Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Palestinian casualty count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ie some were police, the rest were combatants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No discussion for two days, sounds like the matter is closed, status quo stays.Dovid (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence counting the casualty (3rd paragraph) should be rewritten - 400 children AND 900 civilians may be misinterpreted to sound like there was no militant casualty out of the total of 1300. Usrules (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties chart

Casualty figures are disputed and changing. See the main text for other estimates. Click the chart for more info on the chart sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the talk page long ago we agreed to the chart being in the article. Many supported it, few opposed it. I changed the source on the image to say "Palestinian Ministry of Health." See the instructions on the image page for purging your browser cache if necessary. I have been updating the chart every day or two. We can point out on the chart caption that the numbers are changing, and yet to be independently verified. Just like in the notes section of the infobox. The number of Palestinian wounded seems to be in flux. See [10]. The number of Palestinian dead from a couple Palestinian sources seems to be fairly stable around 1300. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I just clarified things better in the image summary at:

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

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

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

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

Is that the case? Are Hamas' numbers even "treated with the same weight as the numbers given by the Israeli government" (your quote)? For now I would be happy to settle for this, but I don't see anything but the Hamas numbers on the Palestinian side, and I do not see them differenciated nor are they attributed. The chart does not illustrate the section, it illustrates Hamas' views. I am all for NPOV, that's why I opened this thread in the first place. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that a chart like this should ever be placed in the article. It gives undue wait to pure numbers and paints one side in the conflict as being less seriously injured than the other.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So numbers are POV-pushing? Interesting. So if I were to show a graph of the NBA championships per team, would I be giving undue weight to the Celtics and Lakers because they won more? Nableezy (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One side of the conflict is less seriously injured than the other. It's only a fact. The article needs to present facts. Readers can draw their own conclusions and those conclusions (military success or excessive force etc) are out of scope for us. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) User:Hapsala recently added this great archive search form:

We agreed for the most part to use this chart. Please see the Jan. 5, 2009 discussion concerning the chart:

• • Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 8#Support or oppose chart inclusion and the previous talk sections. Since then Skäpperöd's requests for changes have been accommodated. What else can reasonably be done?

See this diff: [11]

Skäpperöd removed the chart again with this edit summary "again rm chart: numbers not attributed to sources, only Hamas figures shown for Pal deaths. fix first see talk."

The image caption explains that there are other estimates: "Casualty figures are disputed and changing. See the main text for other estimates. Click the chart for more info on the chart sources."

No chart can have all estimates, all civilian/combatant breakdowns, etc. and be of reasonable legibility at small sizes in the article. There are all kinds of charts we could use or combine with this chart. For example;

.

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What if we just didn't have a chart? To POV! We can list estimate ranges in the article but if we put it into graphical form we can't really show a range as such, just what certain sources say. Plus a chart just listing the figures could make it seem as if the Palestinian side was hurt to much, etc, without taking into account who started it and stuff. Think about the Russian war thing this summer and how it was handled. Russia invaded a country without just cause and murder tons of people while Israel has been suffering missile attacks for a long time now without that being taken into account. I mean why don't we put up a chart showing economic damages caused by this war and show how much Israel has had to spend on this war and showing how much Palestinians have had to spend on the war? That would make it look more costly to the Israel in economic terms. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you wrote: "why don't we put up a chart showing economic damages caused by this war and show how much Israel has had to spend on this war and showing how much Palestinians have had to spend on the war".

Sounds like a good idea. It is the USA that it is paying for much of Israel's military costs. See the aid charts at the end of this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf - Jan 2, 2008 Congressional Research Service report for Congress titled "U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel." That report is in the public domain since it is a federal government report.--Timeshifter (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"chart just listing the figures could make it seem as if the Palestinian side was hurt to much, etc, without taking into account who started it and stuff.".....it's just a chart of statistical data. It doesn't contain implicit information and so it can't implicitly advance any premise (if the RS are good). It's just empirical data. Actually I would quite like to see a chart of economic consequences but that's probably original research at the moment. Don't forget Israelis and Palestinians aren't really financing this directly. US tax payers pay for Israeli/Egyptian side and pretty much every other tax payer around the world will pay for fixing the damage done in Gaza. hmmm deja vu. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As a library researcher I ask that Wiki editors please always use & cite RS, and, most importantly, refrain from digesting info for me. Thank you kindly. Tell someone (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is placing the numbers we use in the infobox and putting them in a chart 'digesting info'? I cant see how, but would be interested in your explanation. Nableezy (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Um Sean.hoyland, I really hope you aren't trying to promote the antisemitic conspiracy theory that the US pays for Israel's defensive actions or has a special relationship with it. I am going to assume good faith that you aren't promoting the New Antisemitism, but be aware that what you posted above could be seen as such.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

um peter napkin, read the report before making defensive 'antisemite' accusations. while this was off topic, it was in response to your suggestion of 'ways to make israel look better'. we aren't here to make israel or hamas look better. we are here to report facts. it seems as if you think the facts themselves are antisemitic. (ie "a chart just listing the figures could make it seem as if the Palestinian side was hurt to much, etc" or charging that a congressional research service is an "antisemitic conspiracy theory") your opinion that, "Russia invaded a country without just cause and murder tons of people" does not make you an antirussian, and people who dont believe israel had just cause arent antisemites.

i think the chart is fine as is Untwirl (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...you know Peter, that's pretty funny. I'm going to be a nice guy, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are joking or feeling unwell. Of course, if I see you issuing these kind of "be aware" advice statements to anyone here again I might wonder whether you are actually being serious. I might then wonder whether it's really appropriate for you to be having a dance party here and think about doing something about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you might be interested to know that my edit above was precisely 666 bytes. Coincidence ? Perhaps all of my edits are precisely 666 bytes. You can draw your own conclusions. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

sean, i'm going to dance naked around a fire with you in the forest at night if youre serious.Untwirl (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, sorry about that. your washing hasn't dried yet. it's the humidity. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

dont forget my stoneproof vest. just bring it with you to the witches sabbath. oh yeah, bring a casserole, too. Untwirl (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The term you are looking for is status quo antebellum. The classic example would be the War of Jenkin's Ear. Hu Jintao was once asked "what were the consequences of the French Revolution" His answer was "Its too early to tell yet?" Let us wait until the consequences of this campaign runs its course before declaring this a victory or a defeat for Israel (or Hamas) V. Joe (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. I did not know that. Nableezy (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice set of notes and links, Agada. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since both sides have claimed victory, shouldn't we say that it's kind of unknown, and have a section explaining of how it can be considered an Israeli victory to some and how it can be considered a Hamas victory to others? Deavenger (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just say each side declares unilateral ceasefire, which is what happened and what we say, and wait until this has actually been relegated to the pages of history to see what people who can actually speak on who won say something. Nableezy (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In some parts of the Middle East, victory, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. See http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/01/20/what_was_the_gaza_war_about/5055/print/ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy's comment. Wiki editors aren't in the business of deciphering information for its readers. Stick to the info & its RS, please. Tell someone (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy's comment. However, to Tell Someone, if there are people talking about hey, Israel won, heres why ______, or hey, Gaza won, here's why _____. I think that's good enough to put into an encyclopedia article sayin, "______ believes it was an Israel victory due to ____, ____, ____ while _______ takes the oppostie view ______, etc." Deavenger (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That could find a place in the text, but this was about what goes in the infobox, what we say are facts. There is no way we should be debating who won here, it is not our place. Such discussions, where they take place in RS, can be included in the article, but not the infobox. At least not 2 weeks after the fact. Nableezy (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is rediculous. There is no way in hell that this could be called an "Israeli Victory". The facts are that Israel stated objectives. Some include (1) Stopping Hamas' attacks into Israeli territories. There have been multiple attacks since the ceasefire reported by this very article! (2) To destroy or disable the tunnel network that Hamas uses to smuggle materiel into the Gaza strip. Now I don't know the exact number that are still in opperation, but we sure as hell know they exist because yesterday Israel reported destroying some of them in retalliation to the attack that killed the Israeli soldier and wounded three others. Seriously this is a no brainer. The fact that Israel kicked the crap out of Hamas for a few weeks is irrelevant to this issue because it didn't resolve anything! The fact that Israel kille Gazans at a rate of 100:1 is also irrelevant. This wasn't a footbal game where the scores are tallied at the end of 90 minutes Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of casualties

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

• 
  Girl
• 
  Child
• 
  Mother
• Boy
  Boy

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

Gallery for casualties inside Israel

Here are some possible Fair Use images:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus to add additional photos

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

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

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

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

Where do you get that? the policy clearly says "material" not text! Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reasoning is more like this. Please show damaged buildings (in Gaza or Israel). This is certainly a merit. I am however tired of having to argue over each and EVERY photo added in order to show a Pro-Palestinian POV. We get it, many editors are sympathetic with Hamas I proposed this moratorium on adding more photos now that we have time (the dust has started to settle) until such time as the dust as settled. V. Joe (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely concur In favor of a moratorium on additional casualty photos. And I think we have all explained our reasoning sufficiently. Each picture evaluated separately? It would be endless. I am sure there are plenty more burned babies run over by Israeli tanks, more morgues, dead girls, dead boys, dead elderly people, bodies with white phosphorus burns, DIME victims of cancer, orphans, crying mothers, victims of Israeli brutality tearing their hair out. This is Hamas' victory. We would be arguing these photos for the rest of our natural lives. Thanks but no thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"This is Hamas' victory" ?....D'OH! We need to get past this issue at some point Tundrabuggy. The article isn't a battleground. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, you forgot to remove the "Holes in resident walls, after a missile attack" new image so I removed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugghh, so you are saying your mind is closed and it does not matter whether or not a source is reliable, you are going to oppose any additional photos? And you want people to assume good faith and treat you with respect? Good luck with that. Each picture should be judged on its merits. That you don't like the fact that there are more photos available of Palestinian causalities and they have received greater attention in the press, which is a result of there being 100x more Palestinian casualties, is wholly irrelevant to any of this. Simply put, tough shit. You don't get to make these decisions. Nableezy (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you summarily reverted. Get some other hobby, clearly illustrating an encyclopedia is not something either of you can do. Am sorry Sean, you can be witty, but this is pointy as point gets. And Tundra, stop screaming "no consensus", as you have done for the past two weeks. Its boring, unproductive, and pointy. This article should be illustrated, and illustrating the casualty section with one picture of the dead and another of the wounded is encyclopedic, necessary, and well beyond the needs of writting an encyclopedia. Your efforts at hiding information with constantly changing arguments, disruptive editing, and ultimately blackmail about ArbCom is trite, uncivil, and bullshit. Stop. --Cerejota (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

..but dad, he started it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My pops used to slap me just for saying that. Nableezy (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You sir, are a mid-west extremist, *zing*! :D--Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My dad used to blockade me in my den in the garden while I fashioned little rockets made out of Iranian lego (lekow) and fired them at him until it was time for tea. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, he let you have tea? Nableezy (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Its boring, unproductive, and pointy. This article should be illustrated, and illustrating the casualty section with one picture of the dead and another of the wounded is encyclopedic, necessary, and well beyond the needs of writting an encyclopedia. Your efforts at hiding information with constantly changing arguments, disruptive editing, and ultimately blackmail about ArbCom is trite, uncivil, and bullshit.

I find that a clear violation of WP: Civil as well as a personal attack on TB. I agree with him more than I disagree, but I would certain like something about evidence about blackmail. As for ever changing arguments, I do not feel that is "trite, uncivil or bullshit." It is rather necessary when dealing with unapologetic editors (and I do not include any specifics, and exclude you, Cerejota) who seek to endlessly push one POV irregardless of arguments, usually through ad hominem attacks and who make their unchangeable views clear and advocacy unitarian (they only advocate the Palestinian viewpoint) by their very wiki-names. Tundra-Buggy make sometimes go too far, but he is doing yeoman's work in attempting to keep this at least a semi-balanced article. I have, by attempting to make my own views on the article clear have been accused of a number of very not nice things, as well as had my ethnicity and national origin questioned.
As for you and I, we disagree about what images (if any) should be included, but I feel that the inclusion of many of these photos have not been made with good faith, they have not shown reliable sources and have been largely an effort to poison the well. This is why I proposed the moratorium. V. Joe (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I hear ya. 2) All photos from Israel are from "unreliable sources" - yet they add great value to the information presented, even if your novel interpretation of RS for images is to be accepted, we should WP:IAR 3) The discussions have been heated, and I can see your point of there being POV pushing with some of the images 4) But even under those environments, one must assume good faith 5) When this is done, surprising consensus emerges 6) There is no reliable sourcing requirement for images

On the matter of personal attacks, I can see why you feel that way - but I do not think they were, and I can't decide if your view is based on agreeing with tundra on this topic, or if you actually have a thinner skin for PAs than most editors. Shit, I have gone to WP:DRAMA with much more blatant stuff only to be told it isn't, so I know the bar is set pretty high.--Cerejota (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying this RS line, but you keep forgetting all of these pictures in question right now are from Al-jazeera. All of them. And if you want the standard yo be that a picture needs to come from a RS then you would have to remove all of the pictures that show any damage to Israel, because not a single one if from a RS. Al-jazeera is a RS, in fact the only one that I know of that has released any material for free-use. So I ask you, do you want the standard to be an image has to be from a RS? There was only 1 picture from a so-called non-RS that showed any damage to Gaza, the baby picture that if you havent noticed is not in the article. Every picture that shows rocket attacks at Israel is from a non-RS. Do you favor their exclusion? And since reliability is not an issue for Al-jazeera pictures, what new reason would you like to use for their exclusion? Nableezy (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

when backpedaling from the rs argument, v joe says this, "As for removing photos from non-reliable sources, I don't think an explosion or a building with a bunch of holes in it are nearly as inflammatory as pictures of human remains"

to which i replied, "as long as the photos don't show sympathy-inducing 'inflammatory' photos of dead palestinians then they dont have to be from a reliable source?"

it seems that this is a good assessment of his position. Untwirl (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

damaged buildings are prominent in gaza, yes. but damaged humans are a huge part of this and shouldn't be censored because you view them as inflammatory. Untwirl (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments based on estimates of the 'inflammatory' nature of images are pretty weak because

• they're highly subjective
• they're based on local/regional/cultural/religious rule sets i.e. one man's inflammatory imagery is another man's routine prime-time news depending on various fairly random factors
• they're kind of blown out of the water by comparison with images in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article amongst many others Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Background section

I deleted this sentence:

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

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

Tiamut, welcome into discussion. You know this was already discussed for a long time here [[12]] Both sources and exact wording. Let's work together towards a neutral point of view. You also welcome to suggest replacements, but please wait with remove till you get a reply. Please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette.

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

Relevance: During previous discussions [[13]] Skäpperöd noted The unusually high population density and the unusually high proportion of children (near half not even 14) need to be mentioned, as civilian, esp. children casualties and the use of human shields are among the most contentious issues of the conflict. So my assumption is that high population density and the unusually high proportion of children go hand in hand with use of human shields in the background section. It is worth mentioning that some areas of Gaza strip are even more densely populated than others. According to reports Al-Shuruq tower on Umar Al-Mukhtar Street in dowtown Gaza City (Rimal neighborhood) located in the heart of Gaza City, include among others the Reuters news agency and television stations Fox, Sky, NBC, Russian news channel Russia Today, Abu Dhabi TV and Al-Arabiya. This is clearly use of human shields on Hamas Gaza government.

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

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

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

Ditto.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently we did move this discussion. Glad to see you again, RomaC. Haaretz AFAIK is RS. and let me re-iterate: Hamas grad rocket launcher is military installation and did not get there (heart|downtown) of Gaza city and fired by chance. Hamas Gaza goverment deployed it there and claimed responsibility for firing. There are other RS reports of Grad fire from (heart|downtown) of Gaza city. It was not isolated case, just most obvious graphic and convincing. Please explain me in more details what exactly is the problem? If it is strictly reliable sources problem here another from BBC which is also RS AFAIK reported: analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets. See [[14]]. Human rights group consider it as taking (my wording) heart of Gaza as human shield. So how do we proceed to agreement? Could you offer a compromise instead of total elimination? 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK it's fair, Nableezy. Could you please provide such sources? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut already did, but here you go:

• Half of Gaza's population is under 18 years of age and more than 80 percent of its people rely on UN food aid. in "Gaza's war-scarred children go back to school"
• Gaza is one of the world's most densely-populated places on the planet, with around 1.5 million people packed into a surface area of 362 square kilometres (140 square miles). More than half of the population is under 18 years of age. in "Gaza counts the cost of Israel's onslaught"
• In Rafah, Egypt, where some of the Palestinian injured are taken for medical treatment, Japanese psychiatrist Norihiko Kuwayama said he has worked for five years in Gaza, and that the war exacerbated the need for mental-health services in the densely crowded enclave, where half of the population is under 18 years old. in "Wounds horrify Royal Navy doctor who volunteered aid"
• The offensive has sparked widespread concern about a humanitarian crisis breaking out in one of the world's most densely populated places where half of the population is under 18 years of age. in "Gaza battles rage as death toll nears 1 000"
  Nableezy (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nableezy, this is an impressive research. It is clearly notable. Would you agree to remove "the only" about area and change child statistic to population under 18 to better reflect the sources? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean. Nableezy (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be fair. It is WP:OR. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. What is 'the only'? And the numbers we use are from RS. Nableezy (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding this Gallery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wiki requires pics and text to follow undue weight policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Untwirl, I'm glad you agree with me that the "pro-10" argument is ridiculous, but that's my point. The guideline cited is more about focusing on the mainstream versus the fringe. It would not match that guideline to dump lots of pictures of harm to Palistinians only because there are more pictures only because they had more on the receiving side in pure numbers... that does not a "balance" make. Dovid (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to all who answered me; Are you serious? Since when is Wikipedia about showing enough grotesque pictures to try and balance out any tragedy?! The images are supposed to demonstrate sections of the article, so if a section talks about killed Palestinians, there should be a picture to show that, and when the section talks about destroyed school in Israel, a picture should be demonstrating this same school. It's not about how many died where. I am really sorry but what you guys said up there (like Tiamut and RomaC just for example), what you said is complete nonesense. Exactly what The Squicks said. I can't believe this is really being discussed here. And I am not going to start giving out my theories about what kind of propaganda is being pushed here because it's useless. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Gaza war" no "Hanukkah", why? Cause no reliable source says so. I am trying hard to find alternatives that are RS and convey the historic significance of the event while meeting WP:MILMOS neutrality (ie no Operation names). We do not do balnce by doing OR, we do balance by making editorial decisions around RS.--Cerejota (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned here "Cast lead" Dreidel is from "For Hanukkah" song. It what kids sing during Hanukkah season when this war took place. It was a joke, you could disregard it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Figures in Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So do you agree with this statement: it should not be in the lead, and it should be presented for what it is the, the report of a paper in Italy (or whatever description is more appropriate)? Nableezy (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That was two statements. Re second statement: all estimates should be attributed to the person/body making the estimate, so no problem here. Re first statement: any mention of civilian/combat casualties should mention that the figures are disputed; encyclopedias aren't supposed to be naive, we know that the precise figures are very difficult to obtain and that both sides have an interest in pulling them a certain way. Whether Cremonesi's estimate should be mentioned when talking about the dispute - yeah, probably. At least until there's another, more notable independent estimate. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated the original paragraph with the correct quotes of Palestinian and Israeli figures. WP:NPOV requires us to quote both parties' counts, and just because Israel did not release an own count for overall casualties it does not mean that the counts they did give should not be in there. Also the remnants of the paragraph (after the deletion of the Israeli figures) were factually incorrect, not all 1300 (Palestinian count) are claimed to be civilian casualties by the source. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lorenzo Cremonesi's original article in the Corriere is here: «Così i ragazzini di Hamas ci hanno utilizzato come bersagli» Interestingly, the part mentioning Israeli special forces - disguised as Hamas combatants - hiding amongst Palestinian civilians was not mentioned in the Israeli press? :-D MX44 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the point here is what do reliable sources around the world report. Here is what sources say BBC: "More than 1,300 Palestinians killed" Washington Post: "after a conflict that left 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead" Mail and Guardian(South Africa) "killed nearly 1200 Palestinians UN " 758 people in Gaza (On Jan 9) .. according to Palestinian reports cited as credible by UN officials." AlJazeera: "1,300 people, at least 410 of which were children"

as you can see the estimate that is universally quoted (and I've given sources from all over the world) is the Palestinian ministry of Health estimate. Hence, we should do the same. If the IDF questions it, we can have a line about that, but the paragraph as currently written gives way too much way to the IDF estimate which is not repeated widely by neutral reliable sources. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Video

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

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

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

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

Please indent! Neutral is more than just non-commentary. An interview-style video is by its nature POV, not straight reporting. What you saw, not what you heard.Dovid (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Names at the top

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's for battles and wars. This is neither. Some say there is no war, just a larger "conflict," whatever that means. If there is a war, then even so I don't know what this event was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This was an armed conflict between 2 parties, whatever you want to call it. Why should the names that the two parties use when referring to this conflict not be in the first paragraph? Nableezy (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a bunch of contentious wikipedia editors can't agree what to call this article doesn't mean that it isn't a battle or a war, it just means that there's no consensus on the article name. Whatever the taxonomy, it's a military conflict and the standard on wikipedia is to put alternatate names in the lead. Blackeagle (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are talking about the inclusion of Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre rather than the title of the article. Nableezy (talk)Never mind, didnt read all what you said ;) Nableezy (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this.[15] It explains the Israeli thinking a little better. They think between 1100 and 1200 people were killed. They claim to have identified about 700 as militants and 250 of them as civilians. And the rest have not yet been identified. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

UNRWA

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

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

Actually the main point that Israel stresses here is:

During the recent fighting in Gaza a number of UNRWA institutions were bombed by the IDF, which claimed that terrorists had fired at forces from within or near the UN compounds. The agency's employees took a clear-cut stance against Israel during the war.

Lindsay's report warns that the agency has deteriorated increasingly over the years since its establishment...

He suggests UNRWA make operational changes and "halt its one-sided political statements and limit itself to comments on humanitarian issues; take additional steps to ensure the agency is not employing or providing benefits to terrorists and criminals"

As Israeli, for instance, I'm shocked by press release of Zeitun incident, reporting it as fact, without any investigation and while not doing "any allegations".

From other hand, unfortunately clear continues cases of war crimes of which Hamas government claimed responsibility did not get any "urgent investigation" call by UNRWA.

The sad thing is that UNRWA is one of main factors that has no interest in resolving "Palestinian refuges" issue from 60 years ago and creation of Palestinian state. UNRWA budget would be in danger in such scenario. Considering the fact that grandchildren of Nakba refugees in Gaza live in de-facto Palestinian state - UNRWA should get out of Gaza, there is no justification for its existence there.

Editors of this article should consider UNRWA bias and those facts. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a language issue here, because I really do not understand the above.Dovid (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, this is all irrelevant to this article. Nableezy (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No WP:consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure it's relevant, but it's funny. See: http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4728/1231958480954uo4.jpg AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

edit summary

Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (142,259 bytes) (→Gaza strip: No consensus. POV and unbalanced. Time to take this to arbitration I think)

Then do it.--Cerejota (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let the chips fall: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Tundrabuggy_and_edit_warring_over_images_at_2008.E2.80.932009_Israel.E2.80.93Gaza_conflict. My money is I get blocked first by some "uninvolved" admin, but hey, I am assuming good faith that will not happen.--Cerejota (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How disturbing. The fact that comments along the line of holocaust denial not being so bad come to nothing whereas buggy's comments matters is so weird.

Personally, I am taking a long break from this article and then coming back when the fog lifts. (I sincerely hope that this is not interpreted by Nableezy and others as an attack on them. It's not.) The Squicks (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What am I, the most sensitive little boy at the dance? I didn't say anything about Holocaust denial, so I don't take anything by that. But did the users who did say stuff like that actually stand in the way of consensus at all times and demand their way or no way? If it was just the annoyance of having to ignore ones comments on the talk it would be one thing, but when it consistently makes editing the article much harder than it would otherwise be it is another issue entirely. Nableezy (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of you managed to get me banned over "edit-warring", rather than take the main issue to arbitration. Afraid you might lose that one on the merits? Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, your editing ban doesn't prevent you from doing that does it ? I assumed it specifically related to editing the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

jta

i don't think, the "global news service for jewish people" meets the demands of WP:RS. excerpts from their self concept (http://jta.org/about):

JTA is driven by the belief that knowledge is power, and that only by being better informed can the Jewish community be better connected.

Over the years, the Jewish community has come to rely on JTA as the single most credible source of news and analysis available about events and issues of Jewish interest anywhere in the world.

--Severino (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends, I would agree that for controversial subjects they are biased, but they are a reliable source in the sense that they are not a blog. For some articles in wikipedia it is a reliable source. In this one, I think there are better sources for the information it conveys, in particular with more reporting reach and more rigorous fact checking etc.--Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To make that suggestion reflects one's own editorial bias. JTA is WP:RS in the same sense as every other news organization on the planet. That JTA's target audience are Jews is irrelevant. By analogy, suppose there was a CanadianTA that said it is driven by the belief that knowledge is power, and that only by being better informed can the Canadian community be better connected? How does that deny it's WP:RS or suggest any bias, unless you think their mission is to misinform the Canadian people? There is nothing about this which even suggests bias, although one might expect that topics of interest to the Jewish Community would receive more coverage. This seems like a double standard. By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism. Doright (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context". if, for example, serbia is at war with croatia and a serbian news agency/news platform says something analogous about itself (to deal with THIS parameter), that would raise doubts about their reliability/impartiality as a source in this war, yes. btw, does your recitation have the purpose to impress somebody?--Severino (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Severino, I'm reading what you wrote but I can't make sense out of it. You wrote, " serbia is at war with croatia and a serbian news agency/news platform says something analogous about itself (to deal with THIS parameter)? What are you trying to say? Doright (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop calling people anti-semites, its a dick move. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, calm down. No one called anyone an antisemite so please stop your incivility. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, dont imply people are anti-semites, it is a dick move. Nableezy (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, it is especially rude, impolite and uncivil to again engage in the same name calling that I already objected to. It is a personal attack and is not helpful to anyone. Also, I did not imply anyone was an antisemite. It might be helpful if you reread what I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doright (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, let us look at what you wrote. First, 'This seems like a double standard'. That implies a double standard is being used. Next. 'By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism'. Here you equate said double-standard with antisemitism. Since you implied that a double standard existed, and then equated this supposed double standard with antisemitism, you did in fact imply some of being antisemitic. It might be helpful if you actually know what it is you are writing before you click 'Save page'. Nableezy (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, the statement, "This seems like a double standard," does not imply that a double standard is being used. "Seems" does not equal "is." As you say, "It might be helpful if you actually know what it is you are writing before you click 'Save page'," it seems that you are unable to converse in a civil manner. Notice, that does not mean that you can not converse in a civil manner. It means it seems that you can't. I am not saying you can't. Maybe you can. It's really not that complicated. In any case, I think we are done here. Doright (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be one is equivalent to implying one, you dont quite go out and say it but you put it out there. But yes, it appears we are done here. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I glad you now understand that I did not say what you claimed. Doright (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You did say what I 'claimed' but are apparently unwilling to withdraw those comments and apologize, thats why we are done. Feel free to have the last word, but dont think you understand what I am writing because it is clear you cannot even understand what you are writing. Nableezy (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had told the editor that I was sorry on their user talk page. And they told me they were not offended. So it would seem your histrionics are just that. Doright (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See also: Godwin's law

—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

You may like to know that Godwin's law can be easily understood as a case of The Livingston Formulation that is often used by antisemites. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it a dick move, it is cheapening the very real suffering of those who have faced true antisemitism. When everything is antisemitism, nothing is antisemitism. How Doright arrived to the conclusion that JTA is to be treated differently because it is a Jewish source is beyond me - so are Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, and we like them. There is no double standard, quite the contrary, we apply to this partisan source the same criteria Doright applies to the ISM and PNN - and even, unbelivably to Al Jazeera.

—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

Cerejota, show me the diff where I applied your criteria to ISM and PNN Al Jazeera. Your claim is false. Even so, one must conclude that you would not agree with such an application of such a criteria to Al Jazeera. Yet, you say, "we ['we' of course include you] apply to this partisan source the same criteria." This appears a contradiction that can only be explained by yet another double-standard. Cerejota, you repeatedly refer to "we" in your above statements. Who are the "we" that you are refereeing to other than yourself? Also, the only "conclusion" that i "arrived to" was. "JTA is WP:RS in the same sense as every other news organization on the planet."Doright (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, it is true that the target audience of a given source is irrelevant. What we use to measure reliability are basically two things: how other sources verify the information give, and how a given sources view the given source. To lesser extent we also use common sense... This is why the ISM is not really a reliable source around here, and why the ISM isn't either. As I already said: there are better sources for the information it conveys, in particular with more reporting reach and more rigorous fact checking etc being Jewish is irrelevant. If you even imply that an editor is antisemitic again - unless of course that editor says something like "death to the jews" - you could be blocked. Read WP:ARBPIA. --Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, with misleading (see above) and uncivil ("not only is it a dick move")and threatening edits here, I suspect it is far more likely that you will be blocked. Again, false claims and contradictory arguments do not help the project. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also a dick move is putting comments in the middle of somebody elses post. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We includes me too. I don't beleive it's an RS either. I think you guys should both chill. Doright your allusion to anti-semitism was innapropriate. Disagreeing with a Jewis source doesn't make anyone a racist and to imply so is rediculous. Nableezy you assertation that Doright has been making "Dick moves" is plain rude and an uncivilised way of making a point. If someone dissagrees with you, no matter what is said, devolving the discussion to petty name calling doesn't help anyoneAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"I call a spade a spade it just is what it is." (5 pretend dollars to who can name that artist) Nableezy (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Andrew's Concience, can you show how and why JTA is not a WP RS along with the specific elements of the RS guideline that support your belief? If not, I think this entire discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. Also, no one here said or implied anyone here was "a racist." Furthermore, I did not make an "allusion to anti-semitism." Respectfully, Doright (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doright but to say "To make that suggestion reflects one's own editorial bias." followed by "By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism." is an unambiguous accusation of antisemitism against Severino. Since that wasn't your intention then you just need to be a bit more careful with your language so that calmness prevails. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, Thanks for the suggestion and it is a point well taken. You are correct that it wasn't my intension. At the same time, I must say I don't agree with your analysis that it is "an unambiguous accusation." In fact what I wrote is not an accusation. But, I'm not sure how much additional effort we want to put into beating this dead horse. Doright (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, no problem. I always enjoy a good dead horse flogging session myself. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuck that, in this very thread you have twice accused somebody of antisemitism. The quote above where you implied a double standard and equated that with antisemitism, and when another editor wrote See Also: Goodwins Law, you interrupted their comment with this: "You may like to know that Godwin's law can be easily understood as a case of The Livingston Formulation that is often used by antisemites." I request you strike both accusations, stop denying and apologize, and that you cease in implying such motivations by other editors. Nableezy (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

...apparently the horse was just napping. Similar thing happened at a Buddhist cremation ceremony I attended recently. Of course the guy can laugh about it now that most of the facial burns have healed. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Me thinks thou doth protest too much. To say that a particular and well documented rhetorical formation is often used by antisemites is a far cry from actually having "accused somebody of antisemitism." It does seem, along with your use of of expletives, that you are either unable to or refuse to reflect obvious distinction in your edits. Doright (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, saying you don't beleive this conversation will be fruitfull is not true. What you should have said is, "I'm not going to get my way." and as for the anti semitism shot. You can't just say anything you like and then make it ok by saying you didn't mean it. You couldn't jump off a building and halfway down say it was a joke and you take it back. So keep it off the talk page. As for the source, it's clearly a biased organisation. The website practically says. Come here to learn the Jewish version of Jew stuff for Jews. You wan't to pick apart WP:RS and make your interpretations of every line I can't stop you. But I'll point you to WP:CONSENSUS which you clearly don't have.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrews Concience, Firstly, I didn't say that. Secondly, even with your miscomprehension, it would be absurd for you to claim that you know what I believe better than I do so much so that you are in a position to be saying my statement about what my belief is "is not true." I said, "can you show how and why JTA is not a WP RS along with the specific elements of the RS guideline that support your belief? If not, I think this entire discussion is unlikely to be fruitful." Notice, the conditional "if." Unfortunately, there seems to be a widespread reading comprehension problem on this page. And, it would appear that I was correct about the fruitlessness. You could not identify how the JTA violates any element of WP:RS. That makes the conversation not fruitful and merely an endless restatement of your premise in the form of a conclusion. A bit circular. And, yes, if you can't show how the JTA fails to meet the criteria of WP:RS then there is no basis for your claim. Just typing "WP:RS" is meaningless. It appears that failing an actual argument for your position, you claim a consensus. By the way, are you claiming that a consensus exists for your position that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is not a WP:RS? Doright (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You got a problem, seek dispute resolution. Focus on the content, not the editors: JTA is iffy as a source for the same reason ISM is.

And crying "personal attacks", "incivility" and then doing nothing only to get other editors to actually become uncivil and launch personal attacks about it is the oldest trolling move in the book. The oldest. As in I think Jimbo did it in the begining or something.

Sorry, I am out of troll food. But I might be able to buy some with the 5 pretend dollars Nableezy is owing me for identing Jay-Z as the author of the line.--Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Jay-Z stole that line, still waiting. Nableezy (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, second the request that you strike your highly offensive accusations of "antisemitism" if you want to continue discussion with other editors here. RomaC (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

please don't split user comments, doright. new comments on the bottom.--Severino (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a recent discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard in regard to the JTA. [16] The way I interpret the discussion was it is considered reliable. The only difference between it and any other RS is that it "collect(s)and disseminat(es) news among and affecting the Jewish communities of the diaspora as well as Israel." It does not skew it, it collects and disseminates news of interest to Jews worldwide, and has for 90 years. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there is another major difference, straight from WP:RS: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. JTA is not that. Haaretz and Jerusalem POst are both sources targetted to a Jewish audience and published in a language mostly spoken by Jews, yet we consider them mostly reliable. JTA is different because it is less prestigious, is less well-known, less subjected to scrutiny by other realiable sources, and with a lesser amount of journalistic resources. This includes the fact that it is narrowly targetted - but to whom it is targetted is irrelevant, except in cases were the target audience is the subject. For example, JTA is definitely a reliable source when dealing with news from religious debates, obituaries, and Jewish history, as any specialized news source would be. However, as a simple perusal of the JTA funding page shows, it is a commited Zionist publication, in other words, it is a partisan publication, funded by a veritable who's who of Zionist organizations and foundations. It is its partisanship that is problematic, not its Jewishness, as you seem to imply, and Doright has stated (in spite of the denials using disingenious language). Using the JTA is similar to using the Palestine News Network. In fact, it is the flip side of the coin.

When faced with partisan groups that would otherwise be reliable sources, we must be careful to provide verifiability. I have no opposition of including JTA sourced material around here, I do have opposition to having it be used as a sole source in controversial claims, or used in lieu of more reliable sources, such as more general reliable sources.--Cerejota (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I know the lede is a powder keg, but for the benefit of readers who actually want to read the article to know what happened, I made two small additions.

1. Added "in the Gaza Strip" to specify where Israel's military campaign was.
2. Added "on its southern communities" to specify where Hamas rocket attacks were.

I also wikilinked the first mention of Hamas in the lede instead of the second mention. I have a grain of hope that these changes won't lead to endless partisan bickering, but...they probably will. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Stylistically 'in the Gaza Strip' goes better after Operation Cast Lead. Have presumed to adjust.

Only problem with adding 'in the southern communities' is checking that the sources quoted use precisely that wording, as attribbuted to Israeli spokesmen. Do they?Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources I've seen usually use "towns and communities", "towns" or "communities". There was already a discussion about the phrase "towns and communities", with Nableezy arguing that this was weasel wordage and Cerojota and I arguing that it wasn't. The way I remember it is that Nableezy eventually accepted our position, but I can't speak for him. In any case, these are the phrases used by RS's; I chose a one-word phrase instead of a three-word phrase so as not to provoke arguments that I was giving the rocket attacks too much air time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and though Cerejota doesn't believe me, I argued that 'communities' is the default word for anywhere where Israelis live, and is never used to Palestinians, in most I/P articles. Here Gazans don't ever live in 'communities', though all their refugee camps and town-units are clan-structured communities. Hamas fires all over the Negev, mostly into the desert, even if it aims at settlements or towns.One argument for communities is that the many kibbutzim in the Sha'ar haNegev are not towns. On the other hand, most places hit are townships. In any case, technically, one should have this sort of phrasing sourced. We are dealing with 'stated' claims, and stated claims should follow the official Government statements to the word.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::It's interesting to me that you have that gripe, because one of my pet peeves is that "villages" is used in the media only for Palestinians and not for Israelis. Since "village" has no particular administrative meaning, but does conjure images of a bucolic, peaceful New-England-type setting, I consider it to be borderline weasel-wordage in the I-P context. But since it's a problem in the RS's themselves, I would never argue against its use in Wikipedia, as long as it was adequately reflected in the cited sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I use neither. It is interesting also that Israeli village gets 77,400,000 hits on Google. 'Village', when not upmarket nouveau-bucolic, has a touristy tone, whereas 'community' is schmalzy. I refer not to general usage, but to I/P usage. Israel's stated aims, are of course those announced in the press by government and IDF spokesmen. These naturally have absolutely nothing to do with its real aims, given that Hamas had accepted to reaffirm the truce. The real aims are already coming out in strategic reports all over the place, and have nothing to so with 'protecting southern communities', which is quite simple: accept a truce, one that allows people in Gaza to eat regularly. But this is soapboxing of course.

The problem remains. The links I checked that are supposed to underwrite 'southern communities', are old links, and do not mention this as the stated aim. The stated aim was generic, to stop rockets being fired.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

::::"Israeli village" has 13,600 google hits, most referring to Arab-Israeli villages or reconstructed villages. "Palestinian village" gets 84,200 google hits. I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of never getting into rambling talk page discussions not related to the article. I can control myself when seeing opinions I disagree with, but when people get facts messed up, I get sucked in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert, both 'Israeli village' gives me 24,800,000 now, and 'Palestinian village' over 1,200,000. It doesn't matter either way to me. My point was (a) Wiki I/P usage and (2) the fact that nowhere in the three sources does it state Israel's intent was other than to halt rocket fire. No mention of 'southern communities' which appears to be your construction. Note 31 by Amos Harel however has this.

The Israeli objective is clear: deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter. Ostensibly, it will not prevent heavy rocket fire on the Negev towns, but it will likely make it more difficult for Hamas to carry out more damaging attacks against Israel.

This is not of course Israel's stated view, but that of an opinionist- The notes 32,33,34 all refer simply to an aim of hitting 'Hamas-linked' infrastructure and stopping rocket fire, as in the original had it before you changed it. I'll restore the old version, which was more succinct, until evidence is forthcoming that the stated view was that of stopping firing into just one part of Israel, (the known military objective was to destroy Hamas's capacity to strike Israel, and stop it from achieving an upgraded capacity to strike anywhere in the country). I hardly need add that rather than arbitrary sourc es from newspapers we need a specific declaration by the government on the 27th. referring to the purpose of the assault. If this exists, and uses language that justifies your proposal, or a different formulation, by all means bring it up. If we get the official gov. or IDF (same difference)declaration, we can get rid of the three newspaper refs, which are arbitrary, and as such improper.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, Nishidani, here are three sources explicitly stating that Israel's aim was to stop Hamas rocket fire on its "southern communities" (as opposed to, say, its northern communities). For simplicity's sake I'm limiting myself only to Associated Press articles. I agree that since the RS's - and not just the Israeli government - state as fact that this was Israel's aim, saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you. In fact, since the reliable sources use the phrasing "years of rocket fire", I see no reason not to follow them on that, too; but we can leave these issues for later.

• All 15 council members agreed to a press statement drafted by Britain and France that welcomed Sunday's unilateral cease-fires by Israel and Hamas militants following Israel's offensive aimed at halting years of militant rocket fire by Hamas on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza.
• Israel launched the war on Dec. 27 in an effort to halt years of militant rocket fire by Hamas on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza.
• Israel launched the war on Dec. 27 in an effort to halt years of militant rocket fire on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza. (different article, different author)

This should sate your desire for "forthcoming evidence". Now please restore the more informative, if somewhat less succinct version, and please never waste my time again by demanding that I prove trivialities. Also, please please please don't ever again make me sit through your extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing. As a symbolic admission of my partial guilt in this case, I'm striking through my earlier comments that were not directly related to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My two changes to the lede were proposed together, since one adds info on Israeli violence (and thus vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Israeli editors) and one adds info on Palestinian violence (and vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Palestinian editors), while both add necessary information for the naive reader. Nishidani was the only one who objected, predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence. Since he has not responded to me, and more importantly, since no one else has objected to my (in all honesty, ridiculously cautious) change, I am restoring it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so rude. Your time is no more valuable than my own. Were I as ill-mannered as you seem to be above, I should reply that you wasted my time by inserting a phrase unsupported by the old references. It is standard wiki practice to anchor one's edits and wording in references. My drawing your attention to this was neither rude, nor time-wasting, but a matter of editorial scruple. If you demand precision from others, expect it from those who examine your own edits. You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective. It remains for me your edit proposal, now with proper references. I don't know about wikipedia, but that's how historians work. And I do not understand, in closing, your remarks about my 'predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence'. If I have unilaterally removed info on Palestinian violence, while agreeing to that on Israeli violence, I'd appreciate a link to show where. The only edit change a made to your lead suggestion was repositioning words for stylistic smoothness. Otherwise, unlike yourself, I left an edit I didn't agree with intact, as courtesy obliges when one's fellow-editor takes the trouble to engage in dialogue. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

'saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you.'

I didn't insert 'stated aim'. It's been there for some time, unchallenged. I agree with it. 'Stated aim' is perfectly correct, since several articles I've been reading by military and political analysts, not all with my POV by any means, assert that these two 'stated aims' often bruited about in newspapers, do not reflect far more complex considerations behind Israel's decision to go to war. To replace 'stated aim' with 'aim' is to presume we here know exactly what those real intentions were. We aren't at this state, in a position to know anymore than this. There is a very serious distinction to be preserved here.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, Nishidani, could you both stop with the personal attacks please? Blackeagle (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? I won't push it, but I haven't attacked anyone, and will not engage further if this is raised again. Take it to my page if you think I have. Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the content of either of your changes, but now we've got quite a run on sentence. It's made even worse by all the (parenthetical) statements. How about splitting it into two sentences, something like:

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Template:Lang-he), the campaign's stated intention was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and target the members and infrastructure of Hamas."

Blackeagle (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

where has nishi made a personal attack??? i see him being exceedingly patient while being accused of "extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing"

if jalapenos were serious about regretting disruption he should strike that statement and apologize. Untwirl (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The person who made the remark should not be allowed to light a fuse that isn't there. I checked. I mistook a newbie for an administrator and took the crack as an instance of administrative nodding, to be countered. This has blown over. Jalapenos and I are, essentially, discussing technical problems in the lead. We disagree. We argue. No harm done.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blackeagle, I don't think either Nishidani or I engaged in a personal attack, but I did fail to keep cool. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adopting Blackeagle's suggestion above about splitting one sentence into two. It is a stylistic necessity and does not change the content at all. If anyone objects to it for some reason, they can say so here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A point, as I see my name up there; I was never involved in this discussion, though I favor a word other than communities. I think there are any number of words that fit better, and the one I would think fits the best is 'southern Israel'. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And I also think it should say with the 'stated aim'. It is Israel's stated aim, there are a number of sources that question these were the actual aims, questioning whether or not it was motivated by upcoming elections, or by the knowledge that support for Israel in the White House could not be assumed to be as strong upon the inauguration of Obama, or any other number of reasons. The easiest way to sidestep that is to explicitly say this is the stated aim of the Israeli government, which can be both well-sourced and verifiable. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article uses "stated intention", rather than "stated aim". Does anyone have a preference for one over the other? Blackeagle (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would favor 'aim'. I think intent would apply to wider vision, a military campaign has aims and goals, it is a tool of intent. Just me though. Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "aim" until being shown a good reason for "intention", at least because its used in one of the sources I quoted above. Nableezy, can you give an example of a high-level RS, say a news item from a major news organization, that assumes the alternate aims you mentioned or casts doubt on the "stated aims"? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still researching the issue of "stated aim" vs. "aim", but I thought I'd post this tidbit. Iranian Press TV, which is, to put it mildly, biased against Israel, cites the aim of ending rocket attacks against Israeli towns as fact:
"Tel Aviv launched Operation Cast Lead on December 27 to put an end to rocket attacks against southern Israeli towns."
Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To be clear up there I meant I would go with 'stated aim'. There are no sources that report as fact anything that I said above questioning the stated aims, there are certainly editorials by notable authors about that, but I wouldnt think of including them in the article. The reason why I would favor stated aim is this. I don't think anybody can accurately report what any government in this world is actually trying to do. What we get is what they say they are trying to do. I would be wary of saying anything that a government says about its aims or intentions without first qualifying it as what it is, the aim that is given to the public. It goes both ways, Hamas saying their only intention is lifting the siege is only that, what they say. Nableezy (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason many of the RS's cite the stated aims as fact in this case is because there are some stated aims that are inherently plausible. If a gov't builds a bridge over a river, the stated aim of "enabling people to get from one side to the other" is inherently plausible. I agree that in war we need to be exceptionally careful, becuase gov'ts are prone to conceal things in war, but I don't see why we need to be more careful than a large portion, possibly the majority, of the reliable sources. By the way, if we do go with "stated aim", we have the added responsibility of citing the stated aim fully and accurately, as it was stated, which means pretty much quoting from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The government may also be making strategic landing strips for fighter airplanes with that bridge (from a conspiracy as to why the US has the Eisenhower Interstate System). Governments consistently hide their true motivations from the public, I just don't think we can take any at its word. Nableezy (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not addressed: "You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective." -Nishidani

Because if we DO go back to the beginning of this conflict(and we should when addressing the lead), we'll find the following:

Dec 30 - Israel attacks Gaza for the fourth day - http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=54699 (from the BBC)

On goals(aim) - "Israel's defence chief earlier said his country was fighting a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas."

On whether to use 'stated' or not - "Israel says its aim is to end the rocket attacks by Hamas-linked militants - of which there were reportedly more than 40 on Monday."

Dec 27 - Israel's attack on Gaza kills hundreds - http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11323391

On goals - "The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel."

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said late Saturday that the goal was "to bring about a fundamental improvement in the security situation." He added, "It could take some time."

"Stated"? - see above plus "Israel warned it might go after Hamas' leaders, and militants kept pelting Israel with rockets - killing at least one Israeli and wounding six.

Dec 30 - Israel Assaults Hamas In Gaza - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/27/israel-launches-air-strik_n_153664.html

On goals - "Israel's stated goal is to cripple Hamas' ability to launch rockets at Israeli towns, which means that a ground invasion is becoming more likely as it becomes clear that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job."

"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has declared "all-out war against Hamas."

"Stated"? Yes. But infrastructure? and since Hamas fire those rockets from civilians area, not having military bases of their own, police stations and houses in gaza are Hamas' infrastructures?

I recognized Nishidani's point as being that from the beginning there was ambiguity as to what this Israel's attack was to bring Israel itself. Now there was a target inside Gaza, Hamas, there is war, but is war about what? goals? yes to some degree, but most of those goals can't be archived until conquering has been archived(re:Iraq war, AND Israel's previous occupations of both Lebanon and Palestine)...so to cripple Gaza, only Hamas's "infrastructure" was the "stated" goal?

At what point, even Israel's foreign minister was at odds with what the prime minister was "stating" as the goals for this operation.

Needless to say then, it would be a great disservice if we use Israel's "stated goals" as of Jan 30.

My humble suggestion is to leave it as "The operation was aimed at..." Stated is a loaded term.

There should be even more discussion on this BTW. Cryptonio (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Dec 30 - ANALYSIS / Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza - http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051024.html

On goals - "The operation's goals, as defined by the cabinet, are "creating a different long-term security situation in the south, while bolstering Israel's deterrence." The IDF does not interpret this to mean a complete end to the rocket fire, as it considers this impossible. Rather, its goal is to eliminate Hamas' desire to attack Israel. The bombing campaign has so far dealt a severe blow to Hamas."

Fire in the hole. Notice ref to "as defined"(so they are defining what they are stating? or vice-versa?) plus IDF does not interpret what's been stated(which of course was defined before it was stated) which at the end, they disregard what was stated for them(perhaps rather just defined, in order for them to interpret on their own?) because they found what was 'defined' for them impossible(or what they interpreted as being defined to them). Cryptonio (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a really hard time with complaints that "community" should not be used in the lead but "Massacre" is A-OK. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, thanks for the input. Wikipedia is not calling it a Massacre, we just say who is. Here, wikipedia is using the term 'communities', not just saying who is. There is a little bit of a difference there in case you were wondering. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New section re lead

Jalapenos do exist and other committed editors. I'm extremely wary of touching leads until agreement is established via discussion. It used to be fairly balanced. What we have now, on checking it this morning, is gross reduplication, which the text didn't have earlier. It reads:-

(a) with the stated intention of stopping Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[32][33][34]. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[35][36][37][38][39]

(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.)

(c) On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire and the smuggling of weapons through underground tunnels from Egypt. [50] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade.[51]

In my view (b) relatively untouched since the beginning, is fairly balanced. However (a) and (c) repeat the same phrasing, and this should never occur in leads.

The Ist para describes the Operation, Israeli's objectives. The second gives background and reciprocal blame or claims. The third repeats the already explained 'intentions' of para one, simply changing 'stated intention' with 'stated objective', while adding a further one (tunnel smuggling), and repeats the claim made by Hamas in para 2. Israel in (c) which is all repetitition, gets 24 words, Hamas 15.

Para (c) is therefore repetitive, reduplicates parts of para (a) and para (b), in violation of WP:LEDE. Since it says nothing new, but hammers away, I suggest it be removed, with an eye however to conserving in some form the 'tunnel smuggling' bit. However retain that, with a RS showing it was the explicit view of the IDF/Gov, and you then have a balancing problem. For Hamas, those tunnels mainly serve as corridors for food and goods to get round the blockade.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that (c) is mostly repetitive. What about moving the smuggling allegation to paragraph (b). Have it read something like:

(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel claimed cross-border tunnels were used for smuggling weapons while Hamas insisted the tunnels were necessary to supply Gaza with goods and food. [insert reliable source here] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel using the smuggled weapons.[50]

Blackeagle (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does that paragraph purport to explain? Why the truce was not renewed? You have Hamas claiming that Israel was not lifting the blockade as justification, though it is not clear whether that was agreed upon as part of the truce agreement. You have Hamas holding one cross-border tunnel raid as a reason, and give Hamas' rationale for the tunnels. You say "Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks using smuggled weapons." Nowhere does it acknowledge that Hamas fired weapons and mortar into Israel the entire time of the truce, really ratcheting it up in November & December. It does not state that Israel considered this to be a "serious breach of the truce". The fact that the weapons were smuggled was not Israel's reason for this counter-offensive. It was in fact the constant, almost daily fire throughout most of the truce that was the main reason -- and Israel did in fact hold the constant firing on the "southern communities" to be a "serious breach of the truce". Israel's view isn't really reflected in this paragraph except perhaps as an afterthought. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is intended as a readability edit rather than a content edit. The content itself is pretty much identical with what is currently in the article, it's just arranged a bit less redundantly. Do you prefer the current version to what I proposed above? Blackeagle (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was meant as the "universal 'you'" as opposed to the "personal" you. If it were clear that we were talking about the reasons that the "truce" was not renewed, as opposed to the first paragraph which supposedly is talking about the reasons for "Operation Cast Lead" itself,' it would not then be redundant, though it might be similar. Hamas and Israel could not come to terms to extend the truce. Then Hamas' stated reasons & Israel's stated reasons, fairly. If you are not going to explain why there was no extension of the truce you could leave it all out or put it in later in the background section. ie "A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47]" End of story. Just a thought. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Fire in the Info Box

To note that 13 israelis have been killed in such a prominent place without a mention of the fact that it was friendly fire is misleading. I believe that it should resemble the First Gulf War page, which has the number because such a statistic was uncovered. There is no reason, since we have the secondary sources to back the information up, to keep that from being on this page, in the info box. 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bordello (talk • contribs)

Usually friendly fire is quoted in soldiers context. 4 of 10 soldiers. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That has no place in the infobox, if we did that then we should put in the infoboxes of all the other war articles how many of those soldiers died in friendly fire incidents, it has already been said that four died due to friendly fire in the casualties section.BobaFett85 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Boba. I put the astericks there because the friendly fire number is known and available through secondary sources. For an example of such inclusions, see First_Gulf_War and the Al-Aqsa_Intifada, where friendly fire is mentioned in the infobox. The reason why such a statistic is in the infobox is because these wars were well-documented, and the numbers are known. Friendly fire should be mentioned, if it known to have happened, just like how casualties are separated into two columns for this article: each side has a tally of those who they have lost, they should also be some accountability for those who are responsible for the losses. Other wars, unfortunately, are not covered even this accurately: See Ituri conflict, and Second Congo War for examples of a lack of secondary sources for clear responsibilities for casualties in the infobox.

There are good moral justifications for this: First, accuracy. The friendly fire number is correct, and shouldn't be covered up (you hear the "thirteen casualties" all the time and don't hear that four of them were friendly fire deaths half as much, which would lead a casual listener, who doesn't dig deeper, to assume it was Hamas (it's happened numerous times to me in real life; it is easily assumed, and by including it, this mistake is easily preventable). This misunderstanding should be stamped out for the sake of truthfulness. Second, causes of death should be put into distinct categories like these because we do not know the motives behind the killings. For example, whether the IDF wanted those soldiers dead (and I don't think they do) or if this was a complete error is unknown and perhaps unknowable. What is known is that they were killed by fellow Israeli soldiers. Please do not revert this until you present a justification, or find a known standard I am not aware of. Thanks.

Bordello (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should mention it. BTW there were reported cases of Palestinian civilians death from Qassam rockets which sometimes "friendly" fall also inside Gaza. Please see Girls die as militants' rockets fall short. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5400712.ece AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove the civilian breakdown yet? It is in the casualties section and the infobox does not need to separate women and children from other civiliansCptnono (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, Moved it to new topic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#InfoBox_civilians_break_down AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The First Gulf war is one example, and just that, ONE example. The Second intifada is not, it doesn't tell about friendly fire anywhere, if you mean palestinians killed by palestinians it wasn't friendly fire but killing of Fatah members by Hamas members and vice versa. And foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces is also not friendly fire, those were mostly foreign demonstrators in the Gaza strip killed by Israeli soldiers. Except for the First Gulf war and MAYBE, but I doubt it, a few other articles there is hardly any article with a breakdown of friendly fire casualties in infoboxes. Check out the Iraq war, Vietnam war, or Second World war, did they give a friendly fire breakdown in the infobox? Maybe in the casualties section, but not in the infobox. I am all for it to be mentioned in the casualties section, but not in the infobox.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with that. All we need in the infobox is the numbers, we can explain them in the text. Nableezy (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RM preparation

Having in mind that the current title is disputed and the settlement was to wait until a "favourite" name is established after the conflict is over, I performeda web search with various of the previously proposed titles. I used the qualification "2009" for accuracy and excluded "arafats zionists ass fuck motherfucker bitch piss" to avoid counting hate blogs and the like.

Results (28 Jan 2009, highest to lowest number of hits):

• 10,100,000 English pages for "gaza war" [17]
• 2,830,000 English pages for "gaza conflict" (+2009) [18]
• 2,490,000 English pages for "gaza crisis" [19]
• 844,000 English pages for "operation cast lead" [20]
• 587,000 English pages for "invasion of gaza" [21]
• 245,000 English pages for "gaza massacre" [22]
• 202,000 English pages for "gaza campaign" [23]

• 2,021 for gaza-conflict (+2009) google news
• 1,454 for gaza-crisis (+2009) google news
• 1,294 for gaza-war (+2009) google news
• 1,233 for operation-cast-lead (+2009) google news
• 830 for invasion-of-gaza (+2009) google news
• 118 for gaza-massacre (+2009) google news

Replacement of "Gaza" with "Gaza strip" resulted in a significantly lower number of hits (not shown).

Thoughts on the search parameters, additional names to search for, and comments on whether to wait some more or start a new RM are appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great work, Skaepperoed, thanks. Comment: I'd be interested in the results when doing a google news search. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the google news searches to the above list, and the results differ from the google "proper" search. When searching google news, we have conflict on 1st, crisis on 2nd and war on 3rd position. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Skäpperöd! If I can build on this a bit, Google News doesn't really require the "2009", since it only holds articles from the past month. Without 2009, the numbers are:

• 6,731 for gaza-war [24]
• 9,077 for gaza-conflict [25]
• 6,759 for gaza-crisis [26]
• 9,213 for operation-cast-lead [27]
• 4,541 for invasion-of-gaza [28]
• 226 for gaza-massacre [29]

In this case, Operation Cast Lead takes the lead (due to articles from the 27-31 December being more likely to use the Israeli codename, perhaps?) Other than that, the numbers are pretty similar to Skäpperöd's searches.

Google news also allows you to confine searches to the titles, which may do a better job of representing what newspapers are calling the conflict, versus just mentioning the phrase somewhere in the story.

• 2,005 for allintitle: gaza-war [30]
• 1,899 for allintitle: gaza-conflict [31]
• 475 for allintitle: gaza-crisis [32]
• 60 for allintitle: operation-cast-lead [33]
• 83 for allintitle: invasion-of-gaza [34]
• 54 for allintitle: gaza-massacre [35]

Confining the search to the titles, Gaza War and Gaza Conflict emerge as the clear leaders. Operation Cast Lead and Invasion of Gaza drop out almost entirely.

Blackeagle (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is "Gaza Campaign"

• 1,420 for gaza-campaign [36]

• 120 for allintitle: gaza-campaign [37]

Blackeagle (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually "Gaza campaign" was one of my favorite titles, because it is more war-like than "conflict" but not as outright as "gaza war" (putting this skirmish in a line with eg the Thirty Years' War and WWII). Yet google search turned out only a few results so I struck it out my list, but I added a line on the campaign search in the first list of this section now for illustration.

I think the searches have shown well what titles must be dropped, and we now may consider the consistency in naming the I-P / I-Gaza conflicts. Many articles are named after the corresponding Israeli operation codename, and "conflict" seems to be rather used for coverage of a longer period:

We have only 3 articles titled with "war": 1948, 6day and Yom Kippur. "Gaza War" seems not to be in line with that. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My favorite is actually "Battle of Gaza", but that gets almost no results in Google news. 1982 Lebanon War also has war in the title. I agree that those are quantitatively different from the current conflict (including an order of magnitude more deaths). Conflict gets used for both longer term stuff (Israeli-Palestinian conflict), stuff that's about the same scale as the current round of fighting (1978 South Lebanon conflict) and stuff that's considerably smaller scale (2006 Israel–Gaza conflict). I don't know if consistency is possible (at least without a wholesale renaming of a bunch of other articles). Blackeagle (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the Israeli-Palestinian infobox, but the 2006 Lebanon War has war in the title as well. It was a conflict on approximately the same scale as the current fighting (similar numbers of Lebanese casualties, but many more Israeli ones). Blackeagle (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I used allintitle on the very first title discussion. I am glad to see you use it, although the google test is not qualitative - so it should be handled with care. I do think that reading the sources is better, and I get the dinstinct impression, from reading dozens of sources a day, including the hundreds here, that "Gaza war" is a verifiable moniker. I think we should follow. I am neutral to variations like the Years in Front or "Israel-Gaza war", capitalization etc, my important point is that "war" is how this is being described by RS. I agree on 2006 Lebanon War. --Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be handled with care. I think Google News, including the allintitle search, are more useful for telling us which titles we shouldn't be considering. I'd say that Operation Cast Lead, Gaza Massacre, Invasion of Gaza, and Gaza Campaign probably shouldn't be considered. Gaza Crisis is a possibility, but it seems to be less common. I really don't think the results can help us decide between Gaza Conflict and Gaza War. Blackeagle (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

An advantage of "Gaza war" is that we might be able to ditch the "2008-2009" qualification with its annoying hyphen. Conversely, I don't think it would make sense for this article to be titled just "Gaza conflict" - too general. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: "Gaza Massacre is obviously out, just like "Gaza Holocaust", "Gaza Slaughterhouse", etc. Not too fond of "campaign", it sounds like someone's running for office. "Crisis" does not really represent what's going on; same with "conflict". I'm most supportive of "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza war". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You and I, fully agreed on something? Now, I wake up and fall from my bed.--Cerejota (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind Gaza conflict, since it hasn't officially been termed a "war" yet. Did one side declare "war" on another? Possibly, otherwise what's the reason/meaning of a truce? By the same token, the 33-day conflict with Hezbollah is termed the "2006 Lebanon War." The date in this case is to distinguish it from the earlier one. By the wiki definition of War, this is one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DIME/DU

Folks, I moved the DIME/DU text from the legal section (where it doesn't belong) to the casualty section. Perhaps not ideal but better in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a section before that was cut down and merged with the leagal section. I look and see if we can restore it somehow. Brunte (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ISRAELI SOLDIER KILLED JAN 27 2009 WAR NOT OVER..CASUALTIES

Ceasefire is not official end. Casualties must be changed to 15 one soldier and another will b taken from life support! Total 12 soldiers! ALWAYS ADD IF SOLDIER GETS KILLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego (talk • contribs) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't freak out it's already being discussed in the talk page, might be archived by now. Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact I beleive you'll find discusion on the talk topic "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" - removal request" Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, one soldier was killed, so total is 14, 13 right now is wrong! There is another soldier in critical condition (at least one) I expect him to day by March, so watch out for that~!

13 was before the ceasefire 1 was after. Not to say it shouldn't be mentioned, it's a question of how to mention it. Something that I believe is being discussed. As for the poor bugger in critical condition, he's already counted as wounded I would imagine. If he does die he can be represented in fatalities. The fact that you think he might die by march is neither here nor thereAndrew's Concience (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The soldier, God rest his soul, was a muslim beduin. I think it's worth mentioning in the article that muslims killed more muslims than any other ethnic group in the world. And btw I think there's no danger to the other soldier life so you can take your foot out of your ass. 87.69.41.159 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just be thankful that you haven't been blocked for repeated vandalism yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

International Law/Palestinian

I propose following addition as first paragraph:

Democratically elected Hamas Governance of the Gaza Strip is considered terrorist organization by many countries. In such countries Hamas officials are "not welcome" and expected to be prosecuted by law. Egypt authorities closed Rafah crossing in June 2007 after Hamas took control of Gaza Strip, de-facto imposing a blockade.

Please no edit wars. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussing this here is good, just loading it into the article is not good. I reverted. RomaC (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

no problem. let's discuss. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Be fair. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You want to say that HamasEgypt (because of Hamas) imposed a blockade of Gaza? Uhh, no. Nableezy (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And the many countries part is weasely, many many more do not call them a terrorist organization. The source says in 1 such country Hamas is not welcome. Nableezy (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rafah crossing is closed since June 2007, according to Egypt due to international law problems. See Blockade of the Gaza Strip. There were number of players involved.

Please see: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/01/2008525125823983496.html

Please see: http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/01/30/egypt_mediates_but_palestinians_far_apart/4705/

Please see: http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6503169.html

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest to call countries who consider Hamas terrorist organization? All those countries do not issue Visa to Hamas officials AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the only country that matters in this article among any that call Hamas terrorist is Israel, and we make abundantly clear that Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization. As far as the blockade, you cannot say Egypt imposed a blockade on Gaza. Egypt closed its border, it did not blockade Gaza's coast. Israel is the only state that has blockaded Gaza's coast, they are the only ones 'imposing a blockade'. Nableezy (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I see that you prefer just to remove and edit war without discussion or reaching consensus. I'm sorry. Peace man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, It is addition to International Law section, so I do not agree with you that only Israel position is important. Do you disagree with facts? Any suggestions? Be fair. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

International law does not distinguish between governments that the West accepts and governments that the West does not accept. It is irrelevant that the Swedes do not want Hamas to travel to Sweden, it has absolutely nothing to do with this conflict. If somebody want more information on Hamas and what the West thinks of them, they can easily click the Hamas wikilink. Nableezy (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweden is only an example. Would Hamas official get Visa into US? Do you suggest change wording many countries to western countries? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it does not matter where Hamas can get a visa, it is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw Possible prosecution abroad sub-section, and assumed it is relevant. Do you disagree also with other facts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say anything about 'prosecution abroad' it only says that Sweden will not issue a visa for Hamas representatives. The rest of your statements are not facts. Yes, Egypt has closed the Rafah crossing. That does not equal Egypt has 'de facto imposing a blockade'. And this is completely irrelevant. This section is about violations of international law related to this conflict. Not about who consider what group being a terrorist organization. Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hear your objections, Nableezy:

• I'll look for sources describing Hamas prosecution abroad. Still, Hamas considered terrorist organization by western countries as you put it is relevant to context of this conflict, in International Law section.
• Egypt closing the border with Hamas, described by Wikipedia as blockade, but I agree to closing the border

Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing a border is not a blockade. For example, if Germany closes its border with France, that is not a blockade. Do you agree? Agada, please carefully read what other editors write. RomaC (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And no, I do not agree that Western countries (not all by the way) consider Hamas a terrorist organization is at all relevant to this article in any section. Nableezy (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The views of various countries domestic laws about Hamas are irrelevant to any discussion of international law. You have to understand that, this section deals with violations of international law, not the domestic laws of various countries (such as the ones that label hamas a terrorist organization). Nableezy (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, Already agreed to it. Egypt authorities closed Rafah crossing in June 2007 after Hamas took control of Gaza Strip. It just an example of International law problem during this conflict. Fair enough? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, let's strike many and replace it with neutral some. It is notable fact about this conflict. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you wrote "let's strike many and replace it with neutral some." Again, this is a false dilemma because there is no issue whether to qualify with "some" or "many" when the content itself is not germane. You wrote "It is notable fact about this conflict." sorry but saying something doesn't make it so. This Talk page is swamped with sophomoric wikilawyering. Enough is enough. RomaC (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The tone here is getting a bit pointy; I would suggest that editors tone it down a bit. Thanks. As for the substantive issue, I basically agree with AgadaUrbanit. I can't imagine there's any sort of neutral and npov rational for censoring basic information about Hamas. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While it doesn't surprise me what your position is, I would like to ask you why you think that the US considers Hamas a terrorist group is relevant to this article. I would very much be interested in reading that answer. Nableezy (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're so interested I'll tell you. You know I'm only here to please you :-) Hamas is the main belligerent here, besides for Israel. It would be most prudent that we include the very basic information on each of the belligerents. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So would you also want to list the states that do not recognize Israel? Or the status as to whether or not Gaza is occupied? Or the amount of support provided to Israel by the US? Or any other of 'very basic information on each of the belligerents'? Nableezy (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise is in order? Why not find out what the U.N's position is on Hamas' legitamacy and use that. Remember that the U.S was one of the countries involved in awarding displaced jews the land that we now call Israel after WWII. Sureley Nableezy would agree to this as the UN are certainly a more neutral view. Listing individual countries only states said country's POV biased or otherwise.Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN does not maintain any list of so-called 'terrorist entities'. Nableezy (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not saying they do. The question I thought was, is Hamas a legitimate government (democratically elected I'll remind you)? or does the U.N not recognise those elections and therefore does not recognise Hamas as a government. If the U.N recognises then whatever they were before, Terrorists, clown colledge doesn't represent what they are now within GazaAndrew's Concience (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN recognizes the Palestinian National Authority. That is currently made up of the executive (Fatah), and the legislative (Hamas). They have not recognized any entity such as Gaza as a part of the Palestinian territories that is governed independently. So no, the UN has not recognized the government of Hamas in Gaza. But they do not distinguish between Gaza and the West Bank, they are both a part of the 'Palestinian territories'. But then again, what does it matter what the position of the UN is, any information about that goes in the Hamas article. This article is about this conflict. We do not need to go into detail about each of the involved parties. That information is always just a click away. Nableezy (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you really want to get into including what third parties have to say, I think we would have to include a deeper discussion on the positions of the UN regarding that Gaza is still occupied territory. If either is put into the article all that will do is invite more and more information on either side of the issue that is not directly relevant to the article (though I do think the occupied information should be given greater prominence but ill let that slide). Nableezy (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple articles to which we can wikilink for further information on a whole range of topics, which is why the background section has so many "see also", and hence could be shorter. We do not have to mention in every article about the I-P conflict that Israel was founded in 1948, for example. The issue is not that the information is not relevant - it is relevant. The issue is that this article is not about the bellingerents and it is not a standalone journalistic article - it is an article in a wikilinked encyclopedia, the whole purpose of wikilinking is to subdivide information into discrete articles that are then linked for context.

Try to imagine, for example, if in every wikipedia article on Mammals, such as say Dog or Platypus, mentioned what a mammal is, instead of wikilinking to Mammal? It would make for an ugly, repetitive, and in fact boring encyclopedia.

This is a total n00b error (please, I am lamely attempting being humorous), which is assuming each article must include all information relevant to it, without consideration to other articles, and to the fact that encyclopedias - including paper encyclopedias - are never written as stand-alone essays, but as part of a compendium of information, interlinked and cross-referenced.

I agree that we should not edit war, but the best way to not edit war is to carefully evaluate, in the context of a given article, if a piece of information actually belongs in a given article, if it adds to its encyclopedic value, and if it meets our content policies and stylistic guidelines.

Certainly in controversial article one should also use common sense, and try to concentrate on what are the main pieces of information, the ones were consensus can be reached without controversy - and measure the impact a given edit or opposition to a given edit will give to the editing environment - suggesting changes that will stir crap up without resulting in increased encyclopedic value (such as bringing previously unknown information or highligthing specific threads the reliable sources are exploring) is in my opinion a lack of judgement. For example, we would have to shoot down anyone who suggested we call Israel, the Zionist Entity on grounds of NPOV, because that is what Israel is verifiably called by many involved in this conflict - not only is a suggestion bound to irritate a number of editors, but it borders on WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:BATTLE - even if at face value it is a civil request to discuss a possible edit. Both sides of the POV divide have done this: some very salient ones are "Babycue" on the part of the pro-Palestinians (when it became obvious that other casualty picture were available, and that the ISM was iffy for this), and with "Gaza massacre" on the pro-Israelis (when the verifiability was 25% of the sourcing in the lede).

We should also assume intelligent readers, who if given a wikilink to Hamas, and not knowing anythign about Hamas, would seek to learn by reading about it in that article.

Long story short, I do not support inclussion of an WP:SYNTH discussion on why the blockade on the part of egypt happened, which what I feel AgadaUrbanit is unwittingly doing - but I do support saying, in the background, that Egypt is part of the blockade, and any RS material with the reasons why. The blockade is a significant part of Hamas' argument for the rockets, and any key facts around it deserve a sentence or two in the background. At least until a better background consensus develops, because as I have stated before, the background section has a disproportionate weight in this article, and should be shorter, cover only the events between the Operation Hot Winter (which should be renamed as per WP:MILMOS) and the end of the ceasefire, and material moved to the corresponding articles. --Cerejota (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Due respect Cerejota, but we already say that. This line is already there: with Israel and Egypt sealing their border crossings with Gaza and imposed a blockade on the territory. I dont even object to that line, I think it should even go into slightly more detail ('with Israel closing its border crossings and Gaza's coast and Egypt closing the Rafah border crossing' would be my ideal wording). I cant see why that Sweden does not want to issue a visa to Hamas representatives should be included in international law, or why the views of the various Western governments on Hamas be included in the international law section. Nableezy (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. I agree that the other information belongs in Hamas, although the views of governments on possible violations of international law on the part of Hamas should be included, if any. Its about what the topic of this article is - and being careful not to WP:SYNTH.

In other words, views related to the conflict are in, views related to Hamas in general, go in Hamas (were even some views related to this conflict might go). Its simple, really. --Cerejota (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I sit corrected. Nableezy (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I hear you guys. Thank you for making it clear. How about such addition:

Former Canadian justice minister and McGill University law professor Irwin Cotler, a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, wrote that there is “almost no comparable example” anywhere in the world today of a group that so systematically violates international agreements regulating armed conflict as Hamas. “In general when you’re talking about international law enforcement, measures are weak and uneven,” said Executive Director of B'Tselem.

Is it relevant? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, thank you for being balanced. What do you think is relevant section in this article for "UN has not recognized the government of Hamas in Gaza."? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No I do not, I don't think that is relevant at all. This section is about violations of international law alleged to have been committed by each side. It is not about what the world thinks of each side in general. It could perhaps be of some relevance in the Hamas article, here I do not think it is relevant at all. Nableezy (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I see your point, how about Irwin Cotler and B'Tselem quote? Do you have problem with inclusion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are all quotes about things in general, not about this conflict. We should be focusing on what happened here, not everything that everybody has every said about Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, it looks I rushed it, sorry.I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267478739&oldid=267459716 I tried to make it balanced. Let me know if you agree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

edited for English: "Human rights experts say that one of the main pitfalls of international law is that enforcement is nearly impossible, even when the law is clear." I did not put this in the article as I am not permitted to edit the article. It is sourced and certainly neutral. The second part is not neutral but belongs in a discussion of international law in regard to the parties. Sourced from an excellent "balanced" and interesting article, well worth reading. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree!--Cerejota (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Nableezy (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

10x AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

InfoBox civilians break down

Since Palestinian sources clearly blur the line between civilians and combatants, reporting an unknown number of Hamas commanders as civilians it is only fair to remove it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal above can be discussed with other editors rather than making unilateral edits thanks. RomaC (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It was already mentioned here by other editors. I'm for WP:consensus. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What was mentioned was removing the breakdown from the infobox, not removing the civilians from the infobox. Nableezy (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It just comes across a little jumbled and not necessary to have all of the data in the box. Civilian casualties should be mentioned but the breakdown in the actual section would be much cleaner for the article.Cptnono (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with with AgadaUrbanit. The section below makes the "blur" even more problematic.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You agree that civilian casualties should not be mentioned on the Palestinian side of the infobox? Nableezy (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Never said that and I don't know where you got such an idea from.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that is what it appears he is arguing. Nableezy (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it looks like we don't break down the PCHR numbers. The three asterisks are for the line which says the 940 number excludes policemen. The information beyond that point is just a list of civilian deaths that we are aware of, not that they were part of the PCHR count. It might be a little unclear. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely unclear. Blackeagle (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If civilians are typically mentioned in infoboxes there is no problem with having the number in there. It really doesn't matter too much. What does matter is that we have too many cells in the table and so much of a breakdown we need to specify the information with 4 asterisks. It is sillynessCptnono (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel had to withdraw from Gaza

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057962.html

From no less than the commander of Battalion 101 of the Paratrooper Brigade, Lt. Colonel Avi G.: Lt. Col. Avi also describes the Hamas fighting abilities as professional. "They prepared for defense and sabotage. We found groups of booby-trapped homes, with the explosives facing the direction from which they believed we would approach. They have people who understand sabotage a lot better than the average platoon commander in the IDF. In one mosque there were booby traps with sensors that would set the explosive off the minute we entered. In the northern Gaza Strip they retreated as we approached. But the further we moved to the center of the city, Hamas resistance became more serious."

In the area where his unit fought, rocket attacks against Israel ceased. "It is just like the marines say: 'Boots on the ground.' There are things that only a ground force can deal with. It may be that a few ranks above us they call this an operation, but at the battalion level, there is no doubt that this is war. We did not use terms like 'routine security operation.' We talked about 'occupying, assault, attack' - war terminology."

Avi is keen to stress that his soldiers did not consciously target civilians. "At Atatra, a neighborhood in northern Gaza, we saw a light in a house and heard screams, and we let the families walk out with a white flag. I was very concerned about harming civilians. When we went into the Strip I told the soldiers: 'We are not like the Russians in Chechnya.' I was glad to see that the guys knew how to hold their fire."

The only problem is Lt. Avi G. makes the admission in a comment posted on an article, not in an article itself. He wrote (in response to a reservist major arguing the IDF could have gone all the way): ""Up front, we were getting shot at. The IDF advance went well until we got into the heavily populated areas of Gaza. Our tanks couldn’t maneuver properly. The streets were too narrow and the anti-tank fire became so heavy that we were ordered to pull-back to prevent casualties. We could have destroyed Hamas, but not without losing hundreds of soldiers. Hamas of today is not the Hamas of ten-years ago. They are a well-trained force, second only to Hezbollah." 84.65.47.55 (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of material that might warrant inclusion on Cerejota's subpage, dealing with Milhistory aspec ts, even though it is anecdotal.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel said repeatedly that it left Gaza not in order to return. Arab World reporter compared this war with 2006-Lebanon and said: In some parts of the Middle East, victory, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. See http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/01/20/what_was_the_gaza_war_about/5055/print/ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A reminder: User:Cerejota/OpCastLead for MILHIST crap... remember to sauce because this will be organized for inclusion once the fog of war lifts some moar.--Cerejota (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

israel fires at diplomatic convoy

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129657

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050197099&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE50R3WW20090128

where should this go? international? ceasefire? incidents? Untwirl (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I beleive there is a section for incidents after the ceasefire. Such as the attacks yesteday with the truck that got blown up killing the Israeli soldier and wounding 3 others Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox footnotes

The Infobox isn't meant to be comprehensive and authoritative. There sould be no need to footnote. Just make sure the article clarifies or expands any thought expressed in the infobox.

That said, is there anything in the footnotes ("starred entries") that AREN'T clear fromthe main text? Dovid (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A section on impact?

After reading this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/hamas-reprisal-attacks I think it might be an Idea to create a section on the impact the conflict has had on the political environment within the Gaza strip.

This article talks about reprisal attacks by Hamas against members of Fatah and even members of their own organisation who are believed to have provided the Israelis intelligence. Attack involve not only outright killings but also things like kneecaping mafia style and other acts of that nature (According to the article and their reported accounts)

I figured it was worth a mention Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Executions of alleged collaborators(a section already there). Add at will, or at you looking for a 'spin off'(a brand new article altogether)instead? Cryptonio (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a separate article is requred. I'll put it on now. I just wanted to avoid any friction if someone took exception to this. I'll assume that no one minds :)Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have verifiability on this, the scale ("dozens") and the actions certainly would warrant more than one RS. That said, it probably belongs at Fatah–Hamas conflict, not here - although if it verifies perhaps a one sentence here with a wikilink to F-H concflict - this is notable stuff. I think we should be careful not make the latest article on the latest major event in the Israel-Palestinian conflict be the repository of all news until the next major event.--Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At first I agreed, but in that article it also mentions Hamas members who gave Israeli's information being punishedAndrew's Concience (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing this article[38] on the subject last week. This line really jumped out at me: "Some Fatah members said in interviews that some of those being sought for reprisals had been singled out for having handed out sweets in celebration of Israel's war on Hamas." I'm not asking for anything to be included. I'm just saying it was kind of surprising. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Help

Ahhhhh. Help. I'm new to editing and I'm having trouble with reference tags. The section on Effects is tits up at the moment because of it. Can someone please fix it, or tell me how to fix it :)-N00B Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it, but you should try using the refTools, they are now available as a gadget in your preferences.--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry again for the silliness. You might wanna wait though. It seems you had an issue with the content.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can have an issue with content and also have issues with broken crap. I'll let you decide which is more important for me ;)--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is already a well sourced significant section on this in the article, I am renaming the section with the name you gave it, because it is more succinct and direct. It definitely doesn't belong in "effects" because it was not one notable effect but a part of the military aspect of conflict itself. I had a brain fart and didn't realize that there was such a section, and thought you introduced new info. Of course, I should have known better as I had worked that section before.--Cerejota (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Israel–Gaza war — There has been a lot of discussion around this, and there seems to be a growing consensus towards this formulation, from RS and wikipedians. Its time for another poll. This will require admin close as article is move protected. — Cerejota (talk) 07:13, 30 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.

• Oppose - There is an official definition of a war; it's not just a term that can be thrown around freely. Israel never declared war on Hamas, because Hamas is not a state, rather a terrorist organization. Therefore, this was neither officially nor technically a war. Furthermore, to title this the Israel-GAZA War is absolutely ridiculous. If this change goes through, it will only be further demonstrating to the public just how biased wikipedia truly is. Israel's military operation was not against Gaza; it was against Hamas. If you were hellbent on including war in the title, which I still maintain is incorrect, you should at least have enough neutrality and objectivity in you to concede that it should be "Israel-Hamas War". -- anonymous 31 January 2009
• Support - just in case it was not clear. :D --Cerejota (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've already said a few times that I'm okay with a "war" title. I pointed out a while ago that it comes up more than just about anything else in news searches. And it does seem to be the most common name in both Israeli and Arabic news sources. I guess we can't be sure that it will endure in the long run but that's a long way off in the distance either way. So for now I'm more than happy to support the name change. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - a much clearer and more sensible title than the current one. It will be an improvement at least.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - In addition to thousands of reliable sources which have used the term "gaza war", google search also has more results for "gaza war" than "gaza conflict". Some of those reliable sources are:

• Parsing Gains of Gaza War، The New York Times
• Ceasefire may not end Gaza war, BBC News
• Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation, Guardian
• Gaza: War, from a distance, The INDEPENDENT
• How the Gaza War Could End: Three Scenarios, Time (partners with CNN)
• Gideon Levy / Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel , HAARETZ
• War on Gaza, Aljazeera
• UNICEF: Children bearing brunt of Gaza war, CNN

--Wayiran (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We've got a comparison of how many results the different terms return in the RM preparation section, above. Blackeagle (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Many news sources also use "war in Gaza", but this is not as good as "Gaza war" or "Israel-Gaza war". 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - However, due to a recently diagnosed TS related medical condition whereby I apparently have an unconcious tendency to promote antisemitic conspiracy theories such as that the US provides financial aid to Israel and Egypt I am ineligible to vote. Consequently I would like to propose that anyone who has either been the accusor or the accused in some "that's antisemitism" impoliteness in WP recently be excluded from this vote. That should speed things up enormously. I would also like to propose that anyone who wants to use the word antisemitism on this page from now on must first make a $250 donation to the ICRC. This should help to counter the tumbling market price for the use of the word and stop it being handed out like Jelly Babies. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Israel-Gaza War - btw sean- did you know that if you think lenny kravitz music is terrible you are racist and antisemitic, but if you liked his old stuff but you think his newer stuff sucks you are a new racist and a new antisemite? Untwirl (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Indifferent- I do however disagree with the "antisemitism" remarks... but feel that SH should be able to allowed to vote no matter how pukey one finds his smug remarks. V. Joe (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a Jelly Baby to settle your stomach V. Joe. They worked for me after reading some of your more controversial comments here. There was a serious point buried in my smug, pukey remarks so I welcome your support in any drive to ensure that the word antisemitism is given it's due weight in discussions here and I hope I can count on you to challenge anyone who uses it inappropriately, disrespectfully or devalues it in any way by making dim-witted accusations against any editors here. I think this is probably one issue that we can agree on. By the way, pukey is $100 to the ICRC. Forgot to mention that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - This conflict is part of something bigger that has been going on for over 50 years now and no side has declared war on the other as of yet.Knowledgekid8716:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Though as I remarked below, I don't know that we need the 'Israel' part. Blackeagle (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Pure original research. Those links represent nothing more than the pov of the reporters. Israel deployed a force in a scale of a division wich is barely a maneuverable force. The best description for the fighting is a military operation. Lack of military background doesn't justify this change, no offense. 87.69.41.159 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support (loosely) It may not be a "war" but this is how much of the media throughout the world title and/or refer to it.Cptnono (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although this term is second-best, "Gaza war" is better. Israel is a recognized country and Gaza is not, so the current proposal's juxtaposition of the terms is awkward. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no opposition to "Gaza war" - but I took what I understood as an emerging consensus. Is anyone opposed to "Gaza war" who supported "Israel-Gaza war"?--Cerejota (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since Israeli officials don't call it a war. Flayer (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Current title is good for me but the suggested is little better, more concise. Brunte (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title (1) includes a date specification, since this isn't the first Gaza-Israel conflict and probably won't be the last (2) uses "conflict" instead of war because war denotes a more complete military engagement - in this case only one side has a military to speak of, so using "war" would seem to give an inaccurate impression. I'm not against finding a better title, but Israel-Gaza war isn't it. Avruch ^T 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Dates not needed, as there is no disambig.--Cerejota (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do we need the 'Israel' qualifier, or could we just go with Gaza war? I don't think there are any other Gaza wars we need to distinguish it from. Blackeagle (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we do, as otherwise there could be confusion with the internal struggle in Gaza last yearJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think 'war' would be stretching it as a description for Fatah–Hamas conflict, but if people were confused we could always put a disambiguation link at the top of the article. Blackeagle (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• War was never delared on either side so how can it be called a war? The news may call it one, but doesnt it have to be a fact for wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_warsKnowledgekid8716:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

verifiability, not truth. If the consensus of the sources is "war", even if it is a ridiculous media invention with no basis on reality, we should give it weight.--Cerejota (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that horse is already out of the barn. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraq War, and 2006 Lebanon War were all undeclared, yet they are all have wikipedia articles with 'war' in the title. For that matter, I don't find any reference to a declaration of war in the Six Day War or Yom Kippur War articles. Blackeagle (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I lean towards Gaza War per the discussion from Blackeagle and BrewcrewCptnono (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

From the military point of view, the "Israel-Hamas War" seems to be more correct. --Wayiran (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Curious Case of Mahmud az-Zahar

File:DarthArafat.png

Dance! Dance! Dance! Dance!

Since his videotape was aired during the middle of the conflict, I haven't heared nor seen a single sign of life from az-Zahar. This is very unusual for a man in his situation, unlike Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah who rush to the cameras to declare "victory" az-Zahar's voice is silent. I've heared many Rumors concerning him, that he was severly injured and taken to a hospital in Egypt and that he was killed and his body was taken by the Israelis. Do you know why he vanished from the face of the earth? and is it worth mentioning here? 87.69.41.159 (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's preparing for the upcoming season of So You Think You Can Dance. I read it in Hamas' Dance Nation fanzine. It said he was being introduced to mitigate excessive campness and broaden the appeal of the show into untapped demographic market segments and such like.
We don't know anything. We just say what the reliable sources say. You'll need to go and find some if you want to add something to the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote craze

This article has 349 footnotes as of now, double of what the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has! Some of the statements in the (too long) intro are backed up by up to 9 notes. Is this necessary? A shorter article with a single reliable source per statement would look much nicer.--84.190.37.235 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors seem to continuously forget that Wikipedia is not news. As soon as it is reported this page is updated. Things like the doctor on the news having his kid killed is not encyclopedic. It is sad, interesting, and worthy of a news piece. Things like this do not necessarily belong here. Unfortunately, any editor that decides to be bold and delete all the fluff is instantly reprimanded while having the edit reverted.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: LOL. Point made.Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does the intro need sources at all actually? Aren't all the statements repeated and sourced later on in the article?--84.190.9.187 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD and WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

latest edit about unrwa school

this edit by ip http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&curid=20855562&diff=267459716&oldid=267434041#Incidents doesn't seem to be covered by more than one source.

when newsgoogling "unrwa school" that source is the only one i can find that says this and another one talks about a humanitarian report and an "investigation into the attack on the main compound of the world body in the Gaza Strip during Israel's three-week pummeling of the Palestinian enclave" recently announced by the un sec gen.

maybe we should say school compound or something (i personally think "school" includes the grounds) but regardless this story does not seem to be reported anywhere else. Untwirl (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidents (yes, again)

Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I would like opinions on listing incidents. Summaries are good but the list has turned into news. Wikipedia is not for news. In particular, a doctor on TV lost a kid and it was very newsworthy since it was an interesting and tragic story. However, this doesn’t mean it is encyclopedic. So I would love to revert the revert but am open to any good reasoning as to why this one occurrence should stay in. Also, we should probably address all of the other fluff in the section.Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If an incident is notable enough for it's own article, a link is all that's necessary. If it's not notable enough to merit an article, it probably shouldn't be in this one. That sort of thing is what the timeline article was created for. Blackeagle (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with botht the general point and the specific point.

On the general point, the notability of an incident is an objective fact: if RS cover it, the probability is that it is notable. Notability is not tied to being able to exist as a stand-alone article, for example we have List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. The bulk of the items there are not worthy of their own article, but taken together they represent a thoroughly encyclopedic addition to knowledge: using your criteria, we would limit this article (and related ones) to one or two notable events. A great loss for the project.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on what "not news" is intended to cover: we are encouraged to keep up to date in current events, and use news as reliable sources. In fact, we have WP:ITN, which is news. "Not news" is intended to provide a threshold on encyclopedic value of a given item. An encyclopedia article on a conflict should list notable incidents, including reactions in the media, incidents involving previously notable people etc. "Not news" is not against reporting news, it is against using the tone, intent, and immediacy/recentism of news media in encyclopedic articles - and mostly in the context of stand-alone articles, not of inclusion of news items within wider articles. There is a clear difference between being journalistic and being encyclopedic, but simply reporting on events is not one of them.

On the specific item, an interesting and tragic story if notable enough is precisely the stuff encyclopedic articles on events should be built on: it provides the zeitgeist of the event. But there is more: the figure involved was already notable, as a media figure and physician, so we are commenting on somethign that happened to a notable; notable crap that happens to notable dudes is encyclopedic in itself. If we list all the Pokemon in the world why not this? I reverted your removal of the material, but I see some room for improvement.--Cerejota (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The guy wasn't notable enough for Wikipedia until this event or someone just never got around to making him an article (he has one now kind of). If Alison Angel can't have a page than why should he :). In all seriousness though, I don't hate this info being in the article I just have a problem with editors adding anything they see on the news into it. This article is already bloated (someone mentioned in the footnotes section above) and this section plus its spin off page are perfect examples. The Arion and Dignity are two other incidents that are great stories to read about while taking a lunch but don't seem to be encyclopedic. Hopefully some other people will express some opinions on this since I might be completely wrong on this one.Cptnono (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on Arion and Dignity, they are key parts of the military aspect of the event - and the Dignity incident in particular involved notable people. I am afraid you are setting the bar way to high: if we follow this logic, none of the rocket attacks should be listed in wikipedia. While having a BLP or bio in wikipedia is a clear mark of notability, lacking one isn't. Besides the "no one got around to making it" problem, notability is not the only criteria for having someone with their own article, there is other criteria, such as having enough to write (notability is black and white, so a notable can give you just a few lines, or give you three articles worth of text). And BLPs from Israel are notoriously lacking, for example,

And I disagree that the way to fix a bloated article is to remove relevant information: it is to rewrite to be more succint (as I do with the headers all the time), and to follow WP:SUMMARY. But ultimately well sourced, relevant, and notable information should be included. This is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no deadline. Take your time, this can be fixed, but not by deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously if all the Pokemons are in. Unfortunately, the incidents section has been contested for awhile now for several reasons. Take a look at the archives and see how many times it has come up. It has been such a concern to other editors that it has been removed from the page and placed into another article (which itself is garbage). The incidents in both articles have turned into a list of anything bad Israel might have done that was picked up by the wire services. It is not good enough and all of the discussion here has not fixed that. I agree with you that it might be fixable but don't preach to me about Wikipedia standards because we can play that game all day. The incident section is trash. It has been since the beginning and it should be fixed.Cptnono (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: After rereading some of the references and events, I noticed that attacks on mosques and schools along with info on white phosphorus munitions are already integrated throughout the article in an appropriate way in the right places. Will removing the duplicate mention of these from the Incident section be a sufficient fix?Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The incidents section should go. It just encourages editors to add more and more, since if one is mentioned it is hard to argue why another one should not be. If the 'incidents' are important enough from a historical perspective - and some of them are -, they should be mentioned elsewhere in the narrative (as indeed they are already). The analogy of the rocket attacks is a good one, because they do not belong in an encyclopaedia either.--84.190.9.187 (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli ambassador: Gaza attack prelude to attack on Iran

The Israeli ambassador to Australia spoke candidly when he thought the cameras were off:

"(He said) the country's recent military offensives were a preintroduction to the challenge Israel expects from a nuclear-equipped Iran within a year," Cummings said. During the meeting, held in a relaxed breakfast setting, Mr Rotem spoke about the war in Gaza, which has killed more than 1300 Palestinians. Cummings said Mr Rotem made the point that "Israel's efforts in Gaza were to bring about understanding that we are ready to engage in a decisive way."
-- Angus Hohenboken (2009-01-31). "Iran will soon pose N-threat, says Israel". The Australian. Retrieved 2009-01-31.

I've been making the point that we should not divorce the attack on Gaza from the larger context provided by the series of recent Israeli attacks (Gaza in early 2008, Syria in 2007, Lebanon in 2006, Iraq in 2003). All of these wars follow the 1996 "Clean Break" plan, developed by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and others for Benyamin Netanyahu. If we are going to change the name of the article, we should call it the "Israel - Middle East War", or go along with the neo-cons and call it "World War IV". We impose POV when we exclude crucial context, just as we would impose POV if we were to treat Germany's 1939 attack on Poland as an "Isolated Response" to "Polish Terror".

"Clean Break" calls for:

• "reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation",
• a "new strategic agenda [that] can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies",
• "seiz[ing] the strategic initiative ... engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran".

-- Richard Perle (1996). "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Retrieved 2009-01-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) I do not believe that suppressing this information is justified! NonZionist (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm against nuclear weapons in general, but if Israel can possess them, why doesn't Iran have the right to do so. I don't trust Israel any more than Iran. After all, which of them is constantly attacking other countries/territories?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Off topic but Iran signed the NPT treaty so they have no right to nuclear weapons. They can pull out of the treaty. Israel has not signed the treaty. You can read all about it here as there are quite a few people working on these issues in Wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

resolved

This edit had no consensus and removed large amounts of information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267618629&oldid=267617910

Can the page be protected again?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This was my edit, done in good faith. It did not remove 'large amounts of information'. The few words removed are duplicated further down in the article; so they are not lost. I deleted them because the intro is too long and this information they contained was way too detailed for a general introduction.

If you disagree with the edit, why don't you change it or discuss the reasons why you disagree with it here? It's not vandalism and surely not a reason to protect the article.--84.190.9.187 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK sorry, I was mistaken and retract my earlier statement. I do however disagree with one bit of removed info and have reinstated.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)