Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

"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)

Get working. Google Israel's rescue, explanation or flat-out denial they did such a thing. Cryptonio (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. Actually it is better to see how this incident was reflected in other RS in order to achieve better encyclopedic value to this article. I did not see any IDF press release, maybe you? At best we could say Xinhuanet by unclear author reported that ... BTW Xinhuanet already published Hamas press releases before: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-03/04/content_755607.htm AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, I don't know of any reason to doubt that Xinhua is generally a reliable source, but you raised an interesting issue. I did some checking, and couldn't find any other RS stating the incident as fact. I found several RS's stating the incident as an allegation by a Gazan speaking to Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. B'Tselem on its own is not a reliable source. It seems to me then that the alleged incident should best be described "So-and-so told Israeli human rights group B'Tselem that a Palestinian farmer was shot on January 18...". If other RS's can be found that refer to the incident as fact, we should also refer to it as fact. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC simply say "Medics in Gaza said a Palestinian farmer was killed by gunfire." Sean.hoyland - talk 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AlJazera reports: After the incident, Israeli forces opened fire, killing a Palestinian farmer, Palestinian medical workers said. MX44 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why we have this pesky little thing called verifiability... :D--Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, thank you for checking. So no IDF press release? MX44, Thank you for the link. I think you cite another "farmer" incident, but apparently by the same source: Hamas employed MoH official Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein, he is medical worker alright. Cerejota (talk) thank you for providing verifiability. While, apparently, there is nothing surprising with "(Hamas) medical workers report farmer killed", on Jan 18 and this allegation was reported also by BBC and B'Tselem. From other hand "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" clearly presents red flag. IDF spokesperson would not state something that out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. How BBC and B'Tselem managed to miss this apparently important press release? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included...

So what do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

if there is no problem with one source reporting that a doctor said the casualties were 500-600 and we have that in the article, then why should this source be a problem? Untwirl (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

btw- cerejoGaza? i think you should apologize for that and try to remember to be civil. Untwirl (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

agad - you need to apologize and strike it, not just delete and pretend it didn't happen. Untwirl (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is copy-paste accident, thank you for noticing. I'm really sorry Cerejota (talk). This is honest mistake. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl (talk), it was not my intention. can we return to "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" quote? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

no prob - accidents happen. did you see my example? "if there is no problem with one source reporting that a doctor said the casualties were 500-600 and we have that in the article, then why should this source be a problem?"Untwirl (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This quote has a name of Italian known author, quoting "anonymous" Palestinian doctor. I fully agree with you there is to much of ""anonymous" reports in this article. If you want to remove it - go ahead. It is irrelevant to this discussion subject.

To the point, I'm not really sure that unnamed Xinhuanet author really quotes IDF response. There is no evidence about this claim of responsibility by IDF in war crime. This is highly unusual. You should consider process that IDF has for press releases in atmosphere of "bracing for slew of lawsuits". Everything IDF is saying is being filtered by Judge Advocate General. Why no other source confirms it, while reporting "medical sources" allegations? Do you see my point? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources that is all I have to sya about this - I mean, if it did happen, it will be trivial to find sourcing --Cerejota (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see we on the same page, Cerejota. So if there is no other sourcing, please balance this "Ceasefire violations" quote and credit it clearly to Hamas sources. I personally would remove it completely, since "farmer" incident happened while Hamas initially "vowed to fight on". It's also acceptable to move "farmer" Jan 18 incident to Incidents section, where it rightfully belongs. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Sean's source was also about the separate, later "farmer" incident. In our (Jan 18) incident, the guy who said he saw it was not a medic, but the brother of the person allegedly shot. Like I said, I haven't found any source other than Xinhua that speaks of it as fact, though a few sources attribute it to B'Tselem "as heard from the brother". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So is there WP:consensus to remove first paragraph of Ceasefire violations section? Any other suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am all for consensus, but we have this AFP (also mentions "8 year old girl"), I think there is an attribution issue. Sources clearly mention "medics" as the source of the information, and we should say so.--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I agree to what you say. Also according to IDF there were exchange of gun fire on Jan 18. "Medic" is wishy washy for "Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein". Is he mentioned accidentally in both Jan 18 and Jan 27 "farmer" allegation cases?

Anyway, use "medics" and add "8 year old girl" but let's move it to Incidents. Agreed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks I need your opinion how to move forward. First paragraphs is out of context in Ceasefire violations since it happend while militants fired rockets and Israel launched retaliatory air strikes (AFP link). We did not find sources for Israeli army said they shot the farmer. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

the source is: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10678349.htm

it should not be removed - it should be attributed to xinhua. if edits reported by only one source are to be removed - then the unnamed doctor's estimate of casualties should be removed as well. i'm sure there are others ... i think this type of requirement will open pandora's box. Untwirl (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

what about "Hamas fired grad rockets from Media Office Building. [163][164]"

the video shows a reporter saying she heard a loud noise and thinks that a rocket was fired from the building. how does her untrained opinion on a noise with no visual verification qualify as an exceptional source? Untwirl (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed. The atmosphere for reporters in this area and conflict, is not the best one to get ALL media outlets to report on everything that its happening. Taken this, then will Al Jazerra be disqualified as well, we knowing that is one of the few media outlet permitted inside of Gaza? BTW I was not rude, you were the first to say 'get real' - I simply took exception.

Say that, Israel has not denied the incident yet, or yet to provide their side of the story, then go ahead and specify that, but remove it because Israel has yet to acknowledge that did something? I apologize, but we are not under obligation to neither wait for an acknowledgment from Israel or remove reliable information that gives Israel an unwarranted black eye.

Say, fairness? Dubious remorse in my honest opinion... Cryptonio (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was established that Israeli army said they shot the farmer never happened, this is not a fact. Calling Hamas reports of civilian casualties Ceasefire violations during the morning when Israeli officials announced a unilateral ceasefire but Hamas "vowed to fight on" and militants fired rockets is twisting a truth. Blackeagle said elsewhere There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Cryptonio, thank you for bringing up fairness into discussion. I hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

After this long discussion I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267161730&oldid=267155196 AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

i think you acted too soon. there are only you and possibly cerejota that agree with this removal. consensus could best be reached by attributing the statement to xinhua. using your own logic, israeli govt's censorship policy would never allow israeli media to report such a thing, therefore the only sources that could repeat such a statement would be foreign. this is not an opinion piece. unless youre suggesting that all material from and links to xinhua should be removed, then i dont see a problem with "according to" prefacing any contentious material that is reported by what we have considered a reliable source for this article. Untwirl (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that is was in the wrong section. I did not remove, I moved it to Unilateral ceasefires where it belongs from timeline point of view. It happened on Jan 18 AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus on either of your edits. If you agree with what Blackeagle stated, then your objection to Ceasefire Violations is mute. More importantly you don't have the authority to discredit reliable sources. I would like to re-read where in this conversation it was 'proved' the incident never happened, or that the quote from the Israel military was a lie. In the incidents to follow, it clearly stated that the IDF did in fact shot at farmers etc(for whatever reason), how then is it far fetched to believe the accuracy of the article you are questioning when it clearly said that the IDF had shot a farmer?

if you ignore what was just asked of you, just simply explain where in this discussion was proved that the article you are questioned is a lie, or as you put it, it wasn't a fact. Cryptonio (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your current line of thought does not merit an argument about what is actually in questioned before reverting your unilateral edit. I, was who reverted your edit. Cryptonio (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, This edit was discussed here for two days. Many agreed that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I assumed silence as WP:consensus, but was mistaken. Cryptonio, so you still say that "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" is a fact worth publishing? Could you explain you position? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I sure can Agada. "In the incidents to follow, it clearly stated that the IDF did in fact shot at farmers etc(for whatever reason), how then is it far fetched to believe the accuracy of the article you are questioning, when [subsequent incidents] clearly said that the IDF had shot a[few] farmer[s]?

And also, "many agreed" sounds too complicated for me, perhaps because the discussion was so simple. You first objected on grounds that Xinhuanet is not a reliable source, the claim is fine, but what is not right is not to substantiate that exact claim.

You then argued that the statement made is not per IDF "standard", which is fine, except that you objected on grounds that the whole incident did not occoured. The burden is not on truth sake's but on credibility.

You are not looking for consensus, rather for the removal of this media reported bit.

If you are not working for consensus, how do you expect you'll get the section deleted? Cryptonio (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No WP:consensus

It was clearly established that there is No WP:consensus on the subject. I argue that first paragraph of Ceasefire violations should be removed.

• The events are described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, relevant quote: Gaza medical sources reported civilians killed.
• Israeli army said they shot the farmer is clearly a red flag according to verifiability. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included

I'm new here. Let me know if I understand it right. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The source you have presented, does not go into details about the incident that is currently presented in Ceasefire Violations. Notice then, that not much information is known about this incident as a whole. This same source "AFP", does not discredit 'at all' what is stated in the Xinhua article. Now, since your source does not provide much information about the incident, neither an Israeli response, why would you want to discredit, what appears to be the only other news article that apparently covered this story? You have my consensus, that you have found another source on this matter. But you continue to ignore the argument that is presented to you. i will add the "AFP" article as source to the first paragraph in Ceasefire Violations. Cryptonio (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not consensus, the problem is WP:V. I insist and concur with Agada, Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. I have yet to find verification that the IDF admitted the shooting. If we do, it stays, if we don't, it goes. We do find verifiability that the incident happened. So the incident stays. Simple. --Cerejota (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I think that events are described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, relevant quote: Gaza medical sources reported civilians killed.. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Wikipedia states as a fact that "Israeli army said they shot the farmer", quoting in my view in this particular case Hamas source - Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein. Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument was made about having information included in the article that only had ONE person as source and was in itself an Exceptional Claim( so high-quality sources needed is muted).

You want me to find 'verification' about something that is included in the article, that i DID NOT write? you are looking for MORE sources? how many sources will satisfied you? do we have to work towards your satisfaction in this matter?

Cerejota, you are entitled to disavowed Xinhua as a source. Don't get ahead of yourself. Cryptonio (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"

Just that in this matter they received a good chunk of cash from Hamas?

Cerejota, can you repeat again, what is that you concur with Agada on again? Agada just saw the light from the same tunnel you are about to travel through. Cryptonio (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Just that in this matter they received a good chunk of cash from Hamas?" So, Cryptonio, are you claiming that Hamas has enough cash to bribe the Chinese government? That the Chinese government would favor Hamas over it's second larges arms supplier? Blackeagle (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You made me look this up. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

"The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel," Cryptonio (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant, but it's funny how absurd conclusion (like murder justification) could be drawn from solid statistics. See: http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4728/1231958480954uo4.jpg AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that image funny, I find it offensive (and the math is incorrect, too). May we please refrain from gender-based jokes? Thank you kindly. Tell someone (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit I suggest you strike your "funny" bit of misogynism above. RomaC (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, my wife and daughter approved this joke, but I'm sorry if you find it offensive. Being male I love woman in general, and thank God for their existence, assume good faith. BTW statistics in the picture look credible to me ( and my wife ), but I'd be glad to be corrected. To the point.

• I'm still waiting for confirmation that Israeli army said they shot the farmer, otherwise this "fact" should be removed.
• I insist to move January 18 morning "farmer" incident to Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph.

Cognitive relativism has its limits. Any suggestion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To this point, it could very well be, that the article has the appearance of standing on just one leg(as per some 'crafty' rationale) but is the actual position of the article, or its merits what should be debated? To that point, we here in Wiki select the latter, and to that point, whether 'cognitive relativism' is employed or not(as per some witchcraft) is not open for debate. Cryptonio (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprisingly, I understand and agree with Agada's point. Israeli army said they shot the farmer would be Israel claiming they were responsible for a war crime. "Oh sure, we saw this farmer plowing his field and so we shot him. What's the big deal?" Israel might acknowledge that it shot a 27-year old man (or whatever -- just using example) who Palestinians claim was a farmer "just checking his field". So the point is, this statement is a redflag statement, like admitting to murder, out of character etc etc as Agada pointed out above. It requires "exceptional sources" ... one Chinese (if generally reliable) source does not qualify. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

War crime? who is judging Israel's actions? We are not discussing Israel's actions in this matter(even the supposed absent 'explanation' for their actions). What a reader believes warrants further action against Israel is not of ANY importance here. Furthermore, even the 'gravity' of the action itself is of no concern here. Notice that in here, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ijkYFQac8SjkWN53E259A5P2Cr2w, which is the second source mentioned, it does not include other accounts of occurrences that is not related to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. It does not, for example, mentions that an old man died of an heart attack peacefully. So, the article implies, by its nature, that Israel's actions had something to do with the farmer's death. The example that you give to Israel's side of the story is of no bearing on this matter either, for there hasn't been any Israel explanation on this matter, which is perhaps the reason why 'some' might object to this article, who's both sources, albeit being the only ones to be presented, are reliable sources. On Israel's admittance of murder, should we bring up examples where Israel in fact admits to murder?

A source that counters Israel's 'fathom' explanation of this matter has not yet been written. Cryptonio (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Using the argument that, "Since Israel has yet to deny or confirm this incident, or giving their version of this matter, the article CANNOT be true, or factual"... Cryptonio (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Cryptonio. Please reread verifiability. In any case the problematic phrase get only 3 hits using google, so Wikipedia is in the good company, reporting this 'fact'. Could you explain your reasoning why January 18 morning events should not go to Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, where events of that morning are described? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, your talk page is read-only. How did you do it and is it intentional? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being dim but I've never fully understood this dispute. It's not exceptional for the IDF to shoot people in the security buffer zones around the Gaza strip. It's covered by the military rules of engagement under which their soldiers operate there. I'm just saying it's not especially unusual. Anyway, that probably doesn't help much. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree Sean, enough is enough (talk to non-talk-able). I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267995438&oldid=267995015 Hope it is balanced and neutral and better reflects reality.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean I need to stress IDF open-fire orders do not permit shooting unarmed farmers even in buffer zone. Another question is were there reports of IDF ground forces in Khan Yunis (translated park/stay for nigh here) area? AFAIK infantry and tank troops entered only to north of Gaza strip, but maybe I should be corrected. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The IDF have shot unarmed people in the buffer zone. For example [1]. Maybe the soldiers were prosecuted for it.... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean you might find it surprising, but if law is broken people get prosecuted by law. And indeed there were precedents in the past. I hope you do not suggest that IDF open-fire orders do permit target unarmed people? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be surprised at prosecutions when there are clear breachs of the law but the law is often applied weakly/loosely at borders when security comes before everything else for various pragmatic reasons. I would be extremely surprised if the IDF rules of engagement allowed the shooting of knowingly unarmed people mainly because the average soldier wouldn't obey such an order. However, the fact is that unarmed people are shot. That's what happens in these situations. It happens here too. If it was up to me there wouldn't be any borders anywhere, no visas, no passports. Problem solved....sort of. We can then all go and live somewhere nice like Laos, Oman or maybe all move to Oregon. It's quite roomy. Anyway, off topic... Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But Sean's comment is all about WP:OR while Agada's point is not. IDF rules of engagement do not permit shooting unarmed civilians, thus it would be highly unlikely ie "out of character" and "against an interest they had previously defended" (ie "we do not target civilians") and thus would fall under the "Exceptional claims require exceptional ("high quality") sources. (Note the plural) [2] -- just stressing the point for the benefit of Cryptonio. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not follow that the rules of engagement saying something makes it highly unlikely that a soldier does the opposite. Somebody making a claim that is in opposition to what the IDF has said does not qualify as an exceptional claim. Nableezy (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit Agada, but also addressed your concerns:

"The first death after the ceasefire was a Palestinian farmer who was shot dead by an Israeli soldier while checking his farm in Khan Younis, on the morning of 18 January. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer because he was approaching land occupied at that moment by Israeli ground troops. There has not been an Israeli report addressing this matter in furtherance. "

Cryptonio (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

EDITor Evb-wiki has not been seen in this talk page or has addressed this subject matter. His edit for this reason can be taken as vandalism. Will revert. Cryptonio (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, thank you for addressing my concerns. There is still one left. Let's look on the Gaza strip map and Ground invasion section. According to reports Israeli tanks cut the strip along Karmi - Netzarim east-west road north of Deir Al-Balah. Israeli ground activity were reported in Gaza city and its suburbs to the north of this road. Though there were reports of air strikes in south Gaza strip and specifically in Khan Younis, I have not seen any reports of ground troops in the area. Should I be corrected? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do this only per your request. If you strongly feel as this is a point that should be made, bring up more information and state your concerns for us to read. I do not do this to stop you from advancing your argument, simply because it seems to me as you live near that area etc. and will know more about it than me, in particular. I understand this is a logistic challenge.

Tuesday 6 January 2009 - "The sharp spike in the number of civilian casualties came as Israeli troops and tanks moved into Gaza's second largest city, Khan Younis, for the first time today supported by intensive artillery strikes as the military pledged to press on with its attack." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestinians

Sunday 18 January 2009 - "A Palestinian civilian was killed by Israeli forces near the Gazan town of Khan Younis after mortar bombs were fired from the area, medical workers said, identifying him as a civilian.

He was the first fatality on either side of the frontier since Israel halted its 22-day-old Gaza offensive at 2am, saying it had achieved all its objectives but that a troop withdrawal was contingent on Hamas ceasing its fire." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0118/breaking2.htm Cryptonio (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for research. I stand corrected. However, currently the same Khan Younis incident currently reflected twice, both in last sentence of second paragraph Unilateral ceasefires and first paragraph Ceasefire violations. Israeli Army admission quoting Gaza medic is clearly a red flag according to verifiability, thus should not be included. From logic and relevancy point of view the incident should belong to Unilateral ceasefires. After all it's the place where January 18 morning events are described. Anyway daily clashes, and the fact that in accordance with Hudna tradition Hamas cease-fire was week long it looks that we should rethink article organization. In my opinion it looks like Continued negotiation all along. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As per your request, the incident is now mentioned at the end of the second paragraph in Unilateral Ceasefire. The red flag you raised comes from the article which you said was from a reliable source and was included by you to the second paragraph of Unilateral Ceasefire. Pardon for taking so long in agreeing with you that this is where the article belongs, although I am not totally convinced though and reserve the right to challenge your position and argue for its inclusion at the beginning of Ceasefire Violations at any time hereafter. Cryptonio (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, it looks that we mostly agree. I respect your right to challenge my position and really appreciate your understanding. After all this is not personal, we both want to deliver encyclopedic value. The way to compromise passes through initial disagreement and careful evaluation of each others arguments. Please respond to argument supported by other editors that Israeli Army admission quoting Gaza medic is clearly a red flag according to verifiability, thus should not be included. The bottom line is that even reliable sources have unreliable information from time to time so that's why we have verifiability AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That the Israeli army shot a farmer, is not all that exceptional in a war. That the army's defense was that the farmer was getting closer to a controlled perimeter, is not exceptional. There is nothing exceptional about this claim, just because Israel denies everything that in the eyes of some(and most disappointing, in their own eyes as well) is questionable, it does not mean it must be taken out because someway is not verifiable. There is nothing exceptional about this claim, in time of war. It was shown that the Israeli army itself has in the past admitted to have committed acts that in their own eyes was illegal(although i'm not concerned about the legal aspect of this case). So if, there is precedence, the burden of truth is made less heavier. And have you heard, Israelis are human beings! Cryptonio (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, I fully agree that IDF admitted its mistakes in the past and civilians were killed in Crossfire. IDF see such cases as mistakes that unfortunately happen during war and publishes official investigation reports. For instance see the doctor incident. IDF admission is usually clear undeniable and reported by large number of RSs around the world. Everything is routed via IDF spokesperson office. Israeli army said they shot the farmer is clearly a red flag according to verifiability. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included The bottom line is that even reliable sources have unreliable information from time to time so that's why we have verifiability Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree on inclusion of all refs gathered and use NPOV wording let the reader decide. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not an IDF receptor. I say this with all the freedom in the world and with all due respect. It is not in my interest to read the novel "The world according to Israel/IDF". I am not a member nor a subscriber of anything to do with accepting everything that Israel says. Yes, they have their objectives, they have their goals, they have their own responsibilities. I share some of those goals with quite a few Israelis(their numbers are huge!) whose voices are but muted from inside Israel. Yet, I do not speak for them, for their voices are louder than mine. Yes, let the readers decide whatever you think they have to decide. Let them NOT decide as well, if they choose so. I am only interested in wiki, and blaming everybody but myself, if anything. Please, repeating that Israel does not kill without a 'fair' cause won't help in this case. Is not a matter of whether certain truths are self-evident or falseness lives beyond its means, is a matter of including information a reader might find interesting. thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but you're getting way off-topic here. Nobody suggest using IDF only sources. There is such thing as free and independent press. I think we should preserve NPOV and use all refs available. Don't you agree with red flag argument according to verifiability? My point is IDF admission is usually clear undeniable and reported by large number of RSs around the world. So far we all found 3 hits if this admission using Google, including this article, one blog and Xinhua article. This does not stand verifiability. We should aim for encyclopedic value. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source deserves at least a first look. Let the masses decide. What do you think? Cryptonio (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, so far editors located 3 refs describing January 18 morning incident : Xinhua, AFP and UN Jan 19 report (brought by Darwish07 here). All 3 of those references are clearly reliable source. I fully agree to include all references to this incident with NPOV wording and let the reader decide. IMO we mostly agree. What do you suggest? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Last point i'll be making about this point in our conversation Agada. How is it POV to state wording that is included in one of the reliable sources, that for it to be reliable, it must have a history of NPOV wording on its content? Cryptonio (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I will add this as ref though. plus revert your edit as well. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/979146.html .

"This pattern of response - to cast doubt about the very information that arrives from Palestinian sources about the circumstances of the killing, to avoid accepting responsibility for an unfortunate event, to produce a version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to place the source of the tragedy on the enemy, and to create a demonic image of the adversary as someone who is capable of purposely causing bloodshed among his own people so as to achieve diplomatic gain, or as someone who does not hesitate to stage a horrifying arena of death so as to besmirch Israel's name, repeats itself every time tragedies of this nature occur. "

This..."to produce a version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to place the source of the tragedy on the enemy"...is the only thing missing in order for you to leave the article alone. Cryptonio (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-ceasefire attacks have no place but the violations section

Per Agada kind request, I'm moving below discussion here. My complain is that there's no room for debate that incidents done after the official ceasefire declaration belongs to the violations section, and in no where else. It's utterly misleading to read a huge pile of January 20th Gazans violations of cease-fire in the very first sentence, when in fact there has been a UN confirmed violation from the IDF on the very first morning of 18 January. This is stated very clearly. UN 17-18 Jan. report says:

Following a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet on 17 January, Prime Minister Olmert announced a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, which came into effect at 0200 hours local time 18 January

And in the UN 19 Jan. report:

One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.

The violations should be stated in their chronological occurrence order, without saying any statements of who broke the cease-fire first, and let the readers decide for themselves. This is basic editing, I can't see how this could be even discussed. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If I recall aright, Israel established the cease-fire unilaterally, and said it would nevertheless continue to respond to provocation from the other side. Not knowing the details of this "farmer incident," it is hard to be certain of this. And frankly, considering that the UN said very clearly that Israel made a direct hit on a UN school some three days after UNWRA spokesman claimed to have acknowledged that it hadn't, it strikes me that the UN is not really an unbiased source of information. They seem to have taken a side. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OR Tundrabuggy, and POV OR at that: in general, we recognize the UN as a neutral reliable source for reports, mostly because when they do a mistake they retract it. The fog of war is thick and those will happen. So your argument is unconvincing in this respect. As to the actual events, all we have is the uncontested fact that a farmer was shot on the 18th. As I said before, there is probably nothing to it other than fog of war errors, but it happened, and we report. WHy it happened, and the circumstances it happened, are not known at this point, but that is irrelevant, as is any speculation you or I can engage. You'll be surprised to know my views on the incident might be closer to your views on it, but they don't matter, because we are not RS.--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK folks, I hear you all. Thank you for your opinions. Let me state current situation. The January 18 morning incident have already 3 reliable sources gathered by editors and currently described twice both Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph and Ceasefire violations. It's called redundancy. Cryptonio agreed during this discussion that event of January 18 morning are currently described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph of this article and it is correct context for NPOV quote describing the indecent. All references should be included for increased encyclopedic value. Fog is thick, let the reader decide. Still first is clearly POV and different reliable sources describe different events as first incident. Thus first is not a part of NPOV lingo. I deleted "first" description from January 20 events as soon as I learned January 18 morning events and expect same NPOV approach for January 18 morning description. Cerejota stated during this discussion that IDF admission does not stand verifiability so I also removed it. Carefully balancing all editors concerns, fixing redundancy, preserving NPOV I performed following edit. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this summary.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No folks. No one provided a reason for why on earth an incident after the cease-fire shouldn't be in the violation section beside saying over and over and over "that was consensus". I've seen no logic provided for such consensus.

1. Why should we differentiate between 18 January attacks and the attacks following 18 January even if it's clear in the reference language that the attack happened after the cease-fire declaration?
2. It's false logic to say .. Oooh, we don't want redundancy, so this shouldn't be in "violations" .. This is absolutely meaningless, cause everyone knows there will be no redundancy if we moved the incident from "unilateral ceasefire" to "violations" as should logically happen. The redundancy claim is absolutely bogus.

Please no one reply saying Crytonio agreed to do so, Agada + Cryptonio does not define consensus. I've seen no logic provided for their reasonings beside "Cryptonio agreed that 18 Jan. events are on the unilateral ceasefire section". I'm sorry, Cryptonio "agreement" -- without logic and references -- isn't worth a shekel in here. Please, let's talk by POV-free logic and references. I'm waiting for references asserting that post-ceasefire 18 Jan. events should be in "unilateral ceasefire" and never on "violations" sections. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You weren't here to defend the edit that you yourself added(I don't care for your reasons). And Cryptonio is on record as saying..."although I am not totally convinced though and reserve the right to challenge your position and argue for its inclusion at the beginning of Ceasefire Violations at any time hereafter." Since you are here now, and hungry like a beast looking to devour everything on sight, I hereby wash my hands of this matter, and deliver the 'case' Agada into your care. Cryptonio (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're portraying me as if I'm "hungry like a beast" to just debate with other editors, I assure you I am not. I just asked for logic for this case, which isn't provided yet (unless I'm mistaken). Yes, I wasn't there on the original debate but I was told that there has been "consensus" on the issue, so I went above looking for logic for such consensus (so I can understand other editors point of views) but I didn't find any. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, as I mentioned, how can unilateral ceasefires be violated? I think the whole "violations" section is OR. There is no agreement between the parties, so in any case "violations" would be journo speak and not "violations" in the legal sense. --Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this "violation" term is OR. Let's call it "Attacks during the unilateral cease-fire" or something similar. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks and Dudes :) Congrats on 4th ref on January 18 morning incident. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer got back into this article. Dear editors, please address my concerns. I think description of this incident requires urgent NPOV review. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, just be bold and remove the statement if it wasn't supported by a WP:RS or fix the language itself if it's severely biased. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Material moved from Incidents during ceasefires to unilateral ceasefire has left text in the former section out of date order: "The same day, another farmer was reportedly shot dead by the IDF while approaching his farm in Jabalia, while two children were killed when ordinance left behind by Israeli troops in Gaza City exploded;[269][270] however, according to UPI, officials reported that two children died on 19 January, playing with a Hamas mine.[271]" The "same day" refers to 18 January. That's why it says "another farmer". Please can the sources be checked so that the necessary amandments may be made. Chesdovi (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the paragraph now. I also removed the unexploded ordnance incident since it is not an "attack" by any of the sides, or that's what I understand. Any concerns about that? --Darwish07 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Darwish. As I have not followed the disscusions here and subsequent re-arrangement of material, it was too confusing for me to deal with this. Chesdovi (talk)

Chesdovi, nice to meat you, welcome into discussion. I agree Jabalia incident reported to happen on 19 January, clearly before 20 which still some reliable source describe as first. Whatever is first I think that as more refs as possible better.

Darwish07, Edit waring is not bold.

• I clearly disagree with current description because it is clearly prefers Palestinian sources. The information should be cross referenced and wording NPOV, as Cerejota puts it the fog of war is thick.
• I'm really sorry that current version lost some of references gathered.
• Inclusion of unverified data makes me uncomfortable.
• I also regret loss of "ordnance" incident. It demonstrates how description could be different between different sources.

Is this your definition of damaging? I also urge to review current structure of aftermath. It was decided under initial illusion that cease fire will hold. It looks like Continued negations all along with all the media spin type action in the Cairo. Maybe we could extract it into external article will all the incidents. With almost daily clashes the list gets bigger and bigger. Just my shnekel though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

UN School

UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School - by Maayana Miskin [3]. Now clearly confirmation from a less "biased" source would be necessary. The article refers to the Toronto Globe and Mail. This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. Yes, here is the original article: Account of Israeli attack doesn't hold up to scrutiny Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

this is not repeated in any rs. Untwirl (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprising, since it's a new story. Globe and Mail is highly reliable; no reason not to put the info in the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does israel come clear from blame anyhow? The bombs killed civilians outside and wounding civilians inside a school? How does you suggest we change the article after this new fact Tundrabuggy? Brunte (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the information that the attack landed outside the school was already added to the article yesterday, in this edit [4] Blackeagle (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. Much noice for nothing then. What is your intention with this Thundrabuggy? Brunte (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) tb - your statement "This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. " is implying that somehow israel would be released from culpability? would that also explain the un headquarters? Untwirl (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to deliberately target anyone for something to be considered a war crime. You can still fall foul of the principle of proportionality e.g. fire at a couple of guys, oops, kill tonnes of people. Anyway, never mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, first of all, this " Israel faced mounting international pressure for a ceasefire after incorrect preliminary reports indicated that the school itself was hit,and announced a three-hour "humanitarian truce" is completely OR, one report cited mentions that the 'lull', 'pause', whatever was came "amid growing international concerns about civilian casualties from Israel's military operations in Gaza and a day after Israeli forces fired on several U.N. schools in Gaza." i'm taking it out. as well as "the school itself - OR again.

the so called breaking newsstory from globeandmail has not been reported by other rs, hence "exceptional claims blah blah blah Untwirl (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

from the article "On January 6, 2009, Israel struck outside a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians. "

i think we have enough rs for this fact that we dont need to use globe and mail Untwirl (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want to take a citation to an RS out? What would you propose to cite for that sentence instead? Blackeagle (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

how bout this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama Untwirl (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really seem like a substitute. The whole point of the Globe and Mail article is that initial reports, like the Guardian article you linked to, were incorrect about where the mortar rounds landed. Blackeagle (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

how did the children in the school grounds get injured? no one specified exactly where the mortar rounds landed. this is a straw man argument Untwirl (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They were injured by shrapnel, "While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed." The article includes quotes from multiple individuals, both eyewitnesses and the UNRWA operations director, that the rounds landed in the street. I don't see how this meets the definition of a Straw man argument. Blackeagle (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent."

"the shell didn't actually hit the school building, like you said it did"
"therefore all that hubbub from the world about firing at the school was unjustified"

the fact remains that israel admitted that they fired at the school because they thought 'militants' were firing from there, which they later admitted was untrue. Untwirl (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're the one making the straw man argument here. I've never said anything to the effect of, "therefore all that hubbub from the world about firing at the school was unjustified". The fact that an Israeli government spokesman says something does not automatically make it true. Blackeagle (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

actually i was referring to the author of this section's original reasoning, "This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school." as well as your "initial reports, like the Guardian article you linked to, were incorrect about where the mortar rounds landed" my point is where the rounds landed is irrelevant, and every other reliable source which doesn't print this 'story' obviously agrees. idf fired at the school. they admit it. period. Untwirl (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, the facts are always relevant. If the rounds didn't hit the school, then we should say they didn't hit the school. "Every other reliable source", including the IDF statement, were all based on the initial, incorrect reports. Blackeagle (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

so do you want to say "fired on a school but hit just outside, killing 43 civilians"? what is your point? they fired at the school. people were hit by shrapnel inside the school grounds. is the shrapnel not part of the mortar, intended to hit a target?

and every 'fact' isnt relevant, thats why we discuss inclusion here Untwirl (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that not every fact is relevant, but everything in the article should be factually true, to the best that we can determine. As far as what to put in the article, I'd say something like: "On January 6, 2009, Israel mortar shells landed outside a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." Blackeagle (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i would agree with ""On January 6, 2009, Israel tanks fired on a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." the shells didn't just "land there", the school was intentionally fired on. and the source needs to be one of the dozens of more reliable ones we have Untwirl (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear that it was tanks that did the firing. Israeli tanks do carry mortars (they're about the only country in the world that mounts mortars on their MBTs) but they have other mortars in the service too. I think we ought to stick with "mortars" rather than "tanks".

The other problem is one of intention. Israel has said both that they targeted the school itself and that they targeted an area next to the school. I think we should either include both statements, say that Israel issued contradictory statements as to whether or not they targeted the school, or just stay away from intent and simply say that the shells hit close to the school and killed a lot of people. Blackeagle (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From the Globe article:

• The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs got the location right, for a short while. Its daily bulletin cited "early reports" that "three artillery shells landed outside the UNRWA Jabalia Prep. C Girls School ..." However, its more comprehensive weekly report, published three days later, stated that "Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools ..." including the one at issue.

The good ol' U.N. Ever consistent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Oh, but you seem to have missed this:

“ John Ging, UNRWA's operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that "no one was killed in the school."

"I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school," he said.

Why would he do that?

"Because they had told everyone they had returned fire from gunmen in the school. That wasn't true."

Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion over where the victims were killed. "They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard. But we had seen it before," he said, "in 2007."

The Israelis are the ones, he said, who got everyone thinking the deaths occurred inside the school.

"Look at my statements," he said. "I never said anyone was killed in the school. Our officials never made any such allegation."

”

• • In other words, the UN didn't report anything. When I say fog of war, this is the kind of crap I mean. If we all got out of the WP:SOAPBOX for a few seconds we might see these things--Cerejota (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kind of crap indeed, "They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard... But we had seen it before" You could clearly see that IDF spokesperson released the discussed video before this incident happened and marked 29 Oct. 2007. see http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI Still Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Brunte (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That there is a lot of confusion, due to disinformation. Thank you for asking, Brunte. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Like this you mean ? WikiEN-l Conflict of Interest and lobbyists for foreign governments :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Sean, now I'm Shin Bet agent :) Usually you're very balanced and neutral and in my eyes you earned a lot of credit with your suggestions. Let's not get into personal attacks. Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of personal attacks or rudeness so we should be okay. It was just a joke (with of course a serious side). Personally I'm more concerned at them calling people like us 'intellectuals'. It doesn't give me a good feeling about their grasp of reality. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement ""On January 6, 2009, the IDF fired on a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." is factually accurate. the debate over where the rounds landed is not relevant and the article (UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School)is misleading (ie. the un admitted nothing different from what they had said all along). Untwirl (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement isn't accurate. The rounds didn't actually hit the school, the article should reflect that. The IDF has issued contradictory statements about whether or not they targeted the school. If you want to say something about whether the IDF intended to hit the school, we have to either acknowledge the conflicting statements. Blackeagle (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement is accurate. If they fire close enough to wound 43 people they must have landed the thing on the doorstep. The fact that it wasn't a direct hit doesn't mean that the school wasn't "Fired upon". Any army is obliged to fire their weapons in a manner that does not cause indiscriminate damage, this is the reason WP rounds are contraversial. There can be no doubt that the injuries in the shcool DID occur, and that Israeli mortar fire was the cause. Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

exactly. the shrapnel (or whatever) that hit and injured people on the school grounds is part of the shell, regardless where the shell lands exactly. therefore, the school was fired upon, and hit, by mortar fire. Untwirl (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

At the time of this "incident", it was not clear what happened. Israel's rules of engagement are that they return fire when they see where it comes from. They also may have specific military "targets" but that's another story. When the story first broke that they had hit a school, they assumed they had returned fire-for-fire, since those are the operating rules. When UNRWA and Palestinians claimed "No one was firing from this school" "It was a refuge for civilians" "We gave Israel the coordinates" and "We don't fire from schools," Israel released an earlier film demonstrating that gunmen indeed have and do fire from UNRWA schools. They did not pretend that this film was this incident. They were demonstrating that Hamas gunmen fire from schools. However, when it was finally acknowledged by some (not the UN!) that there was not a direct hit on the school, some people still want to give the impression that there was. It is most likely that there was fire from the area, and Israel responded. Indeed had the locals actually been in the compound, they would not have been hurt, since no one in the school was hurt. There is a huge difference between targeting a school (while aware of its coordinates) for no reason, and returning fire when fired at and avoiding the school. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And they're all good points Tundrabuggy. I never said that Israel targeted the School, nor did I say they hit it. However there is no excuse for blind firing in the vecinity if an internationally protected target, there's no excuse for poor accuracy in civilian populated areas and there's no doubt that people were killed or injured by Israeli mortar fire at the UN school. Israel has an internationally recognized, proffesionally trained army. Simply saying a mistake was made is not good enough. Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Even schools are not internationally protected targets if there is hostile firing coming from it Article 51, paragraph 7, of Protocol I:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

In war, stuff happens. Hamas never made any attempt for accuracy, nor to avoid civilians, in its attacks against Israel. Are they excused because they don't have an "internationally recognized, professionally trained army"? What's with the double standard? Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, lets be specific, like the guardian. note that israeli fired on the school, hitting just outside, and "most of those killed were in the school playground and in the street" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama Untwirl (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

and your point about "returning fire when fired at and avoiding the school" is wrong, by israel's own admission and by the fact that people were killed on the playground. Untwirl (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, perhaps you can find a more recent source that says "playground" since that source is now acknowledged to be wrong. Where did Israel say that they did not avoid the school? Could you please ref the admission? Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that Israel killed 40 totally innocent people. If they didn't score a direct hit on the school, put that in, but it doesn't reduce the severity of the incident.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes 40 people were presumably killed in this incident for which we do not know the exact details. Point is, as usual, everyone rushes in (especially the UN) to accuse Israel before the facts are known. By the time the truth is uncovered, no one believes it. This doesn't just happen sometimes, it happens alot. As for the innocence of these individuals, someone must have been firing from the area, or it would not have drawn fire. 12.51.52.206 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

see circular argument Sean.hoyland - talk 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IDF see this incident as civilians used as human shield Caught in the crossfire in active war zone. IDF performs investigation of incidents as policy and publicly regrets such unthinkable loss. There are a lot of witness clips from Gaza of Hamas firing surrounded by civilians including kids on different occasions on Youtube, looks credible to me and Newsweek reporters. Did Hamas knew of UNRWA school GPS coordinates? Nobody denies that IDF forces were taking incoming fire from this location. After all Hamas did take part in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053401.html ANALYSIS / Using aggressive tactics in Gaza to save soldiers' lives . "The incident in which some 40 Palestinian civilians were killed when Israel Defense Forces mortar shells hit an UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp Tuesday surprised no one who has been following events in Gaza in recent days. Senior officers admit that the IDF has been using enormous firepower."

"What the officer did not say explicitly was that this is deliberate policy. Following the trauma of the war in Lebanon in 2006, the army realized that heavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is using aggressive tactics to save soldiers' lives."

'Disproportional use of force' which when talking about 'legalities' of war, is one of the charges that has been brought against Israel. I don't care much for it, but I think that this information would merit prevalence somewhere in this article(yes i'm sure it won't be too hard finding a place for it). Cryptonio (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something? As far as I can see, the 40 or 43 civilians killed are only mentioned as being in the school by the same RS that says that the shells hit the school. The updated RS which repudaites this DOES NOT say that the casualties were at the school. So I don't think it is correct to synthesize the old and new sources and say that Israel was thought to have shelled the school, later turned out it shelled outside the school, and still say that there were 40/43 casualties at the school. Also, the RS that analyzes the weapondry and casualties states that it is unreasonable to say that a few shells woudl kill 40+ people, because shells are not t hat powerful, so the whole casualty count becomes an exceptional claim. Dovid (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, pardon. that was not my intention when i posted that. although, am i missing something? where is this incident reported in the article now? I posted that link for its value on "disproportional use of force" material, not on whether the shell hit the school or not. The after facts seems to be correct. plus "UN: IDF officers admitted there was no gunfire from Gaza school which was shelled" - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054009.html. good luck on the casualty count though. Cryptonio (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Although, why would the IDF admit to wrongdoing, if they did not hit the school? if the shells hit outside of the school, and they admitted to wrongdoing, does that means that the fire they reported on their troops did not come from OUTSIDE of the school neither?

"In briefings senior [Israel Defense Forces] officers conducted for foreign diplomats, they admitted the shelling to which IDF forces in Jabalya were responding did not originate from the school," Gunness said. "The IDF admitted in that briefing that the attack on the UN site was unintentional."

Does 'from the school' means inside and outside too? and does 'on the UN site' also means inside and outside as well? Cryptonio (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot more on this here BTW. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292898771&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . who knows whats going on, i don't. Cryptonio (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Population density of Gaza

I removed the false claim that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. This is a common misconception but a cursory glance at this List of cities by population shows that it is far from the truth. The Gaza Strip's population density (~4000/sq-km) is close to that of London or Bangkok. It covers an area only slightly larger than Delhi which has over 10 times the population. Even New York City is nearly 3 times denser than Gaza. Yokohama has 3 times the population in the same area as Gaza and these aren't even the most extreme examples. Wikipedia shouldn't be propagating this false axiom that Gaza is unusually densely populated. It simply isn't true. Dino246 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, factchecking. Good. Maybe the whole sentence should be moved down in text now as its not as dramatic. 'Following its victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and...' is a good start for that section. Brunte (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What! Now I feel like an idiot... Brunte (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

the sentence read, "The gaza strip is . . " but was incorrectly linked to a page that showed the palestinian territories density figures. it should remain, and be linked to the gaza strip page, which lists it as 6th - Population - July 2007 estimate 1,481,080 (149th1) - Density 4,118/km2 (6th1) 10,665/sq mi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Untwirl (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

now that i'm looking at that again it seems odd. maybe its because the gaza strip doesn't have "country status" that the numbers seem off? that must be why we used "densely populated area" Untwirl (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times, each time it was shown that numerous sources bring up the high pop. density as background information to this conflict. The sentence is both factually correct and sourced. It does not say that Gaza City is one of the most densely populated cities, it says the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated placed. New York and London's pop. density is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

according to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density 4,118/km2 would mean they are 4th. we should probably use region. Untwirl (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But the Gaza Strip isn't a country. If it were then it would be the 6th most densely populated country in the world but "if" Kolkata were a country then it would be 7 times more densely populated. Comparing the 360sqkm of the Gaza Strip with the countries of the world is completely arbitrary, especially as the entire Strip is smaller than many of the world's major metropolitan areas, including New York City, Tokyo, Mumbai, Delhi, Tehran, Jakarta, Singapore.. A comparison of Gaza City with the cities of the world would be more relevant but at 9000/sqkm it really doesn't make the list of densely populated cities either coming behind 14 of the cities in this non-comprehensive List of cities by population. The Gaza Strip is simply not one of the most densely populated places in the world, not by a long way. There are numerous other areas of comparable area with significantly greater populations. It's actually less densely populated than Sderot (4400/sqkm).Dino246 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a territory, this has been discussed many times, please do not unilaterally change what is long standing consensus. I am reverting again, please do not change unless you have consensus for it. This is not about Gaza City. This is about the Gaza Strip. Numerous sources have made this very point. Nableezy (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can describe the Gaza Strip as a territory if you like but it doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands of other territories in the world that are more densely populated than this one. Describing it as "one of the most densely populated" is simply not true. No matter what you try and compare it to, it does not have an extreme population density. Compared to any other similarly sized urban territory it is, at most, of average population density. The Southern Israeli towns of Sderot and Netivot are both more densely populated.Dino246 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even in the article? Is someone trying to make a point with this line and the following one regarding children?Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of sources have brought this up as it relates to the high number of casualties, civilians and children. HRW is one, there are quite a few more if you want to make me dig into the archives. I dont think anybody is trying to make a point but it does seem like what would be considered relevant background, especially as a number of sources have brought it up in direct relation to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You may not be but it certainly looks like someone is. Unless we are doing original research or interpreting the data this info is not necessary here. An appropriate background on Gaza could be 1000 different numbers related to population, GDP, climate, etc. I think it should be moved to a relevant section with this hypothesis well sourced or removed.Cptnono (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Once upon a time ago, in an article far far away it was sourced, I had put a HRW source about that. Looking for it now to add again. Nableezy (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a source as to how it is related with a simple line or 2 and then moving it to a more relevant place in the article are what I am suggesting.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, here is the line from the HRW article I cited: "The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world." I really do think that as the Gaza Strip was the location for the major combat operations that should be included in the background. I dont think we need GDP and all that, but the basics about the location of the fighting would be considered background, wouldnt it? Nableezy (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Horrific urban fighting occured when armies attacked other places like Sarajevo and Grozny. But we couldn't say the same thing in those articles because the territoies of Bosnia and Chechnya have very low population densities. The problem is really urban warfare which may or, more often, may not be demonstrated by a comparison like the one in the article.

I think we should just be direct in what we're trying to say. This sort of information is important because it prefaces the fighting that we explain in the "Campaign" section. Maybe we could have a paragraph on the risks and factors that had to be considered before the fighting started. But I would eliminate the "most dense" comparison itself. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant comparison is that between the population density of the Gaza Strip and that of the Israeli towns into which the rockets are being fired. They are broadly similar. Dino246 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Id like to ask Dino to stop removing the information and also removing the source. State your case and if it reasonable you will likely gain consensus, this is not the way to handle it. Nableezy (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I am stating my case quite reasonably. The numbers speak for themselves, the Gaza Strip is no more densely populated than any other urban territory. That there is a commonly held belief that Gaza is particularly densely populated and that this myth is repeated often in citable sources does not change the facts.Dino246 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have been reasonable on the talk page. But you shouldn't be edit warring in the article itself. And remember (everyone) to mind the 3RRs. On the edit itself, I think that whatever problems the old version has, the newer version is worse. We shouldn't be comparing Gaza and Sderot to see who's is bigger. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about edit warring and although I still profoundly disagree with the article falsely claiming Gaza as being one of the most densely populated places in the world, I will sleep on it for the night. I understand why the population density of Gaza is relevant to assess the impact on civilians of the IDF's actions there. However, it is no less relevant as background information to the conflict than the almost identical population density of Sderot is. The population densities are relevant but reasonable frames of reference must be found rather than propagating the myth that Gaza is unusually densely populated. It isn't any more densely populated than the average urban area. Urban conflict exacts a high toll on civilians. Gaza doesn't need to be one of the world's most densely populated areas for this to be true so there is no need for exaggeration or hyperbole.Dino246 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Finding all the instances of "dense" in the article does show there a couple of sourced sentences stating how the density affects casualities and other problems. However, this paragraph at the beginning of the background section seems out of place. And this sentence, which started this talk section, is inherently subjective in nature: "The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth." We should simply state facts in a manner such as: "The Gaza Strip is densely populated, with 1,500,202 people living in an area of 360 sq km (4,167 per sq km). Nearly half of the population is aged 14 and younger." Then follow these facts explaining how they are significant to this conflict and hopefully have sources to cite these explanations. This info can be incorporated somewhere but we might find a better place than the background section, but if the background section is decided as the best place it needs to be incorporated better into it, right now it's just a floating paragraph at the beginning with no context provided at all. And the tone needs to stay neutral and sources added whereever it goes. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point with the GDP comment. I agree we need to be direct with what we are saying and move this information with the explanation as to why it is notable to a related section. Casualties strikes me as the best choice. It belongs in background as much as GDP or climate does.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't really belong in the background section, that's more like a history section. I was thinking the casualities section might be a place for it to fit too. Whereever it goes though, it needs to be a bigger paragraph explaining the context, rather than how it is now, just a hanging paragraph out of place. And it's especially getting attention here since it's at the very top of the article after the lead, where it doesn't belong. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. This is central to the background. The whole strategy of the IDF is based, precisely, on the density of its population. Air attack predominated, and computerized firing via drone surveillance etc., because no ground army can move rapidly through its densely built up areas.

Dozens of RS say it is one of the most densely populated areas on earth (Shindler for example). This is not calculated just by land extent, but by density of habitation in the refugee camps where 70% of the population is confined. The population density, and the state of endemic confinement in poverty, is considered relevant to the history of its problems, by Israeli sources (Arnon Sofer made this pop.density, and the forseeable pressure on radical politics to break out of the territorial imprisonment, one of the main reasons for the 2005 unilateral withdrawal etc.) The CIA Factbook 2008 ed. p.236 writes that:.High population density, limited land access, and strict internal and external security controls have kept economic conditions in the Gaza Strip . . .even more degraded', and goes on to put much of the blame for the degradation since on Israeli closure and destruction of infrastructure policies.

‘The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The 2006 population stands at close to one and a half million,, giving the region a population density of 3,750 people per square kilometer (9,712 people per square miles). As of this writing, Israel continues to control the borders and the airspace of Gaza. Gaza is, in this sense, an immense open air prison. Unemployment in this region is over 40 percent. Almost 66 percent of the inhabitants have to live on less than two dollars a day. In this context, it can be predicted that organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad will continue to receive the support of many Palestinians.’ Didier Pollefeyt, ‘Between a Dangerous memory and a Memory in Danger: The Israeli-Palestinian Struggle from a Christian Post-Holocaustr Perspective’ in Leonard Grob, Anguished Hope: Holocaust Scholars Confront the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008 pp.135-153 p.150 This makes the obvious nexus between throttled prisoncamp existence, high demographic growth and support for radical politics, and this is almost a standard formula in sociology for trouble.

Ist year sociology will tell you that poor resources, confined conditions, imposed degradation (the CIA description of Israel's policies), increasingly scarce water resources, constant military threat and embargo, plus a demographic boom (7.7 babies per family) make a perfect formula for radicalization, as indeed sources like Soffer argue. It is perfectly appropriate that this should say in where it is.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It still sounds like we are trying to lead the reader to that conclusion. Even with all of the above information properly sourced and explained, it still does not belong at the beginning. I honestly don't see how any editor can say they are not pushing a POV or agenda with the information there. "...it's especially getting attention here since it's at the very top of the article after the lead, where it doesn't belong" summed it up perfectly. Go ahead and put all that info in somewhere but give it its own section. Edit: Israeli–Palestinian conflict might be a better place for that level of detail.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Nishidani) Unfortunately none of that explanation or context is in the article (and if some of it is then the population numbers could be moved to where it is). If some neutral information about why the population density of Gaza is important to the background of the conflict is added to the paragraph that would help a lot. You also touched on Cptnono's point, if population density is mentioned then why not other demographic information too, which begins to make all this information either not appropriate for this particular article or needing to be severely summarized. But no explanation/context at all is also not acceptable. I also think, sourced or not, stating "The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth, rather than simply stating "The Gaza Strip is densely populated", is unnecessary. It's clearly subjective in tone, as Dino246 has been arguing. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

From HRW: "The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world." I think that should answer why it says among the highest in the world. Nableezy (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good like that. I still recommend a more appropriate place such as Casualties.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just subjective, it's plain wrong. Take a look at the maps in this blog[5]. Yes, it's a blog, no it's not a valid source, but please, let's stop trying to claim that Gaza is the most densely populated place on Earth when the claim is so ridiculously untrue, and like LonelyMarble said, unnecessary. That Gaza is as densely populated as the urban areas in which most of us live makes it plenty dense enough for a missile strike there to be dangerous, just as it is in Sderot or Nahariya.Dino246 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of what Cptono and LonelyMarble are saying. It seems inappropriate that the population density of the Gaza Strip would be the first thing mentioned in the Background section, as if to say that that statistic is the most important piece of information for the naive reader to understand this conflict. The paragraph always struck me as odd, and I wondered whether it was put there by pro-Palestinian editors, to imply that a military operation there was unjustified as it would inevitably lead to many casualties, or put there by pro-Israeli editors, to imply that the civilian casualties that occurred were unavoidable. I guess now I know. :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should also add background infomation as to why there is such a huge population. Nishidani mentioned the demographic boom (7.7 babies per family). I recall seeing a BBC news item which interviewed a man who was married to 5 wives and had 10 children by each of them. This man had 50 children! Is this common? Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As you probably know, Ches, I am always disconcerted by hidden analogies, where I see something pushed from one side, and its corollary on the other side is ignored. Much is made of Hamas hiding weapons in mosques or fighting from civilian areas, there is, in every such comment, a seething sense of outrage. People who plunk this stuff in forget that Jews and Israelis used synagogues to stash arms (Russia 1905, Poland in WW2, Iraq 1949s-1951, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in 1948 (hell, the preliminary briefing on the King David Hotel incident was done in a synagogue by Begin and his Irgun). The exquisite Hurva synagogue in Jerusalem was used by the Haganah as a defensive salient in 1948, despite a two day warning by the Arab command that it be evacuated by them to avoid it being a target in the assault, etc.etc. So with the demographics. The Haredim/Hasidim have extremely high birth rates, and this is viewed favourably as countering secular demographic decline in the numbers game (though they have only one spouse). As to the rest, if you starve, are cold, have no prospects, and lack electricity for a TV, tumbling in the cot is perhaps the default method for scrounging what little joy is left to one). Since Israel has smashed the prospect of a Palestinian nation, they have no way of surviving as a people except this. Sorry for soaping.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I dont think that is a fair statement. The sentence to me makes no judgment as to whether or not this is unjustified because of the density or any judgment that civilian casualties are unavoidable because of the density. To me it is giving the most basic information about the location of the hostilities. To Dino246, I don't think the comparison you are making between the strip as a whole and individual cities is valid. A large amount of Hamas rockets land in the Negev desert with a very low population density. I think the valid comparison is between the density of the Gaza Strip and the density of the area of Israel within range of Hamas rockets. As a territory the Gaza Strip has a very high population density, the comparison you are making is between a territory and city within a territory. Obviously cities like London, Chicago, and Seattle have higher population density, but states like Illinois and Washington have much lower population densities then the large cities within them. Nableezy (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should get into that game, comparing densities. Incidentally, the density is even higher in the actual urban areas where fighting and bombings took place. Gaza (city) seems to have a density more like 9,000. Anyway, the reason it is there, as I think we both see it, is because of the problems of urban warfare -- Israel couldn't launch an operation in Gaza without killing lots of civilians, even with the best of intentions. If that's the point, we should say that. It sounds like Nishidani sees a different point. So I think this is vague and potentially misleading when we don't have to be to make the same point. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't, but I see the population density as one of the basic relevant facts of the location of most of the hostilities. It seems as though there is a need to include the density of the area Hamas has targeted, I don't see that need but others have raised it. I agree with Nishidani's analysis as to why that figure has contributed to such a political atmosphere within Gaza, but I think the relevance of the density is in the fact that the hostilities have largely occurred there and thus the casualties have largely occurred there. That is why I think it necessary to include that information. Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

C'mon, Nableezy, is this really the first and primary fact that the reader should encounter in the background section? Is it more important than saying where in the world Israel and Gaza are, or what exactly the Gaza Strip is (country, territory, etc.), or when Israel and Hamas first started fighting and why, or what Hamas is? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the most basic fact. Everything else you say is more important is in the lead already. How much more important could they be? Nableezy (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I wouldnt be opposed to the phrasing: The Gaza Stip is a coastal strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea bordered by Israel and Egypt. It has one of the worlds largest population densities (HRW cite), with (CIA Factbook numbers). Nableezy (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, none of those things are in the lead! Your suggestion would certainly be better than the current situation, as long as it talked about Israel too, e.g. "Israel and the neighboring Gaza Strip are on the eastern coast of the Mediterranian Sea..." Why should it only talk about Gaza, when this is the Israel-Gaza conflict? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, it should talk about Gaza because that is where the hostilities have occurred. I pretty much took that from the Gaza Strip article. There can certainly be talk about Israel, we do in fact talk about the background as it relates to rocket fire, saying which cities have been hit and so on. But as far as those things not being in the lead: why did Hamas and Israel first start fighting (I assume you mean why they started fighting in this conflict, please correct me if I am wrong), this paragraph in the lead:
A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[29][30][31] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[32][33][34][35][36] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[37][38] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.[39]
what Hamas is I think is best dealt with in the Hamas article which is wikilinked. Where in the world the Gaza Strip and Israel are located is in the infobox map. What Gaza is, I think the proposal above would remedy that. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed already, many reliable and prominent media sources report the Gaza Strip's high population density as germane to the fighting there. RomaC (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Even from the point of view of military history, the geography, the topography, and the demographics of an area of operations is an important component. This is a no brainer. It should be presented in an NPOV, RS manner tho, I will be the first to say that it has at times been written in a SYNTHy way.--Cerejota (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that the population density of Gaza is relevant. My disagreement is with the inclusion of The Big Lie that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth which has been repeated so often that it has become hard for people to accept that it is untrue even when faced with the figures. Nableezy, comparing Chicago to Gaza City and Illinois to the Gaza Strip would make sense if the whole Gaza Strip wasn't smaller than Chicago. The whole Gaza Strip is a sprawling urban area, and even its most dense quarters, Gaza City itself, doesn't even make the top ten of densely populated world cities, being 6 or 7 times less densely populated than the world's most densely populated places. The Strip is 41km long by 6-12 km wide and houses 1.5m people. Just up the coast you could draw an identical 41km strip from Tel-Aviv to Haifa and find just as many people living there but no one has ever tried to describe Israel's coastal plain as one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. Draw the Strip's contour around any one of 100s of urban areas around the world and it will contain more than 1.5m people. It is such an often repeated myth that you will find thousands of sources making the claim that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. If you can find one making the claim from a scientific geographic basis and backing it up with facts rather than simply using it as a form of rhetoric than I'm listening. Making arbitrary political distinctions about what constitutes a 'territory' and using them for comparison is not NPOV. Only two numbers are important, the Strip's 4000/km2 and Gaza City's 9000/km2. Neither of them are close to the top of the list of the world's most densely populated places. Define it any way you like, the claim is just not true.Dino246 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot compare Chicago, which I think merits mention as the center of the world, to the Gaza Strip. And if bombs were falling on Chicago, God forbid, I am sure it would warrant mention that it is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Monaco is listed as the most densely populated country or territory in the world with a total area of 1.95 km2. Would the wording 'one of the most densely populated territories in the world' be acceptable to you. Just based on the numbers the Gaza Strip, which is a self-governing territory at least for the time of this conflict, there are ~4167/km2. That currently ranks as 4th in the world per List of countries and dependencies by population density. I can perhaps see why you disagree with saying it is one of the most densely places in the world, i think lie is a little far but whatever, but if it were to be stated as one of the worlds most densely populated territories be sufficient? Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another pretend example would be Guam, listed as the 37th highest density in the world and is a territory of the US. If a military operation took place there I would think it would be fine to say Guam has the 37th highest population density in the world. Nableezy (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no choice but to agree with User:Dino246. Comparing Gaza's density with other countries violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. To the extent that Gaza is compared to countries, it cannot be counted alone, but with all the PA-controlled territory in the Westbank. After all, they share (officially) the same leadership and government. If we are going to discuss Gaza's density on it's own, it is only fair to compare it to other cites (there are lots that are larger then Gaza).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that can be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We have a direct quote from a RS: "The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world." How can this be called OR or SYNTH? Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch, the source given, isn't reliable. If we are going to add a statement that is clearly problematic and probably incorrect to the article we would need the support of atleast a few reliable sources. Right now, it has nada. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As to Brewcrewer, why would we compare the Gaza Strip to "other cities"? The Gaza Strip is not a city. RomaC (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more comparable to a city then to a country. After all, it's a part of the PA-administrated territory. It walks like a city and quacks like a city. The fact that it includes a "city" named Gaza City is as relevant to the fact that New York City includes an entity called Co-op City or City Island.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

HRW is a reliable source, if you want to raise that on the RS noticeboard go ahead, but I point you to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch where it has already been discussed. Nableezy (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The link provided shows that there was no consensus for its acceptance as a reliable source. To that end, there's no way it can be used as the sole source for something contentious and problematic as this issue. Moreover, their area of expertise is human rights, not city density statistics. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No it did not, it showed that a few editors were against but every non-involved person agreed that it is a RS. Nableezy (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And I think a 7 yr old is expert enough to divide population by area. Nableezy (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brew, if you are arguing that the Gaza Strip is a city, can you provide some reliable sources to back that up? RomaC (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it's more analogous to a city then to a country, but I don't really have to prove it with reliable sources because I'm not trying to add any of my arguments or "facts" resulting from my arguments into the article. One thing is forsure, comparing Gaza alone to a country is incorrect and calling it one the "most densely populated areas in the world" (in the article at this time) is not based on a scholarly book or newspaper article, but mentioned off-hand in a Human Rights group press release. This contentious claim, which has shown to be erroneous, must be supported by reliable sources before it is included into the article. Right now it has no support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to prove that the Gaza Strip is a city, it's just that I wondered if you'd seen this in a source somewhere. Because I've never heard this argued before. I had a look on Google Earth and it looks to me like a one big city (Gaza) and a few smaller cities and several camps etc. So in my original research it looks like a territory. On what do you base your opinion that it's a city? RomaC (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another valid point is that Gaza strip population was not counted for some time now by statisticians. All numbers, like CIA fact book, are estimates, which could be right or wrong. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No that is not a valid point. If reliable sources say something we can accept it as fact. Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To the point we agreed not to include facts like Hamas considered terrorist group by some countries, since it's available in Hamas article. In similar way Wikipedia reader could click Gaza strip. Give Wikipedia reader some credit. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True but there is a credit crisis. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada I'm just going to write this here because I expect you'll see it. In the last hours you made four edits that significantly changed the article's tone, you have to know by now that these sort of edits are going to be reverted -- someone else got one, I got three. Also it is apparent that English is not your native language, so there is the matter of grammar in the edits, some of which frankly mangle the article. Can you please reach an agreement here then someone will edit the article, otherwise you are just making labor for other editors and you are not trying to do that, agreed? RomaC (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

He should, out of respect for the rest of us, limit himself to a few edits a day. This frenetic editing by Agadit, in poor English, causes hiuge confusions and one invariably has to come in with mop and slop bucket to clean up the mess. No side in the editing benefits from this kind of recklessness.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The passage stood there a long time, with, if I recall correctly, no serious objection. Then Dino 246 comes in and questions it, and suddenly it is problematical. Any simple Google, or Google Books search will throw up numerous RS's which repeat the point that Gaza (and note that we have an ambiguity here, since Gaza can refer to the Strip as a whoole or the city) is one of the most densely crowded places on earth. Dino insists that this a 'Big Lie'. The usual response is, we deal in wiki with RS and verifiability of statements from them, not with the truth. So the point insisted on is folly, irrespective of the merits of Dino's quest for truth.

Any article has a background section to contextualize the main subject in history. One of the defining things of Gaza after 200,000 refugees expelled from Lydda and Ashkelon ended up there in the aftermath of 48 (Sderot, the centre of rocket attacks, is so because that town was ethnically cleansed of its several hundred Arab inhabitants by the Haganah before Israel's declaration of independence: they all ended up in Gaza, the dumping ground for indigenous populations not wanted in the new state), is that huge numbers overwhelmed its natural growth: it was prosperous until then. All specialists, Israeli and foreign, note the important of the demographic build up against ever scarce-resources (the settlers down until 2005 got water at a third of the cost Gazans got it, pro-capita). It cannot, like Hong Kong opr Singapore, which support greater densities, ever aspire to that idiot Thomas Friedman's vision, because its burgeoning infrastructure of development, and its resources (offshore gas, the fishing industry) have been consistently destroyed in the long conflict by the IDF, which knows exactly what it is doing, i.e., pushing them to absolute despair, which means emigration (impossible) or accepting conditions unilaterally imposed by their regional overlord, Israel. The CIA Factbook notes itself that strategically Israel's policies keep it degraded, and degradation leads to conflict all over the world. Policy has consistently played the demographic card, the Palestinians in one way, (we'll outbreed you), the IDF strategists another (but your lives won't be worth living). I go back to Soffer's papers and books from ther 1990s to 2004. he was the architect of Sharon's disengagement plan, and he considered the demographic density absolutely central to Israeli planning for the Strip. If the disengagement plan, one of the central, most striking policies in recent times, was dictated by demographic calculations, so was support for Hamas, etc. I will dig up sources if one insists on this (but anyone can check this against the relevant literature independently). So, as I say, with Nableezy and others, demographic facts are crucial (they explain the way Israeli battle tactics developed, for instance, and why so many civilians will always be killed), and should be in the background.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(A)'The end result is a situation where one side can potentially be limited by international law where the other is not, and that effectively makes international law a potential weapon for the side that rejects and exploits it. It is also a situation that empowers and incentivizes extremists to use civilians as the equivalent of human shields by embedding their forces in civilian populations and areas, and using sensitive buildings like mosques and schools or collocating near them. There is nothing new about such tactics. They also affected much of the fighting in Iraq and now affect the fighting in Afghanistan. Their impact, however, is far more apparent in a densely populated area like Gaza. Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘THE “GAZA WAR”: A Strategic Analysis,’ Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 2009 p.2

Cordesman's analysis completely espouses the Israeli perspective, and therefore an excellent quality source for pro-Israeli editors, given the author's credentials.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(B)'The end result was that Hamas initiated the conflict as a weak non-state actor that could launch rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians and civil facilities over an extended period of time but had little other warfighting capability other that using its own densely populated urban areas as barriers. It did so in part because it had no other real means of combat. At the same time, it seems to have relied on the population density of Gaza to both deter Israeli attacks, and as a defense against Israeli land and air attacks.'Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘THE “GAZA WAR”: A Strategic Analysis,’ Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 2009 p.10 Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as more sources here you go:
From a report by the World Health Organization (a UN body): The Gaza Strip, on the eastern Mediterranean coast between Israel and Egypt has been the setting for a protracted humanitarian crisis. It has a population of 1.5 million with the sixth highest population density in the world, and a very young demographic with 18% of the population under 5 years of age (274 000 children). Recent events have resulted in a severe exacerbation of the chronic humanitarian crisis. available here (in the very first paragraph of the context section)
Is the WHO also not a RS? Nableezy (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to not lose site of one thing. Sure, density affects how warfare is conducted (relevant), and the effect of warfare on the civilian population (relevant), and because of those two facts, the population density of Gaza is relevant as well. But what is irrelevant is how that density compares to the rest of the world. Even if that is objective fact (disputed), it has no bearing on the first two relevant facts above. It only has bearing on the third fact, whose relevance is only in relation to the first two facts. If there were 10,000 places on earth more highly densely populated, Gaza's relatively dense population would still be relevant. So, either we state the actual population density and explain how those numbers affects our event, or we just leave it as a more general "Gaza has a very high population density. Because of that density blah blah blah by the residents of Gaza and blah blah blah by the Israeli armed forces."

Dovid (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Most sources, I've seen a dozen, but am sick and tired of typing stuff out that anyone can check themselves, use the 'world comparison' in talking of Gaza's human density. The place is isolated by military fiat. I see no reason to edit in such a way that even analogies or comparisons are suppressed, used by most Reliable Sources, to extirpate such comparisons with Gaza. What is it, a pariah sub-state even verbally, to be treated as autarkic, autistic, autonomous, anarchic, and self-referential, so no one can think comparatively? Objections so far to what is standard demographic comparative phrasing seem specious. Sources determine usage, not wiki wikilawyering. Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No? I'm sorry if you are sick and tired. But that doesn't make it relevant. You've just personalized it, that's all. We don't quote RS in full, we use RS to get relevant, factual details for articles. If the an article on Gaza discusses, in the same sentence, the tides coming in off the coasts, and the blockade against maritime commerce, do we mention both facts? No. The tides aren't relevant. The lack of maritime commerce due to the blockading is relevant. We skip the former and include the latter. The effects of population density are indeed relevant. We can show the relevance in the article; if we don't show it, then the density becomes meaningless. Throwing in "most dense" doesn't add meaning or relevance, and we won't be able to show the fit for the context. Does most dense it tell me that it is 10000/km2 or 50000/km2? No! Does it tell me that there's a difference between a mere "above average" density and a "highest in the world" density? No! This isn't lawyering, this is about good, pithy, editing, which seems to have been lost from this article. Dovid (talk)

dovd - your argument does not have merit. you want it to say "a very high population density." well, how do we define high? higher than average? the average what? you got it, the average population density in the world. its comparative, no? let's just use our source from the gaza strip article and say the 6th highest in the world. Untwirl (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"6th highest" is a comparative term, and the comparison is entirely arbitrary, comparing a small area of land, all of which is urban sprawl, to the countries of the world, most of which have vast areas of entirely unpopulated land bringing their average population density down. As 42km x 8km strips of urban land go, Gaza is not more densely populated than most having a population density of 4000/km2 which is comparable with the average small town. The truly densely populated places on this planet have population densities of over 20,000/km2. Draw a 42km x 8km rectangle around most urban areas anywhere in the world and you will find more than the 1.5m people you find in Gaza. Gaza does not have an unusually high population density but an entirely average population density for an urban area. The relevant fact that we are looking for is that Gaza is an almost entirely urban area in which the civilian population and the militant population are inextricably mixed. Claiming that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world is like claiming that Toni Basil is one of the top selling recording artists in the world. She's sold an awful lot more records than you or I have but she's far from being one of the top selling in the world. Gaza is as densely populated as the average urban area. This is important and relevant to the article. The erroneous claim of "most densely populated" that is based on an entirely arbitrary and misleading comparison with whole countries covering territory orders of magnitude larger than Gaza must be removed. It is factually incorrect, and its inclusion is politically motivated. Dino246 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A UN body, the WHO, says 6th highest. Another highly respected human right organization says among the highest in the world. If you want to make the argument that they are lying then fine, but for the purposes of this article it does not matter if they are lying. What matters is that they did indeed say that the population density is among the highest in the world. That you disagree with what they are comparing is also not a valid argument for inclusion/exclusion of material. We have reliable sources that say this is the case. That this has generated so much discussion when it is backed up by independent sources is beyond me. Yes most countries have large areas with few residents, not all like Monaco or some of the smaller territories such as Guam. Gaza is currently a self-governing entity, as a self-governing entity it does have one of the highest population densities in the world. That statement is backed up by reliable sources. Even if it were a bold-faced lie, which needless to say I don't think is true, reliable neutral observers have made that statement. The only possible argument that could be seen as valid is that it is not relevant, but I think it is clear that it is relevant and even those who do not want the wording see the relevance. Is there anything in policy that says we should not include this sourced, verifiable statistic? If not, can we please move on? Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this discussion has become long-winded for a relatively minor issue but I am against using it in any form in the current section. I think it would make a fine addition to the Casualties section.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties section? Then why not military section (where density defined much of the battle strategies), or why not . . .No consensus. Leave it where it is, and has been. There's a ton of work to do done without frigging around like this.Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been plenty of comments mixed in the argument over how to word it stating the same thing. SO there is not consensus for where it is now. Regardless of which section it goes, one of the lead off sentences in the background is a terrible place for it. actually really liked the HRW wording proposed by Nableezy.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think basic information on the area of the military operation is essential background. The WHO report I cited earlier in their report which focuses on the health risks in Gaza and discusses health repercussions from this 'emergency' has in its context section, the very first section of the report, the line about the population density of Gaza. The fact that Gaza is so densely populates is relevant background to nearly all aspects of this article. It is background to the type of operations performed, the way the operations were carried out, the claim that Hamas was using the high civilian population counts to shelter themselves, the high number of casualties, every single section of the article besides the reactions has as relevant background the population density of the Gaza Strip. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is out of place and not explained. There were 100 different ways to link urban warfare, casualties, etc to the demographics but it has not been done. Why is the youth population line in if not to make a point? So far, I think the majority of the handful of editors who have expressed an opinion on the placement aspect of the lines has agreed with me.Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am cool with moving that part to the casualties section. I dont think other demographics are as relevant to all of the article, they are relevant to part of it. But I do think population density specifically is relevant to all parts of the article. Nableezy (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't really understand all this. Why can't we just say that Gaza is very dense with several urban areas that would be the site of fighting. And we can explain why that was a great concern before the conflict began. Why do we have to include the 6th part? Does it say anything that we can't say another way? What does it bring to the party? In my mind the problem is that Gaza's population is urban, it is defended by urban guerillas and that an Israeli operation required urban warfare, especially air to surface and artillery attacks which would require heavy civilian casualties. The 6th part doesn't add anything unique and is potentially misleading. Beyond that a number of editors are opposed to it. So why should we keep it?

Can we not compromise and still raise the same points but in a way that everyone can live with? It seems that everyone automatically entrenches their positions without considering ways to compromise. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not arguing for the 6th part. Like Cptnono I am cool with the phrasing HRW used, among the highest in the world. Very is a subjective word and without any baseline doesn't actually say anything. Other editors seem to want to take out that part of it. That is what I am arguing against. Nableezy (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a comparison at all that the exclusionists have a problem with. Why do we need to say that all? Comparing it to other countries doesn't explain the problem as well as simply explaining the problem does. And I think it could be interpreted as saying that operations against Gaza are worse than in other areas which is true in a sense and an not true in another.

You know how in mediation you are supposed to separate positions from interests. My interest here is to say how dangerous an Israeli operation was going to have to be. But that's not my position. I think there are lots of ways we can say that. And hopefully one or two that might be acceptable to everyone. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why I like the HRW statement. It is a source that says something. There is no original research or interpretation on our part regarding urban warfare or military planning. It actually uses the data to make a valid and notable point. This source, however, is more relevant to the Casualties section than anywhere else currently in the article.Cptnono (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cpt I have a problem with that because putting the density information into Casualties does seem a synthesis. Background sets the stage so to speak, and a stage is location and players. RomaC (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

exactly. well put.Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think RomaC includes the population density in the location information. Nableezy (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per Nableezy. Here, density is a principal characteristic of location, and we see this reflected in numerous reliable primary and secondary sources. RomaC (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I probably should have explained my last comment. The background is the stage and players. I obviousley don't agree that putting it in casualties is synthesis since a fairly reliable source uses the data to make a valid point. Basicallly as it stands: It being in the background with the youth % is simply pushing an agenda. I know we are suppose to assume good faith but I don't. I think that whatever editor put it in is as bad as a liar for not admiting to it. There are several arguments for why it belongs in that section. I disagree with most of them but see how it feasibly could be done. It still would not be as appropriate since I don't think anyone will find a source really getting into the nitty griity of summarizing the density setting the stage for urban combat. Realistically, the tactics would be similar in the city/territory/country that is number 38 on the list but that is not why the line was added to where it was. It was added to push a view and would be better somewhere else in the article.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point on the youth percentage, if that were not included in the background would that solve any issues? Or do you think that the population density by itself does not belong in the background at all? Nableezy (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs (certainly as is) but have heard other editors provide some explanation on how they think it could be worked into the background. I think they deserve a shot at it before I completely discount it.Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For sources on how it touches on more than just the casualties section, which is why I think it best in the background section as it influences several sections, take a look at these: "Nevertheless, given the high population density in Gaza and the close proximity between homes, this has caused considerable panic and uncertainty among those receiving phone calls, as well as neighboring houses." talking about roof knocking, defined as an IDF military strategy, in a report from OCHA, or this, which is not a RS but think it may demonstrate relevance as an opinion piece from retired Israeli colonel Jonathan Fighel and "senior researcher at the International Institute for Counter Terrorism" where he says "The dense population concentrations in the Gaza Strip are an easy arena for the terrorist organizations to fight in and use its population to leverage its terrorist agenda" and "Hamas and the other terrorist organizations view the population density of the Gaza Strip, both in the cities and the refugee camps, as focal points in their operational capabilities to wage an urban guerilla style combat against conventional military armed forces. The tactic of deliberately enlisting civilians as human shields to protect the houses of terrorist operatives has proved itself effective, in the eyes of the Palestinian terrorist organizations, at least until Operation Cast Lead. That was because of their awareness that the IDF does not deliberately attack civilians, even though the target is permissible according to the laws of armed combat. The human shield tactic improves their freedom of action, provides a kind of immunity, blending within the population, creating an inherent difficulty to be identified (“Friend or Foe”), enabling terrorist operatives wearing civil clothes to act mostly unidentified until they act and attack the ground forces." here, which goes to multiple Israeli claims as to the violations of war crimes by Hamas in using 'human shields' and disguising themselves as civilians. Now I think you know me well enough to know I dont place these quotes here because I like reading that, just trying to demonstrate how this is relevant to almost all the issues. It goes to the type of operations conducted as being in an urban environment, the casualties, and the allegations of war crimes on both sides. Nableezy (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also this, (also not a reliable source just trying to demonstrate relevance): "Depth of penetration and operational tempo. The depth of the IDF's penetration will be a function of the operation's objective; the more expansive the goals, the deeper the IDF will need to penetrate. A deep incursion will likely require the IDF to use heavy (armor and mechanized infantry) and/or special forces in built-up, densely populated areas. Fighting in these arenas creates a whole range of problems, including the likelihood of increased IDF and Palestinian civilian casualties, as well as a slowing of operational tempo. The IDF has prepared for fighting in this environment, but urban operations are historically messy and slow." from an offshoot of AIPAC, Washington Institute for Near East Policy here. Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to tackle using the density data in the background please do. There has been plenty of discussion but it still has not been fixed so someone (you I hope) should go for it. It doesn't need to be a reasoning as to why it should stay just a few good lines on how it shaped the conflict. Currently, I really want to remove the % of kids but have a feeling there is not consensus. Any complaints to that line being removed or moved to a more appropriate section?Cptnono (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stock taking

Since there's no consensus for it's insertion, it's clearly problematic as explained above, and it's not really supported by reliable sources it should be removed pending support in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

it is supported by RS, I gave you 2, the WHO and HRW. Nableezy (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the house of cards falls down because there's no consensus that these two are reliable sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with Nableezy, there has not been consensus and I still think it is a silly agenda pushing line for some editors anyways. I'm OK with removal.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hold up, there absolutely is consensus that HRW is a RS, if you want to take that up in the reliable sources notice board go ahead. You want to try to dispute the reliability of the World Health Organization good luck with that. Nableezy (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And there was a rough consensus (or at least the people objecting accepted the sources providing to stop objecting) for its original inclusion back in Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_26#Background Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not to say there is consensus now, only that there 'has been' consensus on its inclusion in the not so distant past. Nableezy (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The earlier consensus regarded its relevancy. I agree with that consensus, it is relevant. This issue was about its factual correctness. There is no consensus for the background to state a fact that is not supported by the statistics. Editorial decisions to remove something trumps its mention in a reliable source. Moreover, the one source, HRW, is of questionable reliability. To the extent it can be considered reliable, we can't use an off-hand tangential line concerning an area outside their area of expertise as the sole source in support of a apparently erroneous statement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistence cannot trump policy. Do not remove this. RomaC (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Roma: We already have you on record in the earlier section supporting its inclusion. The issue at this point is how it can be included despite the clear lack of consensus, the clear lack of solid support in reliable sources, and the clear dubiousness of the statement.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is backed by 2 RSs, if you want to question the reliability of those sources gos ahead, but both the WHO and HRW are reliable sources. Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nab: You're just repeating yourself. Again, to the extent HRW is reliable (unclear), we can't extrapolate one off-hand tangential line that is outside their area of expertise to support the inclusion of an erroneous statement in the face of a lack of consensus. Btw, where is this WHO source that you mention?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating myself because I am faced with repeated assertions that I think are incorrect, namely that the statement is not backed by RSs. This isnt an off-hand tangential line, it is one that was repeated in countless articles, including CNN The San Fransisco Chronicle Reuters and Haaretz to name just a few. I just thought it would be better if I just quoted the original source from HRW, which, just for the fun of repeating myself, along with the WHO is a RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have a simple solution: We can put the fact that this comes from the HRW in the text of the article. This is the usual practice for contentious and weakly supported claims. I'm unsure if the other editors arguing against its inclusion will agree, but I'm on record in support of this compromise. Also, do you have a link to the WHO source?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WHO report discussing health issues in the Gaza Strip and how this 'crisis' has contributed to those health risks. It has a population of 1.5 million with the sixth highest population density in the world, and a very young demographic with 18% of the population under 5 years of age (274 000 children). Nableezy (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The WHO does not say that it's the "one of the most densely populated places on earth". Also, your silence in response to my compromise offer is deafening :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that I regard HRW as a RS so I thought it was clear I disagree that it weakly supported. I also did not say the WHO said it was one of the highest in the world, would you rather it say 6th highest? I could accept 'The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a high population density(cited to HRW and WHO) (with CIA numbers). Also, I can find a whole bunch of reports from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, another UN body, that make the same remark as background to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions are clear, but so are mine and I've agreed to a compromise. Even assuming HRW is a reliable source, you must admit that the statement is not strongly supported. At the end of the day, an organization whose sole agenda is giving the news is a better source then an organization whose sole agenda is not giving the news. Plus, we only have one source for the claim of "one of the most densely populated places on earth". There's been lots of news coverage about Gaza, yet no source outside of the HRW said this. And yes, I would prefer the WHO statement to the current format. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So what do you want it to say? Nableezy (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Imo, the order of preference according to WP:RS and WP:V is:

1. Nothing. The Background section should start with Gaza's population and its area.
2. The Gaza Strip is a densely populated area.
3. The Gaza Strip is the sixth most densely populated area in the world, according to the World Health Organization.
4. The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth, according to Human Rights Watch.

---brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the others have specifically objected to the 'sixth most' part, is there something wrong with
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a high population density(cited to HRW and WHO) (with CIA numbers).
or do you think both the WHO and HRW are unreliable or that the WHO statement that it is the 6th highest in the world is at odds with what is written above? Nableezy (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brew, please do not set up a discussion section that simply frames the issue in your perspective. Contrary to your premises above, Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization are reliable sources; prominent and reliable media sources do not consider this an "erroneous" or "dubious" statement, you do; and the "lack of consensus" is more accurately the tenacity of two editors who don't like it and are determined to push for a false compromise. RomaC (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly your requesting of me. Do you want me frame the issues according to your perspective? I might agree with that if you would in turn agree to frame your issues according to my perspective. But I don't think that's an ideal scheme; things can get complicated quickly. I think we should just do like everyone else - I'll frame issues according to my perspective and you'll frame your issues according to your perspective. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have explained it more clearly. Please do not start a new section, which is a place that we hope maybe some uninvolved editors might come, with a set of premises that are products of your own perspective, without identifying them as such. This section starts with "Since there's no consensus for it's insertion, it's clearly problematic as explained above, and it's not really supported by reliable sources..." That is a set of three premises that do not objectively reflect the previous discussions, which some uninvolved editors might not take the time to plow through. RomaC (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the confusion, but my format should not have been taken as an indication that I was suddenly not going opine according to my own perspective. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I am concerned that uninvolved editors will look at a new section that has been introduced in this manner, and say 'well, if there is no consensus, and the content is erroneous and there are no reliable sources then cut it'. In fact there was consensus very recently, and the information in question has very reliable primary and secondary sources. I think that's where the confusion lies. RomaC (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus for removal. the sources are reliable. brewcrewer, please stop making these ridiculous arguments. let's see, according to you: human rights watch, the world health organization, and including your previous comments, amnesty international and "the notoriously anti-israel independent" are all unreliable sources. i don't think many editors are going to agree with that. there is alot of genuinely valuable work that needs to be done to update and improve this article. i'm sure you have some good contibutions, but this isnt one of them.Untwirl (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WHO and HRW are reliable sources for health and rights issues but not for scientific questions of population density or geography. They are not an authority to reliably make claims that any given area is one of the most densely populated in the world. Having said that, I am quite comfortable with "The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a high population density(cited to HRW and WHO) (with CIA numbers)." but I do think that in the interests of fairness, and to ensure that it is not misleading, it should be pointed out that this high population density is common right the way up the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, including the Israeli coastal plain, and is not unique to Gaza.Dino246 (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, Dino, your distinctions regarding when and on what WHO and HRW are reliable primary sources represent your opinion. Reliable media including CNN The San Fransisco Chronicle Reuters and Haaretz disagree with you and do say among the highest population densities in the world. RomaC (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

All along the Israeli coastal plain is not relevant. This article is about this conflict which occurred in Gaza, not all along the Israeli coastal plain. As far as the sourcing, if anybody want to take this up in the RS noticeboard feel free. Nableezy (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No implications intended, but I notice the question of population density is also a point of focus for Camera RomaC (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What implications would there be? It has been an issue for CAMERA since at least 2005. [6] Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that we need to accept that there's a difference between a reliable source (which WHO and HRW undeniably are) and an infallible source (which doesn't exist). That they are RS does not make them right about everything. I think that I have objectively shown that the claim is false. Anyone with a calculator can see that. It is a very common misconception and we need to be careful about repeating it citing sources that don't back up their own repitition of the claim with evidence. The conflict did not occur only in Gaza. It started in Sderot, Netivot and other Israeli towns up the coastal plain with population densities at the same 4000/km2 level as Gaza. Find me a scientific first hand source claiming that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world and I'll shut up. Comparing the population density of this small urban strip with the average population density of entire countries is a meaningless and, in this context, an extremely misleading comparison. The towns into which Hamas have been randomly firing missiles for years are equally densely populated and this fact is at least as relevant to the background of the conflict as any other, if not more. The rocket fire from Gaza is the background of the conflict.Dino246 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is another issue, the background to the event and the reason or inciting incident(s) for the event are two different things. In this regard it would depend on which side you asked, sources show that Israel regards the 8,000 Hamas rockets since 2005 as the reason for Cast Lead, I think that information is well represented, it appears in the first paragraph of the article. (On the other hand, sources say Hamas was motivated by the Israeli blockade, military incursions, targeted killings and border incidents.) On the RS question, I can't imagine that nobody at The San Fransisco Chronicle, Reuters, or Haaretz has a calculator. RomaC (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem with accepting the "most densely populated" claim, since we know what Gaza is like, and has been for a very long time eg this guy in 1989 - Joe Cortina whtt@cox.net, "... retired Florida businessman who has done substantial world traveling - some purely as a 'tourist' and some in areas - shall I say- 'nothing to do with vacationing'." - he says: "... My 'specially authorized' trips included Gaza City ... a ride down the main street looked like a scene from some WWII movie. ... no building with any floor above the first. ALL buildings had any additional floors blasted into rubble - much of the jagged former construction black and charred. This was a city street no much different from any American small town. Shops, restaurants, services, apartment etc. blown to bits and vacant as a tomb. ... to reduce any cover for potential snipers who might threaten Israeli patrols." Recent reports have spoken of 20 people squeezed into one room - I think that's "most densely populated" enough for most people. PR^talk 13:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that most reporters have calculators but the "most densely populated" myth is so axiomatic that even I questioned my ability to divide population by area when I discovered that my own sleepy town shared the same 4000/km2 population density as Gaza. It is the most densely populated place on earth in the same way that my garden is the most densely wooded place on earth. With 2 trees in its 15mx15m area my garden is actually more densely wooded than Brazil, Austria or Canada. If it were a country, my back garden would be the most densely wooded country in the world. The "most densely populated" claim for Gaza would be equally absurd were it not so universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources. I think that we are surprisingly close to consensus if we'd just concentrate on formulating an acceptable paragraph rather than getting sidetracked into rhetoric. Does anyone object to: "The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. The entire coastal plain, both Palestinian and Israeli, is mostly urban and has a largely uniform population density of approximately 4000/km2, comparable to other urban areas around the world."Dino246 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you truly believe you are right, but on Wikipedia the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. As other editors have advised, you might take your arguments to the reliable sources noticeboard, thanks. RomaC (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit wrong ? http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/95caaf8cb4436686852575360063f3df!OpenDocument Sean.hoyland - talk 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to it for reasons stated above. Nableezy (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I once dated a ballet dancer who had special shoes and when en pointe occupied about a square centimeter, giving that area of my floor a population density of ten billion/km2, blows my mind. RomaC (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i object to the original research. we say what reliable sources say, not what we think, believe, calculate, etc. The point you make here, " The "most densely populated" claim for Gaza would be equally absurd were it not so universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources" shows that you concede that that fact is "universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources" but you believe it is wrong. this should show you the folly of your argument. the fact is supported by rs, your opinion is not. if you have reliable sources to back up your research and say that gaza's pop dens is "comparable to other urban areas around the world" you should provide them for balance, but not including reliably sourced information just because you disagree with it isn't justifiable. Untwirl (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that map Sean. Now take a look at this one [7] and explain to me in what way Gaza is unusually densely populated. Quite clearly the 22x8km strip surrounding Tel-Aviv is just as densely populated as the 22x8km strip around Gaza City. How about the 22x8km strip around Manhattan [8]? Or the one around London [9]?Dino246 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i am impressed by your diligence at looking for sources, please find some for other parts of the article. are you suggesting that we use these maps in the article? or are you wanting to use these maps as justification for your synth and OR? this whole discussion, based on your (admittedly superior) calculator skills, seems to be fairly simple. unless you are being WP:DENSE? c'mon lets move on. i believe we were about to reach a compromise to leave it alone and remove the children demographic. anyone? Untwirl (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino, you mean Tel Aviv ? But that's one of the most densely populated places on earth. Don't bite me, I just said your number was a bit wrong. Anyway, what Untwirl said above is the wiki way, it's all about the reliable sources even if they don't seem to make sense from your perspective. Arguments about densities are pointless or rather endless anyway because they're a function of spatial sampling, bin size (as RomaC's ballet example illustrated) and various other factors. A group of people can't really have a sensible argument about X unless they all agree to a common set of parameters that define the way X is calculated and we shouldn't be doing that. This has been an odd discussion because Macau is almost certainly the most densely populated place on this planet at ~17-18,000/km2 but if you go there, wander around a bit and have a look for yourself you'll see it feels pretty much like other places. If someone started dropping bombs and shelling it, it could be a bit of a problem. I suppose that's the salient point. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the salient point. Gaza doesn't need to be "one of the most densely populated" to understand the high danger and high civilian casualty count. It's an unnecessary (and inaccurate) claim that should be removed from the article. Here are a couple of sources backing me up. [10], [11]. The second one shows that the Gaza Strip is to all intents and purposes a city. In both area and population it is near identical to Leeds in the UK which is the 57th most densely populated city in the world. On the assumption that cities are the most densely populated places on Earth, the Gaza Strip is statistically the 57th most densely populated place on the planet. A bit lower down the list than anywhere that could be fairly described as "one of the most..". Even Gaza's most densely populated few acres, Gaza City itself, doesn't make the top 20. Sourced. Can we remove this clearly untrue statement from Wikipedia now please? Dino246 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I still agree with Dino's points. A larger problem though is I still think the paragraph is out of place anyway and should either be moved elsewhere in the article or at least have some contextual explanation as to why it is the first paragraph in the background section. I'm sure there are plenty of editors who have noticed this paragraph and were a bit puzzled; the fact that it stood so long in the article without a lengthy discussion means nothing. When I first saw the paragraph it didn't sit well with me either, but I didn't have the time to start a huge, lengthy discussion like this one. But since it's out there now, I just wanted to reiterate my opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, what is wrong with this:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a high population density(cited to HRW and WHO) (with CIA numbers).
I know you want to also include the Israeli density of the areas Hamas has targeted, but besides that what is wrong with the above line? Nableezy (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And nobody, I mean nobody, here has said it is the most densely populated, we have said one of the most. Bit of a difference. Nableezy (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have some new sources. It is particularly hard to find sources confirming that something isn't true because it's like looking for something that isn't there. The following sources regarding worldwide population densities are notable only in as much as they don't mention Gaza as being particularly high: [12], [13], [14], [15]. The following source that I found is the most useful though because it allows us to make a clear objective comparison between the sourced population density for the Gaza Strip of ~4000/km2 and the average urban population densities around the world, [16]. Gaza is actually of below average population density for the "middle and low income world" (pop-density = 9200), is almost identical to the average urban population density of the UK (4100), and is only marginally above the world average of 3500. Please take a look at the source. It proves that it is inaccurate to even describe Gaza's population density as "high". It is at most, slightly above average. Gaza City itself is absolutely average for the "middle and low income world". I suggest changing the opener to:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a population density of approximately 4000/km2, typical of urban areas around the world. (cited to [17]) (with CIA numbers)
. Dino246 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the sourcing for 'high' is adequate (HRW: among the highest in the world; and WHO: 6th highest), and since you have objected so strenuously to any comparison to the rest of the world (6th highest, among the highest) I find it curious you are now attempting to use a different comparison. I prefer the wording I used earlier as it is sourced to neutral observers, and in a concession to the rest of the people here it took out any comparison to other places in the world. Nableezy (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"typical of urban areas" is synth and OR Untwirl (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I objected to comparing a small urban area to entire countries, not to making a comparison that will give readers context for what is after all, a rather abstract statistic to most. I do accept the synth comment and potential OR with the use of the word "typical" though and am happy to separate it out into two unrelated sourced facts and allow intelligent readers to draw their own conclusions.
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a population density of approximately 4000/km2. (with CIA numbers) The world average for urban areas is 3500/km2. (cited to [18])
It is important to give a frame of reference when using a unit of measurement like "people/km2" and the world average is probably about as NPOV as you can get. Dino246 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But you are still making an arbitrary choice as to what to compare it to. Before, we were using RSs to make that comparison for us (WHO: 6th highest or HRW: among the highest in the world). I am not questioning the reliability of the demographia.com source, but on first look it does not seem to be a RS, though I think their numbers are accurate. I do think that 'high' (man I wish I was) accurately describes the density per the 2 neutral RSs that we have put forward, without adding any commentary or comparisons on our own. Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

brewcrewer informed me that i was being uncivil and that he had taken offense at my use of bold type, characterizing his argument as "ridiculous," and linking to WP:DENSE. first of all, running around accusing editors of incivility is disruptive. i would like to point out that he has made his own fair share of condescending remarks, including accusing editors of building houses made of playing cards which are not up to code and will be managed by slumlords taking advantage of impoverished communities. however, as a show of good faith, i will suggest alternate words that i can replace ridiculous with -"preposterous", "illogical", "irrational". as a further show of good faith, from now on i will only link to WP:ICS, if that is less offensive. Untwirl (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally hit the source jackpot! Demographia's raw data, urban areas listed in ranked charts: [19]. This reliable objective scientific source is already used on Wikipedia's List of urban areas by population. Table 4, "URBAN AREAS BY POPULATION DENSITY" starts on page 69. They only define 44km2 of Gaza's 350km2 as 'urban' but this part of the Strip is the 38th most densely populated urban area in the world. High, but not one of the highest. I think that now that we have objective data we should avoid comparative terms and just use the number:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. Its most concentrated urban area is the 38th most densely populated urban area in the world. (cited to [20])
Dino246 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See you are still saying that one comparison is valid and another is not. Gaza City is an urban area, the Gaza Strip is more than that. If you want comparisons I would be more comfortable with a UN body (like the WHO) which says 6th. You just said that it is 'high'. Why dont we just leave it at high instead of having this become a circular discussion with me rejecting your comparisons and you rejecting mine. I dont think we are going to get anywhere like this so I say follow JGGardiner's advice about leaving comparisons out of it. Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a comparison. I have changed the text. The "one of the most" statement was clearly incorrect and misleading. I have removed it and added that the Strip "contains an urban area that is the 38th most densely populated". This is factual, without commentary or arbitrary comparison, and is scientifically backed up by an expert source whose speciality is population density. Dino246 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are, 38th is a comparison. And it is a comparison to a bunch of cities, not territories. The UN says 6th in reference to the whole strip. I think that is more reliable than demographia.com. One of the most was accurately sourced. I changed it back until there is consensus for the change. I think we are getting somewhere and if you chill we will find something all of us can agree to. Nableezy (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun by making the edit, you are right about that and I apologise. For the record, and further discussion, it read like this:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. According to the CIA Factbook as of July 2008, it holds a population of 1,500,202. on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi). It contains an urban area that is the 38th most densely populated in the world.[21] Almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger (44.7% as of June 2007).
Demographia are not making the comparison to cities. They are quite specific about being blind to municipal and political boundaries. They define urban areas purely by population spread. The most densely populated 44km2 of Gaza is 38th in the world listed as 16000/km2. Until now we've been counting Gaza City as 9000/km2 which made it city number 57. The 4000/km2 density of the Strip as a whole is not unusually high by any standards. I've shown that repeatedly. It only makes a top-ten list when compared with whole countries but that is surely the most arbitrary comparison of them all as not even Hamas defines Gaza as a country. 38th from a list of 100s of urban areas worldwide is high. You won't find a way of doing the maths that places Gaza higher so let's defer to the scientific source and let the facts speak for themselves.Dino246 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we would be best off not including any rankings, just because there seems to be a pretty large range that various sources have put it. I think the term 'high' is both well sourced and sufficiently vague as to not upset too many people. (and no need for apologies) Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And I would be willing to have the percentage of children be in the casualties section as it seems that it is more relevant to a specific aspect of this article then it is to most of it. Nableezy (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino what you are doing is original research, you can't selectively define sample area in order to lower the density number. The Gaza Strip is not a city, it is a territory with an area larger than Bermuda or Liechtenstein. We are following Wiki policy and using verifiability based on reliable sources as the threshold for inclusion. I am certain other editors see your points, but enough is enough. RomaC (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still being discussed ? We should be thankful that there's no time constraint here. If this were a discussion in an oil company about fish/cetacean pop density and whether the number does or does not indicate a potential risk to spawning in an exploration area we would have all been fired by now because we would have missed the availability slot for the seismic vessel or drilling rig. I admire Dino's persistence here but it's the wrong approach even it it makes perfect sense for a particular set of calculation/comparison rules. Remember that there are other words and phrases used in this article that rely on unspecified/implicit definitions of local density fields. Some examples...

• human shield (HS), is a Hamas guy standing next to a civilian a HS situation, within 10m, within 100m or is the whole Gaza Strip one big HS
• targeting of civilians - whether someone is targeting civilains or taking appropriate measures to avoid civilians depends on the spatial bin size you use to compute the local civilian density etc

...and of course there are many, many more. Pop density in the strip is just one. We can't street fight over all of these terms by trying to apply our own pet methods. I'm okay with Nableezy's generic approach here the term 'high' is both well sourced and sufficiently vague but let's avoid specific figures. Whatever we do it clearly has to be based on multiple RS because this is getting challenged vigorously. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Link numbered 17 as one of Dino's link provides this http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-countries-by-population-density . It ranks Palestine at number 8. If its good enough for Dino, it should be good enough for Wiki. Cryptonio (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

His argument has been Gaza is not a country so it is not proper to compare its population density to other countries. Nableezy ([[User talk:|talk]]) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Say, how many cities in the world? would the top 200 or so make it to the list as one of the most densely populated? Gaza would make it in the top 100 if you ask me. Completely arbitrary. Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to break it down, to cities over 200K, 400K or 1M, Gaza would creep up and up the list. Know why? because it is a densely populated area(its size is the key here, its miniature). That is how the WHO and the CIA and whoever else who likes numbers reached the fact that its one of the most densely populated area in the world. The simple approach, would be to rank Gaza's density against the cities of the world, vis-a-vis. IF in fact those who are arguing against its ranking consider Gaza a city at all. Cryptonio (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a function of the size of the spatial bin that your throw your data points into. It also depends what you call a city, depends what the source means by 'the world' (i.e. rules for inclusion or exclusion of data based on...pick some random criteria that cause sampling errors e.g. census date, couldn't afford the dataset cost etc). Using this OR approach we could even deconstruct the implicit and unchallenged identity models in I-P articles based on discussions about population genetics, anthropological criteria, re-classification of the Abrahamic faiths based on our own category modelling and so on. It might be entertaining but we would be here forever. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to compromise on "high population density" as long as the following reference is included as I believe it is the only one with a truly agendaless scientific basis. It places Gaza 38th which is high by any standards. [22] It took me 3 days to find it, let's put it there so that others conducting their own research and making their own comparisons can find it more easily.. Simply stating that Gaza's population density is "high" is honest and supported and may contribute to breaking the myth that Gaza's population density is "the highest" or "one of the highest". A claim that journalists and politicians repeat so often that just last week I believed it unquestionably myself in the same way that I believe that the Cheetah is the fastest land mammal. I'm off to check that one now too.. Dino246 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino Sorry but what you propose seems to me a false compromise. And, the source that took you three days to find deals with Gaza City. The many reliable primary and secondary sources reflected in the article presently all concern the Gaza Strip, which is where the event the article deals with takes place. Good luck in your research on the cheetah. RomaC (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And to think Gaza did not have this 'problem' before. To be pushed to the corner and be argued in favor because of her relatively small size. What a disgrace to bring this up as an argument. Two points can be added, among many to clarify the argument, but they are not coming out of me. Cryptonio (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record

This discussion is a microcosm of the general problem here at this talkpage. One editor has brought well-sourced strong arguments refuting the tangential claims of one barely reliable source and all he has gotten in return are scorn and insults by the swarm of editors who insist on keeping this article as a propaganda piece. User:Nableezy is the one exception. Kudos to him for atleast showing a willingness to listen and come to some neutral agreement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

yo man, chill you're going to hurt my rep. Nableezy (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

and seeing as how you like watching me repeat myself, I have to object to the term 'barely reliable' in reference to HRW, but at least you are not saying 'not reliable' anymore so I guess we can let that pass. Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All non-media organizations are barely reliable. Organizations like the Human Rights Watch or the Anti Defamation League should never be used to support any contentious claim, especially one that has been proven to be factually problematic. These organizations have their agenda and are always interested in validating the importance of their organization. The more human rights violations the more we need the HRW. The more antisemitic attacks the more we need the ADL. Most media organizations are interested in one thing only - that people consider them to be good reporters, reliable, and neutral; that's why they are considered reliable. What's most damming about the article's claim is that with all the media coverage Gaza has received, not one media source has described Gaza the way this article does. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that editors who would be considered pro-Palestinian are more persistent with this article. It is a real shame that this article and subject are so polarizing it makes it hard to find neutral tone and wording.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I've learned myself that no matter how much I disagree with Nableezy he seems to be a stand up guy. Now on to why he is wrong...Cptnono (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I way to move forward might be to say things like what you just said more often: we need to really treat each other with such respect, even in disagreement, but in particular must try not to setup strawmen. Contrast with Brewcrewer decrying this article as a "propaganda piece", if this is a propaganda piece, then what are CAMERA and Electronic Intifada? I mean, brew, lets have a sense of proportion: this article needs work, but nothing egregious escapes the notice of either side, so if it is a propaganda piece it because you set the bar of what is propaganda to anythign with which you disagree... Which usually means that it is not propaganda in favor of your side. I got news: any NPOV article will leave both sides unhappy, because it takes two to tango. Calling "HRW" a barely reliable source is propaganda: the only people who said that are those who recieve negative reporting on the part of HRW. The New York Times, Washington Post, The Times, The BBC, all those other barely reliable sources are happy to cite HRW left and right as a reliable source of factual information and balanced opinion. For the record: trying to lump a general human rights organization (HRW) together with an active Zionist organization (ADL) is comparing apples and oranges in this case: it would be like comparing Likud to HAMAS, after all, both are political parties. What makes reliable sources reliable is what other reliable sources think of them, and HRW is well respected by other reliable sources. On a note on consitency, I would like to see you battling the inclusion of the JTA and INN with the same fervor as you battle HRW: but of course, this might be the whole point.--Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that HRW, Amnesty international, and several other sources are valid and reliable. However, sources like these do promote a certain agenda which is not necessarily anti-Israel but is anti-human suffering. This can lead to unbalancing the article by victimizing the Palestinians who are obviously the underdog with civilians suffering on a greater scale. The article should be about IDF v Hamas and the effects it has on both people, policies, armies, etc but it runs the risk of putting too much emphasis on civilians being victims in the strip .Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Before you rip into me, get your facts straight, Cerejota. I did not say a word in support of the JTA as a reliable source. I don't know what the "INN" is. Also, the ADL is not a Zionist organization; it's an organization that fights antisemitism.

A POV-riddled encyclopedia article is a greater propaganda piece then whatever CAMERA and Electronic Intifada spit out. Why? Because everyone knows not to take those sites seriously. This is an encyclopedia, and people assume that it is neutral. I guess if it gets bad enough people will stop taking WP seriously, as well.

The fact that HRW is cited by the other reliable news organizations means nothing. Reliable sources also continuously quote Hamas and IDF spokespeople. Is the IDF spokesperson a reliable source? Whenever they cite to anything the HRW says they always qualify their statements as "according to the HRW". The very fact that they always qualify the HRW, like the always qualify the IDF and Hamas spokespeople, is itself an indication that these reliable sources do not consider the HRW to be reliable. None of the reliable sources have ever said what this article says about Gaza on their own. Wikipedia is the first entity that claims to be neutral to cite to the HRW as if it's a reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get into this again (though I think news organizations cite to HRW to give it more prestige then the paper saying something but that doesnt matter) there are other sources like OCHA or WHO that say high (or 6th highest) or whatever. How about we just try to figure out what it is that most people would accept? Nableezy (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not my type so I won't rip into you: I tend to like girls. :D

You didn't say a word about JTA either, in particular when Doright accused people of being antisemitic for not considering it a reliable source: silence is not consent, but it can be inconsistent.

INN: Israel National News, TB's favorite "news" outlet.

This article is clearly tagged as having its neutrality under dispute, so any reader who ignores that does so at her peril.

There is difference between quoting, and accepting as a reliable source. In other words, the RS might quote Hamas, but question the veracity of their statements. They have not done such a thing with HRW, not in this conflict, not before. In fact, some reliable sources (the BBC and the NYT) routinely use HRW information in their reporting without qualification - contrary to what you state.

The ADL is a Zionist organization, as part of the B'nai B'rith, and while their work against antisemitism is laudable, as is thier lesser work on other forms of ethnic and racial discrimination (including against Arabs post-911), they have also come under criticism for their involvement with red squads, some elastic definitions of what constitutes antisemitism (for example, the controversial usage of New antisemitism concepts), and more recently their strong meddling in the internal affairs of Venezuela under the guise of fighting antisemitism (mainly cause Chavez and Almanidejahdjidad [sic] are BFF for nao). It is far from neutral in this case, and it is a Zionist organization, by any definition of the word.

That said, I do hear your point, and it is a valid one, but I do not like the comparisons you make, again, because they are apples and oranges comparisons. Just because they are fruits we do not have to treat them the same way. When I think you are making a good point (and you do make them) I will support them without reservation, I do think right now you are not making a good one.

One of the best ways to deal with verifable information from sources that can be controversial is to get other sources, rather than removing them in the meantime. If the statements verify, we keep them.

On this point A POV-riddled encyclopedia article is a greater propaganda piece then whatever CAMERA and Electronic Intifada spit out. Why? Because everyone knows not to take those sites seriously.

It is interesting, because the same way Babycue turned up to be cause celebre of the EI crowd, so does a number of the talk page discussions take on a distinct CAMERA flavoring (and I regularly read both): for example the population density crap (THIS THREAD!) is straight up marching orders from CAMERA. So of it is positive crap (ie Gaza is not the densest place on earth - d'oh!) but then the kids forget to hold their horses and want any discussion on density to be eliminated, something no RS has "corrected".

In fact, original research reveals the chatter on military history/strategy blogs (none of which are sympathetic to Hamas) is placing a lot of focus on this around the MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) engagement of the IDF, and the HAMAS counter-strategies, such as bobby trapped houses, "human shields", snipers, and tunnels. Demographic density of Gaza is a key factor in the military history and actual history of this war (as I already stated) and strangely enough, it actually works in favor of the IDF in the balance (ie international law clearly permits combat in urban areas - whith the implied understanding that this increases civilian casualties). CAMERA, as usual, shoots Israel on the foot with its histerics. The sad part is that the CAMERA Rangers decided to make wikipedia their battleground, so we have to deal with disruptive threads on what should be easy solutions fixed by rewrites and additional sourcing.--Cerejota (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, for starters, I sure wish you would stick to the facts and not characterise others' thinking. I don't recall claiming that Israel National News was my favorite news source. I'd appreciate it if you provided a diff when claiming to know another's thinking. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The remark about people here getting their "marching orders from CAMERA" and calling people here "CAMERA Rangers" violates WP:AGF. It certainly doesn't do anything at all to improve the atmosphere here. I am really surprised that you would do such a thing simply to make a WP:POINT. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, you are wrong: there was an ArbCOm, and this ArbCom proved two things: 1) CAMERA is meatpuppetering 2) Such behavior is against the spirit and the letter of our policies 3) It should be handled as par of our DR process 4)Pointing it out in the talk page is part of that process. Calling a spade, a spade is not failing WP:AGF. The double-teaming that you and Brewcrewer do on your vendetta against me is a failure of AGF: I didn't accuse either of you of being CAMERA, because I simply don't know. But I do read CAMERA and find it curious that whatever cause celebre they pick up all of the sudden shows up here, regardless of what the RS say. I simply pointed out this fact. And this thread is obviously disruptive, because contesting the simple inclusion (as opposed to due weight etc) of relevant, reliably sourced material is disruption. --Cerejota (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Marching orders from CAMERA?" Was that aimed at me? If so I resent and strenuously deny that. I don't even visit CAMERA, really I don't. I wasn't aware that anyone else was contesting the "most densely populated claim" I just did the maths and something smelled funny. I'm not going to get dragged into the RS argument because it is a sidetrack, suffice it so say that I trust HRW as a reliable sources - on matters pertaining to human rights. If they said that the Cheetah was the fastest land mammal I'd check elsewhere for verification though. (It is by the way..). On this question of the population density of Gaza their claim is misleading and not backed up by any scientific sources on population statistics. I believe we have consensus for the phrasing "high population density". Those in favour say "aye". Dino246 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No it was not aimed at you, as I had not had the pleasure of even speaking to you before. However, why would I have directed it at you?--Cerejota (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think anybody was accusing you personally, but keep in mind that some people still have a bad taste in their mouth from the CAMERA wiki-lobby fiasco. That said, I am fine with 'has a high population density (with CIA numbers)'. Was I supposed to say 'aye'? Why does this have to be so complicated, I think Ill just say 'I concur with the motion before the committee though I wish to attach a rider amendment' Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But if a number needs to be in it I think it has to be 6th based off of the WHO report. I think the UN can have the final say on what to compare Gaza's density to. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be my proposal in full: The sentence above somewhere up there in the background, the HRW quote on WP use risk being elevated because of the high population density in the WP part with an explicit cite, the WHO quote on the minor percentages in the casualties section with an explicit cite. That would satisfy some of Cptnono's concerns I think, Dino's I think, and brewcrewer I think. Let me know if I thought wrong or if they dont satisfy those concerns enough. Nableezy (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why it is needed in the background when you put it that way but it doesn't hurt my feelings too much. I also fully agree with your placement in the other sections listed.Cptnono (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I said some of your concerns ;), and truthfully I would want it to say more in the background. Nableezy (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying only "has a high population density" is as wrong as saying Canada "is a big country" because we would be using a general description instead of a specific one. How specific can we be here? WHO and HRW peg the Gaza Strip's rank at top ten, and most secondary sources -- and there are many reliable and prominent media doing this -- use something like "one of the highest population densities in the world." So we use what these sources say. This is not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, this is pro-Wikipedia. RomaC (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The atmosphere on this talk page is bad enough without editors poisoning it by accusing others of taking "marching orders" from any group. I am still choking on that one. Because editors here bring up an issue which CAMERA has addressed - which I noticed earlier in this 2005 article [23], they are somehow "taking orders?" It is possible that someone could go to EI or ISM and find that editors here are addressing the same issues and make that same accusation. But we haven't. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But you defend those who call me an antisemite? I dont really care about that, but do you have anything to say on the above proposal? Nableezy (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually dont even know why I am trying this, my first attempt at compromise failed miserably so I doubt this one will get much further than that. Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But Canada IS a big country. Kidding of course, I know that isn't the point. Seriously, Nableezy, you're on the right track. Go ahead and put it in. Worse comes to worse is we talk about it for another 10 hours, it goes through some edits, and maybe a revert or two. Overall, I think you have the right idea so go for it.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I cant bitch at users who change the current wording without consensus any more if I do the same, I think we can wait for a few more people to speak on it. Nableezy (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as saying high not being specific enough, I think that would be the one way of removing any objection based on what it is we are comparing Gaza to. If we compare it to the cities we get a different ranking compared to ranking it against sovereign entities, or other self-governing territories. It could turn into an endless debate about whose numbers are right which really is just an argument as to whose choice of comparison is right. I think by just having 'high' we could leave the direct quotes about density and what specific bodies have said the density is in relation to specific aspects of the article (HRW quote in WP section, WHO quote in casualties section) allows for everything to be accurate, well sourced, and without much cause for dispute. But lets just see what other people say, I very well may be wrong and most will object to it quite loudly. Nableezy (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Nableezy. We say that Gaza's population density is "high" and provide the multiple sources that have the facts, figures and various comparisons that put Gaza anywhere from 4th to 57th depending on how large a sample area you use and what you compare it to. That way the article is indisputably factual and sourced and gives people the tools they need to make their own decision about where Gaza is ranked as this is the least relevant piece of information. The article on water says it boils at 100oC. It doesn't say that it has the 432nd highest boiling point of all liquids and its talk page doesn't have a massive discussion about how it depends which liquids it is being compared to. Dino246 (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BAM! Good enough for you, Nableezy? I still might give you a hard time myself if it isn't perfect :) Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

not yet, just give it a bit, we can leave the article as a propaganda piece a while longer. of course, as long as it is 'my sides' propaganda :) Nableezy (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're funny, Nab. But at this time of the night, it's only us weirdos that are reading the article. So there's nothing to be gained :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you fine with my proposal? The line I wrote a while back and the direct quotes in the sections where they are most relevant? Nableezy (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

All I know is the first sentence of the background section, and I agree to that part. I have yet to make it past that point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there an ETA on getting past that point or is it an irreconcilable difference? Nableezy (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just change it to something, anything that doesn't have most densely populated places on earth as one of the first things you see highlighted right there in the opening sentence! Dino246 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps more finely worded, what would your objections be? We would be moving the % of children to the casualties section with an explicit cite to the WHO in a direct quote, and we would be putting the HRW quote in a context where it fits nicely, in the section on white phosphorous, as a direct quote with an explicit cite. What part of that would you object to and why? Nableezy (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And Dino, there are people from all across the world, from what I am sure of as far from Vancouver to Thailand and pretty much everywhere in between, that are editing this article. I dont know what the hell it is I am doing awake right now as it is 2 in the morning where I am at. Lets just give everybody a chance to see it and comment on it before making a change that some people may object to. Nableezy (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - it's mid morning here.. Good night. :o) Dino246 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sun never sets on Wikipedia. But as the Vancouver guy I guess I can go first. I'm very happy with Nableezy's proposal. It seems fair and I think it goes far enough to satisfy everyone's concerns. What I like most about it is that it is an actual compromise. None of us are ever going to write the article exactly the way we'd like it. So there's no point digging our heels in when something else works and would be acceptable to other editors as well. The proposal is really beautiful in its adequacy. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

True to a certain extent, but wikipedia is slower when the US is asleep. From another PST editor, goodnight (well I had a weird day so "night" is relative) and I assume not much will be different when I wake up per the sloth pace of this article. One of my favorite editors made a quote about persistence once. I never realized how true it was until recently. I wish editors would be more bold in their changes so it wasn't such a concern. I've been off and on this page for the last 19 hours and not much has changed. I've noticed the best changes were not discussed on the talk page but were neutral enough to not raise too much of a concern.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Being bold is cool, but when others have already voiced their objections Id rather stay timid. Nableezy (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"...Gaza is ranked as this is the least relevant piece of information."Dino...this, in order to challenge other points about Israeli using 'collective punishment' and Hamas 'having indeed, land to operate on, not necessarily where civilians live...i see this coming and its not a wave or anything, you just have to open your eyes. IS anyone out there willing to research how the CIA and others come up with the fact "Gaza IS one of the most densely populated area in the world"...ANYBODY? its not that complicated, look "figures and various comparisons that put Gaza anywhere from 4th to 57th depending on how large a sample area you use and what you compare it to."Dino...there is hope for them to understand what that statement means, and not what is just saying(when repeated by media). Cryptonio (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's follow Wiki policies

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth based on reliable sources. And there are prominent media saying "...Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world" (my emphasis), for example: CNN, The San Fransisco Chronicle Reuters and Haaretz. Let's not do original research to determine our own relative density figures. Let's use reliable sources, let's follow Wiki policy.RomaC (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets get the article fixed. Wiki policies are relative to what fits the need at the time for some people. If Neb or another editor makes a monumental edit sometime soon we can use that as a base to nit pick at but as it stands we are arguing over small stuff when it comes to how to word density data.Cptnono (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree we should move on, and I hope some editors will stop wasting all our time and accept reliable sources clearly supporting the density qualification we have now: the World Health Organization and Human Rights Watch, the prominent media cited above, and these below, which took me 15 minutes to find:

• "Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world" Radio Netherlands
• "Gaza Strip ... a territory that has become one of the most densely populated in the world" Al Jazeera
• "Gaza is one of the world’s most densely populated areas" Bloomberg
• "Gaza, which is home to 1.5 million people packed into one of the world's most densely populated areas Thompson Reuters
• "The fact that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world" The Australian
• "the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world" Beaufort Gazette

Is that sufficient, because frankly I see the dogged opposition as something of a push for a false compromise. Let's be pro-Wikipedia, please. RomaC (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

When did the media become the ultimate infallible source for an encyclopedia? I don't see Reuters or Al Jazeera quoted too much in the article about fungus. There isn't a single scientific or academic source that backs up this "one of the most densely populated" claim that is so often repeated in the popular press. The population density of Gaza is high. The only academically researched source that I found places it 38th. There is no justification, political, scientific or otherwise, to separate Gaza from the rest of the Palestinian Territories and comparing its population density to existing countries. Indonesia's territorial islands are not individually listed in population density comparison tables and neither should Palestine's. It is a comparison that is not made by a single scientific source. Wikipedia's policy does in no way, shape, or form say that reliable sources are all-knowing on all issues. They should be used selectively according to their expertise and not one single source that has population density as its expertise describes Gaza's population density as anything other than "high". Wikipedia policy says that we should too. Dino246 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

the attack was not on the palestinian territories, it was on gaza. therefore we should say what reliable sources say about gaza, ie, "one of the most densely populated areas in the world." if its good enough for reliable sources, until its refuted by other reliable sources its good enough for us. Untwirl (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's refuted by thousands of reliable sources. National Geographic, nationsonline.org, the United Nations Statistics Division, the UN Population Fund [24], Demographia, (I could go on), none of which describe Gaza as one the world's most densely populated places. It's a claim made by journalists and well-meaning but misinformed charity-workers and backed up by not a single expert in geography, demographics, or population density. Are you expecting me to find sources that explicitly deny it? That's as unlikely as finding a source that says "Leeds is a city in the UK that doesn't have one of the world's highest population densities". It does however have 1.5m inhabitants spread over its 350km2.. Dino246 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dino, where does the UN Population Fund refute anything? I checked the link and found nothing. Demographia provides comparative data for Gaza City and other metropolitan areas, not the Gaza Strip. I have pointed this out to you before: "Gaza City" is a city or metropolitan area; the "Gaza Strip," is a self-governing territory. The event in this article takes place in the "Gaza Strip." Can you see the distinction? RomaC (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And Dino, media are the reliable sources that are used throughout this article. There are also primary sources such as the World Health Organization:

• "(The Gaza Strip) has a population of 1.5 million with the sixth highest population density in the world" World Health Organization

I appreciate that you feel passionately about this but please, enough is enough. I hope you can apply your zeal to the general improvement of Wikipedia by following its policies. RomaC (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is not a self governing territory independently of the rest of the Palestinian Territories. It is at best a country subdivision. See this list for comparison to its equivalents around the world: List of the most densely populated country subdivisions. It doesn't even come close to making the list. Gaza's most densely populated urban areas when compared with their equivalents comes 38th. This is the highest positioning that a reasonable and scientific comparison places Gaza. It is "high". Dino246 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Dino, I dont think any of the comparisons you have brought are valid. Gaza is certainly a self-governing territory, or does Hamas have governmental control of anything outside of Gaza? That said, I have already said I am willing to remove the comparison aspect because I dont think it adds much to the discussion. Is the fact that Gaza is the 6th (or whatever) most densely populated place in the world affect all the aspects of the article differently if it had been the 12th most densely populated place? It certainly does affect the aspects of casualties as that shows why the casualties are high, and it affects the intl law section because people have brought it up in relation to heightened responsibilities on Israels part. But it does not affect the military operations any more than saying the IDF was operating in a high density area, or the other sections where high population density is relevant. But I do disagree with the comparisons you are bringing, and like I said earlier I think the UN can have the final say on what to compare Gaza's density to, which they do in the WHO report. Nableezy (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Density discussion: Another arbitrary break

Whew! This one keeps getting longer and longer. Let's summarize where things are now... which is really where they were a few days ago. Everyone agrees that Gaza is densely populated. There is contention over:

• whether comparatives are relevant (6th highest per one source) or only absolutes
• whether to consider the city population density separately or the strip as a whole
• whether it belongs at top of background, in background at all, or only in a section where the effect of density in warfare/casualties makes it most relevant

My current position (please note, not the same as my original position):

• Let it stay in background, but the same or an immediately adjacent sentence should explain why it is important.
• The background would make more sense re-ordered so the reader sees some chronology to the background, and the facts build on each other. Perhaps everyone could consent to this for the text:

Hamas views Israel as an illegitimate state and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled, and not a legitimate government or political organization.

Hamas took control of Gaza after winning 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and a 2007 military victory over Fatah. Subsequently, Egypt closed the Rafah Border Crossing, while Israel closed off all remaining access to Gaza in July 2007. The blockade allowed Israel and Egypt to control the flow of goods going into Gaza, including power and water. Israel halted all exports and only allowed humanitarian aid shipments into Gaza. Palestinian groups have built tunnels to bypass the blockade. Israel alleges the tunnels are used for weapons smuggling.

Between 2005 and the start of the 2008/2009 conflict, Palestinian groups launched over 8,000 rocket and missile attacks into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens more. During this period Israeli air strikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations have killed more than 800 Palestinians. A ceasefire reduced the level of armed conflict for much of 2008.

Toward the end of the ceasefire, Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh stated that a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 border and would be acceptable, and could offer Israel a long-term truce, if Israel recognized Palestinian national rights. At about the same time, Hamas and Israel both elevated the armed conflict level, without breaking into full-on hostilities.

This intermediate period ended with Israel's Operation Cast Lead, against the Gaza Strip, whose dense population (by some measures, the 6th most dense in the world, population over 4000/km2) contributed to significant loss of life during the ensuing military conflict. Dovid (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that ordering, and some of the changes in text. But specifically to the point where the sentence should go I think it is important to determine what the sentence should be. Besides that, I think I have demonstrated, along with Nishidani a long while back linking to a Cordesman study, that the density impacts much more then just the casualty count. As to the placement, I think the very first paragraph should be the basic information about the location of the conflict, that strikes me as common sense in an article about a military conflict. I include population density in basic information about the location of the conflict. But to the rest of the proposed rewrite I would suggest taking it up one paragraph per thread to avoid a range of discussion that could end up being excessively hard to follow. I do have serious issues with some of the language changes in the other paragraphs, but I would rather discuss them in another thread if that is amenable to you. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree material about the location is important, and should precede the information above. What is wrong with the ordering? It is very linear, whereas the existing text is scattered; the linearity helps make it easy for a newbie to understand it! I really don't want t o take it up one by one until we can get a basic stucture down. That's writing 101 -- get the outline first, get the details afterward. That's how you avoid the current, as I said, scattered structure. Density language: If you have a proposal to reword the density sentence to include better information, please go ahead and post it here. W/O any other context, it fits well with the casualties factoid, but if your re-write has something significant to add, then it may make sense to rework it. Above all, I'd like us all to aim for better, not best, necause Sean is right, we'll never get consensus if each of us is looking to get his own best version.Dovid (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see consensus as unobtainable on this density issue for several reasons so I'm just going to repeat what I said what seems like ages ago "I'm okay with Nableezy's generic approach here the term 'high' is both well sourced and sufficiently vague but let's avoid specific figures. Whatever we do it clearly has to be based on multiple RS because this is getting challenged vigorously". If a term used in multiple RS is contentious it will always be challenged by someone because a full description of the method used to assertain the description is absent. There are a variety of different terms in the RS which, for all we know, have all been obtained using different methods or from different sources. The term 'high' seems fit for purpose if that is supported by multiple RS and it allows consensus to be reached. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're for taking out the CIA factoid. I'm not against. Would you prefer just: ...against the Gaza Strip, whose very dense population contributed to... Dovid (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposal above had the CIA fact book info, and I think the ordering as it is now is good. Do you also want to discuss individual problems with the language used here or just have the ordering? The reason I said to do it elsewhere is that you combined language changes with changes in ordering, I dont care which gets sorted out first but they shouldnt be together. It will get way to complicated trying to do an entire rewrite of a section like that. If you want to discuss ordering thats fine, but lets not do it at the same time as we are discussing language used. Nableezy (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On the density statement I'll accept anything that falls anywhere between a) >= 1 person lives in the Gaza Strip and b) the population density is so high that it violates the Pauli exclusion principle as long as we can support the statement with several RS that we can all agree on. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Other" section includes "reaction casualties"?

The deaths and injuries were sustained the West Bank? How exactly do they merit insertion here? Chesdovi (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Other" section is in fact a sub-section of the "Effects" section. Those deaths and injuries were a result of protests over the conflict in Gaza. I don't see a reason to remove it Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So do we add the injuries of Jews and Israelis as a result of protests here? I thought all that stuff belonged on the reactions page? Chesdovi (talk)

Well that's the question isn't it? There seems to be a fair bit of discussion and edit waring going on about this kind of stuff. I would suggest leaving it for now, maybe weigh into the other arguments with this and see what the consensus is. Whether it's in the "Effects" section, or the "Reaction" page matters little to me as long as the information is represented. Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on! Tertiary effects? There's the conflict, the protest about the conflict, and the injuries sustained in the protest to the conflict. The protest might be a significant event related to the core subject. Injuries sustained during protest are a detail that really has no bearing on the core subject. Remove it, the author was sloppy to even try this. Dovid (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. West Bank injuries should not be included if injuries to Israelis outside Israel are not included. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reactions" is for that. Effects is for the immediate area of operations: southern Israel and Gaza Strip. BTW, did you just quid pro quo this? The ArbCom said some choice things on quid pro quo in the whole Allegations of apartheid debacle.--Cerejota (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But injuries to Jews outside Israel are included (anti-Semitic attacks in Europe). Secondly, the West Bank is not "outside", but rather considered an integral part of the Palestinian territories.VR _talk 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it more about how direct the correlation is? As I pointed out earlier, demonstrations are secondary to the conflict, events incidental to the the demonstrations are tertiary, which, especially post-conflict, are extraneous. So WHERE something happens is not so much important as to WHY it immediately happened. In the case of these injuries outside Israel, I'd like to hear thought as to whether the injuries themselves are attriucted to direct reaction to the conflict, or are they incidental to something else? Dovid (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Schools in Effects section

I linked this story on the Effects article talk but maybe it should be here too.[25] It gives the number of schools destroyed and damaged (37) plus closed as refugee shelters (18). Last night I didn't see much of this stuff but I noticed Nishidani's addition of mosques. Sound okay? --JGGardiner (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Friend, just noticed this. I put in 90 mosques last night because several hours earlier, trawling through dozens of articles, I saw that as a late estimate, forgot to saze the link, and now can't find it. Today I haven't either. Since I can't verify this, I hope it has been reverted to the earlier figure. If not, I'll do so myself.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I hadn't even noticed that. I just saw your summary at one point. But I notice that we still have the old source which says 20 mosques. I was about to update the effects article to say 24 but it uses the same 20 source. Do you have a source for the 24 number? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I originally saw that googling and got aln al-Jazeera clip mentioning 24 mosques damaged. Rechecking I see it is a video, which is not enough for me. Rechecking further I found some sites which give the following list of 27, but which comes from a site I don't trust (even if reprinted on anti-Islamicist sites), and confuses holy sites with mosques:-

I. The Masjid of the Martyr Imad Aqel in Jabaliya camp for Palestinian refugees in north Gaza, the bombing of the mosque by the Israeli warplanes on Dec. 28, 2008 resulted in the collapse of an adjacent house, causing the death of 5 sisters from one family and injuries of number of citizens who are living nearby.

II. Masjid Al-Saraya was completely destroyed on Dec. 28, 2008 through the air bombing of Al-Saraya governmental compound in the center of Gaza city.

III. The Israeli warplanes have targeted Majid Al-Abbas and the neighboring Al-Abbas police station in Gaza city on Dec. 28, 2008 that resulted in substantial damage.

IV. Masjid Al-Shifaa Mosque was bombed by air Dec. 28, 2008, inside the mosque were a lot of a relatives of ill persons and four of them were killed. The mosque is located near Al-Shifaa medical complex in Gaza city. The bombing created a state of confusion among the medical staff and teams who are working in the hospital, deepening the difficulties in the hospital after being subjected to significant damage by fragments of missiles and pieces of stones and cement. Israeli missiles turned the mosque to a pile of rubble. The two rockets that directly struck the dome of the mosque resulted in two large holes, the stones and the columns of the mosque scattered and spread out in adjacent roads, houses, and shops causing a lot of damage.

V Masjid al-Fadilah, Rafa, Palestine, Jan. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Khaled Omar)

Masjid Abu Bakr Al-Sideeq is located in Beit Hanoun town in the far north of Gaza Strip, the Israeli warplanes have fired several missiles towards the mosque on Dec. 29, 2008 causing complete destruction. The dead and injured had been recovered from under the rubble.

VI. On Dec. 29, 2008 the Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Ezz Al-Dien Al-Qassam martyr mosque in Abasan / Khan-Younis in south of Gaza Strip destroying it completely. The Israeli authorities did not mention any reason for this bombing.

VII. On Dec. 29, 2008: Bombing of Masjid Al-Ribat in Rafah resulted in seven 7 dead 3 of them are children.

VIII. Masjid Al-Abrar” in Rafah was bombed on Dec. 29, 2009 and again on Jan. 15, 2009. The mosque has been completely destroyed.

IX. On Dec. 29, 2008 the Israeli warplanes have bombed Masjid Riad Al-Saaliheen mosque in the north of the Gaza Strip.

X. Around 3:00 AM at Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008, at dawn, the occupation warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Faruq Omar bin Al-Khatab in Al-Breij camp in the center of Gaza Strip destroying it completely.

XI. Masjid Abu Hanifa Nu’man located in Tal Alhawa south of Gaza city, was targeted with four missiles on Dec. 31, 2008, resulting in destroying it completely, the injuries of five women, and damage in a large number of adjacent houses.

XII. On Jan. 1, 2009 the occupation forces fired a rocket that caused damage to Masjid Khalil Al-Rahman in the Abasan area east of Khan Younis.

XIII. On Jan. 1, 2009 an Israeli bombing has targeted Masjid Al-Nasr, an ancient mosque in Beit Hanoun town in the north of Gaza Strip resulting in its destruction. The mosque was built in A.D. 736.

XIV. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli warplanes targeted Masjid Al-Khulafa’ Al-Rashideen” in Jabaliya camp for Palestinian refugees in the north of Gaza Strip, the Israeli forces fired several rockets towards the mosque and destroyed it, and resulted in injuring several Palestinians and damage in several neighboring houses.

XV. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli forces bombed Masjid Omar Bin Abdel Aziz in Beit Hanoun resulting in enormous damage in its buildings.

XVI. On Jan. 2, 2009 the Israeli jet warplanes type F-16 bombed the mosque of the Martyr Ibrahim Al-Maqadmah in Beit Lahia town far north of Gaza with a large bomb weighting 500 kg when tens of worshiper were performing the prayers, resulting in a massacre with 16 people killed and dozens injured.

XVII. The Israeli warplanes at the dawn on Jan. 6, 2009 bombed Masjid Hasan Al-Banna in Al-Zaitoon neighborhood north of Gaza Strip resulting in destroying it completely. The bombing resulted in the injuries of several persons and the burning of a number of neighboring houses.

XVIII. At 9:00 PM on Jan. 7, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Taqwa in Al-Shiekh Radwan neighborhood north of Gaza city, and re-bombed it four hours later, resulting in the killing of 4 Palestinian civilians, the injuries of others, and resulted in the destruction of the mosque that was composed of four floors and the damage of about 10 neighboring houses.

XIX. About 11:50 AM on Jan. 7, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Noor Al-Mohammed located in AL-Jala’ street in Gaza city, causing complete destruction to the mosque, killing and injuring several Palestinians, and in damage to neighboring houses.

XX. On Jan. 7, 2009 at about 2:00 A.M., the Israeli warplanes bombed the police center in Bani Saheela east of Khan-Younis, resulting in destroying it and damage in the neighboring buildings including Masjid Hamza, with no injuries.

XXI. On Jan. 8, 2009 the Israeli forces fired artillery shells towards the houses of the citizens and Masjid Ibad Al-Rahman in Wadi Al-Salqa village.

XXII. Occupation forces destroyed Masjid Al-Ribat in Khan-Younis on Jan. 9, 2009.

XXIII. On Jan. 10, 2009 Israeli warplanes bombed Masjid Al-Ssafa in Al-Breij camp resulting in partial destruction.

XXIV. On Jan. 11, 2009 at 3:00 AM, the Israeli warplanes of type F16 have bombed with many missiles “Dar Al-Fadeela” mosque that follows the house of virtue orphans which includes elementary private school, the college of Dar Al-Da’wa for human sciences, and a computer center. That is located in Taha Hussein street in Khirbit Al-Adas neighborhood north-east of Rafah. This causes the complete destruction of the house Dar Al-Fadeela.

XXV. Masjid Bilal bin Rabah in Rafah south of Gaza was destroyed completely in the first week of the war against Gaza, the photos of the destruction of this mosque were displayed in a lot of media around the globe.

XXVI. Masjid Al-Salateen in Jabaliya was targeted by a bombing on Jan. 14, 2009.

XXVII. On Dec. 28, 2008 Masjid Al-Estiqamah in Rafah city was significantly damaged as a result of bombing in adjacent areas by Israeli warplanes. The mosque is located in a densely populated residential area causing the damage in tens of neighboring houses. Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on schools in Gaza are referenced several times throughout the article yet the attack on the Israeli school in Beersheba was just removed. Realistically, the editor had a point that it may not belong in the "Effects" section. It jumps out at me though since it might (not sure myself) have been possible to work it in in properly if the editor chose to do so and other schools are mentioned in all sorts of random places throughout the article.Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Follow-up: Just saw it referenced in another section of the article very well. Maybe the editor knew that already when deleting the info from the effects section.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dump?

Sorry, but could smoeone tell me whats the point of dumping the above couple of screens in here? Dovid (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.

There are some facts that consistently censored from background section describing period after Hamas took control and before this conflict intensified by some "NPOV" editors. The fact of Gaza - Egypt land border existence is undeniable and important to blockade discussion. Rafah crossing was closed under Hamas rule after European Union border crossing monitors fled and after Hamas breach trial PA and Arab foreign ministers objected control of the border by Hamas. It reflects dynamics of blockade development. Quotes for inclusion:

• Subsequently Palestinian sources reported that European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing for fear of being kidnapped or harmed.

• Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.

Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as I said before I'm with you on this one. I'm not particularly good with words though because everything looks like numbers to me... As for the border control how about if we say something like

Arab foreign ministers, Palestinian officials, the EU and Israel are all opposed to the control of the Rafah crossing by Hamas....or something like that.

I've changed my mind on the monitors. How about if we say something like

Monitors from the European Union Assistance Mission left the area when the internal Palestinian fighting commenced and have not returned. ......based on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7205131.stm and your source.

Other's may be able to fit it all together nicely. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Israel maintain a de facto control over the Rafah crossing, and the Egyptians have to provide information on crossings for Israeli approval? I dunno. On the blockade question, one of the things I objected to in the last edit was it said that Egypt was blockading Gaza. That is inaccurate because the Gaza coastline, which should allow access to international waters, has been blockaded by Israel and the Gaza airport was destroyed by Israel. Anyway I expect other editors will chime in on whether they think info on the Euros who were at the Egypt border is relevant to the event and should be in the article, I don't think it is particularly important. RomaC (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding too. Israel has overall control at the crossing...in theory. In practice I'm not sure anymore and I haven't got time to find a good RS. Also, yes, let's be clear, Egypt isn't blockading Gaza strictly speaking...not that it makes any difference in practice. Having said that I did see a report that Egypt (not Israel) refused to allow humanitarian aid from the Iranian Red Crescent in....not sure how reliable it was. I think the monitors are only important in the sense that they were an essential component of the agreement as to how the crossing would be operated so I thought...if we're going to talk about the crossing they should get a mention. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Close, an Iranian ship with Red Crescent supplies attempted to reach Gaza, was turned away by the Israeli navy and is in international waters outside of Egypt's waters attempting to seek permission to dock in Egypt. Permission has not yet been granted. But Egypt did not prevent the ship from reaching Gaza, Israel did. Nableezy (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this one. http://www5.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=339890&IdLanguage=3 Sean.hoyland - talk 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Same one, by 'not cooperating' that means Egypt did not allow the Iranian ship to dock in Egypt. I first saw this here. Nableezy (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another boat is stuck in Limasol. Cyprus said on Wednesday that it is waiting for UN guidance on what to do. See here AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's makes more sense now. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you're approximately in the area. Go to Rafah, hire a small motorbike, buy a pizza, go to the border and tell whoever is there that you need to deliver it to someone in Khan Yunis and that a late delivery penalty will come out of your salary. Be prepared to provide a few slices to the border guards. Let us know what happens. Or better still let the BBC know what happens and then we can add it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sold my bike, but still have an old Arai helmet & gloves. Peek me up at Taba Border Crossing :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very wise because..."In 2006, 35,903 people were injured, and 414 killed in traffic accidents in Israel, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. Of the fatalities, seven percent were motorcycle riders, despite the fact that motorbikes comprise only 1.6 percent of the vehicles on the road, according to data from Israel's Ministry of Transportation."..from here...which does make me wonder whether the IDF should sell a couple of F16s and spend the money on road safety instead. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually get all of my info from CAMERA obviously, so this might be a good place to start. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=1549 Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I hear you all and performed following edit. I agree that Israel has a lot of influence on Gaza strip and its population still With Israel controlling land, air and sea access at least on land part does not reflect reality. In addition we could also reflect Israeli High Court role in balancing Israeli government blockade policy in question of Israel population security and defending Gaza strip population against collective punishment. At lot of sources about Israeli High Court and Gaza, this for instance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Land access is correct, they control almost all land entry points. Much of the rest of the edit is not germane to this conflict, like what does Alan Johnson have to do with this conflict, did Israel say they are fighting Hamas to make Gaza safe for journalists? I dont think this edit is good, and I would suggest reverting it until you can find some consensus for it. Nableezy (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And it just is not right, the border wasnt closed because EU monitors havent returned, the border was closed because Egypt closed it. I dont see the edit adding anything usefull and it just makes the paragraph look more complicated than it needs to be. Nableezy (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, we reached an agreement by discussion in the past. You know I respect your opinion and fix my mistakes. I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I think we both agree that Egypt-Gaza strip international land border formerly called Philadelphi Route is not under Israeli control since August 2005. EU border monitors were part of relatively Israel-free Rafah crossing operation. This arrangement worked pretty good in the past. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody agreed to that edit. I dont even know why you want to change what is there. What problems do you have with what is currently in that paragraph? Nableezy (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, with all respect, you entered this discussion in the middle and sounds like you out of date. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what you think is wrong with the current wording and what your proposed edit would add that is useful and relevant? Nableezy (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nableezy. I agree that Israel has major influence on Gaza strip and its population still With Israel controlling land, air and sea access at least on land part does not reflect reality. In addition we could also reflect Israeli High Court role in balancing Israeli government blockade policy in question of Israel population security and defending Gaza strip population against collective punishment. For instance uninterrupted humanitarian aid, electricity and limiting embargo on fuel supply by Israel to Gaza strip. A lot of sources about Israeli High Court and Gaza, this for instance. You're welcome with your opinion and wording suggestions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I think the wording may be confusing you. It doesnt say that Israel controls the land, it says Israel controls access over land, like access through air or sea. Egypt controls one access point over land, Israel controls many more. So that part is correct. And there was not uninterrupted aid, electricity or fuel, hospitals had run out of fuel to power generators after power had been cut for over 72 hours at one point. If you have sources for Israeli Supreme Court rulings and whether or not they have been implemented by the government bring them here. I havent seen any, but then again I havent been looking. But the stuff you were adding with that edit was argument about why Egypt should close the crossing, and not entirely accurate arguments, whereas the original just puts forward a statement that is supported by sources and is a simple statement of fact, that Egypt closed the crossing. The edit you made didnt even touch on the arguments you are now making, but as to the arguments you are now making, this line:
With Israel controlling land, air and sea access and much of Gaza's economy, power, and water, only enough goods to avert a humanitarian or health crisis were allowed to enter the territory, while all exports were prohibited.
is correct and it indeed says that Israel was allowing humanitarian supplies through. Nableezy (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy,I noticed you removed discussed background section changes. I agree that it needs more work and voiced my opinion and arguments repeatedly. With all respect you try to censor undeniable facts about background of this conflict and remove cited NPOV quotes without clear argument. I'd appreciate if you publish links to your changes in this discussion. IMO you work against consensus. I heard all the editors patiently and did not rush those changes. I'd be glad to argue about facts, but really do not appreciate edit waring or personal attacks. I understand there are about 8 hours of time difference between us. You are welcome to voice your opinion about points of confusion. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did remove it because there was no agreement for what you added. The diff shouldnt really be needed, just look at your diff you posted above and reverse it. I did not mean to insult you, the way you phrased your concern made me think that you were objecting because Israel does not control the land, not the land access. If I misunderstood your argument I am sorry. But I still think you are wrong and if you could please explain why you want to add that info and why it is relevant I would be glad to listen. Nableezy (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'd appreciate if you re-read this discussion carefully, noting Sean and RomaC opinions on inclusion of events that are important for blockade discussion. This is very complex issue and should be handled as such. No black and white here. I'd love to know your opinion on quotes so I could address your concerns. I really have no personal issue with you, still I disagree with fact censoring. Peace man, let me know what you think. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are my objections, again:
This line: Amidst internal Palestinian fighting, Palestinian security sources urged all foreigners (especially Europeans and Americans), including aid workers of international organizations, to leave Gaza soil "for fears of new kidnappings", adds absolutely nothing relevant to this conflict. What does the internal Palestinian conflict have to do with anything beyond that it led to the current state where Hamas is in control of Gaza? Nothing at all that I can see. What does Alan Johnston have to do with this? Is there a single source relating his kidnapping to this conflict?
Next, this line: "Arab foreign ministers, Palestinian officials, the UN, EU and Israel are all opposed to the control of the Rafah crossing by Hamas." Again, what does it add. How is it relevant that the EU and the politcal opposition is in favor of control of the crossing by Hamas. What does that have to do with this conflict, it only has something to do with Egypt closing the border crossing, which we state much more clearly in the line you replaced:
"with Egypt closing the Rafah Border Crossing and Israel closing its border crossings with Gaza and imposing a blockade on the territory in July 2007."
Can you tell me why any of that edit should be included? Is there any way that the edit you made contains relevant information as regards this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, hope you agree that blockade had enormous impact on this conflict, after all it is stated casus belli. So far you are the only one in this discussion defending information censoring regarding this complex issue. Please explain AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We talk about the blockade already; what is it that your edit would add to the article that is relevant and useful? Nableezy (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Please re-read discussion. I already stated arguments: it reflects dynamics of blockade development... Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. Could we get back to quotes inclusion discussion? I really do not appreciate edit warring from your side. Nableezy, we reached an agreement by discussion in the past. You know I respect your opinion and fix my mistakes.. Charles Stross stated that Information wants to be free What are your suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that Alan Johnston is completely irrelevant to this. The only thing I can see anybody above agreeing to is including something on EU monitors, if you think that is really necessary the most weight that could be appropriate to this would be making the line in question read like this. "with Egypt closing the Rafah Border Crossing after EU border monitors left and Israel closing its border crossings with Gaza and imposing a blockade on the territory in July 2007." which I just did here. Nableezy (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, let me address your concerns.

• According to reliable sources Palestinian sources reported that European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing for fear of being kidnapped or harmed. I heard Sean's opinion and added another source to fix unaware reader confusion.
• Claim that Egypt exclusively closed the border is clearly POV. Why would they do it? Unlike Möbius strip borders usually have two sides. The issue is more complex than that.

What do you think? Still concerned? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a border between and Egypt and Gaza, Gaza wants it open, so Egypt closed its border by itself. Fear of kidnapping has nothing to do with this article. Nableezy (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, thank you for adding EU border monitors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents: IDF to doctor: Mistakes happen

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

This is from Israeli foreign affairs.[26] They say the soldiers believed there were spotters (they were taking mortar and sniper fire) in the doctors house and so it was targeted directly. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Process for getting a consensus about a new title

Step 1: Does anyone support the current title?

(Just comment if you do support it.)

Support (this is obviously a war, but not only a war). --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I vote to keep the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict title as nobody declared war on either side and another reason being is that this is part of something bigger. EDIT (2/8/09): Also the fact that Gaza is not a country.Knowledgekid87 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I also vote to retain the existing title, as I believe 'conflict' is the most approporiate word to describe the situation. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It is neutral enough.VR _talk 23:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support We can argue over this title endlessly, let's let it rest for a few weeks, please? Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 2: Does anyone think we need dates in the title?

(Just comment if you DO support)

Support (as it evidently deals with the subject in a determinate period of time, not in general). --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 3: Who supports calling this a war?

Support. As argued in previous discussion. That's what it is. Similar to 2006 Lebanon War (NB. At least, I support this over the current title. There are other titles I think would be more appropriate, but I know we could never get consensus).Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support (based on the google search argument)Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: Because of more google results for "Gaza war". --Wayiran (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support per Brewcrewer (and the dozens of times I have called for this pretty much since ground operations began, when the RS started to show a preference for "war" over "airstrikes"). That said, we should not move this article without a WP:Requested Moves process, so we can get uninvolved admin attention and keep things kosher/halal.--Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Partial support + comment While "Gaza War" gets many google results, "Gaza conflict" gets more. The advantage of "Gaza War" is that it can stand as a title without modifiers, whereas "Gaza conflict" would have to have "2008-2009" before it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Give it a few weeks As I said above, I'd rather not re-open the naming thing mere days after we closed the last one. Let's focus on substance, the name game can go on later. I'm sure whatever we decide, someone will object to later anyway, and we'll go through this again. Sigh. Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 4: Does anyone have any suggestions that do not include the words 'war' or 'conflict'?

*Yet another day the israelis forgot to draw knowledge from their modern jewish history. Brunte (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Gaza Massacre Brunte (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Brunte: Stop posturing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

word, this isnt helping anything. Nableezy (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a valid name, the national public broadcaster in Australia (I am using this example because it is a credible and notable source in a disinterested country) calls it The Gaza massacre [27]. I have no problem calling a spade a spade. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no way somebody can try to say that 'The Gaza Massacre' is the common English name for this conflict. Anybody who does say such a thing should not be allowed to operate a computer much less contribute to an encyclopedia. Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it was the common English name. Many feel it is an accurate name nevertheless. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That does not make it a valid suggestion for the name of the article, read WP:NAME. Nableezy (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know there wont be concensus for that title, but that is what I think the history will call it. Nableezy interesting comment is... interesting. And for the cut out part, everything would be so much better if they did. Sorry for the 'posturing' then but tell me: How do one tell ppl that glowworms wont light up a fire without get killed? Brunte (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying whether or not I think this is a massacre because my personal feelings are irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is what is the common name in English that meets the rest of the content policies. Gaza Massacre clearly is not it. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Assault on Gaza because it is neutral while being more accurate. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• 'Operation Cast Lead'?--84.190.25.248 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I am aware, the common name is either 'Israeli offensive in Gaza' or 'Israeli assault on Gaza' but apparently these are not neutral(though neutral media use them. In fact the Telegraph a notoriously pro-Israel paper calls it Gaza assault: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4031143/Analysis-Israels-assault-on-Gaza-continues-but-the-goal-is-not-to-overthrow-Hamas.html.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Facts can work wonders in developing awareness. "Israeli offensive in Gaza" receives 26 allintitle google news hits and "Israeli assault on Gaza" receives 8 hits. Meanwhile, "Gaza war" receives 1,764 hits. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You beat me to this. Qualitative analysis of "allintitle" gnews ghits reveals "Gaza war" as the undisputed winner among all the alternatives explored, and this has been the case since the ground offensive began. I do not understand why there are people who still question this. --Cerejota (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Because it doesn't fit with the POV they're trying to push. Note, though, that "Gaza conflict" gets more hits even than "Gaza war". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Yeah, but we have alredy decided more or less that conflict is "bad" for many reasons. That is why I said "alternatives explored"... I mean, we can agree "conflict" cannot be an alternative to itself, can it? :P--Cerejota (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, the reason Gaza conflict gets more hits than Gaza war is that it is much less specific and a 'conflict' has been going on in Gaza for 50 years, 10 of which are probably archived on the internet and found by google news. It's much rarer that a war is fought there.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You raise an important point, but a browsing of the google hits indicates that there are more "Gaza conflict" hits pertaining to this conflict than there are "Gaza war" hits pertaining to this conflict. In any case, I'm not arguing for "conflict". I personally prefer "war" for the reason I mentioned above. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for The Big Event heh heh Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just drop it

In case anyone was still wondering about my position on this... why do we need to bother? We have so much trouble coming to consensus on anything. Nobody will be happy. Someone will declare consensus, someone else will say what consensus, a bunch of people will get eaten up, and pretty soon WP's servers will be carpet-bombed. I say let's cower in our foxholes, and let some new army (or the remains of this one) duke it out when teh theater's changed for a while. We'll all be no less happy, and have fought less. Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I thoroughly disagree with the reasoning I do agree with the conclusion. As the move discussion ended with the closing comment "It still appears that not enough time has passed for there to be a clear WP:COMMONNAME for this event. The first move request was made while the event was still occurring, or had just finished, if I remember correctly. It has still only been a few weeks since it ended. In my opinion, editors would do better to wait at least a few months before worrying about the name of the article again. Concentrate on ferreting out all the reliable sources for the event and adding the information to the article; once the article has been stable for a few months, it will probably be clear to most editors what the most appropriate neutral title would be."
I think we can wait a bit before changing the name for now instead of trying a few days later. Nableezy (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian actions, former "Palestinian fightback" section

This is a big mess, very povish written. We need to take a close look at it.

Subsection 'Engagement with Israeli forces' and/or 'Rocket attacks into Israel' is a natural start followed with 'Preparation'. All adjusted to this new layout.

The sections 'lead' looks like a long justification for the israeli attack. Cut it away as POV or find a rationale for having a section with justifications.

I suggest POV-tag on the section until its fixed. Brunte (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brunte, can you put your suggested revisions here first please. You are not a native English speaker and your edits require other editors going in to fix syntax, grammar and spelling. Thanks RomaC (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my English is bad. I moved around some of the text in section without change much of the actual text. I will follow your suggestion when i get time but as it is much work I wait untill thing settles little and we can work together better. Brunte (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rename to 'Palestinian response'

Support because it is an accurate term and it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive'.
NB. Some people say 'its not a response, Hamas has been firing rockets for years'. While Hamas has indeed, that doesn't change the fact that Palestinian actions were a response to the Israeli actions. You can't seriously suggest that during this war/conflict Hamas fighters merely continued with whatever they had been doing during the previous months, and that they took no notice of the Israeli incursion.
An analogy: take an offenseve by allied forces during WW2. If the Nazis fought back to this, this would be their response. This would be despite the fact that they had been attacking allied forces for several years and that they began the aggression- that would not change the fact that it was a response.
It is the same here. This is an individual battle. The Israelis started this individual battle. The Palestinians responded to the Israelis. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support The "offensive" that began Dec 27 was unprecedented in scale and effect, and this article covers that event. I think "resistance" would be POV, but "response" is accurate. RomaC (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Palestinians fired some 60-70 rockets a few days before the offensive. Was it a pre-emptive response? Or is every rocket fired after the offensive considered a response? What's the difference between rockets fired before and after? Before it was just because they like killing civilians, and after it had another reason? No, claiming the rocket fire is in any way a response to the "unprecedented" attack is unjustified, and ignores years of rocket fire. Claiming "The Israelis started this individual battle" shows your POV here. I can, just as legitimately, claim that the Palestinians started this battle, by firing dozens of rockets after the end of the cease-fire. okedem (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I made sub-subsection '# 2.3 Rocket attacks into Israel' to an own subsection outside '2.2 Palestinian defence of Gaza' (Palestinian response, militants activity etz) That would solv the problem I guess. Brunte (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A better idea is to merge all of it into Israeli offensive, palestinian actiom to defend themself against the israels actions, section for section. Call the section 'Israeli offensive and palestinian defence' or similar. Brunte (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If we can agre on that we then can do the merging which is little more worksome than renaming sections and moving already availible text Brunte (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Okedem.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment can somebody tell me what is wrong with naming both sections 'Israeli/Palestinian military activity'? Nableezy (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to that. okedem (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Okedem's argument is not convincing, but if we use "Israeli Offensive" we should say "Palestinian Counter-offensive". "Counter-offensive" doesn't imply ignoring previous actions, but provides a correct chronology from the perspective of military history. For example, everyone knows that Japan attacked the USA first in WWII, but we still call further attacks in a given theater by the USA as "offensives" and the Japanese response as "counter-offensives", without this implying that the USA was responsible for the conflict. "Palestinian militant action" is a bit to OR, but I do not oppose it, I simply feel there are better alternatives.--Cerejota (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's still a rather subjective determination of chronology here. Seeing how the Palestinians fired some 60-70 rockets in a single day before Israel's main offensive, that could be seen as the initial event, and Israel's actions as the counter-offensive. Even if the words "counter-offensive" don't imply judgment, the chronology they're based on does. (By the public discourse in Israel, that major rocket attack after the cease-fire ended was what really created the support for the offensive. Without it, most Israelis would have been content to extend the status-quo - but that's just my impression). okedem (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but lets base ourselves on how military historians view wars. For example, there is general agreement that WWII started when the Germans invaded Poland. However, in the Spanish Civil War there was heavy involvement of all the belligerents, including testing of military hardware and international brigades with tacit support of the a section of their home governments. There was the Auchluss of Austria and Bohemia. And then there was the treaty of Versailles. Ans the Soviets invaded Finland, and had a border war with the Japanese. And the USA didn't join the war (thus making it an European/Asian war) until the end of 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbor (which itself is problematic, as there had been more or less open support on the part of the USA - including air combat - to the Chinese forces, both nationalist and communist). So even tho we have a generally recognized start of WWII as being the September 1939 invasion of Poland, there is a lot of non-fringe debate that questions this, see here: World_War_II#Chronology. So yeah, war is complicated thing. And I agree with the view that Operation Cast Lead was a direct response to rocket attacks, but rocket attacks from the view of any military historians are not an offensive, but harassment operations or some such. In strict terms, the Palestinian actions are defensive operations intended to stand their ground, but I do understand that the use of such terminology - which is completely neutral from the perspective of military science - can be seen as politically problematic; so the less scientifically precise Counter-offensive works. You see, its not about the political chronology, which is covered in the background section, but the military chronology. It is clear that the initiative here was held by the IDF - so its their offensive, and any response is either a defense or a counter-offensive, as there was no strategic retreat the remaining possible response.

That said, I see that you and Nablezzy both support the idea I floated at the beginning of the sections of merging the military actions into a single chronological section, rather than separating them out. I think this is sensible and much less prone to bias. --Cerejota (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that was Nableezy's suggestion. by the way, while we're talking Brunte has gone ahead and changed the sectioning. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose See my arguments above. Cerejota's suggestion is better, but I oppose that too based on Okedem's reasoning. There's nothing wrong with Nableezy's suggestion, and I suggest we just adopt that. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Opposeper Okedem & Jalapenos and agree that Nableezy's suggestion is a good compromise and least POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue with the Article

I am new to wikipedia (as an editor), but I have been following this article closely, and have noticed much of it is written in a manner not fitting of an encyclopedia. For example:

- In the Gaza humanitarian crisis: "Fear and panic are widespread" -- Have reliable sources documented this as fact? How can it be an encyclopaedic fact that fear is widespread. Why is this relevant to a Gaza humanitarian crisis? How would it be verified?

The source uses that exact wording. If it is not a reliable source or if it is given to much weight it should be adjusted.outCptnono (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read the report, the exact wording is "People are living in a state of fear and panic". This is less of an encyclopaedic fact and more of a statement (by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). Also, it is made in reference to the number of casualties, not the humanitarian crisis. Frankly, there are much more relevant facts about access to resources, etc, that should be included over such broad and ambiguous statements, IMO.Kinetochore (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinetochore, the statement is compiled from those two reports. UN Jan. 2 report:

There is a sense of panic, fear, and distress throughout the Gaza strip.

and UN Jan. 1 report:

People are living in a state of fear and panic.

This relates to the humanitarian crisis section cause those are extracted from the UN OCHA reports, where OCHA = Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. As understood from the reports, all those horrible elements reported by the reports sums the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is a crisis as described by several WP:RSs. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

- In International Law: Israelis : “The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as to illuminate areas during night or as a smoke screen. Meanwhile, the weapon has a potential to cause particularly horrific and potential injuries or slow painful death” -- This second sentence is written not in an encyclopedic manner, but instead attempts to force the reader to envision horrific pain and suffering. The pain an individual suffers when they die is not relevant to claims that Israel used a particular weapon inappropriately. Kinetochore (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from Amnesty:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"And don't forget how the International Red Cross treated true non-combatants--concentration camp inmates under the Nazis, including millions of Jews. So nice, that concentration camp victims weren't worthy of this "neutral" organization's help (and cooked in the ovens, instead), but Islamic terrorists are worthy by the ICRC's warped standards. Some neutrality. And it's hardly neutral the way ICRC treated Israel over the years." [28]

Now when she was talking about "terrorists" she was talking about Hezbollah in 2006, but it is true that the record shows they did nothing for Jews in WWII, and they have demonstrated bias ever since. See also [29] & [30]. Please educate yourself. This is a very real perspective on ICRC by one party in this war or conflict. Please do not poo-poo other editors' perspectives. Mutual respect is one of the main pillars on which wiki is supposed to rest. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

"The analysis of the 22-day conflict in Gaza by Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies finds "impressive improvements in the readiness and capability" of the Israeli Defense Forces since the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006, and unequivocally states that Israel did not violate the laws of war despite the large number of civilian casualties among the Palestinians." Study: Israel did not violate war laws, Anthony Cordesman (my bolds) Now we have a couple of dispassionate sources that disagree with each other. hmmmm..... You might want to read/look at this article [31] entitled "Ethical Dilemmas in Fighting Terrorism" -- by IDF Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin in 2004. These are the rules that Israel fights from. Perhaps you can show us the rules that Hamas uses to deal with such "ethical dilemmas"? Israel denies using WP against civilians and until that evidence has been presented and studied it should not be in there. This is the same thing that happened in the 2006 Lebanon War with allegations of secret weapons, and depleted uranium etc. These things were really investigated and turned out to be nonsense. It is the mentality that accuses first, proves (or not) later. It works. Perhaps eventually it will be seen for what it is, but in the short term, most people hear and believe, and never check page 10 for the correction. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

In fact, if you want to consider ICRC 's reliable for this issue, they said Israel did NOT use WP in an illegal way, ie against civilians. [32] I am not arguing that I would not compromise on using some of these sources despite the fact that they may well be biased. Nor have I said that Israel's word must be taken. But it should be given considerable weight until it is proved otherwise. Allegations without study do not count. Amnesty International is a "peace" organisation. Just how qualified it is to determine whether WP has been used against civilians is very much in doubt in my mind. I realise that the middle east is not America, but Israel deserves a fair trial before it is convicted, just like any other entity. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have compiled a response to each of your responses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image copyright problem with File:Fateh-logo.jpg

The image File:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Cerejota (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Fairusebot we don't need your pro-Israel, pro-Hamas, anti-Fatah POV-pushing around here. Please see WP:IAR. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Need some clarification about the UN school: Article now says no one was killed. Is that correct?

I have read the thread above. My understanding of the situation is that the shells hit outside the school, thus killing 43 people inside. At the time there were loads of tv images and interviews clearly suggesting, neutrally, that, however it happenede, a lot of people had died in the school?

However, the article now says no one was killed. Is that correct?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two different schools. In the edit warring and POV pushing it seems they underwent a Vulcan school meld.--Cerejota (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The January 6 incident - According to the UN's very late admission, the mortar bombs hit the street outside the school, and no one inside was hurt. This is different from the incident reported under "Incidents", from January 17, in Beit Lahiya. okedem (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Reprisal attacks and revert by Nab

What do you guys think of the current Reprisal attacks in Gaza section? According to User:Nableezy, he said " This is unrelated to the conflict." This is what he: Removed

All the info is directly cited from the article Reprisal attacks in Gaza during the 2008-2009 Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What he deleted was simply more detailed information regarding the reprisal attacks. I don't believe it is unrelated. Can we hold off on the reverts for now until we get some opinions? Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The numerous sources about this have reported this as returning to behavior prior to the conflict. And I thought you were taking a break from this article and that you never touch the actual article. Nableezy (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the article and sources, these events during and after the conflict. But the conflict is still classified as on-going correct? Yes, I said I would take a break. But I've been working on the reprisal attacks article for awhile and didn't know why it wasn't included here. Some editors are thinking of merging the article into this one but I'm not sure if that is a wise choice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your initial post is misleading. I did not remove the section on reprisal attacks, I removed the sentence that relates to what the sources describe as old behavior from before the conflict returning after the conflict ended. That type of situation to me is unrelated to the conflict. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't old behavior, it occurred during the event. Let me rephrase: It happened during the conflict, not before. Can you provide the source that says different? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say this was old behavior, I said it was behavior that existed before this event and has since resurfaced according to these reports (or old behavior that has since returned). This is why I say this: “After Israel ended its aggression in the Gaza Strip, the Health Ministry was surprised that Hamas militants returned to their old behavior, expelling medical staff and using medical centers as detention centers, and for torture and interrogation,” the statement said. (from maan news agency) Note the 'after Israel ended its aggression' not 'while Israel was engaging in its aggression'. Nableezy (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, well. Guys, this is lame. Since there is already an article on this, why don't we simply link to it, an use it's intro as the only mention here. This is peripherally relevant to the war (but still relevant) and that way we have the edit-war on the article actually about the topic, rather than here. I also suggest we use the {{seealso}} to link to Hamas-Fatah conflict for background. Wasup with that? Do I hear yea?--Cerejota (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. The article has become a beacon very other non-conflict situations, like international reactions and global response. This section is directly associated with the conflict, in fact, it is part of the conflict. A simple link wouldn't do it justice. I don't see why we should delete, it's only a paragraph. If anything, it should be expanded. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt even delete a paragraph, I deleted a sentence. What happened during the conflict could be relevant, what happened after as part of ongoing confrontation between Fatah and Hamas isnt. Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, please realize that WP:SUMMARY is meant precisely for forking out content. For example, the "Timeline", which is central to the conflict, yet very large, has been forked out under WP:SUMMARY.

And no, the internal conflict of the Palestinian factions is not central to this conflict. It is patently peripheral, because the situation was ongoing before the war started, and will continue to happen long after. Perhaps the shooting of Palestinian collaborators with the Israelis is a small part of this war, as those might have been revealed due to actions in support of Operation Cast Lead, but Hamas is notorious for shooting Fatah people as "collaborators" (and Fatah has done the same to Hamas - sometimes with much more reason).

However, you miss the central point: this topic has its own article, where the information belongs. At most we should have the intro for that article, which pretty much covers it, and then link. WP:SUMMARY is useless if we do not have the discipline to accept that our pet points will not be discussed in the "front" article in the extent we want them to.--Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The conflict is in direct response to the war. I'm not denying Hamas and Fatah are notorious for shooting each other, and that they will continue to shoot each other, but this slaughter resulted because of the conflict. It's only a paragraph, reducing it to sentence would render the inclusion useless so we might as well delete it. I request opinions from people who do not belong in the same "camp." I mean that in the most cordial way possible, but it's important we diversify. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not belong in the same "camp" as Nablezzy - in fact, I have had some rather strong disagreements with him, and even kinda disagree in this matter. And its precisely that kind of "camp" thinking that gets us nowhere but nastyness. I have edited it to be what it should be: a summary of the sub-article.

You continue to miss the obvious point: this is not for this article, but for the sub-article. Is as if we discussed Roof-knocking in depth in here (and shit, "roof-knocking" as term was invented for this conflict). Summary-style is summary, d'oh.--Cerejota (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're comparing this to roof-knocking? Hamas is killing off Israeli assets, how does that even remotely link to the importance of roof-knocking? Yeah, I definitely want some more opinions here lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it: I do not object the inclusion of material in the appropriate article. And yes, roof knocking is much less important than intercine conflict, I am sorry for not being clear enough. However, still the use of less-than lethal weapons as part of a warning strategy is a relevant part of the Israeli military history of this war. Yet we (correctly as of now) I will say this, I might have over-shortened this, but not by much - this is really secondary stuff, in particular because not much RS can be found that is not repeating the same stuff.

BTW, has Israel released any info on missing assets? I know they have in the past released information on assets with IDF/Shin Bet/Mossad rank etc, but never for civilian informants.--Cerejota (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about roof-knocking, I don't care about roof-knocking. I doubt Israel will a comment about how they employ Palestinian spies seeing as how vindictive Hamas/Fatah are. We've been passing off every quote/fact said by Hamas/Fatah/questionable charities/etc as truth, I don't see how this is any different if you're trying to infer there is a factual issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhh name one quote from Hamas or Fatah that we pass off as fact, or a single charity we quote at all. Or is the UN, HRW, AI, ICRC in that description as 'questionable charities'? Nableezy (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, have you read the article? We hand out free passes to Hamas/Fatah spokespeople and Palestinian civilian are given the mic from every "objective" media outlet while we scrutinize all sources from the IDF on a level not applied to the other side. By questionable charities, yes I'm referring to AI and HRW, and especially Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. There are criticism sections for all of those charities/advocacy groups, I suggest you read them.

Stop making this an argument and read what I wrote. I really don't want this to be another arbitration over a silly paragraph which can be easily solved. This is elementary man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Name one Hamas/Fatah comment that is not clearly presented as a Hamas/Fatah comment. I dont think I have to say anything about those questionable charities AI and HRW, lets not forget the UN or the ICRC too, they surely are in the anti-Israeli crowd and should be presented as such. Nableezy (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much that is the point: name what it is wrong, and I promise you I will fix it. I be honest, I am waiting for the fog of war to lift a little, so I do not do indepth reading of the article unless some other editors point out egregious crap. In fact, such things have happened and have been relatively quickly reverted. On the "questionable charities", WP:FRINGE criticisms are just that, fringe. We go by what the RS say. And we do not need arbitration, but perhaps wider community involvement? If uninvolved editors feel that HRW and AI are dodgy, I will accept that judgment. I see them as well respected by RS. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights is certainly more iffy, but I do not see any major areas in the article in which it is the sole source - and there is certainly a primary source aspect. For example, in the "Antisemitic Incidents" section of "international reactions" we use the JTA and INN - both equally iffy as the PCHR - because they are reporting on incidents not disputed by sources. The verifiability of a source is not subjective, but objective: if other sources say its true in this case then we can use.--Cerejota (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this really an effect of the conflict?

In the effects section, this is a subsection:

Israel

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

My concerns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roof knocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since some people are pure pacifists, it may be impossible to come up with a universally agreeable example of what I want to talk about next, but let's suppose, as many do, that the Allied assault on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day in World War II, are something we would consider to be a highly unfortunate necessity. (Unfortunate, since it would have been better all around if the 20th century hadn't been so violent.) Well, it is not hard to imagine some horrific civilian casualties that day, with those casualties being used as propaganda by one side (or the other, depending on the exact details)... with very little educational value in an article on the battle itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC) [33] Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"Hamas is the source of your problems" - Propaganda

"Warnings calls" - Psychological warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Style and grammar edits

People are putting a lot of effort into debating what belongs into this article, which is great but the writing is being neglected a bit and some of it is downright atrocious. I’ve tried to clean up some passages. They’re still not great but hopefully a bit more reader friendly. I’ve desperately tried to NOT change the content and stay clear of anything that might be considered pov changes. So could someone kindly explain how Version 2 below is “pov as hell” compared to Version 1 below?

Version1: Following its victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and the military conflict between Fatah and Hamas, Hamas assumed administrative control, with Egypt closing the Rafah Border Crossing after EU border monitors left and Israel closing its border crossings with Gaza and imposing a blockade on the territory in July 2007. With Israel controlling land, air and sea access and much of Gaza's economy, power, and water, only enough goods to avert a humanitarian or health crisis were allowed to enter the territory, while all exports were prohibited. The blockade was partially bypassed by tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, some of which were alleged to have been used for weapons smuggling. Since 2005 the Palestinian militant groups have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens; while in Gaza since 2005 more than 800 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, airstrikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations.

Version2: Hamas assumed administrative control of Gaza following the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and its 2007 military victory over Fatah. In response, Egypt and Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza closing all border crossings in July 2007. The blockade allowed Israel to control the flow of goods going into Gaza, including power and water. Israel subsequently halted all exports and only allowed shipments into Gaza to avert a humanitarian crisis. Palestinian groups were partially able to bypass the blockade through tunnels, which Israel alleges were used for weapons smuggling. Between 2005 and the start of the 2008/2009 conflict, Palestinian groups launched over 8,000 rocket and missile attacks into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens more. During this time period Israeli air strikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations have killed more than 800 Palestinians.

PS The bit about the EU monitors was added later. Some of the stuff I’m looking to improve are clarity, conciseness, passive/active voice, and endless sentences/clauses.--Andi Hofer (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'pov as hell' bit was about the 'In response, Egypt and Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza closing all border crossings in July 2007.' part. That seems to equate Egyptian and Israeli involvement in the blockade, I think the more verbose one is more accurate. That is all I really object to, the rest seemed fine. Nableezy (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the sentence on Israel controlling airspace and waters as part of the blockade is missing in the second, though I think that could be phrased better as well. Nableezy (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure the original version does a better job at making that differentiation and the next sentences make it pretty clear which party is enforcing the blockade, but how ‘bout this:

“Subsequently, Egypt closed the Rafah border crossing when EU monitors left and Israel closed off all remaining access to Gaza.”

I think this makes it clear that Egypt only closed off one access and the Israel closed off everything else. I don’t think it’s necessary to outline all modes of transportation. Any additional discussion of EU monitor issues or why Rafah was closed should probably be done in a separate sentence but that’s not really a discussion I’m involved in (though I have been reading it).

--Andi Hofer (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That sentence seems fine, but I do think it is necessary to mention airspace control and territorial waters control as part of the blockade. Nableezy (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also this line: "its 2007 military victory over Fatah". I think that link should instead just say "conflict with Fatah" as it was so much more than a military conflict. Just my preference in wording though. Nableezy (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we're leaving way too much information out. The above example implies Israel simply closed the border arbitrarily, with the involvement of Egypt. Not to mention, according to Hamas' charter, they will fight for Israel's destruction and condone the killing of all Jewish civilians (Israeli or not). They also said in the event that the border is opened, which it was for a short time in 2008, they would attack. They delivered on the promise from what I remembered. Also, The Gaza Strip has 4x the access to Israel than it does to Egypt, that also should be mentioned somewhere. If we're going to skim the waters of the blame, then all sides must be posted. The article gives the impression that Hamas doesn't even exist. The last sentence is blatantly POV and false: Since 2005 the Palestinian militant groups have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens; while in Gaza since 2005 more than 800 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, airstrikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations.

Plus it doesn't do the situation justice. Hamas would attack for months without response, then after crap like the Passover Massacre, Israel would respond in the way they should have originally and the whole world cries. Version 2 is POV hell solely based on that sentence.

Not to mention it doesn't clarify who is militant and who is civilian, an argument which is constantly disputes. Plus it doesn't clarify how many civilians Hamas has killed during the rocket attacks. The paragraph gives the impression that Hamas was throwing stones and Israel responded with nuclear bombs. Hamas was asking for a war: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008, and it took more than a year for them to get a real one. Plus, many of the wars aren't necessarily in response to the rocket attacks, but the suicide bombings that accompany them. If we count those, 40 people have been killed in suicide bombings in 2008 (many more in from non-bombings) and 500+ since 2001. This paragraph should be written collaboratively and not by one person. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been written collaboratively, and we talk about the hamas charter, and every other word you wrote was irrelevant personal feelings. Nableezy (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And the sentence you brought up is both NPOV and true. Did Israel mention suicide bombings in its stated aims? I must have missed that, but Im sure you can provide a blog that does. Nableezy (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Israel did mention it is. It mentioned ending Hamas' violation of the various truce/cease-fires and sovereignty. What, you think Israel is like "Ok Hamas, suicide bombings are ok but mortar and rockets are a big no-no." Saying "this is NPOV" means nothing, I said why it wasn't. And collaboratively doesn't mean two people with the same agenda. It means people from opposite spectrum, though many evil Zionists have left because of the vicious bandwagoning (not in this article talk however). Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And saying it isnt NPOV, especially coming from you, is meaningless. And how many suicide bombing Hamas responsible for since the beginning of the blockade? Nableezy (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Check for yourself: Suicide bombings + blockade

I'm not just saying this isn't NPOV, I gave reasons. You are the one who is saying this is NPOV and telling me my complaints are meaningless. I'm just going to get an admin to arbitrate if you continue to put roadblocks whenever someone has a valid point that disagrees with the 2 person consensus. Maybe you should do it since you're so concerned about my meaningless opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel like. I cant take you seriously though so I am going to stop responding unless you say exactly what it is you would want to add or remove from the article. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here, I'll black it for you so you have no excuse and no right to attack me and NOT assume good faith. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just tell me what it is you want to add exactly, as in put what line you would change and how with sources. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to rewrite the entire paragraph LOL. Why would I waste my precious time for you to just stonewall me like you just did 30 mins ago? If you're goal is neutrality, I've given information to make the paragraph NPOV. You said my opinion is meaningless even after I bolded the info that you said wasn't there. I'm not going to jump hoops for something so simple unless you're actually going to respect my opinion. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, great. Nableezy (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

clarity on casualties

I just saw in the 2008-2009 Hamas-Fatah Smackdown article (aka "Reprisal attacks") a sourced claim of 400 Fatah members killed. This is a huge number, but my question is if this is included among the casualties of the conflict? This is important to clarify, via sources, if this is actually done. I mean, thats nearly a third of the deaths reported for the entire conflict.--Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally! A good title for that article: 2008-2009 Hamas-Fatah smackdown it is. Cerejota, you're a genius. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just calling them as I see them. Do remember I call this Operation Cats Lead--Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't actually know the exact number of casualties in any of the wars. IDF says 900 people were killed in the 2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict, ~250 of whom were civilians, whereas the Palestinians say 1200+ people and more than 1/3 of them civilians. I personally would average it out giving an IDF more weight considering the long long history of Palestinians emblishing casualties, and occasionally offering false numbers. As far as I know, Hamas is still going around Gaza City and offing everyone who they believed collaborated with Israel, so the numbers will probably go up if and when major media decides to report it. I'm in favor of including the casualties, but there aren't a whole lot of disputes regarding actual numbers because everyone is so focused on this war. Either we wait or put it in with a warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Deja vu: Rather than getting into OR value judgments (I have made them too, but I will not repeat them) of the accuracy or lack thereof of casualty figures, we should have a range with sourcing. I even made a mockup example. If there are notable middle ranges we should report those too. That is a simple wikipedian solution. Averaging out is OR and SYNTH.

Now, this doesn't answer my question, which is if the Fatah casualties are counted.

This is significant. Let me do a little fresh OR: IDF figure is ~900. Highest source from Palestinian MoH is ~1,300. The source we have on Fatah casualties is 400. This happens to be the exact difference between the IDF and the MoH. Get it? However, there is no source I can find for this. This would be a significant thing. I am trying to activate the CAMERAtrons and Intifadacons to get the info :D. Cause the POV guys always seem to have a better way to find sauce. --Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NOT funny, Cerejota. Condescending accusations and insults (even if couched in 'jokes') do nothing to improve the encyclopedia and certainly not the atmosphere. Please quit it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Get. A. Sense. Of. Humor. --Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vetting RS in article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International law

The International law section is messy, too long (it was never significantly cut back when other sections were), and it contains factual inaccuracies. Frankly, it's quality is an embarrassment to the article (apologies to all those who worked on it, including myself). The problem is that it's a very charged section POV-wise, and I doubt any serious change to it will last for long, which is probably why it's in the shape it's in. I have a suggestion (and if this violates some WP policy that I'm unaware of, somebody just point that out and that will be the end of it). We form a committee among editors active in this article: say, one person considered pro-Palestinian, one person considered pro-Israel, and one person considered centrist. We all agree to accept whatever they spit out, thus granting it consensus. They spit out a high-quality section, and the article is improved. Any subsequent changes to the section will require consensus. Thoughts? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be the pro-Palestinian editor, if that's okay with everyone. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

:) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that, seriously. It might help. Call it role play, advocating on behalf of the opposing team. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this idea. But we must know, the reason why the international law section is so POV is because they're hasn't been an actual trial. Moral supremacists like Richard A. Falk, who was recently appointed by the UN to "prosecute" in the media, has reduced any possibility of a legal process to shame. Save for a total rewrite, I personally think it should be either deleted, merged, or have its own allegations/criticism type article. Leaving it here as-is with the same title gives the false impression that it's met the acceptable criteria, which it blatantly has not. Also, be prepared for some major backlash. I don't think the pro-Pal's are gonna let this one go LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I guess another approach might be to go way back to one of the early versions of this section which were pretty pithy (e.g. this one) and build on that in a baby steps way. I think less is more here. Focus on the key statements and their rebuttals, add a few specific examples. Wikifan, if you are indeed a Wiki fan you know it's better to fix the mute button on your soapbox because it's malfunctioning and leave out the personal views as far a possible. It's counterproductive. I'm just saying. Not always easy I admit. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not soapboxing. That type of writing would never fly in a "pro-Israel" article. There's nothing to build Sean, we aren't lacking information. The process isn't fair because there hasn't even been an investigation. Everything is so emotionally charged with the pictures and the crying grandmas that it makes it extremely difficult from logical perspective to believe this has anything to do with the law, especially when accused doesn't get a voice. I suggest we move into a different article or delete it. It shouldn't be in this article, period. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I agree the version you brought is better than the current one, but it's far from high-quality, and I fear any attempts to improve it would spin out of control and we'd end up back where we are now. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Jalapenos, it was just a thought.

Wikifan, I understand what you mean. I agree that it probably needs it's own article but it should still have a summary here even if it's very short. Fairness, logic, the emotional weather, giving the accused a voice doesn't come into it. This is just an encyclopedia. There are no trials or justice in Wiki, just information. Statements by major international bodies on this issue are notable for an encyclopedia and of course we need some counter arguments for balance. Personally I'm not interested in the details for this article, just a broad overview with links to the relevant legal terms because they're technical. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So do I have your support for the idea? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's practical. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Sounds too complicated for me. Cryptonio (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Density in Airstrike warning/roof knocking section

This is a low priority and other density discussions should continue in other places. Is the mention of population density needed here? It is well sourced and belongs somewhere just maybe not in this exact section. Not a big deal just seems like it is better in other sections. Any thoughts?

"Amnesty International and the United Nations reported that in the densely populated areas of Gaza there were no "safe" places for civilians.[146][147]"Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I never noticed that the AI and UN statements weren't actually said in the context of airstrike warnings; I always assumed they were. So yeah, I agree that they shouldn't be in the roof knocking section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What about this: "Telephone calls from IDF personnel, or leaflets dropped by airplanes to people throughout Gaza ordering evacuation from their homes prior to bombings were widely reported. While in some cases homes were bombed immediately after the calls were made, others were not. Nevertheless, given the high population density in Gaza and the close proximity between homes, this has caused considerable panic and uncertainty among those receiving phone calls, as well as neighboring houses." from this OCHA report is not said in the context of air strike warnings? I dont think it has to be put as 'no safe places' though that is a direct quote from the source, but there certainly is a source relating the roof knocking to a civilian panic and distress (some would say 'psych. war') and relating them by explicitly invoking the population density. Also as a note, not to harp too much, the % youth that was removed from the background, with good reason i think, has not been put into the casualties sections. Would you object to me putting that in there or not? Nableezy (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nableezy. The UN source you bring is not the one currently in the article. Since your source does speak of the airstrikes, I agree that a short quote from it should be in the article, but I think the quote should be from the part about people leaving their houses and staying on the streets and with relatives, not from the part about "panic and uncertainty". Generally the article doesn't deal with states of mind (not even in the Ps.W. section!), but with actions that cause or are caused by those states of mind (including fleeing).
Re the youth quote: I don't know what quote you're talking about, but I doubt I would object to putting it in the Casualties section, as long as it was done well, and I think you're a good editor, so there you have it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)