Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No WP:consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

• 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)
• 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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Avruch. Israel's Gaza war' is closer, but tendentious. But I think we should patiently await to see how specialist journals on international relations, conflict and the Middle East decide how it is best called. There's nothing wrong with a provisory title, in lieu of RS consensus which will take time to come on line. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Israel-Gaza war" gets a few dozen true google news hits (I looked through them te separate the wheat from the chaff). As was established above, Gaza war and Gaza conflict are in the low thousands. I doubt that "Gaza conflict" will be used in the news for long without the addition of modifiers, since it can be confused with other things once the searing memory of this round-of-fighting wears off, but the more powerful "Gaza war", without modifiers, may well remain the moniker of choice, and so so I think we should be eyeing that name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: This was a massacre, not a war. War requires an army: What army does Gaza Strip maintain? Where are the Gazan tanks? Would we call the Warsaw Ghetto uprising a "war"? I have come to prefer the Israeli name: "Operation Cast Lead". It's Israel's baby, so Israel gets to christen it. NonZionist (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose--Fipplet (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote.--Cerejota (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - lacks the date in the title. Also, it's questionable whether Gaza, which isn't a recognised political entity, can be a participant in a war; that proposed title implies something much less one-sided than what actually happened. Terraxos (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support The term 'conflict" seems to imply that this is just a disagreement between two parties. The article already uses terms related to warfare as truce, attack, broad offensive, air raids, ground invasion, target is bombed, third stage of the operation, etc. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• OK, I've sort of changed my position. I now oppose Gaza war compared to something like 'Israeli asssault on Gaza', but I still support it over the status quo (conflict).Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I would oppose merging for now, the conflict warrents its own article, but a limited merger may be warranted upon the undisputed conclusion of the conflict. --Pstanton (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Israel–Gaza war" alone is ambiguous: there have been x number of scraps between Israel and Gaza. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There may be several more and it will help to differentiate. 128.30.5.108 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not qualify as more than a few skirmishes or a battle. It may very well be a significant event of such a war, but there should then be two articles. So far, doesn't look like there is a consensus to move the name. Dovid (talk) 21:21, 3 February 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)

Yeah, I think "Gaza war" is descriptive enough. Lets try for consensus this one time...--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 31 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)

No, can't be, because about 5 groups are listed as Beligerents on the 'Gaza' side, including Fatah and some other groups.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would ignore comments from editors not actively involved in discussions and editing, and ideological arguments, such as that from the recent anon account. We should base our naming on editorial decisions from RS, most oppose here do this, but partisan, WP:BATTLE/WP:SOAPBOX arguments are discouraged, and generally invalid. Can we discuss this without climbing in our soapboxes?--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• After thinking this over, I think 2008-2009 Gaza war would be the best title, by analogy with 2008 South Ossetia war. There's no need to actually mention Israel in the title, if the date is used; there's only one war that took place in Gaza at that time. Israel-Gaza war is somewhat more ambiguous, and (I think) falsely implies a certain equality between the belligerents, which wasn't really the case. Terraxos (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. There is a precedent for this in the 2008 South Ossetia War. 2008-2009 Gaza war seems to be the best choiceAndrew's Concience (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what's the decision

Well according to the tag at the top of the talk page, the proposed title is Israel-Gaza War. I have no objections to that title. I guess we give it a day or so to see if anyone has any further discussion or objection and then we make the move. Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, judging from the discussion, there is no rough consensus. However, there seems to be a move for one alternative (actually two) "Gaza war" with or without date. We should give this a few days, and then close it. If it is move, then we move, if not, then I propose we re-open with a two way on "Gaza war" with or without date.

BTW, this discussion should be closed by an uninvolved admin if the result is move, as it is move protected.--Cerejota (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, judging from most of the comments in the core survey responses (not discussion), there probably isn't consensus around Gaza War either, though I personally have no objection. Some might say there is ambig. v. the Fatah/Gaza internecine "war."Dovid (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the Fatah/Hamas intercine war have a page?124.189.241.23 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 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)

And they are both Parliamentary Theocracies, as is Gaza currently. Religious nuts with nukes, what fun! That said, Sean is correct, under international law, Israel's nukes are legal, but Iran's aren't. Period.--Cerejota (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly though Arabic public opinion favours Iran having nukes. See the bit I added in Iran_and_wmd#Opinion_in_the_Arab_and_Islamic_world last year based on the annual University of Maryland survey. Not great news for NP efforts. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Arabic public opinion favours an Iranian Nuclear weapons program. Iran is the biggest player in the Arab world. Death to the west and all that buissiness. The Saudi's are BFF's with the states and with Israel swinging it's arms around a bit. A nuclear Iran would have the political presence to make itself into the region's superpower. A superpower that is run by Arabs for Arabs, it's like their biggest christmas wish. But enough about all this OR and unrelated talk. On with the article at hand I say Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Iran isn't an Arab country. They don't speak Arabic, nor are they ethnic Arabs. Arabs are a minority group within Iran. Blackeagle (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Middle Eastern then, my mistake. my points still apply. Perhaps musslim would have been better but I didn't want to offend them (They get so cranky j/k :/) Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a wide range of views towards Iran in the Arab World. Officially, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and others are averse to it, while Syria and Qatar, e.g., side with it. Among the Arab population, there's a degree of sympathy for Iran and the assertive stance of Mr Ahmadinejad, but not everywhere (e.g. not in Sunni areas of Iraq or Lebanon). Much of it is about the Shi'a / Sunni divide in the Arab world, which Iran is trying to foster. The emerging connection between Hamas and Iran, e. g., is far from obvious, because Hamas is originally affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which considers Shi'ites apostates. Some of al-Qa'ida's leaders have even argued that fighting Shi'ites is more of a priority than fighting the West. This is all commonplace Middle East history slash politics. I'm a trifle concerned that users who are not aware of such basics are among the contributors to an article like this one.--84.190.24.105 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I'm a trifle concerned that users who are not aware of such basics are among the contributors to an article like this one". I have to say that I do share your concern but the way I look at is that people learn things here that they won't get from their mainstream media. Also, if they want to add things to the article they need to go and find a reliable source, read it, process it a bit before they edit WP or else they'll get reverted. I think it's better for people to be here than sitting in front of their TV screens watching dumbed down nonsense e.g. editors had the opportunity to read your 'it's more complicated than you think' remark above and let's be honest, pretty much everything is more complicated than pretty much everyone thinks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Human shields in Gaza

"Gaza victims describe human shield use" By JPOST.COM STAFF [3] "Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields." Relevant?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2009

Extremely relevant as part of "Palestinian military activity", but it is quite an extraordinary claim, so it should be subjected to verifiability via more sources.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, I would like to know if they are related to Yasser Abd Rabbo. --Cerejota (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not much of an "extraordinary claim", these types of allegations are as old as the I-P conflict itself. The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and WP:V has no requirement for a multitude of reliable sources. There's enough sentences with silly string citations. Moreover, the JPost says that this information comes from the Al-Hayat al-Jadida. So it looks like all POV's are satisfied (unless there's some card-carrying Hamas supporters here). If we want to be extremely cautious we can always go....."According the Jerusalem Post, the Al-Hayat al-Jadida has reported that..........."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that makes sense... but is still extraordinary in the sense that it can be controversial: as I said, is definitely relevant.--Cerejota (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

if its added, it should be followed by this from amnesty international reporting idf taking over civilians home' and vandalizing w/ graffiti and excrement. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-soldiers-leave-gaza-homes-devastated-condition-20090123

"In most cases, the families had fled or were expelled by the soldiers. In some cases, however, the soldiers prevented the families from leaving, using them as "human shields". Untwirl (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea, once we get a reliable source for that, of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh puhleeze, the credibility of AI trumps that of JPOST. BTW the evidence of Israelis using Palestinians as human shields (and literally) is overwhelming. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does not. Amnesty International is not even a news source, it doesn't even meet the WP:RS threshold. The Jerusalem Post is considered a valid reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

AI is a RS, on the same grounds that HRW is a RS as demonstrated here. Al-Jazeera is also a RS as is the JPost. Nableezy (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

here are some more

do you like haaretz? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060390.html "On Monday, on one of the walls of the house that became the IDF position from which soldiers shot the two brothers who died at their father's side, we found two inscriptions in Hebrew: "The Jewish people lives" and "Kahane was right," referring to right-wing extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane."

or http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059513.html "Report: IDF probing racist graffiti left by soldiers in Gaza"

the independent? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/my-terror-as-a-human-shield-the-story-of-majdi-abed-rabbo-1520420.html "My terror as a human shield: The story of Majdi Abed Rabbo"

brisbane times? http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/writing-is-on-the-wall-for-gaza-peace/2009/01/30/1232818724423.html

the australian? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24987294-2703,00.html

ynet? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3664281,00.html "Givati troops leave 'Death to Arabs' graffiti in Gaza" Untwirl (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: You see to have gone off topic. The issue here is whether Hamas has been using humans as shields, not whether some 18-year old troops have messed up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

this is the problem. as an american (i'll divulge that) when us troops are accused of atrocities in iraq or guatanamo my knee jerk reaction isn't to deny it. i call for an investigation, and hope the soldiers and commanders responsible are punished. from your side of the pond, you are so biased that you call shitting in peoples cooking pots and holding them hostage "messing up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire." yes report on the hamas using them if it is verified by more rs. yes report on idf actions that have been reported on in multiple rs. spend some time finding rs like i have and then advocate for their inclusion Untwirl (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: Your comments are a bit unclear. If your English is not up too par, you might want to contribute to the Wikipedia of your native language. Regarding the substantive issue, all of the links concern vandalism, not human shields. The one article that did mention the use of a human shield is from the notoriously anti-Israel The Independent and is solely based on the statements of the "shield" himself and has yet to be independently verified. I rest my case.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, let me slow it down for you since you seem to be missing my point.

1. you say neither amnesty international nor the independent are reliable due to their "notoriously anti-Israel stance."

2. you advocate for the inclusion of jerusalem post, seemingly asserting that they don't have a pro-israel slant or an "anti-hamas" slant.

3. your bias is crystal clear, hence my observation above of your brushing off war crimes as "some 18-year old troops have messed up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire."

do you need further explanation? maybe you should translate it into your native tongue so you can understand it better. Untwirl (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just to join Untwirl in his diversion for a moment, ie the one regarding some IDF troops messing up someone's Gazan house, I urge you to read this fascinating Letter to Gaza Citizen: I am the Soldier who slept in your HomeTundrabuggy (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

oh how cute, blame the victim:

"I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self-pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. "

btw - please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes. Untwirl (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah, wrong gender, tundrabuggy Untwirl (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

amnesty international nor the awarding winning independent with their vastly experienced journalist donald macintyre are reliable sources ? that's funny. i'm getting flashbacks to the whole bbc arabic is unreliable because it uses squiggly writing unpleasantness. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your characterisation is very cute but self-serving and false. No one made such a claim except perhaps you just now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

tundra -your friend brewcrewer said exactly that

Brewcrewer said that bbc arabic is "unreliable because it uses squiggly writing unpleasantness"? I'm willing to bet more than the money in my pocket that you can't provide that diff! Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

TUNDRA MADE A JOKE??!?!?!?!?!?!?111///1!!!!//???!--Cerejota (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Call me an optimist, I'm willing to bet money that TB is a nice person too. Okay TB, you win. I can't supply that diff. Unfortunately no one has used that argument yet. It's come close though but the editor doesn't seem to be around anymore....which is a great loss because he could understand arabic, english and hebrew. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"That's a great idea, once we get a reliable source for that, of course" (linked to criticism of amnesty)

and "The one article that did mention the use of a human shield is from the notoriously anti-Israel The Independent

care to retract your statement? Untwirl (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hereby retract my unfounded claim that AI and The Independant are unreliable sources. Wow, this is confusing because I could have sworn that I didn't...never mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

literalists. Untwirl (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

UN School

UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School - by Maayana Miskin [4]. Now clearly confirmation from a less "biased" source would be necessary. The article refers to the Toronto Globe and Mail. This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. Yes, here is the original article: Account of Israeli attack doesn't hold up to scrutiny Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually, it looks like the information that the attack landed outside the school was already added to the article yesterday, in this edit [5] Blackeagle (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Globe article:

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

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

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

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

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

Why would he do that?

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:DarthArafat.png

Cerejota would like to see some kinky hawt action. Dance Dance Dance :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casualties in the Lead

Currently, the lead paragraph on casualties reads "However, as of February 1 2009, the number of Palestinians killed, and the proportion of Palestinians killed who were civilians, remains a matter of contention. According to figures compiled by the Israeli military, between 1,100 and 1,200 were killed, over 700 were militants and 250 were civilians.[46][47][48][49] [50] According to the Gazan Ministry of Health, about 1,300 Palestinians were killed, 900 were civilians, including 410 children, and the remainder were police officers and militants.[51][52]"

I think this is inaccurate and does not accurately reflect the secondary sources that we have access to. Most mainstream news organizations report the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figure without qualification. For example:

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"

Reuters: "Israel's Gaza offensive ... killed more than 1,300 Palestinians. Gazan rights groups said 700 civilians died, many of them children."

Economist: "About 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them more than 400 women and children, in nearly three weeks of fighting." (On January 15)

It is true that the Israeli military has questioned these figures, but the Israeli figures have not been widely taken up by neutral reliable sources. Of course, we should include the fact that the IDF has questioned these figures, but the IDF figure cannot go ahead of the other figure and I think the phrasing should make it clear that an overwhelming majority of sources accept the other figure. In light of this, to present these figures as a matter of serious dispute misrepresents the sources. I propose something to the effect of: "About 1,300 Palestinians have been killed, according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health [refs]. The Israeli military has questioned the number of civilian deaths [refs]." Jacob2718 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree that "Most mainstream news organizations report the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figure without qualification," however i dont believe israel's 'estimate' is relevant at all. we wouldnt quote hamas for how many israelis died. Untwirl (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The IDF has spies, no doubt, and informants. It cannot, itself, do what people in the field and hospitals, are doing, direct crosschecking of dataq in hospitals with the families. Since in the war, the IDF shot 'everything that moved' (words of a northern commander), as in Vietnam, statistics are systematically tilted to 'identify' whoever is shot as a enemy, i.e., here a Hamas operative. Like all armies and governments in war, it's never been particularly reliable, in any case.

Apparently there is intensive work being done to control and crosscheck the figures given by the Palestinian authorities, now underway. Some of the difficulties are well explained by Donald Macintyre in The Independent Sunday, 1 February 2009]

'a count of the dead and the wounded is possible. And it has been and is being done. There is a difference of 85 dead between the figures that have been published by the Palestinian Ministry of Health and those that have been arrived at by the two leading human rights centers in the Gaza Strip - Mezan and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. This gap, however, is not a result of an intentional inflation of the number of dead and wounded, but rather the result of a number of errors that occurred because of the heavy load: For example, in the aerial bombardment on Saturday, December 27, of the civilian police buildings in Gaza City, seven students of the nearby UNRWA vocational school were killed. All of them - inhabitants of Rafah. It is possible that they were listed twice - once as people from Rafah who were killed and once as people killed in Gaza City. There were people who were taken to Shifa Hospital who when they died were transferred to hospitals in the places where they had lived. It has happened that by mistake a number of names were listed twice. Sometimes there is an error in the name, which is later corrected. Sometimes neither a corpse nor remains have been located. In this way, the body of H., an Iz al-Din al-Qassam member, was lost. Only his shoes, which were found, confirmed that he had been killed. Four members of the Haddad family, parents and two children, got into a car and fled the army that was approaching the Tel al Hawwa neighborhood. A shell incinerated the car. The neighbors were able to identify the four scorched corpses only by the license number of the car, and they reported this to an investigator from the Palestinian Center. Nor is anyone able to intentionally lessen the number of Palestinian fighters who were killed. Every family is proud to say that its son fought and was killed in battle, so that sometimes the error could be the other way around: that someone is called a fighter because a certain organization adopted him, but in fact he was killed in his home and did not even know how to fire a rifle. Investigators who are very familiar with the field have their own ways of knowing who was an armed fighter and who was not. When on January 14 there was a report of four corpses in Shokka, east of Rafah, the field worker from the Palestinian Center knew the name of one of the dead and knew that he was from Iz al-Din al-Qassam. He concluded that two of the others, who were his age, were also in the military organization. However, the fourth man was 42 years old when he was killed, which is not so congruent with the profile of a "fighter," and inquiries to his family confirmed that indeed he had no connection to the armed group.

In the two human rights organizations the confirmation of the names of those killed, their identity, their age and their sex is carried out in a number of ways: In real time, each of the organizations had field workers present at the hospitals. They saw the bodies and spoke with family members. Other investigators did everything in their power - in conditions of mortal danger and running between the bombardments - to get to the place where people were killed and wounded. If not there - then to the home of the family or the wake house. If this was not possible during the course of events - it is being done now. Each investigator has a detailed questionnaire that he goes over with all the affected families and in which all the details are recorded. The work of getting everything down in writing will take at least a month and a half or two months. Then in all likelihood the slight gaps in the figures of the two human rights centers will be corrected.

The data, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, as of January 22, are as follows: 1,285 dead, of whom 1,062 were non-combatants (895 civilians and 167 civilian police). Of these, 281 were children (21.8 percent) and 111 were women. There are 4,336 wounded, among them 1,133 children. The 6-year-old girl who we saw in the Zeytun neighborhood, who holds her hands up in the air in fear every time the photographer brings his camera near her, is not included in the list of the casualties.'Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, of course Israel killed some 99% non-combatants according to PCHR. What happened to the 410 children that were killed earlier? That's a discrepancy of 130 children. Did they count ALL the children twice? How old are children? Is a 16 & 17 year old considered a child? Now since Israel only killed some 200- odd "combatants" why weren't the so-called civilian police or others able to stop these "combatants" from firing into Israel and causing retaliatory fire? It was not as if they had got no warning as to what to expect. In fact, today's news includes Olmert saying that they will have a "disproportionate" response to the current rocket fire [6]. It would make sense if the civilians who appear to outnumber the militants considerably, were to take matters into their own hands for their own safety. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Well, that is why a number of us have argued for not putting the casualties in the lead at all, but we were over-ruled. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you go back to primary school and work out the percentages. 1,062 non-combatants of 1,285 makes 223 combatants, which as a percentage of 1,285 comes out, at a glance at around 16-17%, meaning by their calculations 83-84% were civilians/non-combatants, not 99%, as your queer calculation asserts. If you read front-line Israeli reports from the IDF there was actually very little contact with Hamas. Most were killed on the first day, then went underground. Their strategy was survival. All sides exaggerate, spin and tilt figures in war. The Palestinians at least had this excuse, they had to make their calculations with several thousands people in a few weeks registered at several hospitals, and conflicting data from several sources, while under siege. The IDF calculations were done in comfortable quarters, mostly by counting all dead as around 75% 'Hamas operatives', the figure they pushed from the beginning. We'll know in a month or so, and will then update.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

so warning of a "diproportionate response" (against civilians, i presume) somehow justifies it? hamas warned israel that rockets wouldn't stop until they lifted the blockade, which they didnt, thereby according to your reasoning "causing retaliatory fire" by hamas rockets. Untwirl (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some weird concepts of mathematics operant here. The lead now has

About 1,300 Palestinians were killed including 900 civilians and 410 children (with the remainder being police officers and militants) according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health.[70][71] The Israeli military claims that 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed.[72][73][74][75] [76]

Both figures are nonsensical ('and' as in 900 civvies and 400 children should be '900 civilians, of whom 400 children' (that figure should itself be adjusted down), otherwise you get 900+400 = 1,300, no place for militants. Likewise the IDF is made to claim that of 1,100 killed, 700 were militants and 250 civilians, meaning 150 were neither militants or civilians. What were they, zombies?

Does anyone actually control this farce (farcir 'to stuff', an appropriate French verb). It is a farcical stuff up. I note also in para 1 an unfixed ref., standing out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources do indeed qualify the amount of causalities. It would be kinda irresponsible on their part not to. See Battle of Jenin, where Palestinian claims of massacre were later found to be nonsense and the IDF numbers were correct.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

brewcrew, where are your links for this statement? jacob provided 6 or 7 to back up his assertion. once again you are jumping in with your opinion that isnt based on rs. if you want to make contributions to this discussion, do some homework. Untwirl (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: Please stay WP:CIVIL, if you want to contribute to this talkpage. The links he provided are the exception. We all know that the amounts of dead people are almost always qualified to the source. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

be civil? your suggestion that i contribute to a wiki of my native tongue was condescending and uncivil. i simply asked you to provide some sources for your opinions, which you have yet to do. what "we all know" is irrelevant - provide a source. Untwirl (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i see you dont mind being slapped with a trout. well, here goes - *whap* Untwirl (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a native tongue ? You should probably give that back. Tongues and such like sometimes have local cultural/religious significance. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

my native tongue is cruelty free and certified organic. mmm delicious. Untwirl (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: Please stay WP:CIVIL, if you want to contribute to this talkpage. Bullying doesn't last long around here, call it the revenge of the nerds if you will. --Cerejota (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The figures need to be attributed, especially if they are disputed. We have numerous sources attributing the claims, the opener found some who don't (yet they might do in other articles, e.g. reuters attributes those figures to Hamas here). There is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not attribute their figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow.

Also, there is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not cite the Israeli figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow. The Israeli figures were just recently released, and all that was released was a kind of a "preview" that is yet to be completed. It is thus no surprise that they are not yet cited by everyone. We need secondary sources to wp:verify information, but we need to present these informations following wikipolicies such as wp:npov. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On checking the problem is that the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on its website does not give official figures. No official figures apparently exist for the IDF statistics. The IMFA only cites for this information the same newspaper articles our own article cites, and frankly this is pure lunacy. That a government cite newspapers for statistics that it itself is the source for. The IDF figures in the newspapers are revelations made off-the-record, or privately, to journalists by briefers. This is complete contrast to the Palestinian case, where there is an official source for the figures (may be wrong, but at least they assume responsibility for their calculations)

Secondly, the IDF does not 'claim' these are correct figures. The IMFA site says that the IDF 'believe' that 700 are Hamas operatives. To claim is to assert a fact, to 'believe' is to take on trust, in lieu of definitive evidence, that such and such is the case. Therefore the wiki description should have the word 'belief' for the IDF figures until their report comes out.

As to the discrepancy I pointed out between 950 (militants and civilians) and 1,100-1,200 total, the remaining 150/250 are believed by the IDF to be mainly Hamas militants also. So so far, only in as regards the IDSF/Israel figures we are in the realm of belief. The PMH figures are asserted on the web-site to have been based on extensive crosschecking, and are generally supported by an independent authority (the in loco UN people)Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

skapp - there does seem to be a mainstream consensus not to cite israeli figures. (see jacobs examples above) the (one) example you linked to does attribute their numbers to "medical sources" in gaza, but it also makes no mention of (unofficial) israeli estimates. 7:1 mainstream sources that dont attribute their numbers, and 8:0 that don't mention israeli estimates, seems to be in consensus on not adding the israeli estimate or qualifying the number with moh or hamas. Untwirl (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I continue to oppose inclusion of casualties figures in the lead, - it shoudl say something vague like "causualties happened" - and push for their inclusion in the infobox. As to quantities, all of these discussions would be solved if we provided an upper and lower range, and then a few sources. Keep the narrative for the Casualties section. --Cerejota (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you still of the opinion that Israel's figures shouldn't be use AT ALL?(i think you at least brought up that point). because that was BOLD and I'll add my opinion as well. There could be strong support for such measure. Cryptonio (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood my point. My point was not using IDF figures solely, fog of war and all that (in other words, the IDF is doing estimates, while the MoH is counting hospital reports; which is more reliable - in the non-wikipedia sense?). We need sourced min-max ranges, see the example I created above, which could include IDF figures. I also oppose the explicit qualification of any information, because we have a established way to reference and cite information and should therefore use it.--Cerejota (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this leaves much room for misinterpretation but: "As it stands, its ugly. But I would like to hear arguments as to why the IDF figures are to be considered reliable, vis-a-vis health organizations on the ground in Gaza." Cerejota.

Anyways, thanks for clarifying your point. I wonder how you would then, minimize the coverage of Israel's figures in that section. Cryptonio (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I would like to hear arguments "as to why the IDF figures are to be considered reliable, vis-a-vis health organizations on the ground in Gaza". I haven't heard them. But, this is approaching the threshold of the stuff I am not giving a fuck about. This aberration of ugliness will have to be fixed in two years when when the books get written. I still however retain hope we can reach an informative and inclusive range that is well sourced, such as the format I suggested.--Cerejota (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapons related word counts in the article for interest

2 aircraft
3 airstrikes
3 army
5 artillery
5 bomb
3 bombed
1 bombings
3 bombs
5 booby
1 explode
1 exploding
4 explosives
2 gun
1 gunships
2 helicopter
2 helicopters
3 katyusha
3 launchers
3 missiles
19 mortar
5 mortars
6 phosphorus
6 qassam
47 rocket
34 rockets
2 rockets'
4 shelled
5 shelling
13 shells
6 tank
2 tanks
Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Call me vulgar and immature, but I found the line "5 booby" to be kind of funny. Now if only the Hamas messages to Israelis' mobile phones had said "booby on all cities, shelters will not protect you", instead of "rockets...", we'd be able to crank up the booby count a bit. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As per request: you are vulgar an immature. :D--Cerejota (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too and I deliberately didn't go and check whether it was accompanied by 'trap' because that would have ruined the Woody Allen-esque Sleeper (film) images I had in my mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

how bout, "boobies will not save you!" "booby is not your friend" "or "death to boobies!" Untwirl (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What, no mention in the article of UAVs, the drones, with their special missiles, and surveillance cameras that allow controllers at headquarters to view with great clarity everything on the ground, with such precision that indeed, they consistently killed children and civilians, even in open fields, as Amnesty reports. Bet there were high 5s all round the video feed at HQ when catching this 'breaking news' beamed back from the drones.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't offer an interpretation of these figures because I wanted others to do that but since no one has, here goes....bearing in mind that this is just a semi-deterministic method to assess NPOV/it's just bit of fun...sort of.

• not mentioning UAVs etc seems consistent with the whole not mentioning anything much apart from rockets approach that seems to be apparent from the figures.
• rockets and related terms are mentioned too much, did I mention that ? aren't mentioned enough.
• we need to mention more about rockets to increase the popularity of the article because apparently they're quite popular ::::with editors and therefore readers in order to increase advertising revenue. sorry, i've forgotten, what are we trying to do here ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a predictable result of the fact that one side in the conflict has lots of different types of weapons, and the other side has pretty much one type of weapon: rockets. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. Asymmetric warfare is asymmetric. However, if you sum what is Israeli vs Hamas weaponry, Israel comes up slightly bellow, clearly not how this has played out. I think we mention rockets too much, too often, compared to say, shelling in Gaza. But this has some potential to be a storm in a teacup... we should fix the article without an eye to terms. --Cerejota (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both of you to a certain extent and since stopping rockets was the stated aim you might reasonably expect related words to have elevated word counts. This does look a bit more like a spike than an gentle hillock which perhaps should trigger a warning light...maybe just an orange alert...although changing the colour of the light bulb is a lot of effort. Since the article (and any article) is meant to avoid accidentally and implicitly advancing a POV through the language used (e.g. terrorist) we should be able to use simple techniques like this every so often to get a rough idea of what's going on in the article. For example, if it were an article about crime in Thailand and the words 'Burmese' and 'migrant' appeared 100+ times it would be reasonable to assume that something a bit odd was going on. Anyway, it wasn't meant to trigger a storm. Quite the opposite actually. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Section Title: 'Gazan response' or 'Palestinian militant activity'

Please say which title you think is better, since otherwise this is just going to back and forward between Jalapeno and me.

• 'Gazan response'

Support since it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive' and also because 'Palestinian militant activity' does not sound neutral, it makes it sound suspicious and illegal(maybe it is, but then 'Israeli offensive' should be changed to something like 'Israeli attacking troop activities' (OK a bad one but I can't think of better)Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Better After some rereading I think that 'Palestinian militant activity' sounds more negative than 'Israeli offensive' and is therby not npov. Brunte (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• 'Palestinian militant activity'

• Discussion

I think neiter. If 'Israeli offensive' stands, the other should be something with 'defence' in it. ex 'Palestinian defence' or 'Palestinian defence of Gaza' Brunte (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't any of these options are all that great. "Gazan response" is pretty generic. It doesn't really say who is responding and doesn't convey that most of the response was military in nature. "Palestinian militant activity" is only slightly better. It says a little bit more about who but is just as generic as to what. "Palestinian defense" doesn't really fit because many of the activities (rocket attacks) are defensive only in the sense of "the best defense is a good offense". On that basis the Israeli actions could be considered "defensive". Anyone have any other suggestions? Blackeagle (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I really have to conclude that we probably shouldn't have two separate sections for Israeli and Palestinian actions. These are really two sides of the same coin. Does it really make sense to talk about the Israeli Ground invasion in one section, then Palestinian Engagement with Israeli forces further down on the page?

So, how about reorganizing the Campaign section like this:

• Israeli airstrikes - the current Air strikes and Warnings subsections
• Palestinian rocket attacks - the current Rocket attacks into Israel subsection
• Ground invasion - the current Ground invasion, Attack on Gaza City, Preperation, and Engagement with Israeli forces subsections
• Attacks on Israel from outside of Gaza - the current subsection of the same name
• Notable incidents - the current incidents subsection
• Ceasefires - the current Humanitarian ceasefires and Unilateral Ceasfires subsections

Propoganda and psycological warfare would get folded into the media section or article. The very first paragraph under Palestinian militant activity describing the militant groups involved and the Internal violence subsection get spun off into their own section describing who's involved on the Palestinian side.

It's a pretty big change, but I think it would make the article a lot better and get away from the current "he did, she did" format Blackeagle (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Blackeagle's suggestion as the only only policy compliant framework so far. He has had the gonadal fortitude to bring the obvious cluster-fuck the section is. We should be able to provide an NPOV narrative in the encyclopedic voice without segregating obviously related topics by combatant. Of course, as I said, I can live with well sourced, verifiable aberrations as long as we do not cross the line into SYNTH. I just think we should reconsider how we have arrived to these "solutions". Consensus is hard, sweaty, and time-consuming. Which doesn't mean that we are immune from the fact must reach it. --Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is January_2009_Gaza_attacks article nessesary ? Merge in here perhaps.

I read January_2009_Gaza_attacks and find it contans much less extra material compared to the section 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Internal_violence than other linked articles have. I suggest either its merge in and deleted or that section Internal violence to be tighten or merged with another section. Discuss. Brunte (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely merge. No reason to have a separate article. Blackeagle (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

People are calling it a good article and it IS featured in the main news section, before you remove or merge it I would take a poll.Knowledgekid8717:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Even issues that are purely aspects of this article are being spun off because of WP:SIZE. January 2009 Gaza attacks is not purely an aspect of this article, and should clearly not be merged. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, I think that article should be deleted then. Can someone help as I dont know how to request it? Brunte (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli 'shock' victims may have crept back in

Do people remember the previous discussions about this? The Israeli govt includes 'shock victims' in their casualty figures. In the infobox it now says 182 civilians injured. I would guess this includes shock victims once again. As noted before, there are probably over 1 million victims of shock in Gaza.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to determine the exact number of "shocked" victims because mass media tends to be more selective when it comes to Israeli news, but perhaps we shock can technically be categorized in the injured section. Also, depending on one's proximity from an explosion, "shock" could imply physical damage. Lest you forget, shock can cause internal and psychological injuries. But I doubt 182 victims injured also includes those who were "shocked." Under your reasoning, the victims would exceed 50,000. Sderot and Ashkelon have been experiencing daily rocket attacks for over a year...Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Shock can be a physical condition. An adrenaline rush can widen your vains causing a sharp drop in blood pressure. This is where the term "Scared stiff" comes from, with the person being physically unable to move. I'm not sure it's enough on it's own to threaten someones life though. Obviously if you have a large open wound and go into shock you can bleed out, but I'm pretty sure on it's own it won't leave any lasting damage. At the most a lie down, perhaps some hydration and the victim should be fine in a day or two. Certainly would require some medical attention though just in case. So I guess it could count. It's not on par with bullet & shrapnel wounds though. (Forgot to sign in)Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Acute Stress Reaction, which is the kind of shock I mentioned above, also see Circulatory Shock. Circulatory Shock comes in multiple different forms, several of whitch can in fact cause death by organ failiure if not medically treated, therefore it seem there can be no question that these numbers belong in the casualties sectionAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been against counting them together. Although I would note that we also count Palestinian psychological victims. I included a link to this a while ago but the head of the PCHR counting said that they had counted about a thousand fewer wounded than the MoH and he attributed it to the MoH counting psychological trauma. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think they should be counted together either. But there are also sources from Palestinian medial officials saying they believe more than 50% of all Gaza residents will suffer from PTSD and other psychological trauma. Nableezy (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been arguing for weeks that we should include information about psychological trauma. But not to combine it with other injuries in the infobox to create a combined "wounded" number. Back then nobody agreed with me that we should include any sort of psychological trauma at all. Although back then we mostly just had the Israeli "shock" figure. If we get Palestinian information I wouldn't be surprised if a few editors become more interested. Even though I did include an article with Palestinian information like two weeks ago. But I don't know if anyone read it. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about PTSD or people who are having nightmares because they saw some nasty things. I'm talking about the people who suffer from the medical definition of shock. As in they hear a bomb go off and their bodily reaction can put their lives at risk. If it is the latter it should be mentioned in the casualties. If they require medical attention as a direct result of the conflict then they are casualties. If they are having nighmares or PTSD they should be left out of casualties, as this reaction is purely psycological. In summary I think that if immediate medical prevention is required to save their lives then it counts. If it needs counselling or therapy it doesn't count. This is not an attempt to make light of psycological trauma, merely my suggestion of how this issue can be resolved Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG. People, this would all be solved if we had ranges with sourcing. I will repeat this as mantra. There is absolutly no need to have long edit warring and talk threads on casulaties if we follow this simple formulation. There is a fog of war and all an any attempts at casualty figures by any side have to be treated as part of their respective PR efforts. However, they are published as primary sources and repeated by RS, and obviously central, so we must include this.

Say aye and lets get over with, so we can edit war on better things, like lovefests and rockets. Yeesh, at least the Babycue debate had some serious systemic implecations. These here is close to being lame.--Cerejota (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Info box Palestinian casualties questionable

While three sources are provided, all seem to be referencing Palestinian medical workers or Palestinian-organized services. Including reuters and UNOCHA give the impression that these media groups are independently verifying the death/wounded toll, when in fact they are just citing (albeit subtly) information from Health Minister of the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian medical services.

I honestly couldn't care less about the casualties themselves, but the Palestinians have a long history of inflating, embellishing, and often times falsifying information regarding casualties.

Maybe this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I know for a fact those sources would be considered unreliable from a POV perspective, but they're the only ones we can go by for now.

I think Israel might have their casualty estimates, perhaps that could also be included? Like, say "casualties disputed" or something along those lines. Be cordial, please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times already. The numbers provided by the Palestinians have been widely reported in all media, cited by the UN, HRW, AI and Btselem. We can certainly include official Israeli estimates, but it should not take prominence over the statistics that have been used in every single source that I have seen. Hamas has also disputed the number of Israeli soldiers killed, would you also like to include that and say those numbers are 'disputed'? Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We do have the IDF figures in the infobox: 700 militants and 250 civilians. It is missing their total which also includes a couple hundred who have not been identified either way. Or so they claim. If we have Hamas figures I'd include them also. Although Hamas is the government (or really the state) of Gaza so I guess that kind of makes the MoH numbers the same thing. If they have a claim for numbers of Israeli soldiers killed, I'd include it also. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that, at least I think, is nobody uses those numbers at all. Everybody is quoting the Palestinian numbers for Palestinian casualties and the Israeli numbers for Israeli casualties. Until there is some independent verification on either side I dont think we need to vary from that. In the media, at least what I have read and I like to think I sample from a pretty wide spectrum, the Hamas claims for IDF forces killed are mentioned in passing as just that, as are the Israeli estimates for Palestinian figures. I think it would be better if we did the same, for the infobox include what is being widely reported until we get an independent number, and somewhere in the casualties section bring all that up. Nableezy (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

vandal ip

could someone report it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=268117343 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) '

You can do it yourself.WP:AIV. He was handled fine, not blocked, but warned and has not edited again. If s/he edits again in the same fashion, s/he will be blocked. --Cerejota (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

restored sentence: antisemitic violence

i dont remember exactly, but i do recall a question being put forth as to whether this violence relates directly to this conflict. the source itself says violence has "tripled." doesnt this mean at least one third of it is unrelated? Untwirl (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just mentioning it has greatly increased would suffice? Saying 2/3 of anti-simetic violence is a result of this conflict is probably more detailed than it needs to be, and we can't be sure of that whole "Trippled" buisiness anyway. 2/3 is a definite amount and we don't have definite, or do you have a source of a survey or something?Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i didnt restore it, just questioned its relevance. i think 'greatly increased' is fine, if it needs to be here at all. Untwirl (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably not all that relevant. Considering that the conflict appears far from over after those attacks that took place in the last few days. Eventually the size of this article will be called into question and things like this will probably get trimmed out anywayAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What we can say for certain is that the reporting of antisemitic incidents has increased. RomaC (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed below, move all suggestions there from now Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"anti-semitic incidents"

jalps - 2 of us now have agreed and removed material that is duplicated word for word in the international reactions section. it should be summarized and that is all. don't say "see talk" when you have not posted anything discussing this to the talk page. i will wait to revert you until others weigh in. Untwirl (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I seem to get into talk page edit conflicts: I was posting my comments here but lost the edit conflict to your comment, so I'll just respond to it. Jandrews twice removed two whole subsections of the article, "Israel" and "Antisemitic incidents", without discussion. After the first time he did it, I explained above that this is not done: when removing large portions of sourced text, one must seek consensus first on the talk page. The fact that you agree with Jandrews is of absolutely no relevance, though your input in a discussion in which you explain why you agree with him would certainly be relevant and perhaps influential in determining the outcome of the discussion. You have just begun such a discussion, contributing the sole argument that the content of one of the subsections in question ("Antisemitic incidents") is duplicated word for word in another article. If that is the case, I can assure you that the other article copied from here and not the other way around. If you think there was some problem with them doing that, I suggest you take it up on that article's talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This article starts to be bloated with proisraeli material with less connection to the conflict. This section is one of them. I find 'antisemitic incidents around the world conected to this conflict' complicated. Do muslims see diference between jews and israelis? Is Muslims attacks against jews, who most of them support israel antisemitic? In any case israel dont make it easyer to be of jewish heritage. Brunte (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Brunte, but I don't understand what you're saying. Could you perhaps be clearer? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What part dont you understand? Brunte (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything past the first two sentences. (Though I'm not sure I understand even those two sentences: how is information about antisemitic incidents "pro-Israeli"?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything, this article is pro-Palestinian. Virtually all Palestinian-news media, especially government casualty reports, fail every wiki reliability laws. Yet, oddly enough, we still use them as references. So let's end this pro-Israel b.s because we all know it's the direct opposite. The international media has been biased against Israel from the start of the war. And since this article is heavily reliant on international sources, the article is undoubtedly slanted. Now, can we move away from the pro-Israel tirade and focus on the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a section of anti-musslim attacks in the article? Seems like having the section at all is unnecesary. If you look at the disussion above I said merely a mention that the attacks occur should suffice. It seems impractical that we list the anti-jewish incidents when this article is about the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. It just seems to me that this is a tangent issue and while it may be a direct result of the happenings of this article, it does not need more than a brief mention Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I support that. Brunte (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A. If you have information about notable attacks against Muslims which, according to reliable sources, were directly related to this conflict (as you agreed the antisemitic attacks being discussed were), then by all means add it to the article: WP:BOLD. B. The subsection does not list "the anti-jewish incidents"; it briefly mentions a few of the most notable incidents, without even going into basic details. C. The subsection is a part of the section "Effects", which, as its name implies, does not deal with events of the conflict, but with "direct results of the happenings" (your words). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Equal weight is important. If we're publishing content demonstrating the results of the war but not necessarily part of the actual fighting, then all sides must be posted. IF there's reputable sources that report on the growing anti-Semitic/anti-Israel protests occurring throughout Europe and the Middle East, then it MUST be included. Under your reasoning, everything that wasn't physically influenced shouldn't be included - like international reactions, organizational opinions, etc. After all, "it just seems to me that this is a tangent issue and while it may be a direct result of the happenings of this article, it does not need more than a brief mention." Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reservations about an exclusive "antisemitism' section, maybe an inclusive "backlash" subsection to International reactions section would be germane. But how do we judge whether a physical assault on a Jew in Paris is directly related to this event? Or if the decision to ban Arab parties from the upcoming Israeli elections is directly related to the event? Seems we would be opening an ugly can of worms here. But go ahead, if the section includes info relating to both sides. RomaC (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I think that notable backlash attacks against any group, considered by reliable sources to be directly related to this conflict, should be in the subsection, and the title of the subsection should reflect the content. I don't think that the subsection should be in the International reactions section, since that section deals with views and public expressions thereof, whereas this subsection deals primarily with tangible actions, and is thus more suited to a section dealing with concrete effects. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I owe you an apology Jalapenos. I was under the impression that the section had been changed to a list of anti-simetic happenings. I read over the section again. And while it's longer than I would have made it, I don't think that it's unbalanced or unworthy of note. The fact that I thought it had been moved from the section that it's in sparked my remarks about having an anti-musslim section. When the section is viewed as a whole and not in individual sections it is not unreasonable. Further Anti-Simetic of Anti-Jewish is more appropriate than "Backlash". It is what it is and what it is, is anti-simetic violence and discrimination as a result of this conflict (Don't know if that all bade sense) Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you needed to apologize for anything, but I appreciate that you did. Thanks. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

if you insist on overcrowding this article with 'effects', i suggest adding this:

• anti-arab incidents in israel

"When the leader of Israel's religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of "Death to the Arabs." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26%2FBNStory%2FInternational%2F%3Fpage%3Drss%26id%3DRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26&ord=18771778&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

and this:

"Israel's election panel disqualified two Arab parties from running in the February 10 elections based on a motion filed by two far-right parties which claimed they did not recognise the Jewish state's right to exist. "Obviously, the right wing is stronger with the war. The Israelis are selling more cheap popularity in the streets," said Jamal Zahalqa, head of the parliamentary group of one of the two parties, the National Democratic Assembly. . . .The leader of the Greek Orthodox community in Sakhnin, father Salah Khoury, has organised a campaign to send food and clothes to Gaza, but fears the consequences of supporting the Palestinians in the enclave. "We identify with the people in Gaza, but we don't want to endanger ourselves," said the Arab Israeli. "We want to stand in our land. We're scared. Right wing Jews see us as enemies." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0R8Cdp-6NO1kvXp38rf3KRMk7Aw

and articles about settler violence against arabs in the west bank, which i shall find shortly. Untwirl (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Untwirl, your efforts to find relevant information for the article are laudable, though I would stress that the aim of adding information should never be to "counteract" information one thinks should be omitted, per WP:POINT. About the first incident: I don't think hate speech is notable enough for a summary section, which is why I refrained from including incidents of hate speech when creating the section. About the second incident: this was already discussed a while back, with the conclusion being that no reliable sources consider it related to the conflict. By the way, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned that decision by the Central Elections Committee, so in effect nothing actually happened. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I also have problems with this section, as it represents only one side of the backlash. First, this: "Italian trade union Flaica-Cub called for the boycott of shops owned by the "israelitic community" ("comunità israelitica") in Rome, interpreted by the media as Jews, in protest at the Israeli offensive. Following an outcry and threats to sue the union under Italy's anti-racism laws,[385][386] the union stated that the proposed boycott was directed at products made in Israel ("Boicottaggio dei prodotti israeliani")" is too long considering it seems to boil down to a misunderstanding. As it is the strong suggestion here is that a boycott of Israel constitutes antisemitism. What we're left with is a few assaults, some angry letters and a lot of spray-painting. If this is going to be covered then it has to be covered as it relates to both sides, not only as "antisemitism." For example, we should include "A blue Star of David with the words "Israel forever -- Arabs never" was spray-painted on a back door to the Sts. Peter and Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church in the Washington suburb of Potomac, Md. Local police said the incident is being investigated as a hate crime."[7] No? RomaC (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Rome boycott: I've seen quite a few news articles on the boycott, and none of them took the union's post-fact explanation seriously. I agree that the description of the incident is too long. I originally wrote it very briefly, then another editor added the details, presumably he thought it was fair to get the union's side in; I didn't want to delete his contribution. Regarding the church defacement: I could see making a case for including it, but then we would have to include other incidents that happened after the ceasefire, which I wanted to avoid for length reasons. Additionally, the source you brought did not connect it to the conflict (and considering it happened almost two weeks after the ceasefire, I don't see why it would be considered connected). Finally, there's a notability issue. I think what makes a defacement of a house of worship notable is the defacement itself, with the message being secondary. In this case, the message is undoubtedly anti-Arab, but is the defacement itself an anti-Muslim act? Surely not, because it was a church being defaced. So what was it? Anti-Christian? You get the idea. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe we should clarify the anti-semitic part and explain that arabs are actually semites, too (sons of shem) so violence against them is anti-semitic as well by definition. Untwirl (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Antisemitism#Etymology. It was precisely because I expected misunderstandings such as these that I objected to user:Cerejota's naming of the section "Antisemitic incidents". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reducing the importance and relevance of the strongly-supported anti-Semitic protests occuring throughout the world to various incidents in Israel IS anti-Semitic. World opinion is woefully against Israel, as is the protests against it. Equalizing Jews taunting Arabs and Arabs taunting Jews is laughable. There will always be some people who have a differing opinion, but the case remains: Anti-Semitic outbreaks far outweigh any anti-Muslim/Arab protests. And keep in mind, the majority of anti-Semitic outbreaks are intense and violent. And while there is a significant number of pro-Israel protests, very few even remotely resemble the activities organized by pro-Arab/pro-Palestinian groups. When did 10,000 angry fundamentalist Jews storm a predominantly Arab housing project and throw moltolv cocktains and rocks at the windows, whilst screaming "glory to the God of Jews" and watching a German officer storm into the Arab ghetto and taking down the flags? http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950850066&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Oh, and that source could be used in the article. A sovereign democratic government banning the waving of Israeli flags is VERY relevant to this article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No its not. Just as it is irrelevant that it is still illegal to wave a Palestinian flag in Israel. Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And I can think of a few times recently such actions have been directed at Arabs in such cities as Hebron. Nableezy (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you have to accept that if the international media is biased against Israel regarding this topic, the Wikipedia article must be biased too, because Wikipedia's policy requires sticking to the reliable sources, and until books and academic papers are written about the conflict, the media is the main reliable source we have. If you don't accept this, you will simply not be able to be a productive contributer. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, good night everyone, I'm going to bed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is mind-blowingly retarded. Why wikipedia still sanctions propaganda-fallacy driven articles such these is BEYOND ME. No wonder nothing ever gets done in these kinds of discussions.

And Jalapeno, don't accuse of not being a productive contributor. You are the one who is unproductive solely based on your refusal to publish facts. There is plenty of reliable sources that provide a far differing spin then what is seen here. Sleep well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikfan, a concern I have here is that if we take the number and scale of anti-Israeli actions as greater than the corresponding anti-Arab actions, and then declare that treating both with the same regard is "laughable", would it not then be consistent to apply the same relativism to damage and casualties in the conflict itself, and dismiss Qassam rockets as "laughable"? RomaC (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalap, I respect what you are saying, that the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the ban on Arab parties in the Knesset, and if this means "nothing happened" there, then it would be consistent to conclude that nothing happened in Italy, where the union re-named its Israeli boycott campaign. RomaC (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

if it is "reducing the importance and relevance of the strongly-supported anti-Semitic protests occuring throughout the world" (and according to you, anti-semitic) to include the fact that there has been a pro-israel backlash against arabs, then you have a very broad view of anti-semitism. as cerejota once wisely said, calling everything antisemitism "cheapen(s) the very real suffering of those who have faced true antisemitism." Untwirl (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? What is the line between acceptable, or "true" anti-Semitism. As far as I can tell, the bangwagon hate occurring throughout the developed world is anti-semitism. The stone throwing, the beatings, the massive angry protests, the lawsuits, everything. It's all rooted in hate, and it is light years ahead of any event organized by extreme Zionists. There is no excuse to be ignorant. The facts are right under your nose. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

you contend that, "Equalizing Jews taunting Arabs and Arabs taunting Jews is laughable." and i say there is no difference. jews do not have a monopoly on oppression and prejudice. all people deserve to be treated with respect, jews, arabs, blacks, etc. i'll just repeat and agree with you that "there is no excuse to be ignorant." Untwirl (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference. When the vast majority of the Arab world and many European nations act indifferent or support violent protests against Jews and those who support Israel, it is laughable when you try to cancel out these alarming activities because of a few anti-Hamas/Arab/Muslim etc... demonstrations. It's like equating someone who throws stones and someone who shoots rocket launchers. And BTW, the Jews as a whole aren't notorious for impression. Their respective for non-Jews and ethnic minorities greatly exceeds the tolerance given to non-Muslims in the neighboring theocracies. Point being, the anti-Semitic protests are notable and should be given a section. Just because some users think it doesn't matter because "all sides do it" is not a justifiable excuse. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"It's like equating someone who throws stones and someone who shoots rocket launchers."

i hope you see the irony of that statement with respect to the israel-gaza conflict. Untwirl (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, anti-semitic incidents are being dealt with in the reactions article. There was a standalone article. It was nominated for deletion and it was deleted yesterday. I am not going to help you find this stuff because I find you unhelpful. Please play nice. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do see the irony and thank you for telling me you won't help me. Never in my wildest dreams did I think you would NOT help me. I'm totally and completely shocked at your irresponsibility in not helping me. I think I might die from your lack of help. Seriously. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to put Sean's refusal to help you under anti-semitic incidents? Nableezy (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh brother. Why are people in the real world very nice wherever you go in this world but so many people in WP aren't. I'm bored of this so I'm going to tell a little story now with an example of what anti-semitism isn't. Last year I was in a remote area on the Thai side of the border with Myanmar and we were chatting with a really old hill tribe guy about stuff. We asked him why there was a camp so far away from the nearest town, who was there, what was going on etc. He said it was for tourists from Israel. We asked "why are they all the way out here". He said "They're very noisy". True story. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So there was a camp for Israelis "so far away from the nearest town" because they were noisy? Just how noisy were they? Were they shooting off celebratory gunfire? Did they use megaphones and electronic music? Maybe you are naif to have taken this "really old hill tribe guy" at his word. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked Tundrabuggy I'm very happy to expand the info. They were a bunch of youngsters doing what youngsters do best, make noise, laugh a lot, probably drink too much and generally having a good time. I should add that I'm pretty sure the old guy didn't know anything about Israel apart from that it's the name of a country somewhere out there over the mountains where tourists live, all of which he lumps into one category, Farang=foreigner. His remark was delivered without any irony and was about how annoying young people are when you get old. I thought it was funny. He seemed confused that I thought it was funny. For interest, there are tonnes of Israeli tourists in Thailand and they are throughly nice people. Hell, there's tonnes of Israeli, Arab and Iranian tourists shopping in the same Tesco Lotus down the road from me. Imagine that! Sean.hoyland - talk 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-Lede

Although the lead has received exceptional cosmetic changes, there are a few that are necessary still. I will bring a few that I believe will enhance the article, with the help of the last conversation on record on this matter. Since the archived conversation was taken into consideration, I assume that it has wide support and warrants an edit before further debate.

• Para A "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)[27] when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip.[28] Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's stated intention was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and target the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[29][30][31] In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[32][33][34][35][36]"

It has been widely referenced, that the MAIN reason(perhaps even the only reason) given by Israel in support of the military operation(at the beginning of the conflict), is to stop rocket attacks by Hamas on southern Israel. One of the actions, that in Israel's view had to be done in order to archive this goal, was the targeting of 'so called'(but widely accepted as) Hamas' infrastructures. To this point, it should be made clear, that those attacks against Hamas' infrastructures were part of the operation but not a goal in itself, since the actual implementation of the operation, in itself, was not a stated goal. These changes are reflected and supported by the same sourced material of the Para's current format(and more were also presented). Also, before the operation, Israel had no information on what Hamas' response was going to be, so the targeting of its members was not a goal, but part of the operation since Israel was planning in using its military to archive the goal of stopping Hamas rockets. Here we must make the distinction between overall goals, and military operations. Not surprising in itself, since Israel(understandingly) would not make its actions known beforehand.

As for 'campaign's stated intention', on those same sources in support of the information, it does not include that phrasing, simply because it would be redundant. Once Israel makes its intentions known as a statement, and thus stated, it is taken as authoritative. If then, we go ahead and quote those intentions or aim, we are presenting the actual statement, and it doesn't need to be reminded(but sourced yes), that at one point it was stated, for we are quoting or resuming what that statement entailed. Only when there is a question on whether the party has made its intentions clearly, should our job be to clarify(by the input of known documentation) what those intentions were. And so, it would warrant the usage of the word "stated". In this matter, it is widely known that stop Hamas rockets were the reason given by Israel at the beginning of the conflict, and that in order to archive that goal, a military operation(with military actions) was the order.

Last, there was no mention at all about "southern communities" and I'm not surprise( in good faith, of course) but surely disappointed that it is till there. Almost all material used at the start of this operation, used the phrase "Southern Israel" as any respectable publication would.

New Para

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)[27] when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip.[28] Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's aim was to stop Hamas' rocket attacks on southern Israel's and included the targeting of Hamas' members and infrastructure.[29][30][31] In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[32][33][34][35][36]

Cryptonio (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention to the ceasefire and the breach of the ceasefire should be made also?

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)[27] when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip.[28] Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's aim was to stop Hamas' rocket attacks on southern Israel and included the targeting of Hamas' members and infrastructure.[29][30][31] The conflict is currently under ceasefire(negotiated on */**) however the conditions of the agreement were not fully agreed upon by either party, and several infringemments of the ceasefire have caused further violence. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[32][33][34][35][36] Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(a) 'stated intention' is just because there are two reasons for going to war, the official and the long-term strategic. There must be quite a few sources dated 27-28 December 2008 which give the Israeli government's official position on why it undertook Operation cast Lead. So far, in lieu, of these statements, we only have retrospective articles from the press all repeating the same formula. Can't anyone dig up the words used by Israel or the IDF's spokesman on the 27th to explain the onset of the attack?

(b) 'Southern communities'. I objected to this. I think we should stick to the actually wording used at the outset of the campaign. Rocket fire on the sha'ar hanegev was a casus belli for Israel, as was Israeli fire on the Gaza Strip. In both cases 'communities' were hit, with the difference that almost all Hamas and co's rocketry fell outside of towns, whereas Israel's fire was extremely accurate, and almost invariably hit what it was aimed at, i.e. communities. To use 'communities' unilaterally of Israel, is unbalancing, and misleading, for by default it implies, tacitly, that on the other hand, Gazan 'communities' weren't hit.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I share your concern over 'exact wording' in this matter. At this time, I do not understand your position on the 'long-term strategic' reason as related to the actual operation. The bare minimum that I grasp would be the statement by Israel's prime minister in here http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11323391, which is dated btw, 12/27/08. "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.". But at the same time, "The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel."

If, by your request, there is another publication per the dates giving by you, more information is found I will be glad to read over them. And if that's the case, where in your opinion this 'watered down' wording being used in the lead right now, is not adequate, some further editing can be discussed.

On the second matter, I do not understand "sha'ar hanegev", perhaps only that it could mean desert? where most of Hamas rockets fall? I'll await confirmation on that since it seems a workable matter that with sources can be corrected. In my opinion though, if that's the case, those areas would make up 'southern Israel' as well. I will retreat on this matter until further opinion and research has been found since I've made clear my position till now. Cryptonio (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cryptonio. That quote from Olmert 12/27/08 is spot-on. There should be some official Israeli source, of course, but method requires something of this order. Perhaps that in the meantime could be edited in as a provisory source, a good one too, since it gives 'southern Israel' (not, note 'southern communities').

The area basically hit over the years is the Sha'ar Negev(שער הנגב), the administrative area of the northern Negev.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, re the phrasing "southern communities": in the archived discussion I brought 3 sources using that phrasing. I researched the issue, and "southern towns", "southern communities" and "southern towns and communities" seem to be the most common phrasing in the international media for the target of Hamas rocket attacks. Presumably the reasoning behind that phrasing is that it briefly indicates that the target of the rockets are civilian habitations rather than army bases or infrastructure. Rather than speculate about what credible sources "would" do, why not just check them? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani: Perhaps you could preview for us in here how you would include your idea, and let us discuss it. I am really into reading what others think on this matter.

Jalapenos: I clearly remember your posting on your 3 references. But you did not discussed or rather addressed Nishidani's response to your point. You just did not followed through for some reason. "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

I concurred with Nishidani on that point, and although I did not read others' approval I did not hear your disapproval neither. Again, for the lead we should use material from the start of the conflict, when everything was happening and people were saying things. Those at the end of January, are elaborating and perhaps had time for style points, which is how i feel when you talk about Hamas rockets falling on 'israeli communities'. Perhaps is not well known that Hamas rockets actually kill Israelis, but i will be surprised if is not universally known that those rockets affects people's life inside of Israel. Using 'communities' does not make it 'more' believable and using 'Southern Israel' does not takes the danger away. Cryptonio (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos and I disagreed. We are unlikely to persuade each other. I didn't touch 'southern communities' even though I thought the introduction of that wording wrong. I waited for some rational consensus to build. I'm not in a hurry here. I dislike 'communities' for the reasons stated: I see this as the way Israeli or Jewish towns are selectively described, as opposed to Palestinian 'communities', from working on I/P articles. Secondly, sources should state the given reasons at the outbreak of the war in Israeli media that provide the official rationale for the war. J's three sources are all late, 2 or three from one writer, and all 3 from Associated Press. Thirdly, given the known inaccuracy of those rockets, and the fact that the areas they hit are thinly populated, it is not as if they consistently hit 'communities' as opposed to being fired in their direction. Evidently, Hamas' strategy is to reproduce some of the panic on the other side of the border that is chronic in the Strip as a result of Israel's continual killing raids from the time of the disengagement down to the truce in June last year. 'Southern Israel' is rather generic: I said Sha'ar haNegev because that's the zone, the northern district of southern Israel, most affected. But it is fair enough as a general description, even if imrpoved rocket technology means that 'Israel' is, and will be, seen as the general target. Just as Gaza is the IDF's favourite bombing zone.I think therefore that Israel, as it used to be, is best; 'southern Israel' more precise topologically, but rather restrictive, while 'southern communities' a subtle intrusion of an emotive POV.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

International/Legal issue is heavily biased and needs balancing

Israel section is bloated and contains far more info then the Palestinian section. Also, I think we should include counter-opinions regarding the legal criticism. I know for a fact that many notable and more qualified than Richard Falk, who is more of an advocate than a legal expert.

Can we agree on this?

Oh, another thing I think we need to de-emphasize our inclusion of Richard A. Falk in the section lead. He possesses nowhere near the credibility nor the impartial opinion necessary to be considered a legal expert. What I mean is, if are going to continue using his name, his extreme bias must be established. Passing him off as impartial, which this article does, is simply a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't agree. Falk speaks on behalf of the UNHRC in his official capacity. His important statement was released by the UN on behalf of the world community. This is not a statement by a fanatical anti-Israeli blogger. It's the UN. If anything the section needs to emphasise that and de-emphasise the Falk as a person aspect. Your argument amounts to saying that the UN is extremely biased and that the article should point that out. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol. No, that's not my argument. And I couldn't care less if he was speaking on behalf of Jesus Christ himself, he is a controversial figure and recognized for his extreme bias and shouldn't be passed off his an impartial legal judge. This was the interpretation of the section author and NOT the media or the world. Please do not put words in my mouth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, he you didn't address my other points. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he did. Falk is fully qualified to speak on international law and is an official representative of a UN organization. That is how he is presented and that is how he should be presented. That some don't like what he has said does not change any of that. Nableezy (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is ignorant. Falk is fully qualified to speak internationally because he was appointed by a UN-sanctioned organizations. Extreme analogy: If Hitler was appointed as UNHRC legal expert, would that make his opinion crystal truth and therefor be passed off as fact? Hardly a fair analogy, but it's the same reasoning. Falk is a questionable figure, and choosing him while ignoring many other notable people IS blatant bias. And, neglecting to emphasize his controversy as an "expert", or in the least highlighting the ethical challenges filed against him, IS bias. If our goal is to report facts, and those facts can be ascertained quite easily through simple research and discussion. then we MUST do that. And like I said, it was the interpretation of the original subsection author and not the world. I'm not denying his opinion is important, but passing it off like it's evolutionary science is, in good-faith terms the ultimate shade of ignorance. And in non-good faith terms, lying. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'r looking for balance where there isn't one to be had Wikifan. The fact is that Israel have been accused of a lot more International Law violations than Gaza. Between the WP contraversy, UN facility attacks & civillian deaths all alleged Israel simply has more to answer. Not saying that they were right or wrong, or what the ruling on these allegations should be. It's just the nature of the beast here, Israel has an internationally recognized government and that makes them beholden to some things Hamas might get away with Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, focus on what I said instead of reducing points into simple sentences. If you're going to avoid my arguments, then just don't respond. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a brief statement something like 'Falk, a controversial figure amongst supporters of Israel' but is there really any point given that it's redundant/self-evident ? What I would say is that the whole section probably needs to be split off to a sub article and summarised in this article. It's too big. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ease up turbo. You said that "Israel section is bloated and contains far more info then the Palestinian section" I think that I made concise argument against that point. The reason I didn't comment on your dislike of Richard Falkis because it wasn't worth mentioning. Whether you like it or not Sean and Nableezy said perfectly why he was a reliable source. That you didn't agree didn't make them wrong. That the discussion didin't go your way doesn't make our address of your issues anything but full, and calling me out like I was out of line was foolish Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He is fully qualified because, as the article you linked to says: "a Bachelor of Laws from Yale University, and a Doctor of Laws from Harvard University. He is Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, and was Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara (2001-04)." And your extreme analogy is beyond an analogy, it has reached the point of stupidity. I am sorry if that is uncivil, but complaining about bias when writing in a biased way, and complaining that the world media is biased against Israel, and now that somebody who is appointed by the UN, unlike Hitler, as an expert in the field of international law and specifically how it relates to the I/P conflict is also biased just does not carry a whole lot of water. You have some information about the man as it relates to his views in general try putting that in the Richard Falk article. Here, when he speaks on behalf of the UN it is as if the UN is speaking. He has been appointed this position by the UN and official statements are made not just in his name but in the name of the UN as well. Nableezy (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Come'on. Type "Falk" in the above search engine and you will see identical arguments. I'm not denying his qualifications according to his academic portfolio, or the fact that he was pointed by the UN. No, the thing is, I don' care. I really don't. I'm not denying that he is neither of those things. I'm simply saying his position of authority is highly contested by major media and equally notable figures, and this NEEDS to be addressed. Or, in the least, supplamented with an opposing viewpoint. As I said, we're giving the hate Israel party a FREE pass just because it's the UN. Let's take the UN out of the equation, it's still Richard A. Falk. My analogy was PERFECT because it used your exact reasoning in the context of a villainous person, unlike Falk. But your justifications could be applied to the Hitler scenario. Let's end this b.s and focus on balancing the section. If you're concerned by NPOV, and you believe the section is perfectly fine as is, I question your judgment as a wikipedia user. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The UN appointed Richard Falk to be a "spokesperson", look up spokesperson. They didn't appoint him Emperor of the world. He performs the function of a tape recorder. He could eat babies in his spare time. The fact is he speaks as the UN's mouthpiece. He doesn't dictate policy. He doesn't sit on any council. He just stands in front of a camera to put a face to the UN. Now if Richard Faulk was leading the investigation into the International Law violations, then I'd be right behind you cryin foul Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Andrew, but we're giving him the credence of Emperor in the the way he is portrayed in the international lead. I remember the original international lead about a month ago and didn't even remotely paint Falk the way it does here. And we had the same information then as we do now. What happened? Oh yeah, user bias. Of course. SHOCKING! Like I said, search Falk in the engine. This isn't a unique argument, we just got tired. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) to fan:

falk as hitler? i'm going to agf here and hope you're kidding. let anyone comparisons of israel to nazi germany, and they're anti-semites, but you can throw this rubbish around?

falk and the un are reliable, notable, and npov. if you feel the whole world has an anti-israel bias, maybe you should contribute to the mars wiki Untwirl (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, that was a little combative. retracted. Untwirl (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:"Let's take the UN out of the equation, it's still Richard A. Falk.". No, let's take Falk out of the equation, it's still the UN. This is the key point, not who Falk is or what pro-Israeli media etc think of him. Are we going to have to add qualifiers to every pro-Israeli lawyer's statement e.g. 'extremely biased X, a controversial figure to 99.9999% of the world asserts that...'. Come on, it's unreasonable. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We deal in sourced marterial. Richard Faulk is in a lot of sourced material because he's the UN spokesman. What can we do? Reject good sources because they feature someone we don't like. That would violate WP:Stupid BullshitAndrew's Concience (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there a WP:Stupid Bullshit page ? People around the world have to deal with stupid bullshit everyday in their work, relationships, shopping, media etc. It seems like a clear gap in WP. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think the UN is part of the 'hate Israel party' put that in the UN article. I wish you good luck with that. Here however, it is the just the UN. Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that and you are not addressing what I said. It's not that I don't disagree with, in fact, this has nothing to do with disagreements. His position of authority needs to be emphasized according to his questionable relationships with contradicting sources. I'm getting tired of the vicious jerk circle and unprecedented level of ignorance. Choosing sources that fit YOUR agenda might seem neutral to you, but it isn't. Balance is an important part of wikipedia, and if you think the legal section deserves to be a moral bandwagon from sources self-selected by those who have worked on the section, then I don't know what to say. Justifying the bias because it's the UN is not an excuse. There are sources outside your jaded agenda that offer an opposing viewpoint, and the ones that are reputable and relate to the topic deserve to be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what is ignorant, thinking that if someone criticizes a country that means that someone is biased against that country. It does not matter you think he is biased, he speaks for the United Nations when he serves in his official capacity. That you think the UN is biased is also, to use a term you used earlier, mind-blowingly retarded. Nableezy (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok no one read the first half of this debate, and then read that last paragraph. You might get whiplash or something (also sighn your posts) Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And finally, I quote the words of the man in question, I think he speaks to the issues Wikifan is raising:
Israel had all along accused me of bias and of making inflammatory charges relating to the occupation of Palestinian territories. I deny that I am biased, but rather insist that I have tried to be truthful in assessing the facts and relevant law. It is the character of the occupation that gives rise to sharp criticism of Israel's approach, especially its harsh blockade of Gaza, resulting in the collective punishment of the 1.5 million inhabitants. By attacking the observer rather than what is observed, Israel plays a clever mind game. It directs attention away from the realities of the occupation, practising effectively a politics of distraction.
in an editorial in the guardian (shit I forgot, the guardian is notoriously anti-israeli too) Nableezy (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Save the preaching please. This isn't a forum: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Nableezy, your ignorance is beyond saving. I craft a simple, easily-understandable argument, which you and others, manage to completely ignore and/or respond in such a way it makes me question if you actually read what I wrote. No wonder people like me no longer care about these kinds of articles. Users such as yourself refuse to accept opinions that don't fit in your thinly-manufactured agenda that borders completely insanity. unfortunately, I can only sympathize as everything I do is, *gasp* against the status-quo established by Anti-Semites like yourself. A month ago the article was ridiculous, but now...LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strike that bullshit accusation of anti-semitism. Not once have I said anything that could possibly be taken as anti-semitic, I in fact have actively engaged with Israeli editors who were not beyond retarded to try to find something that could be accepted as truly neutral. For the complete jackasses I have no patience. Nableezy (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And I dont think I even have to respond to you saying 'save the preaching please'. All you have done is preach bullshit to try to get bullshit into the article. Please stop. Nableezy (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wififan, you need to strike the accusation of anti-semitism. Please do not devalue this term. It's extremely offensive to do that for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with even the most superficial knowledge of anti-semitism. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not bullshit and I will not refuse. My original post was clear and factual, and many of you bombard me with bullshit and misinformation that leads me to believe that your disagreement has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with anti-Semitism, or in the least, an unquestioned unjustified resentment. Your refusal to even look at the Falk errors boggles my mind, so don't tell me to shutup because I'm offending you. You're offending me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, bandying accusations of antisemitism is highly offensive to many editors here. Strongly suggest you strike that along with your Hitler analogies.RomaC (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan, i'm under the impression that the arbitration rules (and wp:npa) don't permit these (repeated) bullshit accusations of antisemitism. you can be blocked if you continue. Untwirl (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wififan, you need to strike the accusation of anti-semitism. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Wikifan. You obviously can't win your own argument so now your attacking the character of other editors. Nableezy is an anti-semite now? You've gone too far. If you want to make the edit on Falk go ahead but you're not gonna win an edit war against 3 people. I'll no longer argue with someone who blatantly attacks other editors when they disagree with you. Strike your remark accusing Nableezy of anti-semitism immediately or an administrator will be contacted. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Has it boiled down to this? I don't do what you say or I will be reported? Wow, thanks! This has NOTHING to do with disagreement. You are refusing to include facts, accuse me of being unproductive and saying I should simply go away. I called Nebleezy anti-Semitic because he admitted it through his postings. That's a fair accusation, I'm sorry if you find it offensive. All I wanted to do was clean up the section according to wikipedia rules but you refuse, and not only that, berate me with insults and what is clearly b.s. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Point to a single admission of anti-semitism, or even a single diff showing an anti-semitic statement. Nableezy (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what, fuck that dont. Aint even a point in trying to point out irrationality, it is futile. Nableezy (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, dont even humor him nableezy

you, fan, are the only one who has berated others with insults. no one but you thinks nableezy is antisemitic. you are disruptive. apologize and contribute meaningfully or find another article which doesn't make you WP:SPIDER Untwirl (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you really going to throw the rule book at me? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

its not the rulebook - it a cabal decree (much more official) Untwirl (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't "boiled down" to anything. You forced it there. You presented an argument and asked if anyone agreed. Three of us didn't and we told you why. When you didn't like that you resorted to insulting our intelligence and accusing Nableezy of racism. This isn't us buddying up against you. I've disagreed with Sean and Nableezy plenty before now, and there's at least one instance on this very talk page where I took your side on an argument and backed you up.(See the section on shock). Your are totally out of line here. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Any one using antisemitic arguments should be subject to immediate and automatic suspension, on the first violation, and indefinite suspension on the second. Anyone throwing such accusations against others in wiki, by the same token, should be reported. It is a gross violation of etiquette and particularly with Nableezy, totally unwarranted, and should be dealt with on AN/I unless wikifan strikes out his remarks. So far, though requested, he hasn't. Perhaps it is simply more efficient to not 'feed the beast' since his remarks are a string of clichés, and mostly unsourced. Ignore him.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing 'destruction' and 'dismantling'

Moved this down, we need to change the sentence below as it is WP:plagiarism. This sentence, in the Background section -- is it neutral? (my itals) "Hamas considers Israel an illegitimate state and is doctrinally committed to its destruction, while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled." How to rephrase this, as it has been lifted verbatim from the the cited article, which is WP:plagiarism. RomaC (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas considers Israel an illegitimate state and is doctrinally committed to its destruction, while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be removed from power in the Gaza strip."

You can't destroy or demolish Hamas it's a worlwide organisation. Destruction in the case of Israel can stay as it would probably be thae words any Hamas official would use Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, more importantly I guess is that "Hamas considers Israel an illegitimate state and is doctrinally committed to its destruction" is just plain wrong given that Hamas, like all Arab states, Iran, pretty much everyone in the world supports a 2 state solution albeit with some conditions. If we are going to say something about Hamas' position on this then we better get it right. Maybe whoever inserted this text didn't even know that. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, that's not true. Reliable source consider Hamas to be doctrinally committed to Israel's destruction. This assessment is based on, among other things, Hamas' charter (available online, and quite an amusing read, what with the references to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and so forth). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenas, I don't know if you have ever lived in the Middle East but you quickly learn that there is huge difference between the propaganda/rhetoric crap and nonsense thrown around by all sides and the pragmatic reality of peoples actual positions on issues especially the average members of the public who are just trying to live a happy life like everyone else. This is something that much of the 'reliable' media chooses to ignore, particularly in the US, preferring instead to present a grossly distorted view of reality on the ground. I don't know why. Maybe they're just lazy or think that people prefer cowboys vs injuns stories. The reality is that Hamas supports a 2 state solution. It doesn't get into the press very often but see these articles for example. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/10/israel1. There's more where that came from. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, if a group usually presents itself in a politically inexpedient way ("we are theocratic, antisemitic, conspiracy-theory-driven, intransigent wackos"), and occasionally presents itself in a politically expedient way ("well, we might be pragmatic about this one thing"), don't you think it's likely that the former stance represents what it truly believes, and the latter stance is posturing for political benefits, such as international legitimacy and money? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an enormous irony in me apparently painting Hamas as peace brokers given that I dislike religion based political movements (yeah, call me an atheist bigot). I guess my point is that Hamas is a political party, therefore everything they say is politically expedient and will vary according to who their audience is at any particular moment and which RS you look at etc. No surprise there. Who knows what the truth is or even if there is one truth but I guess it's probably whatever position would maximise their popular support and financing like anywhere else and that would be to support a 2 state solution. The RS say that Hamas are both things, a party that wants Israel's destruction and a party that supports a 2 state solution. So, mentioning one without the other is misleading and an oversimplification. I'm with Nableezy on his proposal at 17:46, 4 February 2009 below. Let the contradictory facts speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, the vast majority of the Arab world do not support a two-state solution. As evident by their refusal to provide citizenship to Palestinians, indifference or financial support of Hamas, and woefully tactless handling of refugee camps situated in their lands. But this is an entirely different argument.  : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So far 55 Islamic and Arab states have undertaken to recognize Israel within the 67 borders. Israel has yet to give a formal answer to this proposal made at the Beirut summit, and repeated twice since.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you say that but when I visited a refugee camp in Jordan many years ago I was very impressed by the number of TV aerials. There were so many that somebody could have lost an eye. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is very impressive. I'm sure the many Christians being harassed in this camps and the conditions exacerbated by the hypocritical theocracies must have impressed you as well. Or, how extremist literature is spread throughout the various educational facilities (often financed by the UN) unabated. Please, leave your confusing sympathies with someone who cares. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Wikifan enough. Maybe you could find conversation of your "caliber" some where like www.arguingwithfools.com . You're all over this talk page doing nothing but antagonizing people. It stops now.............or I'm telling Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just remove the sentence all together.:"Elements within Gaza and Palestine consider Israel to be illegitimate state and are committed to its destruction, while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be removed from power in the Gaza strip." Sounds convoluted and blatantly obvious Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Very odd, since the ones doing the destruction are the Israelis, and not just of Hamas. Obliterate the sentence please --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those evil Israeli's. How dare they avoid historic muslim sites and taking great prejudice in avoiding civilian casualties, unlike their friendly, peaceful, tolerant, Hamas neighbors. If Israel wanted to truly kill civilians, they could demolish Gaza in 15 seconds. That's what Hamas would have done if they had the capacity to do so. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I salute Israel for not completing a genocide. What tremendous moral fiber they must possess. Surely Hamas would have done that, why Miss Cleo says so! Nableezy (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree Nableezy, Israelis should be commended for not completely wiping Gaza off the non-Israeli map. The Israelis take great care when they aim at homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, medical personnel, and civilians. They avoid causing collateral damage to the vegetation while targeting with precision. Just ask the Samounis. What is left of them of course.-- Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, my intent. Your true colors show. Here, let me direct you to a site you might find very interesting: Lovely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My true colors? I just praised Israel for showing remarkable restraint in not completing a genocide! What else do you want from me? And your true colors are what exactly? Nableezy (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And for all those living in the states that are at all worried about triggering an NSA seizure of your computing equipment, the above link is to a site about the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, might not want to click. To my homies up in Canada, click away! Nableezy (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. One should be more worried about what happens when they can't seize your computer. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By your true colors, I'm not referring to your obvious sympathies with Hamas and total ignorance of the situation in Israel. I'm talking about how your talking me down about the idolization of Falk in the international lead, using various fallacies and citing rules (or someone else was citing rules), while your own opinion is a strong cause for concern. You are acting out in the interests of your heated self and not according to the supposed-neutral POV advocated by wikipedia.
My colors? I believe in truth. I don't endorse everything Israel does, but I know bullshit when I see it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then, try identifying what you are writing and you may be surprised that much of it is bullshit. Nableezy (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how destructive it might be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan you haven't said one thing in this section applying to the ACTUAL TOPIC BEING DISCUSSED. Either participate in the discussion of this particular topic or get out. That goes for everyone else who wants to use this as a forum to argue with other editors.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now you state the obvious? Thank you Andrew. Your timing is impeccable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm handsome too Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, Wikifan, why can't you be less, lets say, combative? Pretty much everyone here knows were people tend to stand soapbox-wise. If you are going to appeal to motive every time someone disagrees, we will get nowhere. I have seen here some rather strange and hopeful collaboration, and even sincere friendliness about people accross all POVs - lets keep it that way, and lets work towards it. The reality is that neither the pro-Plaesitnians nor the pro-Israelis can be convinced to abandon their true colors - what we must do is collaborate in spite of them to build a neutral encyclopedia. I hope you can join in that spirit.--Cerejota (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That was my original spirit, but I became discourage by the total and completely resentment for facts and truths, in addition to the stubbornness willingly adopted by even veteran editors. Blah. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, please adhere to WP:CIVIL. For all the real pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, and/or neutral editors, do not fall in this trap. Remember:"this is an article that the Palestinians will fight for. You want to get them into trouble", the previous CAMERA Wikipedia lobbyists. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing Wikifan of belonging to CAMERA, I'm just warning the real editors from people who are trying to disrupt others instead of faithfully improving Wikipedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I attributed the statement in question even more clearly to context and source (note: a ref already clearly indicated the source, --> no plagiarism) and put the NYT quote in quotation marks. That should do. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Skäpperöd quotes citing NYT will do, thanks. I still wonder whether the sentence is a neutral choice, with one side characterized as bent on "destroying" and the other "dismantling." RomaC (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's plain wrong. See response to Jalapenas further up. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, given that the "dismantlers" have destroyed much more than the "destroyers" have, that the terms in this sentence may be misleading. I mean, "Hamas and Israel hate one another" is what it boils down to... Should we say "Hamas regards Israel as an occupying power and Israel regards Hamas as terrorists" or should we shitcan this sentence? Or something else? It's harder to phrase than I thought it would be, and I want everyone to be happy with the edit. RomaC (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be appropriate: Hamas views Israel as an illegitimate state and its charter calls for Israels destruction (cited to this bbc article), while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist organization that must be dismantled (cited to the NYT article). And there have been recent quotes by Hamas officials saying they will not stop until Israel is destroyed. If you can find some Israeli government official calling for the destruction of Hamas change the word, but I for one am not big on avoiding facts. The Hamas charter clearly calls for the 'destruction' of the state of Israel. Nableezy (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the way Nableezy put and sourced it, and also agree with the reasoning. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

dismantled or annihilated with every one and everything in its path?? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with Nableezy's proposal if there's consensus for that. These are facts after all but I'd prefer some mention of the contradictory positions of Hamas re: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/10/israel1 to avoid oversimplification. The same probably goes for Israel's position on Hamas although I don't have a source for that. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

antisemitic incidents edit revert

isn't the reactions section supposed to be a summary of the reactions article?

regarding an incident in italy, the main page says, "] Italian trade union Flaica-Cub called for the boycott of shops owned by the "israelitic community" ("comunità israelitica") in Rome, interpreted by the media as Jews, in protest at the Israeli offensive. Following an outcry and threats to sue the union under Italy's anti-racism laws,[434][435] the union stated that the proposed boycott was directed at products made in Israel ("Boicottaggio dei prodotti israeliani").[436][437] "

in the international reactions page, this is the only mention of that event "In Italy, a trade union called for a boycott of Jewish-owned shops in Rome.[557]"

A. the main article page should be a summary of the (more detailed) international reactions page, not the other way around.

B;. the international reactions page mischaracterizes the boycott as "jewish owned" with no reference to what the union clarified was their actual proposal.

cerejota, i respect your editing and dont want to go in and revert your reversion. please look over the whole section and see if you agree that it is too much detail. also look at the discussion above entitled "antisemitic incidents" (about the first half or so, before it disintegrated). specifically i'd like to see if you agree to add anti-arab incidents and either rename it to anti-jew/anti-arab incidents or go into the whole etymology of semite (since they both are , technically, semitic, could all be seen as anti-semitic attacks)  : ) thanks alot Untwirl (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's some background. A link to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antisemitic_incidents_alleged_to_be_related_to_the_2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict for those of your who missed it. Here's a link to the admin's talk page User_talk:MZMcBride to read the comments from some understandably peeved editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Far more honest than this bloated article. Oh no, disagreement! *censor stick* Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any censorship in practice. It's very likely that all of the info will survive in one of the articles split off from the gigantic reactions article. That article has to be split for practical reasons. There are enough editors willing to make sure that racially motivated attacks related to this event are covered in WP. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is bad as it inflate the word antisemitism, a word that should be saved for those who have a irrational hate against jews like nazis. Arabs and muslims attacking jews is more common etnical violence (though not less bad) and in this context not irrational after israels unproportional killings in gaza. I suggest to merge it in diferent sections or condense it to mention pure antisemitic attacks. Not containing attacks by arabs and muslims. Brunte (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title to 'Violent and Antisemitic backlash to the events in Gaza' As it would give space for my considerations without changing text to much. But I think it is to long. Brunte (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

as I get reverted by some random user Dendlai maby some other can look at the my edit. Brunte (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Random User" eh? Well, I guess on wikipedia, we are all random users. I disagree with the wording "Violent and antisemitic" because it equates the two. Antisemtism = violence. (And oh, I've had this page on my watchlist for quite some time now. Just not jumped into the fray yet.) I just thought equating antismeitism and violence seemed a bit too POV. Like using an extra loaded bad word to "discredit" the protestors, some of who, I agree, seem antisemitics. Weasel language. No reason to label them both antisemitic AND violent. If they used violence, then that's what we write. If they didn't.. No need to lump them under a heading that says they were violent. Dendlai (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagreed with that change and reverted it. My rationale is that "violent and antesimitic" sounds too POV, saying antisemitic and violent is the same (both are bad, but they aren't necessarily the same). I reverted as soon as I saw it on instinct, thinking it was a pretty pro-Israeli POV edit. Dendlai (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

anti-jewish or anti-arab incidents are better Untwirl (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what I did was rework the content into the appropriate section and sub-article, because it was under "effects", which was inappropriate (this is not an effect of direct combat, which is what "effects" section/subarticle is about). So I put it in reactions. I didn't want to get into a debate on content, so I didn't modify anything. This was essentially wikifairy stuff. I do think it should be shorter, but deservers its own section in reactions in this article. In particular the reaction in Europe was virulent and blatantly anti-semitic. I think we should remove the more debatable stuff like signs in protests, and there is some blatant right-wing LGF type stretchign of the word, but calling a spade a spade, if the RS do it, is a no brainer. And the freaking president of France addressed the matter, so this not some kind of Fringe crap. There have been a wave of antisemitic actions, and this needs to be included in an encyclopedic article.--Cerejota (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree completely that it should be included, my point however is that the main article page should be a summary of the (more detailed) international reactions page. i don't recall anyone saying it was "Fringe crap", please point to that comment. attempts are being made to summarize several sections and this one in particular is covered in detail on another page. your link to wp:moralize only suggests that "anti-semitic" is an unnecessary descriptor for the incidents.

wp:moralize "Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article: You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." Untwirl (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, lets present the facts. I agree with removal of incidents not labeled as antisemitic by RS or from which an obvious, non-controversial conclusion of being antisemtic can be drawn. For example, a mugger mugging jewish tourists is not antisemitism, but an RS saying "Jewish tourist were told "Death to Jews" during a mugging" is antisemitic. I think some have tried to throw the baby with the bathwater, maybe as ofer reaction to pro-Israeli pov pushing, but also perhaps of their own bias.

When I said "fringe crap" I mean that due weight considerations are mostly as part of "fringe in wikilaw: this material is not fringe should be included, and should be included as copiously as RS allow as per the need for an encyclopedic voice (after all, we are not journalism). Of course, this doesn't mean a list of every antisemitic incident, but it does means a generalized, thorough and well sourced space should exist for this information. If we are to give our readers an NPOV view of the events around this war, we should be careful to give context.

A clear international reaction of this conflict (not an "effect" or an "incident" as some would have it) was a notable increase in antisemitic attacks worldwide. This is entirely relevant. We should not MORALIZE around it, qualifying the responses, or arguing that these facts are linked to X or Y arguments, unless reliable sources do so, but include? Snowball.

My position is exactly the same as with the inclusion of pictures, except in this case the RS threshold is higher, because its text. --Cerejota (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

i actually interpret moralize differently. there probably are sources saying hitler was a bad man, just as sources may label incidents antisemitic. labeling a boycott antisemitic when it is in response to the actions of the state of israel is false. it does not reflect a deep-seated hatred of jews, but an outcry against the military actions of a state. the increase of attacks is a reflection of anti-israeli sentiment, not anti semitism. i think a dispassionate, brief description, such as the one used to describe the backlash of attacks against arabs in america after 9/11, is best:

Hate crimes Numerous incidents of harassment and hate crimes were reported against Middle Easterners and other "Middle Eastern-looking" people in the days following the 9/11 attacks.[149][150] Sikhs were also targeted because Sikh males usually wear turbans, which are stereotypically associated with Muslims in the United States. There were reports of verbal abuse, attacks on mosques and other religious buildings (including the firebombing of a Hindu temple) and assaults on people, including one murder: Balbir Singh Sodhi was fatally shot on September 15, 2001. He, like others, was a Sikh who was mistaken for a Muslim.[149] According to a study by Ball State University, people perceived to be Middle Eastern were as likely to be victims of hate crimes as followers of Islam during this time. The study also found a similar increase in hate crimes against people who may have been perceived as members of Islam, Arabs and others thought to be of Middle Eastern origin.[151] Untwirl (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, these post 9/11 "hate crimes" are so called for a reason! Attacks against middle-easterners are labelled "Anti-Arab", not "anti-terrorism" attacks. Who cares what the motive is. You will note on the anti-Semitism page that some anti-Semitism is based on irrational or deep-seated hatred of Jews. But this hatred stems from what has been associated with Jews, irrational or not. Other forms, such as that as a hate of Judaism itself, also counts! If most Jews support Israel, then those who hate Israel will also hate Jews. This hate is called anti-Semitic. A hate of Jews for what they believe in. Any attacks against Jews due to what they are associated with, are therefore classed anti-Semitic. What I find intriguing is that it is the pro-Arabs here who are busy saying there is a distinct difference between anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attacks, yet generally they tend to view Israel and Jews as synonymous in every other instance, why make a distinction here?

The deleted page had a “Motives” sections which dealt with this very issue. I am personally of the opinion that Jews and Israel are distinct issues. And since Jews who may have not personally supported the Israeli actions, have been targeted just for being Jewish - that itself is enough to call it anti-Semitic. These rage filled people automatically perceive every Jew as supportive of Israeli actions, just as other anti-Semites view all Jews as miserly. But not all Jews are misers. And not all Jews support the State of Israel. If someone wants to boycott Israel, let them. Let them scrawl offensive graffiti on Israeli embassies, or target Israeli institutions or citizens. Why bring Jews into the picture? Why desecrate a synagogue in Venezuela 5,000 miles away on the other side of the world? Was there an Israeli flag hanging from its roof? That is the other argument why these attacks are classified as anti-Semitic. Have a look at my last response to Yamanam at [8]. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is attacking Jews for being Jews. I think that includes attacking Jewish places (homes, shops, places of worship) or Jews in general because of the actions of Israel. But if I hated dentists because they enjoy sticking drills in people and I attack somebody who is a dentist but also happens to be a Jew, that is not an anti-semitic attack. It is an anti-dentite attack. But yes I think the term anti-semitc covers attacks on Jews as a response to actions of the state of Israel, they are associating the synagogue with Israel because it is Jewish, so it follows that they are attacking it because it is Jewish. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

not sure where to put this

'Army rabbi 'gave out hate leaflet to troops' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/army-rabbi-gave-out-hate-leaflet-to-troops-1516805.html

an ideas? Untwirl (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No where for now. Focus on the conflict/sovereign reactions before isolated incidents. I have 150 bookmarked news reports from reputable media sources that fully disclose the absurd level of anti-Semitic and violent protests occurring throughout Europe and the Middle East unabated by their governments. Where do those go? LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Governments don't abate protests.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can work with editors like Chesdovi, Brewcrewer and Jalepenos to ensure that the incidents are included in the article split off from the main reactions article. I think they will probably be the main people working on this at least at first. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

unlike your incidents, this is directly related to the current conflict. we have plenty of "isolated incidents" of "antisemitism" that are given space in the article. Untwirl (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas armored vehicles

Every once in a while I actually look at the article so I noticed this. The article says Hamas was using "armored vehicles" in the fighting, sourced with this Jerusalem Post article[9]. Is that assertion correct? I realize that Hamas seized them from Fatah but I would have thought they'd be more of a liability given Israel's air supremacy. Does anyone know about this? The current source is vague and it seems odd. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Concensusbuilding for triming down the article

Jandrews23jandrews23 tried to remove parts not so related to the articles core. It was revereted by Jalapenos do exist here with the comment "Jandrews, I'm getting tired of cleaning up after you. Your repeated removal of large chunks of sourced material has prompted a second talk page discussion. State your position there"

I disagree and reverted, and Jalapenos do exist reverted again "So get consensus. That's how we do things around here."

And thats what I like to do. Your views editors! Brunte (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

section is too long - i agree it needs to be summarized.Untwirl (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

jalapenos 3rr

you are well past your allowed number of reverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268127450&oldid=268127353

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268145847&oldid=268145302

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268262758&oldid=268261420

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=268272567&oldid=268269432

it seems that you are the one who needs to get consensus. don't revert again or you will be reported. this article has special rules due to arbitration. Untwirl (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I made several edits in the past few days reverting removals of large sections of sourced material without discussion. According to Wikipedia policy, drastic removals require discussion, and, if opposed, require consensus. Regarding one such removal, you sought consensus and failed to gain it. My other calls to propose the removals on the discussion page went completely ignored. Reverting improper edits does not require consensus.
As for my reverts: I don't think that I was in technical violation of WP:3RR, but I was definitely pushing it. Thanks for the heads up; I will not make any further reverts in the near future. On that note, I'm asking all editors here to be on the lookout for discussionless removals of large sections of sourced material, and other such ninja editing, and act against it. Happy editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah reverting ninja edits is not 3RR, but can be edit warring, people need to look at the context before raising blockable offenses and embarrassing admins into bad blocks. Jalapenos and I don't always agree, but he is largely responsible for many of the good things in both consensus and content. Plus, he has a sense of humor, something I hold dear. --Cerejota (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Awww  :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

wp:ninja states, "Edit ninjas are users who move from article-to-article, making edits, often in violation of WP:NPOV and they are often successful by working together in clans. They are silent, but deadly. Like real ninjas they combine astounding accuracy, cunning, and skill with senseless and pointless destruction and mayhem" i feel that this is an unfair and grossly inaccurate characterization of mine, jandrew, and bruntes attempts to summarize. all of us are discussing things here and you are now making personal attacks. i suggest both of you strike those remarks and try to be civil and respect other editors attempts by agf.

jalps - every one of those edits was in the last day. if i went back the last few days i'm sure i could find many more.Untwirl (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Triming section Anti-jewish and anti-arab incidents

As antijewish reactions is detalied reported in another artcle I suggest a hevy triming of this section. Suggested text:

Anti-jewish and anti-arab incidents

The number of recorded antisemitic incidents during the conflict more than tripled the number of such incidents in the same period of the previous year, marking a two-decade high. United States-based human rights group Human Rights First called them "antisemitic backlash attacks" to the events in Gaza. The incidents received responses from representatives of several governments, most of whom condemned them and/or called for calm.

Brunte (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the trimming down. Currently, the section is blown way out of proportion. I mean just compare it to the paragraph on the massive civilian demonstrations that happened worldwide. Also compare it to the section summarizing reactions by the world governments. Finally, the "section" doesn't need to be a section, but can be a paragraph in the "Reactions" section.VR _talk 18:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed above in "antisemitic incidents" and "antisemtic incidents edit revert". The subsection is already extremely trimmed-down, both because it selects only a few of the most notable incidents and statements, and because it mentions those incidents and statements in a very condensed way, merely noting that they occured and not even giving the most basic details such as how many of each type of incident occured, the exact location, the response, etc. I agree that there should be more info on civilian demonstrations (and I think I was the last editor to add info there), but I disagree that a comparison between the two is apt: demonstrations are expressions of opinions, whereas backlash attacks are actions, usually crimes, and are thus more notable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I agree that the description of the Rome boycott is too long. I would support a trimming-down of that incident if another editor can propose a fair way to do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember that the discussion also mentioned most of the incidents as copy from its own article. As of that it could be read ther. Trim trim. Brunte (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoever said that was wrong, you can check. And according to WP:SUMMARY, sections that become too large for the article should be spun off and a summary section should be retained in the original article. This is precisely the case here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

as a comparison, the summary of the humanitarian crisis has 12 lines of text - compared to 6 pages in the spin-off article , while this 'summary' of anti-jewish incidents has 14 - compared to 14 lines of actual text and 2 1/2 pages of a chart in the spin-off article. the balance with regards to important facts, directly related to this article is way off.Untwirl (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The spinoff article on antisemitic incidents was slightly longer than the article on the humanitarian crisis. So according to your yardstick, the 14-line summary section on antisemitic incidents is just the right size; though I disagree with your yardstick. The spinoff article, which was far from thorough, was improperly deleted after a stalemated deletion discussion. The info may end up in the International reactions section, as Cerejota and - I think - Sean suggested, or it may go up for undeletion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

that the page was deleted is not a piece of evidence that helps your case, here. the article which is currently linked to , international reactions, contains exactly the amount of space i specified. for you to think anti-jewish incidents compares equivalently in relevancy with the humanitarian crisis in gaza, and thus merits more space, is really hard for me to fathom. Untwirl (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the page was deleted neither helps nor hinders my "case". My point was that the spinoff material is about as long as the spinoff material for the humanitarian crisis, and the fact that at this moment not all of it appears in any article is a temporary technical issue that is being resolved. I stated no opinion about the notability of backlash incidents vis-a-vis the humanitarian crisis, I merely noted that according to the yardstick you proposed, the backlash section is approximately the right size. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the page was deleted by administrator means it does not exist. if you have valuable information then i suggest you add it to the international reactions article, where it belongs, and help us summarize that section here. Untwirl (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The section was summarized fine, until you and Brunte removed almost all the sourced information from it without discussion. You and Brunte have yet to even present to the editorial community an argument for doing so, except for your argument about using the amount of spinoff material as a yardstick, which you have apparently abandoned. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i havent abandoned anything. all of my arguments stand. i'm just feeling like you are being WP:DENSE and i dont feel the need to repeat it yet another time.Untwirl (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-arab incidents

a section i dont find necessary, merge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunte (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

merge is fine, i just don't want the relevant sourced material removed. Untwirl (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the expansion into the West Bank: I just removed one of the links since it said essentially "this is when we should look out for expansion" instead of citing it actually occurring. I fixed the link to the second source which specifically did state there was recent expansion due to the conflict. Should this be moved to the "Effects" section instead of being in this section?Cptnono (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I accidentally added the redundant "West Bank". Thanks for catching it.Cptnono (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

that's okay, its more clear at the end any way. however in the haaretz article it did say this, "Just over the past few days, while Gaza is being pounded, I have observed and documented two such examples: land being flattened for a new site near Etz Efraim, and construction work in an outpost near Kedumim."http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1054154&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y Untwirl (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, all my complaining yesterday about not reading sources fully and I did it? Nice. It should go back in then. At least I fixed one of them, right? : ) Done Cptnono (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

no harm. we're cool. Untwirl (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I merge in both anti jewish and anti arab subsection on the reaction section. As it is now it dont look good. And I hope it dont swell upp to much in either side. If then we can restore sections. Brunte (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school

UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school Chesdovi (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Article already corrected. Brunte (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another removal of a large section of sourced material

I really hate to be a tattle-tale, but I've been the main editor working against this phenomenon recently, and I'm unable to revert anymore, so another editor needs to take this up. User:Brunte has removed most of the content in the "antisemitic incidents"/"attacks against Jews and Arabs"/whatever section, shortly after beginning a discussion where he proposed to make that change. There is currently no consensus for his change, nor has there been time for a consensus to form. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

jalps, respond above, where there is already a discussion taking place (and waiting for your rebuttal or concession, i might add). no need for another (3rd? 4th?) section on this same topic Untwirl (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see concensus, you dont? Im I wrong or do I smell the smell of rounding up meatpuppets? Thats not nice if its true. Brunte (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, I can't be everywhere at once. I just responded to your argument above. The two discussions are different: the discussion above is about whether to accept Brunte's proposed change, and the discussion here is not so much a discussion as a notification to editors that Brunte is engaged in disruptive editing, given that the discussion above has just started and that Brunte has previously suggested this removal without gaining consensus, and that several editors have earlier made statements that would preclude their acceptance of this removal. Brunte, see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:MEAT and WP:DIS for answers to your questions. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is serious acusations you bringing up. Stop waring and cool down. Els I you risk sanctions I guess. Brunte (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

who are these several editors? i

there is wikifan, who has bandied about the term 'anti-semite' at every opportunity. thats it. on the other side are brunte, andrews conscience, roma c, sean, vr, and myself and possibly nableezy weighing in on the 'trim down' side, including cerejota saying, "i do think it should be shorter." and, "I think we should remove the more debatable stuff like signs in protests" make a suggestion for a trimmed down npov version and you might get somewhere. Untwirl (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My charge that Brunte's removal constitutes disruptive editing is not dependent on the fact that several editors made statements precluding agreement with his removal. Even if nobody had said anything, it would still be so. But as long as you're asking, we have Cerejota and Sean who said that the section should exist in basically the same format as it was, but shorter; As a result of Brunte's removal of information, the section does not exist at all, in the original format or any other. We have Andrew's Concience and RomaC, who said that the section should be expanded, we have myself, and we have (the problematic) Wikifan. Obviously, I can't represent other editors' positions as accurately as they themselves can, which is precisely what consensus-forming discussions are for: so that everyone can express their position. Brunte sought consensus once before for his removal of information and resoundingly failed to gain it. A reasonable editorial approach would be "hmm, I guess there's not so much interest in the idea. Maybe I'll ask again in a few days or weeks". A slightly less reasonable approach would be to immediately open the discussion again: though this smells of forum shopping, it's not so bad. An unreasonable approach (which is the one taken by Brunte) is to open the discussion again immediately, and then, before anyone has time to give their input, to implement the proposed removal. There's no point in opening a discussion if you don't wait for people to respond, unless the discussion is just an alibi. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sanktions Ok Jalapenos do exist (talk)]. You keep accusing me of disruptive editing and is generally waring. I like an administrator to involve him/herslf in this. Im not accepting Jalapenos do exist (talk) accusations and waring and want him/her out of her to cool down. Any administrator listening? Any editor reading this knowing how to get a administrators attention? Brunte (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything on either side of this discussion. Nableezy (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry nableezy, i only quickly scanned at that time. i've struck your name. Untwirl (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

andrew said, " It just seems to me that this is a tangent issue and while it may be a direct result of the happenings of this article, it does not need more than a brief mention"

roma c said, "I have reservations about an exclusive "antisemitism' section. . .but go ahead, if the section includes info relating to both sides"

and as you said, cerejota and sean said shorter. who does that leave arguing for your side of leaving it as it is? there have been discussions ad nauseam on this now. the section does exist, it is summarizde. your accusation of forum shopping is another of your famous mischaracterizations. if your view were true, this very section you created would be a perfect example of what you accuse him of. read the wiki pages you link to before making accusations. Untwirl (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, I wish I were as famous as you seem to think I am. The first half of your comment illustrates that you misunderstood my last comment, so I won't respond to it. The second half-- well, I have no idea what your point is in the second half, so I won't respond to that either. In any case, I never meant for this to be a discussion, and we're not even discussing anything. The way I see it, this thread is me having notified the community about something that happened, you throwing in various insinuations which I consider both irrelevant and false, and me responding to those insinuations, explaining why I consider them irrelevant and false. Hopefully, your last comment, wich was partly incomprehensible and partly clearly misinformed, will allow us to break this vicious cycle.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

so your response is: "i won't respond" nice.

your view that there wasn't consensus to summarize (make shorter) that section is wrong.

it was summarized, and you dont like how it was done.

now its your turn to suggest a more concise version, otherwise just leave it be.

i wont have access to a computer for a while; please don't misconstrue my silence as consent or abandonment - i'll be back later.Untwirl (talk)

There was never a consensus to shorten the section, though I think it's likely that if you and Brunte adopted a cooperative editing attitude, you could gain one. And there was certainly never a consensus to remove almost all of the section's content (which as you no doubt know but conveniently ignore, goes beyond "shortening"). Brunte tried to get one once, but didn't. Now he's trying to get one again, and isn't. Hence, the drastic removal of sourced information is disruptive, and should be reverted. It's that simple. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos keeps doing this. Stop it please. As someone pointed out before, you don't need a consensus for edits that almost no-one (except you) would oppose. Someone has added a load of irrelevant information, and we are trying to cut it down. So stop reverting our work. It's you who would need a consensus to revert the edits in question, and you dont have it. We can't discuss and get consensus for every obvious edit.
Furthermore, you keep putting 'see talk page' on your summaries, and not putting any explanation here. So please stop before you drive everyone crazy.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jandrews, as has already been made clear, a removal of a large section of sourced information, once opposed, requires consensus. That's just the way it is. A revert of such a consensus-less removal, does not require consensus, and that's also just the way it is. If you think that your removals will receive a consensus, just open a discussion on the talk page and get one! That's what I've been telling you for several days. The accusation you just threw at me is irrelevant, since the issue has nothing to do with me. Nevertheless, I don't like to be falsely accused of things, so please point to a single instance where I inappropriately wrote "see talk page", or apologize for saying that "I keep" doing it.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ok here are several instances of you saying that:

00:07, 3 February 2009 (hist) (diff) 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict ‎ (→Effects: Restored deleted subsection. See talk page)

21:04, 1 February 2009 (hist) (diff) 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict ‎ (Reverted another removal of several paragraphs of sourced information. See talk page.)

20:04, 1 February 2009 (hist) (diff) 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict ‎ (Reverted removal of several paragraphs of sourced text by Jacob. See talk page)

and then (as far as i can tell - show me if i'm wrong) you never put your explanation here. are you going to apologize like you insisted jandrews do if he was wrong? Untwirl (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos. That section could make an article. I counted 21 lines, which is odd given that you had pared the bone on sections like the one I was trying to write on economic effects on the Gaza infratstructure. 'No details', 'just keep this to general statstics'. Fine I lay off, and now find that we have more than double the space, and open to expansion of details on antisemitic reverberations (which is an effect, but nothing like the effect of reticular, capillary destruction of the whole industrial, agricultural and religious and school infrastructure of that society, for which space for specifics is denied. You are whittling the actual material on effects in Gaza, and expanding material on reports of antisemitism abroad.Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, your comment is a bit disingenuous. I once removed two sentences from the Gaza humanitarian crisis section, back when there was a consensus to keep everything pared down to the bone. I ended up accepting your revert of my removal after we agreed that the consensus was moot. Since then I have added many things, such as a paragraph on the UNSC reaction in the conflict and a paragraph on countries' reactions, both in the International reactions section. Do you have a problem with those? Have I ever objected to any of the material added to the humanitarian crisis section since our discussion? In everything I've added since then, I've tried to be as concise as possible and only to mention highly notable details, as we agreed. If I'd wanted to put in "an article" I would have literally put in the fairly long article on antisemitic incidents, just as you, if you'd wanted to put in an article, could have put in the fairly long article on the humanitarian crisis. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be a prick to deal with, but I am not insincere (disingenuous). I was told to pare down when real damage from war was being discussed, and then see a ballooning on a lot of things interpreted as 'antisemitic'. It's WP:Undue applied, in different sections, in a different way, underplaying the huge devastation of a war on an economy, while overplaying the antisemitic card for what often were protests at that devastation, which many sources will construe as antisemitic. In Rome, that incident was almost invisible, (despite the fact that there is a strong fascist undercurrent in this city in fringe political movements. The government itself is post-fascist, and many of its reps were antisemitic in the 70s and 80s, and, having refocused their ethnic contempt on Arab immigrants and those other heirs to the Shoah, the gypsies, made a hullabaloo over this minute group in order to do what they have to do, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their new pro-Israeli stance of convenience has effectively buried the convictions of a lifetime). Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The section on antisemitic attacks needed to be trimmed a little, not removal. You guys need to realize this. This is not about NPOV, this is about facts and not hiding them. This whole thread sucks, and not because of Jalapenos. Sorry guys, but jalapenos is mostly right on this one. Part of moving forward is to stop beating dead horses. If you wanted merging of the antisemitic attack, live with the results of the merger. If not, you were being dishonest in the AfD. Its a matter of WP:HONESTY and basic respect for each other as editors.--Cerejota (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nish above, not pointing fingers here, but the section on antisemitism now has the article covering spraypainting in Slovenia and boycotts in Italy etc. more thoroughly than the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. An objective analysis would suggest this constitutes undue weight, no? RomaC (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

1. i agree that more objective analysis is needed, and that there is undue weight given to these incidents

2. i also agree with nishi that in the version jalapenos wants, the direct effects in gaza do not receive as much attention as indirect events elsewhere in the world. the 'summary is the same length as the text in the international reactions article. (as discussed above "as a comparison, the summary of the humanitarian crisis has 12 lines of text - compared to 6 pages in the spin-off article , while this 'summary' of anti-jewish incidents has 14 (lines)- compared to 14 lines of actual text and 2 1/2 pages of a chart in the spin-off article (international reactions) . . . the balance with regards to important facts, directly related to this article, is way off.Untwirl (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

3. furthermore, it is giving undue weight to identify multiple cities and countries and specific incidents that occurred, while not listing any details about the highly notable protests and summarizing like this:

"The conflict was marked by worldwide civilian demonstrations for and against both sides, with many protesters disagreeing with their governments' official position on the conflict. Large demonstrations against Israel's actions took place in western Europe and in the Muslim world. Some protests became violent, with clashes between demonstrators and police leading to arrests.[383][384][385][386] Protests in Egypt led to controversial police detentions of Islamist protesters.[387][388] Pro-Israeli demonstrations also took place in many countries.[389]"

if this is a fair summary of those events (it actually needs to have its neutrality addressed, but size-wise i think its probably fine) then i see no reason to have the next section go into such great detail.

4. is there any excuse for the weasely way this last sentence is phrased?

"In one Associated Press article about a firebomb attack on a French synagogue, it was reported that there was an increase in anti-Muslim incidents in France as well, however the article did not specify further.[426]"

5. why was the sourced information about west bank settlers removed? Untwirl (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl I agree with most of these points. "Reactions" is severely unbalanced. What is to be done? RomaC (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe we need a rfc? Untwirl (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Population density of Gaza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not just subjective, it's plain wrong. Take a look at the maps in this blog[10]. Yes, it's a blog, no it's not a valid source, but please, let's stop trying to claim that Gaza is the most densely populated place on Earth when the claim is so ridiculously untrue, and like LonelyMarble said, unnecessary. That Gaza is as densely populated as the urban areas in which most of us live makes it plenty dense enough for a missile strike there to be dangerous, just as it is in Sderot or Nahariya.Dino246 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stock taking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN: Hamas seized food and blankets from needy Gazans

See: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061426.html According to the UNRWA Hamas police raided a UN warehouse in Gaza City late Tuesday, snatching 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels. What's the best place to mention this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.66.174 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think that this is an important fact and that adding it would make this a better encyclopedia article, I suggest the "Gaza humanitarian crisis" section. (I tend to think it's important, since Christopher Gunness implied that it had a significant effect on UNRWA's ability to care for Gazans). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed those stories this morning. Personally I don't think it belongs in this article. It isn't really about the war per se. It is an after effect and should be included in some other articles like Hamas, UNRWA, and maybe the effects article. But I don't think that we need it here. There are also sorts of aftershocks like price changes and shortages for example. Gazans are needy in lots of ways as a result of the war and we just can't get into all of them here. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If this was something Israel had done it would be in the Incident section by now.Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's probably true. The article would probably be better if "pro-Israel" editors would stop getting themselves banned so that they could engage in the discussion here. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Catty guys. Meanwhile the pro-Wikipedia editors get no love. RomaC (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as an attack on anyone and especially not Cptnono. It is just kind of ironic and really unfortunate that editors who have spoken too loudly have sometimes lose their voice entirely. I think it would be better if someone could make a modest contribution than none at all.

As for the pro-Wikipedia editors, they're jerks. They won't let their pro-Wikipedia agenda be balanced out with anti-Wikipedia things. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some wise words from Mr Siddhārtha Gautama from Nepal about the middle way would be in order at this point...meh, can't be bothered. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins notified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admn_attention_needed

Brunte (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Other" section includes "reaction casualties"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schools in Effects section

I linked this story on the Effects article talk but maybe it should be here too.[11] It gives the number of schools destroyed and damaged (37) plus closed as refugee shelters (18). Last night I didn't see much of this stuff but I noticed Nishidani's addition of mosques. Sound okay? --JGGardiner (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

InfoBox Belligerents

Some of the names of the belligerents in the InfoBox are quite words. I'd like to use the common short name for them to make it more compact. With footnoting and more detailed descriptions in the article text, nothing is really lost, and the InfoBox will be neater.

• Proposed name / Current name in InfoBox
• Hamas / Hamas (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades)
• Fatah / Fatah (Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades)
• Islamic Jihad / Islamic Jihad in Palestine (Al-Quds Brigades)
• ???Open to suggestions??? / Popular Resistance Committee
• PFLP (Popular Front) / Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades)

Dovid (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is each of the names in parentheses is the militant wing of the group preceding it. I had earlier wanted to change the belligerents to just list Gaza and was told that wont do because normal Gazans are not picking up arms. Here, political leadership is not picking up arms, the militant wings of these groups are. Nableezy (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we agree, but others have ganged up on you. OK, we now have two editors who want to simplify it. Let other voices make themselves heard if they still want t o back their opinions. Dovid (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I would want to simplify it to just say 'Gaza' and 'Israel' as the belligerents. If we have to include each organization then I would say it would have to take the current format. Nableezy (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also have "Gaza" and "Israel" as the belligerents. RomaC (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very dubious claim

The section on booby-traps states that: A colonel estimated that one-third of all houses encountered were booby-trapped. I find this hard to believe. Given Gaza City's 1.5m population, there must be at least 150,000 houses assuming 10 per house(might well be less than this). So we are meant to believe that, in the few days leading up to this offensive, Hamas had the time and resources to booby trap 50 thousand homes? I simply can't believe that.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a fog of war claim but your statistics are incorrect. The IDF rarely got very far into any built-up area: it bulldozed through to several strategic holding points, and found extensive booby-trapping in the few suburban areas it did hold.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jandrews I think what Nishidani wrote is right, the source says "one-third of all houses encountered" not one-third of all the houses in Gaza. RomaC (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "encountered". It makes little sense to booby trap houses deep within Gaza, in non strategic locations. Hamas et al probably tried to estimate the routes the IDF might take in an attack, what points would be considered advantageous, and booby-trapped houses in those areas. okedem (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah OK. I didn't realise the IDF hadn't completely penetrated into the centre. Do people think that figure is plausible then?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it must be doubtful if Hamas had explosives enough for this purpose - if they'd had such material (how?), I'd think they'd lay much more effective (and safer) traps in the open air. Recall the huge number of people living together in every room, even before the incident - how could the houses have been mined without the kids either setting them off or the dads disarming them? In 2002, the UN Report stated that "The camp residents live in terror, fearing for their future and their lives, following the repeated explosion of mines which the Israeli soldiers left behind". PR^talk 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas had vast quantities of explosives, both "home-made" (using fertilizers etc, it is very easy to create crude explosives), and standard explosives, brought in through the tunnels. I cannot say anything about the plausibility, though I believe a large part of the booby-trapping was done after the residents left their homes (retreating from the advancing Israeli forces). Remember - the IDF advanced very slowly, so this would not have been a problem. Also, explosives could be placed beforehand, and armed (with a fuze, wires etc.) at the last moment. okedem (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A booby-trap could also be a bowling ball balanced over the front door. RomaC (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Intersting justification for the Gaza conflict. Israeli conqust for natural gas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjXiv8rVxMU&NR=1

Brunte (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Actually, the PA decided to give BG the authority to develop the field and negotiate on its behalf. BG wanted too much money from Israel, who opted to sign a deal with Egypt for their natural gas. Israel was also worried about the money going to finance terrorism, and that's why the suggestion to pay in goods and services was raised.

The current war changed nothing with regard to the Palestinian gas field. okedem (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stated aims versus strategic aims

Jut to reply to those who queried my point re the use of 'stated' as opposed to 'real' aims. The latter only emerge when the fog of press releases clears, and strategic analysts give you the inside story. The first of the latter to do so is Anthony Cordesman. He writes of elite strategy considerations.

(a)First, Israeli officers and officials, as well as military analysts and journalists, felt that Israel had to fight in ways that would restore Israeli deterrence, and show the Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria that it was too dangerous to challenge Israel by limited or asymmetric attacks. In short, Gaza and Hamas were only one objective of the war. Rebuilding deterrence was an equal objective and this could only be demonstrated by conducting a highly punitive air and ground campaign against Hamas with limited losses to the IDF and an unacceptably high price tag to Hamas and Gaza. One official went so far as to state that, Israel had make its enemies feel it was "crazy." Others stated, however,that Israel did not escalate beyond clear limits, and was careful not to go to extremes, took account of civilian casualties, and provided humanitarian assistance were possible.

(b) While history may reveal a different conclusion in time, no Israeli leader gave a clear indication of the purpose and desired outcome of the conflict during the war or seemed to act to achieve clearly defined goals and objectives once the fighting began. At least in some ways, Israel‘s leadership seems to have repeated key mistakes made during the fighting in Lebanon in 2006.

(c) Third, there seemed to be broad agreement among Israeli officers, officials, analysts, and media that Israel‘s top three leaders – its Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and Foreign Minister – disagreed over the length the conflict should have, the nature and priority that should be given to diplomacy, and how long the conflict should last before a ceasefire. Accounts differed over the nature and intensity of these differences, but Defense Minister Barak was general credited with wanting to terminate the fighting once Israel scored major initial gains through air strikes and the air land battle, Foreign Minister Livni with wanting to extend the conflict until significant success could be achieved at the diplomatic level, and Prime Minister Olmert with seeking to extend the war until Hamas was weakened as much as possible and outside states – including Egypt – agreed to play a major role in securing Gaza. Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘THE “GAZA WAR”: A Strategic Analysis,’ Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 2009 p.11-12

p.s. a statistical chart (Figure 1: Patterns in the Rocket and Mortar Attacks on Gaza)for rocket attacks from Gaza(not 'on Gaza' as Cordesman has it in his draft) from 2005-2008 may be found on p.13- This will make more sense of course when we get Johannes Haushofer,Nancy Kanwisher and Anat Biletski's statistical analysis of cause and effect in Gaza-Israeli cross-retaliations in the near future (Cordesman almost always ignores Palestinian sources on matters like this and uses only IDF sources).Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the bolded bit above puzzling. There were clear statements by Israeli leadership stating that the purpose was stop the rockets and mortars, and the desired outcome was to destroy Hamas's ability to continue to fire them.Dovid (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read Cordesman's analysis he says (actually the text is in draft and he makes an error leaving out the key word 'not') that these 'stated' (to use our words) aims were not actually those of the planners, who knew they were impossible objectives.

According to senior Israeli officials, Israel decided that it could not effectively destroy Hamas without much more intense air and ground engagements, and a longer occupation, than it was willing to plan for. It also accepted the fact it could (not. = nishidani) suppress every rocket or mortar, and would have to rely on civil defense, rather than the ability of the air force and army to halt every attack. This simplified Israeli war planning and the air operation. It allowed the IAF to stay focused on high priority targets rather than disperse its efforts. At the same time, every aspect.' Cordesman p.16

I put 'not' in because the sentence is meaningless without it, and Cordesman's paper has many errors, being a final draft though under review.

What the leadership said was for public consumption. They knew, according to Cordesman's top level informants in the senior echelons of the IDF, that it was impossible to take out every rocket and mortar, and that these would continue. As I say, newspapers on the day are fine for getting het up, and disinformed, but they rarely tell you the real calculations that go into decisions, esp. like war.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That may very well be true... but the bolded part is untrue. They stated purpose and goal, even if it was unrealistic and/or masked another agenda. I just don't see how that statement can be construed to make any sense.

Aside from all that, is there any relevance to our article?

Finally, please don't overindent. There's no need to put a four-colon note in response to my two-colon note. The extra indents just make the paragraphs way too narrow. I edited the extra indents out (!!)

Dovid (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The bolded part is 'true' in so far as the statement reflects what Cordesman's informants in the IDF told him. Whatever the public was told, it was not this. That is why 'stated' in stated intention is important.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vetting RS in article

We've managed to create an article with close to 400 footnotes. With that many references, I'm sure all would agree that some issues are bound to come up with some of them -- misattributions, broken cites, or RS from breaking news source but that is later retracted or repudiated. I'd like to propose that this section be used to point out such instances. If any issue is posted here, and is then undisputed or consensus is reached supporting the post, the RS and/or its related article content will be corrected or removed.

Feel free to add any you find, I'm starting with one here. If your issue is higher-concept than just a reference problem, then please do NOT put it here, put it in its own section or a relevant existing section. I want to keep this section to discussions about simple RS issues. If any ideological arguments start here, they should be cut as outside of scope!

• Israel has been accused of collective punishment by ... Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[344] ... The RS doesn't say that Abbas accuses Israel, just that he wants the event looked into. Furthermore, the precipitating event was later repudiated (i.e., no school shelling). I propose removing the ref. This leaves Abbas in the list of accusers as unsupported, so unless we get an alternate ref, he should be removed form the list of accusers in the sentence. Dovid (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If that source isn't clear, replace it with this one: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268573,00.html Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please can the article be reprotected

A look down the history page shows several either vandalism or poor quality edits by anonymous sources. I think we need semi-protection again.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)