Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

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)

Codenames like "Enduring Freedom" are a form of propaganda, and it is not the job of wikipedia to promulgate this propaganda. What if Israel had called its rampage "Operation Happiness"? Why should wikipedia be forced to accept Israeli propaganda as an authority? "Cast Lead" refers to a children's toy: It hides the murderous assault behind an association with children and innocence. It's deceitful and misleading. NonZionist (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2009 (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)

The current title has a lot of problems. I think Hamas-Israel Confrontation (2008) or Israel-Hamas Confrontation or conflict --(take your pick) is much better. As has been pointed out, this did not start in December of 2008 nor will it necessarily end in 2008 either. Maintaining the present title would appear you would only be able to point out Israel's part in this event and studiously not mention any part played by Hamas. This is just not fair nor neutral. Hamas has been bombing Israel for quite a while, let's not pretend we don't know it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamas has NOT been bombing Israel -- where are its bombers? And the slaughter in Gaza is not a war against Hamas: Israel has been targeting all of Gaza -- with its occupation, with its blockade, with its checkpoints, with its shelling and its bombing raids, and now with its full-scale aerial assault. To call all of this genocidal behavior "retaliation" for the ineffectual rockets fired mainly by Islamic Jihad is self-delusion. There IS NO symmetry between the occupier and the occupied, anymore than there is a moral symmetry between the master and the slave. A neutral perspective would put all of the killers on the same level plane, and we would then see that the Israelis are killing FORTY TIMES as many as the Palestinians. That's why the focus needs to be on Israel. NonZionist (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And as per the arguments above, I see nothing really inherently wrong with calling it Operation Cast Lead. It's catchy. It is used. It is similar to other names and "operations" -- it has no time restrictions, shall we say like "The First Intifada" "The Second Intifada" etcTundrabuggy (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (first)

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: [1],[2], [3] (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)

• • Countering political naivety: Halo tru7h, you write "from Israel's perspective, ..." How do you know WHAT the "Israeli perspective" is? Many argue that the "perspective" is that Kadima, to win the election, must demonstrate that it is more cold-blooded and violent than Likud. Others say that the "perspective" is that Palestinians, as Golda Meir said, "don't exist", and must therefore be exterminated, if reality is to accord with Zionist ideology. From the start, the Zionists advertised Palestine as "a land without people for a people without land", and they have been trying to eliminate the Palestinians ever since. But you see none of that. All you see is Israeli propaganda, which you treat as the Gospel Truth. You need to QUESTION what you read. The history that is written by the victors -- in this case, by Israel -- is largely false. You need to find out what the victims have to say. You will be shocked by how much you have not allowed yourself to see. NonZionist (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2009 (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)

• Against. --Ezzex (talk) 16:04, 30 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)

Hi there again... glad to know that the debate is still alive... Encyclopedic articles should't reflect the personal POV or editors, but stick to facts: the precedent established is clear...

Cow: during the german invasion of the USSR up to 23 millions of soviets died... how should we call that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (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)
    • If the other side adopted another name and if both are relevant, yes. Typically, Yom Kippur War (FA) is not neutral. This is also the Ramadan War and the best title would be 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Ceedjee (talk) 19:56, 30 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 (old)

• 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" [4] 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)

When that happens, we change it! I mean, that we shouldn't use the operationa name is not the end of the world, there is plenty of reliable sources giving us plenty of verifiable alternatives. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:06, 30 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)

I support the NEUTRAL title -- "2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict". The title of an article that purports to be objective should not be determined by the chief belligerent! The Israeli war machine must not be allowed to define our reality! The analogy with "Operation Barbarossa" fails, because the German war machine no longer exists: There is no harm in borrowing from something that is no longer a threat, to title a conflict that is long dead. Other operation names -- e.g., Just Cause", "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (OIL, for short) -- should NOT be used as article titles. The codenames are propaganda, and promulgating such propaganda is not the job of wikipedia. An encyclopedia must strive to rise above propaganda! NonZionist (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (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 [5] --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 [6], the "airstrikes" title losses its relevance.--Omrim (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose-I haven't seen a single credible news organization or scholarly source refer to this as a war. If that becomes the trend, then perhaps I will hcange my position. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (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)

yeah well thats sadly what happens whn terrorists hide behing civilians becuase thier cowards. Dip shit

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. (and what show the world that it is influenced by whingy, racist prepubescent 8 year old arabs who need to get an education?) 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.(who stole it off the jews)

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)

I came here this morning to start this very discussion! I would support changing the name to Operation Cast Lead BUT as this seems to have moved on entirely now, I bow to the consensus of the discussion..."2008-09 Gaza Strip airstrikes" would be accurate if this is the only thing which has happened in January...But if ground troops are deployed, then "2008-09 Israeli/Gaza conflict" would be my preferred choice. doktorb _words^deeds 05:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict??? Hillarious:

Im sorry, but, if this suggestions gets accepted, well, how we should name:

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)? Should we rename Operation Overlord??

Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... What if the conflict escalates and lasts till february??? Gumuhua (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (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 [7]. 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)

I would support the suggestion to "Leave it alone for 5 days". There is a too much WP:CRYSTAL going on here with suggestions about possible land offensives etc, the main characteristic of the current phase of the operation has been IAF airstrikes and the Hamas response (I'm talking specifically about this operation, not the prior hostilities, so no history lessons please). While I think that December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict might be the best suggestion so far, none of us know if there will soon be a truce, a ground battle or hostilities that continue until February 2009. December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is o.k. for now. In 5 days, a better answer might be obvious. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Undertaken as a retaliation....

"Claimed to be 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)

Kebabish1 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is accurate as it only states what the Israeli government "claimed" not their actual goals.

71.163.54.239 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of what's on fox news is reliable. It may have a conservative tone, but it is the same information you will find anywhere else. They don't just make shit up. Gtbob12 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"What measures the quality of a reliable 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)

The BBC World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is explicitly a tool of British foreign policy. The FCO decides in conjuction with the BBC what services to provide in what languages. Editorial control is the BBC's exclusive territory however, and is often not at all helpful to the immediate interests of the UK government. For a first class example of the issues discussed here see "In Search of Fatima" by Ghada Karmi, Chaper 8, page 280-282 in my 2002 paperback edition.--Milezmilez (talk) 06:53, 31 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. (unsigned user)

...deleted CSS "art"...

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)

Grow up, people. --Darwish07 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, once in a while lame attempts at humor shoudl be allowed. Why so serious? :D--Cerejota (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My eyes hurt after staring on your ASCII art for a while ;-). --Darwish07 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Moar like CSS "art". ;)--Cerejota (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Documenting the world" is a form of preserving past lessons so future generations will benefit from them, and all that commonplace crap. Albeit unneffective, it is a sort of goal towards the changing of the world. I don't know by which standarts you consider your trolling better than his', but I certainly agree with you by mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.56.30.10 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2009 (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)

Separating out "militants" is invalid, unless you believe that people should be killed for their political views. ALL of the victims are "civilians". If my house is attacked and I try to defend my family, does that make me any less of a civilian than the other members of my family? The only sensible distinction is that between the aggressors and victims. NonZionist (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also on civilian casualties, the infobox noted the UN had counted 62 of them but was sourced with this[8] 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)

Comment on content please, not on fellow editors. In relevance to the content: I'm not applying my own feelings but what reliable sources say. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a comment on the content of the previous comment Nableezy (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) User:WanderSage has reverted the number of dead women and children back to civilians. The sources explicitly do not say civilian, they say women and children, so yes that counts women who are potentially 'militants' and does not count men that are civilians. But we cannot change what the sources say on this point. Is there anybody out there who objects to citing the wording of women and children for the released UN figure as of now, or is there any reason we should be misrepresenting the source and the UN? Unless somebody objects relatively soon I will be changing the wording back. Nableezy (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been changed again. Does anybody have any reason why what is properly sourced and cited to be changed? The sources clearly and explicitly say 'women and children,' they DO NOT say civilians. Could anybody provide justification for changing the wording? Nableezy (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally moved the info in the box from "civilians" to "women and children". I don't know who re-edited it back again. I'll re-type it to women and children. Please people, not to enter in an WP:Edit war, do not modify it except if you have another source that criticize this statements. And we are NOT giving it as a fact, we already said "the UN said", or "according to the UN". It's not our opinion to criticize the UN statements. Done. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This keeps changing. Could somebody at least state their objection to the use of 'women and children' to 'civilians'? The quote that all the sources reference says "Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties," then further on, "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." To avoid any ambiguity about whether men can be civilians and whether women can be militants, we should reflect what the sources say. They ALL say women and children, many don't use the word civilian to describe them at all. At the very least can someone please state their concern with accurately reflecting the sources? Nableezy (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:WanderSage has, again, changed the wording to 62 "civilians" without even discussing it in here. He says in the log that it's an "emotionalistic pov language- women can be militants, and men can be civilians.". Again, Mr. WanderSage, it's not your call to modify the UN reports. If so, every side can put his biased opinion on other side official statements and a mess begin. Israeli figures are put as is, Palestinian ones are put as is, and UN ones should be put as is. Isn't this overstated enough? --Darwish07 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually think this last one was User:Jadorno did this one [9] Nableezy (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nableezy for correction, and sorry to WanderSage. I'll re-edit it back to women and children. Thoughts Nableezy? --Darwish07 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that if somebody disputes the language they should provide a source that does so. There are an overwhelming number of sources that specifically say women and children, and if somebody has an issue with the language to take it up here. Nableezy (talk) 02:31, 31 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)

I just updated the info according to this IHT article: [10]
Another interesting thing in it, is that it has a description of Hamas militiamen executing other Palestinians in Shifa hospital because of suspicion of cooperation with Israel. It might be an interesting information. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that all sources for casualties say "according to UN officials the number of civilian deaths...". But, what did the UN officials actually say? "Commissioner-General for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who said that, conservatively, between 20 and 25 per cent of the known dead were civilians." For this article to be more accurate and less biased it needs to be changed so that number of dead civilians is changed to "the UN estimates between 20-25% of Palestinian deaths are civilian." I will make the changes, but with how hot this topic is I am sure it will be changed back, so I provided this comment to explain the change.--Terets (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, just noticed that the article is locked, so I can't make the changes. Will someone who has access please correct the information in the article? P.S. Don't rely simply on sources who repeat information, check the sources of your sources. In this case many of the news agencies reworded what the UN actually said.--Terets (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2009 (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)

Jaakobou, you should read the NYTimes which makes clear that the ceasefire was not upheld by either party:

There can be no justification for Hamas’s attacks or its virulent rejectionism. But others must also take responsibility for the current mess. Hamas never fully observed the cease-fire that went into effect on June 19 and Israel never really lived up to its commitment to ease its punishing embargo on Gaza. When the cease-fire ran out, no one, including the Bush administration, made a serious effort to get it extended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/opinion/30tue1.html

This aspect of the incident is also covered in the article by the NYTimes on December 28 which I linked to earlier.

--John Bahrain (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Heyo John,

1. There was never a cease fire. It was a "tahdia" - an agreement to a temporary lull, a lowering of the activity, not a cease fire.
2. As there was never a stop to rocket and mortar attacks, the source is mistaken about it's understanding of the tahdia agreement. The agreement was that when rockets are launched, Israel and Egypt close the passages, which is exactly what happened.
3. The source is clearly false about efforts to extend the tahdia as well. Egypt made a clear note that they are pissed at Hamas for rejecting their efforts to extend it (was quite notable in the media).

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a [http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e017.htm source with some relevant input.

During that time there was also a significant increase in the amount of goods delivered to the Gaza Strip through the crossings. However, when the terrorist organizations began a policy of continuous rocket and mortar shell attacks against Israel , accompanied by other forms of terrorism, the lull arrangement was eroded to the point where it remained only on paper as its first six months drew to a close.

Added paragraph for easier access. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the Ceasefire or Truce is an an Issue. Hamas declared the End of the Six-Month Truce on December 17th, 2008 See the following URL: ITBlair (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

proposed options/local table of contents: #December_2008_Gaza_Strip_strikes - #Operation_Cast_Lead - #December_2008_Gaza_Strip_conflict

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes

December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes — Reliable sources overwhelmingly support this option in their headlines, current title incorrect because there is now a naval component — Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Also be sure to read the initial discussions at Talk:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes#Requested move (first)

• oppose - "strikes" is one sided. Fire is being shot in both directions.--Omrim (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• support, because it gives information about the location and time of the events. See WP:MILMOS#NAME and WP:MILMOS#CODENAME JVent (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• support - it's relatively neutral, accurate and short - (1) it follows the precedents 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict which have already been NPOVed by other wikipedians; (2) because it's a small change from the present title December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, it only removes "air", which is no longer valid because of naval operations and would become more inaccurate if ground operations start; date: - continuation of the strikes into 2009 should not be a problem for the title for at least a week or so when the Jan duration becomes equal to the Dec duration; if this intense phase of conflict continues further, then it will be time to think of e.g. 2008/2009 Gaza Strip strikes; strikes in both directions - "Gaza strip strikes" can mean both strikes against the Gaza Strip and strikes by the Gaza Strip against a tiny fraction of Israel, which is consistent with the content of the article. Boud (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Strikes is ambiguous - it can be interpreted as labour disputes (Cynical brought this up). Boud (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, fair enough as to the precedents. But then again - shouldn't we change it to "conflict" rather than "strikes", if we are to rely on these precedents? i.e. December 2008 Israel-Hamas Conflict? Saying that "strikes" is neutral would have been correct if this was an article on the linguistic term of the word "strikes". But we all know this is not the case. "Strikes", in the Israeli-Plestinian context translates in the mind of most readers to "Israeli strikes" (just ad "bombings" translates to suicide bombings), and arguing otherwise is naive... --Omrim (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• support for now because it describes what is noteworthy about the situation. Hamas rockets being fired at Israel is not, in recent years, a particularly unusual event. However the launch of an Israeli military campaign (currently airstrikes) is a significant event, and it is this which has attracted media coverage. The one strike against the current title is that it will inevitably have to be changed if there is (as some media reports suggest) to be an operation on the ground by the IDF. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I thought this was the section for supporting the current title. "2008 Gaza strikes" suggests some sort of labour dispute. oppose Cynical (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I stilll think it is early days. Of what would use is a title December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes if Israel launches a ground invasion? Can a ground offensive be included under "strikes"? Maybe it's because Israeli-Arabs called a one day strike in protest?! It's soon January. Wishful thinking if you think this is going to be over any time soon. Chesdovi (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - reasons given in #Leave it alone for 5 days. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Remember that as per WP:CONSENSUS, Silence implies consent, deadline should be 24 hours, and we get an uninvolved admin via WP:AN in here to decide.--Cerejota (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• So should we change Operation Grapes of Warth to "April 1996 Southern Lebanon Airstrikes"?. Again, yours is the kind of arguments made to change the original title. None of which hold any merit, and I fail to see how this operation differs for Wiki purposes from Grapes of Warth ot any other Israeli Operations for that matter. This is even without mention to the fact that the current title is both FACTUALLY WRONG (naval intervention had already been verified), and at least "a bit" biased (leaving it only as "strikes", the unwary reader might suspect that fire is only being shot in one direction...).--Omrim (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (shifted from survey section to discussion section Boud (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

Support the objective title. If Israel expands the aggression, then the "strike" in the title can be changed to "attack" or "aggression". I do not believe that the chief belligerent should be allowed to set the terms of the debate: That violates NPOV and disenfranchises the victims of the aggression.

I would much prefer "April 1996 Southern Lebanon Airstrikes" to "Grapes of Wrath" since a reader looking for articles about aggression against Lebanon will is far more likely to search for "Lebanon" than "grapes". The codename, moreover, is a monstrous insult to John Steinbeck. NonZionist (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead

December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → Operation Cast Lead — It is the name of the Operation given by the IDF (someone who supports please elaborate a position, and take out my signature, please — Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Also be sure to read the initial discussions at Talk:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes#Requested move (first)

• Oppose - Haven't we been through all this before? See above e.g. WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yes we did, and there is overwhelmingly better arguments to call it that way. --Omrim (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's not neutral: (1a) it's a subjective name (from a poem) chosen by one of the two main parties in conflict and so favouring that party's POV; (1b) the other main party in the conflict seems to use the terms "attacks", "airstrikes", "strikes" or "massacre" and rarely uses "Operation Cast Lead"; (2) the precedents 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict have already been NPOVed by other wikipedians, probably by more diverse ranges of wikipedians than those working on individual attacks that retain Israeli choices of names, because they are bigger, more ambitious articles; (3) the Israeli code name is not overwhelmingly dominant in Western media usage (which would be a reason in favour if we wished to be biased towards en.wikipedians' demographic centre in the sense of WP:BIAS in the english language wikipedia). Boud (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (minor corrections Boud (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC), Boud (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC))
• Oppose - POV, not used in English-language media, not recognisable by the public. Cynical (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Supporter Not POV, claims of neutrality hold no water. It was the original title and it shouldn't have been changed in the first place. Cerejota changed it unilaterally after a discussion had occured, which he took NO part in. Yes, maybe his actions would sincere, but a revert should have occurred. Virtually every other Israeli war starts with Operation, this makes no different. Should we retitle WWI to war of 1916-1918? Not to mention, Gaza Airstrikes don't even remotely explain the article. The war is beyond airstrikes and it was never intended to be solely airstrikes. If the article was solely about the airstrikes I wouldn't mind.... Whether the war was named after a poem or not is irrelevant, should we retitle all the intifada articles because it's an Arabic-origin name, meaning "rebellion". I'm sure many Israeli's would prefer "crazy fundamentalist radicals blowing themselves up at our borders and in our cities"...Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is about a fascist state once again trying to impose its skewed definition of reality on the world and deny every other definition. The victims of this aggression certainly do NOT see it as "Cast Lead"; nor do they associate the slaughter with a children's toy, and they do not find the slaughter cute. Why, then, must we do so? Why is it always necessary to deny the perspective and reality of the victims? Can't we for once acknowledge that Israelis are not the only human beings on this planet who matter and have a right to exist? This attempt to hide mass murder behind cute euphemisms and codenames shows the extent to which we have lost contact with our own humanity. NonZionist (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was bad English and poorly written. Sorry guys, it's late. Can barely type. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boud. RomaC (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Operation Cast Lead is the name of the operation, so it should be the name of the article which describes it. This bleating for a 'descriptive' name is ludicrous - shall we rename the Great Expectations article to the one with the boy and the old woman and snooty girl in the big old house and the boy tries to act posh while we're at it? 01:55, 1st January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support Should we change the name of Operation Barbarossa to 1941 Invasion of Russia too? Operation Cast Lead is what the worldwide press calles it too. Guy0307 (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - To me this would be the clearest and least problematic solution. Offliner (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is the clearest name and generally how the World Press refers to it. We can note any the labels other parties provide (if any).ITBlair (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Every war/conflict is name by those who initiate it, e.g: "Desert Storm", "Operation Iraqi Freedom"; therefroe this conflict should be named by the initial title. Trilandian (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. if you used the idf operation name, you must include black saturday massacre to give equal weight, as in "operation cast lead/black satuday massacre"

frankly, i hadn't heard either term and the obvious title will be Gaza attack or Gaza invasion with the date.Untwirl (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead Discussion

Any additional comments:

• In response to the latest "Oppose" point in the survey at the time of writing, it's inappropriate to describe this event as the "Black Saturday Massacre", even supposing that it is a legitimate title, because that is only a component of the conflict. To describe several days (and ongoing) fighting as one occasion is like having the title "fan belt" for the article on cars - it's an important part of it, but certainly not all of it and it's misleading to assume otherwise. 11:20, 2nd January 2009 (UTC)

• Remeber that as per WP:CONSENSUS, Silence implies consent, deadline should be 24 hours, and we get an uninvolved admin via WP:AN in here to decide.--Cerejota (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is already discussion about this above. doktorb _words^deeds 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment - that discussion, we can all agree, was not structured in a manner according to custom. And while it has helped move the opinions along, we do have an urgent need to solve this matter. The only way we are going to get an admin to look at this is if we structure it better. Does that make sense?--Cerejota (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As the others have said, we've already discussed this so no need to repeat. Plus, what is the reason for the 24hr deadline? Your Silence implies consent link says nothing about 24 hours. What is the urgency to discus something that has already been discussed? Some people have a life outside Wikipedia. I certainly don't login everyday. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, we are saying, we discussed, lets have a survey. Lets see where we stand. Its about trying to organize things. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We discussed before, but my attempt at facilitating by summarising the arguments just led to chaos and difficulty in judging the balance of arguments. :( Cerejota is now facilitating with a structure more likely to lead to convergence, especially in order that people previously uninvolved can read all the previous opinions and give their judgment and arguments. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. This is the 3rd time Cerejota has done non-wikipedia-certified name change game. REMEMBER, He is the one who UNILATERALLY changed the title from its original state (OPERATION CAST LEAD), thereby abusing his administrative privileges, and then telling us it was not neutral. This, of course, after more than 7 users debated through 12 paragraphs about the title. Was Cerejota a member of this debate? NO! Unfortunately, this article's talk page exploded way too fast to keep up with Cerejota's blatant abuse of powers. Maybe when this dies down it will catch up with him...I don't know. Just wait, he's gonna response with some wiki rule like don't soap box, chill out, or my favorite, "thanks!". Psh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. I suggest editors see the evidence here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Interim_naming_of_December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes. Please, stop your disruption and personal attacks, they are not productive.--Cerejota (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't agree with Cerejota on everything, but i certainly agree on no personal attacks. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not participating in this waste of time. We already had a discussion above. Your position was defeated. Get over it. -- tariqabjotu 15:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then lets display that defeat in a format that is more organized. I am not dogmatic about my views, but I do want to make a good call. Certainly I do not view the previous discussion as my position being defeated. However, since the discussion was so badly structured, I could see why you could see that way. I'll I say is, lets do a strawpoll. I am not letting discussion drop ever, what I might let drop is ill feelings and drama. What is so hard about doing that? What is so hard about having a discussion? In your user page you say you are not dogmatic, I took that at face value, but you are hardly displaying that lack of dogmatism now. Why can't we work together? --Cerejota (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above was not structured in a way for someone to see what consensus was taking shape. Let's not get into games of win/lose. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove time limit

Some users have raised concern with the time limit, while other users in the previous discussion raised a need for urgency (mind you, users who have raised a sense of urgency are from all sides). Should we eliminate the suggested time limit? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha. He just told me to basically calm down and stop stalking him on my userpage. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I love how Cerejota edits responses half an hour later. :D Yeah, Cerejota is simply linking to "official" processes, in a clear attempt to hide his abuses. Check the archives. After changing the title, he quickly told everyone it was not neutral, then he wrote some 10 paragraph rambling telling everyone how we are biased and need to follow wiki policy, then he linked to SOAP, CHILL, and every other drama rule when anyone questioned his motives. Then he started another name change again a few sections up, then he started this one. Also, there are several discussions how the name change in various sections not necessarily titled "move, name change, etc.." Notice how he doesn't respond to the fact that he unilaterally changed the title of the article hours after we argued heavily about the title (not its "lack" of neutrality, btw, just its relevance). Please, respond to that.

Also, there is currently an investigation of Cerejota's admin abuses somewhere on on wikipedia. It's in the archive, I don't know what the exact link is though Lol. This entire thing is a sham. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, Cerejota has not committed any admin abuses; s/he is not an admin. -- tariqabjotu 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cerejota has started a structured process which within wikipedia culture/mediawiki technology has a reasonable chance of converging on a clear consensus (though it's not guaranteed). Whether or not s/he changed names earlier is irrelevant, since Cerejota is just one person presenting arguments amongst (if we allow the structured process to continue) many. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I am under most objective criteria are a he :D.

As to there being an investigation, this is not true the only people who do that can be called investigations are WP:SOCK investigations and ArbCom, and there is no process going on either that I know of that involves me (I suggest you read WP:BURO and WP:DISPUTE).

What we are doing its called "dispute resolution", not an investigation, in which we get a fresh set of eyes, in particular admins, so they can opine. So far, no uninvolved admins have spoken, but it doesn't mean they won't - however this in general means that while they might find I acted in error, this error is nothing we cannot fix as a community of editors, without having to call upon "higher authorities" to intervene. And while I certainly asked (and continue to ask) you cut the drama, I did in fact explain, at great length, explain my motives when questioned about them. So much that you have expressed exasperation with the length and frequency of my explanations!

So I don't understand why you insist in denying that I did, or that I simply asked you to chill. Please, if you are going to say I did something, contextualize it. Otherwise, expect that I will do it for you.--Cerejota (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict

December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict — I feel that this title would solve both of the problems with the current one - the fact that Hamas is shooting back, and the fact that naval forces (possibly also ground troops in future) are involved, not just aircraft. Cynical (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Also be sure to read the initial discussions at Talk:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes#Requested move (first)

• support due to reasoning above Cynical (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• support - it's relatively neutral, accurate and short - (1) it follows the precedents 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict which have already been NPOVed by other wikipedians; (2) because it's a relatively small change from the present title December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, and avoids the "air war only" connotation, which is no longer valid because of naval operations and would become more inaccurate if ground operations start; date: - continuation of the strikes into 2009 should not be a problem for the title for at least a week or so when the Jan duration becomes equal to the Dec duration; if this intense phase of conflict continues further, then it will be time to think of e.g. 2008/2009 Gaza Strip conflict; conflict geography - this is a problem, but i'd rather support December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict unless supporters here are likely to move to e.g. December 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. Boud (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not sure everyone will find your first point compelling. As I'm sure you know, we have many articles (like Operation Hot Winter, which is very similar to this situation) named after [Israeli] operation code names, and I'm sure there are some who'd argue those titles aren't "NPOV" simply because they are in place. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• support - because the article is clearly talking about the conflict in general and not just the IDF's campaign. I know some one is going to point out that maybe it should talk only about the Israeli operation, but how long can you pretend that the rockets and the air strikes aren't obviously linked? 72.66.67.46 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

* Support - Second best option after "Operation Cast Lead" which have no chance to become a consensus. Sometimes--Omrim (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) we must resort to second best options... * Support - There are two sides to this. The current name biases the article from the get-go. okedem (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Upon a second look, I realize this is not what was discussed under #December 2008-January_2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict. That was "Israel-Gaza"; this is just "Gaza". The latter sounds like it could be an internal conflict, and is out of line with the other Israel-Gaza conflict articles mentioned by Boud. Because there seems to be general agreement that this is a two-way conflict, or that the article is talking about a two-way conflict rather than just Israel's actions, I'm staying with "December 2008 [soon to be 2008-2009] Israel-Gaza conflict". See below. -- tariqabjotu 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - reasons given in #Leave it alone for 5 days. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Second choice, but it's not bad considering that it "Gaza conflict" gets over 200 hits in google news. "Israel-Gaza conflict" gets around 20 only.
• Oppose The two-way conflict is a larger view of an ongoing event, this article results from and (ought to) deal with a specific campaign of IDF airstrikes. This title does not even mention Israel! RomaC (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I already commented under #December 2008-January_2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• So did I. I must point out this means that if the conflict widens, I have no problem with this article having the operation name on the condition it is apasrt of a WP:SUMMARY, as per my comments. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

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 done per owerhelming consensus as at least a temporary solution to eliminate "airstrikes" and take into account the fact that the conflict moved into 2009. Other discussions remain, and most of the supporters of this option prefer other options, but stated their willingness to have a temporary solution. Editors new to the consensus process are adviced to read the ongoign discussion - including those in the archives - before emiting opinions as to the status of the consensus. Consensus can change, but it doesn't change by unilateral declaration.--Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

---

As this article discusses a two-way conflict, provided this extends past midnight (local time), and given "Israel" is a key element in this conflict. -- tariqabjotu 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose, since this article can at most cover a few weeks' intense conflict, not 24 months of conflict (nor 13 since we start at December). "2008-2009" (or "2008–2009" in recommended style) suggests most of the 24 months of 2008 and 2009, implying the need for the first sentence in the intro to define what is meant by "2008–2009". IMHO it's reasonable to expect that the definition would initially be something like "from mid-December 2008 to early/mid/late January/February 2008". Another article will most likely be needed for "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" (unless the conflict is miraculously resolved). In that case it would make more sense to have "2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "December 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" rather than "2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". In the latter case, pressure would eventually build up to find a better name again—either Operation Cast Lead or 2008 Gaza Strip massacre depending on whether we favour the Israeli or the Gaza Strip POV. Boud (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, no, it doesn't mean that at all. It means there was an event that transcended 2008 and 2009. Much in the same way the current title does not mean the event happened throughout most of December 2008. Or that 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake indicates that the event happened throughout most of 2004. Or that Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event suggests the extinction occurred throughout most of the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods (which encompass 144 million years)... -- tariqabjotu 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support as a needed temporary measure until reliable sources give this a better name. As this is a current event, this will probably not be the title it will have in ten years time, but it is much more descriptive, more neutral, and more relevant to the events as they have evolved. As to date overlaps, a quick per usal of the intro would describe the difference, so I am willing to live with it. LETS SNOWBALL THIS GUYS, C'MON Boud, SWITCH!!! AIRSTRIKES GOT TO GO!!! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• support - Second best option after "Operation Cast Lead". The "Massacre" title doesn't even worth a typing stroke to respond. Soon, I believe, we will have to change it again as both side are starting to call it a "war". For the meantime this is the best option --Omrim (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• conditional support. (above "oppose" has been struck out) This title would make sense if we have a well-defined, clearly time-limited, NPOV, first sentence, without favouring either the Israel or Gaza Strip POVs. If the introduction starts something like: "The term 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is used in this article as a neutral term to describe the intense phase of conflict starting late December 2008 between Israel and the Gaza Strip, in particular including airstrikes by the Israeli Air Force against the Gaza Strip, called Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in reference to an Israeli Hanukah song<ref 10><ref 11>," and called an ugly massacre by the de facto Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh<ref name="BBC" />", then i guess 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict should be OK, at least until the next few weeks give a chance to see if another term becomes widely used. Boud (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I mostly object. There's no need to say "used in this article as a neutral term to describe". This is [the English] Wikipedia; it is assumed that everything is written with the intention of maintaining neutrality. Saying this is breaking the fourth wall of the encyclopedia. Further, this is not an article about the term; it's an article about the event. For that reason, you would be hard-pressed to find an article that begins by saying the article title is a term, unless the article is about the term. Moving on... "an ugly massacre" is not a name for the big salvo; it's a description. The Israeli analog might be "all-out war", but we don't need to say that in the first sentence. Lastly, that's a very long sentence. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is not a totally bad title, but for reasons mentioned in #Leave it alone for 5 days (the main characteristic of the current phase of the operation has been IAF airstrikes and the Hamas response...), there is no urgency to change what we have, even if it is 2009 now (at least where I live it is). In 5 days or so, better names might become apparent - maybe even this one. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems like you're the only one who still thinks this article speaks of a one-way conflict (not just from this straw poll; several sections on this page deal with this same issue). Further, while many have stated that this article needs a name change, you have rejected every proposal, apparently based on the idea that time is unlimited. I hope you realize your position is likely to be overruled within hours. -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support as this conflict has entered in 2009 as well. This should be the final name as it just involves the Hamas, who are the rulers of Gaza and Israel. I know people were discussing about putting December in the title, but we are now into January 2009. Take out the airstrikes from the title, as the Israeli navy is also involved in the operation, not to mention the impending ground invasion by Israeli tanks and ground forces.--Roman888 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Most neutral and descriptive term for the current conflict. okedem (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support probably what everyone could agree on. Guy0307 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - not commonly used in mainstream news sources. A google news search finds only 21 hits, [11] as opposed to 1,500 hits for "assault on gaza". A better option close to this one with more google hits is "Gaza conflict" which gets around 200 hits. Tiamut^talk 19:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I agree fully. Very neutral, descriptive, and meets MoS. And it is not crystal balling to say this will extend into 2009 :P. However, I have a concern, this is very similar to 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. Could we find an alternative to "conflict" or even add "post-ceasefire conflict"? Or are you willing to live with the slight confusion until the reliable sources call this a "War", as I am pretty sure they will - or even could we use the increasing amount of verification calling this a "War"? Sources are beginning to see that this a different thing than the rockets-for-airstrikes (and occasional martyrdom-for-snatch-and-captures) that has been going on since the unilateral withdrawal. Having a similar title to articles that cover lated but significantly different in historic meaning for the typical reader can be confusing. Do I make sense?

• That said, I see no reason why your title proposal shouldn't snowball, thats why I ask you to refactor, rather than propose a different one), and will support your call (even if it is just your original proposal) in order to move forward quickly a keep the snowball going. --Cerejota (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Conflict" is overused on Wikipedia, but when Israel is calling this an "all-out war" and others (like the Arabic Wikipedia) are calling this a "massacre", it seems unseemly to use "war". "Conflict" is so great because it's so vague! But, maybe we need a thesaurus. -- tariqabjotu 17:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple of thesaurus (including paper) and all the other words are "lesser" than "conflict", except "War". This here is not a "confrontation" etc. As per my promise then, lets go with conflict, for now ("airstrikes" is long expired, we ALL agree). --Cerejota (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate crystal balling, but this is turning out to be bigger than initially thought, like what happened to the 2006 Lebanon War. I fully agree that this will be called a War, by historians. This will be a defining moment, a milestone. That said, we know this, but it hasn't happened. So this is the best we can come up with for now. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Its difficult to decide on the best name for this incident so for the time being "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" seems like the best title. Its alot more accurate than the current title which is very one sided. Fully support rename to this atleast until the "incident is over" then it can be renamed again. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also "battle". -- tariqabjotu 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought of "battle" too, as per Battle of Gaza (2007). But it hasn't really been a "battle" in the traditional sense it has been air and sea bombardment, with retaliatory rockets. And "battles" isn't really it either. Darn, the English language needs to be updated to fit the new realities. BTW, before anyone says Arabic Wikipedia is fucked in using "massacre", that's what most Arab media are calling it, so I am guessing they have kinda the right to do it by RS (which is a wikimedia policy), as is Hebrew Wikipedia in naming the Operation Cast Lead, as that is what the media in Hebrew is calling it (even those who don't call it that in the English editions). --Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that an admin has unilaterally decided that it is the best name for the page, while the discussion is still ongoing. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is barely used in the mainstream media, with less than 21 hits in google news. "Assault on Gaza" enjoys 1,500 hits by way of contrast, and "Gaza conflict" over 200 hits. I don't see why Wikipedia has to invent names that are barely used anywhere else when it comes to topics related to the I-P domain. Tiamut^talk 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

By "unilaterally", I assume you mean "on account of the near-unanimous support". Even with your opposition -- which comes out of the blue, given you have not commented on this talk page before -- the consensus is clear. Aspects of the name of the article have been under discussion for days now, and it was clear people did not like the original name. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus. Besides my oppose in this section, there are two others and there are multiple other options being discussed on the page that also enjoy support. Your snide tone is par for the course, but that does make it any more welcome. Tiamut^talk 20:57, 1 January 2009 (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.

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza

"Assault on Gaza" gets over 1,500 hits in Google news[12], vastly outnumbering any of the other options listed here. Tiamut^talk 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza Survey

• Support By far, the most commonly used name for the events to date with over 1,400 hits in google news. Often appears in headlines on the subject. Tiamut^talk 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. One sided.--Omrim (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The word assault has several usages associated with criminality. Israel (or Israelis) has (have) not been convicted in an international criminal court for its (their) actions of the last few days, nor even charged AFAIK. The same applies to Gaza Strip and its residents. So, in order to WP:NPOV this, a title with "assault" in it would have to become something like 2008-2009 assaults by Israel and Gaza against each other, since it's not up to wikipedia to hint at the criminality of a violent action. Courts are there to do that, e.g. ICC. Boud (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC).
• Oppose - The Google News hits argument is unconvincing (see below). But besides that, this visualizes the article as being about an extremely narrow topic, rather than a broader topic. Also brings a language factor: "assault" in Military Science usually means a short engagement with a narrow strategic or tactical objective, like "assaulting an outpost" or "assaulting the HQ". One of the events related to these events was indeed an assault, which was the disruption of a Hamas tunnel building during the ceasefire. But these are in any case a series of assaults and counter assaults, and you call a series of assaults anything from "battle(s)" to "conflict" to outright "war". I think the jury is still out in the reliable sources, so I think "conflict" is a good temporary solution until recentism is out the door. This is a current event, and we do not posses crystal balls, so the title in all probability will change.--Cerejota (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It has already been decided that (at this point in time) this article discusses a two-way conflict. Even still, "assault" is a questionable word to describe the Israeli action. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is the most accurate descriptor. To call this a two-way conflict is to join in justifying IDF actions. Trachys (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support "Assault/Attack on Gaza" is what the most RS call it. RomaC (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Extremely one sided. This conflict has two sides, with Hamas doing its very best to kill Israeli citizens. okedem (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: The Warsaw Ghetto Jews were doing their very best to kill German citizens, but that in no way prevents us from speaking of the German assault on the ghetto. The same logic applies here. Israel, in recent years, has been killing Palestinians at a ratio of 40 to 1. How high does that ratio have to get before we can speak of Israel as the aggressor? A hundred to one? A thousand to one? NonZionist (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza Discussion

Are there any arguments against using the most common name, as attested to by a search of news sources? Tiamut^talk 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. It's about debates on deletion, not titles, but IMHO it's probably still relevant. Boud (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Taimut, what search methodology did you use? As I showed early on in these debates, how your search in Google News affects the numbers of hits and the relevancy of the material. Someone suggested that "operation cast lead" had thousands of hits. But this was quickly shown not to be the case: most of the hits were not relevant and related to casting lead actors for movies and theater: the person in question didn't use quote marks. So please let us know what method of google search you used.

Comparison charts. Please, see them and reach your own conclusions.

Now you assert, without evidence, that "Assault on Gaza" is "the most common name". While this assertion can easely contested by reading th source material used as references in this article, most of which do not use this formulation neither in their header nor in their contents, it would be unfair to you not to use Google News hits as counter-evidence.

I will use two methodologies. One would be the term in quotes, with the date limited to the last week (since Dec. 25) in order to weed out articles on previous events. I will also do a "headline" only search. When the results come up, I will read the first page to ensure they are all about the topic and relevant.

• "Assault on Gaza" around 2,000 hits quoted. 311 in headlines. (baseline)

• "Gaza conflict" around 1,100 hits quoted. 551 in headlines. (current title has more than "Assault" in titles, which is what we are discussing)

Some others:

• "Gaza strike" around 32,200 hits quoted. 41 hits on headlines. (hits leader by a wide marging)

• "Gaza attacks" around 900 hits quoted. 539 in headlines. (More headlines than "Assault")

• "Gaza war" around 140 hits quoted. 55 hits on headlines. (interestignly, it is not common at all in the body, but beat "Gaza Strike" - the hit leader - on headlines.

That said, I have stated that this thing about counting sources, instead of reading them, is a bad excercise. The process of verifiability requires we compare sources, which we can only do by reading them. We do not do this when we do quantitative analysis of hits in Google News.

Google News also has different standard than we do: it includes news blogs, news aggregators, and blatantly partisan sources - what we call fringe or extremist reliable sources, that should only be used when speaking about themselves, or when talking about them. It is a good tool to find sources, but it isn't a good tool to do quantitative analysis for Wikipedia WP:V puposes. For that, we read the sources themselves, and discuss amongst ourselves to reach consensus.

That said, if you insist we google test the title, "Assault" loses to conflict in the "headline" category, which is what the article name is about. Sorry, but your argument is not compelling in itself, but even if we find it compelling, the math still doesn't fit your view. This is why I oppose this title as a possible title. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If we think the recent IDF strikes on Gaza warrant an article, then "conflict" does not reflect RS as well as "attack" or "assault." Many arguments given against "attack/assault" seem to suggest that events of the last several days do not warrant an article, and should instead be treated as a time slice within the larger context of a two-way conflict. That is not acceptable, the IDF strikes easily satisfy every Wiki article criteria. RomaC (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro condition

I get the spirit, but I think the English is a bit convoluted and it wouldn't be neutral to equate the opinion of a bellingerent (massacre), with a central fact (the operation name). However, this opinion is from a central figure, and the closest we have to an official opinion by one of the belligerents, so it stays. (BTW, can we get reliable sourcing on what if anything Hamas is callign thier response?)

What about (we source afterwards):

“ 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict started in late December 2008 between Israel and the Gaza Strip's elected government, led by Hamas. The conflict started with a military operation called Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The operation has been called "an ugly massacre" by the de facto Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh.

The IDF operation is named after a line in an Israeli Hanukah song.

”

Can we do this? In the interest of moving forward? I think it is a fair intro.--Cerejota (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it goes into too much fine detail on the Israeli operation, which would not be the title of the article, but I'm not sure why the intro needs to be hashed out now. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"the English is a bit convoluted" - that's why i put "something like" :). "this opinion is from a central figure, and the closest we have to an official opinion" - that's why i chose it. If the Gaza Strip de facto government or Gaza Strip society in general converge on the same or another term (hypothetically speaking, the term "Operation Cast Lead" in Arabic might be widely used in the Gaza Strip, given my limited knowledge, though i guess i would be surprised) and we had a WP:RS to that term, then we could use that.

• easy correction: The 3 references in the present version would need to be added, of course.
• harder correction: If we say that the conflict "started with ... Operation..." then we reverse the previous POV to now suggest that Israel just decided to attack for no reason at all. IMHO we need something like "intensified with ..." or "flared up with ...", so that we don't have either the claim that "Gaza Strip started first and Israel reacted" nor "Israel started first and Gaza Strip reacted mildly and then Israel reacted dramatically". Although it's true that claims of both of these exist, both are controversial and need to be NPOVed, making them less compact to describe than uncontroversial facts.
• another hard correction: i've shifted the mention of Hamas, it seems to me that ideally we should include either both Kadima and Hamas, or neither. However, it's a fact that the Israeli government has constantly said it is only attacking the Gaza Strip de facto government, referring to "Hamas" rather than "de facto government", so it can be put in as an NPOV-ed POV.

Maybe:

“ The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict was an intensification of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict starting in late December 2008 between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The long-running conflict entered an intense phase with a military operation called Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Israeli authorities said that the operation was against Hamas,<ref needed> the elected de facto government of the Gaza Strip. The operation has been called "an ugly massacre" by the de facto Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh.<ref name="BBC" />

The IDF operation is named after a line in an Israeli Hanukah song.<ref 10><ref 11>

”

How about this? (i've put the refs in non-rendered format since this the full refs are on the article page, not this talk page.) The idea is that at least at this introductory point, we avoid any attempts to cite sources who claim "they started first!" That can be properly NPOVed later on if people are willing to NPOV all POVs, not just those matching involuntary systemic bias. Boud (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC) minor change Boud (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks okay, but -- still -- I don't see why this needs to be hashed out now. The intro has nothing to do with the title. -- tariqabjotu 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We are trying to reach consensus, or at least a temporary one, in order to correct the completely irrelevant an anachronistic title we now have. I agree with you in the abstract, but in the concrete, I like to be flexible in order to be inclusive. Of course, this doesn't mean that the debate stops, just that it moves to another phase. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pretty green to this wiki-editing business, sorry if I'm fucking something up. I really think the intro to this article needs to be changed. Its convuluted, and goes between very general statments then into very specific statements and numbers. I think the entire 2nd paragraph should be dropped, and the third paragraph should be noted as explicitly the current situation as of Jan 1. The lines:

"The United Nations has reported more than 350 Palestinians were killed,[5] including at least 62 women and children in the first two days of strikes and that over 1,400 were injured.[16][8] Most of the deaths have been members of the Hamas' security forces,[17][18] including Tawfik Jaber, the chief of Hamas police in Gaza.[19] A United Nations relief agency has said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire and on the brink of catastrophe.[20]"

should be dropped, and a link to the general Israel Palestinian conflict inserted. Why do we list only Palestinian casualities in the intro? Casualities should be put in their own section, maybe aftermath or something simular. Thats what other conflict articles seem to do. Just my two cents, we're supposed to discuss these things before editing the article right? I was going to edit it myself, but with all the angry labels at the top I grew concerned...Chrisofgenesis (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename it to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict until it is called a war by reliable sources. Guy0307 (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic interwiki

I'm afraid the Arabic article about the events in Gaza does not qualify as an inter-wiki. It simply doesn't describe the events in a way that we can consider more-or-less equivalent to the English article. It is called "The Gaza massacre" and has a very one-sided and incomplete account of what happens in Gaza and southern Israel. Any attempt to edit the article and add information encountered reversions, and personal attacks about racism and supporting genocide. The least we can do is avoid misleading the English speaking users to think that the Arabic article is equivalent to this article. DrorK (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the Arab perspective. If you want to work on that article, please do. Also, if English-only readers can't read arabic then there is no issue with including it here because it won't mislead them (since they can't read Arabic.) And those that can read Arabic can help improve its accuracy. Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress and there will always be regional biases. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the current atmosphere there no changes are accepted, and in its current state, it is simply not equivalent. Actually there will never be an equivalent because the English Wikipedia don't have such article. BTW, the NPOV approach and the pursue of "cold" restrained and balanced description of facts is not limited to a certain Wikipedia. It is a good idea to have more information relevant to English speakers on the English Wikipedia or to Arabic speakers on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean the English Wikipedia should be written from an "Anglo-Saxon perspective" or the Arabic Wikipedia from an "Arab perspective". DrorK (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like the article just needs a move. There were earlier proposals that this article be moved to "Gaza massacre" or something similar and they were not accepted. Thus it does sound like it is the same general article just with different contributions who bring a different perspective and are probably very emotional right now (the Arab world is overwhelmingly angry about this.) I am sure that the Hebrew Wikipedia article is much more supportive of the Israeli perspective than the English Wikipedia article too -- it is just how it goes. It is undeniable that each Wikipedia will reflect the core perspectives of those contributing to it -- it is inescapable because Wikipedia is really a reflection of the interests and perspectives of its contributors, not a reflection of reality as it is. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Israeli entry is about the military operation itself. Pretty straightforward, in the same manner other military operations are described; What forces, when, where, what targets, reported success rates, etc. --Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's right--calling this article "The Gaza Massacre" or any equivalent was quickly dismissed. That means it is, by consensus, not the title, or subject matter, of this article, and if that IS the title or subject of an Arabic-language article that's been interwiki'd with this one, then the wrong article has clearly been interwiki'd. If the Arabic-language Wiki community chooses to change the title and subject matter to something that translates to this one (or create a new article to that end), or conversely the consensus here is to shape the article to concern a "Gaza Massacre", then the interwiki would be valid. As of now it should certainly be removed. --Hiddekel (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is hardly a secret. Of course the Arabic Wikipedia writes from a non-neutral perspective on Israel/Palestine articles. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And so does the English Wikipedia and the Hebrew Wikipedia. All the I-P and A-I conflict articles and anything tangentially related are always very bad, sometimes I wonder why I even bother, but then I realize that if we fail our readers by letting this slip, we are failing the whole project. If this project goes down, it will be over these types of articles: I want to know I did the best I could to ensure it didn't go down that way.--Cerejota (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Arabic article in question before suggesting the the en or he Wikipedias have such articles. As a past/current contributor to all three Wikipedias I can assure you that ar-wp has some very good articles, but not the one we are talking about, and there's a limit to what you can call "an equivalent article". Sure it's not a translation nor a 1:1 mirror-version, and yet some resemblance is required. DrorK (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Drork on this. If you think articles on this subject on the English Wikipedia are "very bad", those on the Arabic Wikipedia, and this one in particular, are appalling. -- tariqabjotu 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on this, but anybody can look for themselves, here is the arabic wiki entry translated: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Far.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D9%2585%25D8%25AC%25D8%25B2%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A9_%25D8%25BA%25D8%25B2%25D8%25A9_%25D8%25AF%25D9%258A%25D8%25B3%25D9%2585%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B1_2008&sl=ar&tl=en&history_state0= Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is quite appalling they refer to Hamas militants as 'martyrs.' I wonder if this is the POV of Hamas or the Arab world in general (as the previous discussion suggests it's the Arabic POV). If this is rated a good article, I wonder if there are any entries there that deserve to be inter-wiki'd. Can someone please provide a link to a translation of the Hebrew wiki entry for comparison purposes? Wikieditorpro (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather they be called terrorists as the hebrew wiki does (translated page: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhe.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D7%259E%25D7%2591%25D7%25A6%25D7%25A2_%25D7%25A2%25D7%2595%25D7%25A4%25D7%25A8%25D7%25AA_%25D7%2599%25D7%25A6%25D7%2595%25D7%25A7%25D7%2594%0D%0A&sl=iw&tl=en&history_state0= )? I don't think any of the 3 (en, he, or ar) are totally npov, but to say one is worse then the other I dont entirely agree with. And the term martyr is generally used in the Arab world for such casualties, including the major satellite channels (al-arabiyya, Al Arabiya does not. MassimoAr (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC) al-jazeerra, dubai tv, . . . ) Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIAS links to documentation about the known systemic bias in the en.wikipedia essentially (but not only) because of the non-random demographic selection of en.wikipedia editors and suggests ways to try to overcome that bias. It would be reasonable to expect somewhat similar types of biases in the ar.wikipedia and he.wikipedia with the obvious differences. Which bias is closer to the truth? Is the en.wikipedia bias least biased because it's least biased? That's a non-argument. As long as the subject is essentially the same, i don't see any valid basis to not put in the interwiki links. Poor quality of articles is not an argument to not interlink IMHO. Some bilingual speakers of ar or he may start at en and only help NPOV the ar or he articles if they know that they exist. And vice versa. Probably there's a guideline page somewhere about when to interwikilink or not. My guess would be the only case when not to would be the risk of forks - not the risk of differing NPOVs. Boud (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

until know i have only user drork's judgement about the arab article and will not rely upon that. and, if we start this way, of course also the hebrew article would have to be examined (by a neutral user).--Severino (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could look at the article through the Google translation links provided. It's not a perfect translation, but even without any knowledge of Arabic you can use the interwiki links (or an Arabic-English dictionary) to confirm that the keywords (like the use of "Zionist" over "Israeli" and the title "Gaza massacre") are accurate. The Hebrew article seems less obvious in its biased stance, and, in fact, it seems they borrowed a lot of elements from this article. -- tariqabjotu 13:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

who borrowed elements of the hebrew article? the editors of the arab article? how so, if the one is so biased and the other so balanced. or did you mean the hebrew editors copied from the english article? even if, who says the english article is the neutral one?--Severino (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't stutter. I said what I meant and meant what I said. Whether the English article is the neutral one is irrelevant (although I would say it is most neutral of the three, and generally is among the most neutral, due to the diversity of speakers of the English language). The Hebrew article is more similar to this article than the Arabic article is. -- tariqabjotu 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

so, which relevance does it have for you then, that -according to you- elements in the hebrew article are "borrowed" from here and at large is more similar to the english one? for me it doesn't have any relevance.--Severino (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The relevance is that Drork said he doesn't believe the Arabic article is similar enough to the English article to warrant an interwiki link. However, I believe the level of dissimilarity needs to be much higher for the interwiki link to be inappropriate. That is, it has to be on a different topic. Despite the Arabic article's overt bias, the article is clearly about this event. -- tariqabjotu 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it straight and simple: The Arabic article is nothing more than anti-Israeli propaganda. While the articles in English, Hebrew and other languages are informative despite some biases, the Arabic article is written as propaganda. In fact, it violates most rules to which all Wikipedias adhere. The editors in ar-wp refuse to change the nature of this article. So be it, it is not a proper time to discuss problems on the Arabic Wikipedia. However, the English article cannot direct to such propaganda as if it were an equivalent article. This is simply improper and misleading. DrorK (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I do not read Persian as well as I can read Arabic, and yet the Persian article seems to be informative and well written. It is hardly a secret that Israel's relations with Iran are not very good to say the least, and yet the Persian speaking Wikipedians seem to produce good articles even about sensitive political matters. DrorK (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

a user from the belligerent country claims to know arabic and (not so good) persian and accuses the users from "the other side" to have authored propaganda while the article in his language (and others) "are informative despite some biases". very convincing.--Severino (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Severino, if you have a translation that says differently, please present it. Otherwise, you have nothing to say. Being Israeli (or Arab or any other nationality) does not make one unqualified to speak on this issue. Editing is based on facts, not personal attacks. -- tariqabjotu 21:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol @ Arab translated article. Seriously guys, if that article was in the English wikipedia, it would be a candidate for deletion. :D It screams bias, if not propaganda, and doesn't even attempt to be remotely neutral. LOLOLOL. Everyone is up their @ss in b.s that they can't see what's right in front of them. Wake up! Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Severino, your accusations against me are despicable. You are suggesting that my claims are false because I'm Israeli. You are really taking this discussion to a very low level. DrorK (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read Severino as saying you are making "false claims" on account of being Israeli per se. They were just making a point about apparent bias, and how no one is going to immune be from it (by contrast I might add, I do see several editors on this talk page - in this section and elsewhere - mocking perspectives and news/information sources simply because they happen to be Arab or Palestinian). As for the inter-wiki link, I scanned through the Google translation of the Arabic WP page. Leaving aside any questions about what might be lost in Google translations, and the fact that the page will change over time (as this one does) - yes it is written from a strong Arab perspective and comes across a little scrappy (in translation), but I don't see where there is such a serious problem that the link has to be removed. For example -

• The reference to "martyrs"? As has been pointed out, this is how people killed in conflict, whoever they are, are often referred to.
• The "Zionist Entity" reference? Not the best thing in there perhaps, but it is a term that - like it or not - is sometimes used in the Arab world. It also only appears to be there once or twice (and may well be removed of course at some point). Most of the references are to "Israel" or "Israeli".
• The "massacre" references? Well if that's what standard Arabic sources are calling these events, then it's perfectly reasonable for the Arabic WP to refer to that, even in the title. You know, it is a little arrogant and illogical to demand that the Arabic WP use the same, translated title as the English WP, or that the page there should be "equivalent" in terms of content to the English page. And someone may care to spend 20 seconds scouting around here for articles here which are named "XXX massacre", where far fewer people have been killed.

Biased? Yes it is, of course. But let's not fool ourselves that there isn't bias the other way as well, even if we can't see it, or refuse to. --Nickhh (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am one of the main editors of the article in the Ar-Wi, just want to tell u one thing, the name of the article is Gaza Massacre and the article states it clearly that this is the name of the operation as ADOPTED by the arabic media, on the other hand, the artilce states the other names of the opertion. Now on the other hand, at certain points those who are killed are called martyrs but they are called terrorists in He-Wi!

Another thing, He-Wi is taking what's been said by the Israeli government as a state of fact (i.e. reasons for the assault) while the Ar-Wi takes what's been said by Hamas as a state of fact (more or less). For us, arabic wiki editors, we look at the english version of the article as a complete bias towards the Israel side, and at the Hebrew version of the article as if it was taken from Tzipi Livni diary.

While I was reading the English/Hebrew article I felt that I am reading an article consisting of one word: POV POV POV POV POV POV POV.... Hamas says the assault has nothing to do -directly- with the rockets launched, why isn't that mentioned in your NEUTRAL articles? Hamas says that the assault is MAINLY targeting civilians, why isn't that mentioned in your neutral articles? Hamas says that the assault is designed to terrorise the Palestanian people why ins't that mentioned in your Neutral article?? and by mentioned here I mean to be included as a fact, not as a claim, the same way you are dealing with Israeli claims.

I was the one who added the phrase, Israeli Officials says that the reasons for the attack is ..... and I supported it with sources. One thing to Drork, how many times did I tell u, if you want to make your edits do so, no one can stop u, but please cite your sources, I mean we all know that around 400 were killed up until now, but there is sources to support this number, what drork want to do in Arabi wiki is to add and add and add without sources. NO ONE CAN STOP ANY EDITS in one condidtion CITE YOUR SOURCES. Don't let Drork mislead you, you are ALL welcomed to provide me with whatever you want to be added to the Arabic Wiki article (along with the sources) and I'll be more than happy to add the edit. Wiki Arabic is one of the most Neutral wiki I've visited. Thanks all. Yamanam (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Some background about Yamanam - He doesn't speak a single word in Hebrew, so he cannot read the he-wp's article. He has a map of Israel on his Arabic talk page saying it is "occupied Palestine which will soon be freed". He is responsible for articles in Arabic such as "The Gaza Holocaust" Israel's plan to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque and other propaganda articles. He came here to import this propaganda to the English Wikipedia. If he's not a troll, I don't know what is. DrorK (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Drork, I don't read a word in hebrew but I can use www.google.com/translate. concerning the article Israel's plan to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque: I admit that I created this article, then after a second thought I decided to change it to: Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque since I felt that the first article is not necessarily a fact (Although I am 100% convinced that it is a fact but I can't prove it). And come on Drork, who of us doesn't have his own political views, we all do, the trick is how can u edit without allowing your views to influence whatever u r writting/editing, which, I am afraid, is a skill that you need to work on. Yamanam (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, you're not going to drag me into this. I could write a book about the way you introduce political propaganda as if it were sourced facts. Luckily it is quite easy to trace these fallacies, as I did more than once on ar-wp. You have many supporters on ar-wp who'd buy any crazy argument from you. Luckily this is not the way we do things here. DrorK (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is aside of the point. Inform me guys if u need any help in the Ar-Wi. Yamanam (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not feed this troll, even when he asks for food so nicely. DrorK (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DrorK, getting back to the point, with respect I don't think your arguments for removing the link are at all convincing.

- "does not qualify as an inter-wiki."

...based on what criteria ?

- "the English article cannot direct to such propaganda as if it were an equivalent article. This is simply improper and misleading."

...the role of the interwiki link is to link to "nearly equivalent or exactly equivalent pages". That's it. Nothing more or less complicated than that and nothing about protecting people from propaganda, bad words, bad hairstyles etc etc. It doesn't seem unreasonable to consider the Arabic page as nearly equivalent whatever it's shortcomings at the moment. Furthermore, would it not be better to have the Arabic interwiki link there (as it is for all of the other non-English pages on this event) simply to increase the exposure of the page to potential editors ? I don't really see how removing the link helps. Just a thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree that the Arabic article is lacking in terms of NPOV, and if anyone who understands Arabic takes a look at the talk page there he will find people actively discussing this, so it is not like mass NPOV disregard, I see removing interwiki in protest of NPOV violation is unprecedented and uncalled for. Simply claiming the articles are not talking about the same topic because of some bias dispute and using interwiki as a vehicle to bolster such opinions is not the right thing to do IMHO. --Shipmaster (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox: Strength

The infobox states that Israel has "176,500 troops (total)". Surely we should only list the amount of troops involved in this operation? (I am not sure how many we would then show on the Hamas side.) Also, as Israel has said it has destroyed 2/3 of Hamas rockets, maybe we can get some numbers on Hamas' rocket arsenal. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Have added that Hamas accumulated about "10,000 missiles and rockets". Chesdovi (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Any source saying that 6,600 or so of those have been destroyed? I know they are equivalent, but I don't want to sound WP:SYNTHy, and we shouldn't report they have 10,000 missiles if 2.3 of them are destroyed. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The WT (questionable source) story on 10,000 rockets does not name any source for the figure. We also don't know if all 20,000 Hamas members are combatants. One side is Hamas, the other is the IDF, if we mention total Hamas strength then we have to mention total IDF strength to be balanced. The word "total" is included in a note to both the IDF and Hamas figures. RomaC (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not quite accurate. The reason that total Hamas strength is mentioned is that a overwhelming majority of Hamas combatants are located in the Gaza Strip. This does not apply to the IDF, which, even assuming there will be a ground incursion, will use only a small fraction of its total strength. 176,500 is also an incorrect figure because it is simply the amount of regular soldiers. Obviously rear-front corps like the Adjutant Corps are not actively participating; the 20,000 for Hamas refers only to combatants. On the other hand, so far about 9,000 reservists have been called up.

Having said all that, I would just remove both figures, as I think this is an immediate problem and don't wish to drag out this dispute. The situation in the infobox is getting worse by the edit, and now it has a weird figure of '6,500 reserve troops (total)' for Israel, which is not only incorrect, but also misleading because the IDF clearly said that this would be a regular army operation.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that we cannot be as accurate as we would like to. Wiki convention in conflict infoboxes is to list involved parties, their commanders, troop strength and casualties. As this is a controversial article for many some editors, we should stick to Wiki conventions. Yes Hamas members are in Gaza but clearly the IDF is involved in this conflict even though few if any IDF members are physically in Gaza. I don't see the point of physical location when we are talking about modern warfare. Removing the reserves number for the time being as regular troops strength is verifiable and reserves are a new development. RomaC (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this move. The convention is to have fighting strengths listed for each battle, not the total troop strength of a given army. For example, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it would be sort of weird to put 1,447,076 soldiers for the US strength. The fact is, there are IDF units participating in this operation, and there are those that are not. Since so far there have only been airstrikes and some artillery strikes, we can write 'Air force<br />Gaza Division'. No one said that exact troop strength needs to be given.

The situation with Hamas is totally different, of course. All Hamas combat units are presumed to be active in either preparations or firing rockets, and the IDF estimates their strength at 15,000 at this point. On the other hand, they too have a structure and there is no fighting on the ground at this point, so it would be misleading to the unfamiliar reader to give the current Hamas strength as 15,000 (or 20,000).

Therefore, in my opinion, both strength numbers should be removed, with an emphasis on the Israeli number which is completely misleading and incorrect. In addition, while my personal experience has no bearing on the article, having been in combat support in the last war, I will tell you that the IDF is a giant body which does not commit all its forces and it's completely wrong to suggest that all forces are involved in some way. In fact, in the 2006 war (which was much larger than this operation, so far), the vast majority of the IDF (both regular and reserves) was about as involved in the conflict as the farmers of China. Speaking of Lebanon, the article on that war says in the infobox: Up to 30,000 soldiers in the last few days (+ IAF & ISC)[5][6]. This is how it should be, really.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, for the infobox ideally we will find out the number of participating IDF and Hamas combatants, but for the time being we only know total strength, and so we note "total" beside the two parties' figures. Like the Hamas fighters you mention, I would guess IDF troops are also active in "preparations" as they currently in a war zone. But my guesses about military matters, just like you personal experiences with the IDF, are not relevant to our Wiki project. RomaC (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC has removed Hamas strength: 20,000 rockets, from the infobox stating that it's "not a reliable source, also if we are going to list total Hamas firepower we should list total IDF firepower". In that case we should also removed helicopters and aircraft involved, b/c it is therefore unbalanced. Or should we add how many rocktes have been fired so far? Chesdovi (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about that. Yes, the source for "20,000 rockets" was from a questionable publication that named no source for its guess-timate. The Qassam attacks article shows about 150 rockets fired in the first two days of the conflict, that could balance the estimate of what weaponry the IDF have deployed so far in the strikes. News reports range from 20-100 Katyusha and Qassam rockets fired per day since the strikes began. How about: "Several hundred rockets (used from December 27 onwards)"? RomaC (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the rationale for removing all weapons and munitions strength figures from the infobox? RomaC (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask Flayer: [13]. Chesdovi (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title - this is no longer a "strike", it's a two-sided conflict

I think it should be changed to something like "December 2008 Conflict Between Israel and Hamas" John Hyams (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Two sides to this. okedem (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion + decision-making process above at #Requested_move, not here. Boud (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

-

To my fellow editors: whoever knows how to do this procedure, please do. Thanks, John Hyams (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

hi John, i think you have misunderstood. Deciding exactly what to change the title to requires a discussion + decision-making process in order to arrive at a consensus on the new title. It's not just a question of the technical operation. You have as much right as anyone else to participate in this process. Click on #Requested_move and read carefully and give your recommendation and reason for it. Boud (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Someone has already done this. John Hyams (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Legality of the conflict

There should be a discussion of what is legal under international law. I'm no expert but this should include:

• right to resist occupation
• right to defend citizens
• illegality of collective punishment
• obligation for an occupying force to protect those in the territory
• terrorism

We don't want this article to get bogged down in legal issues which belong on the main article of the general conflict rather than the current round of attacks. The only place the legal issue should come in is as quotes by major governments about Israel actions, although ive yet to hear it described as an illegal response except by the usual suspects. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First, please sign your comments using four tildes (

~~~~

). Second, I don't think this has much of a place in this article. These are recurring issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I think they are better discussed extensively on different articles about human rights, briefly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, and only very briefly on specific articles like this one (i.e. by just linking to articles with more detail). -- tariqabjotu 14:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The legality of the present conflict is a very interesting and relevant aspect of the topic. However, the question is what do we "know" in the WP:NPOV + WP:RS + WP:NOR sense about the legal aspects? Can you find any quotes by the Gaza Strip de facto government (Gaza Strip), by the Israeli government or by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) about legal actions (e.g. through the International Court of Justice) that they will take? Or statements by notable lawyers or similar? The problem with using our (wikipedians') common sense and describing what aspects of international law are relevant here is that applying common sense in this domain is highly controversial and unlikely to lead to any easy consensus. There would immediately be concerns that we are adding Original Research to the article.

An example of what could be included, if and only if it were specifically for this conflict of the past week, which it is not, would be something like the situation for the conflict as a whole, e.g. On December 13, 1997, Prof. Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, recommended that "Palestine Should Sue Israel for Genocide before the International Court of Justice". He outlined the legal procedure that he recommends. with the reference properly formatted. That particular notable information is only relevant here in the background section, but the background here should be a summary from other in-depth articles, where NPOV decisions on NPOV summaries should be made, not here.

An obvious point is that whether or not the present actions by either side count as war crimes, violation of international law by an occupying power, or worse, depends on things like intent and the degree to which one of the actions was a necessary action in self-defence avoiding any actions that could risk civilian casualties, the question of "who started first?" vs "who responded disproportionately?". Should wikipedians decide these? Obviously not. Many socio-political groups and organisations have interests in pushing their preferred POVs on these. We have to either wait until a court case occurs at the International Court of Justice or the Gaza Strip or Israel (or the PNA) state that they will take legal action, or at least have some reliable sources publishing legal opinions.

So i tend to agree with tariqabjotu here - unless a specific legal action is taken regarding this intensive conflict phase, legal issues are general and so have their place in the more general Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. Boud (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What legal issues could there be? Hamas has been bombarding Israel for months with rockets and mortar shells. This is a completely legitimate act of war on the IDF's part. Jtrainor (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot more aspects to the conflict than just that. See Israeli-Palestinian conflict for details. As for your specific opinion, do you have any court opinions or other reliable sources for issues of public international law supporting this legal opinion? For example, did Israel submit a request for the indication of provisional measures of protection? Did Gaza Strip violate the "indication of provisional measures of protection" (equivalent of a temporary restraining order)? Boud (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is beyond the scope of the discussion unless it becomes a RS/V issue, which it hasn't for the current actions. In fact, Israel is not a signatory of the ICC, and has repeatedly not accepted UN resolutions (in particular those around the partition and the Six-Day War) so issues of legality are POV (i.e. international legality is based on the acceptance of jurisdiction by sovereign nations).--Cerejota (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Events change quickly! Now it seems that we do have a very solid WP:RS. i have to sleep now so if someone wishes to think about where this should go in the text, feel free to go ahead without waiting. http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20097 "Statement by Prof. Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories", By Richard Falk, Source: United Nations Human Rights Council, "The Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war. ..." (emphasis and wikilinks added just for the purpose of this discussion, i haven't checked the links). Boud (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Boud (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that guy is clearly biased. The way he says it, one would think that Israel is indiscriminately carpet bombing the Gaza Strip, when in fact they have no option but to attack civilian areas-- their enemies are, after all, purposely concealing their facilities therein. Furthermore, that organization was specifically created ONLY to investigate alleged violations by Israel, and as such, it is not a reliable source for anything other than what that organization says. This article from UN Watch my prove pertinent: http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1317481&ct=2753615 Jtrainor (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Falk is clearly not an objective speaker (hardly can he be, comparing Israel to the Nazi Germany). I believe that the section should be removed entirely due to the arguments made above. But if it stays, we must have more reliable sources than Flak, and we can certainly not feel comfortable with the entire section relying ONLY on Falk's propositions.--Omrim (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, year Falk's always been a heavy criticizer of Israel regardless of what they do. By wikipedia policy, he should not be considered a legal expert or even a professional expert on the subject. He is not a lawyer or judge, his opinion is less notable than Jimmy Carters. Plus, he got his facts wrong. It remains to be seen if "hundreds of civilians" have been killed, currently the figure is less than 90, if that. Until more information is published, which I'm sure in the next week there will be plenty of b.s questioning the legality of the war, this has to go or the section should be renamed to something that emphasizes his opinion. Maybe move the topic to "Reactions of Academics", I don't know...Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jtrainor: if you are a professor of international law or similar and have published a statement on legally acceptable military strategy under the Geneva Conventions and other aspects of international law, especially in this particular set of events discussed in this article, then please give us a link to your externally published opinion. Our own wikipedians' opinions on what Israel's "options" are are only marginally relevant. Boud (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrim: of course you are welcome to add other reliable sources, e.g. from professors of international law from other recognised universities. Whether or not Falk is biased is not for us to judge: we are not claiming that what he says is a fact. The facts that he is an emeritus professor of international law at Princeton University and that he has been chosen by a process which is by construction much less biased than the selection process of en.wikipedian editors are arguments strongly suggesting that his POV is less biased than ours, but they are not sufficient to quote his POV as fact. With this, i agree. That's why his statements are NPOVed. Boud (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you seem to claim that "By wikipedia policy, [Falk] should not be considered a legal expert or even a professional expert on [international law because he's] always been a heavy criticizer of Israel regardless of what they do." Could you please point us to a wikipedia policy that says that notable people who consistently criticise Israel (regardless of Israel's actions) should not be considered as legal or professional experts? i have to admit being sceptical regarding the existence of this policy. Boud (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Legal Status section is turnning ridiculous, which is what I was exactly afarid of. Now Falk's so-called balancing statement (about the illegality of firing Qassamas) has been removed, and on the other hand people are starting to cite law school textbooks in order to show that the Israeli actions do have legal justifications. I sugget we lose it altogether.--Omrim (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel vs Gaza Strip claimed violations

Someone removed Falk's statement that Gaza Strip is violating international law. Please provide a reason why. Falk is an emeritus professor of international law at Princeton University and has been appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council as United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967". Surely he is well qualified to describe human rights violations by Gaza Strip. If someone can find other reliable sources on opinions of international law, then please do so. Boud (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary selection of elements of international law

There are many, many elements of international law, not just wikisource:Fourth Geneva Convention, so i don't see any point in us wikipedians choosing which elements of international law are most relevant. That's why i removed the paragraph quoting Art. 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention and the uncited Oppenheimer POV. Boud (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Boud, please try to see my point: I have no doubts that Falk is an expert in Int'l Law. However, Law is not about facts. Law is about fitting facts to legal definitions. Every definition has sub-definitions, exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. In sum, law (and specifically Int'l law) is an interpretative field. Bringing one opinion of one prof. which is known to "take sides" in this specific conflict does not serve objectivity. Of course, his propositions are NPOV, but it is also stated that he is an emeritus prof. from a known university (which gives hime credibility). Why not mention that he is both a professor and a that he previously compared Israel to Nazi Germany (for the sake of NPOV). Bringing other views is also not productive here becasue all views are INTERPRETATIVE. For every argument we can find counter-argument. For example, why deleting the textbook citation? So what if Int'l law has many aspects? art. 28 is most certainly one of them. Instead of deleting it, why don't you bring another aspect to counter argue it? See where I'm getting? there is no end to it. This should be deleted, and re-started (if we wish to do so) as a separate article (only that way we may present many - not even most - relevant arguments). Please consider it --Omrim (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For example: Did Israel Use "Disproportionate Force" in Gaza?. There is no end to it (mind the fact that the article is of course not from an impartial writer, just goes to show that for every argument we can find counter-argument when legal issues are at hand).--Omrim (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Boud, you need to cut the appeals to authority. Your rhetoric seems to claim that just because this Falk guy might know more about international law than we do (something which is questionable), we should accept what he says as the truth without reservation. I'm sorry, but that's not how we do things around here. I suggest you examine WP:RS more closely. Jtrainor (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to delete the legal section altogether

As per my arguments above (i.e. that legal issues are interpretative of facts, rather the being facts; that this section is likely to become a bashing arena, with no productive results (there is going to be nothing there but "we said, they said"); and that every source mentioned so far is clearly not objective) I sugget to delete this section. We may want to start a completly new article about it. I see no point in bringing together a bunch of non-objective speakers, put them in the article, and note they are not objective. If none is objective, can't we just ignore them?--Omrim (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. However, I think it should be brought in porportion with the rest of the article. As long as the material in the section is notable and reliably sourced it should stay, but it should not give undue weight.VR _talk 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did everybody go?--Omrim (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• See further discussion here The nonsense about...--Omrim (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to add to article: Some Israeli citizens are euphoric about air strikes

Here are one aspect of the recent conflict that we are not covering yet in this article. There is real jubilation on the part of Israeli civilians and troops as a result of the air strikes.

I am unsure which section this should go in, but it is pretty surreal:

"In a muddy field overlooking the smoke-blackened Gaza Strip skyline on Tuesday, young soldiers from an Israeli tank unit linked arms with euphoric civilians and joined them in the hora, a circular dance, anticipation of a possible ground invasion of the Palestinian territory."

Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/58734.html

I am also unsure where to add the following:

"Below the choppers, a dozen Israeli spectators perched on a hilltop watched with anticipation. A minute went by and the first Apache fired a Hellfire missile, which went rumbling into the Palestinian side of the border. A few seconds later the crowd broke into cheers at the resulting sight: somewhere between the Jibalya refugee camp and the outskirts of Gaza city a ball of heavy black smoke was rising."

"Itay Avni, 32, who lives in the nearby Kibbutz of Nir-Am (population 400) is overjoyed at the Israeli assault on Gaza. He was among the crowd watching the Apaches launch their missiles. "Yesterday more then a hundred people from all around were here on this hilltop enjoying to the scene of dozens of aerial raids on Hamas military targets inside the Gaza strip," he says. "If I had opened an ice-cream stand here I would have made a lot money."

Source:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868858,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Involved parties" reactions section should be converted to prose, and this piece of information added. -- tariqabjotu 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a paragraph on general reaction from the population of Israel and the population of Gaza / Palestine would be helpful but i dont think it should go into such specific incidents. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken time to view other sources? or did you just look for those making the "case" for your quasi-racist assertion?

How about looking at opeds in Israeli newspapers which are covered with both support and criticism of the operation? How about mentioning the demonstrations by left-wing Israelis infront of the ministry of defence? Of course, there are Israeli citizens gloating, there are those who believe the operation to be repugnant, and while the overwhelming majority probably support the action they are not "euphoric". Again, this is an attempt to categorize one of the most politicaly and culturaly diverse popolations in the world (the Israeli one) as being homogeneous in its approach to one of the most complicated conflicts in the history of mankind. How about Israeli Arabs (also Israeli citizens)? Do you think they are "euphoric"?. How about the Druze? What about Israeli Jews voters of Meretz? Should we try to cross section the entire Israeli society and establish each section's view? Please stop this nonsense. --Omrim (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should say what the majority of public opinion in both Israel and Palestine is, a brief mention of the far left / far right views on the issue from both sides would be ok but the majority should be the focus. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

More research results:

1. "Public support for an attack has been growing in Israel, where a recent opinion poll showed that 20% of voters supported reoccupying Gaza, 27% wanted a return to assassinations and 18% wanted a short military strike."
2. Police halt Israeli Arab rally against Gaza op, arrest 2 at T.A. protest
3. 64% of Israelis favor expanding the attack to include a ground assault
4. Likud activists stage support rally near Defense Ministry headquarters: "We want to give the IDF the feeling that Israelis are united in their support of the armed forces"
5. Meretz supports the air stikes but warns against incursion into Gaza

--John Bahrain (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, obviously not everyone is reacting this way. But a survey of public reaction (including this and protests around the world) should have a place in the article. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, John, don't your recent research results show my exact point?--Omrim (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between supporting the military action and those dancing around in the streets celebrating the slaughter of civilians. There needs to be a general reaction of the Israeli / Palestinian population using the sources you listed John. But we dont need to just mention the extremes on either side, it should be majority opinion that is mostly covered in such a section. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I question the motivations of this inclusion. If we were to include something this extreme, then it would be fair to mention how Palestinian's commonly dance in the streets, often rejoining when one convicted murderer is being released in a prison exchange. Remember last year, when some guy who killed like 3 Israeli children in their homes was swapped for the body of a dead soldier? The entire city celebrated together....Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the motivation of this inclusion is to show the "Barbaric nature" of the Israeli society. This is quite clear. This inclusion looks and smells like POV. However, given the fact that it's going to be included whatever we say, we should balance it with some other facts.--Omrim (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with that ridiculous portrayal of Israeli society and military (which, compared to their theocratic neighbors, is quite civil and efficient), including something so controversial into an article that's already being pumped with POV is not responsible nor relevant. For the time being, I say we focus on the actual operation and truly verifiable facts before drifting off into opinion waters. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree to j. bahrain, his proposal is well sourced. omrim, where are the voices in israel (beside palestinians and druzes with israeli citizenship) who oppose operation cast lead? any sources?--Severino (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's well sourced, but only one of the sources connect well with Bahrain's agenda. He's pushing a clearly biased belief that their is some radical "euphoric" mentality stirring around Israeli soldiers regarding the recent attacks, but the secondary sources provided simply demonstrate and all-around support for the operation, not a dancing cultish celebration with guns shooting in the air and heavy grunting. Lol. A topic so extreme should be accepted through a cordial consensus and understanding. This article cannot afford any more POV pushing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting tired. How about these for starters? This is something I compiled in about two minutes of title browsing. And I don't see any point adding dozens more sources in Hebrew since you can't read them.

1. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051317.html 2. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051563.html 3. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647728,00.html 4. http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20081231_Gaza_Letter_to_Mazuz.asp 5. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050470.html Again, your idea is quasi-racist, since it ascribes Israelis with "hidden" motives (such as the joy of killing Arabs). This is ridiculous.--Omrim (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW Severino, what's wrong with the opinions of the Druze? They DO SERVE IN THE IDF! Or is the problem only relates to ISRAELI JEWS? Hmmmm.. I wonder what's that starting to sound like?--Omrim (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

first, to your sources: 1 and 4 are comments from exponents of the tiny peace camp; 3 (oz) takes a stand only against a ground operation and accuses the other side having provocated the operation; 2 mentions an antiwar demonstration but also that those want to "distinguish it from the rightist vocal demonstration"; 5 is about an antiwar demonstration,ok.i would also mention this kind of reactions/opinions along with "the other ones".

the druzes on the israeli occupied golan do not serve in the israeli military; the other with israeli citizenship do, but not all of them. you asked me whats wrong with their opinion. nothing, but its curious that, when it comes about demonstrating the diversity and critical faculty of the israeli society, the non jewish minorities are suddenly in a prominent place.--Severino (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. First, if you read the entire discussion you have probably noticed that my opposition is not to the argument that the great majority of Israelis support the operation, but rather to the fact that they are not all "euphoric" about it. I think my sources make it clear. (ex: Oz also described the poor situation of the Gazans, but you conveniently failed to read it). Second, what do you mean by saying "tiny peace camp": based on what analysis did you make that conclusion? These opinions are published in the third most read newspaper in Israel. Third, your effort to distinguish every part of every article only proves my point: even you have to work hard only to show that at least some are "euphoric". There dozens other opeds in Hebrew saying similar stuff. Should I translate them all so you can "distinguish" all of them? Fourth, the 1 soldier killed so far was a Druze [14]. In sum, I fail to see how can we conveniently and objectively argue that Israelis are "euphoric". Unfortunately I can't counter argue your last sentence as it implies to inequality suffered by most non-Jewish minorities in Israel. This is – I ashamed to admit as an Israeli citizen – probably true. --Omrim (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read this [15] - It is for sure biased on-sided article, but probably the best I have seen yet to express Israeli majority view on the issue. Most Israelis think the operation is just. They may be wrong, but they are not euphoric.--Omrim (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

the original proposal was, to mention that SOME israelis are euphoric and indeed there are some. i won't object mentioning that there are other attitudes too. --Severino (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, no really... thank you for allowing the "other" Israeli voices (THE MAJORITY OF THEM) into the article as well. The term "Euphoric" has nothing to do with facts. It is an adjective used by ONE journalist. Why not use "cheerful", "happy", "joyful" or any other similar adjective that will serve your cause. It has no factual value (but a huge political and PR value). You and I, and all other users discussing this, know that the motivation to put it in the article is all about POV. Please stop pretending it is not. At least spell it out. --Omrim (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

please don't speculate about other user's motivations. if you would really mind about POV, neutrality and so on in middle east articles on wikipedia, you would have A LOT to do in this and other articles. --Severino (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

what i mean, is that if you would really care about NPOV, you also had to get involved with it when it's to the disadvantage for another side.--Severino (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Which I did several times. look for my name in the discussion. --Omrim (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Odense (Denmark) Shooting Incident

Some reports have been made that two Israelis were lightly wounded in a shooting incident in a shopping mall in the Denamrk Town of Odense. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs assumes that the shooting is connected to the Gaza operation. see [16] [17] Should we add it to the public reaction section/main article? After all we do cover international peaceful demonstrations. What about not so peaceful kinds of protesets? Thoughts? --Omrim (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm well i would want more than just speculation about it being linked before it gets a mention. A mention of the British embassy in Iran being stormed might also be valid as some say its connected. [18] Not sure what happened though, i would of expected alot more media coverage of this on British news channels but i didnt see it at all, only on their website. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The Odense issue is now unfolding. Let us see how it develops. --Omrim (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing confirmed yet is that the shooter had dark hair and moustache. There have been reports of a gang of youths harassing the store(that employed the Israelis) recently. My best guess is that the gang is one of the numerous groups of young muslims known in Odense for doing lots of crime and harassing white citizens. It's possible they discovered that the two were Israelis and in the light of the current conflict, take it out on them. But it could just be a coincidence, we will probably know the real story soon, until then this is what there is: http://news.tv2.dk/article.php/id-19457833.html. Happy New Year! :) T.R. 87.59.78.191 (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: The man has turned himself in and he is of middle-eastern descent, either palestinian or lebanese depending on the reporter. There was reports of several individuals partying in Odense(lots of muslims live in ghettos there, living off welfare) because of the shootings, they presented themselves hooded to the camera. This was in TV-avisen kl. 18:30 this evening, maybe someone can link it. So this event *is* connected to Operation Cast Lead after all..(more details to follow as they come) http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/krimi/article.php/id-19475094.html T.R. 87.59.101.51 (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately my Danish skills are a bit, well, non-existent. How about finding a reliable source that we can all understand, or better yet, preparing a short paragraph describing the issue so we can debate whether to include it. Thanks. --Omrim (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Danish TV2 nyhederne *is* a reliable source like BBC and is one of the two national state owned channels in Denmark. Since this is happening in Denmark, I'm not sure there are sources in english language but I can look. Anyway, I don't think this event deserved more mention in the article than one or two lines. Internationally it's a very minor thing though the Israelians may have a very different opinion. http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\Europe\20090101\EU-Denmark-Shooting.xml&cat=world&subcat=europe&pageid=1 T.R. 87.59.101.51 (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

About the Dignity Incident

The Following lines must be removed from the dignity incident section:

Immediately after the incident the aid ship turned back. The Israeli naval ship offered to assist the passengers of the aid ship, who declined the offer. Israeli ships then escorted the damaged ship until it exited Israeli territorial waters.

Reason:

• Violation of Neutral Point of View:
  

The notion that the israeli navy offered aid to dignity but who declined it , is being portrayed as fact , which it is NOT!

It's obviously a claim of the israeli navy nothing more , that does Not at all prove that they Did offer any aid.

At best faith it should be written as: "The Israeli Navy Claimed...bla bla" , in order to emphasize that's a one-sided representation .

• Lack of Verifiability:
  

The Media to which the reference is being made to support this alleged fact is an israeli media , which means

That bias should be expected , and under no circumstances should it be valid to take it for granted unless an

independent media which is not taking part in the conflict verifies the claim.Cowmadness (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with the lines is the assertions that the damaged ship was in Israeli territorial waters, see http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail for a CNN piece saying the incident occurred in 'international waters about 90 miles off Gaza.' I don't think we can summarily reject a source becuase it is Israeli, or Palestinian. The CNN piece also attributes a person to the claim that the boat refused assistance, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. Also, this source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-gaza-aid-ship) states that the boat was escorted into Cypriot territorial waters, but not out of Israeli waters. I think the lines can be constructed in this way:

According to Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor, the Dignity refused assistance after the incident, and was escorted to Cypriot territorial waters.

With the citations. That a problem?Nableezy (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The guardian also attributes to Palmor both that the boat refused assistance and that it was escorted to Cypriot waters. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Since there are contradicting sources: YNET [19] vs. The Guardian [20] (and possibly others), I included both versions. Best Tkalisky (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright , I can see now that the current dignity incident section has come closer to objectivity.
Just one more time to avoid misunderstanding or ill intentioned to cherry pick my words , if data is to be included from
a media that is part of one side or the other then always state , who proposed the claim
btw , that troll image was ultra ridiculous if not offensive , i think it only shows the silliness of that of who posted it.
Regards
Cowmadness (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible ground incursion

Australia's ABC is saying that Hamas have said the IDF were involved in a brief ground incursion into Gaza near Khan Younis yesterday, in a possible buildup to a full scale invasion. Whether or not these claims are true, they have been made, they should be included as claims in the article. I'd log in and do it myself, but would like feedback on where to put them. 125.239.126.162 (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that "invasion" is the right term to use for a full scale ground troops operation. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 12:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what sources say for a full-scale operation. Their custom is to call anything big "invasion". And some small stuff too, like the Invasion of Grenada which involved much less troops than what this baby will. Coincidentally, here we have another example of an Operation which is a redirect. In this case Operation Urgent Fury is a redirect. This actually remind me of something... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the difference between Palestinians and Civilians

Throughout the article there is subtle comparisons between Palestinians and civilian casualties. I'm slightly concerned about these kinds of statements, because it doesn't reflect the news coverage of the actual war. I mean, when casualties are ordinarily published in war, there is a heavy emphasis on what separates soldier from citizen. So, for example, if civilian casualties were mentioned, soldier/police/civil servant casualties would be mentioned as well. I know Palestinian supporters like to merge militants with civilians as one (often embellishing casualties and wounded, see Pallywood, but for a controversial article such as this, I strongly suggest we clarify the difference for the sake of factual accuracy. Thus, when citing casualties in regards to both civilians and "Palestinians", it must be stated what the occupation of the Palestinians are in contrast with the civilians. When soldiers die in war along with civilians, both types of people are almost always compared in their individual position (i.e, soldier and civilian). What makes this war any different? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be very clear the difference between a Palestinian civilian and HAMAS security forces / militants but thats only possible if theres accurate sources and its far harder to get the full details of the casualties from Gaza compared to Israel where huge detail is available within hours. Where possible it should say "Palestinian civilians" or "Women and Children" and "Security forces" or "HAMAS security forces" etc. Or like it does in part of the opening pararaphs say 350 Palestinians, including 60+ women and children. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is tragically simple. If a person was killed in a military uniform (i.e. Hamas military wing) or if he or she was bearing a weapon or explosive; or if they were otherwise directly operating or supporting an offensive military activity - e.g. a Palestinian Chemistry professor in the Islamic university in Gaza, killed in an 'academic' lab used to make Kassams when it was attacked by the Israelis (purely a hypothetical example)- they are all combatants. Not civilians. A civilian universally means 'innocent passer by'. And the above are anything but. The terror organizations know this so they constantly try to swallow more and more chunks of civilian Arab populace into their war effort and by not clarifying the terms, we are helping them oppress their population. Honestreporting2 (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in your personal definition of the word "civilian." In this article we should use that word exactly in the same way as our sources do. Offliner (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, his description is quite correct. The problem is that there is no way of getting exact (or even approximate) numbers. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 12:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

From civilian: "A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units."

I'm not aware of any definition which says that people involved in weapons production (arms industry) would not be civilians. Offliner (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

if we would exclude palestinians involved in weapons production from civilian casulties (we would need very reliable sources here), we would have to do the same on the other side, means, israelis who are part of the countrie's military machinery are no civilians then.--Severino (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, if you don't mind be being a bit sarcastic, since in Israel military service is mandatory, lets mark all Israelis as part of the Israeli "military machinery". Wow, that makes it very simple: All Israelis are legitimate targets (in uniform or not), and infact the rockets hitting schools and kindergartens are hitting "military targets" since all students and toddlers will join to the IDF at 18, which makes them TOO a part of the Israeli war machine.--Omrim (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

actually i didn't mean that. but you do not seem to have a problem with the suggestion here, to re-define (to BROADEN) the term "civilian" when it's coming about the palestinians...--Severino (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrim, your comparison is weak. Just because all Israeli citizens are required to serve in the military, doesn't mean all citizens are legitimate military targets. If I was 19 year old male who planned on joining the military and for some strange reason I was killed in a war, should I be considered a civilian casualty or soldier casualty? What matters is the present occupation, not the future or the past. So if an ex-Hamas gunfighter was killed while tending to his gardens, he would be considered a civilian casualty. Get it? This subject needs attention seriously...Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree then. --Omrim (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And Severino- no I don't. I only had a problem with your specific implication.--Omrim (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry my mistake. it should not read: to broaden but "to NARROW" the term civilian. that's of course whats proposed here.--Severino (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, I lost you. What do you want? I'll just make a statemant on this issue to make my stand clear: I agree that the definition of civilian Palestinian casualites should, maybe, be broadened (ex: police officers are civilians, I think). I also disagree with your implication that all Israelis are legitimate targets. But you said you didn't mean it. Well, your "War Machine" argument fooled me.--Omrim (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

it was a misunderstanding. it was proposed here to narrow the term civilian on the palestinian side. my comment was that if people involved in weapons production (or whatever is then defined) on the pal. side are no longer civilians (in this article), similar credit must be applied on the isr. side then. in the meantime i also have the answer from you to my question i posed invalid originally.--Severino (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli government and Hamas government cannot be compared by the same standards. Hamas runs like a terrorist organization, in the sense that support comes from many locales, homes, libraries, things that we consider ordinary is often used there to conceal weapons/soldiers/etc (hence, bombing of university). but at the same time, it also functions as a civil government, in the way that hamas operates with official buildings and headquarters where things "supposedly" get done. Israel, on the other hand, is far more organized and less secretive in terms of general government, while the military does not infringe on society or ordinary things. you wont find a group of israeli soldiers hiding amongst "innocent" civilians, and use them as shields. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as where they get their support, see Taxes. As far as not being secretive, see Mossad. Yes, Hamas has been labeled as a terrorist organization by many countries, but many more see them as something else (resistance movement, political organiztion, whatever). But they are indeed the de facto govt of the West Bank, and they do provide the services of government. And police officers are most certainly civilians, unless they actually take up arms against other combatants. See [[21]]: Any Person not belonging to the armed forces (see Chapter III, Section I) is considered as a civilian. Nableezy (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Hamas barely has an economy. They get 99% of their financial support from Iran, Syria, Israel, and terrorism fronts. Your comparison of Mossad is unfair because it is an intelligence gathering unit and does not even remotely address my points. In response to your classification of civilians, we cannot rely on what Hamas considers civilians and soldiers. Gaza is chaos, citizens are not policed, there is virtually no judicial process, and odds are, any "police" officer killed in the conflict is most likely a militant or soldier. Israel doesn't just drop bombs and hope, and they don't target civilian centers for the sake of killing civilians, unlike Hamas. It is beyond ignorant to even consider Hamas as a legitimate and civil government. They discriminate, kill anyone who questions them, and most importantly, not only support, but knowingly provide resources to kill Israeli (and if necessary) Palestinian civilians. Stop white-washing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza economy is not the issue here, if it were the 18-month Israeli blockade of all exports might be discussed. Cops are civilians, as are government employees such as receptionists and file clerks. RomaC (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead table

the Strength part contain that Hamas have 20,000 militants (total), it need some one to add what guns they have , Klashinkovs and local made rockets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.241.138 (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I had added this but RomaC removed it stating that "not a reliable source, also if we are going to list total Hamas firepower we should list total IDF firepower". See above Infobox: Strength. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with RomaC on this. Besides, the Hamas has a lot more than "home made" rockets. Many of the rockets used in this conflict are actually standadized Iranian made katyusha rockets and Grad missiles. They are hardly "local made". Trying to establish total power of each side is impossible. --Omrim (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualty number

I've just checked ten articles about different Hamas suicide bombings (see List of Hamas suicide attacks), and without fail the numbers of killed and wounded are always given in the first paragraph. In this article, it's down in the third paragraph. Why is it different here?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an ongoing conflict and the numbers listed in the 3rd paragraph are talking about the deaths from the first two days of the conflict which is described in paragraph two. Huge changes to the article are needed, but i dont see a big problem with the death toll coming after the explanation of what happened in the opening strikes. Although id prefer a more general introduction and the detail about the first days conflict placed in its own section, BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For example War in Afghanistan (2001-present) or Iraq War dont list the deaths in the first paragraph rather than a specific incident like a suicide bombing or attack. This is the problem with the article title.... It shouldnt be gaza strip airstrikes, this is meant to be about the ongoing conflict. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about wars that have gone on for years, which isn't really a good analogy. A better one would be the Bombing of Dresden in World War II, which took place over three days. There the casualty numbers are also given in the first paragraph. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Because categorizing this operation (which, tragic as it may be, has military objectives, and in which most Palestinian casualties are combatants) the same as suicide attacks (in which the objective is killing as many civilians as possible) is appalling.--Omrim (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about categorising this bombing (where there is little or no risk to the bombers) with suicide bombings? Do you mean to say the USAAF and RAF set out to kill as many civilians as possible in Dresden? They insisted it was a military and industrial target. I don't agree with your categorisation of policemen as "combatants". Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree the casualty figures should be in the first graph I put them there they keep slipping. Also yes, there is increasing media discussion about the initial classification of killed or injured government employees as non-civilian. We should watch this. RomaC (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Casualty figures do not belong in the lede in new and ongoing conflicts. A suicide attack is a discrete event with (generally) a clear-cut number of casualties. Sometimes a person dies from his wounds and then the numbers are changed. Past wars are over and the counts are stable. But in a current event like this it is best to leave the numbers out of the lede and put them in the casualty section so we do not have to keep revising the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New title

Ah, but this ongoing unpleasantness had now moved into 1009. Should not the title be changed to reflect this? --Tomtom9041 (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Murder of 8 Sariya inmates

Should these 8 palestinian men be included in casualties of the conflict?

At least eight people were murdered in Gaza on Sunday after escaping prison. The eight were killed for allegedly helping Israel fight terrorism by providing information on local terrorist groups. The incident was reported by one of Yedioth Ahronoth's Arab correspondents. The incident began when Gaza's main prison, located near the village of Sariya, was destroyed in an IAF strike. Several prisoners managed to escape the damaged building, among them many who had been accused of cooperating with Israel or convicted and sentenced to death for “collaboration”. Upon hearing of the airstrike, terrorists and relatives of terrorists killed by the IDF rushed to the prison and caught several of the escaping inmates. Those caught were immediately killed. One of the victims was identified as Jamal Randour, who was convicted of giving Israel information leading to the assassination of Abed Abu-Yusuf el-Kuku, head of the Salah el-Din brigades. Source: Gaza 'Collaborators' Murdered Chesdovi (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Very credible: arutz sheva and yediot a.'s "arab correspondent"--Severino (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the correspondent, working for an Israeli newspaper, probably wishes to remain anonymous. See Palestinians settle old scores in Gaza, from Reuters. Chesdovi (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am missing something I think. Isn't Reuters a credible source?--Omrim (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Reuters source mentions two collaborators killed (one from a guy on a motorbike, and another by family members of a slain militant). --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if their murder should be included in the article. Although they were not killed in the airstrike, (as others were), it was due to the Israeli strike that it was possible that they could be subsequently murdered by vengeful palestinains. Chesdovi (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Where should include them then? Palestinian casualties? it may create an impression they were killed by Israel. Israeli casualties? I guess would make a bit more sense, but I am also not sure. How about including them with the Egyptian border guard? --Omrim (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can mention this horrific incident under the casualties section, but not necessarily in the infobox? Chesdovi (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. But lets skip the term "horrific" though (even though the incident is for sure horrific).--Omrim (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

yo, when palestinians are (allegedly) killed by palestinians, THEN it's horrific...--Severino (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinians are constantly killed by Palestinians. Why do you think all the non-muslims had to flee? Because the government was literally sanctioning a complete and total Pogrom of theremaining Christians and non-muslims. 10% of all Palestinian casualties in the Second Intifada was Palestinians killing Palestinians. I doubt this war will be any different..Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Severino, I agree it is horrific, the same way I agree that the deaths of all Palestinian civilians is horrific. Yet, I am being consistent not to include unnecessary adjectives in the article (unlike you). --Omrim (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

do you have a problem with THIS hypocritical, "quasi-racist", "POV-smell", "nothing to do with facts" comment above, omrim, which is only to demonstrate the "barbaric nature" of the palestinians (all your terms used in another context), hm?--Severino (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, I lost you. What do you want? I'll just make a statemant on this issue to make my stand clear: I agree that the definition of civilian Palestinian casualites should, maybe, be broadened (ex: police officers are civilians, I think). I also disagree with your implication that all Israelis are legitimate targets. But you said you didn't mean it. Well, your "War Machine" argument fooled me.--Omrim (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) OOPS wrong section...

Again, you lost me. What do you want? which "THIS" comment do you mean? maybe if you relax, we can discuss it--Omrim (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, not so important. you are not to blame for it. --Severino (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Peace and love man (or woman).--Omrim (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrations sub-section in Reactions section?

There have been hundreds of demonstrations around the world protesting the offensive on Gaza since the 27 December. I'd like to create a sub-section on this topic in the section on Reactions. Any objections? Tiamut^talk 15:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added them to their respective countries in the related article International reaction to the December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. I still think their should be a subsection in this article summarizing them however. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more references

Amnesty International said that . "It is utterly unacceptable for Israel to continue to purposefully deprive 1.5 million people of food and other basic necessities. Such a policy cannot be justified on any security or other grounds and must end immediately," said Amnesty International. "Israel must allow international humanitarian and human rights workers immediate and safe access to Gaza." [22] Amnesty International reiterates its call for an end to reckless and unlawful Israeli attacks against densely populated residential areas which have killed more than 300 Palestinians since 27 December, including scores of unarmed civilians and police personnel not taking part in the hostilities, and injured several hundred others.

• I added material from the above source in the section on December 29th. Thanks for that. Tiamut^talk 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut-sorry to interrupt, I added all the above AI verbatim to the article under International organizations...--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama’s silence on Gaza irks Arabs On the fourth day of Israeli air strikes in Gaza, the US President-elect has yet to take a position, though he spoke out after militants’ attacks in Mumbai and has made detailed policy statements on the US economy. “He wants to be cautious and I think he will remain cautious because the Arab-Israeli conflict is not one of his priorities,” said Hassan Nafaa, an Egyptian political scientist and secretary-general of the Arab Thought Forum in Amman. “Obama’s position is very precarious. The Jewish lobby warned against his election, so he has chosen to remain silent(on Gaza),” added Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. [23]

Gaza children traumatised as Israeli bombs rain down We are scared... that we can die at any moment,” said 11-year-old Mohammed Ayyad, still terrified hours after a massive Israeli bombardment of Hamas government buildings next to his house in Gaza. His six-year-old brother Ahmad “peed his pants. We were all scared because the planes are in the sky all the time and we could die at any moment.” Schools in Gaza have been closed since the Israeli strikes began on Saturday and children have passed the time examining the damage caused by the raids. Near Ayyad’s home, a group of children milled around rubble that used to be Hamas government buildings. One shrugged off the danger of being outside as the Israeli warplanes continued their sorties overhead. [24]

Robert Fisk (The Independent's award-winning Middle East correspondent)[25] said that These are realities. The chances of war, however, may be less easier to calculate. If Israel indefinitely continues its billion dollar blitz on Gaza – and we all know who is paying for that – there will, at some stage, be an individual massacre; a school will be hit, a hospital or a pre-natal clinic or just an apartment packed with civilians.

Dawn editorial [ http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/world/israeli+savagery+--rs ](30 December 2008) stated that The Muslim world is powerless, while there is no countervailing power to tear up the carte blanche which America has given to Israel for its massacre of the Palestinian people and for holding on to the occupied territories in violation of UN declarations and the agreements to which Israel and America are a party.

‘It is simply disgusting when the people actually being attacked in Gaza are utterly defenceless, basically starving,’ says Canadian environmentalist Ingmar Lee. [26] ‘If there is any shame left in the international community, it should denounce Israel unanimously and insist its withdrawal from all of Palestine. What can something like this lead to? Palestinians are naturally going to react in the same way as anyone who wakes up to find themselves among splattered body parts of their children and families. They will have one single objective for the rest of their lives.’ [27]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizentimes (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to start discussed the traumatized Gazan children, we should also discuss the Israeli kids, in places like Sderot, who have spent the last 8 years under rocket fire, running for their lives every few hours, when the Qassam rockets rained down. okedem (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Both should be discussed, using reliable sources. In fact, we badly need a section on the impact on civilians on both sides of the border. Tiamut^talk 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, okedem, your tone is not at all constructive. There is a section on the trauma effects on children in the Qassam rocket attacks article:The Qassam rocket attacks have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in both children and adults, with an estimated 33% of children living in Sderot suffering from PTSD. RomaC (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, first off, you pointing me to some other article proves my point.

But my reply was to the quotes above, which seem to serve a purpose of inclining the reader towards one side. My comment is honest - if you want quotes about traumatized Gazan kids, we'll have quotes about traumatized Israeli kids. okedem (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

okedem, you want information on the trauma to Israeli kids as a result of Qassam rocket attacks, that's in the article on Qassam rocket attacks. RomaC (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to decide if we want to stick to the chronology, the facts, or do we start adding quotes and opinions to the day-by-day sections. I believe we shouldn't. For example, Amnesty's opinion can be detailed under "Reactions", along with countries and other organizations. Placing their opinions under one day's heading it peculiar - do they think the attacks should stop on Dec. 29, but are okay with them on Dec. 31? It's their general opinion of the operation, and so belongs elsewhere. okedem (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International, while obviously sincere in their quest for tranquility, is heavily biased (almost slandering) when it comes to Israel topics. If we are to include their opinion, it must be emphasized that it is AN OPINION and not passed off as fact or even professional opinion (i.e, Prime Ministers). Their beliefs are akin to a zionist zealot groups, so if we are to include AI, thenwe are obligated to include the opinions of pro-Israel charities as well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, why is trauma to Israeli kids as a result of Qassam rocket attacks should only be in the article on Qassam rocket attacks ? This is a real question. What about the kids traumatized by the 351 rockets fired since the operation began?--Omrim (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama Slience

Obama’s silence on Gaza irks Arabs On the fourth day of Israeli air strikes in Gaza, the US President-elect has yet to take a position, though he spoke out after militants’ attacks in Mumbai and has made detailed policy statements on the US economy. “He wants to be cautious and I think he will remain cautious because the Arab-Israeli conflict is not one of his priorities,” said Hassan Nafaa, an Egyptian political scientist and secretary-general of the Arab Thought Forum in Amman. “Obama’s position is very precarious. The Jewish lobby warned against his election, so he has chosen to remain silent(on Gaza),” added Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. [28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizentimes (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm whilst im sure he enjoys being able to stay out of this for political reasons, he is simply following correct protocol. There is currently only one president of the United States and that is George W Bush. There doesnt need to be a mention of Obama really until the handover takes place then there could be a whole section on the new administrations response (if the war is still going on by then) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

bs.. it's clear he supported israel almost unconditionally in campaign. Leladax (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why mention Obama at all, or any world leader who is not involved? Why the U.S. President and not the President of Chad? Lets not be biased to what the U.S. reaction is while forgetting that the world still goes on outside of the United States.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

THe US has alot more influence on the situation than Chad does. Ofcourse theres a whole article for the international response from countries where the president of chads view can be included as well. But actions by the European Union and the United States on this matter may lead to some form of development and there for worthy of a mention. Agreed on not mentioning Obama tho BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The US is not the be all end all, and by the way, I was only using Chad as a reference, how about France? Is that better, or perhaps India, or China? No need to mention any world leader who is not involved, regardless of potential influence.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm---How should the Mohammedan, Kenyan Born, part-Arab, President-elect of the United States of Earth, and Saviour of Humanity respond to this affront to Human dignity of Middle Easter Morass. As their are elements on both side who genuinally hate each other and whom will not stop till the other side is culled from this world? UNCERTAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.220.227 (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Attribution/Humanitarian aid

Okedem has added some info on humanitarian aid that was allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. His sources are all Israeli and I have tried to include mention of that at the beginning of each of the sentences he added, in keeping with the idea that we attribute information to their sources. We have a number of sentences that begin with "Palestinian sources report" or something like that. When the sources are the Israeli government or media only, I think that fact should be noted. Okedem keeps deleting my additions in this regard. Feedback from others would be welcome. Tiamut^talk 17:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

While all claims must be sourced, user:Tiamut has begun adding attribution (in the text) when dealing when an Israeli paper (Yediot Ahronot) writing about aid entering Gaza. We use these sources throughout the article, without such attribution, and I see no reason for it here. Yedioth is a free paper, and is not "Israeli sources". We rarely use the format "According to...", and it makes little sense - everything we say is sourced to some media outlet, and if the reader wants to know which one - that's what the footnote is for. Also, contrary to Tiamut's claim, we don't do the same thing for Palestinian sources (only two instances of "Palestinian sources" in the article). okedem (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with okedem - there seems to be some game playing going on, where very selectively, any piece of information which portrays Israel in a positive light, such as the supplying of humanitarian aid, is prefaced with "according to Israeli sources" - even though a 10 second search reveals multiple non-Israeli sources reporting the same thing. NoCal100 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing it selectively. I attribute almost every statement I add to its speaker, in case you have not noticed. I think this is preferable when dealing with controversial subjects, since it belies the need to arbitrate over what should be said in Wikipedia's netural voice. In any case, since you say there are other sources, would you mind providing them here? That way, this discussion on this particular point could be rendered moot. Otherwise, I'd like to hear the opinions of other non-partisan actors on the issue. Your views are well known. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You most certainly are doing it selectively - take a look at just your most recent edit, regarding fuel supplies, which you have not qualified as 'According to MSNBC'. You also have no problem sourcing things to Israeli newspapers without qualifying them in such a way, when the information portrays Israel in a negative light - such as here. I have provided the other sources for every claim you've qualified in this false and misleading way - feel free to check out the citations in the article. You are encouraged to stop playing this game. NoCal100 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh, a huge one). The first link you give shows my edit as attributing the statement to UN officials. I didn't see the need to add "MSNBC says that..." before "UN officials" since it is attributed to the UN officials. Also MSNBC is an American news organization, not an Israeli or Palestinian one with a dog in the fight so to speak, and so specifying its nationality is not really relevant here.

The second link you provide proves aboslutely nothing. I added the Ynet source as a complement to the Al-Jazeera one. Why would I change the text to read "Ynet says", when Al-Jazeera says it too? Further, for the info on the attack on a school, I attribute it to "Palestinian sources" because that's why Ynet says. I suppose I could have written "Israeli media reported that Palestinian sources said..." but that would be a bit wordy no?

Please stop trying to accuse me of doing things I am not actually doing and which require a reat amount of bad faith speculation on your part.

Now I notice that someone added a link to the IMEMC to support the claim on humanitarian deliveries. However, the IMEMC cites their source for this info as the Israeli military. So again, the only sources we have indicating humanitarian aid deliveries were made are Israeli media and political sources. Can anyone provide something different? If not, I'm going to have to insist that we say who is reporting this information, per WP:ATT. Tiamut^talk 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with Tiamut's edits there. I agree with him that we should attribute every statement to its speaker. Media outlets rarely lie or make mistakes when quoting respected officials, so when newspaper X reports that the UN/Israel said something, then we should write "according to UN/Israel...", omitting "newspaper X." But when the newspaper doesn't name its sources, or when it uses questionable sources ("some palestinian guy told our reporter that..."), we should use "according to newspaper x." Simple? Offliner (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ground Assault

On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.

The ground assault has began. I am now seeing Israeli armor and personnel crossing the border into Gaza. --24.210.221.242 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good eyesight you've got there, anonymous IP in Ohio. we'll just wait for some reliable sources to report this. NoCal100 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I also heard about 20 mins ago that troops were moving into Gaza. Chesdovi (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Where? --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone told me he had received a text from Israel informing him of the development. Chesdovi (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am there but using IP cloaking software so that my position cannot be zeroed in upon by 'hostile forces.' the cloakedfake IP lists me as being somewhere in the US. --24.210.221.242 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I was gone awhile, did Israel invade or not?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not, according to any reliable source. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Eye-Witness and Protests

Eye-witness: Morgues overflow with bodies [29] Yaha Muheisen stops searching for his son's body for a moment to speak to me. "Whatever Israel did it will not defeat us," he says, "It will not weaken our power." Forty-year-old mother Nawal AlLad'a did not find the bodies of her two sons in the medical compound, so she left to look amid the rubble. [30]

Protests: Hundreds in Mich., NYC, LOS protest Gaza attack [ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS_PROTEST?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTT ] DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) -- Israel's military strikes on the Gaza Strip prompted pro-Palestinian protests in America, with marchers denouncing the violence in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, New York City and Los Angeles. The crowd outside the embassy in Kensington, central London, carried banners demanding justice for Palestine and were led in chants of "no justice, no peace". [31]

The protest comes after Israel rejected calls for a 48-hour ceasefire. The protest will continue tomorrow before moving on to the Egyptian Embassy on Friday and then on to Trafalgar Square on Saturday. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/embassy-protesters-chant-for-justice-in-gaza-1219455.html

-All the above added by Citizentimes (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009

Who makes this request?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Title for Article

We need a new title for this article as the conflict has carried beyond December 2008.

Some of my suggestions are:

• 1 - Operation Cast Lead
• 2 - Israel-Hamas War
• 3 - 2008/2009 Israel-Hamas Conflict
• 4 - Gaza War
• 5 - Hanukkah War

I would suggest for Israel-Gaza war citizentimes —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

Mercenary2k (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider also:

• 2008-2009 Gaza conflict

"Gaza conflict" gets many more g-hits in the news (well over 200) than any of the other options listed above. Tiamut^talk 18:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another option with 8 times as many g-hits in the news (well over 1,400) is "Assault on Gaza". So we might consider:

• 2008-2009 Assault on Gaza Tiamut^talk 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks - there's a discussion going on above you (#Requested move). Please join in over there. okedem (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here too? k: 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... Gumuhua (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of those operations of the IDF violate MILMOS. Some are actually POV forks (ie, the article about the actual topic doesn't have the operation name, so instead of adding the info in that article, there is redundant articles to ensure the Operation name). A couple even fail notability, hardly being noted by major news sources outside of Israel. In due time, this will be fixed by vigorous community discussion, so thank you for pointing them out.

But appealing to a non-existent "convention" imported from Hebrew Wikipedia (and its built-in editor bias -and I do not mean neutrality, you can be neutral and have bias, I mean bias inherent in the lack of RS/V that is not written in Hebrew: while there are non-Israelis that speak Hebrew, their proportion is much less, and all the Hebrew speaking media is either Israeli or targeted at Israelis abroad) is not a convincing argument. Furthermore, unless there systemic approaches to naming and content, widely discussed across all relevant wikiprojects and the community at large, using the example of another article to influence a desicion on another is much weaker than what you would think: if the previous article violates style guidelines, POV fork guidelines, neutrality policy, etc, we shouldn't do those things simply because it was successfuly done before. Consensus can change.

Now, you can argue for it not changing, maybe even successfully, but so far, for this article, it has changed.

Of course, if people want to be productive with how they want renames to happen, they are advised to follow the procedures at WP:RM, you know, do in it in a productive fashion that promotes useful discussion and doesn't ignore previous input. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Cerejota is once again throwing the rule book at everyone. What, 2 days ago he unilaterally renamed the article without even considering the discussion that had occurred in talk hours before. From the get-go rules have been violated! Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree with what Cerejota has said here. The systemic bias in the english language wikipedia is well-documented and counter-measures have been discussed and recommended (see WP:BIAS), and it would be reasonable to expect that other language wikipedias are systematically biased for similar type of reasons - possibly the esperanto language wikipedia might be able to claim the least demographic bias, though i'm just speculating here. Boud (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit wounded

Mention should be made of a website affiliated with Hamas claiming that 'Zionist soldier Gilad Shalit was injured in one of the Air Force attacks in Gaza'. Chesdovi (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF, BTW, dismissed it as psychological warfare. But should have a place in the article, I think.--Omrim (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Military planning

Some parts of the article and discussion would seem to insinuate or just outright say that Israel has intended to do this for the last six months. I'd like to make the point that planning out all possible conflicts in advance is standard procedure for military forces. Battle plans are regularly drawn up by militaries all over the world to consider potential conflicts, both likely and unlikely, that ultimately never happen. The fact that Operation Cast Lead was planned long before Israel decided to actually implement it is pretty much irrelevant in terms of judging Israel's intention to attack the Gaza strip. If anything, it suggests that Israel sat on the idea for a while hoping alternatives would materialize. 24.23.207.45 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Any other thoughts?--Omrim (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that those planning actions were reported by most of the news agencies says that it's important to deliver those information. It's not Wikipedia editors call to judge the inclusion of a fact hugely reported by other agencies. Otherwise each side will start a debate about the inclusion of some facts that put bad light on them. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree to that assertion as well. Yet, the way it is phrased currently implies that the operation was premeditated, which is also not Wiki's call. I am still battling myself, if there is a better way to present this (important) piece of information. I think it still demands a discussion. --Omrim (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Starting from the title, passing by the infobox, ending with the content of the article, this article is the best example of promoting for a POV, wish that we will add it ot Wikipedia policies to show what is meant by POV!!! Yamanam (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Without details, I'm afraid your complaint is of no use to anyone. okedem (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality is disputed and the article will be stuck in start class until that gets figured out for sure, I think a reader with a half a brain would realize that the article is beyond flawed. No need to plaster "POV O.M.G" all over...lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

POV towards who? Everyone says its POV, ok? But to who? --Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean if some one from Mars reads this article he would be under the impression of having a war between 2 countries, each of them had it's own military forces, and one of them (Israel) is stronger than the other, he wouldn't be able to realize that one of the 2 parties is a city (not a country). Moreover, and according to the article what is said by Israel is neutral and should be added, on the other hand, what is said by Hamas is not neutral and shouldn't be added. And by added I mean to be mentioned in the context of the article as a state of fact not as a claim from one of the 2 parties. Are the editors of this article happy with what they achieved? And are they proud of misleading readers?? maybe I am mistaken but this is what I noticed.Yamanam (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Peace. Show us those POV places and let's change or at least have a discussion about them. Complains do not magically translate to edits. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro sucks

It is longer than almost every other section or sub-section. Please people, the intro should be a summary of the sections of the article, and it should be of proportional length of the article. Please people read WP:LEAD:

“ The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first WP:HEAD. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. ”

If you go deeper into the article you see all of these things explained on detail. While we can disagree eon sources and POV etc, we shouldn't disagree on what makes a readable article. Can we do this without adult supervision? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest starting by removing the casualties from the intro and putting them in the "Casualties" section. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose we trim claims and explanations rather than facts and figures. RomaC (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas deaths vs civilian deaths

i'm a bit concerned about this sentence "Most of the deaths have been members of the Hamas' security forces,[17][18]".

• The yahoo/AP article = [18] has "Palestinian health officials put the three-day death toll in Gaza at 364; the U.N. said the total included at least 62 civilians." ... "Most of those killed in three days of airstrikes were Hamas members. A Hamas police spokesman, Ehab Ghussen, said 180 members of Hamas security forces were among the dead." The word "most" here is wrong: 180 is a slight minority. "Half" would be accurate.
• IHT = [17] has: "Israel's three-day aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip has killed dozens of civilians, along with Hamas fighters, ... Israel has stressed that most of the deaths and injuries were Hamas fighters ..."

So from these two sources alone, an NPOV version would be something like Between about half (according to Hamas[18]) and "most" (according to Israel[17]) of the deaths were members of Hamas' security forces.

Any objections? i expect that other sources may give other figures, but at least by these two sources alone, we can better NPOV this. Boud (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't read the sources and don't want to get drawn into this page, but a good thing to remember is this: If a reliable source says, for instance, "Livni said X," that is not the same as "Reliable source said x." In as much as you can, you should be seeking the consensus version of what the most reliable sources are saying on this in their own voices (in my view, Haaretz and the major US and European papers and wire services with people on the ground, MAYBE with Al Sharq al-Awsat thrown in). Now, where does this leave us on this one? It's quite likely no one is certain (no matter what they claim) about the past employer and duties of every body in a morgue at this point, and there are ambiguities even then. I.e. is it really helpful to lable a gaza city traffic cop a "member of the Hamas security forces?" The only thing to do is to provide a range from within what reliable sources are reporting the politically involved are saying. For instance, "Israel says most of the dead are Hamas fighters says tkttktk, but AP quotes PALESTINIAN SO AND SO saying that fewer than half are." I suspect nothing i've written has been helpful. But i've tried. I surfed Gaza once, in peaceful times it's a cool place.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very important that we differentiate between civilian and those bankrolled by Hamas milita. According to Israel, they made it a goal of theirs to target military compounds/facilities/support places etc and minimize civilian casualties (contrary to Hamas, where they bomb the @#*@(#* out of civilian areas intentionally). As far as media is concerned, the overall consensus is the majority of casualty and infrastructure damage is military/government based. The article should reflect that sentiment and not give undeserved merit to sensationalized media. :D 70.181.154.29 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Background

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34211 Flayer (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done--Omrim (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Flayer (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Public relations campaign and media strategies

i've restored the missing information tag for the public relations section and moved it up and out of the reactions section. One POV might be that the Gaza Strip de facto government does not need a public relations campaign, so they're not carrying one out. However, we don't know that. In any case, as was discussed above, media strategy in any military conflict since at least mid-XXth century has been a critical part of the conflict. Whatever WP:NPOV, WP:RS evidence we have about public relations strategies by the two parties is relevant.

i don't see any harm in leaving the missing information tag there for some time. The info about arab region tv channels constantly broadcasting images of bloodied children torn apart etc. is not a statement that that is a deliberate campaign. Sooner or later someone might come up with something more directly relevant. Boud (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

International reaction sub-article

I have moved this sub-article (and its accompanying talk page) to keep the title consistent with the title of this article, which is currently 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict (see: International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict). If the name of that article changes again, could whoever does it please move that one as well? Thanks in advance. Terraxos (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"The 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict involves an Israel airstrike codenamed Operation Cast Lead" This needs to be reworded to something else (not sure what). This sounds like the operation was a single Israeli airstike that is over rather than an ongoing operation. Can anyone fix this please? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Death of Nizar Rayan with his wife and children

On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.

Rayan was killed when a missile crashed into a five-storey house that he shared with his wives and children in Jabaliya in the north of the territory, the medics said. The dead children were aged seven and 10. Three other people were also killed in the raid. [32]--Citizen Times Publication Sweden (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we consider Dawn.com a reliable source? It's a national newspaper of an Arab state...hmmm. Surely we can find a more factual publication that fully demonstrates Israel's thirst for the blood of Palestinian civilians. Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli media too reports that he was killed along with his wife and at least three of his children. So much for "precision". Hamas leader, 20 Palestinians killed in IAF strikes--Omrim (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't questioning the actual event, just the way it was being portrayed. The fact that he was a Hamas militant must be clear, and also the likely possibility that the IDF warned Rayyan's family of an attack: "Prior to striking Rayyan's house the IDF tried to warn his family about the imminent attack and urged them to evacuate the place, but they refused to do so."

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dawm.com is not a national newspaper of an Arab state. It is part of Dawn Media Group. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not "officially" but it's basically the equivalent. I mean, press in the Muslim world is less reliable than the National Enquirer. ..

Massacre of the Black Saturday

Is this term really widely used enough to justify it being bold and mentioned in the opening paragraph? "Massacre of the Black Saturday" only gets 67 results on google. Seems too POV in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is attributed to what the Palestinians use to describe the events, and the Palestinians are one of the involved parties. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Im sure the attacks have been described as many things by different Palestinians. As i said "Massacre of the Black Saturday" only gets 67 other hits on google so its not got much international recognition. There should be a counter to the operation name given by Israel, but it has to be widely used or described by HAMAS or another major party involved. It shouldnt just be "some Palestinians".... Im sure more Palestinians have just refered to it as a "Massacre". This article is also about an ongoing conflict and not the incident on Saturday. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn I saw on the BBC that prime minister Haniya referred to it as the "massacre of Black Saturday", but my memory is hazy about it. He might have said something on a "massacre", but nothing on Black Saturday. Nonetheless, I did not take account of the "Saturday" part, so we're just gonna have to wait to see what term the Palestinians are generally using for the entire conflict. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No. It's not even mentioned anywhere in the article on the Arabic Wikipedia. That being said, both Operation Cast Lead and Massacre of the Black Saturday should be unbolded because this article is about the [two-way] conflict, not just the Israeli offensive. The first sentence of the article is inaccurate. -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Operation Cast Lead redirects here so, as per MoS, it should be bolded as it is one of the names this topic is given. The "massacre" (without the "Black Saturday" is from a quote from the de facto Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip. As per the formulation that was part of the name change discussion. I agree to resotre the quote as a counterpoint to the Israeli operation name, but the operation name is the only one that should be bolded, as per MoS. As to "Black Saturday" lets wait to see what the media does with it, as what happened to the Black September. Makes sense? --Cerejota (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, lets not get ahead of ourselves. That in one point of the future a formulation like that would be needed is always possible. Just not now. But what we are discussing in this thread is information for the article as it stands today: just as we know this will be called a "war" if a ground invasion happens, but don't name it as such, we don't get ahead of ourselves and use arguments that are not yet in force, to further our points. --Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the bolding... that's not how it works. WP:BOLDTITLE says "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name...", not simply that the title redirects. "Operation Cast Lead" refers to just the Israeli offensive; this article (and its title) refers to the two-way conflict. They're not the same. -- tariqabjotu 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Operation Cast Lead is definitely a large part of what this page is about. It doesn't make it good enough as the article name, per MoS and neutrality issues, but it is definitely a term that I expect readers to use in searching for what this article is about. I am weary of POV forks, and this is how they start, when people say an article is about somethign it isn't... I know it is not your intention to generate one, but I am trying to shed some light on it based on experience with controversial articles, in particular those with controversial titles. --Cerejota (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a POV-fork. Operation Cast Lead as a separate article would be mainly about the military op. It is definitely a "part" and even a "large part" of this article. But this is about 2008 -(2009) conflict. That means that a "part" and indeed a "large part" of this article must include Hamas' provocation and background. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'm not sure why we need to explain this point again, considering Cerejota seemed to agree to it under #December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In an unrelated discussion in this talk page I was using the Invasion of Grenada as an example for the use of the word "invasion" by RS. Thing is it also applies to this article. Operation Urgent Fury redirects to it, and in the intro "Operation Urgent Fury" is bolded. In fact, the article was renamed because of RS issues (ie readers woudl google search "Invasion of Grenada" and learn it was "Operation Urgent Fury" not the other way around), not really neutrality or bias (although it is a bit biased to the USA's perspective), and goes into deep operational detail, like the "order of battle" etc for the USA. I think it is a beautiful example for this article at many levels--Cerejota (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They're not comparable because the Invasion of Grenada and Operation Urgent Fury are the same thing. The "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" and Operation Cast Lead are, as I said previously, not the same thing; the former refers to Israeli and Gazan actions, while the latter refers to just the Israeli actions. -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, "Invasion of Grenada" is about all the actions from both sides: due to overwhelming force of the invasion force (which outnumbered the defenders nearly 10 to 1), it is mostly about the USA's actions, as is this article. Right now, as the article stands, there is no need for a separate article on only on the Israeli actions, so this article is about everything. Please re-read WP:POVFORK, what you are suggesting is precisely a POV fork. I think this unintended, that is why I call it to your attention. --Cerejota (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the invasion, and it's written entirely from the point-of-view that there was an invasion (oh... and a little resistance). That's not the case here -- or at least it shouldn't be. We had a lengthy move discussion -- which you did not appear to miss out on -- where several people said this was about a two-way conflict (hence, why we have the current name). Need I remind you of that? Maybe we don't need to make an Operation Cast Lead daughter article -- we're not talking about that -- but at this point in time, people do not believe this is just about the Israeli actions. Please don't rub WP:POVFORK in my face; I know what one is. At the very least, a POV fork entails creating a new article, something no one but you seems to be discussing. -- tariqabjotu 04:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see it used in a RS before we use it. Source please. I intend to flag it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One problem with making this an article about a "2-way conflict" is that arguments will be made for "balanced" ("50%") coverage of the Qassams and the damage they have caused. Imagine the Invasion of Grenada article if half of it was about injuries suffered by US Forces. This article came into existence because a military superpower dropped hundreds of tons of bombs -- that's the focus, let's not shift it. But that does not mean it has to be called "Operation Cast Lead," that can be determined. RomaC (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because some people could argue that doesn't mean we have a problem. People could conceivably use the title of Invasion of Grenada to argue that information about the actions of the opposition should not be included at all. But, of course, that would be silly. And, again, I am not inventing this two-way conflict position; this was raised several times during the move discussion, and was a major reason behind several of the supports (including mine). If the scope of the article is basically just Israel's actions, the current name is wrong. But enforcing that change through content, without heeding the previous discussion, is improper. -- tariqabjotu 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, tariqabjotu, the Grenada-US articles are not under general sanctions, Israeli-Palestinian articles are, because editors have repeatedly gamed the system. In your opinion do the Dec/Jan Israeli airstrikes on Gaza deserve their own article? Because this is not that article. RomaC (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving IDF warning somewhere else

The following statement:

"Gazans say most strikes come without warning. However, Israeli forces offered a general warning by dropping leaflets and recording brief announcements that interrupt radio broadcasts. They also reached other homes by telephone, telling Gaza residents to flee their homes if they were hiding weapons or militants.[66]" has been moved around the article several times during the last few times. First it was in the Dec 27 section, then I moved it to the planning area, and now someone moved it to the casualty section without talking about it here (as far as I know). I personally believe it should be moved back to the planning or first day of strike, per order of importance. It's location in casualty section seems awkward and misplaced. I'm afraid to move it back because someone will just revert it. Any advice/opinion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully. And devil knows I do not frequently agree with you. This obviously part of the background/first day. However, this doesn't preclude related news in other sections. --Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What needs clarification?--Cerejota (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response didn't make any sense. I'm not sure if you actual read what I said LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What part of "I agree fully" you had trouble understanding? IS it the "I"? Or is it the "agree"? Or perhaps the "fully"? Or is it the shock that someone actually reads what you propose, processes it, and emits and opinion focusing in its contents and context, rather than who said it? :D--Cerejota (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. I'm confused because this isn't a matter of agreement, I asked for advice/opinion. There is nothing to agree/disagree without specifying. A-hole. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, please remain civil and strike that. I agree with your contention and so does Cerejota apparently so go be bold and do it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohh..I was confused with his phrasing. When he said "Devil knows I don't agree with you" I interpreted the previous agreement as sarcasm. Hahaha sorry!.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 2 January, 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if that confused you, but I see it now. I have reformatted. This is an object lesson on why WP:AGF needs to be followed. :D--Cerejota (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was confused about your response and you acted like a dick. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked for clarification and your response was not very helpful. Although I wasn't a dick: I commented on the fact that you seem to think it was not possible for someone who you had differences with could agree with you on something. In fact, you have stated this was the case, as you assumed I was being sarcastic, when In fact I wasn't. --Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This statement: "What part of "I agree fully" you had trouble understanding? IS it the "I"? Or is it the "agree"? Or perhaps the "fully"? Or is it the shock that someone actually reads what you propose, processes it, and emits and opinion focusing in its contents and context, rather than who said it?" is you (Cerejota) being a dick. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That statement came as a response to your I'm not sure if you actual read what I said LOL.. If you are going to go around accusing people of being things, make sure you didn't do them first. BTW, reason I linked to "don't be a dick" is because saying that people are dicks, is a dick move in itself. Of course, you did actually read the article, didn't you?--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You both apologize this minute or else you can go to your rooms. RomaC (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You go to your room.--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Besides the horrible intro (see above for my comment), I see there are structural issues with this article. Before I go into proposing changes I wanted to hear opinions on this.

1. Timeline as a disruptive format that belongs in a separate "Timeline of". We should use paragraphs as much as possible.
2. Lack of operational details - this article is part of the Military history project, but the narrative of such aspects is lost in all the political and casualty things. Anywhere we can find more info on operational details?
3. We should prepare this article to become WP:SUMMARY main article with different parts as it grows, but I am seeing that people instead of concentrating in developing the different sections are adding things to the intro. Perhaps it's recentism, but we really need to understand that not everything goes in the intro, and that the different section intros are as important as the lede.

Comments? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The structural problems result from lack of consensus on scope. Initially this was an article about specific airstrikes, but it now merely documents a time slice within a larger, ongoing conflict. The IDF airstrikes definitely satisfy all Wiki criteria for an article of their own. This is the way to do it -- (the article on the bombing of Dresden does not mention concentration camps or Hitler) -- let's have an article about the airstrikes: who struck who, when and where, what aircraft were used, what bombs were dropped and what damage was done. If people want to find out about the larger conflict, they can do so by clicking on one of the links that leads to information on the larger conflict. RomaC (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The name, as per the discussion, is a temporary Salomonic, because there have been other events that are not airstrikes, and we are waiting for the ground invasion (I honestly expected it today!). If after a week or so there is no movement I think we can revisit the issues. But this article is still narrowly construed: it is about the IDF attacks, and the Hamas counter attacks, and while the current title doesn't cover that tightly, it isn't out-of-scope as "airstrikes" where. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A GROSS imbalance in sourcing

Relying entirely on Israeli sources is a bit like using only Indonesian refs for the conflict in East Timor, or German sources for the invasion of Poland. Extreme bias is very obviously inevitable.

There should be warnings to this effect throughout the article. Trachys (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Add them. RomaC (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, look at what the sources are saying, if there are other RS that dispute what 'Israeli sources' say, then add that. But we cannot just reject a source because it is Israeli. Nableezy (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I added (pro)Palestinian sources (all with Wikipedia entries) to External Links but someone removed them, no reason offered? Trachys (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-Israeli sources. Read the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, most U.S. and British sources rely very heavily on Israeli government and IDF sources. Read their articles. Trachys (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What? There is plenty of anti-Israeli bias in media, in fact, there's probably more bias against than for. This article proves that case, so stop making an issue that doesn't exist. Plugging in advocacy sites (like Palestine News Network) or "news" organizations that follow less journalistic rules than a blog just to even out pro-Israeli sources is not going to fly and will be removed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as we cannot summarily dismiss a source because it is Israeli, we also cannot dismiss one because it is Arab or Palestinian. We cannot arbitrarily say that because a news organization is Palestinian then they "follow less journalistic rules than a blog." That said, having a wikipedia entry does nothing to prove whether or not a source is reliable, I propose we list them here and examine each. Nableezy (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say just because a source is of Palestinian or Arab origin inherently means overt bias, but come'on man. Arab and Palestinian media is a sham at best, and I'm being generous here. Just because something is Arab doesn't mean we should be blind and automatically respect it. Go ahead, list a Palestinian source, and I will gladly tear it apart and prove its unbearable bias. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of Arab media that gets high praise, such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyya. I could say the same about some of the American media, Israeli media. We should be looking for 3 things I think, what the Israelis are saying is happening, what the Palestinians are saying is happening, and what the rest of the world is saying actually happened. How else do you expect to get an idea for what the Palestinian people feel if you completely disregard their media? And just because something is Arab does not mean we should be blind and refuse to respect it. I don't know what sources were being used here, I didn't add any to this article except bbc, reuters, cnn, and iht. But just saying that the entire Arab and Muslim world do not have any media that is any higher on the totem pole than a blog (of which many pro-Israeli ones are used in sources across wikipedia) is just plain wrong. Like I said, if there is a problem with a particular source, it really should be discussed before being removed. Nableezy (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement that there's an imbalance in sourcing. The US, UK and Israel are allies in the middle east. The US contributes billions of dollars of military aid to Israel. The populations of the US, UK and Europe have been engaged, whether in perception or reality, whether due to propaganda and mass manipulation or not, in a "war on terror" in which Muslims and Arabs have been the prime enemy. Therefore in the absence of empirical evidence, it is absolutely valid to assume that Western and Israeli sources may be biased against the Gazans and particularly Hamas. To assume anything else would be adopt a de facto pro-Israeli bias. In addition, dismissing all Arab media as "non-reliable" without evidence or comparison with what we do regard as reliable, is thinly veiled racism and cultural imperialism. It simply relies on the chauvanistic and racist assumption that Muslim and Arab societies are culturally backward (and in fact, the Israeli propagandists know this is their best method of justifying the IDF's atrocities). Maybe Arab-Muslim sources are less reliable than Western media, but it is not Wikipedia's right to make that value based judgment without critical balance. No source is perfect. Presumed and normative ideas of "reliability" must be sacrificed if it is the only way to provide any political balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.200.221 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the muslims ARE both culturally and economically backwards. Only a fool would deny that. Please don't abuse the word racism, it's completely irrelevant here. This is about culture and religion. Compare any relevant factors such as illiteracy, honour killings, treatment of women and you will see that muslims are hundreds of years behind the west. Naturally the War On Terror is against muslims since 99% of all terrorists are muslims. It's the most violent religion on Earth. Whereever there are muslims there is war, this is the nature of this religion. You cannot deny that. Can you name one peaceful democratic islamic country(and no, Turkey doesn't count, it's ruled by the secular military)? This is one of the main reasons that we cannot find reliable medias in the middle east. There is no democratic tradition. So we have to use what we can find. Since the IDF has such a colossal media apparatus, lots of the sources we use will be from there. Until the muslim world starts producing some serious news reporting, we have to rely on that. It won't make things better if we include some of the typical "The IsrAelis are evil zIoNists funded by tHe great sAtan!!" arab reporting. This will just mess up the article. At least the Israeli reporting is serious and relativily neutral. T.R. 87.59.101.51 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be an abusive and ignorant racist on talk pages, thanks.--G-Dett (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Let's review the WP:Lead section again for what is expected of us: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.

This is why I moved material about the planning, as well as the casualties, to their respective sections, ie to maintain the concise as opposed to verbose aspect of the lead. The lead must establish context, which is why it is necessary to include Israel's perspective/justification. Both perspectives must also be included under the umbrella of "notable controversies." Feel free to add any lead concerns to this section. TALK page is getting rather long. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page is getting long. You said: "it is necessary to include Israel's perspective/justification" in the lead. I disagree, it is important to introduce the article with the W5 - who did what, where and why? As it is we do mention the Israeli motivation. Any more and it becomes POV-pushing. Already, in an article about a military superpower dropping hundreds of tons of bombs, the first weapon mentioned is the Qassam. RomaC (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IF the article were only about Operation Cast Lead without any perspective or context, then you might have an argument. Since it is about a conflict (ie 2 sides), then you do not. Leaving out the perspective of one side is POV-pushing. Read the section above again. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead is misleading and just plain wrong:

• :"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to an ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas which began when the Israeli Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yitzokeh), against targets in the Gaza Strip."

The conflict did not begin when Israel launched airstrikes! It was well before that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't that be the more general Gaza–Israel conflict? Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We have to draw a line somewhere. -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was not about a "conflict" until the title was changed a few hours ago. Before that it was about Israel's most audacious concentrated airstrikes against Gaza in decades. That should be the focus, if a few unguided homemade fertilizer bombs are to be given 50% of the ink here, then we need a fork to a new article. Or to find a more specific title for this article. RomaC (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be moved to Operation Cast Lead. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It seemed people felt the scope of this article should be a two-way conflict. But, if it's now just a one-way event, then this needs to be moved somewhere else (e.g. "Operation Cast Lead") because "conflict" is not an appropriate word. But I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole; everyone appeared on the same page twenty-four hours ago. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please indent correctly. To whom are you responding? -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? You have indented the same way I have. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see it now: I'll say it again, when the events warrant, due to their volume, a WP:SUMMARIZE breakdown might happen, and then an article named "Operation Cast Lead" might make sense. I re-read my original explanation and see no grounds for confusion on this point, its pretty much verbatim what I just said (well I also said something about a ground offensive that hasn't happened yet). I thought you agree with what I had said, but I see this is unfortunately not the case.

However, clearly POV motivated forking (I hardly think those on the recieving end call the strike "audacious") , like what RomanC just called for, is out of bounds. There is no deadline, and these events are unfolding. Could we have more patience and more productive conversations with more clarity and less soapboxing? Or do we want a POV War just because we can have it and its our hobby?--Cerejota (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I am not going to answer that question. Honestly. -- tariqabjotu 05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I honestly didn't know because I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The new lead is not acceptable -- edits have removed type of aircraft, removed casualty count, and now describe the most aggressive airstrikes against Gaza in decades as a "flareup." This is what happens when we allow the specific airstrike campaign to be dragged into the context of a sprawling "two-sided conflict." The airstrikes warrant their own article, this is not that article anymore. RomaC (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Tundrabuggy you have been warned for disruptive editing, please don't change the entire lead. RomaC (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, explain to me again why the military hardware used on a conflict is important to the lead? In fact, to the article? We have an article that details the military hardware of the IDF, both now and in history. And I tell you this as someone with a lot of interest in military hardware and history. Readers of this article who ar einterested in such matters will find it easily in the "See Also".

Casualty counts? Why do we have an infobox? Cause its pretty?

"Flareup" is a journo term that borders on the peacock side of euphemism, but you just change it , no need for getting all upset.

Lastly, this is hardly disruptive editing, and stop the chest humping. If you think someone is doing disruption, as here. If not, go into Dispute Resolution. But I find continous posturing and ill-will more disruptive than the contentious editing. This is a wiki, this is a controversial topic, and this is a current event. Shit will change. Deal with it. --scope (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I believe wikified specific information is better than general information -- the first graph has a link to info on Qassam rocket attacks, I linked to info on F-16s. Also, if you look back you'll see that Tundrabuggy had blanked the entire lead and replaced it with his own rewritten version, without getting any consensus on Talk. "Chest-humping"? ;-) RomaC (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Then revert him, and argue for that. I agree on wikilinked information is great, but this is the lead/intro/lede, not the article. There is no reason why the intro needs to be made even bigger by the inclusion of information that might belong elsewhere in the article. It is as simple as that. "Chest-humping" is "you have been warned for disruptive editing". Why? because unless he does it three times in 24 hours, its not disruptive, and besides, how disruptive it is to revert if you feel it was against consensus? Lastly, the version you support has not been discussed as final, either. --Cerejota (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I agree with much of what you've done and said on this page, but I don't want to be another of the people here you are arguing with, so maybe it's best if I handle things my way and you handle things your way. One thing: this article needs a proper title, to set the focus. Right now its scope is much too wide. Another thing, this is "chest-humping". Did you mean "chest-thumping"? RomaC (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, I did NOT "blank the lead" I re-wrote the first sentence and included the provocation as well. Please do not go warning other editors when you are clearly an involved editor yourself. Indeed you blanked sourced material. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that hyphens dropped on densely populated talk pages sometimes miss their targets. Although by coincidence Operation Chest-humping was one of the names originally considered by the Israeli government (along with Operation Fluffy Bunny, Operation Happy Puppies and Operation by Milton Bradley, the skill game where you're the doctor) it was apparently rejected because the rather salacious term might upset people. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if RomaC had checked my contributions [33], he could easily have seen it was not I who blanked the page and "warned" the correct person. My last contribution to the lead was this one:

• >The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to a flareup in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas which began when the Israel launched a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: ???? ????? ?????, Mivtza Oferet Yitzokeh), against targets in the Gaza Strip in response to an increase of rockets and mortars directed at Israeli communities. 2008 saw 1800 such attacks from Gaza. [34]

which keeps getting reverted (by RomaC and others) to give the impression that this conflict started on December 27th and apparently for no reason whatsoever. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the lead is now thoroughly POV, implying that IDF (not Israel) launched airstrikes after 6 months of planning for no reason whatsoever. In fact, all mention of provocation has been completely cleansed from the lead paragraph!:

• The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to an ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which began when the Israel Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip after planning for over six months.[8] Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is one huge sentence. How is this for a more readable version?

• The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to an ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which intensified following the expiration of a 6-months truce.[8] The Israel Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip following an increase in rocket attacks from Gaza and Hamas. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Do the reliable sources refer to this as "conflict which intensified" in late December? The ones I'm reading (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) seem to be framing this as an "air assault," a "bombing campaign," sometimes a "battle," etc.--G-Dett (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "conflict which reignited"? I know the conflict is mainly a bombing campaign, but there are also rockets and likely a ground invasion, so "conflict" or "battle" would be a broad enough term. 99.156.203.16 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factual accuracy

Neutrality is made abundantly clear, but was placed by Wikifan12345 over the title issue.

However, the factual accuracy tag I don't get. There might be issues here and there, but I don't see in this talk page anyone raising a coherent "factual accuracy" argument, as per WP:AD.

I just gave the article a read, and found bias and neutrality issues (in particular, use of partisan sources, and lack of verifiability), found it is ugly, etc. But accuracy of factual claims? Nope, not a single one.

Anything that is stated as a fact, verifies as such pretty quickly.

Since this is the case, I am removing the "factual accuracy" tagging, and will do so under "snowball", unless an explanation for its placing is given, so we can fix the inaccurate information.

If the issue is with an specific line or piece of information, rather than with multiple items in multiple sections, WP:AD provides a betetr way to handle that, similar to the {{fact}} tag. That is the {{dubious}} tag. You can use this tag to mark specific inaccuracies so they can be fixed. Better yet, use the tag with {{dubious|section}} which allows you to point to the place in the talk page, using the "section" name.

For example:

“ Pie are the best desert. ”

Points to the "Pie is the best?" section below.

If the tag is placed as a general protest, that is unhelpful. The purpose of tagging is to fix the article until tags can be removed. This is expedited by raising specific issues.

I hope we can do this, because we really need a good article and we can do it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pie is the best?

If you click "discuss" above, it'll bring you here

Of course! Because I say so. I said so, so it must be true.--Livebythepie

No way, ice cream is best.--Iscream4icecream

Butter pie, naturally. doktorb _words^deeds 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss below here

I added the Factual accuracy tag yesterday or the day before as there have been many examples (as the whole talk page above shows) where certain parts of the article have been worded certain ways because of bias which results in factual inaccuracy. There were multiple issues and i didnt see the problem with adding another warning to this article just so people do not take everything included as correct. The articles been improved alot since then so its no longer the problem it was. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis

There should probably be a section on the unfolding humanitarian crisis. That there is nothing in the lead about it is strange. And it's weird to be five full sections and thousands of words into the article and then discover, in a sentence that isn't even a paragraph topic sentence, that "A United Nations relief agency has said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire and on the brink of catastrophe."--G-Dett (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nonsense of Palestenian accusation of geneocide and war crimes

From the article:

Furthermore, arguing that Palestinians are guilty of terrorism, war crimes and genocide (under the Genocide convention), Israel has a legal duty to prevent and punish Hamas' rocket attacks, and cut off aid to the Palestinians. It also has the right to impose economic sanctions and conduct a full-scale assault on the Gaza Strip. They also state that countries must refrain from charging Israel of violating International Law, fulfill their own legal obligations, and take measures to prevent Palestinian war crimes, terrorism and genocidal efforts.

This is extremely biased to be even digested. Let's not forget that Israel is an occupying force. It's enough to compare the UN 1948 partition plan with the current Israel map which shows:

- 33 settlements in the supposedly Palestinian land.

- Zapping Palestinians from their cities, given by the UN, to Gaza strip by force.

- The cut of Palestinian land to two un-connected pieces.

The paragraph was like a terrorist saying that all Israelis should not have the right to exist. It's bothering when the Palestinian news network was accused of extreme bias while the above statement, just because it was said in a politically tidy manner, be accepted in Wikipedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why I suggested to delete the legal section, see: [35]. If the stand of a princeton professor (nonsense to some) made its way to the article, why not the stand of a Uconn professor (nonsense to others)? This is endless, counterproductive, and this is why this section should be deleted altogether.--Omrim (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And I don't see any point in responding to your specific comments, as it will create exactly the kind of "discussion" we're trying to avoid in an informative (rahter than interpretative) article. --Omrim (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff by this Jerusalem-based lawyer about genocide etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I undid it, since the issue is still being discussed. Please lets try to reach a consensus.--Omrim (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete this fringe view. Delete the entire legal section. It's basically an "opinion" section for lawyers. RomaC (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! finally someone!--Omrim (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please respond to the suggestion to delete the legal section here:Suggestion to delete the legal section altogether. Thanks, --Omrim (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockets Hit Ashkelon

As I am about to go to bed, I cannot add this story anywhere but a Sky News link is - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Rockets-Hit-Ashkelon-As-Israeli-Bombing-Continues-After-Hamas-Commander-Nizar-Rayan-Dies-In-Blast/Article/200901115196480?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15196480_Rockets_Hit_Ashkelon_As_Israeli_Bombing_Continues_After_Hamas_Commander_Nizar_Rayan_Dies_In_Blast_

doktorb _words^deeds 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)