched with this crap about using civilians. Perhaps they were. I don't exclude it. But it was in the nature of the battleground (fight in protected areas with cover/ or fighting in exposed areas, open farmland under constant drone surveillance linked to computerized firing units) and the war that Hamas conducted the war the way it did, i.e. with cover and the possibility of flight once a rocket had been launched. As to the missile attack from Grad rockets launched outside the TV studies, which Agadit makes much of. It was reported that one Hamas Unit ran into the street near that tower, fired off a rocket, and, in response, the IAF hit precisely a point 13 floors above ground level housing an Arab media network. The AIF didn't fire on the street point where the rocket was launched, but on the tower nearby, where people had reported the launching. There is no connection between the two. Human shields have nothing, furthermore, to do with background. Background. The IDF has consistently used them. Background should deal with the history of tensions between Israel and Hamas, and the Gaza Strip, not with technical details about how each side conducted its battles. That can be saqfely delegated to Cerejota, in an appropriate section on the technical side of the conflict. Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'm an not sure I have understood your point" Ok, re-reading I was too much in a hurry, my point was : Let's not have the rocket-launch-sentence in the population paragraph, as the population paragraph serves as the background for multiple issues of the article. Have it somewhere else with due weight. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies then.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, the source is fine, but you're making too much of it, turning one incident into a phenomenon. Please take my advice above. When more info comes out about Hamas' fighting tactics, you or I or someone else can add it to the "Palestinian militant activity" section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. You are all right, I was not quoting sources as-is and did original research. I realize now it is my WP:POV. Still we should re-consider inclusion "of only" regarding area and "Almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger (44.7% as of June 2007)". It is what some call "leading" or WP:UNDUE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, it is relevant background that numerous sources have brought up. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that paragraph. Nableezy (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding this Gallery

• File:Results of Israeli strikes in Gaza
• 
• 
• 
• 

Thinking about adding it, but again I am starting a discussion before I make any additions. Discuss. BTW I do plan to add more images to fill in the blank space, about 3 images and I will change the caption name to a better one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is NO consensus to add more photos. To many of us the article is already unbalanced in relation to photos. You will not achieve consensus for adding more photos that will unbalance the article even further. Please stop requiring us to state our opinions over and over again. We would like to be able to move on. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't your decision to make, and you do not speak for anybody but yourself. None of these pictures can be seen as controversial, maybe they are not all needed but they can certainly be discussed. Nableezy (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are three pictures of property damage already, I support rather an image that would reflect the human cost, that is, Gaza casualties as they relate to the event in general. For example an image of bodies in rubble. (Please excuse me, I realize that is a callous thing to say.) RomaC (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

These four images are similar enough I certainly don't think we need all four of them. One, at most, I'd say. Blackeagle (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is systemic consensus to add photos to articles. If relevant and reliable, then they should be added, even of casualties. There is consensus to do this, and this will be done, regardless of how much times you claim there is no consensus. The earth is not flat, and there is consensus to add pictures. --Cerejota (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since 2 more Israeli-related pictures were added making it a total of 3, we now have an equal amount of damage-related pictures of both sides. Is that NPOV? No, it is now disproportionate justifying the need to add more Gaza-related pictures. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And so, the WP:POINT spiral of edit warring starts... No, we need to illustrate an encyclopedic article, not score points while turning wikipedia into yet another battlefield in the I-P conflict.--Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not making a point. Making a point would mean if I decided to place all the images from my gallery on the page (which at times I am tempted to do). I am choosing to discuss which is what WP:Point encourages. There is an issue of proportionality that needs to be addressed which is the main point of my posting. Can you comment on that issue instead? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that proportionality in pictures is as important as it is in the text: illustration is not meant to convey editorial decisions but to illustrate. As it stands now, I think it is proportional enough, maybe we are missing ground combat pictures, pictures of destroyed rocket launchers. We also probably need to illustarte at least one of the "Incidents" --Cerejota (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that should work for everybody; Why not having just 1 photo of property damage in Gaza and 1 photo of property damage in Israel, and same for human casualties. If 1 image is placed in a relevant category, instead of trying to show how horrible other other side is, it is merely to demonstrate what the article is talking about, so if it tells about destroyed houses, an image of destroyed houses will be perfect. On both sides. And then we won't need to start putting dozens of images to balance things out to one side or the other. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 14:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What you are suggesting creates a false equivalence. There are over 1300 Palestinian deaths compared to 13 Israeli ones. For every one picture of an Israeli casualty, we should have ten pictures of Palestinian casualties. Tiamut^talk 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In a linear proportion scale, it would actually be one hundred photos per each Israeli one. The thing is we lack the space. There are no pictures of Israeli casualties in this conflict, and we should continue to seek them, but we should include one at most two, along with 3 or 4 from Gaza. The text clearly shows the difference in casualties, there is no need to drive the point home with pharming (photo farm). Of course, the narrative battles will continue, I just think they are not really necessary. --Cerejota (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomad, by your reasoning should the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima article show three pictures of the 186,000 dead on the ground and, to be 'balanced,' also have three pictures of the blister on the bombardier's finger? There are asymmetrical wars you know, and I'm sorry but if that is not evident enough in this case then I am questioning whether some editors here still deserve to be afforded the assumption of good faith. RomaC (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:GFCA - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Except for a few editors, which have been subjected to rightful blocks for severe offenses, all of the editors here I consider to have a good faith difference on viewing the same event. What I am not sure is of the ability of all of us to write NPOV, to "walk a mile on the other's shoes". I see no evidence of bad faith, as it is generally understood in Wikipedia - but we must be careful not to go down the road of quid pro quo and WP:POINT that created the whole "allegations of apartheid" circus. I do think that we could use a little less disingeniousneess and consistency of argument - this conflict is assymetric, and this is a fact, and we should not hide this fact by undue weight considerations. Its really that simple.--Cerejota (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has one picture of a victim (no pictures of the bombardier's finger). While I agree there's no need for an exact equivalence in images in this article, I don't think the article really needs more photos of any sort. 129.252.70.176 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to get into an arms race where each side adds as many pictures as possible? The whole point of pictures in the first place is not to display morality. The only, only purpose of pictures is for illustration purposes-- to assist the reader in understanding a particular subject. The idea that "The Palestinian cause morally deserves to have 100 pictures for every 1 Israeli based picture" has nothing whatsoever to do with that purpose. It does not assist the reader in anything. Two, Three, Four, Five Six, Seven, (...) pictures on the same subject listed right next to each other do not serve for illustration purposes. This is an encyclopedia- not a blog or a picture book. The Squicks (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia-- This is what we want to emulate. Notice that every picture included is only included for informational purposes to assist in describing the events in the text beside the image. Nothing is included for purposes of 'morality' or 'porportion'. There is no gallery in the article. There are no "shock" images with blood and guts oozing everywhere. There are no images from unreliable sources.

Side Note: Morally, this bombing was much worse than the Gaza war since only two NATO people died while over 500 civilans died (and that's not even counting the Serbian military deaths). Way less proprotionate. The Squicks (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not normally make moral points in wikipedia. I do however make editorial points - the concept that the facts of a matter need to be presented in a balanced fashion. The facts of the 1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia are not analogous to this situation here. To begin with, that article is about a part of wider conflict, and in fact is pretty biased towards the NATO POV - using it as a model is using a broken tire to model your new tires. That said, the nature of that conflict was entirely different to this one: NATO was enforncing international law (not only its own raison d'etat), the conflict was not a decade old (the one this topic is about is more or less 100 years old), NATO attacked a State (Israel attacked a de-facto Government), and NATO was not defending its territory from attack (that is the causus belli cited by Israel - and Hamas justified their atatcks ont he issue of the blockade), and it was politically entirely different. For example, Yugoslavia/Serbia never claimed that the majority (or a significant minority) of the casualties were civilian - which is not the case here - explicit claims are made in reliable sources by the UN, the Gaza Government, human rights organizations etc that this is a salient fact of the conflict. Israel's response to this should be included for balance, but no reliable source is saying that the UN is lying. Thats what it boils down to, what are the RS (with consideration to their biases) saying?--Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

wiki requires pics and text to follow undue weight policy:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

that is, the proportion of the casualties represented in reliable sources must be reflected in the article. 100:1 may sound ridiculous to many editors, but that is what wiki requires. for illustration purposes, i think it would be informative to have one photo of damage by a grad rocket hit, but the most notable aspect of this conflict in reliable sources is the huge number of palestinian civilian casualties, mostly children. that is what should get the most 'page time' in text and photos. Untwirl (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote is misread, please read it more carefully. It is saying that WP aims to give all sides a fair share of RS, i.e., if there conflicting RS, the wight of presentation of one of the conflicting sides should not be out of proportion to the each side's RS. In others words, it is about the BACKING of the disputed content, not the SUBJECT of the disputed content. Let's use turtle/gopher metaphor again, but this time with 4+4=8 or =10. We can't simply say give equal weight to the two points of view. RS backs up the 4+4=8, there is no RS on =10, so leave out the =10 POV. If there was a small amount of =10 RS (hah!), we could include a small amount of content (words and pix) for =10 while leaving the bulk of the content and pix around =8. The way you misinterpret the policy, it goes to the proportion of SUBJECT not the proportion of BACKING (RS) for the content. By your argument, we would need to have more discussion and pix of the =10 POV because 10 is a larger number, 8 is a smaller number. It is hard to get an exact count on teh RS for each POV in I-P, but clearly there is a great deal of RS for both, so the content needs to cover both POV in very close way. Dovid (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all what WP:Undue means. The Undue weight policy is in place to prevent fringe views from taking over articles. Undue weight would be rewriting the Evolution article from the intelligent design POV. It has nothing to do with casualty counts. If it did the majority of the WWII article would be on the Soviet Union and China because their casualty totals dwarf those of every other nation. Clearly that is not the case. 129.252.70.176 (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are quite serious issues of bias and undue weight with regards of WWII articles, in particular around the fact that it is focused mostly on the history of the conflict on the part of the Western Allies - largely ignoring the huge war in China, and to a lesser extent the Soviet counter-offensive - precisely the examples you cite! Systemic bias is rampant in Wikipedia, with many redundant articles, povforking/coatracking, geospecific articles with titles that are not geospecific, too much sourcing form Anglo-American sources and not enough form equally reliable sources world-wide, and all kinds of stuff we could spend hours writing about. The spirit of WP:UNDUE is not as protective of mainstream views versus "fringe" views, but actually a guide on how to deal fringe views, without giving them undue prominence, as clear encyclopedic content. The view you express is a relatively recent development in Wikilaw (circa 2006) with the birth of WP:FRINGE - 3 years or so after WP:UNDUE. That said, WP:UNDUE has been misused and mis-cited here, because most of the views presented have not been WP:FRINGE views, but easily verifiable ones. What we are dealing with here is straight up WP:NPOV matters, in particular "Balance" and "Impartial tone". --Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Rather than some sort of numeric equivalence, what we should be trying to create here is an article that clearly and concisely describes the conflict from a neutral point of view. That's not an easy thing on a subject like this, but it's how Wikipedia works. Blackeagle (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

dovid - no one is saying that since 1300 is larger than 13 then the larger number wins. i dont even get that. especially since, in your example, the number ten is set up an an obviously incorrect sum. ip - i'm not talking about rewriting the article from a fringe point of view, nor am i saying casualty totals are the most notable aspect of every war. cerejota - i suppose the fringe point of view that i am speaking of is that of editors who think there must be tit for tat in casualty pics. one of the most widely reported aspects of this particular 'conflict' is the large number of palestinian civilian casualties, so the claim that for the sake of balance pics should be equal contradicts the weight or proportion of those two components. i am reminded of someone's earlier example of having an equal number of pics of the bomber pilot's blisters as of the destruction of hiroshima. granted this is an extreme example, but kinda funny so i repeated it. Untwirl (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rocket attacks into Israel

In the article section "Rocket attacks into Israel" I added this gallery:

• 
  Beersheba, Israel. Holes in resident walls, after a missile attack 20 meters away.
• 
  Municipal worker repairing water pipe in Sderot, damaged by Qassam rocket on Dec. 29, 2008.

See: commons:Category:Damage in Israel from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. This is all we currently have to show.

We also need some Israeli casualty photos. Please upload some. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I dislike galleries so I broke them up, and are not including the repair picture, which I find pedestrian. The one with the holes gives a nice human touch.--Cerejota (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Was there some commotion about not showing the faces of the victims as it would make the picture emotive, something forbidden in this article? I think the picture of the child siting under the damage might be considered an emotive pic. I am for showing emotive pictures but I rather not have it be one-sided. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Some commotion ? No, you're imagining that. No, there's never been any commotion about showing Israeli casualties. In fact the slideshow that we used to have as an external link called something like "The Reason Why" showing the consequences of suicide attacks was spectacularly gruesome with bit's of torso's, legs, arms etc I seem to recall. It was a regular blood splatterfest orders of magnitude more "emotive" (whatever that means) than anything coming out of Gaza. Showing Israeli casualties is relevant to the background of the conflict and necessary for context but showing Palestinian casualties is politically motivated, an attempt to gain symnpathy, embroiling Wiki in the conflict, immoral, unethical, undignified, shocking, insensitive to cultural/religious values, supporting terrorism and worst of all unencyclopedic. It's a funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice rant, Sean, but the photo only shows someone sitting under a wall with holes in it. The person is not a victim, and I don't see what emotiveness has to do with this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right Sean. When I first posted the burned infant pic, there was much bellyaching and many tantrums over the lack of balance. It drove them insane that there was too many Palestinian casualty pics (about 1) and no Israeli casualty pic. Can you imagine the chaos that would have happened if the Israeli civilian casualty toll was 10 instead of 3 and there was still no Israeli casualty pic in the article? Certainly, CAMERA-recruited administrators would have swarmed the article talk. I don't want to even imagine what would have happened if the casualty toll was one-third of the Gaza toll, I am certain we would have been banned by now. Thankfully, they are a bit more calmer - now that they realized it is impossible to retrieve an Israeli casualty pic of any of the 3 victims, but they are focusing their energy on getting rid of the very few Palestinian casualty pics.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Are they from RS?JVent (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Shrapnel holes in a wall are one thing, does composing with children take the image beyond documentation? RomaC (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Sean is describing the exact logical opposite of what has been and is happening (with the Palestian arms race of pictures) is deliciously ironic. It's so delicious I almost want to chop the irony up and add some parmesian and oregano.

Anyways, I see the water pipe picture as irrelevant and it shouldn't be here. The missile one is relevent, but I don't have strong feelings either way. I lean twoards keeping it, for the same reasons Cert stated before. The Squicks (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"water pipe"? ~we'd have fewer corpses if there were more water pipes. RomaC (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

my post in the section above this one applies to this section as well. Untwirl (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my edit above wasn't a rant. It was a pretty accurate summary of the history of discussions about images although I may have missed a couple of examples of the reasons given to exclude images from Gaza. My simple point being that there is a remarkable assymmetry in the way images from both sides are discussed by editors. Israeli casualty images are, by and large proposed and discussed in a reasonable and rational way consistent with Wiki guidelines and this being an encyclopedia article. Issues such as due weight, encyclopedic value and so forth are discussed in an attempt to reach consensus. Palestinian casualty images are, by and large discussed in an unreasonable and irrational way inconsistent with Wiki guidelines and this being an encyclopedia article. It truely is remarkable, hence my remark. Think about it. It's remarkable. The fact that including images of the dead and injured that describe objective reality can be described as a "Palestian arms race of pictures" is really very remarkable indeed. Dead and injured people as "arms". That is irony. And since The Squicks raised the issue of logic let's say something about that. If the foundation upon which you base your logical reasoning is false then everything that follows is false. If you assume that Palestinian casualty images (which after all simply describe objective reality) are inherently anti-Israeli and part of a politically motivated propaganda arms race then every decision you make about those images will be wrong and you are failing in your duty as a Wiki editor. I have to single out TundraBuggy here for admiration. He had the honesty to unambiguously state why he didn't want these kind of images in the article, enough people already hate Israel so let's not make it worse. As for Israeli casualty images, I'm all for including them if they help readers even at a 1:1 ratio despite that being a grossly distorted ratio. Emotiveness is not a useful measurement of anything in this context. People died or were injured. Readers will feel emotions about the information in this article, both text and images. Attempting to control people's emotional responses by limiting the availability of information is censorship. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sean, believe the quality of inclusion discussions totally shifts depending on whether the images in question show Israeli or Palestinian damage/casualties. Some editors are not working to reflect an event but to project one. RomaC (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is possible to show balance with a 1:1 picture ratio, it just means the actual pictures have to reflect the damage in a balanced way. If you want to put up a picture like the broken pipe right next to a picture of a dead child, I think that accurately shows the damage inflicted by both sides in a representative way. Next set could be like the picture of the Grad rocket in the town, that could be balanced by the explosion in Gaza picture. Balance doesnt have to be about the numbers, but there still has to be balance. The holes in the wall could be balanced by the destroyed building picture. Nableezy (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The irony is getting more delicious by the second. So, people who have named themselves after Palestinian terms or even openly political terms-- like "Palestine is in my heart"-- are assumed to be operating from 100% pure, objective motives with not even a hint of bias whatsoever. And the attempts to include multiple pictures of almost the exact same thing (a building with smoke; a dead body) based on an abuse of the WP:Fringe concept, which was meant to imply a proporiate balance of cited facts- not of pictures since pictures are only used for illustration of text and not for pushing an editorial point. In contrast, people who have objected to this idea are all nothing but ignorant Israeli POV-pushers. Incredible.

As I've pointed out, the cold-blooded murder of 520 or so innocent Serbian civilians, much of them children, with only 2 deaths by the other side (a 260 to 1 ratio!) has no long lists and galleries of pictures of them. There, as should be here, users included images only to illustrate the points in the text and not to establish some kind of moral value principle.

Nableezy's suggestion sounds like the best bet to me, personally. The Squicks (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the two pictures obviously can't be right next to each other, they belong in their respective article sections. The Squicks (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where have I claimed "to be operating from 100% pure, objective motives with not even a hint of bias whatsoever" WHERE? I have never said it, I never claimed it, will not pretend that I do. Time after time, you have deceitfully misinterpreted my words, attributing wrong statements/opinions to me. Like the rest of your postings, you speak before you think and you never do research. I had enough of you, now leave me alone. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah but you see Squicks, I'm just looking at empirical data and making observations based on that. I'm making no assumptions whatsoever, just observations. I don't have a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli agenda here but I do have a very strong pro-NPOV agenda and the clear asymmetry in the way images from both sides are discussed by editors and the contrast in behavior between different sets of editors is quite striking. It's a problem. In a nutshell it seems that one set wants to produce an encyclopedia article that reflects the objective reality of this event and the other set doesn't. I don't really know (or care) why that is but it's a problem that we need to be honest about and discuss rationally. Referring to the lack of information in other articles to advocate the lack of information in this article is quite a strange line of reasoning isn't it given that this is an encyclopedia. Similarly references to hypocrisy/double standards that I've seen using similar comparisons between this article and others are quite bizarre. It's like someone calling their dentist a hypocrite because they wimped out and studied teeth when there are so many people dying of malaria. Where are you getting the information to be able to say things like "establish some kind of moral value principle" by the way ? What moral principal ? Whose values ? The editors you seem concerned about are simply trying to illustrate what happened in Gaza using the limited material available. Will that make Israel look bad ? It's irrelevant. Morals are irrelevant here too. In fact if anything they're worse than irrelevant, they're counterproductive because they're local not global. Some editors are just trying to make an encyclopedia article about a subject that interests them, they care about and are willing to spend time on while playing by the rules. That's all. What I would really like to see is a general understanding and acceptance of the simple truths that including images that accurately describe what happened in Gaza in order to assist the reader in understanding this event are

• necessary and what we are supposed to do as Wiki editors
• not inherently anti-this/pro-that
• morally neutral

We really need to have a common understanding of these simple truths so that we can get past all this nonsense over images.

Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting the information to be able to say things like "establish some kind of moral value principle" by the way ? What moral principal ? Whose values ? I've said it before, and I will say it again until I am blue in the face. Pictures are included to illustrate the principles of the text beside it. And that is it. That is it. That is it. The idea that "There were more Palestinian deaths in the sources, therefore we need more pictures to ensure moral balance" is contrary to Wikipedia. It does not illustrate anything to the reader. Looking at 13 similar pages of a generic building exploding does not help the reader more than looking at just one picture. Looking at 13 seperate pictures of dead people does not help the reader either.

This idea that "Palestine morally deserves more pictures" is just compeletely un-Wikipedia-like. The Squicks (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The editors you seem concerned about are simply trying to illustrate what happened in Gaza using the limited material available. I'm just looking at empirical data and making observations based on that. I'm making no assumptions whatsoever, just observations. Nice hand waving. Editors who happen to agree with you are all acting in good faith, and all those who disagree are all acting in bad faith. And your question begging is also extremely frustrating. Yes, if you assume from the outset that "objective reality" demands that the article must have a gallery and must have 13 Palestinian pictures of the exact same thing to one Israeli picture, then that surely means that people who disagree are all POV-pushers. But how can either you are I say that a truely independent editors who peer reviews this article from a different background will come to the same conculsion as us? We can't. We have to admit that our objectivity is not perfect, and then work with our biases. Pretending that they do not exist will only make things much much worse. The Squicks (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure who you're quoting with the "Palestine morally deserves more pictures" line. you seem to be intentionally misquoting what the editors are saying. palestine doesnt morally deserve it, the article deserves it for balance, neutrality and undue weight purposes. the fact remains that in your example, if the "other side" was trying to place an "equal" number of casualty photos in a blatantly unequal war in terms of casualties, we would be opposed to that as well. Untwirl (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos

You keep eliding material, on your own, with no discussion. The three industrial centres knocked out by the IDF are specified because they are the fundamental pivots of the economy of the Gaza strip, cement for construction, and flour processing, etc. Before Gaza had some private infrastructure for storage, milling of foodstuffs, and large-scale building construction. These were economic targets like mills and silos (same happened in Lebanon), not military targets, like workshops, all 1,500 where people may have tinkered with rocketry. That effect is major, it has devastated the possibility of internal reconstruction, since now everything must be done abroad (Israel etc), and nothing done by Gaza's entrepreneurs themselves. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if this is total war or indeed even a war where infrastructure is a target. Aren't ANY factories legitimate targets for air attack? V. Joe (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That may be the position of the Israeli government, but not of the UN, HRW, AI, Btselem, and the ICRC. Nableezy (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just asking, incidentally, what is the AI? Also, lets be honest the IDF's viewpoint on which targets to hit is kind of crucial when they are the guys with the Air Force. Are you suggesting that hitting the factories is a war crime (as defined by whom?) or merely something that MIGHT be a war crime? V. Joe (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The AI is praying in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the digital. Amnesty International.--Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Smartass. V. Joe (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that numerous human rights organizations have explicitly said that definitions made by Israel as what constitutes a legitimate target is so broad that no other Western democracy has made them. That they are at odds with what the above international human rights organization have said are consistent with international law. That Israel says something is a valid target does not make it so, it only makes it that Israel claims that it is. That is what I am suggesting. Nableezy (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also consider the Geneva Conventions, which Israel cites in their defense in the destruction of Gaza infrastructure. According to the Geneva Conventions, which Israelis quote, "A legitimate target must 'make an effective contribution to military action' and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer 'a definite military advantage'" [39] Israelis have destroyed homes, civilian and government buildings, farm and factories on the excuses that the buildings are Hamas affiliated, or Hamas are firing from near the premises, or for even more inane excuses.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, fun with the conventions. The G.C's, which is a HUGE series of treaties, doesn't seem to mention the status of factories, or at least as I can find with a quick scanning. Which convention and which protocol? As for effective contributions to military action, factories are certainly that, whether they are making MREs or tanks. As for a home or farm, if they have enemy combatants, officers or soldiers in them, they are a legitimate target. This also includes mosques and other places of worship. V. Joe (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jala and others, regarding unilateral edits, please consider that artful editors might counter with RS-based assertions for example that Beersheba is not a civilian but a military target, because, the Beersheba economy is based largely on the Israeli Armed Forces. Shall we reduce ourselves to this? The article we are working on covers a controversial event, let's just stay real and Wiki, please... RomaC (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

These were economic targets like mills and silos... all 1,500 where people may have tinkered with rocketry Thank God some (most?) Hamas members decided to launch their rockets from there instead of from beside schools, hospitals, residental homes, and the like!

Anyways, a sentence along the lines of "Before the conflict, the three areas served as industrial centres for the Gaza strip" makes sense to me. Going into long, intense detail about who/what/when/where the areas produced seems unnesseceary. The Squicks (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The source says no such thing. They were privately owned, one of them had private guards and was locked up. There was no proof given Hamas had fired from these, indeed one is 600 yards from the border with Israel. It would be easier working in here, if you dropped the quick wisecracks, and actually studied the material, and thought about it before commenting on everything.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, we have a one-paragraph section on effects of the conflict, which, being one paragraph long, can only deal with generalities. The details are amply described in the separate article. Along comes an editor and starts listing factories that were destroyed and how, when the paragraph already says that 15,000 factories and workshops were destroyed. The edit was sloppy and in the wrong place, as the order of the paragraph was Gaza-Israel-elsewhere, and the addition, which pertained to Gaza, was inserted in between Israel and elsewhere. I moved the addition to the separate article and explained what I did and why in the edit summary. This was a very mundane edit, the kind that is done all the time to keep articles from deteriorating into collections of junk. Why you have a problem with it - well, I have a guess, but I'm supposed to force myself to think otherwise. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a brief paragraph section, pared down to the bone, because editors, like yourself, keep it that way. 15,000 factories and workshops is one thing, most of them are shed businesses. The three industries hit are not small-time entrepreneur operations that are neither here nor there. They are the lifeblood of the economy, being the largest enterprises, well-established businesses, in Gaza. I'll argue for its retention. I see no reason why two lines specifying this are 'junk'. Israel has junked Gaza, certainly, but I don't think all specific notices of how much was junked should be dumped out, in an article probably no one will read. If you are so keen to maintain terse objectivity, apply your wits to the far longer sections like 'Executions of Palestinians','Attacks on Israel from outside Gaza', and two or three more, which expatiate in great detail on matters tangential to the conflict. Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, ever since the three sections "effects", "media" and "reactions" were farmed out to separate articles, I have felt, like you apparently, that what's left is much too short. But I saw a consensus to keep them confined to generalities and I respected it, for example by taking care to describe close to a million people huddling in bomb shelters or fleeing their towns in a single, dry sentence. Since no one is objecting on structural grounds to your addition, I conclude that the consensus no longer exists, and that highly notable details can be added. I think this is a good thing. I will still move the addition in question to its proper place in the paragraph, and, if I have time, check its content vis-a-vis its source, its style, etc. BTW, I did not say that the addition is junk, but that without proper editing articles turn into collections of junk (even if each individual segment, taken completely on its own, is fine). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. A large part of the article is junk, and I know what you are talking about, and thoroughly agree. The point I made was that there is a total disparity betwen sections. I edited two lines into one of the thinnest. The problem is, most editors are focused on a section, do battle there, and do not look, when editing, at the article in the round, leading precisely to this discrepancy in overall weighting.

There is, by the way, no good objective source for the cliché '1,000,000 people huddling in bomb shelters'. It is the entire Israeli population of the area according to demographics, potentially within Qassam ranges, without a discrimination between notorious areas under constant fear and barrages (Sderot) from a very large number of settlements that have had very little to fear from Qassams. I know the Israeli area affected quite well, have lived there. This is what media say. I have difficulty believing it. But I haven't touched it.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know there have been a lot of renaming discussions, but this is too confusing...

The use of conflict in the title fails to differentiate this war/invasion/fight/offensive/military engagement from other articles like 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, Gaza–Israel conflict, 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict ETC ETC.

I think it's important to recognise both that there is a long running 'conflict' but also that this is a particular event within the conflict.

I'm not necessarily proposing to rename it right now, but I'm wondering if poeple agree with this logic and that conflict is eventually going to have to be replaced.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Conflict is excessively vague. War is not appropriate either, since this ddid not involve two armies. Israeli offensive on Gaza or Israeli assault on Gaza are the best options, IMO. Tiamut^talk 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article shouldn't be names 'conflict'. I personally prefer Operation Cast Lead, but since it isn't used commonly enough in world media, I think 2008-09 IDF operation in Gaza is the best name.

Anyway, now that the operation is over, I believe another discussion about the naming should be started. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 20:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The one thing Al Jazeera English and Jerusalem Post have agreed on is to call this a "war", with a small "w". Sample the sauces:Al(l that) Ja(a)z and Jpost.

Titles are the one area where we can do some OR - of course based on sources and a general consensus. I think it is fair to say that if wikipedia calls this the "2008–2009 Israel-–Gaza war", no puppies will die, nor would the world end. Am just sayin' we have a unique opportunity to reach solid consensus over what should be a trivial matter, and we should do it just to feel good about ourselves. Then we can go back to being the self-rigtheous POV pushing CAMERA/Electornic Intifada meatpuppets we are all supposed to be. I do oppose an IDF focused article name because the assymetry of the military operations is fact to be reflected in the content, but should not be the focus of the topic. We write for history, and history will not see this event as, say, Operation Summer Rains but more like the Invasion of Grenada: a mostly one-sided conflict that marked a significant political and military shift in the countries involved, in the regions involved, and in the world in general. The nature of this shift is still being sorted out for this conflict, but this ain't your regular "police action" or tit-for-tat, and everyone who is somebody, what we call around here "relevant notables", agrees. I think people are focusing too much on the "letter" of the reliable source consensus, rather than the "spirit" of it. The spirit is saying, call it what you will, but this here event, is no small potatoes. --Cerejota (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Grenada is a good example. Similarly, going by the naming of this article, Invasion of Poland (1939) should be renamed 1939 German-Poland conflict.--Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Grenada is the best example. Reaching into the memory banks, I recall that IoGrenada was pretty much called that form the start in many (possibly most) news accounts. On our subject, I think the jury is STILL out, though it seems to be heading toward IoGaza, sometimes "Military Action In Gaza." Let's hang loose, and see if a sort-of-world-consensus takes shape. We can always redirect many names here, there's no urgency. And whether it is small potatoes or big is likely going to be dependant on what else happens in the region over the next 18 months. Dovid (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Date In Front" is a relatively new convention, born in part out of the need for machine readability, in part for disambig in categories. I prefer it for this reason, being a professional db guy. However, Invasion of Poland (1939) was started way before these conventions started in emerge in 2006-2007, and hence has the old convention of parenthesis disambiguation for dates, which is still in use, and still generally valid if deprecated (ie, no one is getting blocked for using it, nor is there any particula rurgency to "fix" old-style). However more and more articles are using "Date in Front". We still use parenthesis disambiguation for other things like biographies (see John Smith) etc.--Cerejota (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I still dont think the years are necessary, there is no disambiguation here. Nableezy (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate the years because for some reason I can never reach this article by typing its name in the search box, but they may be necessary. Invasion of Gaza may not need years, but if we go with Israeli offensive on Gaza or Israeli assault on Gaza, it could be confused with Operation Hot Winter in February-March 2008, which was smaller in scale and did not involve ground troops entering deep into Gaza (and as an aside, IMO, was a kind of test run for this offensive) but still resulted in significant casualties. Tiamut^talk 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Even Invasion of Gaza probably ought to have a year attached to it, since it could also refer to the 1956 or 1967 wars. In fact, those are probably more deserving of the title "invasion" than this is, since they involved the capture of the entire Gaza strip with the intention to stay for the long term rather than being a temporary incursion. Blackeagle (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Those invasions were parts of larger wars: Six-day war and the Suez crisis (Both strangely titled articles, by the way.) But if we do need a year, do we have to put both years in the title? It's the hyphen that really annoys me more than anything. Tiamut^talk 01:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are the most common names for those conflicts, so I don't see what's so strange about it. The hyphen is definitely annoying though. Unfortunately this conflict wasn't scheduled for our convenience. Blackeagle (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

first result in google israel gaza 2009 Nableezy (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] The year thing (2008-2009) is foolish since some editors keep insisting on the claim that it started on December 27, lol. Some of us have given up trying to have the article make sense, and are stuck with simply trying to make it fair. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i think invasion of gaza seems like the one i've seen most on the news or headlines. and it seems the most straightforward as well. Untwirl (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Invasion seems like an inaccurate term to use in the title. This was more than an invasion. This was a bombing campaign, a targeted assassination campaign, a blockade, and other things as well as an invasion. Personally, I would go with "war". If you follow the logic that Hamas is the de facto government of a soverign state, than this is clearly a war-- something done between two governments. The Squicks (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed "war" is best description (see total war definition) to what happened and as other mentioned cited as such in RS both in "western" world and in Arab countries. I'd suggest "Hanukkah" Gaza war to reflect "Cast lead" and not to drag two whole years into 3 weeks of military action. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if war is the right way to describe it. This is only three weeks of a larger conflict that has been going on for much longer. This is more on the scale of a battle, or at most a campaign, rather than an entire war. In any case, we have to reflect the name that's already out there rather than coming up with our own, even if we could come up with a more accurate one. Blackeagle (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

aftermath?

the information presented under this title belongs here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_foreign_involvement ... Cryptonio (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cryptonio (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the information on the ceasefire violation was already included under Ceasefire Violations. Cryptonio (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

War crimes in lead

I've added following to war crimes subsection of lead just before "twist":

Hamas claims responsibility and calls it "normal response" , Israel continues to deny allegations. While Hamas officials are "not welcome" in western countries

Let me know if there is any object to addition. Thank you AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this line doesn't make sense to me. What does Hamas call normal response? Your source cites 'sweden'.. what does a 'western country' mean? Please remove this line. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that it was already removed by someone. Let me clarify, please. Hamas calls its attacks defined by many "war crimes" - "normal response". I was quoting RS which quoted Hamas, it is evident if you read the source. As for "western" (I agree fully - not best definition at all) I mean The European Union, the United States, Australia and other countries which consider Hamas a terrorist organization. Hamas officials can not get Visa and "not welcome" into such countries as neutral and balanced Sweden’s prime minister said in understatement as another RS describes. English is not my native tongue. Could you suggest better wording? More RS needed? Other changes? Thank you for suggestions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Figures in Lead

I think the lead paragraph on casualty figures is quite problematic. Apart from reporting both sides, we need to report data as it is reported by reliable sources. As far as I can see, most reliable third party news sources do not take the IDF casualty count seriously and use the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figures. For example, here is the BBC which states: "About 1,300 Palestinians, including 400 children, were killed in Israel's 22-day assault, while 13 Israelis died, some as a result of Palestinian militant rocket fire." If Israel questions these figures, we can have a line mentioning that, but not the majority of the paragraph. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob2718, Unfortunately there is no "reliable" data about casualties from Gaza side of this conflict. Right now we just do not know. Hamas government of Gaza continues to refuse to release list of casualties. BBC and others just repeat Hamas claims, which some see as "bias". There is independent Italian source which after investigation on the ground claimed that there are only 500-600. The point is that casualties numbers and percentage of civilians are being disputed. Do you suggest removing IDF estimates? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not an 'independent Italian source'. There is one Italian journalist who after several hours made his own estimate for a newspaper, based on two comments by unknown people in Gaza.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Italian journalist is a reliable source even if you don't like what he says, and we have plenty of material in the article based on anonymous Gaza sources speaking to reliable sources. Obviously though, if his figures are quoted in the media less than the Palestinian MoH figures, then he should receive proportionally less coverage in the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They are quoting 1 doctor. 1 doctor. 1 doctor. That is not the number the UN, ICRC, HRW, or AI are quoting. That does not measure up the MoH numbers, it can be in the article as a report from 1 doctor, but not given the same prominence as the official government numbers. Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

the main problem with this doctor is notability. does he count casualties in his profession? if not, i don't see how his estimate is any better than that of a civilian who might estimate by how many bodies they saw in the street. Untwirl (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be notable. Notability applies to the subjects of articles, not to sources/references. Blackeagle (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, maybe i used the wrong term. but there is a policy/guideline that specifies that if someone is relied on for facts in an article they should be somewhat of an expert or experienced with the area they are speaking on. my point remains that if the doctor wasn't involved in the counting of casualties then his estimate is no more valuable than "that of a civilian who might estimate by how many bodies they saw in the street" and shouldn't be used to support an official tally. Untwirl (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is WP:Reliable Sources. As far as this particular source goes, the problem seems to be that we're really dealing with two layers of sources here: Corriere Della Sera, the Italian newspaper, and the Palestinian doctor that the Corriere Della Sera reporter used as his source. I don't think there's much dispute that Corriere Della Sera is a reliable source. It's the most widely read newspaper in Italy. Since Corriere Della Sera is a reliable source, we can be pretty sure that there is a Palestinian doctor who said these things.

What people seem to be objecting to is the use of the Palestinian doctor who is the original source of the claim. The Reliable sources policy really doesn't help us here. Evaluating the reliability of newspapers and academic journals is one thing, but evaluating the Palestinian doctor's credibility is really beyond the capabilities of Wikipedia. For one thing, he's an anonymous source. For another we don't really have the capability to asses his credibility even if we knew who he was. All we really have to go on is that the Corriere Della Sera reported found him credible enough to use his statements in a story. Blackeagle (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What people are objecting to is the inclusion of this single estimate right next to the official numbers of the government ministry. Nobody has said this cannot be used because of reliability, but to put this next to the MoH numbers which have been quoted by everybody (UN, HRW, ICRC, AI) seems a goin a lil overboard. The numbers that should be treated as 'official' are the ones from both governments, at least until some independent body verifies. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Lorenzo Cremonesi doesn't base his assessment only on the doctor he interviewed (who argued pretty forcefully for the estimate he gave the journalist), but also on his visits of several Gaza hospitals, which he found mostly empty. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Cremonesi, nor am I in a position to, I'm just pointing out what he's basing his assessment on. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aight fine, I am not disputing the reliability of the source, I just want to ask you do you think that estimate should be given the same weight as the official estimates of the Gaza MoH? Nableezy (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it should given weight in the article proportionally to its weight in the media, which I think is considerably less than the weight of the MoH figures in the media. So, to answer your question, yes. I mean no. It shouldn't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So do you agree with this statement: it should not be in the lead, and it should be presented for what it is the, the report of a paper in Italy (or whatever description is more appropriate)?

Video

What about looking in commons:Category:Al Jazeera Video Footage from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict to find possibly neutral video to include in the page? Given it is (or will be uploaded) in the correct widescreen screen ratio. One could also cut the video, to make it neutral.--Kozuch (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There was almost no news presence in Gaza during the battles, so this will be hard to find on the "ground." There's plenty from the IDF on their YouTube channel, which I think fair use would allow, but it would end up being somewhat one-sided. Dovid (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there was a news presence, apparently the IDF forgot that al-jazeera already had a few journalists inside Gaza before sealing out the rest of the world press. Nableezy (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't know someone had uploaded all those videos. I feel pathetic for getting lazy after uploading one. What do you mean a neutral video? Most of the videos don't have commentary so they are all pretty neutral. Thanks for bringing the videos to our attention BTW. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Names at the top

Referencing [25, "Start of conflict], the last bit of discussion was as follows:

Every single conflict or war has the name of both parties in the first paragraph in all of the A/I articles. Many even have multiple names in a given language. So no, I don't think it would be appropriate to move the names further down. That is one of the most basic things about the article, and as such should stay in the first paragraph. Nableezy (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (quoted)

I'm not proposing to take out the names of the parties, just the LABELS that the parties gave to the conflict, since there is, er, some conflict among editors over what label to give it. I think it detracts from the summary. The names of the primary parties should definitely be in the first sentence, absolutely. But not a confusion of multiple names that don't advance understanding of the overall picture. In the summary, who cares if the IDF calls it Cast Lead or Molten Pillows, or if the Palestinians call it the Gaza Massacre or the Israeli Massacre or something else? Please, people, remember, a summary is meant to give a reader a quick overview. It does not need to include every type of fact, or even mention every section included in the full article. By wording it up, we are taking it out of the realm of summary. At this point in the game, I think we are almost obligated to redo the whole summary, of which the name of the conflict is only a small part.Dovid (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are the names of the primary parties. I do not really understand what you are saying. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre, the names given to the conflict by the parties, not the names of the parties themselves. Blackeagle (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All right then, the names given to the conflict by the parties are always shown in the first paragraph. Why exactly should this be different? Nableezy (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this.[40] It explains the Israeli thinking a little better. They think between 1100 and 1200 people were killed. They claim to have identified about 700 as militants and 250 of them as civilians. And the rest have not yet been identified. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you intend this comment to be in a different section JGGardiner? It seems a bit out of place here. Blackeagle (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it. I wonder how I did that. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-conflict incidents

Today a roadside bomb killed on Israeli soldier and wounded three others on the border between Israel and Gaza, not long after the bombing, a 27-year-old Gaza farmer was killed by Israeli gunfire along the border several miles away. Also, a few hours after the bombing an airstrike wounded a militant in Khan Younis. This could threaten the ceasefire, should we mention this and call the section something like Post-conflict incidents?BobaFett85 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, Hamas violated the ceasefire with this roadside bomb, thus voiding the ceasefire. Israel is under no obligation to honor a ceasefire unilaterally. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I THINK I agree with your thought, why is that relevant to this discussion?Dovid (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this be included in the list of casualties? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the casulaty count should be fixed. The overall I-P conflict is a larger topic that is ongoing. This particular self-contained part of it is over. If it escalates on a large scale, and the past week is apparent as a brief lull, we can reconsider.Dovid (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a section makes sense to me, but let's keep it small. If it grows, we'll have to trim it down, because I don't think we want to see every detail of what happens in the larger I-P conflict from now until infinity. Whatever is pithy and germane to the events of the recent conflict and its ceasefire, that's what goes in. Agreed? Dovid (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I reorganized the "Unilateral ceasefires" section to group the post-January 17th incidents into a ceasefire violations section. I agree that it should be kept short. Blackeagle (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as a matter of curiosity, I cannot find anything in articles specifying whether this occurred within the Gaza Strip or outside of it. Does anyone know a source which can specify exactly where? ThanksNishidani (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nish. This article says it happened "just outside Gaza", Gaza here meaning the strip and not the city. This might explain why the Israeli leadership is freaking out over it. Its not in any article I've seen yet, but what this implies is that militants were able to get past the security fence, perhaps by tunnel, to plant the explosives. Tiamut^talk 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice the Ceasefire Violations section. Anything that happens from hitherto on, should be included here. In the event of a major excursion again by Israel, or Hamas fires something like 100 rockets in one day(which will surely invite Israel back) then we will have to rethink this a bit. Cryptonio (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

casualties - balance

the casualties/gaza strip section needs work

"The World Health Organization reported that 16 health personnel were killed and 22 injured while on duty over the course of the offensive.[287] UNRWA reported that 5 of its staff members, 1 Job Creation Programme (JCP) beneficiary, and 3 contractors were killed, while 11 staff members, 2 JCP beneficiaries and 4 contractors injured.[287] The World Food Programme reported 1 contractor killed and 2 injured.[287]"

a line should be added to reflect that these aid workers were killed by israeli fire, and that the un withdrew it workers for that reason, (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818577.stm)

"According to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, some Palestinian civilians accused Hamas of "forcing them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers."[289]"

i don't have the source right no, but i know there are plenty, stating that the idf would shoot civilians as they left their homes carrying white flags, so that should be added to balance this claim. Untwirl (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the aid workers, the article already talks about that in the incident that prompted th U.N to suspend aid in the "Humanitarian ceasefires" section. There also appears to be uncertainty as to whether Israeli fire was responsible. Blackeagle (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

POV editing

It is hard to accept good faith when the following edits are made with neither edit summary nor talk. These edits were deleted that reflected damage to Israel and reflected Israel's POV: [41][42][43] sourced reference to casualty figures re Israel's POV [44] At the same time the following diffs were added reflecting damage to Gaza and Gaza/Hamas' POV: [45][46] [47] This is not right folks! This is not working together to make a good article, but pushing an agenda! Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of these are my edits. Sorry for lack of description. In defence: I actually took this stuff from "effects" article to summarise the corresponding section of this article. I then took out substantial amounts to shorten it and reduce it to the most important parts. It's just a summary. The rest is still in the main articleJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I almost posted this above in where TB was on the receiving end of some comments but it works just as well down here. I have seen a few too many suggestions lately that groups of editors are trying to skew and distort the article. Why can't people just accept that they have differences of opinion? Anyway, I don't think some of the comments have been completely appropriate and they are certainly not helpful.

Editors should seriously read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision. We're supposed to be on our best behaviour here. Better than the high standards that WP already assumes. One editor was already blocked for calling another editor a Hamas agent. Since then I've seen comments that are only a few degrees less than that. It really needs to stop. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, that Hamas operative line was clearly accurate, and by golly, something must be done! Nableezy (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But I'm sure that the Mossad can handle that problem without our help. We need to focus on the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the lack of edit summaries or any discussion of these edits on the talk page plays a big part. When you don't know why someone is doing something, it's a lot easier to conclude they have an agenda. Wikipedians are usually encouraged to "be bold", but with a controversial topic like this I think too much boldness can lead people to draw the wrong conclusions about what you're trying to do. Good edit summaries, and especially talking about these things on this page can prevent a lot of misunderstandings. I don't think we need to discuss everything to death, but a simple explanation of what you are doing and why before making a significant change could go a long way. Blackeagle (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

UNRWA

In sharply worded report, former legal advisor to UN agency says group must redefine oxymoronic labeling of Palestinians with Jordanian, Lebanese citizenship as refugees. YnetNews. Hope someone picks up the glove. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this article. Palestinian refugee would probably be a better place for it. Blackeagle (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceasefire breached

This news report http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/28/2475752.htm?section=world Mentions a roadside bomb that was remotely detonated from within Gaza, killing an Israeli officer. It goes on to say that Israel reponded with renewed helicopter attacks, and that tanks & bulldozers were moving into Gaza once again.

I figure I'd post it here for dicussion rather than change the article. Some may wish to debate the veracity of this, or to talk about the direction this article will take if the fighting does indeed break out again in full.Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see this may have been dicussed further up the talk page. If that is in fact the same incident I appologise Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The roadside bomb and the farmer killed afterwards are already in the article (Ceasefire violations section). First I've heard about tanks and helicopters though. Anyone got any other sources for this? Blackeagle (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw no mention of any farmer killed in that article. It says that an Israeli officer was killed and three others wounded, and that the Israeli government issued a statement that they would respond and that not long after they did, with helicopters. It only mentions that tanks & bulldozers were seen moving within Gaza, not that they were part of any retaliatory attack by the israeli government, it's implied though. Perhaps it's a separate incident? Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"One Palestinain man died soon after the bombing in skirmishes near the border." He's not identified as a farmer in your article, but I'm pretty sure it's the same fellow we mention in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagle (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I see that now, I just came accross this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5601165.ece although it seems mor information is availiable nowAndrew's Concience (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli army said they shot the farmer" - removal request

It is hard to believe that IDF spokesperson would do such a thing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is your source where Israel rescinds that comment? Cryptonio (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Get real. His has lawyers you know. I've googled and found 3 references:

• http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10678349.htm
• http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/so-much-for-the-israeli-cease-fire/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict

I do not think this is a reliable source. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)