Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Palestinian casualty figure

It appears that the user LOTRules insists on re-adding a death toll of 225 to the article. Where is the source? I have read the article and watched each video on the linked page 3 times, and there is no indication of the number 225 anywhere. Either I've missed something, and will gladly be corrected when the precise location of the figure is given, or please find another source/stop adding incorrect figures. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears that the article has been updated (I refreshed). My apologies. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Debka" is not a reliable source... linking to Reuters instead.PluniAlmoni (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the link to the BBC previously. What is this "debka" nonsense you speak of?. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

PluniAlmoni was referring to DEBKAFile, an Israeli news website. Whether it is 'nonsense' you should decide for yourself. In my personal opinion, Debka is usually flogging a right-wing agenda and I do not consider them a serious news source. - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I found an AP article that mentions civilians: "Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead." Hereis the article info: Israeli assault on Hamas kills more than 200 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asat10j06fLdzogLL4jbmSKs0NUE By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer Ibrahim Barzak And Amy Teibel, Associated Press Writer 28 Dec 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 07:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC) oops: PinkWorld (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

On second thought, it might be early to speak of civilian casualties yet. I say this because I have seen references to 15 bodies that were damaged beyond recognition and cannot convince myself that both 15's did not come from the same source. I would rather wait until there has been some investigation into just who is who among the dead.

I have seen one reference to an investigation so far. It is, though, by a local group; and I do not think that a second group has verified the investigation. Here is the quote:

"The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which keeps researchers at all hospitals, said it had counted 251 dead by midday Sunday, and that among them were 20 children under the age of 16 and nine women."

The information for the news article is as follows.

"Israeli troops mobilize as Gaza assault widens," By IBRAHIM BARZAK and KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writers, 28 Dec 2008 PinkWorld (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

Saudi Arabia has no comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.191.246 (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside: I notice that "Palestinian medical sources" has been used in the infobox as a source of civilian casualty figures. I have to wonder if whoever put that there would also accept the presence of an IDF civilian casualty estimate as reliable. Neither belong in an infobox, do they? --Hiddekel (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Title

Could we call it something ungainly but merely descriptive, like "Late December 2008 Israeli-Hamas Conflict" and then redirect there from all the controverted titles like "Operation Cast Lead?" After all, whatever one's POV the purpose of the title is to get users to the correct location, not to editorialize, and there is no question that someone searching on "Operation Cast Lead" intends to find this article. Then perhaps over time a better title can emerge from a civil consensus. If someone's already suggested that, forgive me, but there is a great deal to review in the preceding discussion. --uvaphdman (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)uvaphdman

Could we discuss the Title of this page because all other pages about the attacks on Gaza strip by Israel are in Hebrew Operation Names.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The operation has a name. Happy138 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't. The current "2008 Gaza Strip Bombing" seems fine. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different? 77.127.144.240 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If we change this one we'll have to change all but that's ok. It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem. My problem with the gaza strip bombing is that there were many bombings in 2008 against gaza, see 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. So we should find a better name or leave this one but not return to the operations name as it is only called that way by the IDF and the rest of the world calls it gaza bombings or something... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What about "Late 2008 Gaza Strip bombings"? I think it avoids both ambiguity and the not-widely-known operation names. Darwish07 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is bad. Very, very bad. "2008 Gaza Strip bombings" is very ambiguous, because this was not the only bombing to occur in Gaza this year. Further, opening a can of worms here, it sounds too much like 2002 Bali bombings or 2005 Amman bombings... those were not military campaigns; this was. There is probably no overtly prominent name for this event, but if there was one, it would certainly be Operation Cast Lead. "2008 Gaza Strip bombings" is just a description -- and not a very precise one. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well "Operation Cast Lead" would be actually better than 2008 Gaza bombings, but it isn't known for that name, internationally I mean.It's fine with me if u return it to that name but wait until 3 more Users or the majority of the biggest contributors agree.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Military History project has been over this countless times, so I'd suggest checking their discussions before adjusting other articles. Joshdboz (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling the article by its Israeli codename shouldn't be seen as expressing a positive opinion on its morality; Nazi operations are routinely referred to by their codenames, e.g. Operation Barbarossa. The article was started at Operation Cast Lead and has been moved twice. I don't see a compelling reason to call it something less specific, like '2008 Gaza Strip bombings'. topynate (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We should wait and see what unfolds between the two sides. Its current name, 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previoulsy fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response. Chesdovi (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the name change. Seriously guys, "Gaza Strip Bombing"? LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the Operation name. That make sens for me. The other israeli operation have a name. Number of casualties isn't a reason for the name of the article.Kormin (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved. It's mentioned by "operation Cast Lead" on the Main Page, in news articles, and elsewhere, the "2008 Gaza bombings" title was uninformative/unspecific, and the original move was performed without discussion by a user with less than 50 edits, the majority of which weren't even this year. So, there was also a bit of WP:BOLD. Plus, we've got a little bit of consensus here already. Let me know if I did it all correctly! RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And Operation Cast Lead informs me how, describes what? It provides no information at all! It describes nothing! Please make sense. I fixed it: December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing clearly descriptive, clearly neutral. If you want alternatives, please provide them but Operation Cast Lead is neither neutral nor descriptive or specific. Please see November 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2006 Lebanon War etc, etc, etc. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fail Operation name is not neutral, or all of the suddem neutrality doesn't matter? December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing is much more sensible, descriptive, and neutral. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

VERY persuasive Cerejota. I object to the sudden name change AGAIN. Why is the Operation Cast Lead not neutral? Are we offending Cast Lead??? Is this some mysterious element that deserves some special sensitivity? Sometimes I laugh at how partisan wikipedia is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral. We can all have a laugh at how partisan wikipedia can get later, but the sooner we eliminate the potential trouble spots that these I-P articles have, the better we server the encyclopedia. This isn't the first time we have been around this block, and experience teaches to eliminate the trouble at the root generates a better article. We have managed more or less at 2008 Lebanon War (which was initially named after the Israeli name for the operation). What makes me laugh is why we have to have to engage in this edit warfare every time instead of realizing that one-sideness is not productive. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By YOUR LOGIC we should thus revert Operation Enduring Freedom to something a little more neutral, because it was coined by ONE SIDE. You're using false logic and watery claims to eliminate conflict that isn't there. Operation Cast Lead is the NAME of the OPERATION, which, if you didn't know, is the topic of the article. I know, caps represent yelling, but I'm only using caps to emphasis the importance, which some here tend to ignore. Now, we (as in the people who discussed this) went through a lengthy 4 paragraphs arguing the previous titles, and then you unilaterally change the title without even waiting for a response....since when did this process become the norm? Even if the title was "Yet another nazi evil jew attack on the innocent", you are still obligated to jump through all the hoops just like the rest of us. You or someone please revert the title to its original form or I will be forced to seek the opinion of a higher authority who might not be so cordial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges: 1) We already have War in Afghanistan (2001-present), of which Operation Enduring Freedom is a sub-article 2) I agree it should be changed to US involvement in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), which is both more descriptive and more neutral, it hasn't happened because of a certain WP:OWNy crap that goes on over there. 3) The nature of the conflict is different - notice how I do not oppose the naming of certain small scale operations that have happened in Gaza (although the whole set needs a serious rewrite, because its ugly), I do think that the major events, the milestones if you will, have proven to turn out better if we edit with extra carefulness for neutrality. Its about not feeding trolls, about not letting systemic bias creep in, etc. Neutrality is paramount if we are to promote a positive editing environment, which should be our goal. I am sure that if you take wikipedia at face value, as I do, you can both empathize, and join me in productive editing.

Please, if you feel it necessary get the higher authority. I do not respond to threats, which are a million. My words are on the record. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Enduring Freedom for whom? Certainly not for the Afghans. Only thing they're "enduring" is an endless and pointless war. - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing. Thanks!

This discussion is continued further down in the Requested move section. i notice that on the history page, an admin said that s/he had frozen any further renames for some time. This should give people time to come up with consensus on what would be NPOV for the long term title of the page. Boud (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright i will put in my two cents on this oh so hot topic witch everyone seem to be paying more attention to the the actual article. I am reading through the article as I write this and noticing things such as this:

• is an Israeli air strike operation launched on December 27, 2008 at 11:30 am local time (9:30 am UTC)[11] against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip.
• According to Israeli officials, the operation, conducted by F-16 jet fighter aircraft and Apache attack helicopters
• Israeli Air Force deployed approximately 100 tonnes
• Israel hit Hamas operated security installations[16] in all Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City in the north and Khan Younis and Rafah in the south
• On December 24 the Israeli cabinet met for the stated purpose of discussing global jihad, but in fact met to talk about the proposed operation, and approved it unanimously after a five hour meeting.
• The aircraft used were F-16 fighter jets and AH-64 Apache helicopters. The air-strikes against Hamas targets in Gaza killed at least 228 and wounded around 780.

I could make this list go no but I think if you look it over, you will notice Ti artical is focused on the Isreali operation not the entire situation. and as the current title even says "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" That even focuses on the iseali portion of this situation. Not once did Gaza conduct an airstrike. As a matter of fact I believe they were using mortars and rockets. Now I am not a mortarmen or a rocketmen expert but I know as a military man we don't count those as air strikes. That would be forms of indirect fire attacks and direct smallarms fire respectivly.

Seeing as that is completely left out of the title and leaving is as a one sided title it can't really be said that using the Codename title is any more onesided.

I also noticed the major talk about the mortar and missle strikes are in the background (from what I have read of most military articles and I can't at all say I have read them all.. yet. I can say the background usually is the lead up to that conflict/war/operation/campaign. That being the case here with statements such as:

• On December 24, the Negev was hit by more than 60 mortar shells and Katyusha and Qassam rockets, and the IDF was given a green light to operate
• Rocket attacks continued — about a dozen rockets and mortar bombs were fired from Gaza into Israel)

This indicates that the attacks prior to the "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes not considered part of it, and should not be consitered part of it. o for all intents and purposes we are deciding as the wiki community they though we are talking almost strictly about the airstrikes and potential ground offensive dubbed "Operation Cast Lead" we need to give it our own name.

I would like to make a motion on this part if we are to exclued operational names of a conflict or portion of a conflict (be it a campaign/battle/ingagement/war/or any other war related offensive) if we are to be so politicly corect and nuteral on everything, we need to remove any name for any war related article:

here are a few examples of the things we should change if we are really to make such a deal of calling something what it is.

• 'Manhattan Project - Renamed to 1939–1946 Nuclear weapon develop project
• World War II - Renamed to War of September 1, 1939 – September 2, 1945

Again I could go on but my point is. I know we strive to be fair but in our fairness to people we are not always fair to the truth. We are all here to seek the truth and the details of it. this article is great, it is developing nicely and I hope it continues to do so. I have chimed in a war documents before when I can. I don't seek to take a side I just seek to help out.

I look at this article and it seem to focus on the aspects that are Operation Cast Lead. It seems that is a fitting title. now I know already that title doesn't suit everyone. My humble suggestion to that. Make a second article about the Hamas attacks that were part of the lead up to it. and of course a full article of the whole thing. as there was a truces up till a few days week or so ago though the countrys/regions were not in "conflict" due to a treaty. but we all know there was stuff going on durring that time as well, but that should not be considered part of this as it really was a diffrent operational time in the counties/regions. War is a complicated thing to map out like this. Trus me I know I have sudied it since I was just a wee little kid.

Good luck on figuring it out post me a message on my talk if you want to ask me anything more. I could posible be of a bit more help. I'll keep checking back in and see how it all goes. MathewDill (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your two examples are really not relevant:

• Manhattan project - This is a scientific development project in a single country. Everyone calls it the Manhattan Project, even old Soviet sources etc. This article is a military event, among two sides, and one side has named it a codename, and reliable sources call the event "Gaza air strikes" or variations.

• World War II - none of the sides during the events called it officially "World War II", this is a name that historians have given to the conflict after the conflict. However, it does bring forth one precedent that supports my point. The Soviet Union and Russia call WWII the Great Patriotic War, which we redirect to Eastern Front (World War II), choosing a more neutral name.

This tells us we should be careful when comparing and arguing. Again, I invite all to use the criteria we should be using, which are verifiability in reliable sources and neutrality. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cerejota you played my point very well to. As you said With World War II it was also the Great Patriotic War, That takes you to the Eastern Front. Just like WWII was split in to several diffrent directions This could be as well. Though I don't really care what title it end with I just hope it isn't the current as that is discribing a single action. There have been several actoins in the situation. There is the Hamas attacks over the least few weeks then the inital airstrick as stated, then the follow up attacks by hamas and then the following return of the Isrealis on the souther tunnels in Gaza. There is also the tank and troop build up on the boarder. Now there might be need for a multi article set to cover it as in one for the poeration one for hamas actions and one for over all. nor sure really.

And yes my examples were different then this as every article is. and I know they they may not be the best examples for it. It was about a point. We don't need to be so liberal about this that we ourselfs become as conviluted as the media and politics. We are the people and not the media, we are here to get away from the media and political crap of mainstream. lets remember that.

My main point here is lets stop pretending we don't have a side. we all have our opinions and we all have our thoughts on what is going on. lets put those aside though and figure out what works.

I found the article by seeing the operation Cast Lead in a news atricle and typing it in to yahoo. but it redirected me here. So the redirct part works. so both sides can drop that as an argument. It can be redircted either way. weather the title is. Operation Cast Lead, December 2008 Gaza Airstrike, 2008 Gaza Massacure, Or December 27-28th Airstrike on 134 targets killing 287 palistinians in the gaza strip with F-16 fighter jets in retailiation to the Hamas rocket and mortar attacks on souther Israel So redirect debate should really be over. So can we as a group agree to settle that aspect?

I'm new to this discussion but the Cerejota fellow certainly has convinced me.DavidMIA (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I know I am not saying to focused on one part of it. I am reading the argument develope as i write and it is throwing me off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewDill (talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Public relations campaigns

i've started off the section on public relations campaigns with info from a Haaretz article on the Israeli govt PR campaign. i've added a {{Missing information}} tag warning about the need to get info about any similar campaign by the Hamas de facto govt of Gaza Strip. i would imagine that because the latter do not have a massive international network of embassies/consulates, they cannot carry out a campaign using anything like the same techniques with any chance of efficiency - i.e. they cannot get their ambassadors etc. to put pressure on local media groups around the world and on national politicians around the world. However, what i imagine is not an NPOV fact. Anyone with a non-original-research, referenced idea for what we can put here to balance the section?

Just to clarify the tag: IMHO we certainly should include info about either the Gaza Strip de facto government's public relations campaign (whatever that is) or the lack of such a campaign if it is documented to be absent. i don't (presently) know which is closer to the wikipedia (NPOV) version of truth. Boud (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have two options. First is waiting for the Arab League response and public relations activities (if they'll ever be one!). Second is to consider renaming the section to "Israili Public Relations Campaigns". I'm with the second option till any new activities appear from the other side. Thanks for assuring neutrality. Darwish07 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this relevant now? this better not be a white-wash attempt to portray the IDF as if it is trying to sell the war to the international community, or give the image that Israel is trying to cover up something. this is a friggin war, not a paparazzi scam. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Is this criticism for including such information, or criticism for the acts themselves?Darwish07 (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms for the motivations. why is an anticipated PR campaign relevant at this juncture? I've seen countless articles on and off wikipedia where many users try to give the appearance that Israel is at the ready to spin whatever war their in, like the country is some coiled up celebrity publicist. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan: i think you missed the point of the {{Missing information}} tag and my two whole paragraphs at the beginning of this section. Public relations and the media clearly have an important effect on the effectiveness of military/political conflict during the late XX-eth and early XXI-st centuries. At the moment we (wikipedians on this page) don't know if the Gaza Strip de facto government is planning a comparable campaign to that of the Israeli government. However, we do know that the Israeli government has announced that it will carry out such a campaign in parallel with the military campaign. You might also have missed the fact that the source for the paragraph is Israel's oldest daily newspaper, founded in 1918. Boud (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point. giving the impression that Israel is trying to spin the war is not an activity that is part of wiki policy. second, i read the source, quite thoroughly, and your paraphrasing is grossly incorrect. for starters, israel new "pr campaign" goal isn't simply to defend this operation: "Livni instructed senior ministry officials to open an aggressive and diplomatic international public relations campaign, in order to gain greater international support for Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip" so the root of the section is misleading. i will revise...Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read Spin (public relations) to see what "spin" means according to the Wikipedia. i don't see anything in my original paraphrasing that suggests that the Israeli public relations campaign will be "disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative" compared to public relations campaigns in general, for the good reason that Haaretz didn't make such a claim. Thanks for working on the paraphrasing. i noticed that the "media campaigns" part dropped out, so i reverted it, getting closer to the actual text. It seems a bit excessive to make the whole thing just a single quote, which is why earlier i wrote "media campaigns", since "mounting public relations campaigns ... focusing on local media" seems to me accurately summarised as "carrying out media campaigns" - isn't a public relations campaign focusing on the media the same thing as a media campaign? Anyway, hopefully you and other wikipedians will be happy with the new version. Boud (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree on this. If something happened and topic-relevant, then it must be reported. Advertising and media is a critical component of any war. No ill intentions exist on reporting this, this is even an Israili source! 41.235.82.113 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Extra Israeli Officials Quotes

The quotes in the last two paragraphs in the "public relations" section are too excessive. They do not help in any further understanding of the war and are biased by the nature of their speakers. Deleted till further discussion. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, here is the diff [1] of the deletions. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The links are an integral part of the background to the Israeli PR campaign. Without them it reads like a propaganda campaign by Israel. Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The heavy number of Israeli officials quotes feels like an Israeli public relations campaign on the wikipedia reader himself!. This section is truly biased. Suggested Solutions: a) balance the quotes by quotes from the other side. b) (Preferred) Just mention "the background of the Israeli campaign" without copying those 5 lines of obviously biased quotes. i.e. Re-phrase the paragraph to avoid the complained about "propaganda" tone. I'm just trying to assure neutrality. Ideas? --Darwish07 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Palestine News Network

It is used as a reference and source, yet it is far from unbiased. It is pro-palestinian, pro-Hamas website and it is against any sort of peaceful solution. It also engages in egregious anti-semitism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) PNN is the only source for the 780 wounded figure, CNN just said over 400 wounded, and they didn't say whether the 400 wounded were civs or militants.

Probably most news media sources from country X used in any wikipedia article are pro-country-X and pro-government-of-country-X, so that's not any higher degree of bias than is typical of CNN, NYT, BBC, etc. As for "against any sort of peaceful solution", i'm sceptical but you could try to find an external, reliable source for that if you thought it to be relevant. i'm also sceptical regarding the claim of racism, but again, even if it were true, then at the level to which it's true, that would apply to a large majority of news media generally considered reliable in the english language wikipedia. i also strongly suggest you read through and think about WP:BIAS, which is a Wikipedia meta-page that discusses the issue of systemic bias in quite some detail.

In any case, given that the bombings are happening to people in the Gaza Strip, maybe you could recommend to us some different news organisations in the Gaza Strip that you judge to be reliable. The closer a news organisation is to the physical location of the event, the more likely it is to have in-depth information on what's happening rather than N-th hand reports by someone sitting in a comfortable hotel in another country. It will in general also be more biased in favour of the local culture, but that's the case for all news sources. We do not exclude US newspapers for events in the US or British newspapers as sources for events in the UK, so we cannot exclude Palestinian newspapers for events in Palestine. Boud (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes PNN doesn't even meet blog standards. deleted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See above. Boud (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. PNN is akin to a radicalist blog. It's rooted in nationalism and prone to extreme bias pending subject (most notably, Israel). It's like using a fundamentalist Christian site as evidence in determining the pros and cons of atheism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So we keeping Debkra file out, right? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

PNN is obviously a highly partisan reference, in the same way that WorldNetDaily and ei are. Try to keep the references to less contentious sources. Betacrucis (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacrucis - you are describing your personal POV claiming that PNN is "highly partisan". If you are an "average wikipedian", then you (and probably most people editing this page) probably satisfy the documented systemic bias in the English language wikipedia. If you really believe that you are an exception to the "average wikipedian" profile (see WP:BIAS for details), then it should be easy for you to provide some reasonable range of alternative, online Palestinian news sources that you consider less partisan. That way we would have an alternative to PNN. (Warning: WP:BIAS does not claim that you, Betacrucis, are individually biased, it documents and discusses the systemic/statistical problem with the community of en.wikipedians as a whole. We each have limited knowledge and experience - that's not our fault nor intention to be biased.)

IMHO it's a reasonably objective fact that the imbalance between Israeli and Gaza Strip media sources (Israeli having better financed media organisations which have easier access to the outside world and vastly better material conditions) has worsened during the last 24 hours with the destruction of a TV station apparently (by al Jazeera) linked to the Hamas de facto government. AFAIK, no Israeli media headquarters have been destroyed by Hamas rockets recently. Boud (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Does someone know where to get free pictures or can someone help with the fair use rationale in the available picture please. I will add another picture of the air strike after a minute. Israel has released a video of their air strike can someone get. It is in the public domain if it's by the government right?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If pictures are to be added, they must not be only from the Gaza side. They must show some of the rockets that fell on Southern Israel too. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the Egyptian President Informed?

I reviewed many statements of the parties involved & I didn't notice that they said that the Egyptian president was informed. The foreign affair minister denied that. I think this section needs citations.--Mustafaahmedhussien (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assist with copyright tags...

before adding to article! Image:Gaza 2008 bombings 2.jpg and Image:Gaza 2008 bombings 1.jpg

I added the tags to the images can we put them back?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems this is the wrong tag as the images are of a non-transformative nature. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Hey everyone, two hours to discuss a name change is insufficient. Note the text in the tag above: "If, after a few days,". So let's top reverting name changes and give time for a calm, NPOV discussion. Let people's emotions cool off. i actually think that December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing is probably not too bad, but i've put the tag in in order to stop a "renaming revert war".

Arguments i can see so far, mostly quoted from the "Title" section above: (adding signature to clarify who "i" means since the sections below may evolve - it was i who put in the {{moveoptions}} tag above Boud (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Against Operation Cast Lead

• It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem.
  • Counterargument: "Unfair", "civilian casualties" and "poem". Is this about emotional blackmail? The source name of an military operation should not be linked with the outcome of action taken. They are two completely separate things! Chesdovi (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• It is only called that way by the IDF.
  • Counterargument: In historical documents and books the offensive will be called by this term. Chesdovi (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Counterargument: How do you know the offensive will be called that in documents published in the future? Terrakyte (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• This term used mostly by the IDF and is not used by major news sources. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Except The Times Online. -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • And even there it is buried in the third paragraph. That's where it should be in this article as well. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
      • It seems to be gaining in popularity as a name. I don't think we can reasonably say that major news sources aren't using this name anymore.Lot 49a^talk 05:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Since you admit to being new to all of this, a hint when using Google News searches: use quotes, and advanced search. The 6th article in your search resulted in a hit explaining the lead casting of DJ Caruso's new film, similar looking at the actual news results (rather than result hits) resulted in a multitude of unrelated hits like this in the first result page alone: [2],[3], [4] (you get the idea).

Grasshoppa, a more relevant search would be to search mention of the phrase "Operation Cast Lead" in the headlines of articles (their "name"). You do this by entering into the googletubes news thing the following stuff on bold: allintitle: "Operation Cast Lead" Now, that gives, at this time 6 results. None of them from major news organizations, some from partisan organizations, and the first hit from a non-RS right-wing blog/news aggregator.

For comparison allintitle: "Gaza attacks" - includes all major sources - 89 hits, allintitle: "Gaza Strikes"" - includes all major sources - 64 hits, allintitle: "Gaza Air Strikes" - sources include Time magazine, AP, Bloomberg, Reuters and Deutsche Welle -33 hits, allintitle: "Gaza Airstrikes" - sources include AP, ABC News and Xinhua - 16 hits (seems the divided format is more popular, but this beats "Operation Cast Lead" by 10 anyways).

These are for the HEADLINE only. Its so overwhelming its not even funny. Now, you was saying?

And dood, stop this strawman: no one has argued the Operation Cast Lead is not used by RS, it is used, and it should be a redirect, and it should feature in the lead of the article. No one is questioning the notability of the operation name. In fact, whoever does, did too much of the wacky tobacky on the holidays. :D--Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we both agree that "major news sources aren't using 'Operation Cast Lead'" is a bad argument. Lot 49a^talk 00:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Using the Name "Operation Cast Lead" ist un-encyclopedic , Why?

Because users will never find this article that describes an act of brutal genocide. Wiki readers are civilians mostly and Not military personnel so that you can expect them to cope with silly military codenames. This event is a bomb massacre , and the title must reflect this fact. Besides , using the codename is a clear violation of wikipedia's or any other media's Neutral Point of View.Cowmadness (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

total bullshit. you violated NPOVrule yourself, just by stating current legal IDF movements are genocide. for me those are not - its clean sweep of terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.209 (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Counterargument: Violation of the Neutral Point of View? What? Then please, go change the articles on Operation Downfall, Operation Just Cause, Operation Overlord, Operation Barbarossa, and the list goes on. Using the codename is the offical designation of the attacks. Retitling the article to reflect a 'bomb massacre' puts quite a bit of bias it. You're assuming that it was a 'massacre' although the attacks were against Hamas military infrastructure that was the aggressor against Israel. Not everyone considers these actions to be of brutal genocide, and is thus better to go by the offical operation name that will appear on all offical documentation involved in these events. The 2008 Israel invasion of Gaza, or something along those lines would work as well. But that should probably be held off until (if) there is a ground incursion. --Halo tru7h (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Countering Halo Tru7h : Well maybe you're insensible to a degree that you have forgetten what the value of human life is.

For People like You , dropping 100 Tons of TNT into a zone twice the size of Washington , may just be another form of high-tech entertainment. Maybe you've been playing the game halo for way too long that you can't even any more differentiate between shooting on the xbox and between the murdering of real humans....WAKE UP!

...but let me tell you something , the rest of the world still has enough consciousness to realize the sheer brutality of this crime!

Besides you were talking about the "official name" which shall appear on the "Official Papers" What the freak is this official thing you're talking about? Do you think we are sitting on the benches of an israeli military academy or something? We are here to account for the heinous crime , We don't care what the perputrators call it ! Cowmadness (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

COWMADNES, stop nerdraging, you sick freak. you are talking about NPOV and - oh irony - you are POV like hell yourself. I'm not jewish, yet i dont see a crime here. I see justified military response for hamas terrorist acts. Military targets are targeted but when hamas cowards hide behind civilians what IDF is supposed to do? withdraw? I know its cruel and all, but sooner palestynians realise that they have to throw hamas and other arab terrorists away its better. ps. oh, and I love watching guncams with bombs falling from the sky. bum bum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.209 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Point of order: Cowmadness, basicly everything you're saying is a POV. One can equally say that this attack is a just retribution for years of mental abuse and physical harm inflicted on the residents of Sderot and the other Western Negev towns. One can equally say that it was and is a military operation aimed at Hamas personal, who actually are the majority of the casualties and who are the perpetrators of the above mentioned mental abuse and physical harm. Now, I honestly don't want to debate the merits of each POV with you or with anyone else. I simply would like to draw your attention to how POV-based your arguement is. Wikipedia isn't about that. Calm down and please find a logical, cool headed, objective argument to replace the emotional one. Gin-genie (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Countering Cowmadness : I don't understand what your initial part of the argument has to do with anything relevant. This username of mine has been used around the internet for several years running, and I seek to keep the consistency. It does not reflect my current interests, nor should you use it to reflect one's personality traits. To attack the arguer rather than the argument shows a bad sense of debating, and you should refrain from doing so in the future, otherwise your arguments will automatically be disregarded as being from emotion and slander, rather than actual intellect. It's absolutely ignorant for you to assume that I've "forgotten what the value of human life is." merely because I'm arguing against placing a anti-Israel bias in the article.

Now if we view this from Israel's perspective, they are engaged in counter-terror operations against a military-wing that has refused to accept their existence as a state, and more opinionated, denied their right to live peacefully. They fire rockets across the Gaza border into Israel, rockets that are indiscriminate against military personnel and civilians alike. The rockets they fire, and the rocket-firers themselves, do not care whether or not they hit an eight-year old boy, or a high-ranking IDF officer. Israel's retaliation against Hamas is justified on these grounds, and from their perspective. All their attacks have been aimed at Hamas, and Hamas only.

On the other hand, Hamas has their views of Israel which I think you've already outlined from your perspective. Their view is equally valid since Israel is also as guilty as Hamas in perpretrating suffering against civilians, and humanity in general. Neither side's bias should be reflected in the article, and thus, should either be done by the official name of the nation who initiated the attack, or, by some other descriptive title that reflects the events without taking any side. (2008 Israel Invasion of Gaza, 2008 Israeli Gaza strike, or something.)

Now please, if you have a rebuttal to my argument, keep out the personal attacks, as they have no place in such a discussion. If you wish to attack me personally, my talk page is open for that and will allow you to freely place whatever it is you so choose. --Halo tru7h (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Breaks settled guidelines

WP:MILMOS#CODENAME states that "operational codenames generally make poor titles." The exception given is if the operation is amongst the 'most well-known' of operations, e.g. Barbarossa. Based on this, I retract my prior opinion in favour of Operation Cast Lead, and urge a name that follows WP:MILMOS.topynate (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And I would argue that we don't have anything better. The format of the examples suggests we should go with something like "Battle of Gaza" or "Siege of Gaza". We need disambiguation, so we need a year there. So, perhaps "Siege of Gaza (2008)" (let's ignore how problematic "siege" is). That doesn't work either because it seemed everyone -- from both sides -- thought that there might have been other strikes/bombings of note this year. So then we're going to get something like "Second Siege of Gaza (2008)". By this point, we have no idea what's being discussed here. The manual of style says that they generally make poor titles. But the current name isn't spelled out either (oh, and let's not even discuss what would happen if this continues into 2009, or if the airstrikes get accompanied by ground strikes). It seems the MOS was designed with the idea that conflicts/battles occur in particular cities very rarely. That's obviously not the case here. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We have an alternative: "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" (or as per review or reliable sources and MoS, "December 2008 Gaza Strip air strikes". In the view that pretty much all policy recommends we don't use Operation Cast Lead, why wouldn't you consider it?

Also, couldn't you be more creative? Examples are just that, we do not have to use the examples, we just have to look at reliable sources and see what they call it. I already provided a sweet overview in another thread.

INB4: when discussing names disambiguation terms like dates should never be used as arguments against, as they are features of technical limitations, not actual content. Thanks! (for real!) --Cerejota (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In favour of Operation Cast Lead

• Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different?
  • Counterargument: A precedence of POV naming of articles is not a valid argument in favour of continuing the tradition.
• Calling the article by its Israeli codename shouldn't be seen as expressing a positive opinion on its morality; Nazi operations are routinely referred to by their codenames, e.g. Operation Barbarossa or Operation Ajax when the USA/UK overthrew the elected prime minister of Iran.

Operation Ajax is a redirect, no one is question using Operation Cast Lead as a redirect and intro, we question its use as the article name. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even KNOW the official operation name until I read this discussion!!! It can certainly be mentioned as what the ISRAELI's call it. I'm sure the Palestinians will come up with a name for it as appropriate. But the current name makes the most sense for people searching for what is going on in GAZA NOW and down the road. No one will remember the Israeli name for it.DavidMIA (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Emphasizes that this was a military operation, rather than a civilian attack (like 2005 Amman bombings). [Note, the fact that it is a military operation can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing to different people; this fact doesn't take any side.]
  • Counterargument: SO where is the difference between a military act of genocide and a civilian act of Genocide??

I see no difference , it must called by the fact that people were literally blown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Used more often than any other name (like "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes"), which is a description, rather than a title for this specific incident.
• If I (or anyone else) wanted to search wikipedia for this particular attack I would type: Operation Cast Lead, not December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. The operation is name Operation Cast Lead, why do we need to reinvent the lead.Yamanam (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Other articles use Israeli Operation names, and indeed it would be very strange if one particular incident was re-named whilst others remained. The media may not use the Operation name as freely as Wikipedia, but likewise Wikipedia is not a news service. doktorb _words^deeds 09:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Operation names are not unconventional per WP:MILMOS. The current lead reads "The December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes...is an Israeli air strike operation...", which sounds awkward. I don't think there's a neutrality problem here. Besides, the operation might also include ground forces. -- Nudve (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Again, in favor of the Operation name. The previous israeli operation has been name with their operation name, why this one should be different ?Kormin (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Counterargument: Please refrain from repeating the same argument twice!

It has been refuted at the beginning of this section , Bullying or Forcing the argument will lead nowhere.

• Further Comment Surely history will remember this is Operation Cast Iron as one part of the on-going Israeli conflict? If these attacks go on into January, our title will need changing, and what better title than its operational name? I sense there is some NPOV issues involved here, bordered by "recentism". doktorb _words^deeds 13:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Favouring the move: if we dont move the "bombings" page to the name of the operation, we should rename, among others: Operation Opera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera), Operation Orchard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard), Operation Barbarossa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), how should we name then Operation Wrath of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God)?, and Operation Entebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)? what about Operation Wooden Leg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg)? Keep reading, theres more to come: Operation defensive shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield), how should we rename that? What about Operation Rainbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rainbow)?, what about Operation Days of Penitence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Days_of_Penitence)? And Operation warm winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warm_Winter)?

Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... all named under the english translation of their hebrew names... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the barbarossa one has nothing to do with the IDF... just an historic reference... we dont name that "the beginning of the invasion of the USSR by nazi germany" or something like that (Im still gumuhua) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Argument Against why shouldn't we call it like all the other military operations The question is why shouldn't we call it Operation whatever just like Operation Barbarosa....etc The Answer is blatantly simple , because this not a military operation that can be compared to barbarosa or the D-Day or whatever... In a Military Operation , An Army or a militant party lunches an offensive against another army or armed party.

But Here , We see nothing like it ! What we see , is a brutal and indescriminent murder against the people of Gaza. of course israel claims it targets hamas but these are only lies and propaganda , from the death toll and from the unreasonable amount of aggression and hate that this act was carried out , clearly displays the Zionist Intention to exterminate every single arab palestinian from the lands of palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Gumuhua is 100% right, cowmadness. His point is valid whether you believe the operation was indeed an operation or not. A precedent has already been established in regards to calling the sort of action undertaken by Israel the past few days an operation, at least in regards to titles of Wikipedia articles. The title should be changed to "operation cast lead" to coincide with the established precedent that already exists. Cowmadness, If you don't like the way Israel is behaving, I suggest you voice your personal political views elsewhere. This is a neutral source, not a place for personal opinion. - Eblashko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblashko (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Against 2008 Gaza Strip bombings

• Ambiguous, because this was not the only bombing to occur in Gaza this year.
  • Counterargument: Guess Not! This Bombing caused the highest palestian One Day Death Toll in history of this enitre conflict.Cowmadness (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You don't name an article refering the number of victims.Kormin (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Thinking ahead, no one will look up this article under this name. If an event has a name given to it, why refer to it as the [] []ing of []? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.65.229 (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• One question, who called it 2008 Gaza Strip Bombings, or December 2008 Gaza Strip Airstikes. We, at wikipedia, collect the knowledge and list them under there given name, not creating names for certain events. Yamanam (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Counterargument: If you are looking for ones who called this event the "Gaza Bombing 2008" or "Gaza Genocide 2008" you will find the whole independent media

calling it that way. Even CNN does called the Gaza Bombing for example, i think this argument has been refuted as well.Cowmadness (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is a possibility that this could continue into January. A time-specific title might not be appropriate. However, I dislike trying to find encyclopedia articles about events like this according to a military name, because the military names of operations are less widely known by the general public. I myself Googled this page with the words wikipedia gaza december 2008, so you all seem to have found what works. It is very likely that December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is the best that Wikipedia can do until this event earns its own name. The same kind of development took place with the Mumbai attacks. With patience, the naming business should settle down here, as well. PinkWorld (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
  • You just said it yourself , Military names are less known if at all to the public. I think that says it all.Cowmadness (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• The article is about the military operation (and its background, planning and reactions), not about the bombings or the airstrikes (which are part of the operation). If it's decided to give a descriptive title, it should be "December 2008 IDF operation in Gaza". RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, then we would need a separate article about the bombings themselves. Ummonk (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • When did I say such thing? the bombings are only a part of the operation, why should they have their own article? RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 19:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In favour of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings

• WP:NPOV
  • This cannot stay on it's own. Elaboration please... -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes/bombings" is the more factual title and as for all factual titles is the more npov because all sides would agree this is true : all sides agree it happened in December 2008, in the Gaza Strip and that there were airstrikes (or bombings)... On the other side, giving the name of the military operation as title is not appropriate because the pro-Palestinian side may see the "operation" as "terrorism" and the "military" point of view sounds a little bit as giving legitimity to the action... Ceedjee (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • So we should rename all the past Israeli operations, no ? Kormin (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this title; it seems to represent only the action taken, which seems neutral to me. Maybe "Operation Cast Lead" can redirect to a page with this title?Kill. (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previoulsy fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response.
  • Non-argument because if the motivations for the attacks are irrelevant in the case of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, then surely they are irrelevant in the case of Operation Cast Lead too.
    • Counterargument: It is not a case of motivations here. If confrontation continues a conflict may evolve and may turn out as Hamas-Israel Conflict 2008. Chesdovi (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Further, opening a can of worms here, it sounds too much like 2002 Bali bombings or 2005 Amman bombings... those were not military campaigns;
  • Non-argument because it's not up to wikipedians to decide that bombings by non-state actors are fundamentally different from bombings by state actors.
    • You are inferring something that was never said. Anyway, we can, and will differentiate that. The text says this was carried out by the IDF. We use the military conflict infobox rather than the civilian attack infobox. We put this in a certain category. People are going to figure this out at some point; the fact that it is a military incident carries no bias either way. -- tariqabjotu 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now we're at December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing.

Are there any suggestions for a better name? Boud (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're intent on staying away from the operation name, why not December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. That's much more descriptive than the vaguer "bombings". (Edit: I don't mean to sound critical, and the summary you've written up is quite constructive. Thanks) Joshdboz (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The current name is OK, although I stand by my opinion that referring to it as Cast Lead is NPOV. I can see two potential problems if the action extends past the new year (which is likely) or Israel mounts a ground offensive (possible). I agree 'bombings' is vague. topynate (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes... its even more descriptive while remaining neutral and a decent title. Plus if there is ever a ground component, we do a different article: This is not a paper encyclopedia Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not "Late December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing" ? And when they will launch a ground offensive, Late December Gaza Strip Bombing and gournd offensive" ? And what if it spread to West Bank ? Kormin (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed as it seems a minor refactoring, the main debate seems to be over the use of the IDF Operation name. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Cerejota, it hasn't even be an hour. Let's go back to Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever.

What is the logic behind Operation Cast Lead? Well, according to you, Cerejota: "It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral" [5] Operation Cast Lead is the official title designated by the Israeli military and recognized by the world. Therefore, it is the only valid title for the article. We might as well change Operation Enduring Freedom to something that we all as a biased and flawed people can agree on. I understand there is some intense resentment for Israel, but this is a moot argument. Operation Cast Lead is the title of the article, period. Anything other than that is simply false or ambigious. If we're going to lie, we can at least come up with something a little more creative than Gaza Strip Bombings. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Operation Cast Lead" already has numerous google results, on blogs, etc. "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" will only give the wikipedia page. Chesdovi (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, virtually every other war is titled according to its operation (Rainbow – Days of Penitence – Autumn Clouds –Hot Winter) on wikipedia. Why should this be any different? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Agree with the points by Chesdovi and Wikifan12345. This was manipulation at its finest. You didn't wait for feedback, and the above points are hand-picked to serve the position of those supporting the current title. WP:NPOV was just slapped under "In favour of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings" with no explanation whatsoever. You didn't wait for feedback or counterpoints, and you ignored a perfectly valid point above that the military campaign name does not indicate support for the action. With certain attacks (like the Amman bombings, Bali bombings, etc, etc), we use a descriptive title because there is no prominent name available. Here, we have one, even if it's not a household name. Let's not make this about drawing sympathy for Palestinians; this is standard nomenclature. -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be the only place where Operation Cast Lead features so prominently. You won't find this on CNN, BBC or other main news sources. If IDF classifies it as such, it is fine, but the whole world knows about this event as the Gaza Strip airstrikes, Gaza assault, Israeli Gaza operation. If the ground offencive evolves from it, than it needs to be changed again. But so far, the Cast Lead Op needs to kept in the text, not in the title, this article is about the whole event, including humanitarian and political aspects, not just an Israeli military operation. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Wikipedia isn't news. The title denotes the article, hence Operation Cast Lead is necessary. 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is going to be false eventually, because the operation's scope is larger than a simple airstrike. A single report of infantry fighting would completely eliminate airstrike term. Operation Castle Lead is the appropriate title, it is used for every other Israeli operation, this should be no different. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Israeli offensive that began on December 27 at 11:30. That offensive is called Operation Cast Lead. That is a plain fact; there is nothing POV about it. --Shamir1 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the article shouldn't be only about the Israeli offensive, because portraying just one side is not neutral. Please read WP:NPOV, POV forks are not allowed and titles must be neutral. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes calling it "Operation Cast Lead" does not show Hamas's position, it should be December 2008 Hamas rocket attacks and the Isreally military responce. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with how it is phrased in the Main Page (ie Israel launched Operation Cast Lead) nor have it in the article even prominently. In fact, as of now the bulk of the article is about the operation. However, we are neither recentists, nor the media. We must follow neutrality. To the argument that almost all other articles are named for operations, this not true even for the war in Afghanistan. Usually, the events are described and an operation is given. Exceptions are usually as Operations as part of a larger inter-state conflict, such as WWII or the Korean War, but even there, we name the Battle of Chosin Reservoir after the battle, not the operation name. Even in the 2006 Lebanon War or 1982 Lebanon War we use a common name in the format similar to the proposed format. That said, neutrality is in a large extent a result of consensus, and all I am trying to do is prevent a future edit clusterfuck that benefits no one. Way I see it, we all take a chill pill, realize that neutrality is server, that Operation Cast Lead remains as a redirect (and hence a search term) and will remain in the intro. This way, we concentrate on editing the article to achieve GA. Its about not feeding trols and assuming good faith. What is so strange about that? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop dancing Cerejota. Respond to my claims and explain your logic again, or shall I simply just paste and copy what you said before? We get it, neutrality is an issue, but you're trying to paint Operation Cast Lead as a topic of neutrality. I, like many people here, are pulling a strong "wtf?!" inside our minds. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I already responded to this claim, please re-read, but the gist is that an operation name is one-sided, and hence non-neutral, its simple, really. And please, WP:CHILL: that we disagree is no reason to get on top of each other. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A clarification on the name: when trying to find reliable sources, concentrate on the "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes" part of the name. The December and 2008 are for wikipedia disambiguation purposes, not part of the "real" title. Currently, reliable sources are overwhelmingly calling this "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes". Regardless of the opinion of some, we are require to follow reliable sources, which in this case will be mostly news sources (unless books and academic papers are already out!) So what they call the thing, and how it verifies across sources, is central. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so just so we are all clear, the dismissal of Operation Cast Lead is warranted because other news sites aren't using that title for reference? This is your logic, correct? In response, wikipedia is not news. The article is about Operation Cast Lead, not BBC, CNN, etc.. individual story reporting. Within days the article is going to evolve into something pretty big I expect, and "Gaza Strip Airstrike" is not even close to being the necessary title to maintain the scope of the article. Operation Cast Lead is the official title of the operation orchestrated by Israel. I cannot spell this out any clearer. Also, you fail to explain your neutrality issue. I can't seem to find anything remotely controversial about Operation Cast Lead other than your strange disapproval. Wikipedia hosts hundreds of articles with Operation [insert weird name here], so I would assume that has set a strong precedent. But according to you, it doesn't? To change a title there needs to be a reason, and you have yet to offer a worthwhile one.

And i will repeat - Airstrikes is a useless term. This war is beyond bombs being dropped from the skies. There have already been reports of infantry fightings, hence airstikes/bombings are false titles. Man I'm tired. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ALSO, need I remind you that you unilaterally changed the title without any discussion in the talk? This is't Cerotapidia. This is a community-based website that requires care when dealing with special articles like this. The argument should be Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever, not the title you as an individual poised. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling it Operation Cast Lead is putting too much emphasis on the military side of the operation, while, as I pointed out above, military is but one aspect of what is happening there right now. As I understand this article is about the whole situation: political, humanitarian and not just about the IDF's operation. The title should be way broader than just about an IDF's operation. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the title Operation Cast Lead. None of the arguments against it are convincing, and certainly not enough to deviate from a Wikipedia convention. The logic that 'no news sources use this as the title in articles so we shouldn't' is faulty for two reasons:

1. It's in the claim itself—the word 'news'. Anyone reading news is presumed to understand that the airstrikes are referring to something that happened in the adjacent time period. However, Wikipedia is not news and we should be looking at the title from the point of view of someone reading this 20 years from now. '2008 Israeli airstrike in Gaza' or any variation thereof is completely unclear and ambiguous. Anything more detailed like 'December 2008 ...' is just going too far for no reason at all.
2. Almost all news sources, pro- and anti-Israeli, that I have seen, do mention the name somewhere in the article. You can't expect them to use the name all the time, because it is not descriptive to the general audience (i.e. a person unfamiliar with the event won't immediately know what 'Cast Lead' is referring to). Calling it an airstrike by Israel is a simple description, not a title, and this is a clarification that the media needs, and Wikipedia does not. There's absolutely no reason or Wiki policy to have a descriptive title—this is what the article itself is for.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1)What arguments you do not find convincing?

2) Almost all sources describe this as "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes". If I understand your point, you are saying that Operation Cast Lead' is a convention, and that it stems from sources. This is valid point, however, it fails to convince:

a)it isn't a convention to name articles by operation names, it is a consensus among a set of editors, and WP:CCC and it cannot happen outside of neutrality. If it is a convention, please name the policy or guideline establishing it so we can learn it.

b) it is not neutral as it is the name that one side is giving to the conflict. This is frank truism, like 2+2=4. If you name something, you have the upper hand in framing it. Hence no neutrality. This like saying the sky is blue or that the Holocaust happened. I first came upon this name as operation thing in 2006 Lebanon War, and then in was agreed not to use it. But I am not oppose to its use, I am opposed to its use when it obviously breaks neutrality. That's the difference.

c)None of the non-partisan reliable sources are calling this Operation Cast Lead, they are saying what we are saying in the lead: That the IDF is calling it Operation Cast Lead. Yet we have highly reliable sources calling this "Gaza Air Strike" with no mention of Operation Cast Lead Time Magazine, Fox News, Associated Press, etc etc etc. And then even inside of Israel, the sources don't use the term Haaretz. I do not know what sources you are reading, but we are reading different ones. And I am reading all the usual suspects for an event like this. (Yeah, Haaretz has useed "Operation Cast Lead", but also has written about this *without* the operation name; if Haaretz can be neutral, why can't wikipedia?

3) AFAIK, in all of the "current event" articles I have worked in, including recently the November 2008 Mumbai attacks (which I proposed its structure, and are its third highest editor) use the "date, place, event - format" which is an informal convention used in conflict articles (for relevant cases see above Lebanon War examples). The only naming convention that specifies a format is the WikiProject Disaster's convention, which uses the "date, place, event format". This is an emerging, informal convention, with which I agree. Now, as to the naming of Israeli operations,

4)The date specificity is a disambiguation requirement due to limitations with the Wikipedia software, and shouldn't be a subject of debate, please see WP:NAME.

I have provided you with sources, and with evidence to my assertions. I believe it would serve us well if we minimize naked assertions, and concentrate on providing evidence. I am very open to convincing, but we'll need more than just our word, we need sources. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1) If a ground component happens, we have many choices, I suggested a separated article for the ground component, but we can also rename this one to reflect that. Its not the end of the world, this is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can rename on the fly. So I do not understand how this is such a serious crisis.

If there is a ground component, then we need to seriously start thinking about WP:SUMMARY, which means a structure with a main article ans then sub-articles with Summaries in the main page. Perhaps in then we can get the operation names, as they are sub-articles of the 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict article, which is crap, but its there. However, this here is a new thing, something both unprecedented (when was the last time Israel bombed so massively Gaza?

2) I didn't propose the current title. I simply edited what someone else suggested, changing the one I had proposed, which itself was a rewording of the original title that you and couple-three other editors decided to do. I was as bold as you were, nothing sinister or owny. That said, we can engage on an edit war, or we can realize that it is the most neutral alternative to emerge so far. If you dislike it, then suggest something else that is as neutral and as descriptive. I am open, as surely are other editors. An advantage of this not being paper is that we can afford to change titles with relative ease. However, we do need to discuss, and I recognize I was bold, but so was the change to the operation name, which was not the original name of this article. The original name, while problematic, was more neutral. No two ways about it. Of course, you can always rain upon me with higher authority. :D

3) Yeah you seem tired, because you are becoming exasperated, which you probably shouldn't. We are in disagreement, but we are listening to each other in good faith, I hope! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of debating. Semantics and rhetoric get annoying and pointless after the 12th paragraph. Wikipedia isn't my life. My opinion rests strictly on Ynhockey well-crafted argument. I will come in to add points if necessary, but for now I'll give the fight up to those who wish to fight it. I encourage you to revert the title to its original state so we can debate in the intended environment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article is about a specific military operation, and as far as I know Operation Cast Lead is the only name for this specific operation. Why use a vague description when a precise name is available? Of course it's an Israeli name: it's an Israeli operation. Using the Israeli name doesn't imply approval of the operation, merely recognition that it's an operation for which Israel is responsible. Torve (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree here, I think that it should be called the name of the operation. What if it goes past Dec 2008 (a highly likely event) will we rename the article again to "Dec 2008-Jan 2009 Gaza Strip airstrikes"? It seems to me that the name of the article got unilaterally changed during the discussion, rather than according to consensus. Seems weird that we're stuck there on an accident of history.Lot 49a^talk 08:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to me Operation Cast Lead is probably the best name for now. If another name develops we can move the article but this seems to be least problematic name at the current time. I'm sympathetic to the view operation names can sometimes be problematic and violate NPOV but it's not as if we have something like Enduring Freedom here so IMHO it isn't an extreme issue Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is NPOV. Support this over the name given to the events by one party. RomaC (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My Support for title of 'Operation Cast Lead"

1. I agree that the title of this article should be "Operation Cast Lead". This title would indicate that this offensive is an Isreali led MILITARY offensive against Hamas within the Gaza Strip. From a military standpoint, if there are two opposing sides engaged in conflict, each side will have various operations in order to gain the upper hand. Regaurdless of each sides approval of the methods behide the opponents operations, that operation is still known as whatever the opponent who devised the operation calls it. It does not show support for an operation by calling it by the name of the one who devised, it only is used to indicate what operation is being referred to (as opposed to saying 2008 airstrikes on gaza strip, what is this? what type of airstrikes?). I feel that by calling by its codename would indicate that it is a military offensive. I feel that by calling it by a title should as airstrikes on gaza strip could led one to believe that the airstrikes were committed by a private body.

2. However, I do agree that at times an opponent may call an operation by a name such "Brutal Airstrike on Gaza" but this is only used as proproganda used to motivate ones supporters. However, from a strategic standpoint the operation would be known by its codename.

3. I feel that by calling by a such as 2008 airstrikes is actually biased towards Hamas. I believe this becuase it seemly implies that the IDF is an illegitment fighting force and supports the Hamas point of view without being neutral. By failing to title the article by its actual name would take away from the fact that it is a military operation and biases it towards an killing hungry fighting force.

Please give any counterarguments. Virgo1989 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First, welcome to Wikipedia. I placed a welcome message on your talk page, and as I see that this is your first contribution to Wikipedia, it will give you an idea of what we are, what we do, and what policies we are supposed to be following when editing. In particular, let me refer you to the Five pillars of Wikipedia.

That said, I invite you to be more careful when discussing matters. In particular, be careful when raising strawmen: no one here has seriously suggested ""Brutal Airstrike on Gaza" or some such.

You do raise an interesting point, which is the bias for Hamas. In particular for Wikipedia, where we develop content not based on our own original research, but through a process of verification of reliable sources. I wrote something about this below, please read it as it will help you understand my point.

Almost all reliable sources are describing this as "Gaza Strip air strikes" or "Gaza air stikes". They do so without a value judgment, describing the facts of the event. On the other hand, who gives an operation a codename? One side. Now, if this name was universally used by reliable sources, we might have an argument, but it isn't. Even Haaretz has articles around this event that do not mention the Operation codename Haaretz article. I am sorry, but if you think Haaretz is implying that the IDF is an illegitimate fighting force by not using the codename, we live in separate realities. I think your argument is not only weak, but untenable in the view of evidence, and falls in the realm of fringe opinion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the the use of gaza strip airstrike in that situation. As someone stated earlier in that sense the term "gaza strip airstrike" is used as a descriptive term and not as the name of the event. As was stated earlier, if you don't know what Operation Cast Lead is this title would not be appropriate. However, as far as a title within wikipedia I believe that the codename is more appropriate, because in this situation it is no longer a "news" article but a explanation of the facts. As far as what most reliable sources use I see that they are using it as a description once again and not as a title. In THIS situation I feel that Operation Cast Lead would be more appropriate as it gives the title of the military operation which is recongnized by these same sources as the name of the actual operation. Given the current situation of this operation I feel that currently this article describes a military operation that may eventually encompass more than airstrikes which as was stated by others would render the current title inappropriate. Thank you for insight I appreciate it Virgo1989 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Overturning this

It's obvious those in favor of this name are heavily outnumbered. It's time to move the article back to its original location. If anyone is actually interested in letting the move request last a full five days, it should be with the original name as the default, not the name decided by one person mid-stream. -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Won't act on it, as I have already moved the article, but endorse this view. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 07:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse times infinity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should defer to the original name until we have consensus for something else. I do think it needs to be made clear that any move is not intended to shut down discussion but reflective of the fact the original move was out of process Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• A reminder to everybody in this section: this is not a private discussion among the people who own the page due to their having worked on it. If you make comments referring to "the original location" like you have here, most "third party" wikipedians who browse through the discussion and just want to find the key arguments will have difficulty knowing what you're talking about, since there have been apparently about 5 name-changes since the first draft was written. Boud (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a new party could guess that "original location" means... well... the original location, where the article originally was (which can be determined from the history). -- tariqabjotu 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I never worked on this article other then one single reversion. I didn't even read most of the arguments. I did read enough to know the core of the issue here is that this article was unilaterally moved without consensus. It's not that hard... Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding "heavily outnumbered": wikipedia decision-making on controversial issues like deleting a page or renaming a page is not about voting. Only a clear set of arguments/counterarguments and consensus solution is likely to be accepted by the large number of "third party" wikipedians. Boud (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Such arguments have already made. Numbers are not everything, but they do mean something. Unless one side's arguments simply don't make sense or go against policy, etc, etc, there's little reason to go against the majority. While WP:NPOV has been thrown around, there has been no clear reason why either side goes against policy. -- tariqabjotu 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Definite support for returning the title to Operation Cast Lead. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lest we forget, Cerejota, or whatever his name is, unilaterally CHANGED the title of the page without even waiting for responses in his little China-trial selection game. The discussion contained 4-5 people deciding on an appropriate title, and Cerejota abuses his powers and changes it. And he is still defending his decision. This isn't simply a matter of whats right, we are obligated as wikipedians to follow the rules and revert the title back to its original form. Then, we can discuss further name changed. Seriously guys, this isn't rocket science. I'm honestly considering getting some heavy admins in here because it's been 13 hours and nothing has changed. A true wikipedia tragedy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When it is said that this is consensus and not voting it is because our "votes" are constrained by policy. You can vote against policy, but you vote is invalid. Any alternative that is WP:neutral and meets WP:NAME is cool with me. Naming this article for the operation is a breach of neutrality. Hence, it is not possible to support it as an option, because it breaches core policy. Sorry. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How is naming the article by the operation a "breach of neutrality"? This article is about the operation's background, its planning, the air strike, the possible ground attack and the reactions to the operation. In other words, it's about the operation. Why shouldn't it be called by the name of the operation? The only valid point, IMO, not to change the title to "Operation Cast Lead" is the fact that the name isn't known, but still, "airstrikes" isn't an appropriate description. In that case, "December 2008 IDF operation in Gaza" is the best name IMO. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is an interesting name sugegstion but the "airstrikes/air strikes" come from how reliable sources are calling this - a different issue from neutrality. Maybe "December 2008 Gaza IDF air strikes"? but then we are making the title longer as per WP:NAME. I already provided a list of the actual sources, but Time, Fox News, and Haaretz are all calling this "Gaza Strip air strikes" or variations like "Gaza" alone etc. This dismissal of "airstrikes" I find puzzling, as it is what we are covering here, and what every source I have read is saying.

As to neutrality, it is the name of the operation given to one side of the conflict, ignoring the multi-side nature of the conflict. We agree that this is not a one sided conflict, but one with a complex background, and with complex results, that will be covered by RS. In particular, reliable sources see it as a milestone, as a new phase in the political and military engagement, and as unprecedented move by Israel, who had never used air power at this level in the Palestinian territories. Perhaps subsequent use of air power will be less notable as a milestone, and reliable sources lead us to conclude the operation name is correct, but such is not the case now. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an admin in here? I did it once but I'm not really comfortable with the process. This needs to be taken care of, pronto. Cerejota, you, without discussion this in the talk page, CHANGED the title to something you personanally believe to be neutral. Even if the title was Israel Sucks Big Ones, you are still obligated to at least look through the rationale in the talk. Operation Cast Lead is the real title, we should be arguing from that, not arguing to have it reinstated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Raise it at WP:DRAMA as I suggested we do. If this is your main grievance, which I already addressed, we can take it there. I just would like you to calm down so we can discuss in peace. No need to get all upset. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion and the general paralysis over what should be a relatively minor issue, I went ahead and raised it. Lot 49a^talk 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - If Operation Barbarossa has remained the same, I can't figure why it can't be the same here. Or do we need to change it also? How about "The German (Nazi) invasion of (Soviet) Russia in June 1941"? PluniAlmoni (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Cerejota 20:40, 28 December 2008 - Even if airstrikes is mentioned in the world media, it isn't a correct name. I find it absurd that in an article named "...airstrikes" there's a paragraph called "Ground attack".

About the neutrality, even if it's a long-ongoing conflict, this article is about the operation, not about the whole conflict. We have other pages for that (2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict etc.) RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 09:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Gaza Strip war

I see the title as not neutral because it does show the Hamas response to the attacks. 2008 Gaza strip war is neutral and shows a 2-sided conflict with military operations. Earlier on in 2008 it wasn't a war but just clashes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamas didn't launch any kind of a military operation (except targeting civilians, for now). This is, as yet, a one-sided military operation with no (military) retaliation from the other party. PluniAlmoni (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

the best name. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3645561,00.html I would prefer however 2008 Gaza War or 2008-present Gaza War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Its not a 'war', therefore this title is inappropriate. Ijanderson (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• It's pretty one-sided right now. It may have been in response to Hamas actions, but those actions are beyond the scope of this article. -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • How long do the Hamas rocket attacks have to continue in tandem with the Israeli bombing attacks for them to be considered not separate events? To me, if it is not currently in scope then it should be. You can't just flatly deny that one sides actions are unrelated to the other sides when so many sources discuss them as if they are. 118.208.59.98 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would support this if significant, sustained (ie, not police capture operations etc) ground operations start and/or reliable sources start calling it so. Otherwise, it is a bit premature. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Israel's DefMin Barak called the operation as "an all out war against Hamas" in his address today at the Israeli Parlament. CNN already cites Barak's words frequently. The fact that it is so called "on sided" is not crucial im my view. It is still a war even if one side is "winning" (which is doubtful to stay that way in the next few days, I think. All is needed is one successful suicide attack in Israel to change the whole picture). Lastly, it is not really one sided, as fire is being fired in both directions. Most Israeli reliable media sources are using the term "Ma'aracha" (מערכה), which translates to a "battle".--Omrim (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

An update - Israel's largest news site is now calling it "a war". see [6] --Omrim (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - calling it "airstrikes" or whatever detaches it from its context, making it look as though Israel just got up one day and decided to bomb Gaza. There are two sides to this, with history. If "war" is too strong a word (I think it is), we can use "conflict" instead. Otherwise, it would only be fair to include Hamas's actions, making the name "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes and Southern Israel rocket and mortar attacks"... okedem (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since the Israeli Navy is now confirmed to join the operation see [7], the "airstrikes" title losses its relevance.--Omrim (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Gaza Genocide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as per User:Bsimmons666, WP:SNOWBALL, this is extreme, fringe and not really discussion we should have in Wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm here declaring the necessity to enroll this event as a brutal act of genocide, and as a crime against humanity , compared to the Sabra and Shatila massacre compared to Siege of Sarajevo and Srebrenica massacre , and compared to numerous other israelian war crimes like the historical Qibya massacre

Besides one should outline the extraordinary brutality of this crime. imagine 100 tons of tnt falling on the most densely populated areas of the world btw 100 tons of tnt is equivalent to small nuclear warhead like the m65 nuclear rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Killing terrorists is genocide? Tiger Trek (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

--->Killing women and children is murder, haulocaust is a more suited word, which is a growing concern to those who uphold Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. Outrageous.

Use of such utterly inflammatory statements is reserved for extreme cases of violence and when such terms are used by many published sources, historians, and political figures, etc; this is clearly not the case, and the suggestion of such an inflammatory title does not help much to keep this discussion civil and POV free. (And throwing about the word terrorist doesn't help either) Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joshdboz 90.231.60.96 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not a genocide, nor should Wikipedia use this in its title.

Unless the term "genocide" has been applied to this particular operation by the majority of reliable sources, genocide cannot be used in the title of this article, as it would violate WP:NPOV. Terrakyte (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. First of all, take a look at the definition(s) of genocide. I see no definition that fits. Secondly, has the term genocide been used in a NPOV mainstream media source? Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 15:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is this a joke? Show me one neutral news source which even mentioned the word "Genocide". I suggest you take your overblown radical POV somewhere else. --77.127.100.115 (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Its time Wikipedia shows that is not influenced by the zionist controlled media that only sanctions "reliable sources" if they support israel. 78.145.179.247 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as the intent seems to be to eliminate only those perceived to be terrorists and not to kill off all Palestinians. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a Genocide , and I'll show you how! Refering to the user Bsimmons666 who made the suggestion that this act of brutality does not match the criteria of genocide according to the definition(s) of genocide. I shall display to all of you , his ignorance by proving that this event fulfills the above mentioned criteria if it was to be taken as the scale against we shall measure against .

The Wikipedia Genocide Definition List says I quote: "the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide." I repeat here the intent to destroy! Now Tell me all of you israel-lobbiests , Can you Deny the Fact that Israel is intending to Wipe out the palestinians?? Isn't it true that israel's first ever known policy since it was established in 1948 was to exterminate all arabs? Didn't Ben Gorion give clear orders to the Hahaganna to murder/terrorize the arabs in order to take over their lands?

The Palestinian Arab People are the original inhabitants of palestine since thousand of years, who inherited the lands from their Phoenician Forefathers.

And it was only at the end of the 19th century when the Jewish Aliens started to invade palestine, building settlement after settlement under the eyes of the british mandate.

Since that time israel has literally never stopped to perform what any rational objective person would call A Process also known as Ethnic Cleansing , which describes the policy of murdering a distinct racial and/or religious group or at least forcing them to deport by subjecting them to below human dignity conditions. Cowmadness (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Israelis have no intent to destroy the Palestinian race. The intent is to stop Hamas from firing rockets. I'd say this vote (though it's not even a real vote) should be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2008 Hamas-Israel Conflict

Since this is a conflict, brought on by Hamas attacks and responded to by Hamas attacks (both on israel and on egypt) the title should be two sided. Also, the use of the word "conflict" has 2 advantages over other terms:

1)It is a simple, accurate description. calling it a war is not accurate since it is not big enough to be a war.

2) This may very well turn into a ground operation, and in that event this would describe it better than calling it "air strikes". Ben Abooya (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not specific. There have been several conflicts between Hamas/Israel this year. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Gaza (2008) would be a better title, IMO. --84.67.31.215 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli authorities claim that they are just attacking one organisation (political party/de facto government/armed wing). However, that's their POV rather than a more neutral description of a military conflict. It would seem to me rather POV to call this the Hamas-Israel something rather than the Gaza Strip-Israel something. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point, but i find it difficult to call the Gasa strip itself a side in this. More accurate would be to say that this "something" (to use your words) takes place, at least partly, in the Gasa strip. -- Ben Abooya (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben Abooya makes a fairly good point - maybe another word or two could help define it more accurately in addition to what he suggested - perhaps December 2008 Israeli-Hamas Armed Conflict in Gaza or December 2008 Gaza Armed Conflict. That last one, for now, would likely serve as a fitting title - the sides in this are understood, and it defines the conflict without having to identify the differing sides (which the current title has effectively done already - one side might favor language that shows that Israel is attacking Palestinians regardless of whether they are Hamas or not, and the other side might favor language that shows Israel is focusing on Hamas militants - the current title "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" does well to avoid all that and should remain doing so in the event of any changes) - and, since ground operations are believed to possibly begin soon (link below), following what Abooya mentioned, the word "airstrikes" may likely soon no longer apply. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802515.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstargeneral (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I support "December 2008 Gaza Armed Conflict". I like it better than what i said earlier. -- Ben Abooya (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict

Maybe December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict ? Here i'm guessing ahead that the conflict will continue into January. i know it's long, but we will need to find something. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe just December 2008 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict even if the conflict continues into January, with the idea that the name refers to the starting date ? E.g. in France, WWII can be referred to as << la guerre de '39 >> = the war of 1939, without any need to state the end year. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Boud, I think you might be on to somethnig there is sounds better then most other ideas to me. I don't know about the term Conflict or not but that is more of an issue as we go on. This is a good format. if others agree I could give more defind wording on Conflict/War/Campign/Battle and so on. it could be the Winter 2008 Isreal-Gaza Strip Conflict/Battle (depending opn what term to discribe the fighting everyone decides on)

Ideas thoughts? is this moving in the right direction everyone?

I'll begin with your suggestions and lay out a few alternatives. For one thing, the title looks absurdly long. Seriously. However, I think that can be fixed by dropping "December" and "January". Why, you ask? The "2008" in "2008 Israel-Gaza Strip airstrikes" indicates that the article talks about airstrikes in 2008. That's a huge span there, and that might be mixed up with others. However, if this crosses into the new year, we don't need the month designations anymore because the "2008-2009" in "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict" would describe a conflict between 2008 and 2009; i.e. that spans the two years. This, presumably, will be the only one. This, of course, raises the question: hasn't there been a 'conflict' for awhile? Well, yes, conflict might be too weak of a word. However, we can't be dropping "war" or "battle" until other sources start using that. We're not left with much better. Based on what I said earlier, I don't think there's a need to keep December 2008 (as in Boud's second suggestion) if it crosses into the new year.

Regarding the idea of the person above, "winter 2008" is generally not a good idea because (a) it's summer in the southern hemisphere, so it can sound strange and/or confusing to some and (b) "Winter 2008" can be confused with early 2008. I only think we should bring "winter" into the mix if that becomes a common motif for discussing this conflict.

My suggestions:

• If Israel takes most of the offensive actions here, keep it as "Operation Cast Lead" (no matter when this ends).
• If this becomes more of a two-way event and ends before the new year, change it to "December 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict"
• If this becomes more of a two-way event and ends after the new year, change it to "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict"
• If people start using some common name, we use that.

-- tariqabjotu 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to amend my previous comment. Depending on how this unfolds, I think I'm going to advocate keeping an "Operation Cast Lead" article. If this becomes a bigger conflict, we might want to create an article about the larger conflict, discussing the lead-up, this, and whatever happens, and keep this as a daughter article. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you about the conflict widening then we articulate in that fashion. Lets not get all ballsy (besides my balls are pure adamantium, not crystal :) about it, but if it does widen (and my definition of "widen" is not wide itself: any sustained ground escalation), then this article should be named for the operation, as part of a wider conflict with other operations and sub-articles. But for now, this about the airstrikes as a notable phenomenon within the I-P conflict, and neutrality and verifiability still sustain that the correct name is not the operation name.

That said, and I have said this before , people are already using a more common name: "Gaza airstrikes" or variations. Pretty much every reliable source one reads, Time, New York Times , Times Online, Washington Post, Haaretz, BBC, etc etc etc, either don't mention the operation name, or do so in the same way that we do in the article using terms like "dubbed by the IDF" or "named by the IDF" or somesuch and also call this "Gaza airstrikes" or variations.

Pretty much the only sources that use the name in common reporting are partisan or inside Israel - and not just for reason of neutrality, but because who can fault a National press to speak the language of the National government (for example, calling this by the Operation name in Hebrew Wikipedia is neutral, in so far is has no systemic bias problems as there are in English wikipedia, AFAIK). I am still waiting for someone to provide evidence to the contrary, based on sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now the title of the article is December 2008 Gaza_Strip airstrikes. I have a feeling the offensive operations carried out by Israel will carry on till January. But since the airstrikes started in December, the month December should stay in the title. There is no need to add January in the title. With the massing of ground forces at the Gaza border will leave out void the airstrikes in the title. The title December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict is too long. It should just be December 2008 Israel-Hamas conflict, December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict, etc Roman888 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone for 5 days

I know that getting the precise name of the article right is The Most Important Thing Possible and all, but currently both the Operation name and the more generic name all point to the same place and both names are covered in the opening sentence of the article. I've already given my own opinion above but honestly, it doesn't really matter in the interim.

This is plainly a developing situation and my Crystal Ball is on the fritz. Let's give events time to play themselves out, and then name the article once things have stabilized. For all we know, this could be a stub of The Beginning of World War III which will start World War III was a major international conflict that was sparked by Operation Cast Lead...

I feel like we're in danger of being featured on WP:LAME Lot 49a^talk 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you looked at half of the disputes on WP:LAME, you'd see this is nowhere near reaching that. Debates on Wikipedia are natural and occur all over the place. With one as civil and organized as this one, there is no need to invoke the standard you-guys-look-foolish essays. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm new to all of this. Lot 49a^talk 03:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The original name was Operation Cast Lead. One member took it upon himself to change it without discussion and then told everyone it wasn't neutral enough. Expecting us to wait 5 more days is insulting. If anything, the admin who abused his powers needs to be penalized and the title needs to be reverted to its original state. This isn't rocket science, no need for extreme rhetoric or semantics. There isn't much to argue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be moved back to Operation Cast Lead. But I don't think that it's really doing that much harm if we have to live with both article titles temporarily redirecting to the "wrong" page while it's in dispute. In the meantime we can work on the article in response to these rapidly moving events.Lot 49a^talk 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, for the umpteenth time, I restored the name someone else created, and then fixed it from a suggestion. Just because you like the original name, doesn't mean it fits our policies on neutrality. The article was started with one name, but that means exactly nothing.

That said, cool down periods are always a good idea, and this is why I tell you to this is not the end of the world and that there is no deadline. We take our time. --Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your excuses are on-point. Consensus means nothing. Your opinion means everything. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "admin who abused his powers"? -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lets wait for five days. But what reflections should it have on Wikipedia's credibility, if for five days the title only refers to "airstrikes" while it is now already confirmed by official IDF sources, quoted by YNET (Israel's largest news website) that the Israeli Navy is taking active part in the operation. see: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3646818,00.html --Omrim (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we verify this? One source is not enough, and someone claimed something similar (although without a source) two days ago about the ground war and no dice. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First, YNET was quoting official Israeli IDF sources, and the link I provided shows videos taken by the Israeli Navy firing missiles and cannon fire at the Gaza coastline. Second, Haaretz (which as I recall, you said is a reliable source) reported the same. see http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1051000.html. The title translates: "israeli Navy Attack in Gaza: This is how it Looked like". Lastly, the IDF official website reports:

"Israel Naval Forces also struck a number of targets Sunday night, including Hamas vessels and posts. The Naval Forces reported direct hits."

see:http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/12/2901.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Its verified... then can we change it to 2008 Gaza strikes? In fact, most reliable sources are headlining this in their articles already. BTW, I think Ynet is of a lesser quality than Haaretz, because it tend to be tabloidy and gossipy (as is its parent newspaper, a sensationalistic rag if I have seen any - if you are ISraeli you know what I mean), but it is a reliable source. That is not the issue. Verifiability has to happen no matter how reliable a source, in particular in controversial articles. We are requiredto do it.

BTW, the same gossipy nature of YNET makes it a great predictor of whats to come (part of its salacious views on news). It seems there will be ground excursions [8]. I am guessing this will be called an "invasion" if history teaches anything. So maybe 2008 Gaza invasion will happen? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Strikes" is porbably more accurate than "airstrikes" even though I can't support both, as they indicate a completly one-sided action, while in our case fire is being shot in both directions. My view is that "battle", "war" or even "campaign" are better. Putting that aside for the moment, I think a section titled "naval campaign" should be added. There is ample amount of reliable source by now, reporting both weapons used and targets hit by the Israeli Navy. I would have done do myself, but I am new here, which means, I am blocked.--Omrim (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Careful about POV

Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.[6]

This kind of statement can start nationalist edit wars in Wikipedia. To avoid this, the above statement should have more than one source. All sources must be of impeccable reliability. This comment is to help Wikipedia, not support or oppose one of the combatants. Ipromise (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Palestine News Network citation

Several users insist on reverting my passage revision: "Palestine News Network reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded.[9] Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives." TO: Palestinian Medical Sources reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded.[9] Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.[7] To begin, PNN isn't even close to being a reliable source, but because few have been reported, I'm willing to let it slide until another more reliable reference can be obtained. Second, PNN is not a base for Palestinian Medical Sources, nor are these sources cited in the article. The statement isn't even exaggeration, it is simply false. To be perfectly honest, however, the article would be better off without the citation at all. The number cited by PNN could be as high as 10,000 and it still doesn't merit any weight, for their reporting is highly unregulated or recognized by any remotely professional media entity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, if you could give us the names/URLs of some Palestinian "remotely professional media entities", then that would help to understand your claim here. Thanks. Boud (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There are none, as far as I know. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case being unrecognised by a non-existent "remotely professional media entity" is irrelevant. Boud (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, setting up strawmen doesn't help your case. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cerejota what is your problem? PNN is NOT a RELIABLE source. I know you did some freaky deeky rationalization b.s in this discussion which I refuse to respond to, but whatever logical fallacies you use, PNN. Is. Not. A. Reliable. Source. Period! I'd be surprised if any of their "reporters" went to college. The articles scream sensationalism, opinions slush with watery facts throughout paragraphs, and there is rarely a sense of true objectivity. I don't see how you can defend that. And I know for a fact wikipedia does not condone the use of those types of sources. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. Thank!--Cerejota (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm calm, Cerejota. I was cordial and plight, but dealing with you is beyond unbearable. You come in and offer your one sentence reduction, or write some thousand paragraph defense that is nothing less than fallacies proving fallacies, and to top it all off, you tell people to calm down when they call you on it. Please, for the sake of this article, take a break. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we are to take your assertions at face value, care to provide evidence? Palestine News Network is certainly partisan, but I do not see why it isn't reliable as per WP:RS. You just saying that over and over again doesn't change this. Hence my strawmen comment: what is a reliable source is not for you and me to decide using our own criteria, but using the criteria in WP:RS. Reliable sources can be extremist or fringe sources, for example, not saying PNN is, but even if we take your arguments at face value, your conclusion is wrong as per WP:RS. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Ok, let's quote WP: RS - Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

So, you think PNN is a credible third party source, with a reliable publication process? Ok, straight from their website: PNN endorses the idea of supporting and strengthening the role of the local Palestinian media through unifying news sources and publishing news bulletins simultaneously to a number of radio stations in the West Bank and Gaza. And lastly: We strive to empower the Palestinian people and their cause, particularly that of nonviolent resistance to occupation.

On their very own website, they admit their lack of objectivity and complete loyalty to one side of the spectrum. So, before you start whipping out rules, why don't you read them yourself. I'm done. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You are selectively reading WP:RS. It clearly states that:

Extremist and fringe sources

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources|Wikipedia:Verifiability § Questionable sources]], [[:Wikipedia:Fringe theories]], and [[:Wikipedia:PSCI]]

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities.[2] Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. The material taken from such sources should not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

They are RS only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. However, I have not found any widely acknowledged by reliable sources describing PNN as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist, but as you documented, they do present themselves as clearly partisan.

Yet PNN claims do not make it a non-reliable source, it makes them a partisan source, one which we should treat with caution, with an eye towards neutrality, not ignore altogether.

Do this clear it up? Partisanship doesn't mean unreliability, it simply means partisanship. PNN is actually made more reliable by its open admission of partisanship, not less, as it saves us the need to have to discuss if it is partisan or not. Not as reliable as the BBC, but much more than a DebkaFile or some other blog. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Give it up Cerejota. 70.181.154.29 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't see how the following qualifies PNN as more partisan than the BBC or NYT or CNN etc.: PNN endorses the idea of supporting and strengthening the role of the local Palestinian media through unifying news sources and publishing news bulletins simultaneously to a number of radio stations in the West Bank and Gaza ... We strive to empower the Palestinian people and their cause, particularly that of nonviolent resistance to occupation.

Aren't the BBC and CNN and NYT and the Guardian and ABC (USA) and Fox News at least as nationalist as PNN? Didn't the US "reliable" newspapers "support the British/US people and their cause" after the September 2001 aeroplane-into-building attacks? Why is pro-British nationalism in Britain or pro-US nationalism in the USA any more partisan than pro-Palestinian nationalism in Palestine? Personally, i'm not much in favour of nationalism in general, but i don't see why any one nationalism is more "partisan" than another, especially if it just non-violent resistance to occupation. The only obvious candidate i see is that "non-violent" resistance to occupation/attack is somehow less neutral than "anything goes, even ignoring international human rightslaw" resistance to occupation/attack. Is it the "non-violent" aspect which is partisan?

Just to take the BBC. Here's one example of the BBC acting as a tool of British foreign policy, in contrast to its stated aims of neutrality. Isn't this more partisan than non-violent resistance to occupation in an occupied country? Boud (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fox News, CNN, BBC, NYT are all recognized media outlets that strive to maintain a relative balance in media. Yes, some bend left, some bend right, but all follow a general outline of conduct. PNN is basically and advocacy group. It follows no structure, no rules, and is not recognized by any media company other than lower-tier Arab blogs. We're going in circles here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree: PNN is basically an advocacy group (they do follow rules etc, no need for hyperbole). So is, say, Amnesty International, but we still source from it. You see, not all reliable sources are equal, and they range from self-published to the highest quality. We can make value judgements as to their quality, and in what context to use them. But discarding them just because they are advocacy organizations? No dice. We do not have to like the sources we use, we just need them for balance. If there is no independent media in Gaza, then we use its alternative, which is PNN. But we do not give it equal footing with more reliable sources. I think that might be the source of our disagreement: you think RS is black and white (like say, [[WP:NOTE|notability), when it is actually a series of shades. A highly reliable source, like The New York Times, you put in with out much fuzz, a less reliable one, like Jerusalem Post, you are more careful to evaluate and verify with other sources, and a much less reliable one, like PNN, you ultra verify and only use if it provides information that is necessary to maintain neutrality. To use the example in the policy, if we discuss the Earth, we must include mention that some think it is flat and held up by turtles, and source the information from the Flat Earth Society. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. God damn, Cerejota, you can't just admit your wrong? Everything is a fucking argument. I don't have the energy for this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit it: Successful troll is successful. Everything is a fucking LOL. --Cerejota (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Better than a Thanks! after every post. Thanks! Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota's analysis of WP:RS. Even if the PNN is highly biased, it's still appropriate to report what they say as long as we properly attribute. Then if what they are saying is proven later to be false, then we can report on that. But to presuppose what PNN is reporting is untruthful because they have a likely bias and to use that as a reason to remove cited material from the page should not fly.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

neutality tag

I added the tag in light of the recent discussions involving the title, important passages, and various controversial elements of the article. Until those are revolved, I think it's important we warn the reader that there is a strong will to improve the article but several critical points aren't fully cleared. Therefore, a neutrality tag is necessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"destroyed in 4 minutes"

The source is this, [9], the title does say "Most Hamas bases destroyed in 4 minutes" but it is not elaborated in the article (e.g. who says that, what is the definition of "most") JVent (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some have framed it as a neutrality issue, but it isn't. If it happened, it happened. But it is a verifiability issue. Other than the IDF, and the press that supports it, any other media is verifying this? If there isn't, perhaps we should start quoting, because it does seem quite extraordinary a claim: not even the USA with significantly more resources pulled that in the Shock and awe phase of the war in Iraq. And BTW, nothing sinister is implied, but there is this thing called Fog of war which makes me weary of such exact figures until a few months later. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison to Iraq is greatly flawed. Gaza is much much small than iraq. The Gaza strip is about 360 km2 and Iraq is over a twelve hundred times bigger at 438,317 km2. In addition Israel has much great intelligence ability in Gaza than America did in Iraq. I think that the claim that Israel could destroy most of Hamas' building in 4 minutes is plausible. Jon513 (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Baghdad, which was almost the sole target of the "Shock and Awe", is comparable to Gaza, in particular in the built-up, un-planned nature. Yet the USA failed to hit all objectives, and certainly didn't decapitate the leadership of Iraq, as the press conferences by Comical Ali show. However, fog of war is my main point. I mean, "four minutes" is a very precise figure. Not even "under five minutes" or "in less than five minutes". People do not say "four minutes" unless they are measuring with precise instruments, and even the most carefully thought out plan fails somewhere in execution. I just know enough about the history of war to know this. That is plausible in no way means it is not extraordinary: that is why I insist on sourcing, and oppose taking it out altogether, it has the ring of truth, but needs verification because it is extraordinary. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An Israeli journal is not a neutral point of view. Obviously they will put their "victory" under a lot of "extra light" in the newspapers. I prefer avoiding this statement till it exists in other international and more neutral media like Reuters or others. I'll re-edit if such biased claim did not appear in any other international and neutral media 41.235.82.113 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is good info if it is verified. Which is all that is being asked. Are any other sources verifying this information? Even the IDF officially? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The massive offensive is in retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities

This is what is said by the Isreali officials, it should not be considered as a fact and treated the way we treat the description of what is happening in the strip, I'll add, Israeli officials are justifying this massive offensive as a retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam (talk • contribs) 06:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The following two news snippets might add details to the article. I do not want to add them myself for fear of making some stupidly huge mistake. I hardly know anything about adding material to Wikipedia articles with the referencing, and this is no place to experiment, Sandbox or no.

• Israeli assault on Hamas kills more than 200

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asat10j06fLdzogLL4jbmSKs0NUE By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer 28 Dec 2008 The Israeli army says Palestinian militants have fired some 300 rockets and mortars at Israeli targets over the past week, and 10 times that number over the past year. ... A second wave was directed at squads who fired more than 110 rockets and mortars at Israeli border communities.

• Hamas rockets pound Israel as truce hopes fade

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081224/wl_afp/mideastconflictgaza_081224215711 by Sakher Abu El Oun Sakher Abu El Oun (AFP) Wed 24 Dec 2008 "Hamas gunmen launched more than 70 projectiles, the largest barrage since before an Egyptian-brokered truce went into effect in and around Gaza in June but expired five days ago. ... Hamas...said Wednesday's rocket fire was in retaliation for the killing of three militants the day before..."

I included the second because it quotes Hamas's reason for launching rockets in the days after the termination of the 19 June 2008 truce - a potentially useful detail for this article. PinkWorld (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

• Here's a Qassam Attack Calendar with links to news articles: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/12/rocket-calendars.html --89.139.175.30 (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources mostly say this is the case, and we have List of Qassam rocket attacks, no need to reference blogs which are not reliable sources. If there is a blog with links to news sources, use it as research tool for the sources, we cannot reference directly, nor use its synthesis. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because many sources try to mind-read something very difficult to determine (why a military operation started) does not mean that we should quote it as a fact rather than as a claimed fact. The sort of evidence we need for relatively objective events (what was bombed, who was killed, which organisation did the bombing, when it happened, etc.) is less stringent than for why the events happened from a socio-political point of view. We can't say that the attacks "were" in retaliation based on sources that are most likely just quoting what the Israeli government or Hamas told them. We can say that Israeli authorities described the attacks as being in retaliation, and then maybe one further iteration of the loop ("who started first?") to what Hamas retaliated for. However, i think that trying to get into a "who started it" game is getting into an eternal (from the point of view of a wikipedian who wants to sleep and stop editing!) loop. Listing events in chronological order is uncontroversial and avoid guessing intentions. If we do want to describe intentions, then at least the people/organisations claiming them should be mentioned. Boud (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that we mention the six months prior planning of the attacks in the text, the summary needs to at least state this briefly, which i've done. Boud (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral wording

"The massive offensive is in retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities."

"Israel began targeting dozens of buildings belonging to the ruling Hamas militant group."

I think the bolded terms need to be reworded, removed, or preferably quantified. The sources do none of these, so perhaps a rewording is in order. Alternately, they could just be quoted. The same basic facts are used elsewhere in the article with different sources without the unquantified portion.

Jokeyxero (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed "near daily" to "daily", which reflects the reality of the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. These happened daily during the last years. This is reliable and verifiable information. -- Gabi S. (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is reliable and verifiable, then please cite your sources. In particular, please don't change cited information of the references don't support the claim as this leads to the highly misleading situation where the information appears to be references but is not. This is imperative in such a contentious article. I have reverted your change and it should stay that way until this 'reliable and verifiable' information is actually verified by reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You can pick any Israeli newspaper and check the daily headlines to see the timeline of rocket and mortar attacks. Many of them carried casualties. A partial list, including only notable and/or newsworthy Qassam rocket and mortar attacks, can be found in List of Qassam rocket attacks. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. We need reliable sources which say the attacks were daily. What you are describing is a form of OR. Incidentally List of Qassam rocket attacks doesn't describe daily attacks which is perhaps not surprising since it should only cover notable attacks but reflective of the fact it's pointless bringing it up Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand... Do you think that the attacks didn't occur daily? Or that the 80 rockets fired on 24-Dec alone are insignificant? I don't get your point.

A simple web search yields many reliable sources stating the daily attacks as fact (such as this one), but they are not needed, since it's a well-known fact. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I am sorry, but I really don't think that what Nil Einne said makes much sense. It's like saying "we need a reliable source saying that people who work are receiving salaries". There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of sources about dates and targets of Qassam rocket lauches. It happens almost on daily basis, quite literally, and targeted towards civilian towns (which is another well known fact), and it happens for years. I doubt you need 30000 sources for each attack.
Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Again you don't understand. We need sources which say these attacks happens daily. Not sources which describe individual attacks. Using sourcesd for each attack to try and make the claim they happen daily is a classic case of OR. Also almost daily is not daily. I never understand why people always insist there are thousands of sources but then are unable or unwilling to find one. As yes, if we are going to say people who work receive salaries we do need a source. I suggest you take a look at core wikipedia policies like WP:Verifiability and WP:RS Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The source you mention semi supports the claim but in an offhanded fashion. We really need better sources which explicity mention the attacks happen daily. Actually even better, since what we are describing here is not how often the attacks happens but Israel's justification for the airstrikes then what we really need is a source where Israel justifies the airstrike because of daily rocket strikes. P.S. I don't care if the attacks happen daily or not. That's beside the point. The point of talk pages is to discuss ways to improve an article, not to to try and convince other editors of facts Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nin Einne is right. I'll try to explain why. First thing: all scientific information (i.e. somewhat accurate info...) should be publically verifyable, where verifyable means that one can check whatever is claimed, and public refers to the fact that anyone can do that. Now, if you cite some source, like in the example above, it says "blah blah near daily"(citation number). Unlike what you might think, that does not mean that the sentence "blah blah near daily" is a universally accepted fact -- as proven by the fact that you have another opinion. What the phrase "blah blah near daily"(citation number) actually means is "in (citation number), someone claims blah blah near daily", which, you'll agree, is fully correct. After all, that is what's written there and anyone can look at the source (because it's public) and read what is says (verifyable). Now, if you think that blah blah occured daily an not near daily, that is fine. But how should you go about it ? One thing you can not do: change the sentence and leave the citation! Because then it would mean: "in (citation number), someone claims blah blah daily". That is not true! If you look at the source, you'll see it says "blah blah near daily"! Which is just what Nil Einne pointed out. Of course it can happen that what's written in the source is not accurate. But that doesn't mean you have the right to change it as you did.

What you can do is add another source that contradicts the first one. You could write It has been reported that "blah blah near daily"(citation number), but I think that "blah blah daily". The moment you do this, however, you'll find that people will object, because what you have presented is not publically verifyable. So, what is needed here is a source, a pointer to publically verifyable information, to support your claim. The full list of newspapers would be ok, but very unpractical. If there is a single list somewhere, preferably produced by a fairly neutral source such as United Nation observers of something equivalent, that would be much easier.

You might think it's much more important to tell the truth accurately, even if you don't find a source, because, after all, the truth is what it's all about. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the truth, a universally and unanimously accepted version of events, and certainly not in the Israelian-Palestian conflict. Imagine for a moment that everybody would put their version of the truth on the page, and what the page would then look like! So, we are bound by certain rules that allow us to govern information about events without spiraling into chaos, and these very rules that exist to create accurate information state that sticking to the rules is more important that providing accurate information. Strange as it may seem, it works: even when not perfectly accurate, the result will not stray to far from the truth, if there is any one such thing, and that result is usually a fairly useful document as opposed to a flamewar.wateenellende —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC).

israeli newspapers are definitely NOT reliable and neutral sources. (except maybe for the football results of their league).--Severino (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, some are, some are not. Haaretz is a world-class newspaper, with excellent editorial controls and very high standard of journalism. That said, I will do a section on sources, because this bears explaining. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO Haaretz is NOT a reliable source when talking about the Arab region...period...high standards of journalism or not it is too opinionated (israeli opinionated that is) and I wouldn't take any news about the Arab region (Palestinian conflicts particularly) from it, I have seen what happened in Gaza and that doesn't seem to be correctly mentioned in Haaretz (as are all the other happenings in Palestine), but since I'm not a reliable source mentioning that here will be a waste of time. To sum it all up I wouldn't agree that Haaretz is a reliable source... Matthew ^{Blah, Blah, Blah} 09:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my long-ass explanation of what is a Reliable Source. People continue to believe a reliabel source is a neutral source, which its impossible. However, Haaretz is more reliable than PNN for the Arab region: It frequently gives an equal voice to Arabs (Israelis or otherwise) and in general is fair in its reporting. It is a reliable source, but of course, we must subject it to more verifiability for issues surrounding Israel, just as we would ANY other source form the region, like Al-Jaazera or the Lebanese Daily Star. Why must we make sources yet another fight, when the policies if one doesn't pick and choose are so clear? --Cerejota (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"world class newspaper", "fair in reporting" and so forth are opinions and not really provable. generally, there should be mistrust towards israeli sources, not at least because of the interweavement of the civil society (including the media) and the military in this country. (see also the call up for resevists which affects a very big part of the israeli society).--Severino (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course! Yeah, Haaretz is a national news paper of a nation. Of course it has bias. As I said, read long-ass explanation. But it has standard are verifiable as being up-hell when reporting on facts. In a less than perfect world, and in a place where everyone is biased, they at least try to document hard facts. That makes it useful, as useful as other sources not form the region. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cerejota. Haaretz is clearly a reliable source per WP:RS. That said it also clearly has a pro-Israeli bias. Nonetheless, it should be allowed as a source here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Second intifada?

Why is the second intifada template included in this article? Does anyone have a reliable source claiming this is part of the second intifada? Yesterday, hamas leaders stated that this operation might lead to a third intifada. Liransh Talk 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree... Didn't the second intifada end a few years back? Surely before Hamas took control of the strip... PluniAlmoni (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. I couldn't understand why that was there either. Removing... -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Background

"In June 2008, a six-month Egyptian brokered cease-fire agreement was signed between Hamas and Israel[14], Hamas kept firing moderately and Israel reacted with an economic blockade, leading to a shortage of gas, electricity, water, and medicines, among other goods."

I'm editing this due its bias - the economic blockade has been ongoing since January 2007, and was the result of Hamas' election and not their firing. There is no reference for Hamas "firing moederately", and it is worded in a biased manner.

I think the entire section needs to be worked on to be more reflective of the actual background, and to reflect both the Israeli blockade and its effects as well as the firing by Hamas of rockets. Amjra 12:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Amjra, the fact is that rocket fire from the Strip preceded the reimposition of the blockade. I'll grant that the statement needs to be adjusted, as the firing was primarily done by non-Hamas militant groups, but it isn't biased to observe that Hamas violated the truce, leading Israel to reciprocate. 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Then if somebody wants to add that, they should find a valid source for it. The information was added without a reference before. Amjra 00:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked up some citations of number of rockets fired between 19 Dec 2008 termination of truce and 27 Dec 2008 commencement of military action. (truce: 19 June 2008 truce, not sure of name) This particular time frame interests me because it falls between the termination of a truce and the commencement of a military action. The BBC counted "more than 50." The Christian Science Monitor reported that "hundreds of rockets" followed the expiration of the truce. Doing some math at the Globalsecurity.org site gave me 240 rockets fired since 19 December (300 total, 40 on Sunday 28 December). I learned during the Mumbai attacks that the BBC tends to be conservative in its descriptions of unfolding events due to the preference to have multiple sources for its reports. This might explain their small numer. Below is information about these articles.

Israeli strike kills Hamas member http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7798685.stm 25 December 2008

Gaza: Why Israel and Hamas are trading rocket fire http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1229/p01s03-wome.html By Joshua Mitnick December 29, 2008

HAMAS Rockets http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm PinkWorld (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

Iran

With this reaction, do you think it is appropriate to move this sentence further up the article?

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei issued a religious decree to Muslims around the world on December 28 , ordering them to defend Palestinians in Gaza against Israeli attacks "in any way possible"

doktorb _words^deeds 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe it should? -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be as relative as any other country reaction, since Iran is not one of the involved parties. If we're going to re-order countries statements based on those statements power and/or nerve-touchiness, then we'll go through endless debates. Alphabetical re-ordering works best and it's something everyone agrees on. Darwish07 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a serious threat with a relevance to the region? doktorb _words^deeds 15:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a threat until it's proven that a real military backing by other Islamic countries occurred on response. Again, if this statement produced any game-changing events, then it has a higher precedence. Until now, it does not. Darwish07 (talk)

Hardly. The Supreme Leader is not the Muslim equivalent of the pope; his statements don't dictate Muslim practice. If there is any backlash from Muslims, it probably won't be because of Khamenei's statement in particular. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Does Iran's financial support of Hamas enter into the equation here? 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

26 December Crossings openings, A recession or military deception?

There are two conflicting reasons for the reopening of the crossing given in the article. The first is that it was in response to international pressure; the second is that it was a deceptive act taken to reassure Hamas. Do we have a conclusive source one way or the other? topynate (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On review of the sources (the NYT and Haaretz) for the respective claims, there is no source at all for "bowing to international pressure", whereas the Haaretz article is a classic no-names 'leak' from the Israeli defense department. Modifying the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topynate (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On the page Background section it's said: "On 26 December 2008, in an apparent concession, Israel reopened five crossings between Israel and Gaza".

On the planning section, it's said: "Several actions were taken purposefully to deceive Hamas, including the reopening of border crossings"

On Haaretz, it's [said]: "In parallel, Israel continued to send out disinformation in announcing it would open the crossings to the Gaza Strip and that Olmert would decide whether to launch the strike following three more deliberations on Sunday - one day after the actual order to launch the operation was issued.

We should have a single opinion on this. Ideas? Darwish07 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Darwish that we should have a single opinion on this question. I think there is now no doubt that the opening of the crossings was diversionary. But I think the meaning of "apparent" here is that it was meant to look like a concession, but really wasn't. The wording is poor. Perhaps we should change it to "in what appeared at the time to be a concessionary move," or something like that. 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As the person who wrote that line, I apologize if I left it unclear. I'm pretty sure that the reopening had no intent other than to deceive Hamas, but we don't have a source saying so explicitly. News reports at the time interpreted the reopening as a humanitarian gesture, hence my use of the word 'apparent'. I should also point out that the section was originally written so as to imply that Israel made a reconciliatory gesture, Hamas rejected it by continuing rocket attacks, and then Cast Lead was initiated. That seems a clearly false interpretation to me, and perhaps the material doesn't belong in the 'background' section at all. topynate (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What are the same sources that said it was an humanitarian nature at the time saying now about this topic? There shouldn't be a lot of controversy around this, the IDF has clearly stated it was a deceptive move intended to lower the guard of the opponents, but we shouldn't contradict sources without looking at what they are saying now. If we do not find it, a "Sources said X before now, but it is now known that this was part of a deception strategy". Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The source was Reuters via the NYT; it didn't say anything about why the crossing was reopened at all. No further comment from the NYT or Reuters that I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topynate (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamas seals in the wounded

Any idea on where this should be mentioned? Perhaps a "casualties" section would be appropriate at this point? 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Two important passages from NYTimes December 28, 2008 story

The source article:

Taghreed ElKhodary, Ethan Bonner. "Israeli Attacks in Gaza Strip Continue for Second Day". New York Times. December 28 2008.

The "Hamas" casualties included many who did not share Hamas' core belief but were those desperate for work:

"Israeli officials said that anyone linked to the Hamas security structure or government was fair game because Hamas was a terrorist group that sought Israel’s destruction. But with work here increasingly scarce because of an international embargo on Hamas, young men are tempted by the steady work of the police force without necessarily fully accepting the Hamas ideology. One of the biggest tolls on Saturday was at a police cadet graduation ceremony in which 15 people were killed."

Hamas's goals with regards to the ceasefire:

"Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’s main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s real intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday, some 70 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity."

Both of these key facts should be added to the article. The New York Times is a very reliable source with the two reporters who wrote this story operating both Gaza and Israel. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"The "Hamas" casualties included many who did not share Hamas' core belief but were those desperate for work" - this quote you mentioned is very interesting and I would gladly add it in the article, but the NYT article has been updated and the sentence is no longer there. Are any other sources discussing this point? Offliner (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the link just changed. I have changed the link above to be the link that contents the content I quoted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing and neutrality

See also: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH

“ Verifiability, not truth ” — Wikipedia:Verifiability

Neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources are the combined matrix from which all content should come in English Wikipedia. These policies are not negotiable, and all content must conform to them.

As quoted, the key point is that we are not seeking the truth as seen by any of us, but that the information is a verified fact or opinion. A fact in Wikipedia is anything published in a reliable source that is a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.. An opinion is what is subject to controversy, but there are facts about opinions. And we must present these verified facts in a neutral fashion, further more, we are required to assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. The policies couldn't be more clear.

This verifiability is a changing value depending on the amount of controversy and disagreement. So for example, less verifiability is needed in order to say that "the sky is blue", that what would be needed to explain the process that makes the sky blue. No one denies that the sky is mostly blue (except for clouds) during daylight hours, but there might be disagreement on what the process is. Hence, less or more verifiability.

There seems to be a misconception around reliable sources: they are not required to be neutral.

A reliable source can be partisan and non-neutral. What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source. The more controversy around a topic, the more need for verifiability. Hence, there needs to be more sources and more variety of POV in sources.

The ones required to be neutral in the presentation of sources are us.

Also, please keep in mind that reliable sources are classified in primary, secondary, and tertiary. In general secondary sources are better, but primary sources can be used to provide verifiability to known facts.

Primary sources should never be used if they contain opinion, except as quotes to verify the facts of the opinion. So even closely linked to the belligerents are to be allowed (such as partisan media, like the Jerusalem Post or the Palestinian News Network) but they must be verified by other sources more distant from the conflict, or be quoted, rather than cited. There is no doubt they are reliable sources: in a discussion of atheism, what the Catholic News Service has to say is an important source in order to provide balance and neutrality - so is the PNN in this case. However, we must not give undue weight, in particular if the information doesn't verify.

The insistence of some of using only one source or one group of partisan sources to provide information in the encyclopedic voice is in total violation of policy. If there is controversy, is unacceptable to allow non-neutral text to remain as a fact, rather than a fact about opinion. Likewise, just because one source is not-neutral, it doesn't automatically make it unreliable: a good faith effort to find verifiability in other sources must be done. If this effort fails, mentioning the information from all sources, using due-weight criteria, mentioning is the best way to ensure neutrality. Removal of reliable sources is discouraged, more sourcing is better sourcing.

We have to speak for the other side. Period. Not negotiable. If you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia.

An argument has been made regarding Wikipedia not being "news". This is true, but in the context used, it is a total fallacy and editors are advised to stop using it in good faith. Since this is a current event, there will not be any tertiary sources (like encyclopedias) or secondary sources (there are no books or academic papers) other than news and primary sources. So in "current event" and "recent events" we MUST be necessity be guided by what news organizations are saying, because they are the only ones providing verifiability.

In fact WP:NOT#JOURNALISM is not about not using news sources, but about making Wikipedia a news source itself. It has nothign to do with sourcing, but with no original research. This argument is fallacious and disruptive, and continued use will be considered WP:POINT.

To the partisans, I remind you that this is not a soapbox. Article quality would be better served if we refrain from emitting opinions in support of, or against any of the sides of the matter. We would also move forward better if we do not appeal to motive: most of us already know where we all stand on this conflict, there is no need to remind each other. If you are going to dispute the reliability of a source, do so using the guidelines in WP:RS, not your personal opinion of a given source: blogs are out, professional organizations are in, what a government says of itself is primary sourcing etc, etc. If you think X source is a rabid nest of thieves, that might be true, but its irrelevant. Kindly keep it to yourself, or open a blog somewhere else in which to emit your opinions.

This is a good faith effort to try to bring clarity. Some of the arguments here have been pretty creative interpretations of policy, and some of the editing has been done in total disregard of policy, and some cases, common sense and decency. Don't. This not another battlefield in your battles, this is an encyclopedia done by geeks. Who for the most part don't care about your beliefs, just want facts. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving talk page.

Could we get people to at least agree with automatic archiving of discussions via bot?

Its already getting a bit long, and bots are smart enough not to archive ongoing discussions. They also are less error prone than archiving by hand.

Please opine so we can set it up. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

we should only archive sections which have not been edited in 7 days Ijanderson (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to the archiving until we resolve the name change. There are some crucial arguments against Cerejota's editing activity and archiving could potentially drag out the discussion as many points would have to be repeated/clarified. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving doesn't happen for open discussions, and if we need to reference, we go to the accessible archive. I am trully amazaed that you have personalized this to the point a simple wiki maintenance thing becomes a controversy. You do need to cool down a bit, man its not the end of the world or anything. We should be able to do be productive without these type of unproductive objections. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop telling me to cool down. Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Then don't act like you need it. --Cerejota (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you are but what am I. ;) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary start time?

Is there a source to backup the idea that the conflict started on December 27 and hence casualties immediately preceding that date due to Hamas rockets won't be included in the death toll statistics? The ceasefire did run out on December 19 so why wouldn't that be a more suitable date given that the rocket attacks started increasing at that date? 118.208.59.98 (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Popular Resistance CommitteesSpokesperson quote prior to end of ceasefire

Reverting John Bahrain's POV deletion of official Popular Resistance Committees (notable group) spokesperson statement prior to the end of the ceasefire as this is relevant to the context. Stated reason for deletion was "remove quote from a nobody" when a cursory examination of previous news stories indicates otherwise over an extended period of time and the actions and words of Hamas-allied militia /are/ a key "casus belli" leading to this event. Stating that only a quote from a "more prominent, influential leader" is acceptable is misleading non-NPOV in this case since presumably that means anything other than an "official" Hamas statement will be deleted. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see also http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3579484,00.html for previous Abu Attaya reference and clear indication that the Popular Resistance Committees are a key player in calling the shots with regards to upholding and continuing truces or otherwise. Harami2000 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Separate response to this later comment of David's: If this small faction is solely responsible for upholding the truce/ceasefire or not, then why did Israel attack all of Hamas' infrastructure? If there small faction actually responsible and there are sources that make this clear, a clarification of this matter should be added to the article, although it raises additional questions. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're setting an impossible precedent here, sorry, by expecting me to explain the inter-relationship of all involved groups within one sentence (I am not ignorant of the facts and am well aware of the complexities of the situation). It is clearly asserted that Israel wished a continuation of the truce: in what way is an undeniable statement that a continuation of the truce was /not/ desired by a /noteworthy/ Hamas-related militia group not related to the breakdown of the truce?

If you can find any statement from Hamas that distances them from the statements of the Popular Resistance Committees, it would be preferred to see that inserted rather than a deletion of a statement which you do not wish to see on the basis of your own "quality" standards. Harami2000 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by the fact that this quote is not appropriate for the background section. I think you are reaching. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

David: Read through the PRC wikipedia article and you'll find it isn't directly part of Hamas, but rather the PRC is going to run its own political party in the upcoming elections. The article you cite also makes it clear that the PRC isn't part of Hamas and that PRC has its own armed wing. I stand by the removal as the quotes confuses things as it was and it also isn't key to the background. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Enacting a deletion because it "confuses things" rather than a revision to improve the article is hardly best practice on Wikipedia, I would have thought. Your assertion that militia groups welcoming an end to the ceasefire with threatening language indicating further violence is not "key to the background" is /very/ POV compared with the reality of the situation on the ground and I would like to hear how you might justify your position on that. Harami2000 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. I stand my that removal. Here is the contextual quote from the BBC article:

They are members of the small Palestinian faction, the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC). Their leader, who calls himself Abu Attaya, tells me his men are itching for a fight. 'Us lions, we are used to fighting and dying as martyrs,' he said, his men arranged around him in the classic paramilitary clump of strength. 'It will be a surprise for the enemy. We want to be martyrs and we deserve it.'

The reasons for my removal are the following:

The individual is anonymous.

The group he leads (according to the BBC) is called small.

The group he leads is a faction.

The quote is related to his personal opinion of the ceasefire.

The precedent of quoting nobodies will lead to a deterioration of the article.

Right now we are not quoting anonymous people that reporters meet in the streets of Gaza. I don't understand why this nobody is notable in the current article context (although I could understand him being notable in the PRC article itself if there is a reason for quoting him.) If we were to do that, the article would deteriorate significantly and it would also contain a lot of sensationalist and emotional opinions (mostly related to the recent casualties and fear on both sides.) --John Bahrain (talk)

"If we were to do that, the article would deteriorate significantly". How so? The Popular Resistance Committees /are/ a notable group and /have/ called the shots on the continuation or otherwise of ceasefires in the past. In this case a clear and unrevoked statement was issued that they wished the end of the ceasefire. The article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7790255.stm ) also has a line from a Hamas official insisting "that any end to the ceasefire would carry huge popular support". Is the paraphrasing of a Hamas official who sits behind a desk more relevant in this case than a quote from an official spokesperson of a notable Hamas-related militia group? Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my belief that this particular quote from masked man who is the leader of a "small" (according to the BBC article you were quoting from) armed faction that is connected to separate political party than Hamas is not immediately relevant to this background section. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Implying that there are separate and discrete militia groups for each political party and there is no cross-support/allying whatsoever is an oversimplification.

http://www.armed-groups.org/6/section.aspx/ViewGroup?id=60 "Additionally, the PRCs participated with Hamas’s Qassem Brigades in the preventive ouster of Fatah forces from Gaza in June 2007.... Hamas has, in particular, been known to provide financial aid to the PRCs."

You are trying to simplify the article to read as "Hamas vs. Israel" whereas the goal of Wikipedia is to expand knowledge not simplify it to the point of polarisation, deliberating ignoring any inconvenient complications. In what way is it a "bad thing" to have a quotation from another relevant party (and Israel is clearly reacting to those missiles fired at it regardless of whose militias are doing the firing). Harami2000 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Militant Group"

What is a militant group? Hamas is defined as a "militant group" at the beginning of the article, yet this term is not defined in Wikipedia. John Hyams (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I linked the term to "Militant". John Hyams (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it just ahead of me... Yup, deliberate media euphemism, of course. Complicated in this case by much of the actual "militant action" being, in effect, sub-contracted out by Hamas to other groups such as the Popular Resistance Committees as above. (But !). Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ist not too complicated, is that we are a neutral source of information. What is so hard to understand about that? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing and no particular need for a condescending tone-of-voice either, please. It is perfectly neutral to include parties who /have/ been involved in relevant actions in the past and directly leading up to this event (e.g. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/25/content_10559414.htm for the Popular Resistance Committees) and direct quotations from these parties. Non-neutral is comments from editors such as "words from a nobody" used as reason enough to delete such quotations when the party the source is a spokesperson for is clearly involved in the run-up to this event. Harami2000 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Then no need to condescend to ALL of us by saying "that's too "complicated" for Wikipedia apparently". If you you live by the gun, expect to die by it. --Cerejota (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read back to the previous section I am not condescending to the whole of Wikipedia at all, merely referring back to the very last line of the previous section and making a personal (bracketed) observation regarding the issue that I have just encountered - namely that it /is/ deemed "too confusing" (/complicated) to add additional relevant quotes to a situation from other parties even when those are relevant to the situation. You have chosen not to say anything on that matter, either, but have chosen to comment here instead. Do you therefore support that position? Please do not automatically presume /your/ worst-case interpretation from wording and pick a personal fight for no benefit: if something is unclear, ask, don't hype.

Editing out such comments to obscure the context of your "feedback" is also bad form when there is no clear "need" to do so... as are shouting comments such as "NO U" on the edit log. Harami2000 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

NO U. --Cerejota (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, WP:TERRORIST. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not call it terrorist organization? That's what it says in the wikipedia article.

Wikipedia calls it a paramilitary organization and political party.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Death Toll

It seems to me like somebody is trying to put a spin on things by stating that there are "29+ civilians" dead among the 287 on the basis of an ABC article stating that among those dead, at least 20 were children and 9 were women. That is quite biased, and should be changed ASAP, as while it is not technically incorrect, it is very misleading.

Also, it needs to be reflected in the article that quite a few of those killed were working in the Hamas government as civilians, carrying out normal jobs that involved no militant action because Hamas is essentially the government of Gaza. These people are no different to any public employees in any other country, especially considering the massive unemployment in the Gaza Strip. Amjra 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-government workers can be present in government offices as well. However, what's really needed is a reliable, external reference. Boud (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't compare Western government to a recognized Terrorism-supporting government. As far as I know there is no information detailing how Hamas operates within its own governmental complexes, but it's save to say a ton civilians would not likely be part of it. It's a militant organization, not the VA. All we know is the vast majority of casualties were Hamas soldiers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so. In other conflicts, civil servants are not considered "legitimate" targets by the international community. There aren't many good parallels for this attack however; this situation is complicated by the fact that in many places there isn't a clear line between Hamas militant and civil servant under the Hamas controlled Government of Gaza. There are however, many in the latter category who aren't in the former. It isn't the role of Wikipedia to resolve this ambiguity - we can only describe it, and to this end it would be good to have sources that do outline that this is the case. To this end, having a 'civilian' death toll may be impossible. We may soon or at a later date be able to provide a range of claimed numbers of civilian deaths from reliable sources (and in the event that a singular figure is provided across sources, a singular figure).Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean you can't compare Western civil servants with Hamas civil servants? The majority of the Gaza Strip, as I mentioned, is unemployed, and there are many jobs a government provides, no matter what its nature is, that are of a civilian nature and are related to the day to day running of the Strip. People desperate for work will take up these jobs regardless of the employer, because their main concern is feeding their family.

I am not saying this to have a political debate, I am saying this because it is something that is very relevant to the casualty figure, and because there is no mention of it anywhere in the article. I agree with Boud, we need reliable sources to reflect this, and with Mostlyharmless in that it needs to be described. I am not suggesting we include a detailed causality figure reflecting this, because that would be impossible, simply a section which reflects the nature of the casualties and why the numbers may not tell the full story would do. Amjra 09:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Calculating civilian casualty figures based on anything but reliable civilian casualty reports constitutes original research; therefore, trying to define a "civilian" here is an academic debate. --Hiddekel (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

university bombing

The Wikipedia article Islamic University of Gaza does not say anything about that university being "a cultural symbol of Hamas", so i put that as a claim by the BBC. If someone has reliable, external evidence for the university's symbolism, please add that to Islamic University of Gaza, since it would seem to be relevant to me. Probably the quotes around "evacuated in advance" are not needed, though i was unsure what would be NPOV for that bit. Boud (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Other than the BBC, can we verify this claim? Anyone familiar with the situation knows this to be true, but verifiability, not truth. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, isn't the BBC article an accepted neutral reference? I've heard the same info on Aljazeera English, but this can not be cited here unfortunately. Darwish07 (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of the operation

How many times does the name of the operation need to be explained in the article? Currently I count three times... In the the first paragraph, The December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), after a line in a children's song for Hanukkah, in the background section, Launched during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, the operation was codenamed after a Hanukkah poem by Haim Nachman Bialik referring to a "dreidel cast from solid lead" and in a section all of it's own Name of the operation. Wouldn't once be enough? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already removed/moved one - but it still seems to be there in three different places. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead.

• Israel claims it began targeting dozens of buildings belonging to the ruling Hamas militant group, though unbiased reports from AlJazeera clearly show that the eminent target of Israel's military offensive has been the civilian population of Gaza. Ridiculous, clearly biased. It should be rewritten or removed entirely. JuJube (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to point this out; I'm just going to remove it. It's clearly biased. ShadowUltra (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support the removal of that sentence; it is clearly inflammatory and difficult to prove. Al-Jazeera is also not a really good source for such a claim. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

Dudes, while discussion is always welcome, patently and uncontroversially unneutral material can be removed without discussion. Its the tasty bits of bias that should be discussed. If we were to discuss every reversion this would never end. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Gaza War

Or would that be too simple? OperationOverlord (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, see title discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see there is a dizzying "discussion" going on up there, about whether to call it a Genocide, a Massacre, an Operation, an Aistrike, a Bombing, about the date. It seems anything but the simplest, economical label will do. Other people have done it, but I think in some Wikipedian's hands "World War Two" would become the "1939-1945 Airstrikes and Ground Operations Against Germany and Japan."

When is a war not a war? When its a Wikipedia article. Still, I expect things will become a lot clearer when ground troops move in in the coming days. OperationOverlord (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, if Wikipedia had existed around the time of what is now known as World War I, I think a name along those lines would have sufficed until such time as a clear label was given to it. But to use your analogy, this article is about one conflict that is part of a broader war that's been going on for years and years. So a war is not a war when... it's part of a larger war. Omnivorous Onlooker (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that you bring this up. First, though, there are many recent conflicts, like the 2006 Lebanon War, that (rightfully) use the term "war", so this is not a Wikipedia issue. Second, I should point out that apparently Ehud Barak is quoted as saying this is an "all-out war" against Hamas. However, although I think that's an sign we should start thinking about using "war", I don't feel Barak's statement is accurate. One of the important points about a war, in a political sense, is that it's a two-way battle. While Hamas may have been launching rockets before, in this particular event, it's mostly just Israel doing all the work. At the very least, if we want to bring in the word "war", we need to document some of the attacks from Gaza, how few they may be. -- tariqabjotu 12:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. Does the fact that one side is "winning" mean it isn't a war? Does war means only balanced two-way battle? As long as fire is being shot in both directions, it is a war.--Omrim (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this quote: "Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday that Israel is now in "all-out war" with Hamas." and seeing as Hamas is the government of Gaza, I think it's clear this is a war. RomaC (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said before commenting? I mentioned the "all-out war" quote and explained why I don't think it's accurate. Can you at least address that? -- tariqabjotu 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Recentism, dude. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a news article. As such, the unilateral nature of the combat (the exciting, newsworthy headline stuff) in this phase is of much less concern, as are the encyclopedic (more boring, less juicy and salacious) aspects of providing a background, connection to other events, aftermath etc. While the juicy stuff is nice, what reliable sources are saying is much less about the operational details of a military operation (your synthesis) and much more about this being a next phase and escalation in an ongoing conflict. That said, calling this event even a small caped "war" is ridiculous. It is obvious to any semi-educated reader that Ehud Barak used "all-out war" more in the metaphoric than the literal sense, even if it also has the bite of the literal. In that sense, "war" is gross hyperbole that not a single reliable source is using.

I do will take exception with something very worrying and exemplary of the POV and bias problems the article title as an one-sided operation name has. I do want to preface by saying I respect Tariqabjotu so far in this debate, and while he could do more than throw provocative one-liners at people, his longer suggestions or responses, even when I ultimately disagree, are a very productive part of these debates.

Done with the preface, the meat: I must take strong exception with the phrasing of "it's mostly just Israel doing all the work". This is simply not true, and its a perfect example of bias and lack of neutrality expressed and concentrated on the title and the narrative intent of you and other editors. True, Israel is doing most of the attacking (yes, in response to attacks from Hamas), but Palestinians (not just Hamas) are doing most of the dying, and infrastructure in Gaza, what little there is, is bearing most of the destructive power. Just as when the Qassam rockets fly to Sderot we do not talk of "Hamas doing most of the work", ignoring the very real consequences of that action, we cannot simply dismiss the very real consequences of Israel's actions - an its encyclopedic value - simply because "it's mostly just Israel doing all the work". I think you are a reasonable person, and you can see why this is a reasonable point that another reasonable person can do.

We are required to be be neutral, and ignoring the Other or somehow diminishing its importance, is one of the most clear ways of systemic bias known. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Final Line questionable

Undertaken as a retaliation against frequent Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities and civilians, the attacks which have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians because of a single dead Israeli have attracted both support[25] and criticism.

That statement is incorrect. Part of the intro says only 21 confirmed civilians have been killed, but this says hundreds. I already corrected one weasel statement which said the majority of casualties were civilians, which just wasn't true. I'm afraid to change it because I know the second I do some fanatic is going to reverse it. Thought I'd post it here for reference and discussion.

Also, do you think this article needs a temporary lock? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this sentence is confusing. Is is saying that the retaliation is against frenquent Qassam rockets and nortars, or is it because of "a single dead Israeli..." (which is incorrect, because Israeli officials stated many times that the attack on Hamas targets by Israel was not as a response to the single dead Israeli, but as a response to Hamas' mortars and rockets on Israeli towns)? Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Undertaken as a retaliation against frequent Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities and civilians, the attacks have attracted both support and criticism.

How is this a neutral view when it is the view put forward by Israel? There are reports of Israeli government having undertaken this operation to gain in the polls of the forthcoming elections or to topple the elected Hamas government. This line needs to be edited if Wikipedia is anyway neutral. And to say the sentence links to fox, is this an acceptable neutral standard for Wikipedia?Enigmie (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, why do you think Israel has done what it has done? OperationOverlord (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is irrelevant as is yours. One of Wikipedia's policy is neutrality and there is no neutrality in quoting the Israeli government from fox news. This needs editing.Enigmie (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Enigmie (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC). —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Enigmie (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)] comment added by Enigmie (talkEnigmie (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) • contribs) 08:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't take the bait ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Egypt as belligerent

As 1 Egyptian border guard is killed by Palestinians, should we add Egypt to list of belligerents?--Kavas (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not for the time being. They aren't participating except to the extent that they are protecting their sovereign border, but that isn't exactly a belligerent activity. Joshdboz (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They're firing on people trying to cross the border. I don't see why they shouldn't be added to the list. The only question is whose side they should be placed on.

They aren't participating except to the extent that they are protecting their sovereign border. Well, that's true, but I'd say Israel is doing the same. 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but is what Egypt is doing now much different than what they would be doing any other day (ie secure the border, prevent holes from being blown, pushing back those trying to cross)? If they were actively fighting Hamas that would be different. Joshdboz (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Planned" versus "Acted"

Its a biased and irrelevant rhetoric to say what Israel "planned" and for how long, especially not mentioning what Hamas planned (its a small wonder why, as the Hamas plans were probably much more malevolent, primarily targeting civilians, and therefore this writer elegantly omits discussion of them, as if only Israel can plan and Hamas just goes day by day). Either you omit what the sides "planned" or you say what both planned. Find some other way of siding with Hamas, this one is too transparent. What each side does is the important thing. Wikipedia is about facts, not about musings, intentions and telepathy.Honestreporting2 (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This operation is planned by Israel. I added a paragraph to lead which describe Israel's plan and intentions on the basis of Haaretz and BBC News. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone can find a reliable source for long term planning of the rocket attacks by the Gaza Strip governmental forces, then please add the information with (preferably) a properly formatted reference. Boud (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Find a source

Al Jazeera English TV is reporting that 345 have been killed and 1450 have been injured. I can't find an online source, can someone help look please so we can update the article accordingly. Cheers Ijanderson (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they do have this quote on their main article: "Palestinian medical sources say at least 330 Gazans have been killed and another 1,450 wounded" [10], but these "Palestinian medical sources" aren't too reliable, and this isn't a new figure, IMHO Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents

Why exactly are the belligerents only listed as Hamas? My feeling it should follow the way of 2nd Intifida with the first line showing the Palestinian people, followed by the militant groups involved, like Hamas and IJ. It seems to me a pro-Israel POV, in fact not just pro-Israel but the Israeli POV, to declare that this attack is only against Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As Hamas are the democratically-elected government of Gaza, I agree. RomaC (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it's the pro-Israel bias rearing it's ugly head again. Of course, it's all about bias. Let's review the meaning of belligerent:

A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat.

"Belligerent" does not mean victim. In this event, how does that apply to the Palestinian people as a whole? What hostile actions are non-Hamas Palestinians taking? -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Popular Resistance Committees have claimed responsibility for two of the rocket-launching events prior to the airstrikes but not anything since (due to time lag for claims?) aside from a threat to kidnap which probably doesn't quite count here(?).

I'll be adding in those claims if they go undisputed (no reason to suspect otherwise, given their belligerent - and censored(/jk/) - words prior to the event and as soon as it's clear they are a belligerent, post-airstrike, will be supporting their inclusion in that infobox. 02c, anyhow. Harami2000 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Palestinians are not 'engaged in combat?' One does not have to be initiating in hostilities to be engaged in combat. As naming 'Palestine' as a belligerent, much as the US is in the gulf war, would bring up a bunck of 'Palestine is not a country!' cries, I thought the appropriate term to use would be the Palestinian. Were any non-military citizens engaged in hostile actions in the Gulf War, or any other war. It is common practice that when a government is at war to say the the country is at war, not sure what you are arguing here though. Nableezy (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you were responding to because you were responded directly below someone else but appeared to address some of my points. Anyway, yes, it's customary to say a country is at war, rather than just the government. But, the Palestinian people's "government" (which most would call the PLO or the PA) is not the one at war; it's Hamas. Likewise, during the 2006 Lebanon War, it was Hezbollah & Co., not Lebanon. Either way, this has nothing to do with "the Israeli POV". -- tariqabjotu 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The response was to you, got caught in the middle of an update conflict. First, Hamas is the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people. And it is the Israeli POV that those under attack are only the 'Hamas terrorists,' not the Palestinians as a whole. I also dispute who Israel was at war with, as the government and people of Lebanon have repeatedly called Hezbollah a nationalist resistance, so I would tend to say that Lebanon was attacked (especially as the airport and other infrastructure was repeatedly bombed). All this is irrelevant though, it is clear to me at least that it is a POV to list the belligerents as Israel and Hamas, and it seems to me that this POV coincides precisely with Israeli government proclamations as to who and what they are attacking. Nableezy (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"First, Hamas is the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people." Really? I believe Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the PA. Hamas didn't even participate in those elections. Support for Hamas is greater in Gaza than in the West Bank, but the Palestinian people are in both areas.

"And it is the Israeli POV that those under attack are only the 'Hamas terrorists,' not the Palestinians as a whole." Again, if you don't understand what "belligerent" means, pick up a dictionary.

"I also dispute who Israel was at war with, as the government and people of Lebanon have repeatedly called Hezbollah a nationalist resistance, so I would tend to say that Lebanon was attacked (especially as the airport and other infrastructure was repeatedly bombed)." Again "belligerent" does not mean target. And, despite your opinion, the infobox in 2006 Lebanon War says otherwise.

"All this is irrelevant though, it is clear to me at least that it is a POV to list the belligerents as Israel and Hamas, and it seems to me that this POV coincides precisely with Israeli government proclamations as to who and what they are attacking." And, once again, "belligerent" does not mean what you think it means. -- tariqabjotu 16:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are then mistaken on who is the elected representative of the people of Palestine. The latest elections, which to paraphrase President Carter, were the freest and fairest the Arab world had ever seen, gave Hamas a resounding victory. I just explained to you why the Palestinian people qualify as belligerents. And I think the infobox on the 2006 Lebanon War is incorrect, though this is not the proper forum for such a discussion. According to Princeton wordnet, a belligerent is one who is engaged in war. I think it is impossible to argue that the Palestinans are not 'engaged' in this war. I would have to say that you are misrepresenting what belligerent means to be overly narrow, such that it applies to only those individuals who are holding a weapon. Are you saying that the Palestinian people are not 'engaged' in this conflict? If so there are a number of RS that state the civilian casualties thus far. Are you saying that Hamas does not qualify as the government of (at least) Gaza? Even if there is no election, which there was that they won, they have de facto political control of the strip as far as the Palestinians are concerned. That they administer schools, hospitals, universities, and the police department would qualify them as the government. If you dont understand any of the above words, by all means pick up a dictionary. Nableezy (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

> I think it is impossible to argue that the Palestinans are not 'engaged' in this war.

President Mahmoud Abbas has not declared "war", nor accepted that there is a "state of war" yet. This article, as it currently stands, relates to the airstrikes and belligerents thereof.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFjZjBkMjI4YTQ2ZmJmYjQxOGVkYWUzMjA5N2QwMTU=

"Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said that Hamas could have avoided the Israeli attacks on Gaza. “We talked to Hamas and we told them ‘please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop’ so that we could have avoided what happened,” he said. Reuters reported these statements widely and yet certain international media such as the BBC have not reported them."

I read this statement on Al-Jazeera. President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas is not empowered to declare war, really no Palestinian body can as has been noted on wikipedia and elsewhere countless times, Palestine is not currently a sovereign state. Beyond that it does not matter what Mr Abbas has to say about his political adversaries, that the people in Gaza are in a state of war is utterly indisputable. As far as whether or not this view is the Israeli POV, I give you this qutoe from Ehud Barack;

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/12/2008122994140674153.html

"We have nothing against Gaza residents, but we are engaged in an all-out war against Hamas and its proxies," Barak said on Monday.

'All-out war' would seem to show that there is indeed a state of war, at least from the government of Israel's perspective. I am sure I can find you quotes from Hamas that state the same if it is really needed to show that a state of war does in fact exist. Nableezy (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion is that the "Palestinans"/"Palestinian People" are engaged in this war as belligerents whilst the Israeli quotes will inevitably state that "Hamas and its proxies" (alone) are the target. Abbas is still the President of the Palestinian National Authority for the time being, regardless of his actual "sphere of influence". Harami2000 (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Israeli government says that Hamas and its proxies are the targets, that is exactly my point. The infobox is taking POV espoused by the Israeli government to be a statement of fact. I don't feel that should be done. If nobody else wishes to get involved in this discussion I will assume the community disagrees with me on this point and no longer raise any objection. But my whole point is that listing the belligerent as Hamas is the Israeli POV, and thus should be represented as such in the article but not as a fact in the infobox. Nableezy (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why an "Israeli POV" cannot also be fact? Why is stating that the "Palestinian people" /as a whole/ are belligerants a "fact" rather than a POV? Stating that there are two sides to a story doesn't always work to justify a POV inclusion as fact. If the current situation escalates to include other parties officially, I'll be all in favor of inclusion in a time-framed manner. Harami2000 (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure the Israeli point of view can be a fact. I am saying this because it is a common convention that countries, or in this case territories and populations, are at war, not just the governments. The United States is a belligerent in the gulf war, not just the US Armed Forces. The only reason I say 'Palestinian people' is that many would object to say that 'Palestine' is in a state of war. Just a few questions; is Hamas (at least de facto) the current government of Gaza? Then is an attack on them an attack on 'the government of Gaza'? Then is that not an attack on Gaza? Then is Gaza not a belligerent in this battle? But to answer your question, no there is no reason why the 'Israeli POV' cannot also be a fact. But when two sides are engaged in hostilities I think it would be wise to take neither at their word regarding any information they provide as to their 'enemy'. Nableezy (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the quote you're referencing (not sure about Jimmy Carter, though), and, as I expected, it was in regards to the legislative elections (which Hamas won) rather than the presidential elections (which Abbas won). Abbas is still president of the PA, which is generally recognized as government of the Palestinian people. He, not Hamas, is in the highest political position.

Of course, I think you are misinterpreting the definition of "belligerent" you have found. I can't seem to find online access to the Princeton WordNet -- and I'm not sure why I should, as there are plenty of respectable dictionaries available that corroborate the definition of "belligerent" I am presenting. In political, and layman's, terms, belligerence involves some sort of hostile or aggressive action. No one would call someone being punched in the face repeatedly "belligerent". But, the definition of belliegerent as you see it, would. That's just not what it means, and I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand, given this word has the same meaning outside politcal contexts. Hamas (which is not at the helm of the Palestinian government), not the Palestinian people or Palestinian government as a whole, are doing the legwork; that's a point agreed upon by both sides (that's why Israel is emphasizing that they're only attacking Hamas, and why Arabs and Palestinians are angry about the attack). -- tariqabjotu 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And it might not have been Carter, as this user supports the use of marijuana, his memory can get tangled up on occasion :) Nableezy (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I use the wordnet as that is the first dictionary given when you use "define:" on google, have at it youself: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+belligerent

Hamas is most certainly at the helm of the government (at least in Gaza) and if you look at the mass demonstrations across the Arab world, the anger is not directed at Hamas. I know I am not going to convince you of this, but I if you would think of the following situation. If Hamas and the rest of the armed factions in Gaza were able to send a non-stop barrage or rockets towards Israel and said that they have declared 'total war on the people of Sderot,' would you define the belligerents only as Hamas and no one opposing, Hamas and Sderot, or Hamas and Israel? This assuming that the wider state and populace of Israel has no means of fighting back, what would your answer be? I don't think this is the biggest and most important thing to be discussing, but the infobox in my mind id perpetuating the idea, espoused by the Israeli government, you cannot deny that, that this is an offensive only against Hamas where it is clear the effects are much wider than that. Nableezy (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the definition you speak of, which confirms my suspicion that you misinterpreted the definition. Keywords to look for include "aggressive", "eager to fight", and "combatant". Obviously, some sort of action is needed.

I'll gloss over most of the rest of your comment because it relies on understanding the meaning of belligerent -- something you have still failed to do (and I'm certainly not going to expend more time or trying to get you to). I will simply say that I am disgusted by your repeated implication that the current wording has something to do with a pro-Israel bias by me or someone else. This is especially perplexing because I believe it would be more negative to the Palestinian "side" to say that the Palestinian people as a whole (or as a government) in this event are belligerents (i.e. aggressors) when they aren't. This isn't about pleasing one side or the other, so I am not supporting the current formulation on this basis. Rather, this is about presenting the facts; and the facts show, quite undisputedly, that the Palestinian people and government at the highest echelons are not one of the combatants in this conflict. Targets? Some will debate yes. But certainly not belligerents. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not accusing you or anyone else of putting that because of any pro-Israel bias, my point that is regardless of the intentions, it is clear that infobox does represent what the Israeli government claims. If you implied something else that really is because you choose to read my comments a certain way. You do accept that it is the POV of the Israeli government that this is a battle between Hamas, exclusive of the rest of the populace, and Israel right? I am not saying that this was put here because any editor holds a particular POV, and I would urge that you AGF as to my intentions here. And your assertion that I have misunderstood the word belligerent is a little tiresome, you are almost saying I am too stupid to understand the meaning of a word. I am not trying to pick a fight, and as I stated above, if the nobody else agrees with me I'll assume that the community opposes my view and will no longer raise any objection. I know these discussions tend to get heated, but as I said I am not question your motives or ability to present the information in a NPOV way. What I am saying is that it is clearly the POV of the Israeli government, one of accepted belligerents of this attack, that they are fighting Hamas and not Gaza as a whole. And at the very least the current government of Gaza is Hamas, so I would at say that at least Gaza should be listed as a belligerent. Again, I meant you no harm and I hope you can see I was not attacking your neutrality in the issue, I am just arguing whether the words in infobox represent a particular POV, which I think it clearly does, not whether any editor is beholden to one. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as a belligerent being identified as an aggressor, well you could hardly say Kuwaiti resistance in the Invasion of Kuwait was aggressive. I still think that you are misunderstanding the term with regards to its use in international conflict. In an attack, both the attacker and the attacked are belligerents in the battle. The fact that all this has as its backdrop is the blockade of Gaza and closing of the border crossings only further affirms that Gaza as a whole is what is being attacked, and thus is a belligerent in the battle, even if the official armed forces of Gaza, if such a thing existed, are either unable or unwilling to muster any military response. The only way that I think you can rationally oppose listing at least Gaza in the list is that they are not a sovereign country and thus the title of belligerent status, as well as the responsibilities that go with it to each party under international law, can not apply. But nobody has made that argument, what you say is that because 'non-Hamas Palestinans' are not picking up arms they cannot be listed. To my mind the purpose of the infobox is to inform as to who the involved parties are, and in this case it seems to me to be lacking. Nableezy (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Have reverted the unilateral addition of the Palestinian People for now pending the outcome of discussion as this is not a "small matter". Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Beat you to it. -- tariqabjotu 16:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you did! Would've been within a minute and I didn't spot any "edit conflict" message for some reason... Shall save my edit summary message if needed again in order to push to talk, first. Thanks. Harami2000 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone confirm: Internation law states that policemen are considered civilians?

It has come to my attention that under international law, policemen are considered to be civilians if they as individuals do not take part in any hostilities.

Here is an article that discusses the fact that Policement are considered civilians:

"Al Mezan stresses that police members who do not take part in any hostilities are not considered legitimate military targets under international humanitarian law and must not be deliberately targeted." [11]

I point this out because the NYTimes reported that many of the policement were young men tempted by steady work:

"Israeli officials said that anyone linked to the Hamas security structure or government was fair game because Hamas was a terrorist group that sought Israel’s destruction. But with work here increasingly scarce because of an international embargo on Hamas, young men are tempted by the steady work of the police force without necessarily fully accepting the Hamas ideology. One of the biggest tolls on Saturday was at a police cadet graduation ceremony in which 15 people were killed."

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html

The two sides of this issue (i.e. whether policemen are considered civilians or not) should be added to the article.

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also aren't those working in police stations and government buildings more accurately 'government employees' or 'civil servants'? RomaC (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear that the argument that Israel is making is that because they were employed by Hamas, international law protections do not apply. This is a novel argument and it should be laid out in the article as an explanation as to why Israel does not consider policemen who are not involved in hostilities to not be civilians. Otherwise they should be. I think that we should clarify this on the casualties info box as well. An asterix with some small text explaining why their civilian status is disputed by Israel. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Common knowledge, I thought: there are civilian policemen and military policemen. Plus the good ol' paramilitary grey area in which this discussion mostly resides.

The site you are quoting which appears to assert that all police (civilian, military, paramilitary, etc.) are to be treated as civilians in hostilities is avowedly pro-Palestinian (electronicintifada) but you should be able to find a neutral site which is not using that statement in a potentially slanted manner that avoids, for example, the situation that even if all Gazan police are "civilians" there could presumably be a challenge issued on who those "civilians" are - not just "young men tempted by steady work"; e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556185/Hamas-police-lay-down-law-in-Gaza.html ; "Hamas has bolstered the police force with about 400 members of its so-called Executive Force and militants on loan from its armed wing, the Ezzedine al Qassam Brigades." Harami2000 (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is coverage of this issue in the Guardian:

"Hamdi Shaqura, an official at the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, said that at least 20 of the victims were under 18 and nine were women. He said he did not accept that the bombardment was hurting Hamas more than ordinary people and added that most of the Hamas personnel attacked had been civil policemen and not members of the armed Izzedine al Qassam brigades."

Israel prepares to invade Gaza. The Guardian. December 29 2008.

The two sides of this issue clearly need to be added to the article. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, I think we should add a section labeled casualties detailing facts such as these... there is another NY Times article above in the discussion page which makes the same point I think. Amjra 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A call for archiving news articles first

I've noticed that a good number of news agencies update their articles without without updating their link. A number of facts get removed by that act, leading to a lot of unreliable references. Please archive the unstable news articles on Webcite before referencing them. Thanks! --Darwish07 (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting site, is there any policy or guideline on how often this should be done? Joshdboz (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea. The news articles are too unstable to be referenced without archival, whether there's a policy about that or not. --Darwish07 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a thing in the cite template called "retrieved on", which can be used. Custom is to use that and then "assume good faith" or seek other sources. In a controversial article like this, we should be verifying sources heavily anyways, and not quoting directly but citing, to ensure neutrality. I am weary of Webcite as it is a third-party service of dubious copyright, and because if a fact is verifiable, other sources can be found rather quickly. Webcite only allows for retractions and incorrect information to creep in, as there IS a reason why those news items were updated in the first place. There is no final version in wikipedia, if there is info updated, we change, too, not cling to the past. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On things like number of people died 'so far', archival will be needed cause those pages get updated automatically. Look at the december 28, and december 29 paragraphs were the death numbers mentioned does not match the cited references since all of them got updated. This means we can not know the number of deaths up to 28 or 29 December anymore.--Darwish07 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Other Motivations

The "Suggested Other Motivations" near the end reads like it was written by a high school student. It already has a "refimprove" tag, along with lots of spelling errors, lack of punctuation, questionable use of adjectives and hyperbole, and a complete lack of NPOV. Given that this is for a current event, this must be fixed very soon, or it will be removed. pjh3000 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily approve of the section but I cleaned it up some. I will say I question whether the article should present, unchallenged, apparently descriptive statements like "(the attacks were) undertaken as a retaliation against frequent Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities and civilians." RomaC (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments and sources:

1. I've noticed that Khaled is only noted for suggeting truce but haven't seen a mention that he was amoung the ones pushing for Hamas to declare an end to the lull.
2. I'm noticing a mention of the Israeli February elections but I don't see a mention of the Palestinian January elections. Anyone with a brain knows the Hamas had to change the situation on the ground prior to elections to have a chance at winning in the West Bank. You can't launch 80 rockets in one day on Israel without intending on starting something.
3. I've noticed a mention of the Guardian but there seems to be no mention of the counter response by Omedia's Dr. Rebbeca Sheppek Lisk who called the Guardian's report "Hamas perspective".[12], [13]
4. Tarek al-Khmid, a Seniour editor at A-Shrak Al-Awsat, was reportedly directly attacking Hamas as well as Khaled of Damascus.[14]

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

omedia.co.il is an inevitably speculative/POV source and not worth being included in this wikipedia article. --Severino (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Omedia is a reliable source well within wikipedia standards. Certainly more accurate than the likes of the Guardian. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional high quality sources

BBC on motives (source: [15]):

So why is Israel acting now and with such force? Does it really believe it can stop the rocket fire from Gaza when previous Israeli governments have tried and failed, using every military means? Israel's prime minister says that is his objective: to protect Israeli citizens living close to the Gaza border. To achieve this, his defence minister, Ehud Barak, said Israel would continue, widen and intensify its Gaza operation.

But Israel's politicians are pursuing a parallel campaign, too - an electoral one. Israel holds parliamentary elections in just over a month's time. The Israeli public has a generally low opinion about how their government has handled what they call "Hamastan" - Hamas-controlled Gaza. Until it started talking tough, the hawkish opposition leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, was leading in the polls. Now the gap has narrowed.

Reuters on motives (source [16]):

Israel's bomb and missile offensive in Gaza may boost voter support for Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in her bid to defeat frontrunner Benjamin Netanyahu in the February 10 election.

An Israeli television poll showed 81 percent of Israelis backed the massive attacks on the coastal strip, ruled by the Islamist group Hamas, in a bid to stop Palestinian militants firing rockets into southern Israel.

Whether Livni can defeat the right-wing leader at the polls may depend on whether Israel achieves its objective without incurring heavy Israeli civilian or military casualties, analysts said.

Both Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak are gambling with their political careers by launching this attack on Hamas, they said.

"If they hadn't taken action, they would have been finished politically," though the outcome is uncertain, said Shmuel Sandler of Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

Guardian on motives (source [17]):

The second objective has to do with Israel's coming elections. The assault on Gaza is also being carried out to help Kadima and Labour defeat Likud and its leader Binyamin Netanyahu, who is currently ahead in the polls. It is not coincidental that Netanyahu's two main competitors, Livni and Barak, were invited to the press conference – since, after the assault, it will be more difficult for Netanyahu to characterise them as "soft" on the Palestinians. Whether or not the devastation in Gaza will help Livni defeat Netanyahu or help Barak gain votes in the February elections is difficult to say, but the strategy of competing with a warmonger like Netanyahu by beating the drums of war says a great deal about all three major contenders.

The third objective involves the Israeli military. After its notable humiliation in Lebanon during the summer of 2006, the IDF has been looking for opportunities to re-establish its global standing. Last spring it used Syria as its laboratory and now it has decided to focus on Gaza. Emphasising the mere three minutes and 40 seconds it took to bomb 50 sites is just one the ways the Israeli military aims to restore its international reputation.

Hope that helps beef up the references. --John Bahrain (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest you're being highly inconsistent if you believe that media quotes (many of which are inevitably speculative/POV) are worthy of inclusion in this article because they are "high quality sources" whilst you unilaterally delete a quote from the spokesperson of one of the groups that has been firing missiles at Israel as being "someone the BBC picked up in the street" and not relevant/confusing.

I noted from the edit log that this section has now gone and support that "Removed "suggested other motivations" because it was ridiculous" edit log comment if this helps to reduce POV pushing and excessive speculation presented as fact whilst the situation is headline news. Harami2000 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The previous section wasn't based on quality sources and wasn't written that well. I'll add a higher quality section back in if no one else is up to the task. --John Bahrain (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents?!

Hamas activist are saying that Israeli forces are attacking the palestanian people living in Gaza Strip, on the other hand Israeli officeials are saying we are attacking Hamas activist. However, the belligerents were identified to be Hamas and IDF? is this neutral? to take what Israeli officials are saying and disregard what is mentioned from Hamas? I think this needs to be changed, unless I am missing something. Yamanam (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See #Belligerents; join the party. "Belligerents" does not mean targets; it means aggressors. -- tariqabjotu 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Hamas hides themselves in civilian buildings and lobs rockets from hospitals and schools, deliberately trying to use civilians as human shields. Is it any surprise they'd lie about what was going on too?

It's not supposed that you, as a Wikipedia editor, simply state this as a fact. WP:NPOV --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent semi-protection

I agree with SoWhy's decision to semi-protect this; someone was making edits that greatly compromised the neutrality of this article, and in my opinion people will continue to do so. Qoou.Anonimu (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There were serious vandalism acts from both sides, and were getting more rapid. I'm glad my request for sp was granted. Please help keep the article neutral. I feel I'm reverting more edits than I should, those of border-line nature - not obvious vandalism, but far from NPOV. If I don't revert them, it looks like the article will deteriorate too fast to stop it. If I do revert - I do way more than 3 revert. okedem (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 Administrator note Semi-protection was the logical step as this attracts nationalist and POV editors from both sides to add their point of view. It is naturally a heated topic and we should do everything we can to keep it calm. I put it on my watchlist and so did probably half a dozen other admins, so I think we can stop short of full protection at the moment. Regards SoWhy 21:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we can too. Full protect of an ongoing event would really be a shame. okedem (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro too long

There is a lot of redudant information but also some that should go somewhere else.

This my proposed text. Any deletions would be moved (if not redundant) into the text, and of course my propossal would be wikilinked and sourced as necessary. The operative principle is WP:LEAD.

(I recognize that there is controversy on the title, but we can easily remove that from this proposed version if that is the decision, so please make your comments about the content not the title stuff which has two sections already.)

Proposal

The December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, began with an Israeli air strike named Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) (after a line in a children's song for Hanukkah) which began on December 27, 2008 at 11:30 am local time (9:30 am UTC) against Hamas-controlled targets in the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli operation had been reportedly in the planning for over six months, from the approximate time as the temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas was signed. Beginning around this time, plans were started to do an attack on Hamas targets if necessary. After a process initiated in mid-November 2008, an nearly a two month long process involving the highest levels of government, the Israeli cabinet unanimously voted in favor of the strike.

The stated aim of the airstrikes is to neutralize the Hamas militiamen which had been launching rocket attacks at Israeli territory in recent years, and to destroy the infrastructure of power and governance that Hamas had been building since winning the Gaza elections. The airstrikes, mark a significant change in Israeli strategy in that they were launched in full daylight as previous attacks in Gaza have largely been nighttime operations. Airstrikes hit all of Gaza's main towns. A large number of Hamas-operated security installations and infrastructure were hit. In addition there were attacks on the Al Aqsa TV station and a Science building at the Islamic University of Gaza; both were identified by Israel as Hamas-controlled.

There have been international criticism and support. Criticism in general focus on concerns over civilian casualties, and the use of air power in such a small, built-up area. There has also been concern over the general humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. Support has focused on the retaliatory and defensive nature of the attacks, defending Israel's right to strike against a hostile Hamas after sustained rocket attacks, that have resulted in significant property damage and mostly civilian casualties.

The UN relief agency in Gaza says 56 Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli fire so far. The head of the emergency services in Gaza said that 312 Palestinians had been killed in all, and more than 1,400 others wounded. The Israeli authorities have not reported any casualties.

Discussion=

• Any omissions of important information are unintentional, so don't read into it. A lot of what I did was shorten phrasing and eliminate information that belongs somewhere else in the article. I also eliminated timeline information, that belongs in the article, not the intro. In general a low level of detail is required in the lead. If you feel strongly something must be said in the lead, please read WP:LEAD before expressing it, the answer as to why it was not included is there in all probability. This is not a vote but a discussion motivated by quality issues with the article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would only say that the part about the line in childrens Hanukkah song being the source of the name is unncessary, but besides that I think it looks good Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Construction Worker

The article currently has the construction worker as an Israeli-Arab. Reports are that he was Bedouin. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050925.html). Can't change it myself, given the lock-down. EliezerIsrael (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• What Haaretz says in the article you quote is that "The combined rocket-mortar shell attack came hours after 27-year-old Israeli construction worker Hani al Mahdi, from the Bedouin village of Aroer, was killed in a rocket attack in Ashkelon." Consequently this does seem to be the case of an Israeli-Arab. Certainly the Aroer I know is a town located in present-day Jordan, not in the Negev Desert where Israeli Bedouins usually come from. But Haaretz is usually quite trustworthy when talking on these matters, and the deceased man could definitely have been an Israeli citizen, unless new data are provided. Regards, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also an Israeli Bedouin town in the Negev called Aroar. Multile sources have reported this victim as an Israeli. - see [18] NoCal100 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Haaretz is the most reliable of the local sources by far. And ever handy, Google maps Puts Aroer smack where the Bedouin areas are. And of course, Ashquelon is in rocket range. So at leas the sites confirm. Any verification? Magen David Adom has something (pretty graphic) [19] that verifies the attack happned. Any more sources?

BTW, for Israeli editors, are Magen David Adom images public domain? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Copied from my talk page:

Please do not blank sourced verifiable content on December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes without providing an explanation as you did regarding the Peter Falk quote on humanitarian conditions in Gaza.

Colombo Man (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave an explanation in the edit summary, but I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. The background section is already quite long, even containing just the bare facts. If we start adding quotes and opinions, it'll blow out of proportion. I can provide many quotes about Hamas's actions, and you can provide quotes about Israel's action - but do any of them really add something? This is just a background section. Quotes might be relevant for Criticism sections about the actual operation, but opinions about the past are just tedious. Anyone can find any quote to suit some point they care about. There are enough opinions for everyone, but quotes are a dangerous tool. How important is it that someone said something? How much does it add to the reader's understanding? Usually, very little. Let's stick to presenting just the facts, let them speak for themselves, Please. okedem (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Long story short - I ask that we avoid quotes as much as possible. They usually add little to the reader's understanding, biasing him towards some viewpoint ("Oh, X said this and that"). The reader should reach his own conclusions, based on the facts we present. People's opinions, unless they are in a position of power (like a US president) are usually of little significance. Especially I ask not to include any quotes in the already very long background section, where they are wholly unnecessary. Thoughts? okedem (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is also my POV on the Public Relations Extra Israeli Quotes talk page section. Please discuss the point there to help on their removal with less biased wordings. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 23rd Border Incident Citation

Citation for "On 23 December 2008, the IDF killed three Palestinian militants who were planting explosives on the Gaza border."

3 Gaza militants killed in clash on Israeli border

Also mentioned in Reuters article:

Flare-up dims truce hopes along Israel-Gaza border

Done. Thank you!. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of apparently excessive amount of background history?

Without going all the way back to 1967, was there any particular benefit to be gained from the following huge cut-and-paste from a separate article unrelated to the near-history of this /specific/ event? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes&diff=260714520&oldid=260713567
A brief note back to the start of the ceasefire (June 2008) and slightly greater in-fill for December 2008 would appear to be a sensible maximum for context as was apparently the consensus opinion prior to that edit. Harami2000 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No please. The situation is much more complex than a ceasefire and some rockets. It's a long tension between Hamas and Israel since the day of Hamas elections win. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on that, of course, but I can see no need for a mass, /verbatim/ copy-paste of years of background history from Gaza–Israel_conflict when the "Background" section already leads with clickable links to the relevant higher-level information;

>>Main articles: 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict and Blockade of the Gaza Strip

>>See also: List of Qassam rocket attacks and List of Qassam rocket attacks in Israel in 2008

A mass copy-paste on that scale for what is a single timeframed article on Wikipedia is contrary to the idea of subarticles, and in theory /this/ article is a subarticle. Or would you propose a merge instead? Harami2000 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to shorten the Background by removing some part of it.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Seyyed. The scope of that additional text is still pretty much the whole of the leader text from Gaza–Israel_conflict which suggests a "merge up" rather than a subarticle.

The question is still /why/ is that wholesale copy-paste of several years of history needed here when it is already explained in the other clearly-linked article in order to save duplication of effort? Harami2000 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I will tighten up the first several graphs as well, this is an article about airstrikes we don't need to know how documents were submitted for approval and votes were made in cabinet -- obviously an Israeli military operation was approved by the Israeli gov't. RomaC (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source."

"What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source."

What this actually means is, if something isn't published my a source backed by the money of a large Western corporation or a Western capitalist government, it is summarily dismissed if it expresses political views opposed to any interest of the former. This is precisely where Wikipedia's usefulness stops. It is simply the echo chamber of the global Spectacle. So if any of you suckers want to change a thing in this world, get out on the streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.239.167 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is an ideal, of course. (Above comment relates to Cerejota's quote from some time back). Harami2000 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sickest unsigned comment :) Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What 89.242.239.167 has described in informal words is something like a combination of the empirically supported (quantitative) model of the media in democratic countries, especially the USA, by Herman and Chomsky plus the measured demographic bias among en.wikipedia editors referred to and discussed in WP:BIAS. The discussion above suggesting that PNN is "more partisan" than the BBC, despite me giving one example where the BBC World Service several times acted as a tool of British foreign policy in order to (successfully) overthrow one democratically elected government which wanted to control the country's own natural resources, is most likely an example of WP:BIAS. This does not mean that any of the wikipedians involved in the discussion are consciously biased. It only means that the wikipedians involved (including me) each have limited experience and knowledge of the world limited by our living experiences and statistically matching our demographic profile. This limited experience limits our ability to judge which news sources are "partisan", for example. The BBC does not claim that it aims to overthrow democratically elected governments. However, the evidence is that in at least one case, it did do that. Boud (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think 89.242.239.167's is a situationist perspective, no? Valid point though Al Jazeera has challenged it to some extent. I actually wholeheartedly agreeThe last capitalist will be hanged with the innards of the last bureaucratdown with alienated workPENG!In the kingdom of consumption the citizen is kingA democratic monarchy: equality before consumption, fraternity in consumption, and liberty through consumptionThe dictatorship of consumer goods has finally destroyed the barriers of blood, lineage and race!

See, I can troll too, except I do it better: War is peace, We have always been at war with Eurasia Eastasia. Smoke a Victory. Welcome to the Party. Now, if you think Wikipedia changes the world, LOL. It doesn't. It can help document it tho. No theory, no praxis... --Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Palestinain civiilian casualty formulation

The figure that the UN is quoting as being the number of civilian casualties, currently 62, is only women and children, not including any civilian adult males, from bbc; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7803711.stm:

UN humanitarian chief John Holmes; "Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties," he told a news conference. "That simply encompasses those who are women and children. It does not include any civilian casualties who are men - even though we know that there have been some civilian men killed as well."

I think that should be noted where civilian casualties are given. Any objections? Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think not. Go ahead and add it, be WP:BOLD. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a little beyond bold, but why you think not? The civilian counts have been used to back up the idea that most of those killed have been militants, but if you assume that all adult males that have been killed are militants you are likely overestimating the proportion. I think that accuracy in these counts should be of the highest concern, as both sides will try to distort them to make their points. But for something as potentially inflammatory as this, I feel it wise to ask the rest of you. Nableezy (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also on civilian casualties, the infobox noted the UN had counted 62 of them but was sourced with this[20] BBC story using the figure 57. I changed the figure in the box to conform to its source but it has since been changed back. A figure has to be the same as the source which supports it. It is dishonest on our part to do otherwise. If there is a good source on 62 could that be used instead? Otherwise it should be 57 or at least leave it unsourced. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The source provided above in the first post of this sections reports that the UN claims 62 women/children. Nableezy (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also the source used in 'The large majority of deaths and injuries have been Hamas operatives.[19]' in the lead says 62 women/children, and nowhere does it currently say the large majority have been Hamas operatives. That claim needs another source or it should be removed. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy above. RomaC (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It does say that 'Israel has stressed that most of the deaths and injuries were Hamas fighters and says it's careful to avoid harm to bystanders.' But this claim has to be preceded by Israel {says, claims, asserts, stressed, whatever} instead of presenting it as fact as the article being referenced does not. Nableezy (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the source. I didn't mean to step into your more general discussion -- I had just come to the article to read about that issued and noticed the article disagreed with the source. My opinion on your more general point is that you should include the explanation in the casualties section and I'd have the infobox read "more than 62" for now. That number is going to change anyway as the conflict continues and the numbers become better understood. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well hold on a sec - why is it assumed that all the women killed are civilians? It is well known, and publicized by Hamas, that that there are women amongst the ranks of militants - see this as one example. If we are going to be qualifying casualty numbers as proposed above, we should be precise, and state just that UN has confirmed 62 of the dead were women and children, without specifying they were civilians. NoCal100 (talk)`

I would agree, but the UN humanitarian chief did say that 'Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties' then later qualified that with those 62 being women and children. I do agree though that it should just state the 62 women and children have been confirmed dead by the UN without further qualification of their civilian/combatant status. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. If the UN have stated that they are civilians then it is not our job to editorialise what the UN has stated. When can also specify that they are including all women and children but no males, but nothing beyond that. Unless we have sources which dispute the figure in which case we can mention the sources that dispute the figure. Rememer this is wikipeida and an encylopaedia not a news paper and we rely on what the sources say not what we want them to say Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is in fact you who are editorializing. The UN did not say they are civilians, it said it "believed" they are civilians, which is not the same thing. We can say "The UN believes 62 civilians were killed, basing that on the number of children and women", but not anything more than that. NoCal100 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that the UN or UNRWA? Two different things really. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not, the UNRWA, regardless of what you think of them, is a UN enterprise and what they say will be taken with that weight, but to answer your question the figure comes from John Holmes (British diplomat), recently appointed Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. Nableezy (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Burying information

Information detailing the airstrikes is sinking in the article as more background and other support information is added at the top. The article should cover the airstrikes themselves before justifications, reactions, or background. I've tried to fix this a bit. RomaC (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would phrase this differently. I do not think the intention is to bury any information, but rather over-zeal in terms of providing justification.

I remind all editors:

1. There are plenty of articles that both need work and exist for the purpose of documenting this conflict.
2. The most relevant article is 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. That article is an stylistic mess, but provides a framework form which to work towards a a workable WP:SUMMARY. I already suggested we merge this with the redundant and apparently POV fork that is 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict.
3. Editors are advised to read upon style guidelines like WP:LEAD and WP:HEAD. Regardless of the actual content, we should be able to agree in a structure that makes for a good looking article, not the ugly mess it is right now.
4. This article is about the actions surrounding a change of strategy. Contrary to what some have put int the lead, these attacks are notable not just for being daylight, but the massive level of attacks. It is fair to say Israel in a few minutes used dozens of millions of dollars worth of bombs. And the level of casualties and damage to infrastructure in Gaza is unprecedented, representing the core of the defacto government's infrastructure. This ferocity is unprecedented in Gaza even at the height of the intifadas.

I invite all editors to step back a second, and if they are committed to the project, to remind themselves that our points of view are, in this context, much less important than achieving a and factual recollection of the events. No need for inflamatory adjectives, no need for redundant claims and justifications of victimhood. The facts can speak for themselves. Why are we so afraid? Of what are we so afraid? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! RomaC (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

REACTIONS

Not all UK and EU Policiticans are attempting to keep a foot in both camps.

SOURCE http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7802733.stm is as follows...

"For the Conservatives, William Hague warned there was little leverage Britain could exert over the immediate situation in Gaza.

He told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "It is quite right for the UN Security Council to call for a ceasefire and an end to hostilities and we should all support that, but that does of course require both sides to cease hostilities.

"The evident reason for Israel's onslaught on Gaza in recent days has been the very large number of rocket attacks launched by Hamas into Israeli territory. That's a difficult thing to resolve."

But Ed Davey, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "The Israeli reaction is utterly disproportionate.

"From the standpoint of ordinary people in Gaza this is a full-scale attack, which is leaving women and children dead and thousands of innocent people suffering. "

"The rocket attacks by Hamas are totally unacceptable, but Israel ought to have learnt from its attack on Lebanon which only served to strengthen the cause of extremism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.119.220 (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Since there is a fog of war inherent to the process, casualty figures are inherently vague. I suggest that if sources contradict themselves, we use all figures as a range. As time goes by, figures would become solid. As long as we source, we will be doing our readers a service. W ejust have to keep updating it with new info. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel broke the ceasefire

So...is the almost nill mentioning of Israel breaking the ceasefire through its non-withdrawl, and more importantly its attacks on Hamas officials, deliberate or just intentionally being ignored? Sorry, but "pre-emptive defence" when no attack was about to take place is not an excuse to ignore the information and removing the fact Israel broke the ceasefire from this wikipedia article. 60.230.218.136 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

There seems to be some error with your notes. Please review reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IDF images?

Are they public domain? Please no opinions, just the facts. Remember we must be GFDL compatible. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

they are not. they're the copyright of the IDF ,as the IDF website states. NoCal100 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli casualties

{{editsemiprotected}} The casualties section in the information box is incorrect. Israeli fatalities include one soldier, not 4 civilians as currently. Source: [21] The source currently used says only 4 deaths, without elaborating whether they are civilians or soldiers. JVent (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is true. All Israeli news sites report 3 civilians and one soldier killed. For Haaretz's report see: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050925.html. --Omrim (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. NoCal100 (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert to old Intro

Could someone please revert edit by Jaakobou, POV pushing.