Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Casualties

the only source for Israeli casualties is a Hamas source [1] , we should wait for the IDF report or a more natural one and not be used as a tool in the Hamas's psychological warfare. --217.132.189.80 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why were Israeli injured civilians (from rockect attacks, about 60 if I rememeber correctly) removed form the casualties figures?--Omrim (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

30 Israeli soldiers were injured

Resolved

can someone add it to the table? here is the source [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.189.80 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would, but the site you indicate, does not mention such information. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct sources are Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post I have added them. Debresser (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Legislative Council building

The photo for the Palestinian Legislative Council building in the article in Rmallah in West Bank not in Gaza, Please can some one add that--84.13.120.243 (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Multiple options — Lets discuss in an organized fashion. — Cerejota (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tone

This discussion appears to be getting rather heated. Please remember WP:EQ when posting. Couchcommander (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

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

Add your own proposals if you do not like the current ones using the same format.

Proposals

As of January 5th at 12:36am UTC, 7 out of 9 users supported the name "Operation Cast Lead" and 4 out of 7 users opposed the current name. I think it is fair to say that it needs to be seriously considered at this point that "Operation Cast Lead" be the new name of the article. Please continue to state your proposals. Coreywalters06 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This conclusion lacks any methodology, and is another manifestation of the serious rewinding-function illness that some users are suffering from. The count of users dedicating themselves to the support of a doctrine of thought is unsignificant as long as there is a good deal of worthy criticism against it that is not (in any way!) refuted. No consensus can at all be reached in this environment of mediocre communication! People just repeat what they just said over and over again with no addition or further argumentation, and no ability whatsoever to know whether someone has refuted their argument or as how to systematically refute others' argument. This title has a very clear and a very well laid out neutrality problem. How do you respond to this? (briefly and convincingly please, and don't tell me like one other guy said that Israel "itself" named it such) 94.99.58.164 (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Currrent name is fine. (If it's fine, why are we debating the name?)

• Oppose - The situation has escalated with the ground incursion and the name is to vague. I always held it as a temporary placeholder and one of the conditions has changed.--Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Even though the ground invasion by the Israeli forces is currently underway, Hamas is still launching rockets at many Israeli cities the past few days. The title should remain as it. Even I read CNN was labeling this conflict as Crisis in the Middle East, which I think is too vague. --Roman888 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support-It involves two side so it is a conflict.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - As User:Tomtom9041 said, it involves two sides, so it is a conflict. And while there is battling between the two sides, it isn't a War because War would traditionally be fought by 2 countries/states. It might be "a war on Hamas" from Israeli POV, but objectively looking at the issue, it's definitely a conflict between the two sides. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 17:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not only is the current title very long, but it is also seems to be an understatement. Hamas has pledged a fight to the death and Israel has called for "all out war" against Hamas. It is not appropriate to call it the Israel-Gaza war because Israel has not declared war against Gaza; they have declared war against Hamas. This is not a conflict, its a huge military operation and a war. I think that Operation Cast Lead is much more appropriate as it is what Israel itself has called this operation and is much more commonly used in media. You don't see people on CNN saying "And now, more breaking news on the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Coreywalters06 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's indeed underestimating what is going on. However the problem with the IDF operation name title is that it isn't neutral since it's the name given by one of the two "conflicting" parties to the event. That is, Israel "itself" calling it something doesn't mean that this has become "the" name of this historic event. People collectivley will reach consensus on the name later after the attack is finished. This problem with the IDF operation name title is inherent and cannot be fixed. Hence, we have for the time being to resort to a descriptive title, which is the current context of the conflict word. I think that this word underestimates as well as obscures the very nature of the event. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It was never the right title for what is happening, this is not an "escalation" this is an air, sea and ground attack of unprecedented ferocity. RomaC (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for now at a later date we could consider using this title, but at the moment I recommend we refer to it as "Operation Cast Lead", which is (IMO) the most neutral and unambiguous description we can use.
• Support most neutral name.VR _talk 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Only neutral name suggested so far. --Omrim (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The word conflict is meant to emphasize a state of disagreement that is more predominent that its sparse manifesting events. This article is not about the conflict between any two parties or any two organizations. It's about one specific, massive military manifestation of one long-running conflict. Any descriptive title resorted to at this time for the lack of a common name approved by the press (a neutral name, not an operational name given by one of the two conflicting parties), will have to indicate this very nature of the event, that being of an attack. Refusing to have this basic, fair and objective indication is questionable. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War

Sources do use this in their headlines, and it has significantly jumped in use since the ground invasion started.

• Support - This is what this is and what it will be called in ten years. This event is way different than other related warfare. In fact, the Israeli leadership has called it "all-out war", something they do not tend to do. --Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment How do you know it "will be called [that] in ten years"? 86.149.56.215 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - Are we really in a rush to change the name? "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" is a descriptive title and not the proper name of an event. But Israel-Gaza War is a name. So it seems inappropriate to unilaterally label this the Israel-Gaza War on Wikipedia until a significant number of published sources start calling it that. 72.66.67.46 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think 'war' is an appropriate term to use. This is not a conflict between two sovereign states. Gaza is just a city in the Gaza Strip and by itself can't be at war with anyone. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the above argument - Gaza is not a state. Plus there has been no declaration of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the above argument, Gaza in itself wields no sovereign power, and despite what it will be called 10 years from now, at present it is prudent to abide by logical and well founded definitions of a "state". --Nerd.cubed (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now - until both fighting parties start calling it that way.--Omrim (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose deadly enough conflict, but it is not being fought between two countries per se. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -The Israeli parliament, the Kenesset did not formally declare war against Hamas run Gaza territory, it was labeled a military operation, with Hamas firing back the best description would be an armed conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.241 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The labeling of a military conflict as a "war" is a politically-charged issue in Israel, as seen in the debate in that country over whether to call the 2006 Lebanon War a "war" or not. This conflict has not been officially designated a war, and nor is it correct to speak of a "war" against Gaza. Gaza is a territory, not a political entity or armed group. Calling it the Israel-Hamas war would be no better because other armed Palestinian groups are involved apart from Hamas. Using the name of the Israeli military operation avoids these problems. -- Noung (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Gaza Offensive/Israeli Offensive in Gaza

Perhaps this is the solution.

• It is non POV
• It is being increasingly used by news reports eg. 'Israel continues its offensive'

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support It's descriptive (originally factual I modified it), objective, and reflecting more upon the very nature of the event. Israel did attack Gaza in an attempt to destroy Hamas. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - one sided. Israel didn't woke-up one shiny day and decided to attack. Such title depicts Israel as the aggressor here - an issue which is highly controversial. Even the EU presidency called it a "defensive" action. --Omrim (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Counter-argument: Apparently this is what you feel upon reading the proposed title, but that is not necessarily what it means. This is a factual description, i.e., it has nothing to do with whether the offensive (the aggressive attack) is justified or not. It's an attack, and it's admittedly aggressive (250 people killed in the first day). What this title tells about Israel is that it's the initiator. Note that it can still be the "good guy" while being the one to "take the offensive". It's not one-sided, it's a neutral, objective title that is not as "high-level" or as vague as the conflict title (conflict must refer to a continuous state of disagreement that is more predominent than its sparse manifestation events, rather than one massive military manifestation of a long-running conflict). 94.99.58.164 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Does that mean we have to change the Yom Kippur War to "Arab forces assault to Israel", and the six days war to "Israeli assault on arab air fields"? Also, this "assault" has a name (operation cast lead), this is also very factual - why not use its real name? Why not call it "asaullt on Gaza in response to rockets attacks"? (also factual). Bottom line: "conflict" also depicts facts, but without resorting to POV.--Omrim (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • You can't refute a good argument in an article only by bringing examples of other articles that seem not to conform to the stated criterion. The Wikipedia is so free that it isn't even restricted by its own content (for reasons other than consistency and notation, which still can't stand in front of a good argument). Hence, please stop citing meaningless examples... If you have a point then state your point directly. I didn't say it was an "assault", since the word assault most often has some implication with regard to the morality of the act (moral correctness). Offensive only means "aggressive attack" (when used as a noun), which is how it's very different, it's only descriptive. Saying that "Operation Cast Iron" is factual (aka discriptive) is absurd... I do not understand how you didn't see that. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - one sided and thus POV. NoCal100 (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - What people feel it means is what it means. If you get a different vibe from it than someone else, it isn't a good title because it's not neutral enough. A truly neutral title would give every reader the same feeling. Whether such titles actually exist I have no idea, but we should still strive for it. The discussion here indicates that different people are getting different vibes from the title. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree to "What people feel it means is what it means." If you get a different vibe from it than someone else, it isn't a good title because it's not neutral--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The only requirements in a nominated decriptive title is that it be accurate and do not judge the attacks morally (be neutral) which is why the word offensive was used. The word offensive, as a noun, which is derived from the following meaning of the adjective: "(a) aggressive, attacking. (b) (of a weapon) meant for use in attack", means one of the following: (1) An attack, an aggressive campaign or stroke (2) aggressive or forceful action in persuit of a cause. With all my respect, these feeling-oriented complaints aren't of any value. Saying that the word is not descriptive enough and that it involves judging the attacks can always be verified. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - very one sided. okedem (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please stop echoing each other's argument. Repeating an argument a thausand times doesn't make it sound more conceptually impressive. Plus, if someone had to refute this he will have to do it only once, so why repeat and repeat and repeat... 94.99.58.164 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The attacks are one sided. The Allied Forces didn't "wake up one day" and decide to bomb Dresden, but nonetheless the article is called "Bombing of Dresden," because that's what happened. We can't frame this how we want to we have to reflect reality. RomaC (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per POV concerns, also it's a bit too long. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In your world this counts as ... "argument"?? Plus, I am quite embarrassed to note this out, but the "/" is used to separate two distinct proposed titles, that is, not the whole line is the title. Given that this is clear, how can the "2008-2009 Offensive on Gaza" be "too long"? Especially that the 2008-2009 part is expected to be replaced with a better temporal qualification when the attack is finished? 94.99.58.164 (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Hamas conflict

• The "Israel-Gaza" is a POV title because it implies that Hamas' claim that this operation is against the people of Gaza (or Gaza itself...) is true. The operation was started as (and still is) an offensive against Hamas, and (almost) all sources agree on that. Actually I support "Operation Cast Lead" but it seems that it's too controversial, so I suggest this as a temporary fix. PluniAlmoni (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • From what I know Hamas is active in Hebron, yet there's no war in Hebron, so this wouldn't be very accurate.VR _talk 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • True, Hamas is also present in the West Bank. That doesn't mean that there isn't a conflict between Hamas and Israel - a conflict (and even a war) may happen even only in a single front. PluniAlmoni (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And Israeli-Hamas conflict is the one-sided POV that the Israeli offensive is against Hamas and not against Gaza, most sources I have seen describe it as an Israel-Gaza conflict. Nableezy (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a hard topic, but the Prime Minister of Israel has said that they are targeting Gaza's government, Hamas, not the people of Gaza. So if by Gaza you mean the government, thats fine. If by Gaza you mean the people, thats different. People say POV this, POV that...I say that the casualty rates show that this is not an attack on the Gazan people, but rather on the Government. If it were an attack on the people we would see much less discretion on Israel's part and there would be many more civilians dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreywalters06 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support The terms Israel and Hamas both denote organizations of people whereas the term Gaza refers to a place. A place, being an inanimate object, cannot be involved in a conflict as that would require it have some form of sentience. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is not proper English, long story short, regardless of its frequency of use. Couchcommander (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Isn't the Islamic Jihad, a group distinct from Hamas, also involved in the conflict?VR _talk 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As VR points out, Hamas is not the only group involved in the conflict on the Palestinian side; indeed, once Israeli forces enter Gaza we have no way of knowing the organizational affiliation of those firing on them. This problem can be avoided by using the name of the military operation, as below. -- Noung (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose POV, the attacks are against Gaza, not against a political party. This is framing for a particular POV, when already we know that perhaps half the Palestinian dead are civilians. RomaC (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By saying that the attacks are against Gaza you certainly show your POV. The facts however go to show that it is against the Government, Hamas, not against Gaza. The Israeli Prime Minister has made it very clear that their goal is to obliterate the Hamas terrorist group. If Israel was targeting civilians, we would not see the discretion of Israel's rocket targets and civilian casualties would be much higher. Also, Israel dropped leaflets to warn civilians to leave. So how can you say that they are targeting them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreywalters06 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose pr Noung above. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Is this article about the long-running state of disagreement between Hamas and Israel? At least for the length of time of the Gaza blockade (eighteen months)? No. Rather, it's about one massive military manifestation, or one major consequence of this conflict. Refusing to state the very nature of the event (that of an attack) is questionable. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead

Major events like this take place among the background of constant conflict between groups in Gaza and Israel, but the notable aspect here is the major Israeli military operation. In my opinion the article ought to be named Operation Cast Lead and their ought to be a separate article Israel-Gaza conflict to which articles like this are subsidiary and which contextualize them more fully. Naming it after the Israeli military operation is not POV, it merely represents the fact that this was the most significant event - it was, after all, what precipitated the creation of this article. Operation Cast Lead is also by far the most widely-used term in the media to describe the event, and is its official name. Naming the article 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict makes it sound like the article is going to be a description of the entire conflict in the period 2008 - 2009, which presumably it is not. That belongs elsewhere. -- Noung (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This article is about the operation and its development and the reactions to it. Why not call it in it's name? It's the same as Operation Hot Winter. The current title suggests to readers that this article is about the entire 2008-2009 time frame. PluniAlmoni (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. That the editors at Operation Hot Winter disregard that guideline means they have a problem, it doesn't mean we should emulate their ignoring the guideline. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - For all the reasons stated above. ~Asarlaí 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - For reasons above. It is also much easier to say and understand. "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" is way too long. Also, this is not a conflict between Gaza and Israel. It is a conflict between Hamas and Israel. Israel's objectives are to take as few civilian lives as possible and destroy Hamas. Some may even argue that this operation was started by Israel and therefore, anything else that happens as a direct result is a counter-attack to Israel's "Operation Cast Lead". That is why I think we should use this title. Coreywalters06 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. It addresses all your points, speaking against them.--Cerejota (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - As noted above. As a side note, the Israeli operation is clearly against Hamas and not Gaza, otherwise we'd see 500K casualties rather than just 500 (Mostly Hamas affiliated). Still, The operation is supposedly against Hamas but there are other "resistance" (read: martyrdom seeking) groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad - so the best title would be 'Cast Lead' as it avoids the entire Arab claim that the attack is on the civilians and the Israeli claim that they are doing their best to focus on Hamas alone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So you admit to clearly WP:POVFORKing? You support the name change because "it avoids the entire Arab claim that the attack is on the civilians and the Israeli claim that they are doing their best to focus on Hamas alone". That you feel so emboldened as to make such a transparent attack against neutrality is sad commentary on the state of WP:NPOV in Wikipedia today.--Cerejota (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I now agree this is the most accurate title that's possible given the complicated nature of this affair.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. There is no reason we cannot find in the RS/V some other title, In fact, I proposed one that is mentioned more that the Operation name, which is "War". Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Still not what most media are calling it, also using the name used by one side is POV-pushing. RomaC (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree that using the name of the military operation is POV-pushing. Whatever your opinion on the situation, no-one can deny that the IDF has launched a military operation called Operation Cast Lead. That is a fact. We enter the realm of opinion as soon as we try to assign a different name to this series of events because we then have to justify this name in some way, and this justification involves our opinions; using the given name of the operation is as NPOV as can be. Especially if the background and contextual events are fleshed out elsewhere. -- Noung (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that its why Operation Cast Lead redirects to this article and should continue to do so. It happened, it continues to happen, no one denies it. However, it is one side of the conflict: this operation is against someone, isn't it? So you are saying we should *ignore* the peopel against whom this operation is, and provided an inherently biased view, based on the fact that one side started it. That makes no sense whatsoever. And since the media is giving it much more names than the operation name, which they have overwhelmingly ignored, we have other options that recognize the fact of the Operation Cast Lead, you are basically calling for a WP:POVFORK. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes I understand that however Wikipedia has clear precedents for using what most RS are calling an event rather than what one involved party is calling it. RomaC (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • But this is not just calling it what one involved party is calling it, it is referring to a historical fact. The IDF launching Operation Cast Lead is now historical fact, and no-one on either side can deny that the IDF launched an operation called Cast Lead. It happened, and it precipitated the creation of this Wikipedia article, of which it is the main subject. And for this reason it seems to be the firmest basis for an article name, to me. -- Noung (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, Noung, I am now leaning to the creation of a whole new article called "Operation Cast Lead" which will actually focus on the specific attacks. As it is, the largest Israeli assault on Gaza in decades, which has been top page news for over a week, does not have a Wiki entry. The current article is a synthesis and blatantly original research. RomaC (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support The description of this as a two-way conflict has been far too problematic without an article titled "Operation Cast Lead". We can make this a sub-article of the larger Israeli-Gaza conflict, and move some of the background into the parent article. I have already explained in previous discussions why I don't think this particular name is "point-of-view", but I will add that the name of the operation ("Cast Lead") is vague enough to not be problematic (i.e. not something like "Operation Kill Terrorists"). -- tariqabjotu 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Tatiq above, though I'm not sure if I would support or oppose making "Operation Cast Lead" into a sub-article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  We already have a parent article Gaza–Israel conflict. -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, I thought you were referring to making this into two different articles - one for the airstrike, one for the invasion. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -POV. Operation Cast Lead is a term used by one side of the conflict which is Israel, The other side which is Hamas, Palestinian administration (PNA) and the Arab world calls it "Israel agression" both are POV and thus not neutral terms. The best term is conflict.
  • Disagree as above. -- Noung (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Also Disagree. Of course they're going to call it aggression. The best term is what Israel has called it. There is no "point of view" about it. It is what it is. Its absolutely asinine to say otherwise. Operation Cast Lead IS the operation. I don't understand what is so "POV" about it. If the United States launched an operation called "The Manhattan Project" you wouldn't argue about the point of view. The Project IS the Manhattan Project. Its not that complicated.Coreywalters06 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • INVALID EXAMPLE ALARM: Manhattan Project was not a military Operation, but a scientific one. A more relevant example would be Invasion of Grenada, for which the Operation code-name Operation Urgent Fury is a redirect. If you read that article, you will see that teh reason for the naming is not even neutrality, its RS/V issues.
    • This is not for us to discuss Also, be advised that in fact WP:MILMOS#CODENAME counsels against naming articles for the Operation name of one side of a given situation, unless Historians commonly use it, precisely because it has the effect of potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other.
    • Lastly, calling people asinine is not exactlly civil behavior. Please reafrain from doing so. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that your personal opinions are interfering with your judgment. I never called anyone asinine. I simply said that it was asinine to think in such a way. You need to learn to differentiate between the two. Thanks! Coreywalters06 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hai, sophism is asinine. BTW, what are my "personal opinions"? --Cerejota (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I'm done arguing with you. You think you're all high and mighty and the best. You're a stubborn, ignorant fool. And in computer terms that you might understand, your opinions are "read-only"; no one could possibly try to use logic or ethics to change your mind. Thanks! Coreywalters06 (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am always willing to talk and be convinced. Just not by people who call my ideas "asinine" out of the blue. --Cerejota (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • From your statement above "The best term is what Israel has called it" this is exactly what POV is, Isreali POV. Also Manhattan project has no resemblance to this issue neither in nature nor in this context.
• Strong oppose - If we are going to wipe our asses with the WP:NPOV policy and impose systemic bias, might as well call it Black Saturday massacre, which is the Palestinian name for it. Israel called it something, the Palestinians call it something else, and the media has given us plenty of options. To continue to insist on this name is to continue to impose a point of view over the other. Period. I can't believe the blatant disregard for one side of the conflict I am seeing: regardless of what side you take in your personal opinions, we must write a neutral encyclopedia. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wiping our asses with NPOV? Sorry, I didn't realize you were the arbiter of what's neutral. If you can be realistic for a moment, certainly you can see how "Black Saturday massacre" is far more sensationalist than "Operation Cast Lead". Your repeated hints that this has something to do with the political opinions of certain editors is unfortunate and unproductive. We tried the WP:MILMOS suggestion of describing the where and when of the conflict; it's not working. As I said earlier, MILMOS appears to be written with the assumption that it will be applied to locations where conflicts don't this frequently and indiscreetly. That's only the case here if we talk about the Gaza-Israel conflict since 2005 (which, as you can see, uses the location formula). But, when we start to get more specific, we get titles like the current one, that just don't make sense; from the title alone, someone who is familiar with the ongoing operation may have no idea its referring to this particular operation rather than the longstanding Gaza-Israel conflict. Changing "conflict" to "war" just isn't going to fix that. -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree the "masacre" name is more melodramatic, but my opinion is irrelevant. If Hamas wants to be more melodramatic than the IDF, their problem. Am nto about to start giving them PR tips. What is relevant is that it is one of the names of the conflict, given by one side of the conflict.
    • I am not an arbiter, its common sense: There are two sides, Side A, and Side B. Ok? Side A calls the conflict "X". Side B calls it conflict "Y". The media in general calls it N, M, P, Q, and to lesser level X and even less Y. Neutrality and non-bias eliminate X and Y as possible titles, but we still have N, M, P, and Q to choose from. Your position is like advocating calling the conflict X, which would take the side of Side A, wittingly or unwittingly.
    • I haven't questioned people's motivation except when they make them an issue themselves y their comments (for example, Jaakobou, up here). I hate soapboxing. With a passion. From wathever side. If I wanted to discuss these topics in depth, I would go to a blog somewhere. But I want to write an encyclopedia, call me crazy.
    • As to trying MILMOS, I disagree we have tried hard enough, there are many alternatives that reliable sources provide and we either don't accept them or insist on the codename. We want to sacrifice neutrality in the altar of shortness. And while you do have a reasonable point on the assumptions of the MILMOS people why don't we ask them? Perhaps they have a solution? That said, if someone unfamiliar with the conflict, doesn't know this article includes Operation Cast Lead when reading the first sentence of the lede (regardless of title, well, they deserve to go back to school, and I am putting it midly (are you serious? This is by far the weakest argument I have heard supporting the operation name, and you tend to be solid.) If they know the operation name, if you google search this article is the first hit for it, even before the IDF's own website. That is a thriumph, because while the IDF's website will never be neutral, this article has to be neutral.--Cerejota (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

      I said someone familiar with the topic, not unfamiliar with the topic. The title does not describe what the article is about, and even if someone knowledgeable about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what has been happening in Gaza were to visit an article with this title, they might be surprised by what they're reading about. The title does not match the content.

      There are a variety of things that go into the name of an article, and neutrality is only one of them (especially if the argument for bias is as weak as it is here). That why we get names like the Yom Kippur War. Perhaps this is less than ideal, but until the world decides on a more polished name, I think this is best we can do. I'm not going to explain again and again why I don't believe "Operation Cast Lead" is biased, but your statement that it is so, as if that is self-evident, is off the mark. -- tariqabjotu 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

      • I would also like to add, on the issue of precedent, that numerous other military operations launched by the IDF in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon use military codenames because it is the easiest way to differentiate the article's precise content from the many other articles about the conflicts involved. Are we going to rename Operation Days of Penitence "September 2004 assault on Gaza? And Operation Hot Winter to "February 2008 assault on Gaza"? And will Operation Autumn Clouds be renamed November 2006 assault on Gaza? And what about Operation Accountability and Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon? There again, the articles concern single campaigns in long conflicts, and wisely use the military codename to differentiate them from the conflict as a whole. Otherwise we will end up with a tangled, confused mess of articles. As for why this is not "NPOV", I do not think there is much more that can be said. I do not see how this is a problem if we include the background and more detailed information on developments on the Palestinian side prior to the operation in a separate article, and I am not inclined to simply adhere to WP:MILMOS#CODENAME where there are so many examples of it being violated fruitfully elsewhere. -- Noung (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - that would mean that this article is about Israeli attacks, and not preceding Palestinian rocket fire. I don't think we can look at the article from only the perspective of the Israeli military operations only, which is what "Operation Cast Lead" implies.VR _talk 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I admit that when I'm looking for this article I type "Operation Cast Lead" into the address bar of my browser, but that's mainly because it's easier to remember than the current title. I don't think "Operation Cast Lead" satisfies NPOV, though and do not think it should be the actual title of this article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Noung, and it just creates too much confusion when we need to draw a line between articles like 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, and 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict (which is likely to be merged) and the more general Gaza–Israel conflict. This article describes what Israel finally does to stop Hamas from attacking it, within all this conflict. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This article describes what Israel finally does to stop Hamas from attacking it This action is niether the first nor the last in the series of actions Israel has taken and will take in the future, so it doesn't qualify as final, also it is not known at this point if it will stop Hamas or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.241 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I never said it was either the first or last, and did not mean that Operation Cast Lead is the absolute final thing Israel will ever do to stop attacks from Hamas. Whether or not it is certain that it will stop Hamas has nothing to do with what I said. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • For some reason someone has to repeat this with every breath, even with no one denying it around them. It looks to me as if they on the very inside don't believe it, which is why they need to defend it in front of themselves every 30 seconds. Otherwise why would it make anyone feel bad if we called the event an "attack"? it can still be a good thing! but for some reason it makes them feel bad. I say, this is their problem to have felt bad, the article isn't about them at the end. Moreover, the ones arguing in favour of the Cast Iron title are exactly the same ones whose top favourite complaint is "one sided" and "very one sided", which is very inconsistent, actually, because this is one main, inherent problem with this title. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • "Cast Lead". Whatever the main argument is (one sided, etc.) I think that any other title is not accurate enough and does not represent the article sufficiently. PluniAlmoni (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Winter 2008/9 Israeli Assault on Gaza

More Google news hits for "Gaza assault" than "Gaza conflict." "Assault" is a more specific term therefore more encyclopedic.

• Support Winter 2008/9 is the time; Gaza the place; and air, sea and ground attacks are what has happened. RomaC (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as not quite NPOV. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The word Assault makes Israel sound like the aggressor (POV). Also, the Israeli attacks are targeted towards Hamas, not Gaza.
• Oppose This phrase is one sided (POV) there are two parties to the conflict 1) Israel Defence Force, IDF and state of Israel 2) Hamas and Palestinian militants any phrase should mention both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.241 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only one-sided, but not really supproted by RS/Vs. If we are going to be one sided, lets get Operation Cast Lead over this any time. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per NPOV concerns. We're also assuming here that the conflict will only last the duration of the winter. While a lot of people would like that to be the case, and there is historical basis for Israeli operations only lasting a month or so, I think writing that assumption into the title is shortsighted. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Why does conflict start with a non-capital c, while war starts with a capital W? JVent (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually, "War" is a given name, while "conflict is a mere description. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME - the much more experienced editors at WikiProject Military History have some interesting things to say around using operation names. I offer we should listen to their experience, which transcends the A-I and I-P conflict.

On forking-

There is a difference between a WP:POVFORK and a WP:SUMMARY fork. Please read it. Be careful because what you might be suggesting might be against policy. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. We get it. You don't need to keep linking to arbitrary guidelines and policies. -- tariqabjotu 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are they arbitrary? They are central to this discussion, this article being part of the Military History project and all. What we can't do is arbitrarily ignore them, and push them aside because our opinion doesn't match them. --Cerejota (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet you're allowed to push our viewpoints aside? I understand the Wikipedia Guidelines. But thats what they are. GUIDELINES. Guidelines don't always apply and I think that at many times such as this, they are okay to be broken. Stop acting like a Wiki-Nazi and let everyone share their opinions without being slammed with 20 guidelines and policies. You clearly have your own opinions as well and they are greatly interfering with your discernment during this time. Why did you ask us to share our thoughts on other titles when you have shut every single one down? Once again, I know your profile says that you "act like an administrator even though I'm really not". Well its really starting to tick people off, so unless you're going to be fair and stop letting your opinions interfere with what you say, stop telling us to do so as well. Coreywalters06 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Googletubes test

Search for allintitle:"Operation Cast Lead" - 28 hits, with 20 uniques and 8 of them repeats or variations mostly from rightsidenews.com (which is a right-wing blog).

Search for allintitle:"Gaza War" 136 hits, with only 44 uniques and 92 repeats or variations, including partisan sources such as the Die Jüdische

Doesn't prove anything, but it is interesting that even after more than a week, the "Operation Cast Lead" name doesn't seems to catch on with the RS. I really do not understand the arguments for using this name, over policy, over RS/V, and over common sense.--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Search for allintitle:"Gaza Assault" 1,491 hits. Again, I strongly suggest we respect Wiki policy and call this what the great majority of RS are calling it. RomaC (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I really don't think this proves anything. The media are calling it the "Gaza assault" because it is an assault on Gaza; that is a shorthand term which they can use at the moment because everyone knows what they are referring to because the event is happening right now. But we are an online encyclopedia, not a news organization. Future generations are not going to talk about "the 2008/09 assault on Gaza", they are going to talk about "Operation Cast Lead". Are we going to rename Operation Days of Penitence "September 2004 assault on Gaza? And Operation Hot Winter to "February 2008 assault on Gaza"? And will Operation Autumn Clouds be renamed November 2006 assault on Gaza? And what about Operation Accountability and Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon? There again, the articles concern single campaigns in long conflicts, and wisely use the military codename to differentiate them from the conflict as a whole. Otherwise we will end up with a tangled, confused mess in the name of "objectivity", when in fact we are avoiding the use of the only truly "objective" name available. -- Noung (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when are the police not counted as civilians?

Is this standard? It seems unusual to me. 206.116.188.187 (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be unusual but if thats what our reliable sources say then thats what we say. Of course, if there are reliable sources which discuss the issue of police not being counted as civilians in this conflict and mention it is unusual then we can probably include mention of that int he article Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a good question. I think the reason for this is because reports from Israel do not differentiate between Hamas and the police force of Hamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreywalters06 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since they're hammering military and "security" installations, I think it would be justifiable by this attestment to raise the respective civlian-millitant casuality ratio. --69.217.126.175 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Policemen are not civilians, but effort should be made to distinguish them in the mostcase from Hamas security forces. In my view. Superpie (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All positions should be stated in the Intro

The introduction reads "Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities.[15]". However, this is what Israel claims its motivation is. In a neutral article, the viewpoint of Hamas and others should be stated as well. So I propose the following addition, immediately after this sentence.

"However, Hamas disputes this, asserting [3] that this is a continuation of "Israeli crimes against Palestinians", while others state [4] that the rocket attacks by Hamas were preceded by Israeli raids in Gaza.

Please comment. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would phrase it better, I hate the "However". We should be able to express the point of views of either side rather than as a point/counter-point as a Point A and Point B.

So I say:

Hamas has called the attacks a continuation of "Israel's crimes against Palestinians".[5]

BTW, can we get at least one more source?

What "others think" doesn't need to be on the intro, as it belongs in the reactions section, which is covered by a few lines in the intro already. This is the intro, not the article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas claimed motivation for ending the ceasefire was included in the previous version of the intro:

"A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on December 19; Hamas did not renew it and stated the continued Gaza Strip blockade as the reason."

Here's the wording from an even earlier version:

"A truce between Hamas and Israel ended on December 19th, when Hamas intensified its rocket attacks on Israel. Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the Gaza Strip blockade. Israel says the aim of Operation Cast Lead is to destroy Hamas' capability to launch rockets on Israel."

But this was removed in the new version by Cerejota. I think it is important to have this in the lead, because 1) it establishes a connection to the wider conflict, 2) explains Hamas' point of view on the end of the ceasefire (Israel's point of view is already there.) I'd also like to point out, that the current version of the intro does not mention the six-month truce at all. Any opinions/suggestions? Offliner (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Offliner. In the current version, Israel explanation for its actions is stated unquestioningly. Neutrality demands that Hamas's position be included there. Alternately, we could remove Israel's justification from the introduction. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it's mentioned questioningly or unquestioningly as long as it's mentioned. The matter of whether the Qassam rockets can be taken as a proper motivation of the attack is left to the critical ability of the reader. However, it's clear to me that the introduction is not very well-written, is somehow redundant, and most importantly is far from being balanced with regard to presenting both parties' rationale behind their acts, either it be launching this massive attack on the Gaza strip or keeping on launching the rockets towards the southern Israelian cities. Like said by Jacob and Offliner the Israelian explanation is very well laid out (mentioned three times only in the introduction?) whereas the Hamas justification is only touched upon very briefly. Hamas stand is certainly not to be included in what the "others think"... Hamas is as involved in the "conflict" as Israel is, i.e., It's the other party! You either touch brifly upon the two stands or eliminate both from the introduction. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, my only issue with the truce, is length, it is very important contextually, and the background section shoudl expand on it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

bbc piece (Propaganda war: trusting what we see?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm "Israel has tried to take the initiative in the propaganda war over Gaza but, in one important instance, its version has been seriously challenged." I suggest this gets added to "Public relations campaign and media strategies" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.252 (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this provides a useful insight into how murky claims during a conflict, even with (at first) seemingly conclusive video evidence can be Thefuguestate (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my asking, but don't you think this is pretty much as minor a detail as they come? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and resolution of bias in introduction

We have to get a grip on the introduction. It is going from bad to worse. It now reads like a pice of Israeli propaganda. Almost all mention of the fact that there have been significant civilian casualties in Gaza - which is one of the most important aspects of this conflict - have been removed. I have just reinstated mention of the first day casualties but there is systematic editing of it going on, so that will probably be removed before long.

The intro reads like a list of Israeli military accomplishments.

Could even suggest that the Israeli government has been editing the article (after all, it is known that the CIA edits wikipedia)!

I suggest that an intro is agreed here, possibly based on the version from a couple of days ago. Agree it here, agree any subsequent changes here and if people edit the intro without discussion, agree that such edits should be immediately undone.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No we cannot agree that Israeli foreign signals intelligence service is editing the article. I'm sure they have more productive uses of their time. As for CIA, I would love to see a citation proving that it was anything more than a bored staffer with time on his (her) hands. V. Joe (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The introduction has become a bit better, but Jandrews is right, there is not enough focus on the humanitarian aspect of the war. For example a detailed description of the exact amount of explosives delivered is better suited to a description of a video game. I think the focus on military maneuvers needs to be replaced with a focus on the political and historical causes and humanitarian consequences of the assault. The details about military maneuvers can come later, not in the introduction. Also, please see the discussion in the section above. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the discussion of humanitarian effects ahead of what, in my opinion, are less important military details. I dont think the exact tonnage of explosives dropped by the IAF on Day 1 is important enough to merit a place in the introduction at all. However, for now, I've just reordered the text.Jacob2718 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of White Phosphorus

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

The following pictures seems to me like White Phosphorus munitions...but I am no expert on this so can anyone please confirm this so that the use of this controversial weapon can be recorded in the article. Here are the pictures:

• http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3523/84166342ui7.jpg
• http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9199/84166337pa8.jpg
• http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6506/84166547ab2.jpg

Badkhan (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be WP, but that's a non-issue. This is the commonest way (and of the best ways) to get a smoke-screen, and is not really dangerous to people, as the phosphorous burns in the air to produce the smoke, and doesn't reach the ground in clean form. The use of WP is controversial when used against people, as an anti-personnel weapon. It is used to produce smoke-screens by armies throughout the world. See White_Phosphorous#Exposure_and_inhalation_of_smoke in particular, and that entire article in general, for more info on the subject. okedem (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only controversial amongst the idiots who wish it was a chemical weapon so they could castigate the US for using it in Iraq. Jtrainor (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that original research WP:OR ? Maybe you can email Patrick Baz at AFP via hotmail if you want to follow it up. He's probably a bit busy though.... Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you pay attention instead of trying to deploy tepid burns. If you had even bothered to check the WP article here, then you'd know that use of white phosphorus is only illegal if used for it's chemical effect rather than it's incendiary effect. Jtrainor (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

er..hello..are you talking to me for some reason? Tepid burns? I don't follow. Not sure who is meant to be burning who here and why. Anyway, I have no interest in the legal status of white phosphorus if that helps you. Just trying to help Badkhan out. That's all. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed you were replying to me instead of him. I hereby retract my comment. x_x Jtrainor (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They look like WP to me (though im no authority). What I really wanted to add was that explosions of this type were ongoing early on before the ground offensive. So maybe an issue for further study. Superpie (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited editing?

This article has been edited too much. Editors are editing and reversing it faster and faster. Why not limit the editing of this article and update every 24 hours (or 12, 36 etc.)or after a major event? I think neutrality and stability is more important than timeliness, especially when this article is EXTREMELY sensitive. Also this seems to be the only way to stop an assumed-not-neutral edit (i.e. editors from the belligerents) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhieaanm (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Omrim (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Wiki's popularity (and I experienced this with the Mumbai bombing article), is that Edit Conflicts become incredibly more common when the events are happening right there and then in the real world. There is no way round it, really, given the nature of Wiki. I can only suggest keeping small grammatical edits to a minimum. doktorb _words^deeds 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hai. We have such a rule: WP:3RR. What happens is, next to everyone has violated the rule, so people are afraid of reporting others. Thanks! :D --Cerejota (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not one of those "everyone" who violated the rule. Now tell me who do you want me to report? ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the problem. Just because of an ocasional edit-conflic? Apart from that, I can't imagine any workable definition of "too much editing". Debresser (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture bias?

Isn't the "man holding a civilian injured by the airstrikes" picture a bit too much? It clearly shows blood and is quite 'horrifying'. Maybe that wasn't the uploader's intention , yet I still believe that the article doesn't benefit from those kinds of pictures. either way, I suggest that the picture be removed. What do you think? That'll be much better than using an Israeli wounded picture as a counter-weight, as some would probably suggest.--212.235.85.149 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article would benefit enormously by including one or more graphic images of the dead/wounded from either or both sides of the conflict if

• the image genuinely meets the legal inclusion criteria.
• it was taken in a public place
• it complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

Surely it's the most important aspect of this conflict which is presumably why TV screens around much of the world (with notable sanitised exceptions) are full of such graphic images right now. Why is it biased ? As the aption said, they're civilians. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely don't agree. These sorts of pictures are de riguer in news coverage, and as the previous commenter said, such a graphic image illustrates precisely why the Israeli assault is drawing international attention in most quarters of the world (ie. excluding the Zionist and anti-Muslim parts of the West). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

91.105.255.98, You may disagree but unless they are free pics they cannot be posted.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Falk in Official Capacity

No surprise, the "Alleged violations of international law" section has been the subject of much editing recently. One recent edit has quoted Falk in his official capacity as Special Rapporteur. Let me clarify something right off the bat: I am in no way objected to quoting Falk as a WP:RS. But I do have several objections to the way he is quoted:

1. He's quoted out of a webblog. If we're going to quote him at all--and especially in his official capacity--we really ought to be quoting a press release, a news article, a page in the UN website, or some other type of official publication. A blog page is not in his official capacity.
2. His official capacity is to oversee violations of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories. Gaza hasn't been occupied territory since 2005, so he has no authority to write about Gaza as Rapporteur. See Weiner and Bell.

While we're at it, there's one man who's quoted as saying Israel has used fuel bombs and depleted uranium. I'm removing the reference until there's some sort of serious substantiation. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. My fault. I didn't notice that the existing ref wasn't from the UN. I'll fix if someone doesn't beat me to it. I already removed the fuel bomb/depleted U line that someone added. If a RS comes up that states/alleges that it's a violation then we can add it back with the new ref. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to respond about occupying power status and the Gaza strip. Your statement isn't about improving the article. If you can find a some RS's that support the view that the United Nations Human Rights Council have got it wrong by allowing their Special Rapporteur to issue such a statement please go ahead and add it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sean. Thank you for finding that source. You'll notice I made a few changes to the section, including the status of the Rapporteur. If you find them objectionable, feel free to edit/discuss. I won't be hurt. :-) Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

actually i thought my version was more encyclopedic and clearer in the sense that it more closely followed the original source, included all 3 notable allegations and linked to the appropriate WP pages if people didn't understand what the UN statement was talking about....but then i would, wouldn't i. i have no interest in advancing any political agendas here. the UN statement, whatever anyone thinks of falk or the UNHRC is significant and notable. it deserves to be treated respectfully (in the sense of not watering it down) and with appropriate weight in this article. anyway, the article is pretty unstable at the moment so there's little point in me spending time on it until things calm down a bit. i'm sure i'm not alone in that view. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, forgot to mention that I think it is important to not introduce systemic bias accidentally. We need to acknowledge that the Israeli/US admin's views on Falk and the UN are pretty skewed compared to other member states and try to avoid giving them undue weight in this article if possible. Not easy I appreciate given that most editors probably have strong feelings on these matters and may not even be aware of their own systemic bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Merge Black Saturday massacre into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, it is a short article with little information, and I'm sure some in Israel would object to the title's neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassfire (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Its been done already as Black Saturday massacre title is one sided and thus POV--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Online petition

Resolved

Unless an online petition receives serious media coverage it is not notable enough to be in this article, please move it to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I have left the current one in there for now, hoping someone will come up with some independent sources.VR _talk 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok it has now been removed.VR _talk 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of man killed

If it is notable enough to mention violent protests in London, Greece etc, why can't we mention that a Palestinian man was shot dead during these violent protests. I don't understand why this fact was removed?VR _talk 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You should move it to the inevitably created International Reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict article. Yes, it's the Wikipedia "divide and conquer" tactic. Very professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct link is [[6]]

The death of this man should be mentioned in the main article. The shooting dead of a protester is extremely notable. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely notable? Why is that I wonder?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the protester being shot not because the information is irrelevant, but because it was not included in the source mentioned.

The information I provided on hacked website might be a little detailed, although I would not say excessively. If consensus would be that it is indeed too detailed, it could be shortened in various ways. Although, frankly speaking, I find the information important, since it shows the full extent of reactions to the conflict.Debresser (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the subject of information on hacked sites has been discussed before. The discussion is now in the Archive. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you are the same one who removed the information on hacked sites previously. I also noticed excessive cutting has already been ascribed to you by other people in this discussion page, section Reactions. Especially without at least putting the information you cut out back on the special page for Civilian Protests. By the way, I appreciate you personally inviting me to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh so this is where the discussion is. Can you please join it below in the more recent one called "Reactions"? Thanks.VR _talk 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated events

There was apparently a failed attack on a Chicago synagogue. As much as this attack was disgusting, it was harmless. No one was injured, nor any damage done because the cocktail failed to burn. Additionally, there are no credible sources connecting this attack to the subject of the article. The official of the temple "suspects" that there maybe a relationship, but clearly isn't sure. No officials or policemen have made any comments to that end.

In a time when the article has gotten too long, it would help that we limit it to events that are for sure connected to the subject, not those that may possibly be. Please also note, that the section on reactions has been so severely cut down that it doesn't mention the official reactions by individual countries, nor all of the protests that have occurred. Clearly brevity is of paramount significance here.VR _talk 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Brevity is important, but we're dealing with a fairly short section, anyways. Also, brevity should be a secondary consideration when dealing with something like this, which is totally unexplored in the rest of the article.

There has been someone in an official position connecting the two events: the victim of the crime. Nor is this a stretch of the imagination. This attack didn't occur two weeks ago, but after the invasion. As long as the source is mentioned in the article, it's clear to the reader that this is an issue that's still developing, and that his hasn't been corroborated by police. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you didn't respond to my points. I'm not saying this is not important. Just that it should be moved to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. The lack of connection, lack of significance, and lack of any serious damage just support my point. I hope you will see what I'm trying to say. Also please respond in the above section to inform me of why you removed the fact about a man being shot dead. Thanks.VR _talk 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to remove the part about the man being shot dead; that was due to copying and pasting.

So if the crux of your argument is that this should be moved to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, then why don't we move the protests and reactions from international organizations there? Actions speak louder than words, and these actions need to be mentioned. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those that hold that this section should mention more details. Or it should COMPLETELY be moved to the other article. But no shortened versions that do injustice to some information or the other. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat picture inclusions and deletions

I notice that the picture of the Palestinian man carrying a maimed bombing victim has been deleted and a picture of Qassam rocket damage has been added. Even as a supporter of the Gazans I think it would be right to show pictures of casualities on both sides. Given that casualties on the Gazan side are over 100 times greater it is obviously giving undue weight to the Israeli perspective to bias the picture count 100% towards Israeili suffering. I also think we have some extremely partisan editors sympathetic to the Zionist side making blatantly biased edits.

I'll say again as I said in the 'Picture bias?' section above that the article would benefit from showing some of the reality of this conflict. Rather than people warring over images (wow, how low can things go) it would be better if we could all come to some kind of agreement. And remember WP:NOTCENSORED + there's the WP:NOIMAGE option if people don't want to see something. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose we adopt a 1:1 policy so that for every picture added showing damages in Gaza, we add another showing damages in Israel and vice versa. Similarly for other traumatic events. If this results in too many pictures, we delete accordingly in pairs so as to preserve neutrality. That way we will save many discussions about one side or the other being favoured. What do you think? T.R. 87.59.77.64 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures were removed because they were copyright violations. If non-copy-vio pictures from Gaza are found, I will defend and uphold their inclusion, provided they have appropriate quality. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's one PD image on Commons. I'll put it in. The rest are still pending Flickr review, so once they are approved they can replace or supplement this one. - Mailer Diablo 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Scratch that, it's copyvio. Wait for the Flickr. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No International Reactions Section?

Will no one quote Bush as saying "Hamas should stop bombing Israel" while there are 500 Palestinian casualties and only 5 Israeli? --193.188.105.220 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point --69.217.126.175 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been moved to a seperate article. I have suggested below that the US be listed on the Involved Parties section in the main article. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should the US be listed in involved parties? Then we would have to list Iran, Syria, Russia, UK, France etc. Does the US have troops on the ground? Are its planes bombing anyone? Are its ships shelling anybody? Where is the proof?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The US (from what Im seeing) seems to be relatively uninvolved. Like the federal government seems to be staying on the side lines offering no more than the expected generic government responses. But yeah I dont know what its officialy called on wiki but I know on other sections of a similar nature they have had those small flag thumb.imgs and a brief comment by said nation or governing entity. Sorry it was hard to word that intelligently. 75.118.149.210 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete non-reliable Palestinian 'executions' claims

Previously "Any Palestinian 'executions' are a internal matter, not part of the conflict"

Therefore the apparent executions have no place in the casualties info box. Just as traitors executed during any historical war would not (I believe) have been added to the military deathcount.

Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea agreed. Plus I haven't heard anywhere else except Israeli sources (YNET, maybe JPOST) about these internal events. 35 people is quite a lot to not merely mention. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently numbers only matter if they are not for the Israelis or their allies.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's BS. Every media outlet reports Israeli casualties (killed and injured), they're just far fewer than Palestinian casualties, so that's no excuse. And Fatah is not an ally of Israel. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course the executions should be added, but to the Israeli side since they are presumably "collaborators." In fact, perhaps we need an info box for Presumed Collaborators Executed. They are certainly casualties of this war, but it ought to be clear on whose hands their blood belongs. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If these executions have anything to do with the hostilities, as e.g. when the reason would be presumed collaboration with Israel, they ipso facto are related and could and should be mentioned. Of course it would not do to mention them as casualties of the hostilities, but the fact should be mentioned somewhere.
I fail to see why Israeli newspapers would not be considered valid sources on this or any other information. The way Al Ameer son dismisses them strikes me as an argument to accuse him of being biassed more than aforementioned newspapers.Debresser (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact Israeli newspapers are considered RS, and we do not discriminate by country of origin. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed we shouldn't. But one definitely wonders as to why only Israeli newspapers have reported this. This is not an argument to exclude the claims, but just to not give them undue weight.VR _talk 02:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Canadian sources? [7] Better yet, what about the New York Times? [8]--Omrim (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is America an Involved Party?

I think it is. After all it bankrolls Israel, supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to this operation. Therefore the American reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.

If America told Israel to stop this attack, it would do so.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I now see someone else has done just this. However surely it should be agreed here first. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

America is an involved party, i think its actions at the United Nations security council ontop of the American tax payer being the one to pick up the bill for this war justifies their inclusion BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you also of the opinion that Iran is an involved party? How about China? France? An involved party is only one that is actively engaged in the operation - Israel, the various Palestinian groups, and Egypt. NoCal100 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Therefore Iran bankrolls Hamas (and Hezbollah), supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to fire rockets at Israel. Therefore the Iranian reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AND, just to drag this out to its logical conclusion:

" UNSC Membership in 2009

The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end): Austria (2010), Japan (2010), Uganda (2010), Burkina Faso (2009), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2009), Viet Nam (2009), Costa Rica (2009), Mexico (2010), Croatia (2009), and Turkey (2010). They have all made statements and condemnations. So they should all be listed as involved parties too. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow that members of the Security Council are 'involved parties'. However I take your point that Iran is. So perhaps IRan and America under Involved PArties then?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How about neither as neither one is directly involved in the current combat operations. Or do you know something we don't?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well technically egypt is not involved in combat operations, however it remains an involved party. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling America an involved party might be the biggest stretch since the invention of yoga. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In Israel it is common knowledge the PM doesn't go to the proverbial bathroom without asking permission from the US. Unfortunately. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

America is obviously involved and I see no logic behind many of the comments made here. It is important that Wikipedia sources as much valid and important information possible in order to serve its actual purpose on the web. America funds Israel. Early this morning, the BBC and world news stations have broadcast Dick Cheney's backing of Israel's heavy-handedness. Therefore America's involvement in both funding and supporting this offensive should be included. The article should also be semi-protected.

We, as contributors to Wikipedia but remain neutral, despite our nationalities, and the fact is, America is involved. America funds and supports Israel, therefor the United States are a big part of the ground offensive and unprecidented violence cast upon the civilians in Gaza.--Theosony (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything is a matter of degree. The Zionists here are right: the whole world is involved, even tiny Vanuatu. What they neglect to say is that SOME countries are MORE involved than others. The U.S., clearly, is one of the MOST involved countries, since it operates as an Israeli satellite or colony: It arms Israel, funds Israel, shields Israel from the U.N., and makes war in Israel's behalf.

If some people want to say that Iran is also involved, fine, but let's keep it real: Let's state the exact NATURE of the involvement. The U.S. gives Israel at least $3,000,000,000 a year, plus the most deadly weapons on the planet. What does Iran give to Hamas besides moral support?

Here is the text I added for the U.S. involvement:

• U.S. – "At the United Nations, the United States thwarted an effort by Libya to persuade the Security Council to call for an immediate ceasefire, diplomats said."

Unfortunately, it was summarily deleted by those who prefer to keep the U.S. role in this hidden. NonZionist (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

I have scaled down the size of the reactions section. This article has become huge. More than 60 countries have expressed official statements. There have been civilian protests, clashes, etc. in about 200 cities. Including every one of them will make this article very big. Also, let's keep the cyber-warfare to a minimum as well. Just because a website, or online petition publishes something doesn't mean its notable until is is covered by news media, and/or independent sources. Cheers.VR _talk 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep deleting my entry for the U.S. in the "involved parties" section. Why? The U.S. is what makes the Israeli aggression possible. It arms Israel, funds Israel, and shields Israel from the U.N.. On late Saturday, it blocked Libyan attempts to get the UNSC to support a ceasefire. The earlier statement that the U.S. supports a ceasefire is misleading, since in practice, the U.S. opposes it. NonZionist (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice too that you did not transfer the text you gratuitously deleted to the sub-article -- International_reaction_to_the_2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict. Your "scaling down" is tantamount to censorship. In one of your updates, you managed to delete the entire article. What's the problem? -- is the article not sufficiently biased to suit Israel's taste? NonZionist (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. My accidental deletion of most of the article was unintended. I amply apologized for it. The US is quoted in the section. However, if you feel I've not done an adequate job, please feel free to improve it, *as briefly as possible*.VR _talk 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on websites are indeed notable, and that is why they were mentioned. However, we need to explain them in proportion. For example in this edit, 393 characters explain the website attacks, while the reference to a Palestinian man bieng shot dead (far more notable) in 87 characters was removed. This seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

VR, I truly respect your valiant attempts to cut down this section, but I fear that so long as it maintains its current format, neither side can be expected to be contented. It really ought to be shrunk to a single paragraph stating that there has been international condemnation of both sides (though primarily of Israel), and then referring to the more specific article. What are your thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are even bolder than I! How about two paragraphs? One paragraph for the general protests around the world and Israel (notable for both pro-and con protests) and Egypt (notable because these protests have had an outcome on the conflict). The next paragraph for extra-ordinary incidents, like website attacks, violence against Israelis, and the Palestinian shot dead. How is that?VR _talk 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I created the first of the two paragraph here.[9] Tell me what you think.VR _talk 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty stupendous summarizing right there. I'll see if I can't take the remaining sections and summarize them into one paragraph. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cut back the section significantly. There's still more cutting that could be done, but now I have to leave Wikipedia and tend to my real life. :-P Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Protesters in London, Paris, Oslo, and other cities clashed with the police. There were attacks against Jews and Israelis, as well as defacings of Israeli websites. which were interpreted to be in response to the conflict. One Palestinian man was shot dead during a protest.

Is that good?VR _talk 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reaction on your talk page, that this phrasing is faulted. Apart from that I would like to point out that the hacking of 300 websites is perhaps less tragic than the death of a person, but will be witnessed by probably a thousand times more people, and is therefore far mor noticable. Debresser (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be witnessed more times, but will make far less of an impact. In fact it is generally agreed that human deaths are more notable that some defacing or vandalism.

Secondly, did you take a look at my earlier statement: More than 60 countries have expressed official statements. There have been civilian protests, clashes, etc. in about 200 cities.

If we begin to devote even 2 sentences to each reaction, like you've deoted two sentences (actually one small paragraph) to the websites, then this will be blown way out of proportion.

Please note that we have summarized the 150,000 people protest in Sakhnin, 200,000 people protest in Istanbul, 30,000 people protest in Ammam, 20,000 people protest in Paris and many others in just one long sentence (or one paragraph). Are you really comparing a few websites to these massive protests?VR _talk 03:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not. And nowhere did I make any such comparison. As I agreed in another section dealing with this subject, the information on hacked sites may be reduced a bit. Although you reduced it too much, in my opinion. About the shot demonstator you also reduced the information too much, and I actually added to it in the main article.

The point is, that any information needs at least a minimum of words. The sentence "A man was killed today in a shooting in down-town NY" is just marginally longer than the sentence "Favourite dog of JFK was killed today by passing car", not because it is infinitely more important, but because it just takes that many words to acurately describe what happened.

In this context I would like to point out, that I see no reason this article should contain an enumeration of cities where demonstrations were held. That should be done in the article that's been made especially for that. Keep it short, just like I did when mentioning the pro-Israel demonstrations. Debresser (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "defacings of Israeli websites [occurred]" reduces it too much given I give only a word or so to a protest that brings out 200,000 people. You have to take a relativistic approach as opposed to an absolutist one. That is to say, the amount of space something gets should be measured by the amount of sapce other more similar events get.VR _talk 03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, are you saying that we should remove the cities where thousands gathered to protest? This cities are summarized in one word or so (e.g. London, Paris, Athens...). I don't see at all how they are taking undue weight. If you can summarize the website hacking in one word (actually I'm asking you to summarize in one sentence) then that's great!VR _talk 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for shortening the hackers. I also think that all the violent events should be mentioned together. This includes both attacks on Jews, and the killing of the Palestinian man.VR _talk 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here, I reduced it a little.

The information about attacks on jews etc. is in no way connected to demonstrations, and should therefore be a seperate paragraph.

And yes, whether tens, hundreds or thousands gathered doesn't matter. Just mention it, and be done with it. You're too emotionally involved, it seems to me.Debresser (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I think you are wrong to list all cities. I didn't do that when I wrote about the pro-Israel demonstrations. And I don't think the shooting of a demonstrator and the hacking of an internet site should be in one paragraph, even though both are violence. But I'm not going to change that again. I am pretty sure future redactors will agree with me on these points, without me entering a conversation with somebody who is so empressed by the sheer numbers of demonstrators that he overstresses details and underplays other important facts. Debresser (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We can create a separate paragraph for every individual reaction, then God knows how long this article will be. Also, I never list all of the cities in which anti-Israeli demonstration took place. Like I said such demonstrations took place in more than 100 cities, and I haven't even listed half. Also you were the one who brought up the issue of numbers "will be witnessed by probably a thousand times more people", hence I brought numbers up too to show you what we are dealing with. Anyways, good night.VR _talk 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Why is Iran featured so prominently in the section currently? The Iranian part, including its leader Khamanei and ally Sistani, are given more space than Israel itself!

Also Egyptian reaction which accuses Israel of "savage aggression" is quoted twice (once in the second paragraph, and once under "involved parties"). May I ask why?VR _talk 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ACLJ

I removed the following from the Civilian Protests section, someone keeps putting it back:

An online petition, claiming 25,494 signatories as of January 4th, called for the "Proclamation for Solidarity with Israel and the Christians in the Gaza Strip" through the American Center for Law and Justice; its representatives have met with Israeli officials in Ashkelon.

Please find an RS for this, ACLJ can't be an RS for itself. Also is not technically a civilian protest, so should probably be in another section.

I agree that it should not be considered a protest but it is certainly verifiable information and the ACLJ is a very well founded organization, a large Civil Rights Organization. I don't think that we should remove it. I think rather that we should make a note that a citation is needed and move it to another section. Coreywalters06 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Founded in 1990 by evangelical Pat Robertson? I have to question it's reliability. Also, I think the statement is covertly racist, by including Israelis and the Christians of Gaza, pointedly leaving out ALL Muslims. If it was an anti-Hamas statement, that would've been ok. --vvarkey (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not an "anti" anyone statement. The only thing that it is against is terrorism in Gaza and Hamas's "radical Islamic threat". And even more so, it is a pro-Israel proclamation more than anything else. Israel should be able to protect itself. Hamas has been shooting rockets into Israel long before this started and Israel has the right to say that enough is enough. Wikipedia is not the place for politics but if you're gonna start pulling out the "racist" card, you better believe I'm gonna say something. You want to complain about racist, why don't you read the current resolution in the United Nations (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1). That resolution doesn't mention a single word about any other religion other than defending Islam and Muslims. Its goal? To make it illegal internationally to "offend" any Muslim, including my beliefs - and punishable by Suria law - including execution. Read it for yourself: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2003.4.En?Opendocument Coreywalters06 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, i was a bit rash there and take back the racism comment. but i think it's fair to say pat robertson is a nut. for eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies#Remarks_concerning_Ariel_Sharon . i think we need a ref from a source other than the ACLJ for this text to be in the article. cheers --vvarkey (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Date Format?

The format at one point was 27 December 2008. I understand that this is an official format but in the table of contents it seems impossible to read when it says "3.1 27 December 2008". That just looks very sloppy. Is there any other format that we can use such as "December 27 2008" so that it looks like "3.1 December 27, 2008"? This is much easier to read. I am also thinking that this conflict will be going on much longer than others expect. If this continues to go on, what will we do about the Development section. It is already starting to get very long. Coreywalters06

I personally use the format 2008Dec27. This is clearly _one_ item, not three, and is easily time-sequenced. Johnbibby (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)::::

It's my understanding that the manual of style does not sanction that format. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Hamas a reliable source?

Is Hamas a reliable source? Consider it in the context of the following claims:

• "Sources close to" Hamas have claimed to execute 35 Fatah "collaborators", says Jerusalem Post[10]
• "Hamas-run media" claims to have captured two Israeli soldiers, says BBC News[11]

Should we treat these as facts?VR _talk 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the claims were made comes from a reliable source, but the claims themselves do not, in my opinion. It's still worth including in the article, but noting that they are unverified claims. Orpheus (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It should be in the Hamas claims or According to Hamas format. However, I am weary about the inclusion of the "35 Fatah" men being killed by Hamas during the conflict. This has not been mentioned by any major neutral source (not Palestinian, not Israeli) and I doubt that the action even occurred. Nonetheless, it should be attributed to the Jerusalem Post. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See Pallywood--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're arguing that it's right to include the statements of Israel Defense Forces, Tzipi Livni, The Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Haaretz, and Arutz Sheva, and AFTER THAT treat the Palestinian sources as a propaganda!??? Dammit, all of pro-Israeli sources I mentioned are cited in the article more than triple times ore more. No comment, really. I'm stunned of this blind bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I. moving it to the casualties section where we can discuss it with attribution.VR _talk 21:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Darwish07...whats good for the goose, etc. Manitobamountie (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Hamas takes part of a longstanding tradition of exagerating. See e.g. the 'Casualities' section on this page, where Hamas claims to have killed 9 Israeli soldiers, whereas all other sources so far (the better part of a day later) mention only one Israeli soldier as having been killed. This is a reality we should be aware of. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which means all its claims should attributed.VR _talk 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'attributed'? Debresser (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pallywood

Pallywood must be deleted from the 'See Also' section. This is clearly a blatant and trite POV addition designed to imply media bias against Israel in the coverage of the offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sick of this extreme conspiracy theoretic sources extremely biased people throw around. Deleted. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Media bias against Israel? I am stunned!!!--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Take for example the following quote from Times Online. It is also felt that Israel is particularly keen to use the internet as an alternative to more traditional sit-down interviews with international television stations and media outlets because many mainstream stations are slated as being unsympathetic. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have personally noticed the difference in coverage from the BBC and CNN. CNN being (at least) slightly anti-Israel biased. I stress that this is my personal opinion. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On this subject I have found the folowing on Wikipedia: In 2002, Honest Reporting spearheaded a campaign to expose CNN for pro-Palestinian bias. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we delete Weiner and Bell quotes

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

i am not in favour of deleting the Weiner and Bell quotes/summaries, since that risks POV concerns for the whole section. For the moment i am restoring them. Boud (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Weiner and Bell are just a lawyer and just some professor who wrote something for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Their stuff is not published in a reputable journal of international law. It is just propaganda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? whct about: December, 2000, 100 Columbia Law Review 1965, THE INTEGRATION GAME, Abraham Bell and Gideon Parchomovsky; 16 Temple Int'l & Comparative Law Jourbal 43, THE USE OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN THE AL-AQSA INTIFADA: A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS*, Justus Reid Weiner; 37 Geoorge Washington Int'l Law Review 309, ISRAEL'S SECURITY BARRIER: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND LEGAL EVALUATION, Dr. Barry A. Feinstein*, Justus Reid Weiner; Fall, 2007, 22 Connecticut Journal of Int'l Law 233, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF 'SAFE PASSAGE' RECONCILING A VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE WITH ISRAEL'S SECURITY REQUIREMENTS , Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison; Abraham Bell "JUST" earned his doctoral degree from Harvard. They certainly most no "just lawyers" (Sill,I am still not sure they should be mentioned as their publication was made before the current conflict).--Omrim (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not convinced of the reliability of the quotes from these two either. It would be equally easy to go and get quotes from lecturers at a Palestinian university saying the opposite, and that doesnt achieve much. It would be much better to use only quotes from independent international legal experts. Fig (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The section is only expanding, with now eight (8!) references to their article "published" on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Claims of genocide are ludicrous. They belittle the real cases of genocide that have taken place in history. And does anybody care about Darfur. I will remove the propaganda from the Israeli thinktank. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove relevant, sourced material without consensus, as that is borderline vandalism. You are welcome to your personal opinions about about Bell and Weiner, but they are published academics in reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Not that it's required, as the JCPA is reliable and notable itself, but the Weiner & bell arguments have been picked up in mainstream media, such as here. Please do not remove this agian without consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a view one way or the other about the material itself, and I know the Spectator ref is not being used as a key point, but I would just say that it is pushing the definition somewhat to suggest that Melanie Phillips' blog on the Spectator website counts as significant "mainstream media". I would also note that Electronic Intifada links have been excluded from this page. Is that any worse or less partisan a reference point than JCPA? --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote, the Spectator mention is not required, but there is a big difference between an column in mainstream media such as the Spectator, and self-published websites such as EI. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged you weren't relying on the Phillips piece, but I really would stress the point (perhaps for future reference) that she is viewed as being pretty "out there" by most other media in the UK, and also that this appears to be an online post rather than a published comment piece; and of course my comparison was between EI & JCPA, not between EI & The Spectator. Whatever you or I might think of EI or JCPA, they are both partisan self-publishers as opposed to mainstream outlets - that doesn't necessarily disqualify either of them from being quoted or cited when appropriate and with proper attribution, but you can't treat one differently from the other. --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I disagree with you about the equivalence between EI and JCPA. EI is little more than an unabashedly partisan self-published blog, operated by its four journalist founders. The JCPA is a think tank, its staff comprised primarily of dozens of academics who are recognized experts in their fields, with a well identified board of directors, steering committee and oversight committees. It is the equivalent (albeit on a smaller scale) of such think tanks as the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. NoCal100 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am aware, Dore Gold is a big figure in JCPA, and the group's wiki page (for what it's worth) lists 4 serving and former IDF personnel at the top of the list of major contributors/researchers. Its own website, in the homepage's first sentence, says "Israel's growth and survival are dependent on its winning the war of ideas". I guess everyone can make up their own minds as to whether this makes them a partisan organisation or not. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You should know better that to use wiki article as support for your argument. Nevertheless, I'm sure you didn't miss, on that page, the following names - Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University; Professor Bernard Lewis; Dr. Uzi Arad, ;Dr. Ephraim Kam,;Professor Mordechai Abir; Professor Gerald M. Steinberg - yet for some strange reason those names didn't make it into your above post. Does EI have comparable names on its staff? A more comprehensive list can be found here- [3], and a quick browsing through the names will confirm what I wrote - the research staff is made up of academics, many of whom are notable experts in their fields. Of course the center has its own agenda, as do the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. But the simplistic equivalency of "this blog is partisan, this think-tank is partisan, thus they are equivalent sources" is a false equivalence. NoCal100 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, hence my use of the phrase "for what it's worth" in respect of the WP page (and actually of course there were seven IDF related names at the top of the list, apologies for that). And yes, I did also notice the name of Bernard Lewis there, as I have now noticed Efraim Karsh, Uzi Landau, Richard Landes, Daniel Pipes etc on the much longer list you've linked to on the JCPA site. Thankfully, EI does not have comparable names on its staff. Flippancy aside, I repeat my point that both are valid places to go to for a particular POV and in order to source the opinions of those who write under their auspices. Both are quite explicit about where they are coming from. In addition Ali Abunimah for example is often published elsewhere and EI cited with approval by mainstream media, even though it does not drape itself - and nor of course could it, admittedly - in the often-spurious trappings of a "think-tank". --Nickhh (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) You are thankful that EI does not have world renown experts on the subject such as Bernard Lewis. No more needs to be said. NoCal100 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC) The JCPA site is obviously unsuitable as a source for an unbiased account of what international law might have to say about the attacks. Its talk about "genocide" is inflammable. Inclusion of this material is clearly WP:UNDUE and borderline trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You are welcome to this personal opinion, which I disagree with, and as I've pointed out, it's also been published in the Spectator. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC) A blog that call the UN "Club of Terror" is not neutral. I will remove it again. Do not put this kind of stuff back unless it you have a reference to a reliable source, such as a refereed academic journal with a good reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) No source is "neutral". Falk is not neutral either. Wikipedia does not require 'neutral' sources - it requires reliable sources, which both the JCPA and The Spectator are. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus, as that is disruptive behavior. NoCal100 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The Weiner and Bell quotes, though farcical, should be left in, because they show just how convoluted and detached from reality one needs to be to justify this aggression. However, they should not be paired up with Falk or any other serious legal authorities. We should not use format to create the appearance of dialogue where there is none. Let the Weiner and Bell statements stand alone. The artificial division between "Attacks by Gaza Strip" and "Attacks by Israel" imposes a symmetry where there is none. Eliminate these misleading subheadings. Instead, have one subheading for Falk and one for Weiner and Bell. NonZionist (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Basically, what's going on here only proves that I was right when saying we should delete this section altogether. Please don't edit the section without consensus. I undid the last two edits. --Omrim (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't ignore the discussion we already had.[4] --Omrim (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I started to delete the most obviously propaganda. The JCPA web site is not not a serious source on international law regarding Israel's occupied territories. But as I am so clearly outnumbered by Zionists here, I will leave you guys. Bye-bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC) duh!. It's the nature of all internet communities to have debates, don't be so sensitive and assume WP:AGF. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply don't think Weiner and Bell have credible opinions, in that they are not definitely unbiased, and from what I've seen, their opinions are very different to most people on these issues.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not in favour of deletion because the absurdity of their opinions speaks for itself. Criticism of Hamas, which is after all a popular guerilla movement and not a standing army, for using "human shields", in one of the most densely populated places on earth is patently ridiculous to anybody who isn't already unsalvagebly

The section has improved a fair bit since yesterday afternoon, but the Weiner and Bell quotes are still given undue prominence considering their obvious partiality. Fig (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fig, and, in my own opinion, the quotes are ridiculously placed and used in my own opinion. They don't lend hand to Wikipedia's neutrality rules either when the sources are read up.--Theosony (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Trashy Article

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

This article has to take the award as one of the worst written, most POV, most inaccurate and misleading articles in wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, what complaints do you have with specifics of the article? Mairyweather (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you already know that complaining does not translate to edits and does not magically neutralize this important article, right? So, if you care, I suggest another path. Spend a full day searching for good sources, then edit the article respectively and I promise you'll find the article much less "inaccurate and misleading" afterwards. BTW, this is what keeps Wikipedia alive, if you didn't join the party, your influence had been lost. So, if you're going to blame, do not blame others. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, everything get reverted and reverted and re-reverted and modified to extinction. It is ridiculous trying to improve this article since most here seem to think WP:consensus trumps NPOV. The concept of balance and accuracy is a joke when you have people excoriating one side of the "conflict" only, and mythologizing the other. What you call my "influence" has been reverted so often with zero explanation that it has become meaningless in this article. Eventually it may dawn on some of you that what you are doing here is pushing an agenda rather than trying to write a fair article. If and when that happens, I might start to contribute again. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hai. I agree with you, but unlike yourself, I do my best to edit, propose, talk, debate, and try to move things forwards. Just bitchin' and moanin' about it is not productive. In fact, its counter-productive. Please provide concrete examples and discuss what you see as problems. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza close to losing phone contact

Just wanted to submit this short AP article which I think has relevant content to be added to the "humanitarian crisis" sections.

"Paltel Group says 90% of Gaza's cellular service is down, as well as many landlines, because of frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iv4xv2KNWjkm8Ixw60eD52Va5zTw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!, I'm going to add it in the appropriate humanitarian crisis section. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem like kind of a minor detail to you? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

mmm, I guess it's a kind of crisis since people outside Gaza will not be able to know the state of their relatives and families in this horrific situation. To be sure, I'll wait for a day and see other agencies and the UN reaction. Thanks for keeping me honest. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor detail!? 90% of their ability communicate with the outside world is down? We should impose to add a "communications breakdown" section to the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" list.. --69.217.126.175 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

haaretz.com is not a source

I think these edits are inappropriate. For one the user deletes the Israeli strength. He also quotes "haaretz.com" as a source for 60 wounded Israelis. I think we need to quote specific articles, and not simply the publisher. VR _talk 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, SPECIFIC articles from haaretz.com are PERFECTLY acceptable ;). Just remember to ALSO verify with other sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but someone should remove the "haaretz.com" reference.VR _talk 22:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Total strength

In the infobox should we mention both parties' total strength, or only that deployed? For example given the Israeli navy and air force took part, should be describe its total number of aircraft and naval vessels? What about describing total number of Hamas militants?VR _talk 23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The number of ships and planes participating in combat should probably be mentioned. I reckon it will be hard to find the exact number of Hamas members who participated in hostilities, but all odds are that it's pretty much the whole bunch. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is held by IDF experts that large parts of the Hamas have been in hiding. At leat till the beginning of the land incursion. After that I don't know. There's an interesting site http://www.debka.com/ that mentioned this in one of its articles (see also present main article). Whether this site is acceptable as source for Wikipedia I don't know. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In the "strength" section of a conflict infobox, typically both troops and weaponry are listed. I favor listing total troop strength, as it is impossible to determine exactly what share are participating in what capacity. Currently we have no mention whatsoever of weaponry. IDF info we can get easily. For Hamas, I've seen estimates of numbers of Qassam rockets ranging to the thousands, but can't find any estimates for their small arms and other strength. Does anyone with military interests have equipment breakdowns with figures or estimates? RomaC (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hidden message in front of lead

“ BEFORE YOU MODIFY THIS INTRO

PLEASE READ THE APPROPRIATE

POLICIES REGARDING INTRODUCTION

"Wikipedia:Lead section"

ALSO BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE

ONGOING DISCUSSIONS IN THE

TALK PAGE AROUND THIS INTRO

PLEASE DO NOT ADD MATERIAL THAT

BELONGS ELSEWHERE IN THE ARTICLE

THIS SHOULD SUMMARISE THE ARTICLE

CONTENTS, NOT TAKE THE PLACE

OF THE ARTICLE.

AGAIN THIS IS INTRO HAS BEEN WIDELY DISCUSSED,

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION,

YOU WILL BE REVERTED.

IF YOU THINK IT SHOULD CHANGE HAVE THE DECENCY

AND COMMON SENSE TO TRY AND REACH CONSENSUS

INSTEAD OF BEING A VANDAL.

”

I was wondering if we could find a more appropriate wording for it. For instance, "being a vandal" would imply bad-faith contributions, and could be seen as offensive to some newer editors on the project.

And as a side note, the lead section is quite lengthy. I suggest reducing it to 3 paragraphs for the time being. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh,I have proposed shortening so many times! Except all my proposals get shot down, because people want to explain why Hamas launches rockets or why the Israelis attacked, or write a dissertation on the background of the conflict, or provide redundant infos etc etc etc. My point is, this is an intro, which should be a summary of the stuff, not the stuff itself. Its impossible.

So, I rather have a rough consensus intro that can be stable, than a short intro. Once this is a historic event, an no-one cares, we can come back and wiki-fairy this baby. Deal?

That said, I think the comments are fine, as this article is semi-protected, so only expeirenced editors can edit it, no a chance in hel we can bite (BTW, *I* wrote part of BITE :). Anyone editing in good faith can ignore the message, it is precisely directed at bad faith edits, which are suprisingly high, for a semi-protected article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis in Gaza

The people of Gaza have my sympathies and my respect for going through the inconceivable challenges that face them. Nevertheless, it is important to look critically at the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" section:

1. The section begins with a discussion of the blockade against Gaza. This isn't relevant to the article, so the "18 month long human dignity crisis" seems superfluous. It's relevance to the current crisis is mentioned further down, and there is no need to mention it twice.
2. Panic and vulnerability-This is a very serious issue, and I do not mean to diminish the impact that PTSD and other mental injuries can have on people. But if this is to be included in the "humanitarian crisis" section, then there must be a "Humanitarian crisis in Israel" section, detailing the awful mental injuries in southwest Israel. I personally favor removing this section, given the length of the article, but I'd like to hear input from other editors.
3. Cash-Again, this is a serious issue, but Israel faces economic impacts from this conflict, too. Should we remove this section, or add an Israeli counterpart?

I will await either comment or prolonged lack of response before I edit. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that you raise valid considerations. Specifically, #1 the blockade of Gaza should not be considered a part of the present hostilities, #2 short mention should be made of the mental consequences for Israelis and Palestinians both, #3 the whole subject of cash seems to me to be not directly pertaining to the hostilities. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" should simply be its own article. Some may state that Gaza has had a humanitarian crisis for some time, although its certainly worse now. As there are obviously numerous contributing factors outside the military conflict, this might justify its own article. As a section on this page it will only grow larger, and will likely continue after this current military conflict has ended. Harley peters (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion of Harley peters in addition to the short mention I recommended before. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The humanitarian crisis is the most important issue of this war proved by the number of protests around the world and the UN reports coverage. You think the world care about Hamas? No, the whole problem is in the crisis of the Gaza strip. If this section is omitted, then the Wikipedia article gives the impression that this was a simple war between two armies. No, it is not just 400 Palestinians killed, and 1200 injured. It's 400 killed, 1200 injured and 1.5 million living in a "human dignity crisis" as described by the UN. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Saepe, if there's anything stupid in this paragraph, you can blame me :). My reply to your points:

1. The referenced UN report describes the whole situation as a "dignity crisis", and then go to the details. After this exact wording it says "Element of this humanitarian crisis are: ...". So if you want to remove the "18 month" part, it's fine. But I think the rest should stay since this is the introduction that sums the whole situation up as summed up by the UN neutral reports.
2. I think you're comparing apples to oranges in here. All the latest 5 UN reports mention the extreme state of panic in the strip as part of the humanitarian crisis (see references). Southern Israeli panic is different cause in Gaza there's "no public warnings or effective shelters", and I don't find a resource mentioning that Israeli civilians faces "insecurities re-stocking basic foods and water". The mentioned panic is a panic cause of the whole non-humanitarian situations combined. Of course it will be good to have a paragraph describing the southern Israeli suffer, but it's not Wikipedia editors call to describe such a paragraph a "humanitarian crisis". I've seen no resource describing the situation there as a humanitarian crisis and certainly not from the most credible authority that can describe humanitarian crisis, a.k.a the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
3. No you were confused by ambiguity of the word "cash". The cash crisis mentioned, and as reported by the UN, is a crisis in the availability of banknotes. It's not a problem of the costs of war, it's a problem of no available money so the UNRWA can not pay its employees and the families depending on its programs (49,000). It's not cause UNRWA has financial problems due to war, it's cause Israel "banned the entry of cash-notes into Gaza". This is clear in the cited references and I thought it was clear in the article too. I'm open to discussion of course. Thank you! --Darwish07 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again :). To address the concerns mentioned here, I've transformed the section from "Panic and Vulnerability" to "Shelter" and removed the statements that no longer fit. Now the section discusses only the sheltering problems faced by people on Gaza. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Israeli counter-demonstrations

I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of civilian protests around the world were and are pro-palestinian. However, there were quite a few "counter-demonstrations" (pro-Israeli ones). Why don't we mention them? Just to list a few I found in a quick serach in google and google-news:

• Boston [12]
• Fort Lauderdale [13]
• Huston [14]
• Los Angeles [15]
• Melbourne [16]
• Miami [17]
• Nashville [18]
• New York City [19]
• Paris [20]
• San Francisco [21]
• Sydney [22]
• Toronto [23]

Thanks, --Omrim (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a really nice research Omrim. Thank you!. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what am talking about! Research! You, sir, have blown my head away.--Cerejota (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro once again

This is how it stands now, I find it long, but otherwise pretty good. And it covers all the stuff including the cease-fire. Can we discuss it as we should be doing? --Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian Islamist group Hamas as well as other smaller Palestinian militias, which began at Gaza in 27 December 2008 with a series of air strikes, called by Israel Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה, Mivtza Oferet Yetzuka) following an end to a six-month temporary lull in hostilities between the Hamas-led de facto government of Gaza and Israel, which ended on 19 December 2008. Israel sustains it started the operation following a major increase in Hamas rocket attacks into Israel, culminating with 80 rockets on Christmas Eve, they also contend that the attacks are being undertaken in order to destroy Hamas' capability and motivation to launch future similar attacks on Israel. Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the lull agreement, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the Gaza Strip blockade. This conflict is the deadliest conflict since Hamas established political control of Gaza in early 2006. .

At least 225 people were killed on the first day of the Israeli attack, making this the single highest casualty day in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Later strikes resulted in casualties as well, with the total Palestinian toll having risen to 507 by Sunday 4 January 2009.

By the first evening, Israeli Air Force fighter-bomber aircraft had deployed approximately 100 tonnes (110 short tons) of explosives, with an estimated 95 percent reaching their intended targets, according to IAF sources. Israel bombed roughly 100 Hamas-operated security installations (including police stations, prisons, and command centers) in four minutes during the first wave of the strike. Israel also hit Hamas-operated security installations in all of Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City and Beit Hanoun in the north and Khan Younis and Rafah in the south.

The Israeli Navy has shelled targets in Gaza, instituting at the same time a naval blockade of Gaza, which has resulted in one naval incident with a civilian boat.

Hamas had decreased the amount of rocket and mortar attacks during the cease-fire period, and has renewed them, increasing the distance of attacks to as far away as 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Gaza border, hitting civilian communities like Beersheba and Ashdod. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure, including a school.

The IDF started massing infantry and armor units near the Gaza border and engaged in an active blockade of Gaza. On 3 January 2009, a ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.

Both Israel and Hamas are under pressure for a humanitarian truce, while Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Hamas' Damascus-based political leader, Khaled Meshal, had changed his earlier calls for ending the lull and started calling for a truce. Israel has said its military action could last weeks, while Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak stated that this will be a "war to the bitter end." Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip have also dismissed the idea of a cease-fire.

International reactions to the conflict have either condemned the Israeli operation, or Hamas' attacks, or both. Many countries and organisations have called for an immediate ceasefire and have expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. Israel maintains that a humanitarian cease-fire is not necessary at this point.

Discussion

Hi, I think maybe this bit could be taken out....I better elaborate on that a bit. Reasons = many -> it's the kind of statement that is problematic and causing instability in the lead e.g. 95% accuracy vs 25% civilian casualities probably has implications for many people who then feel obliged to mess up the lead, it's perhaps a bit of a military-geek focused statement, they are dropping big bombs which in seems are taking out much more than the target (as highlighted by the UNHRC), if I were living in Gaza I might understandably find the statement a bit bizarre and misleading etc etc. You get the idea.

with an estimated 95 percent reaching their intended targets, according to IAF sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(1)I agree. Not only is this is a "military geek" statement, claims of accuracy made by the IAF have been seriously questioned See [here] and in the absence of independent verification, these claims should not be taken at face value. (2) The references that support this claim dont actually mention a 95% figure. In fact one of the references mentions "alpha hits" supposed to mean direct hits. (3) This line has been discussed since yesterday and in the absence of proper referencing and a coherent justification, I think it should be removed. I'll do that now. If you would like to reinstate it, please discuss here. Jacob2718 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This 95% accuracy is criticized on a BBC article here. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I realized now that the reference to the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict was taken out. I am restoring. This very key contextual stuff that definitely belongs in a lead. (btw, as per above, I don't feel strongly either way, thats is stuff that belongs in the article, not the intro, but since it has survived I left it). Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Hamas attacks on the Israeli school is to be mentioned in the introduction (a sad accident ofcourse), then it should be also mentioned that Israel attacked schools, infrastructure, the Islamic university, government buildings, mosques, and civil police stations. .--Darwish07 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There must be a mentioning of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I suggest putting the UN statement "a human dignity crisis in the Gaza strip, entailing a massive destruction of livelihoods and a significant deterioration of infrastructure and basic services". This would sum up this important situation pretty well. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why saying that Hamas attacks made civilian causalities and then no mention of Palestinian civilian causalities exist? What about the 62 women and children reported by the UN? --Darwish07 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not acknowledging that in all Arab media, it's called the Black Gaza Massacre? Isn't the Arab opinions half the equation as supposed to be? --Darwish07 (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)