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)

As per your request, the incident is now mentioned at the end of the second paragraph in Unilateral Ceasefire. The red flag you raised comes from the article which you said was from a reliable source and was included by you to the second paragraph of Unilateral Ceasefire. Pardon for taking so long in agreeing with you that this is where the article belongs, although I am not totally convinced though and reserve the right to challenge your position and argue for its inclusion at the beginning of Ceasefire Violations at any time hereafter. Cryptonio (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, it looks that we mostly agree. I respect your right to challenge my position and really appreciate your understanding. After all this is not personal, we both want to deliver encyclopedic value. The way to compromise passes through initial disagreement and careful evaluation of each others arguments. Please respond to argument supported by other editors that Israeli Army admission quoting Gaza medic is clearly a red flag according to verifiability, thus should not be included. The bottom line is that even reliable sources have unreliable information from time to time so that's why we have verifiability AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That the Israeli army shot a farmer, is not all that exceptional in a war. That the army's defense was that the farmer was getting closer to a controlled perimeter, is not exceptional. There is nothing exceptional about this claim, just because Israel denies everything that in the eyes of some(and most disappointing, in their own eyes as well) is questionable, it does not mean it must be taken out because someway is not verifiable. There is nothing exceptional about this claim, in time of war. It was shown that the Israeli army itself has in the past admitted to have committed acts that in their own eyes was illegal(although i'm not concerned about the legal aspect of this case). So if, there is precedence, the burden of truth is made less heavier. And have you heard, Israelis are human beings! Cryptonio (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, I fully agree that IDF admitted its mistakes in the past and civilians were killed in Crossfire. IDF see such cases as mistakes that unfortunately happen during war and publishes official investigation reports. For instance see the doctor incident. IDF admission is usually clear undeniable and reported by large number of RSs around the world. Everything is routed via IDF spokesperson office. 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 The bottom line is that even reliable sources have unreliable information from time to time so that's why we have verifiability Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree on inclusion of all refs gathered and use NPOV wording let the reader decide. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not an IDF receptor. I say this with all the freedom in the world and with all due respect. It is not in my interest to read the novel "The world according to Israel/IDF". I am not a member nor a subscriber of anything to do with accepting everything that Israel says. Yes, they have their objectives, they have their goals, they have their own responsibilities. I share some of those goals with quite a few Israelis(their numbers are huge!) whose voices are but muted from inside Israel. Yet, I do not speak for them, for their voices are louder than mine. Yes, let the readers decide whatever you think they have to decide. Let them NOT decide as well, if they choose so. I am only interested in wiki, and blaming everybody but myself, if anything. Please, repeating that Israel does not kill without a 'fair' cause won't help in this case. Is not a matter of whether certain truths are self-evident or falseness lives beyond its means, is a matter of including information a reader might find interesting. thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but you're getting way off-topic here. Nobody suggest using IDF only sources. There is such thing as free and independent press. I think we should preserve NPOV and use all refs available. Don't you agree with red flag argument according to verifiability? My point is IDF admission is usually clear undeniable and reported by large number of RSs around the world. So far we all found 3 hits if this admission using Google, including this article, one blog and Xinhua article. This does not stand verifiability. We should aim for encyclopedic value. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source deserves at least a first look. Let the masses decide. What do you think? Cryptonio (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, so far editors located 3 refs describing January 18 morning incident : Xinhua, AFP and UN Jan 19 report (brought by Darwish07 here). All 3 of those references are clearly reliable source. I fully agree to include all references to this incident with NPOV wording and let the reader decide. IMO we mostly agree. What do you suggest? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-ceasefire attacks have no place but the violations section

Per Agada kind request, I'm moving below discussion here. My complain is that there's no room for debate that incidents done after the official ceasefire declaration belongs to the violations section, and in no where else. It's utterly misleading to read a huge pile of January 20th Gazans violations of cease-fire in the very first sentence, when in fact there has been a UN confirmed violation from the IDF on the very first morning of 18 January. This is stated very clearly. UN 17-18 Jan. report says:

Following a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet on 17 January, Prime Minister Olmert announced a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, which came into effect at 0200 hours local time 18 January

And in the UN 19 Jan. report:

One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.

The violations should be stated in their chronological occurrence order, without saying any statements of who broke the cease-fire first, and let the readers decide for themselves. This is basic editing, I can't see how this could be even discussed. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If I recall aright, Israel established the cease-fire unilaterally, and said it would nevertheless continue to respond to provocation from the other side. Not knowing the details of this "farmer incident," it is hard to be certain of this. And frankly, considering that the UN said very clearly that Israel made a direct hit on a UN school some three days after UNWRA spokesman claimed to have acknowledged that it hadn't, it strikes me that the UN is not really an unbiased source of information. They seem to have taken a side. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. There are various arguments below, but the strength of the arguments appears about equal on each side. I will note that there was some support for Gaza war as an alternative, but it did not receive enough input to achieve consensus; nor does there appear to be any consensus likely on a new name in the near future. It still appears that not enough time has passed for there to be a clear WP:COMMONNAME for this event. The first move request was made while the event was still occurring, or had just finished, if I remember correctly. It has still only been a few weeks since it ended. In my opinion, editors would do better to wait at least a few months before worrying about the name of the article again. Concentrate on ferreting out all the reliable sources for the event and adding the information to the article; once the article has been stable for a few months, it will probably be clear to most editors what the most appropriate neutral title would be. --Aervanath (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

---

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Personally I'm offended by NonZionist (talk) Wikipedia name. The fact is that Zhid-derived name was disallowed as offending on ru.wikipedia.org. Is there any WP rule about it? Some people still deny existence of state of Israel and call it Zionist entity. Hopefully it's Flat Earth camp. I prefer Frank Herbert Jihad meaning, e.i. fighting inner fear AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No. If he wishes to display his view of Zionism, which as I recall he described as 'being free of Zionism' through his username there isnt anything bad about that. Not everybody is a Zionist, sorry (and the people you speak of do not deny the 'existence of Israel' the deny the legitimacy of that existence). Nableezy (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

UN School

UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School - by Maayana Miskin [3]. 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 [4] 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)

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)

Yes 40 people were presumably killed in this incident for which we do not know the exact details. Point is, as usual, everyone rushes in (especially the UN) to accuse Israel before the facts are known. By the time the truth is uncovered, no one believes it. This doesn't just happen sometimes, it happens alot. As for the innocence of these individuals, someone must have been firing from the area, or it would not have drawn fire. 12.51.52.206 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

see circular argument Sean.hoyland - talk 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IDF see this incident as civilians used as human shield Caught in the crossfire in active war zone. IDF performs investigation of incidents as policy and publicly regrets such unthinkable loss. There are a lot of witness clips from Gaza of Hamas firing surrounded by civilians including kids on different occasions on Youtube, looks credible to me and Newsweek reporters. Did Hamas knew of UNRWA school GPS coordinates? Nobody denies that IDF forces were taking incoming fire from this location. After all Hamas did take part in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:18, 7 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)

For the sake of neutrality, beside this charter and "destroying Israel" thing. We need to also say that "Hamas is willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders". As reported by Haaretz itself, the wellknown Israeli journal:

He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights.

I'm going to add it, as this is related to the Hamas wants to destroy israel line. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:31, 7 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 [5]. 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)

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[6]. 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)

Sorry I probably should have explained my last comment. The background is the stage and players. I obviousley don't agree that putting it in casualties is synthesis since a fairly reliable source uses the data to make a valid point. Basicallly as it stands: It being in the background with the youth % is simply pushing an agenda. I know we are suppose to assume good faith but I don't. I think that whatever editor put it in is as bad as a liar for not admiting to it. There are several arguments for why it belongs in that section. I disagree with most of them but see how it feasibly could be done. It still would not be as appropriate since I don't think anyone will find a source really getting into the nitty griity of summarizing the density setting the stage for urban combat. Realistically, the tactics would be similar in the city/territory/country that is number 38 on the list but that is not why the line was added to where it was. It was added to push a view and would be better somewhere else in the article.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point on the youth percentage, if that were not included in the background would that solve any issues? Or do you think that the population density by itself does not belong in the background at all? Nableezy (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs (certainly as is) but have heard other editors provide some explanation on how they think it could be worked into the background. I think they deserve a shot at it before I completely discount it.Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For sources on how it touches on more than just the casualties section, which is why I think it best in the background section as it influences several sections, take a look at these: "Nevertheless, given the high population density in Gaza and the close proximity between homes, this has caused considerable panic and uncertainty among those receiving phone calls, as well as neighboring houses." talking about roof knocking, defined as an IDF military strategy, in a report from OCHA, or this, which is not a RS but think it may demonstrate relevance as an opinion piece from retired Israeli colonel Jonathan Fighel and "senior researcher at the International Institute for Counter Terrorism" where he says "The dense population concentrations in the Gaza Strip are an easy arena for the terrorist organizations to fight in and use its population to leverage its terrorist agenda" and "Hamas and the other terrorist organizations view the population density of the Gaza Strip, both in the cities and the refugee camps, as focal points in their operational capabilities to wage an urban guerilla style combat against conventional military armed forces. The tactic of deliberately enlisting civilians as human shields to protect the houses of terrorist operatives has proved itself effective, in the eyes of the Palestinian terrorist organizations, at least until Operation Cast Lead. That was because of their awareness that the IDF does not deliberately attack civilians, even though the target is permissible according to the laws of armed combat. The human shield tactic improves their freedom of action, provides a kind of immunity, blending within the population, creating an inherent difficulty to be identified (“Friend or Foe”), enabling terrorist operatives wearing civil clothes to act mostly unidentified until they act and attack the ground forces." here, which goes to multiple Israeli claims as to the violations of war crimes by Hamas in using 'human shields' and disguising themselves as civilians. Now I think you know me well enough to know I dont place these quotes here because I like reading that, just trying to demonstrate how this is relevant to almost all the issues. It goes to the type of operations conducted as being in an urban environment, the casualties, and the allegations of war crimes on both sides. Nableezy (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also this, (also not a reliable source just trying to demonstrate relevance): "Depth of penetration and operational tempo. The depth of the IDF's penetration will be a function of the operation's objective; the more expansive the goals, the deeper the IDF will need to penetrate. A deep incursion will likely require the IDF to use heavy (armor and mechanized infantry) and/or special forces in built-up, densely populated areas. Fighting in these arenas creates a whole range of problems, including the likelihood of increased IDF and Palestinian civilian casualties, as well as a slowing of operational tempo. The IDF has prepared for fighting in this environment, but urban operations are historically messy and slow." from an offshoot of AIPAC, Washington Institute for Near East Policy here. Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to tackle using the density data in the background please do. There has been plenty of discussion but it still has not been fixed so someone (you I hope) should go for it. It doesn't need to be a reasoning as to why it should stay just a few good lines on how it shaped the conflict. Currently, I really want to remove the % of kids but have a feeling there is not consensus. Any complaints to that line being removed or moved to a more appropriate section?Cptnono (talk) 19:32, 6 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. Nableezy (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

What implications would there be? It has been an issue for CAMERA since at least 2005. [7] Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that we need to accept that there's a difference between a reliable source (which WHO and HRW undeniably are) and an infallible source (which doesn't exist). That they are RS does not make them right about everything. I think that I have objectively shown that the claim is false. Anyone with a calculator can see that. It is a very common misconception and we need to be careful about repeating it citing sources that don't back up their own repitition of the claim with evidence. The conflict did not occur only in Gaza. It started in Sderot, Netivot and other Israeli towns up the coastal plain with population densities at the same 4000/km2 level as Gaza. Find me a scientific first hand source claiming that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world and I'll shut up. Comparing the population density of this small urban strip with the average population density of entire countries is a meaningless and, in this context, an extremely misleading comparison. The towns into which Hamas have been randomly firing missiles for years are equally densely populated and this fact is at least as relevant to the background of the conflict as any other, if not more. The rocket fire from Gaza is the background of the conflict.Dino246 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is another issue, the background to the event and the reason or inciting incident(s) for the event are two different things. In this regard it would depend on which side you asked, sources show that Israel regards the 8,000 Hamas rockets since 2005 as the reason for Cast Lead, I think that information is well represented, it appears in the first paragraph of the article. (On the other hand, sources say Hamas was motivated by the Israeli blockade, military incursions, targeted killings and border incidents.) On the RS question, I can't imagine that nobody at The San Fransisco Chronicle, Reuters, or Haaretz has a calculator. RomaC (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem with accepting the "most densely populated" claim, since we know what Gaza is like, and has been for a very long time eg this guy in 1989 - Joe Cortina whtt@cox.net, "... retired Florida businessman who has done substantial world traveling - some purely as a 'tourist' and some in areas - shall I say- 'nothing to do with vacationing'." - he says: "... My 'specially authorized' trips included Gaza City ... a ride down the main street looked like a scene from some WWII movie. ... no building with any floor above the first. ALL buildings had any additional floors blasted into rubble - much of the jagged former construction black and charred. This was a city street no much different from any American small town. Shops, restaurants, services, apartment etc. blown to bits and vacant as a tomb. ... to reduce any cover for potential snipers who might threaten Israeli patrols." Recent reports have spoken of 20 people squeezed into one room - I think that's "most densely populated" enough for most people. PR^talk 13:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that most reporters have calculators but the "most densely populated" myth is so axiomatic that even I questioned my ability to divide population by area when I discovered that my own sleepy town shared the same 4000/km2 population density as Gaza. It is the most densely populated place on earth in the same way that my garden is the most densely wooded place on earth. With 2 trees in its 15mx15m area my garden is actually more densely wooded than Brazil, Austria or Canada. If it were a country, my back garden would be the most densely wooded country in the world. The "most densely populated" claim for Gaza would be equally absurd were it not so universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources. I think that we are surprisingly close to consensus if we'd just concentrate on formulating an acceptable paragraph rather than getting sidetracked into rhetoric. Does anyone object to: "The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. The entire coastal plain, both Palestinian and Israeli, is mostly urban and has a largely uniform population density of approximately 4000/km2, comparable to other urban areas around the world."Dino246 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you truly believe you are right, but on Wikipedia the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. As other editors have advised, you might take your arguments to the reliable sources noticeboard, thanks. RomaC (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit wrong ? http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/95caaf8cb4436686852575360063f3df!OpenDocument Sean.hoyland - talk 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to it for reasons stated above. Nableezy (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I once dated a ballet dancer who had special shoes and when en pointe occupied about a square centimeter, giving that area of my floor a population density of ten billion/km2, blows my mind. RomaC (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i object to the original research. we say what reliable sources say, not what we think, believe, calculate, etc. The point you make here, " The "most densely populated" claim for Gaza would be equally absurd were it not so universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources" shows that you concede that that fact is "universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources" but you believe it is wrong. this should show you the folly of your argument. the fact is supported by rs, your opinion is not. if you have reliable sources to back up your research and say that gaza's pop dens is "comparable to other urban areas around the world" you should provide them for balance, but not including reliably sourced information just because you disagree with it isn't justifiable. Untwirl (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that map Sean. Now take a look at this one [8] and explain to me in what way Gaza is unusually densely populated. Quite clearly the 22x8km strip surrounding Tel-Aviv is just as densely populated as the 22x8km strip around Gaza City. How about the 22x8km strip around Manhattan [9]? Or the one around London [10]?Dino246 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i am impressed by your diligence at looking for sources, please find some for other parts of the article. are you suggesting that we use these maps in the article? or are you wanting to use these maps as justification for your synth and OR? this whole discussion, based on your (admittedly superior) calculator skills, seems to be fairly simple. unless you are being WP:DENSE? c'mon lets move on. i believe we were about to reach a compromise to leave it alone and remove the children demographic. anyone? Untwirl (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino, you mean Tel Aviv ? But that's one of the most densely populated places on earth. Don't bite me, I just said your number was a bit wrong. Anyway, what Untwirl said above is the wiki way, it's all about the reliable sources even if they don't seem to make sense from your perspective. Arguments about densities are pointless or rather endless anyway because they're a function of spatial sampling, bin size (as RomaC's ballet example illustrated) and various other factors. A group of people can't really have a sensible argument about X unless they all agree to a common set of parameters that define the way X is calculated and we shouldn't be doing that. This has been an odd discussion because Macau is almost certainly the most densely populated place on this planet at ~17-18,000/km2 but if you go there, wander around a bit and have a look for yourself you'll see it feels pretty much like other places. If someone started dropping bombs and shelling it, it could be a bit of a problem. I suppose that's the salient point. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the salient point. Gaza doesn't need to be "one of the most densely populated" to understand the high danger and high civilian casualty count. It's an unnecessary (and inaccurate) claim that should be removed from the article. Here are a couple of sources backing me up. [11], [12]. The second one shows that the Gaza Strip is to all intents and purposes a city. In both area and population it is near identical to Leeds in the UK which is the 57th most densely populated city in the world. On the assumption that cities are the most densely populated places on Earth, the Gaza Strip is statistically the 57th most densely populated place on the planet. A bit lower down the list than anywhere that could be fairly described as "one of the most..". Even Gaza's most densely populated few acres, Gaza City itself, doesn't make the top 20. Sourced. Can we remove this clearly untrue statement from Wikipedia now please? Dino246 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I still agree with Dino's points. A larger problem though is I still think the paragraph is out of place anyway and should either be moved elsewhere in the article or at least have some contextual explanation as to why it is the first paragraph in the background section. I'm sure there are plenty of editors who have noticed this paragraph and were a bit puzzled; the fact that it stood so long in the article without a lengthy discussion means nothing. When I first saw the paragraph it didn't sit well with me either, but I didn't have the time to start a huge, lengthy discussion like this one. But since it's out there now, I just wanted to reiterate my opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, what is wrong with this:
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).
I know you want to also include the Israeli density of the areas Hamas has targeted, but besides that what is wrong with the above line? Nableezy (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And nobody, I mean nobody, here has said it is the most densely populated, we have said one of the most. Bit of a difference. Nableezy (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have some new sources. It is particularly hard to find sources confirming that something isn't true because it's like looking for something that isn't there. The following sources regarding worldwide population densities are notable only in as much as they don't mention Gaza as being particularly high: [13], [14], [15], [16]. The following source that I found is the most useful though because it allows us to make a clear objective comparison between the sourced population density for the Gaza Strip of ~4000/km2 and the average urban population densities around the world, [17]. Gaza is actually of below average population density for the "middle and low income world" (pop-density = 9200), is almost identical to the average urban population density of the UK (4100), and is only marginally above the world average of 3500. Please take a look at the source. It proves that it is inaccurate to even describe Gaza's population density as "high". It is at most, slightly above average. Gaza City itself is absolutely average for the "middle and low income world". I suggest changing the opener to:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a population density of approximately 4000/km2, typical of urban areas around the world. (cited to [18]) (with CIA numbers)
. Dino246 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the sourcing for 'high' is adequate (HRW: among the highest in the world; and WHO: 6th highest), and since you have objected so strenuously to any comparison to the rest of the world (6th highest, among the highest) I find it curious you are now attempting to use a different comparison. I prefer the wording I used earlier as it is sourced to neutral observers, and in a concession to the rest of the people here it took out any comparison to other places in the world. Nableezy (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"typical of urban areas" is synth and OR Untwirl (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I objected to comparing a small urban area to entire countries, not to making a comparison that will give readers context for what is after all, a rather abstract statistic to most. I do accept the synth comment and potential OR with the use of the word "typical" though and am happy to separate it out into two unrelated sourced facts and allow intelligent readers to draw their own conclusions.
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a population density of approximately 4000/km2. (with CIA numbers) The world average for urban areas is 3500/km2. (cited to [19])
It is important to give a frame of reference when using a unit of measurement like "people/km2" and the world average is probably about as NPOV as you can get. Dino246 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But you are still making an arbitrary choice as to what to compare it to. Before, we were using RSs to make that comparison for us (WHO: 6th highest or HRW: among the highest in the world). I am not questioning the reliability of the demographia.com source, but on first look it does not seem to be a RS, though I think their numbers are accurate. I do think that 'high' (man I wish I was) accurately describes the density per the 2 neutral RSs that we have put forward, without adding any commentary or comparisons on our own. Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

brewcrewer informed me that i was being uncivil and that he had taken offense at my use of bold type, characterizing his argument as "ridiculous," and linking to WP:DENSE. first of all, running around accusing editors of incivility is disruptive. i would like to point out that he has made his own fair share of condescending remarks, including accusing editors of building houses made of playing cards which are not up to code and will be managed by slumlords taking advantage of impoverished communities. however, as a show of good faith, i will suggest alternate words that i can replace ridiculous with -"preposterous", "illogical", "irrational". as a further show of good faith, from now on i will only link to WP:ICS, if that is less offensive. Untwirl (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally hit the source jackpot! Demographia's raw data, urban areas listed in ranked charts: [20]. This reliable objective scientific source is already used on Wikipedia's List of urban areas by population. Table 4, "URBAN AREAS BY POPULATION DENSITY" starts on page 69. They only define 44km2 of Gaza's 350km2 as 'urban' but this part of the Strip is the 38th most densely populated urban area in the world. High, but not one of the highest. I think that now that we have objective data we should avoid comparative terms and just use the number:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. Its most concentrated urban area is the 38th most densely populated urban area in the world. (cited to [21])
Dino246 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See you are still saying that one comparison is valid and another is not. Gaza City is an urban area, the Gaza Strip is more than that. If you want comparisons I would be more comfortable with a UN body (like the WHO) which says 6th. You just said that it is 'high'. Why dont we just leave it at high instead of having this become a circular discussion with me rejecting your comparisons and you rejecting mine. I dont think we are going to get anywhere like this so I say follow JGGardiner's advice about leaving comparisons out of it. Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a comparison. I have changed the text. The "one of the most" statement was clearly incorrect and misleading. I have removed it and added that the Strip "contains an urban area that is the 38th most densely populated". This is factual, without commentary or arbitrary comparison, and is scientifically backed up by an expert source whose speciality is population density. Dino246 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are, 38th is a comparison. And it is a comparison to a bunch of cities, not territories. The UN says 6th in reference to the whole strip. I think that is more reliable than demographia.com. One of the most was accurately sourced. I changed it back until there is consensus for the change. I think we are getting somewhere and if you chill we will find something all of us can agree to. Nableezy (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun by making the edit, you are right about that and I apologise. For the record, and further discussion, it read like this:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. According to the CIA Factbook as of July 2008, it holds a population of 1,500,202. on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi). It contains an urban area that is the 38th most densely populated in the world.[22] Almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger (44.7% as of June 2007).
Demographia are not making the comparison to cities. They are quite specific about being blind to municipal and political boundaries. They define urban areas purely by population spread. The most densely populated 44km2 of Gaza is 38th in the world listed as 16000/km2. Until now we've been counting Gaza City as 9000/km2 which made it city number 57. The 4000/km2 density of the Strip as a whole is not unusually high by any standards. I've shown that repeatedly. It only makes a top-ten list when compared with whole countries but that is surely the most arbitrary comparison of them all as not even Hamas defines Gaza as a country. 38th from a list of 100s of urban areas worldwide is high. You won't find a way of doing the maths that places Gaza higher so let's defer to the scientific source and let the facts speak for themselves.Dino246 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we would be best off not including any rankings, just because there seems to be a pretty large range that various sources have put it. I think the term 'high' is both well sourced and sufficiently vague as to not upset too many people. (and no need for apologies) Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And I would be willing to have the percentage of children be in the casualties section as it seems that it is more relevant to a specific aspect of this article then it is to most of it. Nableezy (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino what you are doing is original research, you can't selectively define sample area in order to lower the density number. The Gaza Strip is not a city, it is a territory with an area larger than Bermuda or Liechtenstein. We are following Wiki policy and using verifiability based on reliable sources as the threshold for inclusion. I am certain other editors see your points, but enough is enough. RomaC (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still being discussed ? We should be thankful that there's no time constraint here. If this were a discussion in an oil company about fish/cetacean pop density and whether the number does or does not indicate a potential risk to spawning in an exploration area we would have all been fired by now because we would have missed the availability slot for the seismic vessel or drilling rig. I admire Dino's persistence here but it's the wrong approach even it it makes perfect sense for a particular set of calculation/comparison rules. Remember that there are other words and phrases used in this article that rely on unspecified/implicit definitions of local density fields. Some examples...

• human shield (HS), is a Hamas guy standing next to a civilian a HS situation, within 10m, within 100m or is the whole Gaza Strip one big HS
• targeting of civilians - whether someone is targeting civilains or taking appropriate measures to avoid civilians depends on the spatial bin size you use to compute the local civilian density etc

...and of course there are many, many more. Pop density in the strip is just one. We can't street fight over all of these terms by trying to apply our own pet methods. I'm okay with Nableezy's generic approach here the term 'high' is both well sourced and sufficiently vague but let's avoid specific figures. Whatever we do it clearly has to be based on multiple RS because this is getting challenged vigorously. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Link numbered 17 as one of Dino's link provides this http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-countries-by-population-density . It ranks Palestine at number 8. If its good enough for Dino, it should be good enough for Wiki. Cryptonio (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

His argument has been Gaza is not a country so it is not proper to compare its population density to other countries. Nableezy ([[User talk:|talk]]) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Say, how many cities in the world? would the top 200 or so make it to the list as one of the most densely populated? Gaza would make it in the top 100 if you ask me. Completely arbitrary. Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to break it down, to cities over 200K, 400K or 1M, Gaza would creep up and up the list. Know why? because it is a densely populated area(its size is the key here, its miniature). That is how the WHO and the CIA and whoever else who likes numbers reached the fact that its one of the most densely populated area in the world. The simple approach, would be to rank Gaza's density against the cities of the world, vis-a-vis. IF in fact those who are arguing against its ranking consider Gaza a city at all. Cryptonio (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a function of the size of the spatial bin that your throw your data points into. It also depends what you call a city, depends what the source means by 'the world' (i.e. rules for inclusion or exclusion of data based on...pick some random criteria that cause sampling errors e.g. census date, couldn't afford the dataset cost etc). Using this OR approach we could even deconstruct the implicit and unchallenged identity models in I-P articles based on discussions about population genetics, anthropological criteria, re-classification of the Abrahamic faiths based on our own category modelling and so on. It might be entertaining but we would be here forever. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to compromise on "high population density" as long as the following reference is included as I believe it is the only one with a truly agendaless scientific basis. It places Gaza 38th which is high by any standards. [23] It took me 3 days to find it, let's put it there so that others conducting their own research and making their own comparisons can find it more easily.. Simply stating that Gaza's population density is "high" is honest and supported and may contribute to breaking the myth that Gaza's population density is "the highest" or "one of the highest". A claim that journalists and politicians repeat so often that just last week I believed it unquestionably myself in the same way that I believe that the Cheetah is the fastest land mammal. I'm off to check that one now too.. Dino246 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino Sorry but what you propose seems to me a false compromise. And, the source that took you three days to find deals with Gaza City. The many reliable primary and secondary sources reflected in the article presently all concern the Gaza Strip, which is where the event the article deals with takes place. Good luck in your research on the cheetah. RomaC (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And to think Gaza did not have this 'problem' before. To be pushed to the corner and be argued in favor because of her relatively small size. What a disgrace to bring this up as an argument. Two points can be added, among many to clarify the argument, but they are not coming out of me. Cryptonio (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record

This discussion is a microcosm of the general problem here at this talkpage. One editor has brought well-sourced strong arguments refuting the tangential claims of one barely reliable source and all he has gotten in return are scorn and insults by the swarm of editors who insist on keeping this article as a propaganda piece. User:Nableezy is the one exception. Kudos to him for atleast showing a willingness to listen and come to some neutral agreement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

yo man, chill you're going to hurt my rep. Nableezy (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

and seeing as how you like watching me repeat myself, I have to object to the term 'barely reliable' in reference to HRW, but at least you are not saying 'not reliable' anymore so I guess we can let that pass. Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All non-media organizations are barely reliable. Organizations like the Human Rights Watch or the Anti Defamation League should never be used to support any contentious claim, especially one that has been proven to be factually problematic. These organizations have their agenda and are always interested in validating the importance of their organization. The more human rights violations the more we need the HRW. The more antisemitic attacks the more we need the ADL. Most media organizations are interested in one thing only - that people consider them to be good reporters, reliable, and neutral; that's why they are considered reliable. What's most damming about the article's claim is that with all the media coverage Gaza has received, not one media source has described Gaza the way this article does. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that editors who would be considered pro-Palestinian are more persistent with this article. It is a real shame that this article and subject are so polarizing it makes it hard to find neutral tone and wording.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I've learned myself that no matter how much I disagree with Nableezy he seems to be a stand up guy. Now on to why he is wrong...Cptnono (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I way to move forward might be to say things like what you just said more often: we need to really treat each other with such respect, even in disagreement, but in particular must try not to setup strawmen. Contrast with Brewcrewer decrying this article as a "propaganda piece", if this is a propaganda piece, then what are CAMERA and Electronic Intifada? I mean, brew, lets have a sense of proportion: this article needs work, but nothing egregious escapes the notice of either side, so if it is a propaganda piece it because you set the bar of what is propaganda to anythign with which you disagree... Which usually means that it is not propaganda in favor of your side. I got news: any NPOV article will leave both sides unhappy, because it takes two to tango. Calling "HRW" a barely reliable source is propaganda: the only people who said that are those who recieve negative reporting on the part of HRW. The New York Times, Washington Post, The Times, The BBC, all those other barely reliable sources are happy to cite HRW left and right as a reliable source of factual information and balanced opinion. For the record: trying to lump a general human rights organization (HRW) together with an active Zionist organization (ADL) is comparing apples and oranges in this case: it would be like comparing Likud to HAMAS, after all, both are political parties. What makes reliable sources reliable is what other reliable sources think of them, and HRW is well respected by other reliable sources. On a note on consitency, I would like to see you battling the inclusion of the JTA and INN with the same fervor as you battle HRW: but of course, this might be the whole point.--Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that HRW, Amnesty international, and several other sources are valid and reliable. However, sources like these do promote a certain agenda which is not necessarily anti-Israel but is anti-human suffering. This can lead to unbalancing the article by victimizing the Palestinians who are obviously the underdog with civilians suffering on a greater scale. The article should be about IDF v Hamas and the effects it has on both people, policies, armies, etc but it runs the risk of putting too much emphasis on civilians being victims in the strip .Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Before you rip into me, get your facts straight, Cerejota. I did not say a word in support of the JTA as a reliable source. I don't know what the "INN" is. Also, the ADL is not a Zionist organization; it's an organization that fights antisemitism.

A POV-riddled encyclopedia article is a greater propaganda piece then whatever CAMERA and Electronic Intifada spit out. Why? Because everyone knows not to take those sites seriously. This is an encyclopedia, and people assume that it is neutral. I guess if it gets bad enough people will stop taking WP seriously, as well.

The fact that HRW is cited by the other reliable news organizations means nothing. Reliable sources also continuously quote Hamas and IDF spokespeople. Is the IDF spokesperson a reliable source? Whenever they cite to anything the HRW says they always qualify their statements as "according to the HRW". The very fact that they always qualify the HRW, like the always qualify the IDF and Hamas spokespeople, is itself an indication that these reliable sources do not consider the HRW to be reliable. None of the reliable sources have ever said what this article says about Gaza on their own. Wikipedia is the first entity that claims to be neutral to cite to the HRW as if it's a reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get into this again (though I think news organizations cite to HRW to give it more prestige then the paper saying something but that doesnt matter) there are other sources like OCHA or WHO that say high (or 6th highest) or whatever. How about we just try to figure out what it is that most people would accept? Nableezy (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not my type so I won't rip into you: I tend to like girls. :D

You didn't say a word about JTA either, in particular when Doright accused people of being antisemitic for not considering it a reliable source: silence is not consent, but it can be inconsistent.

INN: Israel National News, TB's favorite "news" outlet.

This article is clearly tagged as having its neutrality under dispute, so any reader who ignores that does so at her peril.

There is difference between quoting, and accepting as a reliable source. In other words, the RS might quote Hamas, but question the veracity of their statements. They have not done such a thing with HRW, not in this conflict, not before. In fact, some reliable sources (the BBC and the NYT) routinely use HRW information in their reporting without qualification - contrary to what you state.

The ADL is a Zionist organization, as part of the B'nai B'rith, and while their work against antisemitism is laudable, as is thier lesser work on other forms of ethnic and racial discrimination (including against Arabs post-911), they have also come under criticism for their involvement with red squads, some elastic definitions of what constitutes antisemitism (for example, the controversial usage of New antisemitism concepts), and more recently their strong meddling in the internal affairs of Venezuela under the guise of fighting antisemitism (mainly cause Chavez and Almanidejahdjidad [sic] are BFF for nao). It is far from neutral in this case, and it is a Zionist organization, by any definition of the word.

That said, I do hear your point, and it is a valid one, but I do not like the comparisons you make, again, because they are apples and oranges comparisons. Just because they are fruits we do not have to treat them the same way. When I think you are making a good point (and you do make them) I will support them without reservation, I do think right now you are not making a good one.

One of the best ways to deal with verifable information from sources that can be controversial is to get other sources, rather than removing them in the meantime. If the statements verify, we keep them.

On this point A POV-riddled encyclopedia article is a greater propaganda piece then whatever CAMERA and Electronic Intifada spit out. Why? Because everyone knows not to take those sites seriously.

It is interesting, because the same way Babycue turned up to be cause celebre of the EI crowd, so does a number of the talk page discussions take on a distinct CAMERA flavoring (and I regularly read both): for example the population density crap (THIS THREAD!) is straight up marching orders from CAMERA. So of it is positive crap (ie Gaza is not the densest place on earth - d'oh!) but then the kids forget to hold their horses and want any discussion on density to be eliminated, something no RS has "corrected".

In fact, original research reveals the chatter on military history/strategy blogs (none of which are sympathetic to Hamas) is placing a lot of focus on this around the MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) engagement of the IDF, and the HAMAS counter-strategies, such as bobby trapped houses, "human shields", snipers, and tunnels. Demographic density of Gaza is a key factor in the military history and actual history of this war (as I already stated) and strangely enough, it actually works in favor of the IDF in the balance (ie international law clearly permits combat in urban areas - whith the implied understanding that this increases civilian casualties). CAMERA, as usual, shoots Israel on the foot with its histerics. The sad part is that the CAMERA Rangers decided to make wikipedia their battleground, so we have to deal with disruptive threads on what should be easy solutions fixed by rewrites and additional sourcing.--Cerejota (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, for starters, I sure wish you would stick to the facts and not characterise others' thinking. I don't recall claiming that Israel National News was my favorite news source. I'd appreciate it if you provided a diff when claiming to know another's thinking. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The remark about people here getting their "marching orders from CAMERA" and calling people here "CAMERA Rangers" violates WP:AGF. It certainly doesn't do anything at all to improve the atmosphere here. I am really surprised that you would do such a thing simply to make a WP:POINT. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, you are wrong: there was an ArbCOm, and this ArbCom proved two things: 1) CAMERA is meatpuppetering 2) Such behavior is against the spirit and the letter of our policies 3) It should be handled as par of our DR process 4)Pointing it out in the talk page is part of that process. Calling a spade, a spade is not failing WP:AGF. The double-teaming that you and Brewcrewer do on your vendetta against me is a failure of AGF: I didn't accuse either of you of being CAMERA, because I simply don't know. But I do read CAMERA and find it curious that whatever cause celebre they pick up all of the sudden shows up here, regardless of what the RS say. I simply pointed out this fact. And this thread is obviously disruptive, because contesting the simple inclusion (as opposed to due weight etc) of relevant, reliably sourced material is disruption. --Cerejota (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Marching orders from CAMERA?" Was that aimed at me? If so I resent and strenuously deny that. I don't even visit CAMERA, really I don't. I wasn't aware that anyone else was contesting the "most densely populated claim" I just did the maths and something smelled funny. I'm not going to get dragged into the RS argument because it is a sidetrack, suffice it so say that I trust HRW as a reliable sources - on matters pertaining to human rights. If they said that the Cheetah was the fastest land mammal I'd check elsewhere for verification though. (It is by the way..). On this question of the population density of Gaza their claim is misleading and not backed up by any scientific sources on population statistics. I believe we have consensus for the phrasing "high population density". Those in favour say "aye". Dino246 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No it was not aimed at you, as I had not had the pleasure of even speaking to you before. However, why would I have directed it at you?--Cerejota (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think anybody was accusing you personally, but keep in mind that some people still have a bad taste in their mouth from the CAMERA wiki-lobby fiasco. That said, I am fine with 'has a high population density (with CIA numbers)'. Was I supposed to say 'aye'? Why does this have to be so complicated, I think Ill just say 'I concur with the motion before the committee though I wish to attach a rider amendment' Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But if a number needs to be in it I think it has to be 6th based off of the WHO report. I think the UN can have the final say on what to compare Gaza's density to. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be my proposal in full: The sentence above somewhere up there in the background, the HRW quote on WP use risk being elevated because of the high population density in the WP part with an explicit cite, the WHO quote on the minor percentages in the casualties section with an explicit cite. That would satisfy some of Cptnono's concerns I think, Dino's I think, and brewcrewer I think. Let me know if I thought wrong or if they dont satisfy those concerns enough. Nableezy (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why it is needed in the background when you put it that way but it doesn't hurt my feelings too much. I also fully agree with your placement in the other sections listed.Cptnono (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I said some of your concerns ;), and truthfully I would want it to say more in the background. Nableezy (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying only "has a high population density" is as wrong as saying Canada "is a big country" because we would be using a general description instead of a specific one. How specific can we be here? WHO and HRW peg the Gaza Strip's rank at top ten, and most secondary sources -- and there are many reliable and prominent media doing this -- use something like "one of the highest population densities in the world." So we use what these sources say. This is not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, this is pro-Wikipedia. RomaC (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The atmosphere on this talk page is bad enough without editors poisoning it by accusing others of taking "marching orders" from any group. I am still choking on that one. Because editors here bring up an issue which CAMERA has addressed - which I noticed earlier in this 2005 article [24], they are somehow "taking orders?" It is possible that someone could go to EI or ISM and find that editors here are addressing the same issues and make that same accusation. But we haven't. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But you defend those who call me an antisemite? I dont really care about that, but do you have anything to say on the above proposal? Nableezy (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually dont even know why I am trying this, my first attempt at compromise failed miserably so I doubt this one will get much further than that. Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But Canada IS a big country. Kidding of course, I know that isn't the point. Seriously, Nableezy, you're on the right track. Go ahead and put it in. Worse comes to worse is we talk about it for another 10 hours, it goes through some edits, and maybe a revert or two. Overall, I think you have the right idea so go for it.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I cant bitch at users who change the current wording without consensus any more if I do the same, I think we can wait for a few more people to speak on it. Nableezy (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as saying high not being specific enough, I think that would be the one way of removing any objection based on what it is we are comparing Gaza to. If we compare it to the cities we get a different ranking compared to ranking it against sovereign entities, or other self-governing territories. It could turn into an endless debate about whose numbers are right which really is just an argument as to whose choice of comparison is right. I think by just having 'high' we could leave the direct quotes about density and what specific bodies have said the density is in relation to specific aspects of the article (HRW quote in WP section, WHO quote in casualties section) allows for everything to be accurate, well sourced, and without much cause for dispute. But lets just see what other people say, I very well may be wrong and most will object to it quite loudly. Nableezy (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Nableezy. We say that Gaza's population density is "high" and provide the multiple sources that have the facts, figures and various comparisons that put Gaza anywhere from 4th to 57th depending on how large a sample area you use and what you compare it to. That way the article is indisputably factual and sourced and gives people the tools they need to make their own decision about where Gaza is ranked as this is the least relevant piece of information. The article on water says it boils at 100oC. It doesn't say that it has the 432nd highest boiling point of all liquids and its talk page doesn't have a massive discussion about how it depends which liquids it is being compared to. Dino246 (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BAM! Good enough for you, Nableezy? I still might give you a hard time myself if it isn't perfect :) Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

not yet, just give it a bit, we can leave the article as a propaganda piece a while longer. of course, as long as it is 'my sides' propaganda :) Nableezy (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're funny, Nab. But at this time of the night, it's only us weirdos that are reading the article. So there's nothing to be gained :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you fine with my proposal? The line I wrote a while back and the direct quotes in the sections where they are most relevant? Nableezy (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

All I know is the first sentence of the background section, and I agree to that part. I have yet to make it past that point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there an ETA on getting past that point or is it an irreconcilable difference? Nableezy (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just change it to something, anything that doesn't have most densely populated places on earth as one of the first things you see highlighted right there in the opening sentence! Dino246 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps more finely worded, what would your objections be? We would be moving the % of children to the casualties section with an explicit cite to the WHO in a direct quote, and we would be putting the HRW quote in a context where it fits nicely, in the section on white phosphorous, as a direct quote with an explicit cite. What part of that would you object to and why? Nableezy (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And Dino, there are people from all across the world, from what I am sure of as far from Vancouver to Thailand and pretty much everywhere in between, that are editing this article. I dont know what the hell it is I am doing awake right now as it is 2 in the morning where I am at. Lets just give everybody a chance to see it and comment on it before making a change that some people may object to. Nableezy (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - it's mid morning here.. Good night. :o) Dino246 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sun never sets on Wikipedia. But as the Vancouver guy I guess I can go first. I'm very happy with Nableezy's proposal. It seems fair and I think it goes far enough to satisfy everyone's concerns. What I like most about it is that it is an actual compromise. None of us are ever going to write the article exactly the way we'd like it. So there's no point digging our heels in when something else works and would be acceptable to other editors as well. The proposal is really beautiful in its adequacy. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

True to a certain extent, but wikipedia is slower when the US is asleep. From another PST editor, goodnight (well I had a weird day so "night" is relative) and I assume not much will be different when I wake up per the sloth pace of this article. One of my favorite editors made a quote about persistence once. I never realized how true it was until recently. I wish editors would be more bold in their changes so it wasn't such a concern. I've been off and on this page for the last 19 hours and not much has changed. I've noticed the best changes were not discussed on the talk page but were neutral enough to not raise too much of a concern.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's follow Wiki policies

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth based on reliable sources. And there are prominent media saying "...Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world" (my emphasis), for example: CNN, The San Fransisco Chronicle Reuters and Haaretz. Let's not do original research to determine our own relative density figures. Let's use reliable sources, let's follow Wiki policy.RomaC (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets get the article fixed. Wiki policies are relative to what fits the need at the time for some people. If Neb or another editor makes a monumental edit sometime soon we can use that as a base to nit pick at but as it stands we are arguing over small stuff when it comes to how to word density data.Cptnono (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree we should move on, and I hope some editors will stop wasting all our time and accept reliable sources clearly supporting the density qualification we have now: the World Health Organization and Human Rights Watch, the prominent media cited above, and these below, which took me 15 minutes to find:

• "Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world" Radio Netherlands
• "Gaza Strip ... a territory that has become one of the most densely populated in the world" Al Jazeera
• "Gaza is one of the world’s most densely populated areas" Bloomberg
• "Gaza, which is home to 1.5 million people packed into one of the world's most densely populated areas Thompson Reuters
• "The fact that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world" The Australian
• "the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world" Beaufort Gazette

Is that sufficient, because frankly I see the dogged opposition as something of a push for a false compromise. Let's be pro-Wikipedia, please. RomaC (talk) 14:44, 7 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)

Brewcrewer has politely informed me that my comments above may have been a "type of ad hominem semi attack". So I'd like to apologize to any "pro-Palestinian" editors who thought that my "probably true" comment implied they held a double-standard. That wasn't my intent. Sorry. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

wow, you kind of switched that around. impressive. anyway, i'd like to accept your apology on behalf of pro-palestinian editor Tundrabuggy who's unavailable due to important bugging tundra commitments. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this was a fantastic comment: Meanwhile the pro-Wikipedia editors get no love. RomaC It brought a huge smile to my face! For the the sake of complete transparency, my primary concern with any article is complete neutrality in the wording and structure. I personally lean towards being pro-Israel so I appreciate anyone who edits any of my additions since my objectivity can (and probably has) come through.Cptnono (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:HONESTY - I love you Cptnono, we need more of that. My interest in these articles, as stated in the collaboration wikiproject, is around systemic bias. I am also interested in establishing the principle in practice that non-neutral editors can develop neutral articles in the I-P conflict. I want to be able to bring one of these articles to GA. It would be a triumph for the project, but it requieres a lot of work. And people willing to push for that. --Cerejota (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an official announcement from the UN concerning Hamas confiscating UNRWA's shipments. Of course, they never used the word Hamas, which is quite funny, but anyhow, here: http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/releases/pr-2009/jer_6feb09.html -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 23:24, 6 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)

"Reactions" is for that. Effects is for the immediate area of operations: southern Israel and Gaza Strip. BTW, did you just quid pro quo this? The ArbCom said some choice things on quid pro quo in the whole Allegations of apartheid debacle.--Cerejota (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Schools in Effects section

I linked this story on the Effects article talk but maybe it should be here too.[25] 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)

No worries. I hadn't even noticed that. I just saw your summary at one point. But I notice that we still have the old source which says 20 mosques. I was about to update the effects article to say 24 but it uses the same 20 source. Do you have a source for the 24 number? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:03, 5 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)

I support Dovid's original suggestion; alternatively we could just lump the less significant Palestinian militant groups together as "other Palestinian militant groups" or something to that effect. "Gaza" doesn't work because it wasn't an official Gaza army that was fighting. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was the armed group associated with the government of Gaza. If we need to be that accurate then the current wording should stand. Nableezy (talk) 20:56, 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 atop the front door. RomaC (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.

There are some facts that consistently censored from background section describing period after Hamas took control and before this conflict intensified by some "NPOV" editors. The fact of Gaza - Egypt land border existence is undeniable and important to blockade discussion. Rafah crossing was closed under Hamas rule after European Union border crossing monitors fled and after Hamas breach trial PA and Arab foreign ministers objected control of the border by Hamas. It reflects dynamics of blockade development. Quotes for inclusion:

• Subsequently Palestinian sources reported that European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing for fear of being kidnapped or harmed.

• Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.

Let's not deal with which side does or does not look good, it's irrelevant. Let's discuss facts and inclusion of those quotes. I'm open for NPOV wording suggestions in clear English. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as I said before I'm with you on this one. I'm not particularly good with words though because everything looks like numbers to me... As for the border control how about if we say something like

Arab foreign ministers, Palestinian officials, the EU and Israel are all opposed to the control of the Rafah crossing by Hamas....or something like that.

I've changed my mind on the monitors. How about if we say something like

Monitors from the European Union Assistance Mission left the area when the internal Palestinian fighting commenced and have not returned. ......based on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7205131.stm and your source.

Other's may be able to fit it all together nicely. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Israel maintain a de facto control over the Rafah crossing, and the Egyptians have to provide information on crossings for Israeli approval? I dunno. On the blockade question, one of the things I objected to in the last edit was it said that Egypt was blockading Gaza. That is inaccurate because the Gaza coastline, which should allow access to international waters, has been blockaded by Israel and the Gaza airport was destroyed by Israel. Anyway I expect other editors will chime in on whether they think info on the Euros who were at the Egypt border is relevant to the event and should be in the article, I don't think it is particularly important. RomaC (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding too. Israel has overall control at the crossing...in theory. In practice I'm not sure anymore and I haven't got time to find a good RS. Also, yes, let's be clear, Egypt isn't blockading Gaza strictly speaking...not that it makes any difference in practice. Having said that I did see a report that Egypt (not Israel) refused to allow humanitarian aid from the Iranian Red Crescent in....not sure how reliable it was. I think the monitors are only important in the sense that they were an essential component of the agreement as to how the crossing would be operated so I thought...if we're going to talk about the crossing they should get a mention. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Close, an Iranian ship with Red Crescent supplies attempted to reach Gaza, was turned away by the Israeli navy and is in international waters outside of Egypt's waters attempting to seek permission to dock in Egypt. Permission has not yet been granted. But Egypt did not prevent the ship from reaching Gaza, Israel did. Nableezy (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this one. http://www5.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=339890&IdLanguage=3 Sean.hoyland - talk 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Same one, by 'not cooperating' that means Egypt did not allow the Iranian ship to dock in Egypt. I first saw this here. Nableezy (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another boat is stuck in Limasol. Cyprus said on Wednesday that it is waiting for UN guidance on what to do. See here AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's makes more sense now. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you're approximately in the area. Go to Rafah, hire a small motorbike, buy a pizza, go to the border and tell whoever is there that you need to deliver it to someone in Khan Yunis and that a late delivery penalty will come out of your salary. Be prepared to provide a few slices to the border guards. Let us know what happens. Or better still let the BBC know what happens and then we can add it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sold my bike, but still have an old Arai helmet & gloves. Peek me up at Taba Border Crossing :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very wise because..."In 2006, 35,903 people were injured, and 414 killed in traffic accidents in Israel, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. Of the fatalities, seven percent were motorcycle riders, despite the fact that motorbikes comprise only 1.6 percent of the vehicles on the road, according to data from Israel's Ministry of Transportation."..from here...which does make me wonder whether the IDF should sell a couple of F16s and spend the money on road safety instead. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually get all of my info from CAMERA obviously, so this might be a good place to start. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=1549 Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I hear you all and performed following edit. I agree that Israel has a lot of influence on Gaza strip and its population still With Israel controlling land, air and sea access at least on land part does not reflect reality. In addition we could also reflect Israeli High Court role in balancing Israeli government blockade policy in question of Israel population security and defending Gaza strip population against collective punishment. At lot of sources about Israeli High Court and Gaza, this for instance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Land access is correct, they control almost all land entry points. Much of the rest of the edit is not germane to this conflict, like what does Alan Johnson have to do with this conflict, did Israel say they are fighting Hamas to make Gaza safe for journalists? I dont think this edit is good, and I would suggest reverting it until you can find some consensus for it. Nableezy (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And it just is not right, the border wasnt closed because EU monitors havent returned, the border was closed because Egypt closed it. I dont see the edit adding anything usefull and it just makes the paragraph look more complicated than it needs to be. Nableezy (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, we reached an agreement by discussion in the past. You know I respect your opinion and fix my mistakes. I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I think we both agree that Egypt-Gaza strip international land border formerly called Philadelphi Route is not under Israeli control since August 2005. EU border monitors were part of relatively Israel-free Rafah crossing operation. This arrangement worked pretty good in the past. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody agreed to that edit. I dont even know why you want to change what is there. What problems do you have with what is currently in that paragraph? Nableezy (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, with all respect, you entered this discussion in the middle and sounds like you out of date. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what you think is wrong with the current wording and what your proposed edit would add that is useful and relevant? Nableezy (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nableezy. I agree that Israel has major influence on Gaza strip and its population still With Israel controlling land, air and sea access at least on land part does not reflect reality. In addition we could also reflect Israeli High Court role in balancing Israeli government blockade policy in question of Israel population security and defending Gaza strip population against collective punishment. For instance uninterrupted humanitarian aid, electricity and limiting embargo on fuel supply by Israel to Gaza strip. A lot of sources about Israeli High Court and Gaza, this for instance. You're welcome with your opinion and wording suggestions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I think the wording may be confusing you. It doesnt say that Israel controls the land, it says Israel controls access over land, like access through air or sea. Egypt controls one access point over land, Israel controls many more. So that part is correct. And there was not uninterrupted aid, electricity or fuel, hospitals had run out of fuel to power generators after power had been cut for over 72 hours at one point. If you have sources for Israeli Supreme Court rulings and whether or not they have been implemented by the government bring them here. I havent seen any, but then again I havent been looking. But the stuff you were adding with that edit was argument about why Egypt should close the crossing, and not entirely accurate arguments, whereas the original just puts forward a statement that is supported by sources and is a simple statement of fact, that Egypt closed the crossing. The edit you made didnt even touch on the arguments you are now making, but as to the arguments you are now making, this line:
With Israel controlling land, air and sea access and much of Gaza's economy, power, and water, only enough goods to avert a humanitarian or health crisis were allowed to enter the territory, while all exports were prohibited.
is correct and it indeed says that Israel was allowing humanitarian supplies through. Nableezy (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy,I noticed you removed discussed background section changes. I agree that it needs more work and voiced my opinion and arguments repeatedly. With all respect you try to censor undeniable facts about background of this conflict and remove cited NPOV quotes without clear argument. I'd appreciate if you publish links to your changes in this discussion. IMO you work against consensus. I heard all the editors patiently and did not rush those changes. I'd be glad to argue about facts, but really do not appreciate edit waring or personal attacks. I understand there are about 8 hours of time difference between us. You are welcome to voice your opinion about points of confusion. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents: IDF to doctor: Mistakes happen

Performed following edit according to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3666897,00.html See edit diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=268654304&oldid=268654166 AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is from Israeli foreign affairs.[26] They say the soldiers believed there were spotters (they were taking mortar and sniper fire) in the doctors house and so it was targeted directly. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that also, casts serious doubt on the reliable sources that had reported Qassam shrapnel in the three sisters' bodies. RomaC (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was also suspicus about that. After the questioning of WHO and HRW abow maby this source should get a closer look if it is RS. You got the link to the article? Brunte (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the following line yesterday as the news broke: "An IDF report claimed a tank had fired two shells at suspected militants in the upper level of the doctor's home.[249]" There seems to be a little bit of redundancy with the recent addition but it should be easy to fix. I am still for axing this section completely but if it is in it should at least be up to date.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you use 'claimed"? Its a report, isnt it? Brunte (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this. You use words not in the sorce! Is this an attempt to povedit and falsly claim militants was in the house? Dont falsify the article! Brunte (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be better if editors assumed good faith and did not yell with bold text and exclamation marks. If for example you see "claimed" simply change it to "said" and then post here about what you did. RomaC (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Militants, what militants?. 'Suspected' in the upper level of the doctor's home is bad enough argumentation to destroy a house with civilians. Cptnono:s editing itself is bad as a few lines below IDF is alreadw reportedly admiting the shelling and blameing someting else. I react on POVediting. Brunte (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop overreacting. Israel said there were spotters there. If you want me to use that exact wording fine.Cptnono (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel claimed. Any dead "spotters" reported? Let me guess. Who usually use their house upper levels? Brunte (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your tone, POV, and overreacting over a few different topics on this page are frustrating. Please feel feel to edit anything I put in but any conversation between us will be counterproductive. Feel feel to get the last word in but after that I consider any discussion over and no longer wish to engage in anything further with you.Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's try not to be personal here. Let's discuss facts. It's clear that IDF performed investigation and admitted its mistakes. No army in the world would take incoming fire and not respond to threat just letting its soldiers to die. Saying that the IDF response was clearly problematic. One mother of wounded Israeli soldier treated in the same hospital got hysteric witnessing the doctor press conference in Tel HaShomer (Sheba) hospital. She demanded that the hospital would not give "Anti-Israeli platform" to the doctor during war time. Next day both of them met again, she apologized and expressed regret about doctor's unthinkable loss, and they had much more relaxed conversation. She mentioned that 4 IDF soldiers were killed by friendly fire and said that during war mistakes unfortunately happen. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit this is very touching - and am a born cynic. A father and a mother joined only in their respective unthinkable pain, being able to converse as civilized people. That should be an example for all of us. War is hell, man.--Cerejota (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I still hate this Incident section and only wanted it updated so it would have the correct info. We can get rid of it all together or should move it to a more appropriate section as far as I'm concerned.Cptnono (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This incident got enormous traction in Israeli public discussion. People were hearing and seeing doctors reports in media. Once tank was moved away from doctors house according to his request routed via reporters to IDF. He was requested to evacuate his family from active war zone number of times. I have no problem on its inclusion as long as its description reflects reality. Do you see what I mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the info being in the article somewhere. I have been requesting the whole section be removed but the content should stay somewhere if it is notable. I was able to integrate 3 of the incidents into other sections of the article where they were already mentioned and belonged but I don't know the best place for the remaining bullet points. The "Incident" title seems off, it is kind of a list, and it doesn't fit into the article well. I originally was against the Dr. incident being included a week ago but other editors expressed that they considered it notable.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

English is not my native tongue, but I got an impression that definition of Incident is disputed and investigated. Is not it so? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an occurrence, happening, event etc. The literal definition places it as being dependent something else of greater importance. The concern is that it has turned into "Bad Things By Israel". We can't list every event and we certainly haven't attempted to list negative stuff Hamas has done in the section. A previous discussion was archived where it went into greater detail.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents sections looks to me like allegation against Israel and it's important that we reflect Israel and international community, like UN for instance, position on it. Let the reader decide. Maybe we should find better NPOV name for this section if you say its ambiguous. I'm open for suggestions. The reality is that you just need to click Hamas wiki link to know its military strategy. It's not big secret and also all over this article. Still sometimes I also feel that there is false symmetry between Hamas and Israel regarding international law and military strategy in this article. We definitely need to improve it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You worded it pretty well there and I see what you are getting at. Overall, the few incidents remaining should be able to fit somewhere else still. I am pretty sure that there is consensus that the content is notable enough (maybe not I'm not sure) but changing the title of the section doesn't fix the integration into the article concern I think I am more concerned with the format than content for these few bits of info at this point.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of casualties questioned by Italian media

For those of you who read Italian, you are probably very aware of the war correspondent Lorenzo Cremonesi who wrote in Corriere della serra that the number of casualties just don't add up as well as there being a disproportionate number of young men among the casualties. By checking into the every single medical clinic in Gaza he realized that hamas were inflating the numbers and using the young men as medial cannon fodder. Since I'm sure there are a bunch of people who do this better than I do, I'll just post those facts and some links here and someone else can edit the article accordingly. Jerusalem Post translated parts of the original article and I think the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail had a similar approach in their articles regarding the number of casualties. Here are some links: Original article, published the 21:st of January: http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_gennaio_21/denuncia_hamas_cremonesi_ac41c6f4-e802-11dd-833f-00144f02aabc.shtml Translation in English at LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=457_1232627391

--85.229.35.200 (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Palestinian fightback" section?

"fightback" isn't a word in the English language. RomaC (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it is but it's slang meaning gives that heading a pretty offensive meaning, un-intended I assume. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to that. Not ideal I know, I would have preferred 'response', but that was rejected it seemed on this page. 'Fightback' is prefereable (IMO) to 'militant activity' which is a phrase designed to discredit any resistance to Israel. I would welcome it if a beter word can be found. 'Defence'? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm an Oxford and Webster type myself, and I don't see "fightback" in either of those dictionaries. I would think "response" after the previous section, titled "offensive". That would make sense. RomaC (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Response" is inappropriate since it includes a judgment on the nature of the activity that is not supported in the text, nor is it true, since the rocket attacks, for example, were merely an intensification of previous attacks. There is nothing wrong with the status-quo "Palestinian militant/military activity". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that I completely disagree with Jalapenos view on this. And it looks like everyone else does as well. Jalapenos is clearly approaching everything with a 'try to discredit the Palestinians' approach which I don't think is appropriate. That's not a personal attack, it's a disagreement with the way (s)he is approaching things.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How about just calling them both 'Israeli/Palestinian military activity'. Nableezy (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why not? There is need for a overhaul and focus on military activity. Not povfluff. Brunte (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy's suggestion sounds good to me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Campaign

Is the name of the section. Jalapenos argument cant be valid then. Its like going further back and rename Israeli offensive 'Israeli refusal to lift the blockade'. 'Palestinian fightback' is quite correct but can be reworded in that spirit. Jalapenos suggestion sounds more negative than 'Israels offensive' and thereby dont follow NPOV when there is better alternatives.Brunte (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

When looking at the palestinian section there is something strange.When israeli section start with "Israel launched its military campaign, Operation Cast Lead, at 11:30 a.m., December 27..." the palestinian section is starting with a background with event before dec 27 11:30. The 'lead' in the palestinian section contain lot of what sounds like the justification for israels attack. My my, have I found a large chunk of POV-editing? Brunte (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Process for getting a consensus about a new title

Step 1: Does anyone support the current title?

(Just comment if you do support it.)

Support (this is obviously a war, but not only a war). --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I vote to keep the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict title as nobody declared war on either side and another reason being is that this is part of something bigger. Knowledgekid87 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I also vote to retain the existing title, as I believe 'conflict' is the most approporiate word to describe the situation. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 2: Does anyone think we need dates in the title?

(Just comment if you DO support)

Support (as it evidently deals with the subject in a determinate period of time, not in general). --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 3: Who supports calling this a war?

Support. As argued in previous discussion. That's what it is. Similar to 2006 Lebanon War (NB. At least, I support this over the current title. There are other titles I think would be more appropriate, but I know we could never get consensus).Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support (based on the google search argument)Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: Because of more google results for "Gaza war". --Wayiran (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support per Brewcrewer (and the dozens of times I have called for this pretty much since ground operations began, when the RS started to show a preference for "war" over "airstrikes"). That said, we should not move this article without a WP:Requested Moves process, so we can get uninvolved admin attention and keep things kosher/halal.--Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 4: Does anyone have any suggestions that do not include the words 'war' or 'conflict'?

*Yet another day the israelis forgot to draw knowledge from their modern jewish history. Brunte (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Gaza Massacre Brunte (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Brunte: Stop posturing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

word, this isnt helping anything. Nableezy (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a valid name, the national public broadcaster in Australia (I am using this example because it is a credible and notable source in a disinterested country) calls it The Gaza massacre [27]. I have no problem calling a spade a spade. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no way somebody can try to say that 'The Gaza Massacre' is the common English name for this conflict. Anybody who does say such a thing should not be allowed to operate a computer much less contribute to an encyclopedia. Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it was the common English name. Many feel it is an accurate name nevertheless. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That does not make it a valid suggestion for the name of the article, read WP:NAME. Nableezy (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know there wont be concensus for that title, but that is what I think the history will call it. Nableezy interesting comment is... interesting. And for the cut out part, everything would be so much better if they did. Sorry for the 'posturing' then but tell me: How do one tell ppl that glowworms wont light up a fire without get killed? Brunte (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying whether or not I think this is a massacre because my personal feelings are irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is what is the common name in English that meets the rest of the content policies. Gaza Massacre clearly is not it. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Assault on Gaza because it is neutral while being more accurate. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• 'Operation Cast Lead'?--84.190.25.248 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I am aware, the common name is either 'Israeli offensive in Gaza' or 'Israeli assault on Gaza' but apparently these are not neutral(though neutral media use them. In fact the Telegraph a notoriously pro-Israel paper calls it Gaza assault: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4031143/Analysis-Israels-assault-on-Gaza-continues-but-the-goal-is-not-to-overthrow-Hamas.html.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian actions, former "Palestinian fightback" section

This is a big mess, very povish written. We need to take a close look at it.

Subsection 'Engagement with Israeli forces' and/or 'Rocket attacks into Israel' is a natural start followed with 'Preparation'. All adjusted to this new layout.

The sections 'lead' looks like a long justification for the israeli attack. Cut it away as POV or find a rationale for having a section with justifications.

I suggest POV-tag on the section until its fixed. Brunte (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brunte, can you put your suggested revisions here first please. You are not a native English speaker and your edits require other editors going in to fix syntax, grammar and spelling. Thanks RomaC (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my English is bad. I moved around some of the text in section without change much of the actual text. I will follow your suggestion when i get time but as it is much work I wait untill thing settles little and we can work together better. Brunte (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rename to 'Palestinian response'

Support because it is an accurate term and it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive'.
NB. Some people say 'its not a response, Hamas has been firing rockets for years'. While Hamas has indeed, that doesn't change the fact that Palestinian actions were a response to the Israeli actions. You can't seriously suggest that during this war/conflict Hamas fighters merely continued with whatever they had been doing during the previous months, and that they took no notice of the Israeli incursion.
An analogy: take an offenseve by allied forces during WW2. If the Nazis fought back to this, this would be their response. This would be despite the fact that they had been attacking allied forces for several years and that they began the aggression- that would not change the fact that it was a response.
It is the same here. This is an individual battle. The Israelis started this individual battle. The Palestinians responded to the Israelis. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support The "offensive" that began Dec 27 was unprecedented in scale and effect, and this article covers that event. I think "resistance" would be POV, but "response" is accurate. RomaC (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Palestinians fired some 60-70 rockets a few days before the offensive. Was it a pre-emptive response? Or is every rocket fired after the offensive considered a response? What's the difference between rockets fired before and after? Before it was just because they like killing civilians, and after it had another reason? No, claiming the rocket fire is in any way a response to the "unprecedented" attack is unjustified, and ignores years of rocket fire. Claiming "The Israelis started this individual battle" shows your POV here. I can, just as legitimately, claim that the Palestinians started this battle, by firing dozens of rockets after the end of the cease-fire. okedem (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I made sub-subsection '# 2.3 Rocket attacks into Israel' to an own subsection outside '2.2 Palestinian defence of Gaza' (Palestinian response, militants activity etz) That would solv the problem I guess. Brunte (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A better idea is to merge all of it into Israeli offensive, palestinian actiom to defend themself against the israels actions, section for section. Call the section 'Israeli offensive and palestinian defence' or similar. Brunte (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If we can agre on that we then can do the merging which is little more worksome than renaming sections and moving already availible text Brunte (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Okedem.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment can somebody tell me what is wrong with naming both sections 'Israeli/Palestinian military activity'? Nableezy (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to that. okedem (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Okedem's argument is not convincing, but if we use "Israeli Offensive" we should say "Palestinian Counter-offensive". "Counter-offensive" doesn't imply ignoring previous actions, but provides a correct chronology from the perspective of military history. For example, everyone knows that Japan attacked the USA first in WWII, but we still call further attacks in a given theater by the USA as "offensives" and the Japanese response as "counter-offensives", without this implying that the USA was responsible for the conflict. "Palestinian militant action" is a bit to OR, but I do not oppose it, I simply feel there are better alternatives.--Cerejota (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's still a rather subjective determination of chronology here. Seeing how the Palestinians fired some 60-70 rockets in a single day before Israel's main offensive, that could be seen as the initial event, and Israel's actions as the counter-offensive. Even if the words "counter-offensive" don't imply judgment, the chronology they're based on does. (By the public discourse in Israel, that major rocket attack after the cease-fire ended was what really created the support for the offensive. Without it, most Israelis would have been content to extend the status-quo - but that's just my impression). okedem (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

What does this sentence in the introduction mean: "The Israeli military claims that 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed". Perhaps the editor meant to write 1,100-1,200? Kinetochore (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Nableezy (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue with the Article

I am new to wikipedia (as an editor), but I have been following this article closely, and have noticed much of it is written in a manner not fitting of an encyclopedia. For example:

- In the Gaza humanitarian crisis: "Fear and panic are widespread" -- Have reliable sources documented this as fact? How can it be an encyclopaedic fact that fear is widespread. Why is this relevant to a Gaza humanitarian crisis? How would it be verified?

The source uses that exact wording. If it is not a reliable source or if it is given to much weight it should be adjusted.outCptnono (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read the report, the exact wording is "People are living in a state of fear and panic". This is less of an encyclopaedic fact and more of a statement (by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). Also, it is made in reference to the number of casualties, not the humanitarian crisis. Frankly, there are much more relevant facts about access to resources, etc, that should be included over such broad and ambiguous statements, IMO.Kinetochore (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinetochore, the statement is compiled from those two reports. UN Jan. 2 report:

There is a sense of panic, fear, and distress throughout the Gaza strip.

and UN Jan. 1 report:

People are living in a state of fear and panic.

This relates to the humanitarian crisis section cause those are extracted from the UN OCHA reports, where OCHA = Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. As understood from the reports, all those horrible elements reported by the reports sums the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is a crisis as described by several WP:RSs. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

- In International Law: Israelis : “The use of white phosphorus against civilians or in civilian areas is banned under international law, but it is legal to use the substance in other conditions such as to illuminate areas during night or as a smoke screen. Meanwhile, the weapon has a potential to cause particularly horrific and potential injuries or slow painful death” -- This second sentence is written not in an encyclopedic manner, but instead attempts to force the reader to envision horrific pain and suffering. The pain an individual suffers when they die is not relevant to claims that Israel used a particular weapon inappropriately. Kinetochore (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed "...horrific..." line and replaced it with what is already used in the white phosphorus article. I have not seen a source that states Israel has used it as an anti-personnel weapon and think this should also be noted unless I am incorrect.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: It is actually stated pretty clearly but please edit if the new wording makes it sound as if it was used incorrectly.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why dont we just remove this paragraph entirely: "Meanwhile, the weapon burns quite fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. It also can function as an anti-personnel weapon with the compound capable of causing serious burns or death. Medical personnel must be specifically trained to treat such injuries and may themselves be exposed to phosphorus burns. White phosphorus spread burning phosphorus, which burns at over 800 degrees celsius (1,500 degrees fahrenheit), over a wide area up to several hundred square metres.[368]". Interesting though it may be, the article is plenty long without including the life story, history, etc of random weapons. No other weapons are described in this manner in the article. Kinetochore (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? Because pro-Palestinian editors would not let that fly. Realistically, I don't think think there is a source supporting Israel's use of the munition in an anti-personnel weapon. It is a concern under international law due to its "horrific" effects so it should be mentioned just not with too much weight. Rework the line while keeping in the relevant information and see what happens.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No Cptnono, it's not about being pro-X or pro-Y. UN 15 Jan. report says:

At approximately 1000 hours, Israeli shells struck the main UNRWA compound...Approximately 700 Palestinians were taking refuge in the compound at the time

After the war, the UN analyzed the explosives and said:

The type of UXO removed confirms that the compound was shelled by 155mm White Phosphorous artillery.

This is not about fanhood, it's about facts. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What it should be and what it is are not the same.Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the report. I'm curious to see if they really meant that the compound was shelled with white phosphorous in an attempt to kill people there or if during the shelling some of the ordinance which was intended as a smokescreen inadvertently fell onto the compound. It reads as the first but the report was preliminary and did not go into much detail. I would hate to say Israel used it as a weapon (which they deny) just because one coordinator typing up his initial findings did not go into enough detail. I would like to see follow-up documents before giving it too much weight in the article if its use is to confirm the munitions were used for anti-personnel purposes.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

follow-up: "the Israeli media reported that the IDF acknowledged it had used two different types of ammunition containing phosphorous during its operations in Gaza. According to media reports, the IDF is investigating the misuse of one of these types in Beit Lahiya." Basically, the UN OFTCHA is reporting on news reports. http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/23a6bb80e4fa654f8525754600533635!OpenDocument Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're now attacking the OCHA reports!!!? Please understand and have knowledge about what you're talking about before saying such empty statements. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am. Don't get snippy. The investigation is not complete and the department has not shown that they have sent out fact finding personnel yet. At this time, they aren't done looking into it and have said so. As for the Amnesty International quote, there are just as many sources not stating it even close to those terms. We can throw sources at each other all day but as it stands from the dozen I looked at:

• Israel has used it but claims it is being used properly
• Most news sources (not aid agencies) say that they are following the law but that its use in such a densely populated area is a concern. This may border on breaking international law.
• Civilians have been affected and it burns them.

I don't see what the problem is. A few lines can be added but that should finish it.Cptnono (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why the devastating effect said by the ICRC that White phosphorous cause "horrific and potential injuries or slow painful death" should return. Cause there have been reports that civilians have been affected, and non-refutable reports that White Phosphorus has hit civilian areas. (Amnesty International sent a fact finding team consisting of weapons experts. And the UN when said it was hit by white phosphorus shells, it said it on its behalf, not on behalf of news agencies as you state). I'll return the ICRC statement back. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

follow-upx2: The International Committee of the Red Cross released a statement backing IDF claims that it was not used as an anti-personnel weapon. Until there is hard evidence either way, we should be careful with how we word it. A line regarding international aid organizations having concerns with its use in highly-populated areas should be mentioned since it has received plenty of press and is a notable concern.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What about this, from the report you linked in follow-up1:

Several hospital and clinics in Gaza reported the treatment of patients with severe flesh burning, breathing difficulties and throat spasms, which may have been caused by white phosphorous.

And from Amnesty:

Israel use of White Phosphorus against Gaza civilians is clear and undeniable.

The effects of WP on civilians should not be marginalized. You're talking about intentions, I'm talking about using the weapon against civilians as reported by several organizations. Wikipedia is not about intentions and the IDF statemetns are already given the White phosphorus paragraph. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am not being clear. I have no problem with another line regarding the density concern (in fact I just agreed with another editor about this a few hours ago) and a line of detail going in about the effects of going in. The term "horrific" is potentially leading according to two other editors plus myself. Go ahead and add a line or two just don't make the wording overly dramatic. Don't blow it out of proportion and read too much into only certain sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the term "horrific" isn't mine, it's the ICRC one. Don't blame me, complain to the International Red Cross if you see that their understandings of white phosphorous effects on civilians are wrong. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is used in heavely populated areas. Whitwashing it will look bad if not missleading. Please do not POV-edit. Brunte (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Another instance in the humanitarian crisis section of writing not fit for an encyclopedia: "Several hundred greenhouses were levelled, and olive groves, citrus orchards and sheep pastures razed. A third of Gaza's farmable land has been devastated" -- Words such as "razed", "levelled" and "devastated" are excessive, vague, and angry words, and so are unfit for an encyclopaedic article. Kinetochore (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

look for atribution, and if not in article put it in. Then it become encyclopedic Brunte (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Kinetochore. Parts of the articles, such as those outlined above, are propoganda that is embarrassing to this project that calls itself an neutral encyclopedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda for who? But I agree that lot of text can be summarized, without push any POV. About propaganda, what is not sourced from RS? Find it tag it ref. Brunte (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll speak about the first two points, cause those were my edits. Excuse me User:Brewcrewer, watch your language and allegations before saying such ridiculous statements. The statement about White Phosphorus effects on civilians was directly extracted from the International Red Cross website. The psychological state was extracted from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports. Those are one of the highest quality reports and can never be described as propaganda. I'm not a propagandist, and throughout my editings here, I've chosen one of the most reputable reports like ones from Amnesty International, UN OCHA, International Red Cross, UNFPA, World Health Organization, Oxfam, CARE and others around the internet. You've attacked the wrong Wikipedian. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys are right. I'm being way too whiny. I refactored the additional "comment". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Peace, it happens. Wish you the best. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

UN: A farmer was killed on the morning of 18 Jan following the ceasefire

I've read the above farmer discussions, but it seems odd, given statements below from the official UN reports. UN 17-18 Jan. report says:

Following a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet on 17 January, Prime Minister Olmert announced a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, which came into effect at 0200 hours local time 18 January

And in the UN 19 Jan. report:

One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire.

I've added this info on the violations section, but it was removed by User:AgadaUrbanit using the edit summary:"Resoring timeline and removing duplicate January 18". This has to be in the first statement of the violations section since it is the first reported violation. The paragraph is really misleading the readers by stating a pile of Gazans violations on the 20th Jan. before reporting the Jan. 18th incident. The current order does not reflect the reality occurrence order and is a POV pushing case. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, it's nice to meet you. Please join discussion [here] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No Agada, they are different topics. The link you provided is about IDF admission of committing the incident and is not related to the occurrence of the incident, which is reported by an extra reliable source (UN). --Darwish07 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, I do not argue existence of the incident. I suggest use NPOV wording, include all refs gathered and let the reader decide. Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you completely removed this statement: "One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January following the Israeli declared cease-fire", which is directly extracted from the cited UN report. Up until now, you didn't provide a reason for such removal and just pointed me to a different discussion. Again, why was the statement completely removed? --Darwish07 (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, behave, not that it matters but Darwish was around here before you, and in general is a cool guy. Sort of your opposite - ideologically, you cool too. However, I thought we had agreed that well soured material was to be included?--Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Merci, Cerejota. Yes, it's really frustrating to see well sourced information silently vanish behind mysterious edits. I'm assuming good faith till now anyway, but still Agada hasn't replied to any of my several queries of why he deleted such statement. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07 and Cerejota, maybe you did not notice. I added NPOV source quote Gaza medics said IDF troop shot eight-year-old girl in the northern town of Beit Hanun and a 20-year-old man near Khan Yunis with both refs. I think Darwish07 ref will be a nice addition, have no problem with its inclusion. Does not it reflect this incident? Do you prefer different wording? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about severely different things. I'm talking about deliberate removal of very well cited information. Read my original complaint and my reply below again. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07 , could you please provide link to my change? It will help discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've provided the link to your damaging edit in the first paragraph. I'll say it again, your edit silently removed a crucial UN cited statement; namely: "One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire". And you've provided zero explanations till now for such a damaging edit. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07 , thank you for providing change link. I'm sorry I've removed UN 17-18 Jan. report. Do you have relevant to January 18 morning incident quote from it? This is first time I see UN 19 Jan. report ref. though. Could not have damaged it. Fully agree on this ref inclusion in relevant section with NPOV wording. Do you agree? Would you like to change wording? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problems, it happens. Ref. 19 was there before your edit though. Your edit removed the statement with its source (report 19). UN statements are NPOV by themselves, they need no extra or less wordings. The statement is already clear I'll reinsert it in the same old position. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Before your statement removal, the statement was mis-cited with report 18 instead of report 19. Was that the reason you deleted the statement back then? If so, I provide my sincere apologies. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Thank you Darwish07, for your understanding. I know that we both want to better reflect reality with as much cross referenced information as possible. Please believe me information censoring is not my kick. We already agreed January 18 morning incident in this discussion belongs to Unilateral ceasefires, second paragraph. After all it's the place in this article where January 18 morning events are described. You are welcome to join discussion and offer opinion, wording and references. Thank you again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the discussion, but I found no consensus that 18 Jan events has to be in the unilateral ceasefire section and never on the violations section. Why such weird thought anyway? The UN reports says it clear and with no room for debate or doubt that the incident happened "following the Israeli declared ceasefire". Any killings after the ceasefire is a violation, as any rocket from gaza is. It belongs to violations. the statements I cited above can not be any more clear. There's no reason whatsoever to move the incident from the violations section. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, I understand your concerns. Still I believe it would be more effective discussion if we moved this discussion here. Editors did agree to quote this incidents in context of January 18 morning. To the point of your argument I fully agree that reported incident happen after Israeli unilateral cease fire announcement and when it was in effect. I also agree that current organization of this conflict aftermath is far from optimal and I'm open for suggestions about improving the format. Still currently events of January 18 morning described in Unilateral_ceasefires second paragraph. Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved to the discussion above, per your request. As I said above, It's utterly misleading to read a huge pile of January 20th Gazans violations of cease-fire in the very first sentence of the "ceasefire violations" section, when in fact there has been a UN confirmed violation from the IDF on the very first morning of the 18th of January. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)