Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.99.58.164 (talk) at 14:14, 4 January 2009 (→‎2008-2009 Gaza Offensive/Israeli Offensive in Gaza). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveoptions

Template:Pbneutral

Requested move (first)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Section has been created at Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)#Requested move for further discussion.--Cerejota (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, two hours to discuss a name change is insufficient. Note the text in the tag above: "If, after a few days,". So let's top reverting name changes and give time for a calm, NPOV discussion. Let people's emotions cool off. i actually think that December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing is probably not too bad, but i've put the tag in in order to stop a "renaming revert war".

Arguments i can see so far, mostly quoted from the "Title" section above: (adding signature to clarify who "i" means since the sections below may evolve - it was i who put in the {{moveoptions}} tag above Boud (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In favour of Operation Cast Lead

  • Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different?
    • Counterargument: A precedence of POV naming of articles is not a valid argument in favour of continuing the tradition.
  • Calling the article by its Israeli codename shouldn't be seen as expressing a positive opinion on its morality; Nazi operations are routinely referred to by their codenames, e.g. Operation Barbarossa or Operation Ajax when the USA/UK overthrew the elected prime minister of Iran.
Operation Ajax is a redirect, no one is question using Operation Cast Lead as a redirect and intro, we question its use as the article name. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even KNOW the official operation name until I read this discussion!!! It can certainly be mentioned as what the ISRAELI's call it. I'm sure the Palestinians will come up with a name for it as appropriate. But the current name makes the most sense for people searching for what is going on in GAZA NOW and down the road. No one will remember the Israeli name for it.DavidMIA (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphasizes that this was a military operation, rather than a civilian attack (like 2005 Amman bombings). [Note, the fact that it is a military operation can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing to different people; this fact doesn't take any side.]
    • Counterargument: SO where is the difference between a military act of genocide and a civilian act of Genocide??

I see no difference , it must called by the fact that people were literally blown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Used more often than any other name (like "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes"), which is a description, rather than a title for this specific incident.
  • If I (or anyone else) wanted to search wikipedia for this particular attack I would type: Operation Cast Lead, not December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. The operation is name Operation Cast Lead, why do we need to reinvent the lead.Yamanam (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other articles use Israeli Operation names, and indeed it would be very strange if one particular incident was re-named whilst others remained. The media may not use the Operation name as freely as Wikipedia, but likewise Wikipedia is not a news service. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation names are not unconventional per WP:MILMOS. The current lead reads "The December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes...is an Israeli air strike operation...", which sounds awkward. I don't think there's a neutrality problem here. Besides, the operation might also include ground forces. -- Nudve (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, in favor of the Operation name. The previous israeli operation has been name with their operation name, why this one should be different ?Kormin (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counterargument: Please refrain from repeating the same argument twice!

It has been refuted at the beginning of this section , Bullying or Forcing the argument will lead nowhere.

  • Further Comment Surely history will remember this is Operation Cast Iron as one part of the on-going Israeli conflict? If these attacks go on into January, our title will need changing, and what better title than its operational name? I sense there is some NPOV issues involved here, bordered by "recentism". doktorb wordsdeeds 13:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... all named under the english translation of their hebrew names... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the barbarossa one has nothing to do with the IDF... just an historic reference... we dont name that "the beginning of the invasion of the USSR by nazi germany" or something like that (Im still gumuhua) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument Against why shouldn't we call it like all the other military operations The question is why shouldn't we call it Operation whatever just like Operation Barbarosa....etc The Answer is blatantly simple , because this not a military operation that can be compared to barbarosa or the D-Day or whatever... In a Military Operation , An Army or a militant party lunches an offensive against another army or armed party.

But Here , We see nothing like it ! What we see , is a brutal and indescriminent murder against the people of Gaza. of course israel claims it targets hamas but these are only lies and propaganda , from the death toll and from the unreasonable amount of aggression and hate that this act was carried out , clearly displays the Zionist Intention to exterminate every single arab palestinian from the lands of palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I shouldn't respond to such a blatantly antisemitic troll, but I'd like to point out that if Israel really did want to "exterminate" every so called "Palestinian" in Gaza it could carpet bomb civilian population centers like the US did in Japan in WWII. The death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, not the hundreds. In fact, the Israeli military is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, which is very difficult considering that Hamas is taking advantage of Israeli morality by using the civilian population as a human shield (e.g., storing explosives in school and hospital basements, shooting rockets from densely packed neighborhoods). Let's not forget the civilian population democratically elected the Hamas into power, despite the Hamas being a terrorist organization with no rspect for human life that states the destruction of the state of Israel as goal in its official charter. Under similar circumstances, you can bet that other countries (e.g., the US, Russia, China) would have far fewer reservations about using military power to crush the Hamas. LirazSiri (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gumuhua is 100% right, cowmadness. His point is valid whether you believe the operation was indeed an operation or not. A precedent has already been established in regards to calling the sort of action undertaken by Israel the past few days an operation, at least in regards to titles of Wikipedia articles. The title should be changed to "operation cast lead" to coincide with the established precedent that already exists. Cowmadness, If you don't like the way Israel is behaving, I suggest you voice your personal political views elsewhere. This is a neutral source, not a place for personal opinion. - Eblashko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblashko (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cow: during the german invasion of the USSR up to 23 millions of soviets died... how should we call that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against 2008 Gaza Strip bombings

  • Ambiguous, because this was not the only bombing to occur in Gaza this year.
  • Thinking ahead, no one will look up this article under this name. If an event has a name given to it, why refer to it as the [] []ing of []? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.65.229 (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question, who called it 2008 Gaza Strip Bombings, or December 2008 Gaza Strip Airstikes. We, at wikipedia, collect the knowledge and list them under there given name, not creating names for certain events. Yamanam (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counterargument: If you are looking for ones who called this event the "Gaza Bombing 2008" or "Gaza Genocide 2008" you will find the whole independent media

calling it that way. Even CNN does called the Gaza Bombing for example, i think this argument has been refuted as well.Cowmadness (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a possibility that this could continue into January. A time-specific title might not be appropriate. However, I dislike trying to find encyclopedia articles about events like this according to a military name, because the military names of operations are less widely known by the general public. I myself Googled this page with the words wikipedia gaza december 2008, so you all seem to have found what works. It is very likely that December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is the best that Wikipedia can do until this event earns its own name. The same kind of development took place with the Mumbai attacks. With patience, the naming business should settle down here, as well. PinkWorld (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink[reply]
  • The article is about the military operation (and its background, planning and reactions), not about the bombings or the airstrikes (which are part of the operation). If it's decided to give a descriptive title, it should be "December 2008 IDF operation in Gaza". RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings

  • WP:NPOV
  • "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes/bombings" is the more factual title and as for all factual titles is the more npov because all sides would agree this is true : all sides agree it happened in December 2008, in the Gaza Strip and that there were airstrikes (or bombings)... On the other side, giving the name of the military operation as title is not appropriate because the pro-Palestinian side may see the "operation" as "terrorism" and the "military" point of view sounds a little bit as giving legitimity to the action... Ceedjee (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this title; it seems to represent only the action taken, which seems neutral to me. Maybe "Operation Cast Lead" can redirect to a page with this title?Kill. (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Against naming the article after the military operation] As long as the Palestinians are as involved in the event as the Israeli's (effected by it, which is very true), it's strictly biased to adopt any party's notion. Therefore, it's equally incorrect to call it the "2008-2009 Israeli Crime in Gaza" or the "Operation Iron Lead", for it expressing one party's view. Whatever title chosen should be either factual as said, or having a name that is approved by both involved parties (regardless of the inequality of those parties, as long as they are both involved equally in the event). If a common name has not been found, then someone will have to resort to a factual title, which is necessitated by the lack of such common name. Asking about what the other Israeli operations should be called then is both irrelevant to the discussion, and hardly making any point. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (old)

  • 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previoulsy fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response.
    • Non-argument because if the motivations for the attacks are irrelevant in the case of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, then surely they are irrelevant in the case of Operation Cast Lead too.
  • Further, opening a can of worms here, it sounds too much like 2002 Bali bombings or 2005 Amman bombings... those were not military campaigns;
    • Non-argument because it's not up to wikipedians to decide that bombings by non-state actors are fundamentally different from bombings by state actors.
      • You are inferring something that was never said. Anyway, we can, and will differentiate that. The text says this was carried out by the IDF. We use the military conflict infobox rather than the civilian attack infobox. We put this in a certain category. People are going to figure this out at some point; the fact that it is a military incident carries no bias either way. -- tariqabjotu 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're at December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing.

Are there any suggestions for a better name? Boud (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're intent on staying away from the operation name, why not December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. That's much more descriptive than the vaguer "bombings". (Edit: I don't mean to sound critical, and the summary you've written up is quite constructive. Thanks) Joshdboz (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is OK, although I stand by my opinion that referring to it as Cast Lead is NPOV. I can see two potential problems if the action extends past the new year (which is likely) or Israel mounts a ground offensive (possible). I agree 'bombings' is vague. topynate (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes... its even more descriptive while remaining neutral and a decent title. Plus if there is ever a ground component, we do a different article: This is not a paper encyclopedia Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not "Late December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing" ? And when they will launch a ground offensive, Late December Gaza Strip Bombing and gournd offensive" ? And what if it spread to West Bank ? Kormin (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed as it seems a minor refactoring, the main debate seems to be over the use of the IDF Operation name. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Cerejota, it hasn't even be an hour. Let's go back to Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever.

What is the logic behind Operation Cast Lead? Well, according to you, Cerejota: "It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral" [2] Operation Cast Lead is the official title designated by the Israeli military and recognized by the world. Therefore, it is the only valid title for the article. We might as well change Operation Enduring Freedom to something that we all as a biased and flawed people can agree on. I understand there is some intense resentment for Israel, but this is a moot argument. Operation Cast Lead is the title of the article, period. Anything other than that is simply false or ambigious. If we're going to lie, we can at least come up with something a little more creative than Gaza Strip Bombings. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Operation Cast Lead" already has numerous google results, on blogs, etc. "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" will only give the wikipedia page. Chesdovi (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, virtually every other war is titled according to its operation (Rainbow – Days of Penitence – Autumn Clouds –Hot Winter) on wikipedia. Why should this be any different? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Agree with the points by Chesdovi and Wikifan12345. This was manipulation at its finest. You didn't wait for feedback, and the above points are hand-picked to serve the position of those supporting the current title. WP:NPOV was just slapped under "In favour of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings" with no explanation whatsoever. You didn't wait for feedback or counterpoints, and you ignored a perfectly valid point above that the military campaign name does not indicate support for the action. With certain attacks (like the Amman bombings, Bali bombings, etc, etc), we use a descriptive title because there is no prominent name available. Here, we have one, even if it's not a household name. Let's not make this about drawing sympathy for Palestinians; this is standard nomenclature. -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems to be the only place where Operation Cast Lead features so prominently. You won't find this on CNN, BBC or other main news sources. If IDF classifies it as such, it is fine, but the whole world knows about this event as the Gaza Strip airstrikes, Gaza assault, Israeli Gaza operation. If the ground offencive evolves from it, than it needs to be changed again. But so far, the Cast Lead Op needs to kept in the text, not in the title, this article is about the whole event, including humanitarian and political aspects, not just an Israeli military operation. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Wikipedia isn't news. The title denotes the article, hence Operation Cast Lead is necessary. 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is going to be false eventually, because the operation's scope is larger than a simple airstrike. A single report of infantry fighting would completely eliminate airstrike term. Operation Castle Lead is the appropriate title, it is used for every other Israeli operation, this should be no different. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Israeli offensive that began on December 27 at 11:30. That offensive is called Operation Cast Lead. That is a plain fact; there is nothing POV about it. --Shamir1 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the article shouldn't be only about the Israeli offensive, because portraying just one side is not neutral. Please read WP:NPOV, POV forks are not allowed and titles must be neutral. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes calling it "Operation Cast Lead" does not show Hamas's position, it should be December 2008 Hamas rocket attacks and the Isreally military responce. (Hypnosadist) 05:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no problem with how it is phrased in the Main Page (ie Israel launched Operation Cast Lead) nor have it in the article even prominently. In fact, as of now the bulk of the article is about the operation. However, we are neither recentists, nor the media. We must follow neutrality. To the argument that almost all other articles are named for operations, this not true even for the war in Afghanistan. Usually, the events are described and an operation is given. Exceptions are usually as Operations as part of a larger inter-state conflict, such as WWII or the Korean War, but even there, we name the Battle of Chosin Reservoir after the battle, not the operation name. Even in the 2006 Lebanon War or 1982 Lebanon War we use a common name in the format similar to the proposed format. That said, neutrality is in a large extent a result of consensus, and all I am trying to do is prevent a future edit clusterfuck that benefits no one. Way I see it, we all take a chill pill, realize that neutrality is server, that Operation Cast Lead remains as a redirect (and hence a search term) and will remain in the intro. This way, we concentrate on editing the article to achieve GA. Its about not feeding trols and assuming good faith. What is so strange about that? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Stop dancing Cerejota. Respond to my claims and explain your logic again, or shall I simply just paste and copy what you said before? We get it, neutrality is an issue, but you're trying to paint Operation Cast Lead as a topic of neutrality. I, like many people here, are pulling a strong "wtf?!" inside our minds. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already responded to this claim, please re-read, but the gist is that an operation name is one-sided, and hence non-neutral, its simple, really. And please, WP:CHILL: that we disagree is no reason to get on top of each other. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification on the name: when trying to find reliable sources, concentrate on the "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes" part of the name. The December and 2008 are for wikipedia disambiguation purposes, not part of the "real" title. Currently, reliable sources are overwhelmingly calling this "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes". Regardless of the opinion of some, we are require to follow reliable sources, which in this case will be mostly news sources (unless books and academic papers are already out!) So what they call the thing, and how it verifies across sources, is central. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, so just so we are all clear, the dismissal of Operation Cast Lead is warranted because other news sites aren't using that title for reference? This is your logic, correct? In response, wikipedia is not news. The article is about Operation Cast Lead, not BBC, CNN, etc.. individual story reporting. Within days the article is going to evolve into something pretty big I expect, and "Gaza Strip Airstrike" is not even close to being the necessary title to maintain the scope of the article. Operation Cast Lead is the official title of the operation orchestrated by Israel. I cannot spell this out any clearer. Also, you fail to explain your neutrality issue. I can't seem to find anything remotely controversial about Operation Cast Lead other than your strange disapproval. Wikipedia hosts hundreds of articles with Operation [insert weird name here], so I would assume that has set a strong precedent. But according to you, it doesn't? To change a title there needs to be a reason, and you have yet to offer a worthwhile one.

And i will repeat - Airstrikes is a useless term. This war is beyond bombs being dropped from the skies. There have already been reports of infantry fightings, hence airstikes/bombings are false titles. Man I'm tired. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, need I remind you that you unilaterally changed the title without any discussion in the talk? This is't Cerotapidia. This is a community-based website that requires care when dealing with special articles like this. The argument should be Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever, not the title you as an individual poised. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it Operation Cast Lead is putting too much emphasis on the military side of the operation, while, as I pointed out above, military is but one aspect of what is happening there right now. As I understand this article is about the whole situation: political, humanitarian and not just about the IDF's operation. The title should be way broader than just about an IDF's operation. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the title Operation Cast Lead. None of the arguments against it are convincing, and certainly not enough to deviate from a Wikipedia convention. The logic that 'no news sources use this as the title in articles so we shouldn't' is faulty for two reasons:

  1. It's in the claim itself—the word 'news'. Anyone reading news is presumed to understand that the airstrikes are referring to something that happened in the adjacent time period. However, Wikipedia is not news and we should be looking at the title from the point of view of someone reading this 20 years from now. '2008 Israeli airstrike in Gaza' or any variation thereof is completely unclear and ambiguous. Anything more detailed like 'December 2008 ...' is just going too far for no reason at all.
  2. Almost all news sources, pro- and anti-Israeli, that I have seen, do mention the name somewhere in the article. You can't expect them to use the name all the time, because it is not descriptive to the general audience (i.e. a person unfamiliar with the event won't immediately know what 'Cast Lead' is referring to). Calling it an airstrike by Israel is a simple description, not a title, and this is a clarification that the media needs, and Wikipedia does not. There's absolutely no reason or Wiki policy to have a descriptive title—this is what the article itself is for.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1)What arguments you do not find convincing?
2) Almost all sources describe this as "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes". If I understand your point, you are saying that Operation Cast Lead' is a convention, and that it stems from sources. This is valid point, however, it fails to convince:
a)it isn't a convention to name articles by operation names, it is a consensus among a set of editors, and WP:CCC and it cannot happen outside of neutrality. If it is a convention, please name the policy or guideline establishing it so we can learn it.
b) it is not neutral as it is the name that one side is giving to the conflict. This is frank truism, like 2+2=4. If you name something, you have the upper hand in framing it. Hence no neutrality. This like saying the sky is blue or that the Holocaust happened. I first came upon this name as operation thing in 2006 Lebanon War, and then in was agreed not to use it. But I am not oppose to its use, I am opposed to its use when it obviously breaks neutrality. That's the difference.
c)None of the non-partisan reliable sources are calling this Operation Cast Lead, they are saying what we are saying in the lead: That the IDF is calling it Operation Cast Lead. Yet we have highly reliable sources calling this "Gaza Air Strike" with no mention of Operation Cast Lead Time Magazine, Fox News, Associated Press, etc etc etc. And then even inside of Israel, the sources don't use the term Haaretz. I do not know what sources you are reading, but we are reading different ones. And I am reading all the usual suspects for an event like this. (Yeah, Haaretz has useed "Operation Cast Lead", but also has written about this *without* the operation name; if Haaretz can be neutral, why can't wikipedia?
3) AFAIK, in all of the "current event" articles I have worked in, including recently the November 2008 Mumbai attacks (which I proposed its structure, and are its third highest editor) use the "date, place, event - format" which is an informal convention used in conflict articles (for relevant cases see above Lebanon War examples). The only naming convention that specifies a format is the WikiProject Disaster's convention, which uses the "date, place, event format". This is an emerging, informal convention, with which I agree. Now, as to the naming of Israeli operations,
4)The date specificity is a disambiguation requirement due to limitations with the Wikipedia software, and shouldn't be a subject of debate, please see WP:NAME.

I have provided you with sources, and with evidence to my assertions. I believe it would serve us well if we minimize naked assertions, and concentrate on providing evidence. I am very open to convincing, but we'll need more than just our word, we need sources. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) If a ground component happens, we have many choices, I suggested a separated article for the ground component, but we can also rename this one to reflect that. Its not the end of the world, this is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can rename on the fly. So I do not understand how this is such a serious crisis.

If there is a ground component, then we need to seriously start thinking about WP:SUMMARY, which means a structure with a main article ans then sub-articles with Summaries in the main page. Perhaps in then we can get the operation names, as they are sub-articles of the 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict article, which is crap, but its there. However, this here is a new thing, something both unprecedented (when was the last time Israel bombed so massively Gaza?

2) I didn't propose the current title. I simply edited what someone else suggested, changing the one I had proposed, which itself was a rewording of the original title that you and couple-three other editors decided to do. I was as bold as you were, nothing sinister or owny. That said, we can engage on an edit war, or we can realize that it is the most neutral alternative to emerge so far. If you dislike it, then suggest something else that is as neutral and as descriptive. I am open, as surely are other editors. An advantage of this not being paper is that we can afford to change titles with relative ease. However, we do need to discuss, and I recognize I was bold, but so was the change to the operation name, which was not the original name of this article. The original name, while problematic, was more neutral. No two ways about it. Of course, you can always rain upon me with higher authority. :D

3) Yeah you seem tired, because you are becoming exasperated, which you probably shouldn't. We are in disagreement, but we are listening to each other in good faith, I hope! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of debating. Semantics and rhetoric get annoying and pointless after the 12th paragraph. Wikipedia isn't my life. My opinion rests strictly on Ynhockey well-crafted argument. I will come in to add points if necessary, but for now I'll give the fight up to those who wish to fight it. I encourage you to revert the title to its original state so we can debate in the intended environment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that this article is about a specific military operation, and as far as I know Operation Cast Lead is the only name for this specific operation. Why use a vague description when a precise name is available? Of course it's an Israeli name: it's an Israeli operation. Using the Israeli name doesn't imply approval of the operation, merely recognition that it's an operation for which Israel is responsible. Torve (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here, I think that it should be called the name of the operation. What if it goes past Dec 2008 (a highly likely event) will we rename the article again to "Dec 2008-Jan 2009 Gaza Strip airstrikes"? It seems to me that the name of the article got unilaterally changed during the discussion, rather than according to consensus. Seems weird that we're stuck there on an accident of history.Lot 49atalk 08:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me Operation Cast Lead is probably the best name for now. If another name develops we can move the article but this seems to be least problematic name at the current time. I'm sympathetic to the view operation names can sometimes be problematic and violate NPOV but it's not as if we have something like Enduring Freedom here so IMHO it isn't an extreme issue Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Support for title of 'Operation Cast Lead"

1. I agree that the title of this article should be "Operation Cast Lead". This title would indicate that this offensive is an Isreali led MILITARY offensive against Hamas within the Gaza Strip. From a military standpoint, if there are two opposing sides engaged in conflict, each side will have various operations in order to gain the upper hand. Regaurdless of each sides approval of the methods behide the opponents operations, that operation is still known as whatever the opponent who devised the operation calls it. It does not show support for an operation by calling it by the name of the one who devised, it only is used to indicate what operation is being referred to (as opposed to saying 2008 airstrikes on gaza strip, what is this? what type of airstrikes?). I feel that by calling by its codename would indicate that it is a military offensive. I feel that by calling it by a title should as airstrikes on gaza strip could led one to believe that the airstrikes were committed by a private body.

2. However, I do agree that at times an opponent may call an operation by a name such "Brutal Airstrike on Gaza" but this is only used as proproganda used to motivate ones supporters. However, from a strategic standpoint the operation would be known by its codename.

3. I feel that by calling by a such as 2008 airstrikes is actually biased towards Hamas. I believe this becuase it seemly implies that the IDF is an illegitment fighting force and supports the Hamas point of view without being neutral. By failing to title the article by its actual name would take away from the fact that it is a military operation and biases it towards an killing hungry fighting force.

Please give any counterarguments. Virgo1989 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, welcome to Wikipedia. I placed a welcome message on your talk page, and as I see that this is your first contribution to Wikipedia, it will give you an idea of what we are, what we do, and what policies we are supposed to be following when editing. In particular, let me refer you to the Five pillars of Wikipedia.
That said, I invite you to be more careful when discussing matters. In particular, be careful when raising strawmen: no one here has seriously suggested ""Brutal Airstrike on Gaza" or some such.
You do raise an interesting point, which is the bias for Hamas. In particular for Wikipedia, where we develop content not based on our own original research, but through a process of verification of reliable sources. I wrote something about this below, please read it as it will help you understand my point.
Almost all reliable sources are describing this as "Gaza Strip air strikes" or "Gaza air stikes". They do so without a value judgment, describing the facts of the event. On the other hand, who gives an operation a codename? One side. Now, if this name was universally used by reliable sources, we might have an argument, but it isn't. Even Haaretz has articles around this event that do not mention the Operation codename Haaretz article. I am sorry, but if you think Haaretz is implying that the IDF is an illegitimate fighting force by not using the codename, we live in separate realities. I think your argument is not only weak, but untenable in the view of evidence, and falls in the realm of fringe opinion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the the use of gaza strip airstrike in that situation. As someone stated earlier in that sense the term "gaza strip airstrike" is used as a descriptive term and not as the name of the event. As was stated earlier, if you don't know what Operation Cast Lead is this title would not be appropriate. However, as far as a title within wikipedia I believe that the codename is more appropriate, because in this situation it is no longer a "news" article but a explanation of the facts. As far as what most reliable sources use I see that they are using it as a description once again and not as a title. In THIS situation I feel that Operation Cast Lead would be more appropriate as it gives the title of the military operation which is recongnized by these same sources as the name of the actual operation. Given the current situation of this operation I feel that currently this article describes a military operation that may eventually encompass more than airstrikes which as was stated by others would render the current title inappropriate. Thank you for insight I appreciate it Virgo1989 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When that happens, we change it! I mean, that we shouldn't use the operationa name is not the end of the world, there is plenty of reliable sources giving us plenty of verifiable alternatives. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturning this

It's obvious those in favor of this name are heavily outnumbered. It's time to move the article back to its original location. If anyone is actually interested in letting the move request last a full five days, it should be with the original name as the default, not the name decided by one person mid-stream. -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Won't act on it, as I have already moved the article, but endorse this view. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 07:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse times infinity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should defer to the original name until we have consensus for something else. I do think it needs to be made clear that any move is not intended to shut down discussion but reflective of the fact the original move was out of process Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reminder to everybody in this section: this is not a private discussion among the people who own the page due to their having worked on it. If you make comments referring to "the original location" like you have here, most "third party" wikipedians who browse through the discussion and just want to find the key arguments will have difficulty knowing what you're talking about, since there have been apparently about 5 name-changes since the first draft was written. Boud (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a new party could guess that "original location" means... well... the original location, where the article originally was (which can be determined from the history). -- tariqabjotu 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never worked on this article other then one single reversion. I didn't even read most of the arguments. I did read enough to know the core of the issue here is that this article was unilaterally moved without consensus. It's not that hard... Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "heavily outnumbered": wikipedia decision-making on controversial issues like deleting a page or renaming a page is not about voting. Only a clear set of arguments/counterarguments and consensus solution is likely to be accepted by the large number of "third party" wikipedians. Boud (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such arguments have already made. Numbers are not everything, but they do mean something. Unless one side's arguments simply don't make sense or go against policy, etc, etc, there's little reason to go against the majority. While WP:NPOV has been thrown around, there has been no clear reason why either side goes against policy. -- tariqabjotu 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we forget, Cerejota, or whatever his name is, unilaterally CHANGED the title of the page without even waiting for responses in his little China-trial selection game. The discussion contained 4-5 people deciding on an appropriate title, and Cerejota abuses his powers and changes it. And he is still defending his decision. This isn't simply a matter of whats right, we are obligated as wikipedians to follow the rules and revert the title back to its original form. Then, we can discuss further name changed. Seriously guys, this isn't rocket science. I'm honestly considering getting some heavy admins in here because it's been 13 hours and nothing has changed. A true wikipedia tragedy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it is said that this is consensus and not voting it is because our "votes" are constrained by policy. You can vote against policy, but you vote is invalid. Any alternative that is WP:neutral and meets WP:NAME is cool with me. Naming this article for the operation is a breach of neutrality. Hence, it is not possible to support it as an option, because it breaches core policy. Sorry. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is naming the article by the operation a "breach of neutrality"? This article is about the operation's background, its planning, the air strike, the possible ground attack and the reactions to the operation. In other words, it's about the operation. Why shouldn't it be called by the name of the operation? The only valid point, IMO, not to change the title to "Operation Cast Lead" is the fact that the name isn't known, but still, "airstrikes" isn't an appropriate description. In that case, "December 2008 IDF operation in Gaza" is the best name IMO. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is an interesting name sugegstion but the "airstrikes/air strikes" come from how reliable sources are calling this - a different issue from neutrality. Maybe "December 2008 Gaza IDF air strikes"? but then we are making the title longer as per WP:NAME. I already provided a list of the actual sources, but Time, Fox News, and Haaretz are all calling this "Gaza Strip air strikes" or variations like "Gaza" alone etc. This dismissal of "airstrikes" I find puzzling, as it is what we are covering here, and what every source I have read is saying.
As to neutrality, it is the name of the operation given to one side of the conflict, ignoring the multi-side nature of the conflict. We agree that this is not a one sided conflict, but one with a complex background, and with complex results, that will be covered by RS. In particular, reliable sources see it as a milestone, as a new phase in the political and military engagement, and as unprecedented move by Israel, who had never used air power at this level in the Palestinian territories. Perhaps subsequent use of air power will be less notable as a milestone, and reliable sources lead us to conclude the operation name is correct, but such is not the case now. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get an admin in here? I did it once but I'm not really comfortable with the process. This needs to be taken care of, pronto. Cerejota, you, without discussion this in the talk page, CHANGED the title to something you personanally believe to be neutral. Even if the title was Israel Sucks Big Ones, you are still obligated to at least look through the rationale in the talk. Operation Cast Lead is the real title, we should be arguing from that, not arguing to have it reinstated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raise it at WP:DRAMA as I suggested we do. If this is your main grievance, which I already addressed, we can take it there. I just would like you to calm down so we can discuss in peace. No need to get all upset. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion and the general paralysis over what should be a relatively minor issue, I went ahead and raised it. Lot 49atalk 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - If Operation Barbarossa has remained the same, I can't figure why it can't be the same here. Or do we need to change it also? How about "The German (Nazi) invasion of (Soviet) Russia in June 1941"? PluniAlmoni (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Cerejota 20:40, 28 December 2008 - Even if airstrikes is mentioned in the world media, it isn't a correct name. I find it absurd that in an article named "...airstrikes" there's a paragraph called "Ground attack".
About the neutrality, even if it's a long-ongoing conflict, this article is about the operation, not about the whole conflict. We have other pages for that (2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict etc.) RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 09:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the NEUTRAL title -- "2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict". The title of an article that purports to be objective should not be determined by the chief belligerent! The Israeli war machine must not be allowed to define our reality! The analogy with "Operation Barbarossa" fails, because the German war machine no longer exists: There is no harm in borrowing from something that is no longer a threat, to title a conflict that is long dead. Other operation names -- e.g., Just Cause", "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (OIL, for short) -- should NOT be used as article titles. The codenames are propaganda, and promulgating such propaganda is not the job of wikipedia. An encyclopedia must strive to rise above propaganda! NonZionist (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Gaza Strip war

I see the title as not neutral because it does show the Hamas response to the attacks. 2008 Gaza strip war is neutral and shows a 2-sided conflict with military operations. Earlier on in 2008 it wasn't a war but just clashes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas didn't launch any kind of a military operation (except targeting civilians, for now). This is, as yet, a one-sided military operation with no (military) retaliation from the other party. PluniAlmoni (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the best name. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3645561,00.html I would prefer however 2008 Gaza War or 2008-present Gaza War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support this if significant, sustained (ie, not police capture operations etc) ground operations start and/or reliable sources start calling it so. Otherwise, it is a bit premature. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Israel's DefMin Barak called the operation as "an all out war against Hamas" in his address today at the Israeli Parlament. CNN already cites Barak's words frequently. The fact that it is so called "on sided" is not crucial im my view. It is still a war even if one side is "winning" (which is doubtful to stay that way in the next few days, I think. All is needed is one successful suicide attack in Israel to change the whole picture). Lastly, it is not really one sided, as fire is being fired in both directions. Most Israeli reliable media sources are using the term "Ma'aracha" (מערכה), which translates to a "battle".--Omrim (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An update - Israel's largest news site is now calling it "a war". see [3] --Omrim (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - calling it "airstrikes" or whatever detaches it from its context, making it look as though Israel just got up one day and decided to bomb Gaza. There are two sides to this, with history. If "war" is too strong a word (I think it is), we can use "conflict" instead. Otherwise, it would only be fair to include Hamas's actions, making the name "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes and Southern Israel rocket and mortar attacks"... okedem (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Gaza Genocide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as per User:Bsimmons666, WP:SNOWBALL, this is extreme, fringe and not really discussion we should have in Wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here declaring the necessity to enroll this event as a brutal act of genocide, and as a crime against humanity , compared to the Sabra and Shatila massacre compared to Siege of Sarajevo and Srebrenica massacre , and compared to numerous other israelian war crimes like the historical Qibya massacre

Besides one should outline the extraordinary brutality of this crime. imagine 100 tons of tnt falling on the most densely populated areas of the world btw 100 tons of tnt is equivalent to small nuclear warhead like the m65 nuclear rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Killing terrorists is genocide? Tiger Trek (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--->Killing women and children is murder, haulocaust is a more suited word, which is a growing concern to those who uphold Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. Outrageous.

Use of such utterly inflammatory statements is reserved for extreme cases of violence and when such terms are used by many published sources, historians, and political figures, etc; this is clearly not the case, and the suggestion of such an inflammatory title does not help much to keep this discussion civil and POV free. (And throwing about the word terrorist doesn't help either) Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joshdboz 90.231.60.96 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a genocide, nor should Wikipedia use this in its title.
Unless the term "genocide" has been applied to this particular operation by the majority of reliable sources, genocide cannot be used in the title of this article, as it would violate WP:NPOV. Terrakyte (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Genocide , and I'll show you how! Refering to the user Bsimmons666 who made the suggestion that this act of brutality does not match the criteria of genocide according to the definition(s) of genocide. I shall display to all of you , his ignorance by proving that this event fulfills the above mentioned criteria if it was to be taken as the scale against we shall measure against .

The Wikipedia Genocide Definition List says I quote: "the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide." I repeat here the intent to destroy! Now Tell me all of you israel-lobbiests , Can you Deny the Fact that Israel is intending to Wipe out the palestinians?? Isn't it true that israel's first ever known policy since it was established in 1948 was to exterminate all arabs? Didn't Ben Gorion give clear orders to the Hahaganna to murder/terrorize the arabs in order to take over their lands?

The Palestinian Arab People are the original inhabitants of palestine since thousand of years, who inherited the lands from their Phoenician Forefathers.(who stole it off the jews)

And it was only at the end of the 19th century when the Jewish Aliens started to invade palestine, building settlement after settlement under the eyes of the british mandate.

Since that time israel has literally never stopped to perform what any rational objective person would call A Process also known as Ethnic Cleansing , which describes the policy of murdering a distinct racial and/or religious group or at least forcing them to deport by subjecting them to below human dignity conditions. Cowmadness (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Israelis have no intent to destroy the Palestinian race. The intent is to stop Hamas from firing rockets. I'd say this vote (though it's not even a real vote) should be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 20:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2008 Hamas-Israel Conflict

Since this is a conflict, brought on by Hamas attacks and responded to by Hamas attacks (both on israel and on egypt) the title should be two sided. Also, the use of the word "conflict" has 2 advantages over other terms:

1)It is a simple, accurate description. calling it a war is not accurate since it is not big enough to be a war.

2) This may very well turn into a ground operation, and in that event this would describe it better than calling it "air strikes". Ben Abooya (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not specific. There have been several conflicts between Hamas/Israel this year. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Gaza (2008) would be a better title, IMO. --84.67.31.215 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli authorities claim that they are just attacking one organisation (political party/de facto government/armed wing). However, that's their POV rather than a more neutral description of a military conflict. It would seem to me rather POV to call this the Hamas-Israel something rather than the Gaza Strip-Israel something. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point, but i find it difficult to call the Gasa strip itself a side in this. More accurate would be to say that this "something" (to use your words) takes place, at least partly, in the Gasa strip. -- Ben Abooya (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Abooya makes a fairly good point - maybe another word or two could help define it more accurately in addition to what he suggested - perhaps December 2008 Israeli-Hamas Armed Conflict in Gaza or December 2008 Gaza Armed Conflict. That last one, for now, would likely serve as a fitting title - the sides in this are understood, and it defines the conflict without having to identify the differing sides (which the current title has effectively done already - one side might favor language that shows that Israel is attacking Palestinians regardless of whether they are Hamas or not, and the other side might favor language that shows Israel is focusing on Hamas militants - the current title "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" does well to avoid all that and should remain doing so in the event of any changes) - and, since ground operations are believed to possibly begin soon (link below), following what Abooya mentioned, the word "airstrikes" may likely soon no longer apply. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802515.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstargeneral (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support "December 2008 Gaza Armed Conflict". I like it better than what i said earlier. -- Ben Abooya (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict

Maybe December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict ? Here i'm guessing ahead that the conflict will continue into January. i know it's long, but we will need to find something. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just December 2008 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict even if the conflict continues into January, with the idea that the name refers to the starting date ? E.g. in France, WWII can be referred to as << la guerre de '39 >> = the war of 1939, without any need to state the end year. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Boud, I think you might be on to somethnig there is sounds better then most other ideas to me. I don't know about the term Conflict or not but that is more of an issue as we go on. This is a good format. if others agree I could give more defind wording on Conflict/War/Campign/Battle and so on. it could be the Winter 2008 Isreal-Gaza Strip Conflict/Battle (depending opn what term to discribe the fighting everyone decides on)

Ideas thoughts? is this moving in the right direction everyone?

I'll begin with your suggestions and lay out a few alternatives. For one thing, the title looks absurdly long. Seriously. However, I think that can be fixed by dropping "December" and "January". Why, you ask? The "2008" in "2008 Israel-Gaza Strip airstrikes" indicates that the article talks about airstrikes in 2008. That's a huge span there, and that might be mixed up with others. However, if this crosses into the new year, we don't need the month designations anymore because the "2008-2009" in "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict" would describe a conflict between 2008 and 2009; i.e. that spans the two years. This, presumably, will be the only one. This, of course, raises the question: hasn't there been a 'conflict' for awhile? Well, yes, conflict might be too weak of a word. However, we can't be dropping "war" or "battle" until other sources start using that. We're not left with much better. Based on what I said earlier, I don't think there's a need to keep December 2008 (as in Boud's second suggestion) if it crosses into the new year.
Regarding the idea of the person above, "winter 2008" is generally not a good idea because (a) it's summer in the southern hemisphere, so it can sound strange and/or confusing to some and (b) "Winter 2008" can be confused with early 2008. I only think we should bring "winter" into the mix if that becomes a common motif for discussing this conflict.
My suggestions:
  • If Israel takes most of the offensive actions here, keep it as "Operation Cast Lead" (no matter when this ends).
  • If this becomes more of a two-way event and ends before the new year, change it to "December 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict"
  • If this becomes more of a two-way event and ends after the new year, change it to "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict"
  • If people start using some common name, we use that.
-- tariqabjotu 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to amend my previous comment. Depending on how this unfolds, I think I'm going to advocate keeping an "Operation Cast Lead" article. If this becomes a bigger conflict, we might want to create an article about the larger conflict, discussing the lead-up, this, and whatever happens, and keep this as a daughter article. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with you about the conflict widening then we articulate in that fashion. Lets not get all ballsy (besides my balls are pure adamantium, not crystal :) about it, but if it does widen (and my definition of "widen" is not wide itself: any sustained ground escalation), then this article should be named for the operation, as part of a wider conflict with other operations and sub-articles. But for now, this about the airstrikes as a notable phenomenon within the I-P conflict, and neutrality and verifiability still sustain that the correct name is not the operation name.
That said, and I have said this before , people are already using a more common name: "Gaza airstrikes" or variations. Pretty much every reliable source one reads, Time, New York Times , Times Online, Washington Post, Haaretz, BBC, etc etc etc, either don't mention the operation name, or do so in the same way that we do in the article using terms like "dubbed by the IDF" or "named by the IDF" or somesuch and also call this "Gaza airstrikes" or variations.
Pretty much the only sources that use the name in common reporting are partisan or inside Israel - and not just for reason of neutrality, but because who can fault a National press to speak the language of the National government (for example, calling this by the Operation name in Hebrew Wikipedia is neutral, in so far is has no systemic bias problems as there are in English wikipedia, AFAIK). I am still waiting for someone to provide evidence to the contrary, based on sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the title of the article is December 2008 Gaza_Strip airstrikes. I have a feeling the offensive operations carried out by Israel will carry on till January. But since the airstrikes started in December, the month December should stay in the title. There is no need to add January in the title. With the massing of ground forces at the Gaza border will leave out void the airstrikes in the title. The title December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict is too long. It should just be December 2008 Israel-Hamas conflict, December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict, etc Roman888 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here this morning to start this very discussion! I would support changing the name to Operation Cast Lead BUT as this seems to have moved on entirely now, I bow to the consensus of the discussion..."2008-09 Gaza Strip airstrikes" would be accurate if this is the only thing which has happened in January...But if ground troops are deployed, then "2008-09 Israeli/Gaza conflict" would be my preferred choice. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Operation Opera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera), Operation Orchard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard), Operation Barbarossa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), how should we name then Operation Wrath of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God)?, and Operation Entebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)? what about Operation Wooden Leg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg)? Keep reading, theres more to come: Operation defensive shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield), how should we rename that? What about Operation Rainbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rainbow)?, what about Operation Days of Penitence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Days_of_Penitence)? And Operation warm winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warm_Winter)? Should we rename Operation Overlord??

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

Leave it alone for 5 days

I know that getting the precise name of the article right is The Most Important Thing Possible and all, but currently both the Operation name and the more generic name all point to the same place and both names are covered in the opening sentence of the article. I've already given my own opinion above but honestly, it doesn't really matter in the interim.

This is plainly a developing situation and my Crystal Ball is on the fritz. Let's give events time to play themselves out, and then name the article once things have stabilized. For all we know, this could be a stub of The Beginning of World War III which will start World War III was a major international conflict that was sparked by Operation Cast Lead...

I feel like we're in danger of being featured on WP:LAME Lot 49atalk 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at half of the disputes on WP:LAME, you'd see this is nowhere near reaching that. Debates on Wikipedia are natural and occur all over the place. With one as civil and organized as this one, there is no need to invoke the standard you-guys-look-foolish essays. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm new to all of this. Lot 49atalk 03:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original name was Operation Cast Lead. One member took it upon himself to change it without discussion and then told everyone it wasn't neutral enough. Expecting us to wait 5 more days is insulting. If anything, the admin who abused his powers needs to be penalized and the title needs to be reverted to its original state. This isn't rocket science, no need for extreme rhetoric or semantics. There isn't much to argue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it should be moved back to Operation Cast Lead. But I don't think that it's really doing that much harm if we have to live with both article titles temporarily redirecting to the "wrong" page while it's in dispute. In the meantime we can work on the article in response to these rapidly moving events.Lot 49atalk 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan, for the umpteenth time, I restored the name someone else created, and then fixed it from a suggestion. Just because you like the original name, doesn't mean it fits our policies on neutrality. The article was started with one name, but that means exactly nothing.
That said, cool down periods are always a good idea, and this is why I tell you to this is not the end of the world and that there is no deadline. We take our time. --Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your excuses are on-point. Consensus means nothing. Your opinion means everything. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this "admin who abused his powers"? -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets wait for five days. But what reflections should it have on Wikipedia's credibility, if for five days the title only refers to "airstrikes" while it is now already confirmed by official IDF sources, quoted by YNET (Israel's largest news website) that the Israeli Navy is taking active part in the operation. see: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3646818,00.html --Omrim (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we verify this? One source is not enough, and someone claimed something similar (although without a source) two days ago about the ground war and no dice. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, YNET was quoting official Israeli IDF sources, and the link I provided shows videos taken by the Israeli Navy firing missiles and cannon fire at the Gaza coastline. Second, Haaretz (which as I recall, you said is a reliable source) reported the same. see http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1051000.html. The title translates: "israeli Navy Attack in Gaza: This is how it Looked like". Lastly, the IDF official website reports:

"Israel Naval Forces also struck a number of targets Sunday night, including Hamas vessels and posts. The Naval Forces reported direct hits."

see:http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/12/2901.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Its verified... then can we change it to 2008 Gaza strikes? In fact, most reliable sources are headlining this in their articles already. BTW, I think Ynet is of a lesser quality than Haaretz, because it tend to be tabloidy and gossipy (as is its parent newspaper, a sensationalistic rag if I have seen any - if you are ISraeli you know what I mean), but it is a reliable source. That is not the issue. Verifiability has to happen no matter how reliable a source, in particular in controversial articles. We are requiredto do it.

BTW, the same gossipy nature of YNET makes it a great predictor of whats to come (part of its salacious views on news). It seems there will be ground excursions [5]. I am guessing this will be called an "invasion" if history teaches anything. So maybe 2008 Gaza invasion will happen? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Strikes" is porbably more accurate than "airstrikes" even though I can't support both, as they indicate a completly one-sided action, while in our case fire is being shot in both directions. My view is that "battle", "war" or even "campaign" are better. Putting that aside for the moment, I think a section titled "naval campaign" should be added. There is ample amount of reliable source by now, reporting both weapons used and targets hit by the Israeli Navy. I would have done do myself, but I am new here, which means, I am blocked.--Omrim (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"What measures the quality of a reliable source..."

"What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source."

What this actually means is, if something isn't published my a source backed by the money of a large Western corporation or a Western capitalist government, it is summarily dismissed if it expresses political views opposed to any interest of the former. This is precisely where Wikipedia's usefulness stops. It is simply the echo chamber of the global Spectacle. So if any of you suckers want to change a thing in this world, get out on the streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.239.167 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is an ideal, of course. (Above comment relates to Cerejota's quote from some time back). Harami2000 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sickest unsigned comment :) Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What 89.242.239.167 has described in informal words is something like a combination of the empirically supported (quantitative) model of the media in democratic countries, especially the USA, by Herman and Chomsky plus the measured demographic bias among en.wikipedia editors referred to and discussed in WP:BIAS. The discussion above suggesting that PNN is "more partisan" than the BBC, despite me giving one example where the BBC World Service several times acted as a tool of British foreign policy in order to (successfully) overthrow one democratically elected government which wanted to control the country's own natural resources, is most likely an example of WP:BIAS. This does not mean that any of the wikipedians involved in the discussion are consciously biased. It only means that the wikipedians involved (including me) each have limited experience and knowledge of the world limited by our living experiences and statistically matching our demographic profile. This limited experience limits our ability to judge which news sources are "partisan", for example. The BBC does not claim that it aims to overthrow democratically elected governments. However, the evidence is that in at least one case, it did do that. Boud (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is explicitly a tool of British foreign policy. The FCO decides in conjuction with the BBC what services to provide in what languages. Editorial control is the BBC's exclusive territory however, and is often not at all helpful to the immediate interests of the UK government. For a first class example of the issues discussed here see "In Search of Fatima" by Ghada Karmi, Chaper 8, page 280-282 in my 2002 paperback edition.--Milezmilez (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think 89.242.239.167's is a situationist perspective, no? Valid point though Al Jazeera has challenged it to some extent. (unsigned user)

...deleted CSS "art"...

See, I can troll too, except I do it better: War is peace, We have always been at war with Eurasia Eastasia. Smoke a Victory. Welcome to the Party. Now, if you think Wikipedia changes the world, LOL. It doesn't. It can help document it tho. No theory, no praxis... --Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up, people. --Darwish07 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, once in a while lame attempts at humor shoudl be allowed. Why so serious? :D--Cerejota (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes hurt after staring on your ASCII art for a while ;-). --Darwish07 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moar like CSS "art". ;)--Cerejota (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Documenting the world" is a form of preserving past lessons so future generations will benefit from them, and all that commonplace crap. Albeit unneffective, it is a sort of goal towards the changing of the world. I don't know by which standarts you consider your trolling better than his', but I certainly agree with you by mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.56.30.10 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinain civiilian casualty formulation

The figure that the UN is quoting as being the number of civilian casualties, currently 62, is only women and children, not including any civilian adult males, from bbc; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7803711.stm:

UN humanitarian chief John Holmes; "Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties," he told a news conference. "That simply encompasses those who are women and children. It does not include any civilian casualties who are men - even though we know that there have been some civilian men killed as well."

I think that should be noted where civilian casualties are given. Any objections? Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Go ahead and add it, be WP:BOLD. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little beyond bold, but why you think not? The civilian counts have been used to back up the idea that most of those killed have been militants, but if you assume that all adult males that have been killed are militants you are likely overestimating the proportion. I think that accuracy in these counts should be of the highest concern, as both sides will try to distort them to make their points. But for something as potentially inflammatory as this, I feel it wise to ask the rest of you. Nableezy (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separating out "militants" is invalid, unless you believe that people should be killed for their political views. ALL of the victims are "civilians". If my house is attacked and I try to defend my family, does that make me any less of a civilian than the other members of my family? The only sensible distinction is that between the aggressors and victims. NonZionist (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also on civilian casualties, the infobox noted the UN had counted 62 of them but was sourced with this[6] BBC story using the figure 57. I changed the figure in the box to conform to its source but it has since been changed back. A figure has to be the same as the source which supports it. It is dishonest on our part to do otherwise. If there is a good source on 62 could that be used instead? Otherwise it should be 57 or at least leave it unsourced. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all Israelis reservists in the IDF? Or is that no longer true? In any case, in such conflicts it's very difficult to say who's a civilian and who isn't. It's not like there haven't been female suicide bombers.

Calmofthestorm7 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided above in the first post of this sections reports that the UN claims 62 women/children. Nableezy (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the source used in 'The large majority of deaths and injuries have been Hamas operatives.[19]' in the lead says 62 women/children, and nowhere does it currently say the large majority have been Hamas operatives. That claim needs another source or it should be removed. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nableezy above. RomaC (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that 'Israel has stressed that most of the deaths and injuries were Hamas fighters and says it's careful to avoid harm to bystanders.' But this claim has to be preceded by Israel {says, claims, asserts, stressed, whatever} instead of presenting it as fact as the article being referenced does not. Nableezy (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the source. I didn't mean to step into your more general discussion -- I had just come to the article to read about that issued and noticed the article disagreed with the source. My opinion on your more general point is that you should include the explanation in the casualties section and I'd have the infobox read "more than 62" for now. That number is going to change anyway as the conflict continues and the numbers become better understood. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well hold on a sec - why is it assumed that all the women killed are civilians? It is well known, and publicized by Hamas, that that there are women amongst the ranks of militants - see this as one example. If we are going to be qualifying casualty numbers as proposed above, we should be precise, and state just that UN has confirmed 62 of the dead were women and children, without specifying they were civilians. NoCal100 (talk)`
I would agree, but the UN humanitarian chief did say that 'Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties' then later qualified that with those 62 being women and children. I do agree though that it should just state the 62 women and children have been confirmed dead by the UN without further qualification of their civilian/combatant status. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that. If the UN have stated that they are civilians then it is not our job to editorialise what the UN has stated. When can also specify that they are including all women and children but no males, but nothing beyond that. Unless we have sources which dispute the figure in which case we can mention the sources that dispute the figure. Rememer this is wikipeida and an encylopaedia not a news paper and we rely on what the sources say not what we want them to say Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact you who are editorializing. The UN did not say they are civilians, it said it "believed" they are civilians, which is not the same thing. We can say "The UN believes 62 civilians were killed, basing that on the number of children and women", but not anything more than that. NoCal100 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the UN or UNRWA? Two different things really. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not, the UNRWA, regardless of what you think of them, is a UN enterprise and what they say will be taken with that weight, but to answer your question the figure comes from John Holmes (British diplomat), recently appointed Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. Nableezy (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content please, not on fellow editors. In relevance to the content: I'm not applying my own feelings but what reliable sources say. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a comment on the content of the previous comment Nableezy (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has been changed again. Does anybody have any reason why what is properly sourced and cited to be changed? The sources clearly and explicitly say 'women and children,' they DO NOT say civilians. Could anybody provide justification for changing the wording? Nableezy (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who originally moved the info in the box from "civilians" to "women and children". I don't know who re-edited it back again. I'll re-type it to women and children. Please people, not to enter in an WP:Edit war, do not modify it except if you have another source that criticize this statements. And we are NOT giving it as a fact, we already said "the UN said", or "according to the UN". It's not our opinion to criticize the UN statements. Done. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This keeps changing. Could somebody at least state their objection to the use of 'women and children' to 'civilians'? The quote that all the sources reference says "Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties," then further on, "That simply encompasses those who are women and children. It does not include any civilian casualties who are men - even though we know that there have been some civilian men killed as well." To avoid any ambiguity about whether men can be civilians and whether women can be militants, we should reflect what the sources say. They ALL say women and children, many don't use the word civilian to describe them at all. At the very least can someone please state their concern with accurately reflecting the sources? Nableezy (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:WanderSage has, again, changed the wording to 62 "civilians" without even discussing it in here. He says in the log that it's an "emotionalistic pov language- women can be militants, and men can be civilians.". Again, Mr. WanderSage, it's not your call to modify the UN reports. If so, every side can put his biased opinion on other side official statements and a mess begin. Israeli figures are put as is, Palestinian ones are put as is, and UN ones should be put as is. Isn't this overstated enough? --Darwish07 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think this last one was User:Jadorno did this one [7] Nableezy (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nableezy for correction, and sorry to WanderSage. I'll re-edit it back to women and children. Thoughts Nableezy? --Darwish07 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that if somebody disputes the language they should provide a source that does so. There are an overwhelming number of sources that specifically say women and children, and if somebody has an issue with the language to take it up here. Nableezy (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change all casualty counts to indicate that "civilian" counts do not include male deaths. This is well documented but is not reflected in the current page. Specifically the infobox claims that ~25% are civilians (figure from the UN, does not include men) and then extrapolates that ~75% are members of the security forces, police etc and sites some NY times article that says nothing of the sort. This is clearly wrong. No one has released a total count of civilian deaths that include men. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, which the UN cited at least once for its death count (on 12/28 see UN document: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf see AMCHR source: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=919) publishes death counts daily but only states TOTAL, and WOMEN AND CHILDREN counts. The only exception is the 12/28 release which states 20 women, 9 children and 60 civilians were killed that day. It is unclear if the civilian count there is additional civilians or includes the women in children. In any case the count on 1/3 by AMCHR has 363 total dead, 77 women and children. The women and children casualties represent 21% of the dead in their estimates, close to the UN's claim that ~25% of the dead are "civilians." Clearly, male civilians are NOT being counted in any death count so this needs to be CLEARLY stated every time a death count refering to "civilian" deaths is refenced. Please make the necessary changes and monitor to make sure they remain.

Daily death counts can be found in at least two places: 1. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php 2. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection&section_id=97&static=0&format=html

AMCHR is consistently lower then OCHA. The recent figure of >400 deaths that the UN is citing (as of 1/3/09) is from the Ministry of Health in Gaza (see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_03_english.pdf).

Thrylos000 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Since there is a fog of war inherent to the process, casualty figures are inherently vague. I suggest that if sources contradict themselves, we use all figures as a range. As time goes by, figures would become solid. As long as we source, we will be doing our readers a service. W ejust have to keep updating it with new info. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the info according to this IHT article: [8]
Another interesting thing in it, is that it has a description of Hamas militiamen executing other Palestinians in Shifa hospital because of suspicion of cooperation with Israel. It might be an interesting information. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that all sources for casualties say "according to UN officials the number of civilian deaths...". But, what did the UN officials actually say? "Commissioner-General for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who said that, conservatively, between 20 and 25 per cent of the known dead were civilians."[1] For this article to be more accurate and less biased it needs to be changed so that number of dead civilians is changed to "the UN estimates between 20-25% of Palestinian deaths are civilian." I will make the changes, but with how hot this topic is I am sure it will be changed back, so I provided this comment to explain the change.--Terets (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, just noticed that the article is locked, so I can't make the changes. Will someone who has access please correct the information in the article? P.S. Don't rely simply on sources who repeat information, check the sources of your sources. In this case many of the news agencies reworded what the UN actually said.--Terets (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Events have changed with the recent ground invasion. We need to generate a fresh look. I am closing and reopening anew discussion, please be patient and helpful while this is setup.--Cerejota (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes

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

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes Survey

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

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • So should we change Operation Grapes of Warth to "April 1996 Southern Lebanon Airstrikes"?. Again, yours is the kind of arguments made to change the original title. None of which hold any merit, and I fail to see how this operation differs for Wiki purposes from Grapes of Warth ot any other Israeli Operations for that matter. This is even without mention to the fact that the current title is both FACTUALLY WRONG (naval intervention had already been verified), and at least "a bit" biased (leaving it only as "strikes", the unwary reader might suspect that fire is only being shot in one direction...).--Omrim (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (shifted from survey section to discussion section Boud (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support the objective title. If Israel expands the aggression, then the "strike" in the title can be changed to "attack" or "aggression". I do not believe that the chief belligerent should be allowed to set the terms of the debate: That violates NPOV and disenfranchises the victims of the aggression.
I would much prefer "April 1996 Southern Lebanon Airstrikes" to "Grapes of Wrath" since a reader looking for articles about aggression against Lebanon will is far more likely to search for "Lebanon" than "grapes". The codename, moreover, is a monstrous insult to John Steinbeck. NonZionist (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Cast Lead

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

Operation Cast Lead Survey

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

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


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

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

Operation Cast Lead Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • In response to the latest "Oppose" point in the survey at the time of writing, it's inappropriate to describe this event as the "Black Saturday Massacre", even supposing that it is a legitimate title, because that is only a component of the conflict. To describe several days (and ongoing) fighting as one occasion is like having the title "fan belt" for the article on cars - it's an important part of it, but certainly not all of it and it's misleading to assume otherwise. 11:20, 2nd January 2009 (UTC)
There is already discussion about this above. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment - that discussion, we can all agree, was not structured in a manner according to custom. And while it has helped move the opinions along, we do have an urgent need to solve this matter. The only way we are going to get an admin to look at this is if we structure it better. Does that make sense?--Cerejota (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the others have said, we've already discussed this so no need to repeat. Plus, what is the reason for the 24hr deadline? Your Silence implies consent link says nothing about 24 hours. What is the urgency to discus something that has already been discussed? Some people have a life outside Wikipedia. I certainly don't login everyday. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, we are saying, we discussed, lets have a survey. Lets see where we stand. Its about trying to organize things. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed before, but my attempt at facilitating by summarising the arguments just led to chaos and difficulty in judging the balance of arguments. :( Cerejota is now facilitating with a structure more likely to lead to convergence, especially in order that people previously uninvolved can read all the previous opinions and give their judgment and arguments. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not true. I suggest editors see the evidence here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Interim_naming_of_December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes. Please, stop your disruption and personal attacks, they are not productive.--Cerejota (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i don't agree with Cerejota on everything, but i certainly agree on no personal attacks. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Then lets display that defeat in a format that is more organized. I am not dogmatic about my views, but I do want to make a good call. Certainly I do not view the previous discussion as my position being defeated. However, since the discussion was so badly structured, I could see why you could see that way. I'll I say is, lets do a strawpoll. I am not letting discussion drop ever, what I might let drop is ill feelings and drama. What is so hard about doing that? What is so hard about having a discussion? In your user page you say you are not dogmatic, I took that at face value, but you are hardly displaying that lack of dogmatism now. Why can't we work together? --Cerejota (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above was not structured in a way for someone to see what consensus was taking shape. Let's not get into games of win/lose. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove time limit

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

Haha. He just told me to basically calm down and stop stalking him on my userpage. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I love how Cerejota edits responses half an hour later. :D Yeah, Cerejota is simply linking to "official" processes, in a clear attempt to hide his abuses. Check the archives. After changing the title, he quickly told everyone it was not neutral, then he wrote some 10 paragraph rambling telling everyone how we are biased and need to follow wiki policy, then he linked to SOAP, CHILL, and every other drama rule when anyone questioned his motives. Then he started another name change again a few sections up, then he started this one. Also, there are several discussions how the name change in various sections not necessarily titled "move, name change, etc.." Notice how he doesn't respond to the fact that he unilaterally changed the title of the article hours after we argued heavily about the title (not its "lack" of neutrality, btw, just its relevance). Please, respond to that.

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

Wikifan, Cerejota has not committed any admin abuses; s/he is not an admin. -- tariqabjotu 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota has started a structured process which within wikipedia culture/mediawiki technology has a reasonable chance of converging on a clear consensus (though it's not guaranteed). Whether or not s/he changed names earlier is irrelevant, since Cerejota is just one person presenting arguments amongst (if we allow the structured process to continue) many. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

There is no rush to change the name. We already have a Gaza–Israel conflict with a section on the 2007-2008 conflict [9] 2007-2008 has its own article entitled 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. We also have a 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict article. Strikes me that if you want to maintain this 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, then it should actually start with January 1, 2008 and finish on December 31, 2009. That would require that Operation Cast Lead would be a very short part of this article, and the lead should give quite a bit of head to what happened the first 360 days of the 2008. Seeing how the majority of editors here want to talk about Operation Cast Lead and NOT about Hamas' constant rocketing/terrorizing of Israel, I recommend changing the name. & Re the Saturday Massacre -- the source given for that did not support the assertion given Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict

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

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Also be sure to read the initial discussions at Talk:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes#Requested move (first)
  • support due to reasoning above Cynical (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - it's relatively neutral, accurate and short - (1) it follows the precedents 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict which have already been NPOVed by other wikipedians; (2) because it's a relatively small change from the present title December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, and avoids the "air war only" connotation, which is no longer valid because of naval operations and would become more inaccurate if ground operations start; date: - continuation of the strikes into 2009 should not be a problem for the title for at least a week or so when the Jan duration becomes equal to the Dec duration; if this intense phase of conflict continues further, then it will be time to think of e.g. 2008/2009 Gaza Strip conflict; conflict geography - this is a problem, but i'd rather support December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict unless supporters here are likely to move to e.g. December 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. Boud (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure everyone will find your first point compelling. As I'm sure you know, we have many articles (like Operation Hot Winter, which is very similar to this situation) named after [Israeli] operation code names, and I'm sure there are some who'd argue those titles aren't "NPOV" simply because they are in place. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - because the article is clearly talking about the conflict in general and not just the IDF's campaign. I know some one is going to point out that maybe it should talk only about the Israeli operation, but how long can you pretend that the rockets and the air strikes aren't obviously linked? 72.66.67.46 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict Discussion

Any additional comments:

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as done per owerhelming consensus as at least a temporary solution to eliminate "airstrikes" and take into account the fact that the conflict moved into 2009. Other discussions remain, and most of the supporters of this option prefer other options, but stated their willingness to have a temporary solution. Editors new to the consensus process are adviced to read the ongoign discussion - including those in the archives - before emiting opinions as to the status of the consensus. Consensus can change, but it doesn't change by unilateral declaration.--Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose, since this article can at most cover a few weeks' intense conflict, not 24 months of conflict (nor 13 since we start at December). "2008-2009" (or "2008–2009" in recommended style) suggests most of the 24 months of 2008 and 2009, implying the need for the first sentence in the intro to define what is meant by "2008–2009". IMHO it's reasonable to expect that the definition would initially be something like "from mid-December 2008 to early/mid/late January/February 2008". Another article will most likely be needed for "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" (unless the conflict is miraculously resolved). In that case it would make more sense to have "2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "December 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" rather than "2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". In the latter case, pressure would eventually build up to find a better name again—either Operation Cast Lead or 2008 Gaza Strip massacre depending on whether we favour the Israeli or the Gaza Strip POV. Boud (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a needed temporary measure until reliable sources give this a better name. As this is a current event, this will probably not be the title it will have in ten years time, but it is much more descriptive, more neutral, and more relevant to the events as they have evolved. As to date overlaps, a quick per usal of the intro would describe the difference, so I am willing to live with it. LETS SNOWBALL THIS GUYS, C'MON Boud, SWITCH!!! AIRSTRIKES GOT TO GO!!! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - Second best option after "Operation Cast Lead". The "Massacre" title doesn't even worth a typing stroke to respond. Soon, I believe, we will have to change it again as both side are starting to call it a "war". For the meantime this is the best option --Omrim (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional support. (above "oppose" has been struck out) This title would make sense if we have a well-defined, clearly time-limited, NPOV, first sentence, without favouring either the Israel or Gaza Strip POVs. If the introduction starts something like: "The term 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is used in this article as a neutral term to describe the intense phase of conflict starting late December 2008 between Israel and the Gaza Strip, in particular including airstrikes by the Israeli Air Force against the Gaza Strip, called Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in reference to an Israeli Hanukah song<ref 10><ref 11>," and called an ugly massacre by the de facto Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh<ref name="BBC" />", then i guess 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict should be OK, at least until the next few weeks give a chance to see if another term becomes widely used. Boud (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mostly object. There's no need to say "used in this article as a neutral term to describe". This is [the English] Wikipedia; it is assumed that everything is written with the intention of maintaining neutrality. Saying this is breaking the fourth wall of the encyclopedia. Further, this is not an article about the term; it's an article about the event. For that reason, you would be hard-pressed to find an article that begins by saying the article title is a term, unless the article is about the term. Moving on... "an ugly massacre" is not a name for the big salvo; it's a description. The Israeli analog might be "all-out war", but we don't need to say that in the first sentence. Lastly, that's a very long sentence. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is not a totally bad title, but for reasons mentioned in #Leave it alone for 5 days (the main characteristic of the current phase of the operation has been IAF airstrikes and the Hamas response...), there is no urgency to change what we have, even if it is 2009 now (at least where I live it is). In 5 days or so, better names might become apparent - maybe even this one. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like you're the only one who still thinks this article speaks of a one-way conflict (not just from this straw poll; several sections on this page deal with this same issue). Further, while many have stated that this article needs a name change, you have rejected every proposal, apparently based on the idea that time is unlimited. I hope you realize your position is likely to be overruled within hours. -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this conflict has entered in 2009 as well. This should be the final name as it just involves the Hamas, who are the rulers of Gaza and Israel. I know people were discussing about putting December in the title, but we are now into January 2009. Take out the airstrikes from the title, as the Israeli navy is also involved in the operation, not to mention the impending ground invasion by Israeli tanks and ground forces.--Roman888 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Most neutral and descriptive term for the current conflict. okedem (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support probably what everyone could agree on. Guy0307 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not commonly used in mainstream news sources. A google news search finds only 21 hits, [10] as opposed to 1,500 hits for "assault on gaza". A better option close to this one with more google hits is "Gaza conflict" which gets around 200 hits. Tiamuttalk 19:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict Discussion

Any additional comments:


  • I agree fully. Very neutral, descriptive, and meets MoS. And it is not crystal balling to say this will extend into 2009 :P. However, I have a concern, this is very similar to 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. Could we find an alternative to "conflict" or even add "post-ceasefire conflict"? Or are you willing to live with the slight confusion until the reliable sources call this a "War", as I am pretty sure they will - or even could we use the increasing amount of verification calling this a "War"? Sources are beginning to see that this a different thing than the rockets-for-airstrikes (and occasional martyrdom-for-snatch-and-captures) that has been going on since the unilateral withdrawal. Having a similar title to articles that cover lated but significantly different in historic meaning for the typical reader can be confusing. Do I make sense?
  • That said, I see no reason why your title proposal shouldn't snowball, thats why I ask you to refactor, rather than propose a different one), and will support your call (even if it is just your original proposal) in order to move forward quickly a keep the snowball going. --Cerejota (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Conflict" is overused on Wikipedia, but when Israel is calling this an "all-out war" and others (like the Arabic Wikipedia) are calling this a "massacre", it seems unseemly to use "war". "Conflict" is so great because it's so vague! But, maybe we need a thesaurus. -- tariqabjotu 17:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a couple of thesaurus (including paper) and all the other words are "lesser" than "conflict", except "War". This here is not a "confrontation" etc. As per my promise then, lets go with conflict, for now ("airstrikes" is long expired, we ALL agree). --Cerejota (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate crystal balling, but this is turning out to be bigger than initially thought, like what happened to the 2006 Lebanon War. I fully agree that this will be called a War, by historians. This will be a defining moment, a milestone. That said, we know this, but it hasn't happened. So this is the best we can come up with for now. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its difficult to decide on the best name for this incident so for the time being "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" seems like the best title. Its alot more accurate than the current title which is very one sided. Fully support rename to this atleast until the "incident is over" then it can be renamed again. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also "battle". -- tariqabjotu 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of "battle" too, as per Battle of Gaza (2007). But it hasn't really been a "battle" in the traditional sense it has been air and sea bombardment, with retaliatory rockets. And "battles" isn't really it either. Darn, the English language needs to be updated to fit the new realities. BTW, before anyone says Arabic Wikipedia is fucked in using "massacre", that's what most Arab media are calling it, so I am guessing they have kinda the right to do it by RS (which is a wikimedia policy), as is Hebrew Wikipedia in naming the Operation Cast Lead, as that is what the media in Hebrew is calling it (even those who don't call it that in the English editions). --Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed to see that an admin has unilaterally decided that it is the best name for the page, while the discussion is still ongoing. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is barely used in the mainstream media, with less than 21 hits in google news. "Assault on Gaza" enjoys 1,500 hits by way of contrast, and "Gaza conflict" over 200 hits. I don't see why Wikipedia has to invent names that are barely used anywhere else when it comes to topics related to the I-P domain. Tiamuttalk 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "unilaterally", I assume you mean "on account of the near-unanimous support". Even with your opposition -- which comes out of the blue, given you have not commented on this talk page before -- the consensus is clear. Aspects of the name of the article have been under discussion for days now, and it was clear people did not like the original name. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus. Besides my oppose in this section, there are two others and there are multiple other options being discussed on the page that also enjoy support. Your snide tone is par for the course, but that does make it any more welcome. Tiamuttalk 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza

"Assault on Gaza" gets over 1,500 hits in Google news[11], vastly outnumbering any of the other options listed here. Tiamuttalk 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza Survey

  • Oppose. The word assault has several usages associated with criminality. Israel (or Israelis) has (have) not been convicted in an international criminal court for its (their) actions of the last few days, nor even charged AFAIK. The same applies to Gaza Strip and its residents. So, in order to WP:NPOV this, a title with "assault" in it would have to become something like 2008-2009 assaults by Israel and Gaza against each other, since it's not up to wikipedia to hint at the criminality of a violent action. Courts are there to do that, e.g. ICC. Boud (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose - The Google News hits argument is unconvincing (see below). But besides that, this visualizes the article as being about an extremely narrow topic, rather than a broader topic. Also brings a language factor: "assault" in Military Science usually means a short engagement with a narrow strategic or tactical objective, like "assaulting an outpost" or "assaulting the HQ". One of the events related to these events was indeed an assault, which was the disruption of a Hamas tunnel building during the ceasefire. But these are in any case a series of assaults and counter assaults, and you call a series of assaults anything from "battle(s)" to "conflict" to outright "war". I think the jury is still out in the reliable sources, so I think "conflict" is a good temporary solution until recentism is out the door. This is a current event, and we do not posses crystal balls, so the title in all probability will change.--Cerejota (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It has already been decided that (at this point in time) this article discusses a two-way conflict. Even still, "assault" is a questionable word to describe the Israeli action. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It wouldn't hurt to brush up on military history, and English language usage before making this kind of judgement. It is a standard term for such operations.
  • Williamson Murray, Robert H. Scales The Iraq War: A Military History‎,Harvard University Press, 2003 p. 18 describes the Anzac landings in nthe Dardenelles as one where the British launched an assault
  • Sir Martin Gilbert,The Second World War: A Complete History‎, Henry Holt and Co., 2004 p.488 describes the Allies as launching an assault on the German front line, specifically at Monte Cassino
  • Norman A. Graebner, Gilbert Courtland Fite, Philip L. White, A History of the American People, McGraw-Hill, 1975 p. 759 , describes MacArthur as launching an assault on Japanese positions in the Bismarck Archipelago.
  • David L. Phillips, Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco,‎ Westview Press, 2005 p. 216, describes the Nov 8 2004 attack on Fallujah, ‘ the First Marine Expeditionary Force launched an all-out assault on Fallujah.
  • Kenneth M. Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991‎,, University of Nebraska Press, 2002 2002p. 280 describes the Israeli offensive against Jordanian positions when the Israelis launched their assault during the night of 14-15 July 1948 on the Latrun salient.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the most accurate descriptor. To call this a two-way conflict is to join in justifying IDF actions. Trachys (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Assault/Attack on Gaza" is what the most RS call it. RomaC (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Extremely one sided. This conflict has two sides, with Hamas doing its very best to kill Israeli citizens. okedem (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The Warsaw Ghetto Jews were doing their very best to kill German citizens, but that in no way prevents us from speaking of the German assault on the ghetto. The same logic applies here. Israel, in recent years, has been killing Palestinians at a ratio of 40 to 1. How high does that ratio have to get before we can speak of Israel as the aggressor? A hundred to one? A thousand to one? NonZionist (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: you clearly know nothing at all about the Warsaw Ghetto so it is best not to speak of it, ie "Better to be thought a fool...", to quote Mark Twain... Obviously if the Palestinians had their way the kill-ratio would be entirely different. Israel has removed itself entirely from Gaza. Virtually all of the rockets and mortars this year have been aimed at Israel, from Gaza, rather than vice versa. We do understand all that about statistics. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please address the "assault" issue, Tundrabuggy. The INTENT of people under occupation is to free themselves, whether in the Warsaw ghetto or in the Gaza ghetto, but this article is about action, not supposed intent, and the Israeli action IS an assault. Israel has NOT "removed itself entirely" from Gaza, since Israel retains control of the borders and the airspace, raids Gaza, and rains bombs and shells down upon Gaza. So the December attack is actually the continuation of an assault that has been going on for decades. This is no more a "conflict" than hitting a punching bag is a "fight". NonZionist (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • "Assault on Gaza" around 2,000 hits quoted. 311 in headlines. (baseline)
  • "Gaza conflict" around 1,100 hits quoted. 551 in headlines. (current title has more than "Assault" in titles, which is what we are discussing)

Some others:

  • "Gaza strike" around 32,200 hits quoted. 41 hits on headlines. (hits leader by a wide marging)
  • "Gaza attacks" around 900 hits quoted. 539 in headlines. (More headlines than "Assault")
  • "Gaza war" around 140 hits quoted. 55 hits on headlines. (interestignly, it is not common at all in the body, but beat "Gaza Strike" - the hit leader - on headlines.

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

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

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

If we think the recent IDF strikes on Gaza warrant an article, then "conflict" does not reflect RS as well as "attack" or "assault." Many arguments given against "attack/assault" seem to suggest that events of the last several days do not warrant an article, and should instead be treated as a time slice within the larger context of a two-way conflict. That is not acceptable, the IDF strikes easily satisfy every Wiki article criteria. RomaC (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photos show the Israel usage of cluster bombs against Palestinian targets in Gaza. [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.34.110 (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic interwiki

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

It is the Arab perspective. If you want to work on that article, please do. Also, if English-only readers can't read arabic then there is no issue with including it here because it won't mislead them (since they can't read Arabic.) And those that can read Arabic can help improve its accuracy. Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress and there will always be regional biases. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the current atmosphere there no changes are accepted, and in its current state, it is simply not equivalent. Actually there will never be an equivalent because the English Wikipedia don't have such article. BTW, the NPOV approach and the pursue of "cold" restrained and balanced description of facts is not limited to a certain Wikipedia. It is a good idea to have more information relevant to English speakers on the English Wikipedia or to Arabic speakers on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean the English Wikipedia should be written from an "Anglo-Saxon perspective" or the Arabic Wikipedia from an "Arab perspective". DrorK (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the article just needs a move. There were earlier proposals that this article be moved to "Gaza massacre" or something similar and they were not accepted. Thus it does sound like it is the same general article just with different contributions who bring a different perspective and are probably very emotional right now (the Arab world is overwhelmingly angry about this.) I am sure that the Hebrew Wikipedia article is much more supportive of the Israeli perspective than the English Wikipedia article too -- it is just how it goes. It is undeniable that each Wikipedia will reflect the core perspectives of those contributing to it -- it is inescapable because Wikipedia is really a reflection of the interests and perspectives of its contributors, not a reflection of reality as it is. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Israeli entry is about the military operation itself. Pretty straightforward, in the same manner other military operations are described; What forces, when, where, what targets, reported success rates, etc. --Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right--calling this article "The Gaza Massacre" or any equivalent was quickly dismissed. That means it is, by consensus, not the title, or subject matter, of this article, and if that IS the title or subject of an Arabic-language article that's been interwiki'd with this one, then the wrong article has clearly been interwiki'd. If the Arabic-language Wiki community chooses to change the title and subject matter to something that translates to this one (or create a new article to that end), or conversely the consensus here is to shape the article to concern a "Gaza Massacre", then the interwiki would be valid. As of now it should certainly be removed. --Hiddekel (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly a secret. Of course the Arabic Wikipedia writes from a non-neutral perspective on Israel/Palestine articles. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And so does the English Wikipedia and the Hebrew Wikipedia. All the I-P and A-I conflict articles and anything tangentially related are always very bad, sometimes I wonder why I even bother, but then I realize that if we fail our readers by letting this slip, we are failing the whole project. If this project goes down, it will be over these types of articles: I want to know I did the best I could to ensure it didn't go down that way.--Cerejota (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the Arabic article in question before suggesting the the en or he Wikipedias have such articles. As a past/current contributor to all three Wikipedias I can assure you that ar-wp has some very good articles, but not the one we are talking about, and there's a limit to what you can call "an equivalent article". Sure it's not a translation nor a 1:1 mirror-version, and yet some resemblance is required. DrorK (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Drork on this. If you think articles on this subject on the English Wikipedia are "very bad", those on the Arabic Wikipedia, and this one in particular, are appalling. -- tariqabjotu 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on this, but anybody can look for themselves, here is the arabic wiki entry translated: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Far.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D9%2585%25D8%25AC%25D8%25B2%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A9_%25D8%25BA%25D8%25B2%25D8%25A9_%25D8%25AF%25D9%258A%25D8%25B3%25D9%2585%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B1_2008&sl=ar&tl=en&history_state0= Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite appalling they refer to Hamas militants as 'martyrs.' I wonder if this is the POV of Hamas or the Arab world in general (as the previous discussion suggests it's the Arabic POV). If this is rated a good article, I wonder if there are any entries there that deserve to be inter-wiki'd. Can someone please provide a link to a translation of the Hebrew wiki entry for comparison purposes? Wikieditorpro (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you rather they be called terrorists as the hebrew wiki does (translated page: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhe.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D7%259E%25D7%2591%25D7%25A6%25D7%25A2_%25D7%25A2%25D7%2595%25D7%25A4%25D7%25A8%25D7%25AA_%25D7%2599%25D7%25A6%25D7%2595%25D7%25A7%25D7%2594%0D%0A&sl=iw&tl=en&history_state0= )? I don't think any of the 3 (en, he, or ar) are totally npov, but to say one is worse then the other I dont entirely agree with. And the term martyr is generally used in the Arab world for such casualties, including the major satellite channels (al-arabiyya, Al Arabiya does not. MassimoAr (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC) al-jazeerra, dubai tv, . . . ) Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIAS links to documentation about the known systemic bias in the en.wikipedia essentially (but not only) because of the non-random demographic selection of en.wikipedia editors and suggests ways to try to overcome that bias. It would be reasonable to expect somewhat similar types of biases in the ar.wikipedia and he.wikipedia with the obvious differences. Which bias is closer to the truth? Is the en.wikipedia bias least biased because it's least biased? That's a non-argument. As long as the subject is essentially the same, i don't see any valid basis to not put in the interwiki links. Poor quality of articles is not an argument to not interlink IMHO. Some bilingual speakers of ar or he may start at en and only help NPOV the ar or he articles if they know that they exist. And vice versa. Probably there's a guideline page somewhere about when to interwikilink or not. My guess would be the only case when not to would be the risk of forks - not the risk of differing NPOVs. Boud (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The relevance is that Drork said he doesn't believe the Arabic article is similar enough to the English article to warrant an interwiki link. However, I believe the level of dissimilarity needs to be much higher for the interwiki link to be inappropriate. That is, it has to be on a different topic. Despite the Arabic article's overt bias, the article is clearly about this event. -- tariqabjotu 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it straight and simple: The Arabic article is nothing more than anti-Israeli propaganda. While the articles in English, Hebrew and other languages are informative despite some biases, the Arabic article is written as propaganda. In fact, it violates most rules to which all Wikipedias adhere. The editors in ar-wp refuse to change the nature of this article. So be it, it is not a proper time to discuss problems on the Arabic Wikipedia. However, the English article cannot direct to such propaganda as if it were an equivalent article. This is simply improper and misleading. DrorK (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I do not read Persian as well as I can read Arabic, and yet the Persian article seems to be informative and well written. It is hardly a secret that Israel's relations with Iran are not very good to say the least, and yet the Persian speaking Wikipedians seem to produce good articles even about sensitive political matters. DrorK (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Severino, if you have a translation that says differently, please present it. Otherwise, you have nothing to say. Being Israeli (or Arab or any other nationality) does not make one unqualified to speak on this issue. Editing is based on facts, not personal attacks. -- tariqabjotu 21:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol @ Arab translated article. Seriously guys, if that article was in the English wikipedia, it would be a candidate for deletion. :D It screams bias, if not propaganda, and doesn't even attempt to be remotely neutral. LOLOLOL. Everyone is up their @ss in b.s that they can't see what's right in front of them. Wake up! Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Severino, your accusations against me are despicable. You are suggesting that my claims are false because I'm Israeli. You are really taking this discussion to a very low level. DrorK (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read Severino as saying you are making "false claims" on account of being Israeli per se. They were just making a point about apparent bias, and how no one is going to immune be from it (by contrast I might add, I do see several editors on this talk page - in this section and elsewhere - mocking perspectives and news/information sources simply because they happen to be Arab or Palestinian). As for the inter-wiki link, I scanned through the Google translation of the Arabic WP page. Leaving aside any questions about what might be lost in Google translations, and the fact that the page will change over time (as this one does) - yes it is written from a strong Arab perspective and comes across a little scrappy (in translation), but I don't see where there is such a serious problem that the link has to be removed. For example -
  • The reference to "martyrs"? As has been pointed out, this is how people killed in conflict, whoever they are, are often referred to.
  • The "Zionist Entity" reference? Not the best thing in there perhaps, but it is a term that - like it or not - is sometimes used in the Arab world. It also only appears to be there once or twice (and may well be removed of course at some point). Most of the references are to "Israel" or "Israeli".
  • The "massacre" references? Well if that's what standard Arabic sources are calling these events, then it's perfectly reasonable for the Arabic WP to refer to that, even in the title. You know, it is a little arrogant and illogical to demand that the Arabic WP use the same, translated title as the English WP, or that the page there should be "equivalent" in terms of content to the English page. And someone may care to spend 20 seconds scouting around here for articles here which are named "XXX massacre", where far fewer people have been killed.
Biased? Yes it is, of course. But let's not fool ourselves that there isn't bias the other way as well, even if we can't see it, or refuse to. --Nickhh (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I am one of the main editors of the article in the Ar-Wi, just want to tell u one thing, the name of the article is Gaza Massacre and the article states it clearly that this is the name of the operation as ADOPTED by the arabic media, on the other hand, the artilce states the other names of the opertion. Now on the other hand, at certain points those who are killed are called martyrs but they are called terrorists in He-Wi!
Another thing, He-Wi is taking what's been said by the Israeli government as a state of fact (i.e. reasons for the assault) while the Ar-Wi takes what's been said by Hamas as a state of fact (more or less). For us, arabic wiki editors, we look at the english version of the article as a complete bias towards the Israel side, and at the Hebrew version of the article as if it was taken from Tzipi Livni diary.
While I was reading the English/Hebrew article I felt that I am reading an article consisting of one word: POV POV POV POV POV POV POV.... Hamas says the assault has nothing to do -directly- with the rockets launched, why isn't that mentioned in your NEUTRAL articles? Hamas says that the assault is MAINLY targeting civilians, why isn't that mentioned in your neutral articles? Hamas says that the assault is designed to terrorise the Palestanian people why ins't that mentioned in your Neutral article?? and by mentioned here I mean to be included as a fact, not as a claim, the same way you are dealing with Israeli claims.
I was the one who added the phrase, Israeli Officials says that the reasons for the attack is ..... and I supported it with sources. One thing to Drork, how many times did I tell u, if you want to make your edits do so, no one can stop u, but please cite your sources, I mean we all know that around 400 were killed up until now, but there is sources to support this number, what drork want to do in Arabi wiki is to add and add and add without sources. NO ONE CAN STOP ANY EDITS in one condidtion CITE YOUR SOURCES. Don't let Drork mislead you, you are ALL welcomed to provide me with whatever you want to be added to the Arabic Wiki article (along with the sources) and I'll be more than happy to add the edit. Wiki Arabic is one of the most Neutral wiki I've visited. Thanks all. Yamanam (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some background about Yamanam - He doesn't speak a single word in Hebrew, so he cannot read the he-wp's article. He has a map of Israel on his Arabic talk page saying it is "occupied Palestine which will soon be freed". He is responsible for articles in Arabic such as "The Gaza Holocaust" Israel's plan to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque and other propaganda articles. He came here to import this propaganda to the English Wikipedia. If he's not a troll, I don't know what is. DrorK (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down Drork, I don't read a word in hebrew but I can use www.google.com/translate. concerning the article Israel's plan to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque: I admit that I created this article, then after a second thought I decided to change it to: Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque since I felt that the first article is not necessarily a fact (Although I am 100% convinced that it is a fact but I can't prove it). And come on Drork, who of us doesn't have his own political views, we all do, the trick is how can u edit without allowing your views to influence whatever u r writting/editing, which, I am afraid, is a skill that you need to work on. Yamanam (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, you're not going to drag me into this. I could write a book about the way you introduce political propaganda as if it were sourced facts. Luckily it is quite easy to trace these fallacies, as I did more than once on ar-wp. You have many supporters on ar-wp who'd buy any crazy argument from you. Luckily this is not the way we do things here. DrorK (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is aside of the point. Inform me guys if u need any help in the Ar-Wi. Yamanam (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not feed this troll, even when he asks for food so nicely. DrorK (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrorK, getting back to the point, with respect I don't think your arguments for removing the link are at all convincing.
- "does not qualify as an inter-wiki."
...based on what criteria ?
- "the English article cannot direct to such propaganda as if it were an equivalent article. This is simply improper and misleading."
...the role of the interwiki link is to link to "nearly equivalent or exactly equivalent pages". That's it. Nothing more or less complicated than that and nothing about protecting people from propaganda, bad words, bad hairstyles etc etc. It doesn't seem unreasonable to consider the Arabic page as nearly equivalent whatever it's shortcomings at the moment. Furthermore, would it not be better to have the Arabic interwiki link there (as it is for all of the other non-English pages on this event) simply to increase the exposure of the page to potential editors ? I don't really see how removing the link helps. Just a thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propaganda is all about the SUPPRESSION of information and censorship. A void is created which can then be filled with dehumanizing stereotypes. By this standard, we in the Anglosphere are the most propagandized people on the planet. The rest of the world knows us, because the whole world has access to "our" corporate media, but we, for the most part, do not have access to the world. Thus, we know almost nothing about the people Israel is now busy slaughtering.
Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not exempt from this systemic bias, since WP:RS, essentially, means "corporate media", and every attempt to present the perspective of the victims is vehemently and ferociously opposed. The attempt to block the Arab interwiki is part of this process, whereby we who pay Israel's bills are kept in the dark. In the end, we are all harmed by this enforced blindness, even the Israelis. We Americans are led by the nose, right over a cliff, and we are unable to help the Israelis to restrain their violence and recover their humanity. NonZionist (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you did by bringing back that interwiki is totally unexceptable. Most people agree here that the ar-wp article does not qualify for an interwiki, and your opinion, as much as it is respected, cannot override other respected judgements. We are not talking about a regular expected bias here. We are talking about an intended effort by many editors in the ar-wp to turn their "equivalent" article (so to speak) into anti-Israeli propaganda. This is very evident from reading the talk page of that article. The Arabic article is based exclusively on Arab sources, many of which are unreliable or are delibaretly misinterpreted. When en-wp directs to a foreign language article through interwiki it asserts that the article is equivalent and well written. An article titled "The Gaza Massacre" cannot be said to be equivalent to this article. The very naming proves otherwise. Furthermore, once English speaking Wikipedians know the Arabic article is not only badly written but actually intended to be used as propoganda, it cannot cooperate with this trend. Sorry, the interwiki to ar-wp is off the table unless they rewrite it. DrorK (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give you a hint about the nature of discussion about that Arabic article, let me translate "Yamanam"'s response to me, when I tried to balance the article a bit: "Listen Drork, if you want to add your racist opinions which comes from the entity of your occupying terroristic Zionist racist state, do it based on reliable sources and not upon your caprices..." This was his reaction for changing "massacre" into "Israeli attack" and deleting a statement saying it was the greatest Israeli massacre against Palestinians since 1967, a statement which was introduced on the first day of the attack when the number of casualties wasn't even known for sure. Any other attempt (by other users) to introduce changes to the ar-wp article were replied in a more polite manner, but with a refusal saying that the article is good enough and neutral enough, and "we have plenty of sources". They do have plenty of sources but they use them quite strangely - Pro-Hamas sources are used to attest for the terminology they use ("massacre", "Israeli occupation forces" etc.), while the Arabic versions of CNN and BBC are there to attest for pure data. Just as an illustration: "30 people were killed in the barabarian attack by the Israeli occupation forces" ("30 people" as the Arabic BBC says, "barbarian attack", "occupation forces" as Al-Jazeera says). There are also plenty of unreliable sources in the list there. DrorK (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drork, En/HE-Articles include alot of POV, y don't u try to remove those POV, simply becuase those POV are pro-israeli and anti-Palestine - at the other end of the interwiki, at the Ar-Article, you are always trying your best to eliminate any fact that is considered as a POV from your perspective, and usually those "POV" happen to be anti-israel and pro-Palestine. This means u r not after neutrality and NPOV, u r only after removing any anti-israeli and pro-Palestine statments even if they were facts (mainly from Ar-Wi). Before anyone jump to conclusion, I delcare that I am against any/all POV.
BTW even the En-Article mentions that this was the bloodies one-day toll in 60 days, this questions your intentions when u tried to remove the very same paragraph from the Ar-Article.
One last thing I was under a lot of emotional pressure when Drork came and started falsifying facts, my family in Gaza are under fire and this guy comes and tries to change facts supported by sources just because he is trying to remove any anti-israeli fact. This is my point of view concerning our conflict. Yamanam (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I have not brought back the interwiki: I would not act without consensus. You, apparently, DID act without consensus when you deleted the link. To me, deleting access to other information and perspective is censorship. It hurts us all. It even hurts the aggressor, because it allows the aggressor to inhabit a world of dangerous self-delusion. We NEED that information. We NEED to know what our victims are thinking and saying!
As I learned when I first became an editor, WP strives for verifiability, not for truth. There IS NO perfect truth: biased opinion is ALL we have. Once you take off the blinders imposed by your own propaganda system, you will see that the en. and he. wikipedias are hugely biased. Here, almost all criticism of a certain Nazi-like regime is suppressed, because the corporate WP:RS sources we rely on do not want to offend that regime. We who live in a glass house should not throw stones.
Finally, it is not the job of the aggressor to judge and criticize the writing quality of the victim. You and I do not sit in judgment for the rest of the world. Nobody appointed us to serve as gods. Arrogance is probably what Yamanam means by "racism" -- our arrogant denial of the very existence of others as human beings. If we had a little more humility and more willingness to LISTEN to others and accept their EXISTENCE, we would need far fewer bombs and wars. As others here have said, a COLLABORATION would then develop, in which ALL wikis would benefit. NonZionist (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Most people agree here that the ar-wp article does not qualify for an interwiki". Well actually a quick count suggests that it's 10-5 in favour of including it, for what it's worth. The fact that you believe it to be "propaganda" or incorrectly titled is kind of neither here nor there (and as noted, if most Arabic sources do use the term "massacre", why on earth should English sources override that? It's the Arabic WP. As also noted there are plenty of articles titled "XX massacre" on the English WP). I'm not sure what the rules or guidelines are here, but surely there need to be exceptional reasons for removing an interwiki like this, beyond one or two editors saying they don't like the way the article is put together, even if they were to have good reasons for taking that view.--Nickhh (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nickhh - I'm not sure you understand the concept of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, in any language, is supposed to convey information in as neutral way as possible. I think I proved in a detailed and honest way that ar-wp doesn't align with this principle, at least as far as the article in question is concerned. I do not understand what kind of exceptional reasons you need. These exceptional reasons are all here. It is not a matter of like or dislike, and it is not a matter of belief. It is clear, simple and documented. Calling an event a "massacre" just because many Arabic sources call it that way, is not in line with the principles of Wikipedia, even when we talk about the Arabic language Wikipedia. Preventing users from editing articles claiming their are "Zionist racist" is certainly not in line with Wikipedia's policies for any language. There are way too many reasons here to refrain from linking this article to its Arabic "equivalent". As for Yamanam - he is a troll who successfully destoyed the Arabic Wikipedia and he will be happy to do the same here if we let him. I suggest taking anything he says very cauciously. Needless to say, he doesn't speak Hebrew, so he cannot judge the value of the he-wp articles. I can cite a lot of problematic statements and edits he made in ar-wp over a long period of time. I'm not sure he is the person we would like to trust here, even under the principle of assuming good faith. DrorK (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand the concept very well. As for the massacre point, please read this page and have a look at some of the pages on English Wikipedia which call things massacres, because that's the standard way of referring to them in the English language record; or equally sometimes because editors with an agenda here want to stress the description for effect. Neutrality doesn't mean blandness, nor does it mean we should ignore the main viewpoint of relevant sources. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the characterisation "massacre" in this case, I'm just remarking that it would not appear to be against WP principles as such, and surely cannot be a reason to exclude the interwiki. Nor can the fact that one editor involved on Arabic wikipedia was allegedly rude to you. There are page titles and page content on the English WP that make my eyes pop out - some of them get removed quickly, others get to stay for a long time. It doesn't follow that these should be excluded as inter-wikis - again, would we not need an exceptional reason to exclude the link to the Arabic article here? --Nickhh (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The killing of civilians in Israel by Palestinians are often referred to a 'massacres' in the media and here in WP. It's hardly surprising that the Arabic article would use that term for this event given the number of civilians killed so far. It's emotive in this context but hardly a stretch from most dictionary definitions. Drork, can I again try to appeal to you to consider that increasing the exposure of the page to potential editors might be a better approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you are doing here is an argument for the sake of arguing, while ignoring most of the points I mentioned above. A "massacre" is a term that can be used in the right context. This is not the right context as example all Wikipedias but ar-wp. There is not a single Wikipedia save ar-wp that uses this term in the title for such an article. Furthermore, the ar-wp editors block any attempt to introduce information, sources or terminology which contradict their political views. Yamanam is the main figure in introducing this approach, and unfortunately he gains a lot of support from people who think Wikipedia is just another political forum. If you read the citation I brought earlier, you'll understand what I'm talking about. I think I brought all the evidence in the world why this interwiki is inappropriate, and I think there is no need to continue this debate. You are right - excluding an interwiki is an exceptional measure, but this is an exceptional case, where the article in question deals with the same subject but by no mean can be said to be equivalent, let alone written in the standards of Wikipedia. DrorK (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Drork, what is happening is that you have removed a link and people are giving you the opportunity to justify that move rather than simply restoring the link. If it turns out that you have failed to convinced enough people the link will get restored. It's a wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some people here are convinced. Some don't want to be convinced. There are serious and just arguments for my move all over this discussion, and yet I am still discredited. I am not sure this is the way things should be conducted here. DrorK (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments against censorship are more convincing than the arguments for it, and that will always be so. This is, to some extent, a democracy, and in a democracy, the views of others matter as much as your own views: You are no more discredited than others here are discredited. We are EQUALS, ar., he., and en. all on the same level. It's not perfect, but it's the only way society can work. NonZionist (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you do not mention the people that -are- not convinced is telling. Anyway, interwiki links to articles that cover the same subject. Quality is no criteria for inclusion of an interwiki. Even more so, since each different Wikipedia also has differing guidelines. If you think otherwise, provide us with a link to the corresponding policy. Otherwise, just stop. Lunus (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we're not all wrong and simply blindly refusing to be convinced by the brilliance of your argument. If I may, can I summarise the position - Drork you say that, in your view, the Arab WP article is extremely POV from the title onwards and therefore should not be linked; most other editors here are saying it may or equally may not be seriously biased (as may this article seem to outside readers - I've certainly seen some very odd material being dumped in here occasionally, and perfectly good material blocked) but we need a better reason than that to exclude the interwiki anyway. That is, you have two hurdles to jump here, and you haven't gotten over either yet. Your simply asserting that it's not a good enough article in your eyes, well, just doesn't cut it. Why not look at it this way if it helps - people will be better able to see quite how biased the Arabic WP must be if the link remains. --Nickhh (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dror, I am very sorry the discussion between you and Yamanam reached that point, I am also sorry about your decision to stop contributing to ar.wp, I understand the heated stance both of you come from. however, you keep going back to whatever you exchanged with him as an example to the quality of discussions on ar.wp, The talk page contains contributions from more than ten other people, neither of which is even involved in your exchange with Yamanam, topics there range from toning down NPOV , renaming the article, increasing the number of non-arab sources and other corrective measures. I don't see how this is not a normal wikipedia article -albeit a controversial one- in the process of formulation. And I see the number of people here agreeing with adding back the interwiki more than the ones not agreeing (in fact, I see the most opposition is mostly from you based more or less on your exchange with Yamanam). Moreover, as Lunus said, if you can produce a different criteria for including interwiki we would like to see it, in the meantime, I am adding it back. --Shipmaster (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drork, you aren't "discredited". You read English, Arabic and Hebrew and therefore can contribute a lot more than most people. I'm sure many people appreciate that and understand why you are uncomfortable with the interwiki link. If the Arabic article needed sentences like 'The car is red. My sister opened the big door. This is a book" I would fix it myself with my fantastic Arabic language skills. WP needs people with language skills like you. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support including the link. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as ar-wp talks about "Gaza massacre" this interwiki is out. End of story. DrorK (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Dror, but it is not up to only you to say, I see a near-consensus here, and only you right now is arguing against --Shipmaster (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not gonna participate in any argument with Drork. And to cut long story short, I am the one who first created the article in Ar-Wp, and I named it Gaza Operation any one can review it so if Drork is claiming that I had a hand in naming it Gaza Masscare then I think we need to double check his claims. Now after I created this article other users came and changed the name and this guy, Drork, came in and started dumping info to the article without proper resources so I didn't allow him to do so since his edits are without any reliable nor verifiable sources, and this is not the first time he did that, he always does the same in Ar-Wp and expect us to accept his edits. One question to u Drork, how many times did I delete your edits that are supported with relaible and verifiable sources? ZERO. Don't insert me in as a reason for deleting the interwiki, cuz I have no hand in naming the article Gaza Masscare and u can see the talk page of the article I said, I'll never reject any name for this article as long as there is a consensus on it.Yamanam (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re Drork's comment above - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWN, encapsulated in one line. Sorry but interwiki links are standard practice as far as I know, and - for the 10th time - without a compelling reason to exclude one in this case, and given the apparent consensus here, it's in. End of story. --Nickhh (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Strength

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

Have added that Hamas accumulated about "10,000 missiles and rockets". Chesdovi (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any source saying that 6,600 or so of those have been destroyed? I know they are equivalent, but I don't want to sound WP:SYNTHy, and we shouldn't report they have 10,000 missiles if 2.3 of them are destroyed. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WT (questionable source) story on 10,000 rockets does not name any source for the figure. We also don't know if all 20,000 Hamas members are combatants. One side is Hamas, the other is the IDF, if we mention total Hamas strength then we have to mention total IDF strength to be balanced. The word "total" is included in a note to both the IDF and Hamas figures. RomaC (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not quite accurate. The reason that total Hamas strength is mentioned is that a overwhelming majority of Hamas combatants are located in the Gaza Strip. This does not apply to the IDF, which, even assuming there will be a ground incursion, will use only a small fraction of its total strength. 176,500 is also an incorrect figure because it is simply the amount of regular soldiers. Obviously rear-front corps like the Adjutant Corps are not actively participating; the 20,000 for Hamas refers only to combatants. On the other hand, so far about 9,000 reservists have been called up.
Having said all that, I would just remove both figures, as I think this is an immediate problem and don't wish to drag out this dispute. The situation in the infobox is getting worse by the edit, and now it has a weird figure of '6,500 reserve troops (total)' for Israel, which is not only incorrect, but also misleading because the IDF clearly said that this would be a regular army operation.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we cannot be as accurate as we would like to. Wiki convention in conflict infoboxes is to list involved parties, their commanders, troop strength and casualties. As this is a controversial article for many some editors, we should stick to Wiki conventions. Yes Hamas members are in Gaza but clearly the IDF is involved in this conflict even though few if any IDF members are physically in Gaza. I don't see the point of physical location when we are talking about modern warfare. Removing the reserves number for the time being as regular troops strength is verifiable and reserves are a new development. RomaC (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this move. The convention is to have fighting strengths listed for each battle, not the total troop strength of a given army. For example, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it would be sort of weird to put 1,447,076 soldiers for the US strength. The fact is, there are IDF units participating in this operation, and there are those that are not. Since so far there have only been airstrikes and some artillery strikes, we can write 'Air force<br />Gaza Division'. No one said that exact troop strength needs to be given.
The situation with Hamas is totally different, of course. All Hamas combat units are presumed to be active in either preparations or firing rockets, and the IDF estimates their strength at 15,000 at this point. On the other hand, they too have a structure and there is no fighting on the ground at this point, so it would be misleading to the unfamiliar reader to give the current Hamas strength as 15,000 (or 20,000).
Therefore, in my opinion, both strength numbers should be removed, with an emphasis on the Israeli number which is completely misleading and incorrect. In addition, while my personal experience has no bearing on the article, having been in combat support in the last war, I will tell you that the IDF is a giant body which does not commit all its forces and it's completely wrong to suggest that all forces are involved in some way. In fact, in the 2006 war (which was much larger than this operation, so far), the vast majority of the IDF (both regular and reserves) was about as involved in the conflict as the farmers of China. Speaking of Lebanon, the article on that war says in the infobox: Up to 30,000 soldiers in the last few days (+ IAF & ISC)[5][6]. This is how it should be, really.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

RomaC has removed Hamas strength: 20,000 rockets, from the infobox stating that it's "not a reliable source, also if we are going to list total Hamas firepower we should list total IDF firepower". In that case we should also removed helicopters and aircraft involved, b/c it is therefore unbalanced. Or should we add how many rocktes have been fired so far? Chesdovi (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot about that. Yes, the source for "20,000 rockets" was from a questionable publication that named no source for its guess-timate. The Qassam attacks article shows about 150 rockets fired in the first two days of the conflict, that could balance the estimate of what weaponry the IDF have deployed so far in the strikes. News reports range from 20-100 Katyusha and Qassam rockets fired per day since the strikes began. How about: "Several hundred rockets (used from December 27 onwards)"? RomaC (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


The 'Strength' for Israel should be returned to 176000 as this is their total potential strength. 20000 is the total number of militants, we have no way of knowing how many of them are prepared to fight.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of the conflict

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

  • right to resist occupation
  • right to defend citizens
  • illegality of collective punishment
  • obligation for an occupying force to protect those in the territory
  • terrorism
We don't want this article to get bogged down in legal issues which belong on the main article of the general conflict rather than the current round of attacks. The only place the legal issue should come in is as quotes by major governments about Israel actions, although ive yet to hear it described as an illegal response except by the usual suspects. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, please sign your comments using four tildes (
~~~~
). Second, I don't think this has much of a place in this article. These are recurring issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I think they are better discussed extensively on different articles about human rights, briefly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, and only very briefly on specific articles like this one (i.e. by just linking to articles with more detail). -- tariqabjotu 14:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The legality of the present conflict is a very interesting and relevant aspect of the topic. However, the question is what do we "know" in the WP:NPOV + WP:RS + WP:NOR sense about the legal aspects? Can you find any quotes by the Gaza Strip de facto government (Gaza Strip), by the Israeli government or by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) about legal actions (e.g. through the International Court of Justice) that they will take? Or statements by notable lawyers or similar? The problem with using our (wikipedians') common sense and describing what aspects of international law are relevant here is that applying common sense in this domain is highly controversial and unlikely to lead to any easy consensus. There would immediately be concerns that we are adding Original Research to the article.
An example of what could be included, if and only if it were specifically for this conflict of the past week, which it is not, would be something like the situation for the conflict as a whole, e.g. On December 13, 1997, Prof. Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, recommended that "Palestine Should Sue Israel for Genocide before the International Court of Justice". He outlined the legal procedure that he recommends. with the reference properly formatted. That particular notable information is only relevant here in the background section, but the background here should be a summary from other in-depth articles, where NPOV decisions on NPOV summaries should be made, not here.
An obvious point is that whether or not the present actions by either side count as war crimes, violation of international law by an occupying power, or worse, depends on things like intent and the degree to which one of the actions was a necessary action in self-defence avoiding any actions that could risk civilian casualties, the question of "who started first?" vs "who responded disproportionately?". Should wikipedians decide these? Obviously not. Many socio-political groups and organisations have interests in pushing their preferred POVs on these. We have to either wait until a court case occurs at the International Court of Justice or the Gaza Strip or Israel (or the PNA) state that they will take legal action, or at least have some reliable sources publishing legal opinions.
So i tend to agree with tariqabjotu here - unless a specific legal action is taken regarding this intensive conflict phase, legal issues are general and so have their place in the more general Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. Boud (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What legal issues could there be? Hamas has been bombarding Israel for months with rockets and mortar shells. This is a completely legitimate act of war on the IDF's part. Jtrainor (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot more aspects to the conflict than just that. See Israeli-Palestinian conflict for details. As for your specific opinion, do you have any court opinions or other reliable sources for issues of public international law supporting this legal opinion? For example, did Israel submit a request for the indication of provisional measures of protection? Did Gaza Strip violate the "indication of provisional measures of protection" (equivalent of a temporary restraining order)? Boud (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is beyond the scope of the discussion unless it becomes a RS/V issue, which it hasn't for the current actions. In fact, Israel is not a signatory of the ICC, and has repeatedly not accepted UN resolutions (in particular those around the partition and the Six-Day War) so issues of legality are POV (i.e. international legality is based on the acceptance of jurisdiction by sovereign nations).--Cerejota (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Done. Boud (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that guy is clearly biased. The way he says it, one would think that Israel is indiscriminately carpet bombing the Gaza Strip, when in fact they have no option but to attack civilian areas-- their enemies are, after all, purposely concealing their facilities therein. Furthermore, that organization was specifically created ONLY to investigate alleged violations by Israel, and as such, it is not a reliable source for anything other than what that organization says. This article from UN Watch my prove pertinent: http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1317481&ct=2753615 Jtrainor (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Falk is clearly not an objective speaker (hardly can he be, comparing Israel to the Nazi Germany). I believe that the section should be removed entirely due to the arguments made above. But if it stays, we must have more reliable sources than Flak, and we can certainly not feel comfortable with the entire section relying ONLY on Falk's propositions.--Omrim (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, year Falk's always been a heavy criticizer of Israel regardless of what they do. By wikipedia policy, he should not be considered a legal expert or even a professional expert on the subject. He is not a lawyer or judge, his opinion is less notable than Jimmy Carters. Plus, he got his facts wrong. It remains to be seen if "hundreds of civilians" have been killed, currently the figure is less than 90, if that. Until more information is published, which I'm sure in the next week there will be plenty of b.s questioning the legality of the war, this has to go or the section should be renamed to something that emphasizes his opinion. Maybe move the topic to "Reactions of Academics", I don't know...Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jtrainor: if you are a professor of international law or similar and have published a statement on legally acceptable military strategy under the Geneva Conventions and other aspects of international law, especially in this particular set of events discussed in this article, then please give us a link to your externally published opinion. Our own wikipedians' opinions on what Israel's "options" are are only marginally relevant. Boud (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Omrim: of course you are welcome to add other reliable sources, e.g. from professors of international law from other recognised universities. Whether or not Falk is biased is not for us to judge: we are not claiming that what he says is a fact. The facts that he is an emeritus professor of international law at Princeton University and that he has been chosen by a process which is by construction much less biased than the selection process of en.wikipedian editors are arguments strongly suggesting that his POV is less biased than ours, but they are not sufficient to quote his POV as fact. With this, i agree. That's why his statements are NPOVed. Boud (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan, you seem to claim that "By wikipedia policy, [Falk] should not be considered a legal expert or even a professional expert on [international law because he's] always been a heavy criticizer of Israel regardless of what they do." Could you please point us to a wikipedia policy that says that notable people who consistently criticise Israel (regardless of Israel's actions) should not be considered as legal or professional experts? i have to admit being sceptical regarding the existence of this policy. Boud (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boud, we would all appreciate it if you would please stop using bolded words to emphasise your point. It's rude in netiquette, similar to using all caps. We can still read perfectly without the bolded letters, thanks. --220.255.7.206 (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jtrainor: The same argument you use against Palestinians could be used against the Israelis ten times over. Jonathan Cook demonstrates that Israel sites its own military facilities next to Arab civilian areas, using Arab towns as human shields. See Evidence of Israeli 'Cowardly Blending' Comes to Light, Jonathan Cook, 05 Jan 2008. You would then be forced to conclude, by your own logic, that Palestinians "have no choice but to attack Israeli civilian areas" -- the more so since Israel continues the occupation and the blockade and the checkpoints and the terror from the air. If you could move beyond the "Omniscient" corporate media and look at things from the perspective of the VICTIMS of our genocidal policies, you might come to a very different conclusion about what is legal and what isn't. NonZionist (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Israel vs Gaza Strip claimed violations

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

I was the one who removed the source (though not the text). I don't object to Falk's background, but I do object to the fact that it comes from a webblog, which is not a reliable source. Particularly troubling is that this is a blog that is devoted to "the resistance." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must an expert be neutral to be valid as a reference (question honest more than rhetorical)? I have strong opinions on most of the things I know a lot about, though Middle East policy isn't one of them.Calmofthestorm7 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary selection of elements of international law

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

Boud, please try to see my point: I have no doubts that Falk is an expert in Int'l Law. However, Law is not about facts. Law is about fitting facts to legal definitions. Every definition has sub-definitions, exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. In sum, law (and specifically Int'l law) is an interpretative field. Bringing one opinion of one prof. which is known to "take sides" in this specific conflict does not serve objectivity. Of course, his propositions are NPOV, but it is also stated that he is an emeritus prof. from a known university (which gives hime credibility). Why not mention that he is both a professor and a that he previously compared Israel to Nazi Germany (for the sake of NPOV). Bringing other views is also not productive here becasue all views are INTERPRETATIVE. For every argument we can find counter-argument. For example, why deleting the textbook citation? So what if Int'l law has many aspects? art. 28 is most certainly one of them. Instead of deleting it, why don't you bring another aspect to counter argue it? See where I'm getting? there is no end to it. This should be deleted, and re-started (if we wish to do so) as a separate article (only that way we may present many - not even most - relevant arguments). Please consider it --Omrim (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example: Did Israel Use "Disproportionate Force" in Gaza?. There is no end to it (mind the fact that the article is of course not from an impartial writer, just goes to show that for every argument we can find counter-argument when legal issues are at hand).--Omrim (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Omrim: You point out that the Law is about fitting facts to legal definitions, or rather facts and claims of facts. i agree. Why we mention that is an emeritus professor rather than his discussion of Israel and Nazi Germany is that a process of selection by the academic community of lawyers consensed on judging Falk as sufficiently reliable, neutral and objective to give him his professorship status, while opinions on whether or not he made a valid link between Israel and Nazi Germany have not gone through such a process.
Your argument about getting into an endless cycle of argument and counterargument would be valid if we did not have WP:NPOV. But we do have the WP:NPOV process. Wikipedians do not judge the individual opinions, instead we try to go to a meta-level where we judge the selection processes. We do not choose which articles of the Geneva Conventions are most relevant, we let the professionally recognised professors of international law choose them. There are many less of them than us, so there is a better chance of converging on a limited set of interpretative opinions. Boud (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) (ambiguous wording corrected Boud (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Jtrainor: appeals to authority are what WP:RS is all about, though it's a bit more subtle. We don't have access to internal decision-making mechanisms in CNN, NYT, BBC, we don't know much of how they negotiate with their respective governments and advertisers on sensitive issues. But we consider them more reliable than essentially-anonymous wikipedians.
Secondly, of course we do not accept what Falk or Weiner/Bell say as fact without reservation. We NPOV what they say. Falk/Weiner/Bell say/state/claim that such-and-such. Boud (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree. However, I think it should be brought in porportion with the rest of the article. As long as the material in the section is notable and reliably sourced it should stay, but it should not give undue weight.VR talk 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, also. Deleting references to legality simply advantages the criminals. Law exists for a reason. Without it, we descend even further into totalitarianism. Is that what we want? If we were living in the 1930s and discussing Germany, would it not be appropriate to include a section on the legality of Kristallnacht, say? If legality was important then, why is it not important now? NonZionist (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

i also disagree, in case it isn't obvious. Both Israel and Gaza Strip have to accept that the legality or illegality is discussed by lawyers and will possibly be judged in an appropriate court. We cannot hide this information. Boud (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. This has not been taken to any world court. But if you insist on putting it in, than equal weight must be given to Israel's view, which many here are doing their best to completely silence. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding equal weight for Israel: In the present revision, the Israel section has approximately equal length paragraphs with one paragraph saying that the Israeli actions (which had occurred) are illegal (929 characters in the rendered version) and the second paragraph predicting that Israeli actions (which had not yet happened) would be legal (867 characters). The Gaza Strip section has a section saying that the Gaza Strip actions are illegal (806 characters), and a section saying that the Gaza Strip actions are legal is missing (0 characters). So equal weight probably also applies to Gaza Strip, unless some are more equal than others. You could help get to an equal weight status by finding an international lawyer's opinion stating that the Gaza Strip's actions are legal under international law. Boud (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC) (minor correction Boud (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Boud: why shouldn't we wait until - as you stated - it is "judged in an appropriate court" just as in the case of the West Bank Barrier. There, the legal section is considerably shorter and makes more sense since IT HAS BEEN JUDGED. Lets not place ourselves instead of the plaintiffs, defendants ot judges. Lets report facts, not opinions of the facts' implications --Omrim (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also according to the West Bank Barrier precedent, we shoud at least re-title the section as "opinions of the operation" instead of "legal status". We can add a "legal status" section when the legal status is made clear. --Omrim (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case it would also make sense to delete weiner and bell as their opinion is not "of the operation".--Omrim (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably "Legal opinions" would be better than "Legal status" - you're right about that. "Opinions of the operation" omits the word "legal", which defeats the whole point of having a section on legal aspects, and "of the operation" would lead to the section being globally POV, since we would have no legal opinions on Gaza Strip rocket attacks against Israel, just opinions saying that the Israeli attacks are legal or illegal. Boud (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The legal opinions are reliable facts in the sense that prominent international law lawyers have declared them publicly. When/if the attacks by both sides have been judged in court, then the opinions will become less relevant. Until then, they are relevant IMHO. Boud (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • So how about changing it to "Opinions of the legality of the operation"--Omrim (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • i don't see the point of including the word "operation". By having just "Legal opinions", it's implicit that these are "Legal opinions on whatever this whole article is about". The article is mostly about the Israeli attack on Gaza Strip, but to some degree it's also about Gaza Strip attacks on Israel which preceded that and which are continuing to occur. Boud (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Agreed.--Omrim (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Omrim (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

The Weiner/Bell document was last modified on 25 December (see the pdf file at the source website or the archived version) - two days before the attack. So it's not a statement about this particular event. Strictly speaking, it should only be used in the Gaza Strip subsection to describe what Weiner/Bell see as human rights violations by Gaza Strip, not as a description of Israel's actions since 27 December, since Weiner/Bell did not know what has taken place since then, though they must have known that the planned attack was being discussed in the media (AFAIK, it was discussed publicly). However, in the interests of balancing POVs, it seems to me that the Weiner/Bell pre-dated justification of the Israeli airstrikes should at least stay there until/unless we get a similar POV after the initial attack took place.

Also, i agree that we don't want to make the section too long. Let's try to keep the key points claimed by international law professors from both sides, without entering into too much details. Boud (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: how do you know it's from December 25? I can't find a date in the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas Covenant

Thinking aloud: wikisource:Hamas Covenant was deleted for copyright reasons, so we can't just wikilink it. Adding an external source in the text is not a good idea. Probably just an internal link from the Hamas page would be best... Boud (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Hamas#Hamas_founding_charter. "Intent" (what people aim to do) is AFAIK very important in any legal case. The translations which seem to come via Israeli authorities or pro-Israel sources don't put Hamas' intentions in a good light. If the translations are wrong, though i don't have any evidence that they are, then Hamas supporters had better provide their own English translation somewhere on the web. In any case, we can presume that the wikipedia entry Hamas has been reasonably NPOVed, or else will be some time in the future. Boud (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamas" means "Resistance", and the Hamas Charter calls explicitly for resistance to "Nazi-like" behavior. E.g., Article Twenty condemns "Nazism" that "does not skip women and children, it scares everyone." These "Nazis":

make war against people's livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor. In their horrible actions they mistreat people like the most horrendous war criminals. Exiling people from their country is another way of killing them. As we face this misconduct, we have no escape from establishing social solidarity among the people, from confronting the enemy as one solid body, so that if one organ is hurt the rest of the body will respond with alertness and fervor.

As soon as the Nazis go away, the need for Hamas (resistance) goes away.
If we Americans were on the right side of the moral fence, we would support this opposition to Nazi-like behavior and stand in solidarity with the victims of this monstrous tyranny. That we do just the opposite is proof of our own moral bankruptcy and our betrayal of our own founding principles. I used to wonder how the Germans managed to be so blind to their own evil. Now I see the dynamics that keep us Americans imprisoned in the same system of dehumanizing and ultimately genocidal evil. NonZionist (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind NonZionist that wiki talk pages are not forums and to ask him to step off his soapbox. Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, Tundrabuggy. My point is that our stereotypes prevent us from making common cause with people who share many of our beliefs: We are throwing away opportunities, and the current debacle is the result. You're probably right: I need to be less vocal. On the other hand, if our uninhibited dialogue here helps us to move beyond imprisoning stereotypes, then the article that results may help us to avoid future assaults and invasions. NonZionist (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity and undue weight

Please keep the legal section brief. Yes legal issues are important, but they are a very minor part of the conflict (given they are only theories, no legal proceedings have taken place). Also, please ensure that both sides are given due weight for the sake of NPOV. Cheers, VR talk 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are neither theories (scientific sense) nor hypotheses. They are legal opinions by people well-qualified to make such statements. Regarding due weight, this requires respect for due weight from everyone editing here (including me, and i've tried my best). As for the importance of legal opinions, the fact that some of us seem to be unwilling to accept that legal opinions by professors of international law should be cited, because we judge those opinions to be absurd, is probably a sign that this part of human knowledge is in fact important and notable for this moment of this particular conflict. People don't often get so sensitive about trivial information, especially in this sort of subject. Boud (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i see that someone just restored the section to at least a workable state. It could probably still do with some improvement, but at least people could work on specific details of the sentence structures etc. and discuss what is most NPOV and neutral. Boud (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked to cut down a lot of the material, and keeping only the basic arguments in place. I hope its acceptable now.VR talk 13:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creation/edit dates of Weiner/Bell

Since some people seem to keep removing the date of the Weiner/Bell document, here is what grep -a Date puzzle1.pdf gives: 

   xap:CreateDate="2008-06-30T09:54:48+03:00"
   xap:ModifyDate="2008-08-10T10:33:27+03:00"
   xap:MetadataDate="2008-08-10T10:33:27+03:00"
   xap:CreateDate="2008-07-28T12:49:32+03:00"
   xap:ModifyDate="2008-07-28T12:49:32+03:00"
   xap:MetadataDate="2008-07-28T12:49:32+03:00"
   xap:CreateDate="2008-06-30T09:54:48+03:00"
   xap:ModifyDate="2008-08-10T10:33:27+03:00"
   xap:MetadataDate="2008-08-10T10:33:27+03:00"
         <xap:CreateDate>2008-12-25T15:04:52+02:00</xap:CreateDate>
         <xap:ModifyDate>2008-12-25T15:05:05+02:00</xap:ModifyDate>
         <xap:MetadataDate>2008-12-25T15:05:05+02:00</xap:MetadataDate>
<</CreationDate(D:20081225150452+02'00')/Creator(Adobe InDesign CS3 \(5.0\))/Producer(Adobe PDF Library 8.0)/ModDate(D:20081225150505+02'00')/Tr0000000000 65535 f

Boud (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Legal opinions - one not-too-bad version in case a revert is needed

This version is far from perfect but i think it's decent enough that most people should be willing to work on it and make improvements rather than make radical changes without discussion. This version:

  • has Falk and Weiner/Bell legal opinions in both directions,
  • probably does not have many weasel words left in it,
  • correctly notes the date of the Weiner/Bell opinion without trying to discredit it,
  • includes the claims that Israel did and that Israel did not violate international law
  • includes the claim that Gaza Strip did violate international law - a claim by an international lawyer that Gaza Strip's rocket attacks were legal is missing (maybe no international law lawyer has claimed that, in that case it will necessarily remain missing; i would expect that search for international law lawyers from Palestinian Territories or other Arab countries might yield such a claim)
  • doesn't try to make a huge number of subsections on the different aspects of international law alleged to have been violated
  • is not too long IMHO.

There are certainly improvements that could be made.

  • Replacing Weiner/Bell by international lawyers who already have wikipedia entries which give some "wikipedia process evidence" that they are notable would be good.
  • Replacing Weiner/Bell by a statement after the first few days of the Israeli attack (instead of the actual document which was last edited 25 December 2008, before the Israeli attack), either by them or by others, would also improve the section.

In any case, if at the moment you are reading this, you see the "Legal opinions" section in the article, possibly under another name, and it looks hopelessly POV to you, then you might want to merge whatever is present in the version that you're reading into a copy of the section in this version. At least, please do not think that other people have not achieved some moderate level of NPOV/RS/NOR status for the section. (The authors are multiple, certainly not just me - but i'm not going to try to trace who contributed.) Boud (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the difference between Palestinians and Civilians

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

I agree it should be very clear the difference between a Palestinian civilian and HAMAS security forces / militants but thats only possible if theres accurate sources and its far harder to get the full details of the casualties from Gaza compared to Israel where huge detail is available within hours. Where possible it should say "Palestinian civilians" or "Women and Children" and "Security forces" or "HAMAS security forces" etc. Or like it does in part of the opening pararaphs say 350 Palestinians, including 60+ women and children. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is tragically simple. If a person was killed in a military uniform (i.e. Hamas military wing) or if he or she was bearing a weapon or explosive; or if they were otherwise directly operating or supporting an offensive military activity - e.g. a Palestinian Chemistry professor in the Islamic university in Gaza, killed in an 'academic' lab used to make Kassams when it was attacked by the Israelis (purely a hypothetical example)- they are all combatants. Not civilians. A civilian universally means 'innocent passer by'. And the above are anything but. The terror organizations know this so they constantly try to swallow more and more chunks of civilian Arab populace into their war effort and by not clarifying the terms, we are helping them oppress their population. Honestreporting2 (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is interested in your personal definition of the word "civilian." In this article we should use that word exactly in the same way as our sources do. Offliner (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his description is quite correct. The problem is that there is no way of getting exact (or even approximate) numbers. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 12:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From civilian: "A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units."
I'm not aware of any definition which says that people involved in weapons production (arms industry) would not be civilians. Offliner (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Omrim, your comparison is weak. Just because all Israeli citizens are required to serve in the military, doesn't mean all citizens are legitimate military targets. If I was 19 year old male who planned on joining the military and for some strange reason I was killed in a war, should I be considered a civilian casualty or soldier casualty? What matters is the present occupation, not the future or the past. So if an ex-Hamas gunfighter was killed while tending to his gardens, he would be considered a civilian casualty. Get it? This subject needs attention seriously...Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree then. --Omrim (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Severino- no I don't. I only had a problem with your specific implication.--Omrim (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Israeli government and Hamas government cannot be compared by the same standards. Hamas runs like a terrorist organization, in the sense that support comes from many locales, homes, libraries, things that we consider ordinary is often used there to conceal weapons/soldiers/etc (hence, bombing of university). but at the same time, it also functions as a civil government, in the way that hamas operates with official buildings and headquarters where things "supposedly" get done. Israel, on the other hand, is far more organized and less secretive in terms of general government, while the military does not infringe on society or ordinary things. you wont find a group of israeli soldiers hiding amongst "innocent" civilians, and use them as shields. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as where they get their support, see Taxes. As far as not being secretive, see Mossad. Yes, Hamas has been labeled as a terrorist organization by many countries, but many more see them as something else (resistance movement, political organiztion, whatever). But they are indeed the de facto govt of the West Bank, and they do provide the services of government. And police officers are most certainly civilians, unless they actually take up arms against other combatants. See [[14]]: Any Person not belonging to the armed forces (see Chapter III, Section I) is considered as a civilian. Nableezy (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Hamas barely has an economy. They get 99% of their financial support from Iran, Syria, Israel, and terrorism fronts. Your comparison of Mossad is unfair because it is an intelligence gathering unit and does not even remotely address my points. In response to your classification of civilians, we cannot rely on what Hamas considers civilians and soldiers. Gaza is chaos, citizens are not policed, there is virtually no judicial process, and odds are, any "police" officer killed in the conflict is most likely a militant or soldier. Israel doesn't just drop bombs and hope, and they don't target civilian centers for the sake of killing civilians, unlike Hamas. It is beyond ignorant to even consider Hamas as a legitimate and civil government. They discriminate, kill anyone who questions them, and most importantly, not only support, but knowingly provide resources to kill Israeli (and if necessary) Palestinian civilians. Stop white-washing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza economy is not the issue here, if it were the 18-month Israeli blockade of all exports might be discussed. Cops are civilians, as are government employees such as receptionists and file clerks. RomaC (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cops are civilians as long as they do not have their guns pointed to the "enemy." People that work for the military are military. Within every legitimate military there are branches with varying responsibilities. In a legitimate military, covered by Geneva convention rules (laws), all active military wears a uniform. In a guerrilla war, none do. Instead of having branches, the militants have footsoldiers that make and buy weapons as well as shoot and launch them. Those footsoldiers are not civilians, like those they serve, they are un-uniformed militants. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost ALL Palestinians are civilians. If my home is invaded and I attempt to defend my family, do I lose my civilian status? International law recognizes the right of people under occupation to RESIST, and victims of aggression have a right of self-defense. Thus, the distinction between civilian and combatant is legally meaningless. The important distinction is that between the aggressor and the victim of aggression, and that is the distinction the artificial "civilian" debate obfuscates. NonZionist (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You forget that Israel left Gaza some years ago and that the homes that have been invaded by rockets and mortars have been Israeli ones, not vice versa. Thus it is Israel that is resisting and is acting in self defense. You can't seriously be suggesting that the "civilian" concept is unnecessary because everyone on one side is a civilian and everyone on the other side is not? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying:
  1. that the civilian concept should not be used to whitewash or obfuscate aggression. This is just common sense. If someone breaks into my house, the moral high-ground rests with me, whether or not I attempt to fight back. Only in the Kafkesque world of the ideologue is the defender condemned as a "combatant".
  2. Israeli colonists have departed from an indefensible position in Gaza, but Gaza remains under Israeli occupation and control, inasmuch as Israel controls the borders and the airspace and the water, and bombs, shells, and raids the territory at will.
  3. I would extend civilian status to Israelis who are not directly involved in aggression.
  4. I would then simply count the number of dead and treat ALL of the dead as civilians. NonZionist (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys this naive? Hamas is not a civil democratic government. You don't apply for a job by submitting a resume and possibly and interview. Hamas is a radical, terrorist-sponsored/sponsoring religious fundamentalist group which doesn't deserve the kind of legitimacy and merit you guys are giving it. I mean for god's sakes, one of the most honored and celebrated leaders of Hamas sent his own kid to be a suicide bomber. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of 8 Sariya inmates

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

At least eight people were murdered in Gaza on Sunday after escaping prison. The eight were killed for allegedly helping Israel fight terrorism by providing information on local terrorist groups. The incident was reported by one of Yedioth Ahronoth's Arab correspondents. The incident began when Gaza's main prison, located near the village of Sariya, was destroyed in an IAF strike. Several prisoners managed to escape the damaged building, among them many who had been accused of cooperating with Israel or convicted and sentenced to death for “collaboration”. Upon hearing of the airstrike, terrorists and relatives of terrorists killed by the IDF rushed to the prison and caught several of the escaping inmates. Those caught were immediately killed. One of the victims was identified as Jamal Randour, who was convicted of giving Israel information leading to the assassination of Abed Abu-Yusuf el-Kuku, head of the Salah el-Din brigades. Source: Gaza 'Collaborators' Murdered Chesdovi (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very credible: arutz sheva and yediot a.'s "arab correspondent"--Severino (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the correspondent, working for an Israeli newspaper, probably wishes to remain anonymous. See Palestinians settle old scores in Gaza, from Reuters. Chesdovi (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am missing something I think. Isn't Reuters a credible source?--Omrim (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters source mentions two collaborators killed (one from a guy on a motorbike, and another by family members of a slain militant). --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if their murder should be included in the article. Although they were not killed in the airstrike, (as others were), it was due to the Israeli strike that it was possible that they could be subsequently murdered by vengeful palestinains. Chesdovi (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where should include them then? Palestinian casualties? it may create an impression they were killed by Israel. Israeli casualties? I guess would make a bit more sense, but I am also not sure. How about including them with the Egyptian border guard? --Omrim (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

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

Ask the Christians and they will tell you the opposite -- that they leave because life under Israeli occupation is intolerable. Christians, Muslims, and Jews have lived together peacefully for centuries. Israeli propaganda falsely depicts these people as barbarians because Israel needs dehumanization to justify its war-making. NonZionist (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Severino, I agree it is horrific, the same way I agree that the deaths of all Palestinian civilians is horrific. Yet, I am being consistent not to include unnecessary adjectives in the article (unlike you). --Omrim (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Demonstrations sub-section in Reactions section?

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

I have added them to their respective countries in the related article International reaction to the December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. I still think their should be a subsection in this article summarizing them however. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realy think there's no reason for this whole long list of cities. Especialy since there is another page for this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict#Civilian_Demonstrations_and_Protests, so if no serious protest turn up, I'll move it there in another few hours.Debresser (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somebody already did that, and rightfully so.Debresser (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Title for Article

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

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

Some of my suggestions are:

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

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

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

Consider also:

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

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

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

Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... all named under the english translation of their hebrew names... Gumuhua (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those operations of the IDF violate MILMOS. Some are actually POV forks (ie, the article about the actual topic doesn't have the operation name, so instead of adding the info in that article, there is redundant articles to ensure the Operation name). A couple even fail notability, hardly being noted by major news sources outside of Israel. In due time, this will be fixed by vigorous community discussion, so thank you for pointing them out.
But appealing to a non-existent "convention" imported from Hebrew Wikipedia (and its built-in editor bias -and I do not mean neutrality, you can be neutral and have bias, I mean bias inherent in the lack of RS/V that is not written in Hebrew: while there are non-Israelis that speak Hebrew, their proportion is much less, and all the Hebrew speaking media is either Israeli or targeted at Israelis abroad) is not a convincing argument. Furthermore, unless there systemic approaches to naming and content, widely discussed across all relevant wikiprojects and the community at large, using the example of another article to influence a desicion on another is much weaker than what you would think: if the previous article violates style guidelines, POV fork guidelines, neutrality policy, etc, we shouldn't do those things simply because it was successfuly done before. Consensus can change.
Now, you can argue for it not changing, maybe even successfully, but so far, for this article, it has changed.
Of course, if people want to be productive with how they want renames to happen, they are advised to follow the procedures at WP:RM, you know, do in it in a productive fashion that promotes useful discussion and doesn't ignore previous input. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Cerejota is once again throwing the rule book at everyone. What, 2 days ago he unilaterally renamed the article without even considering the discussion that had occurred in talk hours before. From the get-go rules have been violated! Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with what Cerejota has said here. The systemic bias in the english language wikipedia is well-documented and counter-measures have been discussed and recommended (see WP:BIAS), and it would be reasonable to expect that other language wikipedias are systematically biased for similar type of reasons - possibly the esperanto language wikipedia might be able to claim the least demographic bias, though i'm just speculating here. Boud (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan, stop beating the poor old dead horse already. Its already a stinking, unsightly, amorphous jelly of crushed bones and flesh. :D --Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military planning

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

Agreed. Any other thoughts?--Omrim (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that those planning actions were reported by most of the news agencies says that it's important to deliver those information. It's not Wikipedia editors call to judge the inclusion of a fact hugely reported by other agencies. Otherwise each side will start a debate about the inclusion of some facts that put bad light on them. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to that assertion as well. Yet, the way it is phrased currently implies that the operation was premeditated, which is also not Wiki's call. I am still battling myself, if there is a better way to present this (important) piece of information. I think it still demands a discussion. --Omrim (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all militaries have contingency plans. I like to think the US has a few and isn't just sitting on its thumbs. But the way it is written in the lede of this article, anyone would think that Israel was just salivating to brutalize innocent Palestinians for no reason whatsoever-- since after all, we all know that there is no Hamas history prior to the 6 month truce, which, of course, it studiously kept. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever for Israel to have pre-planned this brutal invasion and genocide of innocent civilians under a horrible occupation by Israel. --- Well, that's how it reads now, and every effort to try to balance the POV is rejected and reverted. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas deaths vs civilian deaths

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

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

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

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

Haven't read the sources and don't want to get drawn into this page, but a good thing to remember is this: If a reliable source says, for instance, "Livni said X," that is not the same as "Reliable source said x." In as much as you can, you should be seeking the consensus version of what the most reliable sources are saying on this in their own voices (in my view, Haaretz and the major US and European papers and wire services with people on the ground, MAYBE with Al Sharq al-Awsat thrown in). Now, where does this leave us on this one? It's quite likely no one is certain (no matter what they claim) about the past employer and duties of every body in a morgue at this point, and there are ambiguities even then. I.e. is it really helpful to lable a gaza city traffic cop a "member of the Hamas security forces?" The only thing to do is to provide a range from within what reliable sources are reporting the politically involved are saying. For instance, "Israel says most of the dead are Hamas fighters says tkttktk, but AP quotes PALESTINIAN SO AND SO saying that fewer than half are." I suspect nothing i've written has been helpful. But i've tried. I surfed Gaza once, in peaceful times it's a cool place.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very important that we differentiate between civilian and those bankrolled by Hamas milita. According to Israel, they made it a goal of theirs to target military compounds/facilities/support places etc and minimize civilian casualties (contrary to Hamas, where they bomb the @#*@(#* out of civilian areas intentionally). As far as media is concerned, the overall consensus is the majority of casualty and infrastructure damage is military/government based. The article should reflect that sentiment and not give undeserved merit to sensationalized media. :D 70.181.154.29 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely. What we need to do, in every war, is differentiate between the aggressor and the victim. The political views, party affiliation and employer of the victim are all irrelevant. International law gives the victim the right of self-defense and the right to resist occupation. The victim who exercises these moral rights is still a victim: He fights or resists ONLY because the aggressor or occupier gives him no choice. In the Nuremberg Trials, AGGRESSION was declared the cardinal sin, not self-defense, not militancy! If Palestine were invading Israel, Palestine would be the aggressor and Israelis who defend themselves would not lose their civilian status by doing so. By the same standard, Palestinians do not lose their civilian status when they try to defend against Israeli aggression. NonZionist (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 2005 every Israeli was out of Gaza, and it is now Jew-free. Hamas has been attacking Israel ever since. Thus to claim some kind of moral high road (ie the "right to resist occupation") is more than a little disingenuous . I would ask NonZionist to concentrate hard on WP:NPOV and to get off his soapbox, as it does nothing to further this article. -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all "disingenuous" to seek to phrase this article in a way that leaves intact the rights of the victims of aggression. This said, the distinction between civilian and combatant is a meaningless one, while the distinction between aggressor and victim is not. Debates over artificial "civilian" status should not be used to whitewash or obfuscate aggression. I would treat everyone as a civilian when listing the casualties. I believe that there may be some non-Zionist Jews still living in Gaza. Making Gaza "Jew-free" may be the Israeli aim, but it is not the Palestinian aim. Israel has been attacking Gaza ever since 2005, and Hamas has offered a token response. Hamas has repeatedly attempted to negotiate an end to this violence, but Israel has shown no interest. This suggests that the Israeli aim is ethnic cleansing, "transfer", or worse. NonZionist (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rip out the international law card in an attempt to reduce every Israeli action as unjustified "aggression" and "illegal." Let's keep this argument focused and avoid preachiness/propaganda/b.s. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What source is more reliable? Hamas itself or the United Nations? I think we can trust the numbers of the UN more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.210.17 (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction sub-article

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

The summary left at the beginning of the Reactions section is grossly inaccurate. Currently, it reads

Most members of the Arab League including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Qatar, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey, Yemen, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom have condemned both sides.

When I go to the sub-article -- International_reaction_to_the_2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict -- I find that most of these countries do NOT "condemn both sides". Only the Anglosphere deludes itself into thinking that the occupier and the occupied are equally responsible.
I propose changing the offending text to:

Most members of the Arab League including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Yemen have called for an end to the Israeli "attack" and/or "aggression". Libya appealed to the U.N. and sent aid to Gaza. Russia called Israel's use of force "disproportionate" and "unjustified". France condemned the Hamas "provocations" while calling Israel's action "disproportionate"; the United Kingdom called for "maximum restraint" and a Hamas ceasefire.

NonZionist (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of the Black Saturday

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

Well, it is attributed to what the Palestinians use to describe the events, and the Palestinians are one of the involved parties. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sure the attacks have been described as many things by different Palestinians. As i said "Massacre of the Black Saturday" only gets 67 other hits on google so its not got much international recognition. There should be a counter to the operation name given by Israel, but it has to be widely used or described by HAMAS or another major party involved. It shouldnt just be "some Palestinians".... Im sure more Palestinians have just refered to it as a "Massacre". This article is also about an ongoing conflict and not the incident on Saturday. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn I saw on the BBC that prime minister Haniya referred to it as the "massacre of Black Saturday", but my memory is hazy about it. He might have said something on a "massacre", but nothing on Black Saturday. Nonetheless, I did not take account of the "Saturday" part, so we're just gonna have to wait to see what term the Palestinians are generally using for the entire conflict. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not even mentioned anywhere in the article on the Arabic Wikipedia. That being said, both Operation Cast Lead and Massacre of the Black Saturday should be unbolded because this article is about the [two-way] conflict, not just the Israeli offensive. The first sentence of the article is inaccurate. -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Operation Cast Lead redirects here so, as per MoS, it should be bolded as it is one of the names this topic is given. The "massacre" (without the "Black Saturday" is from a quote from the de facto Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip. As per the formulation that was part of the name change discussion. I agree to resotre the quote as a counterpoint to the Israeli operation name, but the operation name is the only one that should be bolded, as per MoS. As to "Black Saturday" lets wait to see what the media does with it, as what happened to the Black September. Makes sense? --Cerejota (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, lets not get ahead of ourselves. That in one point of the future a formulation like that would be needed is always possible. Just not now. But what we are discussing in this thread is information for the article as it stands today: just as we know this will be called a "war" if a ground invasion happens, but don't name it as such, we don't get ahead of ourselves and use arguments that are not yet in force, to further our points. --Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the bolding... that's not how it works. WP:BOLDTITLE says "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name...", not simply that the title redirects. "Operation Cast Lead" refers to just the Israeli offensive; this article (and its title) refers to the two-way conflict. They're not the same. -- tariqabjotu 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Operation Cast Lead is definitely a large part of what this page is about. It doesn't make it good enough as the article name, per MoS and neutrality issues, but it is definitely a term that I expect readers to use in searching for what this article is about. I am weary of POV forks, and this is how they start, when people say an article is about somethign it isn't... I know it is not your intention to generate one, but I am trying to shed some light on it based on experience with controversial articles, in particular those with controversial titles. --Cerejota (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a POV-fork. Operation Cast Lead as a separate article would be mainly about the military op. It is definitely a "part" and even a "large part" of this article. But this is about 2008 -(2009) conflict. That means that a "part" and indeed a "large part" of this article must include Hamas' provocation and background. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And I'm not sure why we need to explain this point again, considering Cerejota seemed to agree to it under #December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In an unrelated discussion in this talk page I was using the Invasion of Grenada as an example for the use of the word "invasion" by RS. Thing is it also applies to this article. Operation Urgent Fury redirects to it, and in the intro "Operation Urgent Fury" is bolded. In fact, the article was renamed because of RS issues (ie readers woudl google search "Invasion of Grenada" and learn it was "Operation Urgent Fury" not the other way around), not really neutrality or bias (although it is a bit biased to the USA's perspective), and goes into deep operational detail, like the "order of battle" etc for the USA. I think it is a beautiful example for this article at many levels--Cerejota (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not comparable because the Invasion of Grenada and Operation Urgent Fury are the same thing. The "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" and Operation Cast Lead are, as I said previously, not the same thing; the former refers to Israeli and Gazan actions, while the latter refers to just the Israeli actions. -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, "Invasion of Grenada" is about all the actions from both sides: due to overwhelming force of the invasion force (which outnumbered the defenders nearly 10 to 1), it is mostly about the USA's actions, as is this article. Right now, as the article stands, there is no need for a separate article on only on the Israeli actions, so this article is about everything. Please re-read WP:POVFORK, what you are suggesting is precisely a POV fork. I think this unintended, that is why I call it to your attention. --Cerejota (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the invasion, and it's written entirely from the point-of-view that there was an invasion (oh... and a little resistance). That's not the case here -- or at least it shouldn't be. We had a lengthy move discussion -- which you did not appear to miss out on -- where several people said this was about a two-way conflict (hence, why we have the current name). Need I remind you of that? Maybe we don't need to make an Operation Cast Lead daughter article -- we're not talking about that -- but at this point in time, people do not believe this is just about the Israeli actions. Please don't rub WP:POVFORK in my face; I know what one is. At the very least, a POV fork entails creating a new article, something no one but you seems to be discussing. -- tariqabjotu 04:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see it used in a RS before we use it. Source please. I intend to flag it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just because some people could argue that doesn't mean we have a problem. People could conceivably use the title of Invasion of Grenada to argue that information about the actions of the opposition should not be included at all. But, of course, that would be silly. And, again, I am not inventing this two-way conflict position; this was raised several times during the move discussion, and was a major reason behind several of the supports (including mine). If the scope of the article is basically just Israel's actions, the current name is wrong. But enforcing that change through content, without heeding the previous discussion, is improper. -- tariqabjotu 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, tariqabjotu, the Grenada-US articles are not under general sanctions, Israeli-Palestinian articles are, because editors have repeatedly gamed the system. In your opinion do the Dec/Jan Israeli airstrikes on Gaza deserve their own article? Because this is not that article. RomaC (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, RomaC. That's why the discussion on the title is so intense. When we transform an "assault" into a "conflict", we suddenly put the aggressor and the victim on the same footing. We then feel compelled to "balance" things, by deprecating the sins of the aggressor and aggrandizing the sins of the victim.
There is no symmetry in occupation. Israeli sources indicate that Israel, in recent years, has been killing Palestinians at a ratio of forty to one. Is it really appropriate to characterize this slaughter as a "conflict"? Israel, like it or not, is the dominant party, by a huge margin. Palestinian resistance -- in the form of ineffectual rockets -- is a response to Israeli occupation. No people will EVER be ABSOLUTELY passive under violent occupation: The "conflict" is between Israel and the limitations of reality. NonZionist (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

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

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

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

The structural problems result from lack of consensus on scope. Initially this was an article about specific airstrikes, but it now merely documents a time slice within a larger, ongoing conflict. The IDF airstrikes definitely satisfy all Wiki criteria for an article of their own. This is the way to do it -- (the article on the bombing of Dresden does not mention concentration camps or Hitler) -- let's have an article about the airstrikes: who struck who, when and where, what aircraft were used, what bombs were dropped and what damage was done. If people want to find out about the larger conflict, they can do so by clicking on one of the links that leads to information on the larger conflict. RomaC (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name, as per the discussion, is a temporary Salomonic, because there have been other events that are not airstrikes, and we are waiting for the ground invasion (I honestly expected it today!). If after a week or so there is no movement I think we can revisit the issues. But this article is still narrowly construed: it is about the IDF attacks, and the Hamas counter attacks, and while the current title doesn't cover that tightly, it isn't out-of-scope as "airstrikes" where. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A GROSS imbalance in sourcing

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

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

Add them. RomaC (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, look at what the sources are saying, if there are other RS that dispute what 'Israeli sources' say, then add that. But we cannot just reject a source because it is Israeli. Nableezy (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added (pro)Palestinian sources (all with Wikipedia entries) to External Links but someone removed them, no reason offered? Trachys (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of non-Israeli sources. Read the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, most U.S. and British sources rely very heavily on Israeli government and IDF sources. Read their articles. Trachys (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? There is plenty of anti-Israeli bias in media, in fact, there's probably more bias against than for. This article proves that case, so stop making an issue that doesn't exist. Plugging in advocacy sites (like Palestine News Network) or "news" organizations that follow less journalistic rules than a blog just to even out pro-Israeli sources is not going to fly and will be removed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we cannot summarily dismiss a source because it is Israeli, we also cannot dismiss one because it is Arab or Palestinian. We cannot arbitrarily say that because a news organization is Palestinian then they "follow less journalistic rules than a blog." That said, having a wikipedia entry does nothing to prove whether or not a source is reliable, I propose we list them here and examine each. Nableezy (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say just because a source is of Palestinian or Arab origin inherently means overt bias, but come'on man. Arab and Palestinian media is a sham at best, and I'm being generous here. Just because something is Arab doesn't mean we should be blind and automatically respect it. Go ahead, list a Palestinian source, and I will gladly tear it apart and prove its unbearable bias. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of Arab media that gets high praise, such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyya. I could say the same about some of the American media, Israeli media. We should be looking for 3 things I think, what the Israelis are saying is happening, what the Palestinians are saying is happening, and what the rest of the world is saying actually happened. How else do you expect to get an idea for what the Palestinian people feel if you completely disregard their media? And just because something is Arab does not mean we should be blind and refuse to respect it. I don't know what sources were being used here, I didn't add any to this article except bbc, reuters, cnn, and iht. But just saying that the entire Arab and Muslim world do not have any media that is any higher on the totem pole than a blog (of which many pro-Israeli ones are used in sources across wikipedia) is just plain wrong. Like I said, if there is a problem with a particular source, it really should be discussed before being removed. Nableezy (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in full agreement that there's an imbalance in sourcing. The US, UK and Israel are allies in the middle east. The US contributes billions of dollars of military aid to Israel. The populations of the US, UK and Europe have been engaged, whether in perception or reality, whether due to propaganda and mass manipulation or not, in a "war on terror" in which Muslims and Arabs have been the prime enemy. Therefore in the absence of empirical evidence, it is absolutely valid to assume that Western and Israeli sources may be biased against the Gazans and particularly Hamas. To assume anything else would be adopt a de facto pro-Israeli bias. In addition, dismissing all Arab media as "non-reliable" without evidence or comparison with what we do regard as reliable, is thinly veiled racism and cultural imperialism. It simply relies on the chauvanistic and racist assumption that Muslim and Arab societies are culturally backward (and in fact, the Israeli propagandists know this is their best method of justifying the IDF's atrocities). Maybe Arab-Muslim sources are less reliable than Western media, but it is not Wikipedia's right to make that value based judgment without critical balance. No source is perfect. Presumed and normative ideas of "reliability" must be sacrificed if it is the only way to provide any political balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.200.221 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the muslims ARE both culturally and economically backwards. Only a fool would deny that. Please don't abuse the word racism, it's completely irrelevant here. This is about culture and religion. Compare any relevant factors such as illiteracy, honour killings, treatment of women and you will see that muslims are hundreds of years behind the west. Naturally the War On Terror is against muslims since 99% of all terrorists are muslims. It's the most violent religion on Earth. Whereever there are muslims there is war, this is the nature of this religion. You cannot deny that. Can you name one peaceful democratic islamic country(and no, Turkey doesn't count, it's ruled by the secular military)? This is one of the main reasons that we cannot find reliable medias in the middle east. There is no democratic tradition. So we have to use what we can find. Since the IDF has such a colossal media apparatus, lots of the sources we use will be from there. Until the muslim world starts producing some serious news reporting, we have to rely on that. It won't make things better if we include some of the typical "The IsrAelis are evil zIoNists funded by tHe great sAtan!!" arab reporting. This will just mess up the article. At least the Israeli reporting is serious and relativily neutral. T.R. 87.59.101.51 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be an abusive and ignorant racist on talk pages, thanks.--G-Dett (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck the please, only a fool would make those retarded comments. A whole bunch of people would say wherever the white man has gone he has brought with him death, destruction, and enslavement, to extract both physical and natural resources from the natives. But only a fool would make that generalization. I wonder if there is another fool out there? Nableezy (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If, as the title now suggests, we must speak of "conflict", then here it is: On the one side, there are those who see only ethnic GROUPS -- muslims and their allies, seen as bad, backwards, barbarians, unreliable, and all alike; zionists and their allies, seen as good, wise, civilized, innocent, perfect, and all alike. On the other side, there are those who regard human beings as INDIVIDUALS, some good, some bad, most a mixture. The former, the ethnic collectivists, try to eliminate entire groups, through war, occupation, siege. The latter, the defenders of the individual, try to build upon the good, wherever it can be found. It is not the rockets that the collectivists fear: It is the ideas of the supposedly "backwards folk". The "conflict" in Gaza is part of this larger GLOBAL war of IDEAS. NonZionist (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the philosophical lesson. Where would we be if NonZionist couldn't break everything down into simple, ignorant, generalizations? Without his awesome twist of logical fallacies and keen ability to regurgitate the opinion's of Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, and every other mindless Israel hater, where would we be? Oh yeah, trapped tolerating religious fundamentalism and forced to respect the disrespectful. See, how do you like preachiness now? I can do it too. Hippee! Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)b[reply]
My recommendation is that we avoid generalizations, especially ignorant ethnic generalizations of the type seen above. My point, however, is that the aggression against Gaza, if it must be seen as a "conflict", should be seen as part of a larger global conflict of IDEAS, with those who give primacy to the individual on one side and those who give primacy to tribe or state on the other.
There is much to like about Israel -- the Israeli peace movement, for example, and the free press. It is not what you call "mindless Israel hate" that motivates our criticism of the regime: It is mindful opposition to fascist ideology. Fascism claimed tens of millions of lives seventy years ago, and we do not want to see a replay. That decent Israelis are imprisoned in this violent self-defeating ideology makes the situation all the more tragic. NonZionist (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

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

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

Talk page is getting long. You said: "it is necessary to include Israel's perspective/justification" in the lead. I disagree, it is important to introduce the article with the W5 - who did what, where and why? As it is we do mention the Israeli motivation. Any more and it becomes POV-pushing. Already, in an article about a military superpower dropping hundreds of tons of bombs, the first weapon mentioned is the Qassam. RomaC (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IF the article were only about Operation Cast Lead without any perspective or context, then you might have an argument. Since it is about a conflict (ie 2 sides), then you do not. Leaving out the perspective of one side is POV-pushing. Read the section above again. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

But wouldn't that be the more general Gaza–Israel conflict? Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have to draw a line somewhere. -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not about a "conflict" until the title was changed a few hours ago. Before that it was about Israel's most audacious concentrated airstrikes against Gaza in decades. That should be the focus, if a few unguided homemade fertilizer bombs are to be given 50% of the ink here, then we need a fork to a new article. Or to find a more specific title for this article. RomaC (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article should be moved to Operation Cast Lead. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed people felt the scope of this article should be a two-way conflict. But, if it's now just a one-way event, then this needs to be moved somewhere else (e.g. "Operation Cast Lead") because "conflict" is not an appropriate word. But I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole; everyone appeared on the same page twenty-four hours ago. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent correctly. To whom are you responding? -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you responding to me? You have indented the same way I have. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now: I'll say it again, when the events warrant, due to their volume, a WP:SUMMARIZE breakdown might happen, and then an article named "Operation Cast Lead" might make sense. I re-read my original explanation and see no grounds for confusion on this point, its pretty much verbatim what I just said (well I also said something about a ground offensive that hasn't happened yet). I thought you agree with what I had said, but I see this is unfortunately not the case.
However, clearly POV motivated forking (I hardly think those on the recieving end call the strike "audacious") , like what RomanC just called for, is out of bounds. There is no deadline, and these events are unfolding. Could we have more patience and more productive conversations with more clarity and less soapboxing? Or do we want a POV War just because we can have it and its our hobby?--Cerejota (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I am not going to answer that question. Honestly. -- tariqabjotu 05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I honestly didn't know because I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

RomaC, explain to me again why the military hardware used on a conflict is important to the lead? In fact, to the article? We have an article that details the military hardware of the IDF, both now and in history. And I tell you this as someone with a lot of interest in military hardware and history. Readers of this article who ar einterested in such matters will find it easily in the "See Also".
Casualty counts? Why do we have an infobox? Cause its pretty?
"Flareup" is a journo term that borders on the peacock side of euphemism, but you just change it , no need for getting all upset.
Lastly, this is hardly disruptive editing, and stop the chest humping. If you think someone is doing disruption, as here. If not, go into Dispute Resolution. But I find continous posturing and ill-will more disruptive than the contentious editing. This is a wiki, this is a controversial topic, and this is a current event. Shit will change. Deal with it. --scope (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, I believe wikified specific information is better than general information -- the first graph has a link to info on Qassam rocket attacks, I linked to info on F-16s. Also, if you look back you'll see that Tundrabuggy had blanked the entire lead and replaced it with his own rewritten version, without getting any consensus on Talk. "Chest-humping"? ;-) RomaC (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then revert him, and argue for that. I agree on wikilinked information is great, but this is the lead/intro/lede, not the article. There is no reason why the intro needs to be made even bigger by the inclusion of information that might belong elsewhere in the article. It is as simple as that. "Chest-humping" is "you have been warned for disruptive editing". Why? because unless he does it three times in 24 hours, its not disruptive, and besides, how disruptive it is to revert if you feel it was against consensus? Lastly, the version you support has not been discussed as final, either. --Cerejota (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, I agree with much of what you've done and said on this page, but I don't want to be another of the people here you are arguing with, so maybe it's best if I handle things my way and you handle things your way. One thing: this article needs a proper title, to set the focus. Right now its scope is much too wide. Another thing, this is "chest-humping". Did you mean "chest-thumping"? RomaC (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RomaC, I did NOT "blank the lead" I re-wrote the first sentence and included the provocation as well. Please do not go warning other editors when you are clearly an involved editor yourself. Indeed you blanked sourced material. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that hyphens dropped on densely populated talk pages sometimes miss their targets. Although by coincidence Operation Chest-humping was one of the names originally considered by the Israeli government (along with Operation Fluffy Bunny, Operation Happy Puppies and Operation by Milton Bradley, the skill game where you're the doctor) it was apparently rejected because the rather salacious term might upset people. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if RomaC had checked my contributions [15], he could easily have seen it was not I who blanked the page and "warned" the correct person. My last contribution to the lead was this one:
  • >The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to a flareup in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas which began when the Israel launched a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: ???? ????? ?????, Mivtza Oferet Yitzokeh), against targets in the Gaza Strip in response to an increase of rockets and mortars directed at Israeli communities. 2008 saw 1800 such attacks from Gaza. [16]
which keeps getting reverted (by RomaC and others) to give the impression that this conflict started on December 27th and apparently for no reason whatsoever. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the lead is now thoroughly POV, implying that IDF (not Israel) launched airstrikes after 6 months of planning for no reason whatsoever. In fact, all mention of provocation has been completely cleansed from the lead paragraph!:
  • The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to an ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which began when the Israel Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip after planning for over six months.[8] Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is one huge sentence. How is this for a more readable version?
  • The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to an ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which intensified following the expiration of a 6-months truce.[8] The Israel Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip following an increase in rocket attacks from Gaza and Hamas. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do like it MBM. Although there is plenty of "conflict" around the idea that there was ever really a "truce" at all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the reliable sources refer to this as "conflict which intensified" in late December? The ones I'm reading (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) seem to be framing this as an "air assault," a "bombing campaign," sometimes a "battle," etc.--G-Dett (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about the "air assault," "bombing campaign" etc then it should be renamed Operation Cast Lead and not 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict. A lot happened in 2008 between the two sides. The conflict did not start on Dec. 27 as the lead claims. It is wrong, ie mistaken, inaccurate etcTundrabuggy (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "conflict which reignited"? I know the conflict is mainly a bombing campaign, but there are also rockets and likely a ground invasion, so "conflict" or "battle" would be a broad enough term. 99.156.203.16 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anon IP, the "conflict" is mainly about two bombing campaigns, not just Israel's against Hamas. Hamas launched 1800 rockets and mortars against Israel in 2008, killing civilians and hitting a school, and forcing some Israeli children to have to go to school in bomb shelters. This "conflict" is a 2-way street, not a bombing campaign that Israel has been planning for six months against the poor civilians in Gaza. The whole article as well as the lede is hopelessly POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see both sides of this argument. the main problem with citing the invasions as a response to hamas rockets is that then there is an argument for saying "which was in response to the gaza blockade which was in response to suicide bombers..." ad infinitum. This article should probably be renamed "dec 2008 israel attack on gaza" or something to that effect and then describe events on both sides that occur from the date of the airstrike onward. there should definitely be links to articles dealing with hamas rocket fire, the gaza blockade and the 6 month truce. Untwirl (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and Factual accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:


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

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

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

Pie is the best?

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

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

No way, ice cream is best.--Iscream4icecream
Butter pie, naturally. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss below here

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

Humanitarian crisis

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

I added the above mentioned sentence in the lead (the UN is usually a very reliable source), but someone replaced it with a less dramatic one: "Many countries and organizations have called for an immediate ceasefire and expressed concern for the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip", which I think is an understatement given how bad the situation really is. Also, I would happily create a new section for "humanitarian situation", and move most of the statements concerning the humanitarian crisis there, but this would break the timeline format used in the rest of the article, so I'm unsure if I should do that. Offliner (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and do it. We need such a section to provide context which cannot be discussed in detail in the timeline. The timeline can mention daily developments briefly, and the section can cover the overall situation and its development. In any case, it's not clear the timeline format can be maintained, particularly if the bombardment continues, as it currently seems poised to do. Tiamuttalk 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A section specific for the humanitarian crisis was added. Thanks for your grammar corrections, it made the article look much more "encyclopedic" :-). --Darwish07 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knew nothing about this would get the wrong impression from the Intro. To take just one example - humanitarian situation - you'd think there were no problems and that Israel is behaving like a saint. The only mention now seems to be of the amazing effort of Israel sending aid to Gaza. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nonsense of Palestenian accusation of geneocide and war crimes

From the article:

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

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

- 33 settlements in the supposedly Palestinian land.

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

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

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

This is exactly the reason why I suggested to delete the legal section, see: [17]. If the stand of a princeton professor (nonsense to some) made its way to the article, why not the stand of a Uconn professor (nonsense to others)? This is endless, counterproductive, and this is why this section should be deleted altogether.--Omrim (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see any point in responding to your specific comments, as it will create exactly the kind of "discussion" we're trying to avoid in an informative (rahter than interpretative) article. --Omrim (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that we should not have such debate on a Wikipedia talk page, but the criticized paragraph is as biased as relegious fundamentalism. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the stuff by this Jerusalem-based lawyer about genocide etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I undid it, since the issue is still being discussed. Please lets try to reach a consensus.--Omrim (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fringe view. Delete the entire legal section. It's basically an "opinion" section for lawyers. RomaC (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU! finally someone!--Omrim (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, this section should be deleted, or we'll go in endless not-too-useful-to-wikipedia debates. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwish07, Pieter Kuiper: i have not (yet, anyway) checked the international lawyer status of Weiner and Bell, but until we have evidence to the contrary, we should presume that it is true that Weiner is an international human rights lawyer and that Bell is a professor at the UConn School of Law. People who feel that Weiner is biased in favour of Israel because he is Scholar-in-Residence at an Institute in Jerusalem can make that interpretation when they read the text. People who believe that Falk is biased in favour of most-of-the-world (and against Switzerland) can make that interpretation when they read the text that Falk was appointed by a United Nations body. It's not up to wikipedian editors to tell readers that there is no legal discussion at all about these actions. It is a fact that some lawyers who have passed a very thorough professional filtering process have made legal declarations following the first few days since 27 December (Falk) and preceding 27 December (Weiner/Bell). Boud (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwish07: PS: in fact, you were partially right that that part of the text was problematic. The way it was written unintentionally sounded like a list of facts rather than a list of claimed facts. i've put "they state" in each phrase/statement in order to NPOV it. The style may not be the most elegant, but at least it's NPOVed. Either we put all the statements as "claimed" or "alleged" or we leave them all as "stated" or "said" etc. IMHO "stated" etc. should read better than a whole repeated list of "claimed"'s and "alleged"'s, though that's a question of style. Boud (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia approach: which lawyers are notable? and why?

Richard A. Falk has had a wikipedia entry since before the existence of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict page and made a comment after the conflict started. Justus Reid Weiner and Avi Bell commented about the attacks before they occurred and after the attacks had occurred, they initially (until now 02:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)) did not have wikipedia entries.

i suggest we take a constructive wikipedia approach. If Weiner and Bell are notable enough, then people should do some work and create their pages, let WP:NPOV and WP:RS and notability discussions take place. If their opinions are "fringe" opinions, then wikipedia readers will be able to judge that easily by the content of those two people's respective entries. However, take note of WP:BLP. The same applies to Falk. i don't know how NPOV or RS or WP:BLP the content of his page is at the moment (i suspect there is some work to be done there), but in any case, readers will go to his page and judge both from the content of his opinions and to some degree, from information about him himself and then decide how seriously they should take his judgments.

i don't imagine we have a huge amount of international law experts wikipedified, so it probably can't hurt to increase their numbers. We could then eventually choose among the most prominent/selected-by-professional-processes from "both" (or all main) camps. Boud (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My estimate was wrong! Category:International_law_scholars presently has 62 entries. We might be able to search among their published opinions after the first few days since 27 December and try to consense on whose points of views are most reliable from the two main parties' sides (Israel and Gaza Strip). Boud (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TO DO:

I realy don't get it (just to make certain, I think that ALL "scholars" currently mentioned are not notable) - not only we're questioning legal definitions and interpretation of facts, we now questioning which commentator is more "notable". This is getting ridiculous.--Omrim (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not suggesting that we remove Weiner and Bell's opinions on the grounds that they're not notable. It's a fact that at present, Richard A. Falk has a wikipedia entry, which means that other wikipedians than us created and NPOVed etc. the page, but Weiner and Bell do not. If you seriously think that the Princeton University emeritus professor of international law who since March 2008 has been United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 is not notable, then propose to delete his entry. Personally, i would prefer to think that Weiner and Bell are likely to be notable and that some people will do the work to create their pages and establish their notability in the wikipedia sense. If we eventually get quotes from too many international law lawyers, then at some point we will have to select from them in some neutral, NPOV, way. That's why i titled the subsection this way. i hope that clarifies. Boud (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my suggestion above (in the deleting suggestion section) to change the title of the section. Also, I hardly think that having a Wiki entry has any relevance to levels of "notability". My PHD supervisor is probably no. 1 in the world in his feild (which has nothing to do with this conflict, just to make it clear), and has no Wiki entry. So what? Does that make him less notable? Or not one of the most cited professors in his feild? --Omrim (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG! People, this is "Verifiability not truth", of course Israel doesn't want to kill all Palestinians and do a genocide. But if notable, relevant people say so, we should quote it somewhere not as fact, but as an assertion. Probably not the intro, but maybe in "Reactions"?

I can't believe that this is so hard to understand. Just because it is biased, it doesn't mean it doesn't belong: it means we should present the bias in a neutral fashion, with due weight in cosideration as a fringe belief. Its simple, really. No need to fret and get bellingerent about it. --Cerejota (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete Weiner and Bell quotes?

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

Weiner and Bell are just a lawyer and just some professor who wrote something for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Their stuff is not published in a reputable journal of international law. It is just propaganda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? whct about: December, 2000, 100 Columbia Law Review 1965, THE INTEGRATION GAME, Abraham Bell and Gideon Parchomovsky; 16 Temple Int'l & Comparative Law Jourbal 43, THE USE OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN THE AL-AQSA INTIFADA: A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS*, Justus Reid Weiner; 37 Geoorge Washington Int'l Law Review 309, ISRAEL'S SECURITY BARRIER: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND LEGAL EVALUATION, Dr. Barry A. Feinstein*, Justus Reid Weiner; Fall, 2007, 22 Connecticut Journal of Int'l Law 233, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF 'SAFE PASSAGE' RECONCILING A VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE WITH ISRAEL'S SECURITY REQUIREMENTS , Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison; Abraham Bell "JUST" earned his doctoral degree from Harvard. They certainly most no "just lawyers" (Sill,I am still not sure they should be mentioned as their publication was made before the current conflict).--Omrim (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced of the reliability of the quotes from these two either. It would be equally easy to go and get quotes from lecturers at a Palestinian university saying the opposite, and that doesnt achieve much. It would be much better to use only quotes from independent international legal experts. Fig (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section is only expanding, with now eight (8!) references to their article "published" on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Claims of genocide are ludicrous. They belittle the real cases of genocide that have taken place in history. And does anybody care about Darfur. I will remove the propaganda from the Israeli thinktank. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove relevant, sourced material without consensus, as that is borderline vandalism. You are welcome to your personal opinions about about Bell and Weiner, but they are published academics in reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's required, as the JCPA is reliable and notable itself, but the Weiner & bell arguments have been picked up in mainstream media, such as here. Please do not remove this agian without consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a view one way or the other about the material itself, and I know the Spectator ref is not being used as a key point, but I would just say that it is pushing the definition somewhat to suggest that Melanie Phillips' blog on the Spectator website counts as significant "mainstream media". I would also note that Electronic Intifada links have been excluded from this page. Is that any worse or less partisan a reference point than JCPA? --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, the Spectator mention is not required, but there is a big difference between an column in mainstream media such as the Spectator, and self-published websites such as EI. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged you weren't relying on the Phillips piece, but I really would stress the point (perhaps for future reference) that she is viewed as being pretty "out there" by most other media in the UK, and also that this appears to be an online post rather than a published comment piece; and of course my comparison was between EI & JCPA, not between EI & The Spectator. Whatever you or I might think of EI or JCPA, they are both partisan self-publishers as opposed to mainstream outlets - that doesn't necessarily disqualify either of them from being quoted or cited when appropriate and with proper attribution, but you can't treat one differently from the other. --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about the equivalence between EI and JCPA. EI is little more than an unabashedly partisan self-published blog, operated by its four journalist founders. The JCPA is a think tank, its staff comprised primarily of dozens of academics who are recognized experts in their fields, with a well identified board of directors, steering committee and oversight committees. It is the equivalent (albeit on a smaller scale) of such think tanks as the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. NoCal100 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I am aware, Dore Gold is a big figure in JCPA, and the group's wiki page (for what it's worth) lists 4 serving and former IDF personnel at the top of the list of major contributors/researchers. Its own website, in the homepage's first sentence, says "Israel's growth and survival are dependent on its winning the war of ideas". I guess everyone can make up their own minds as to whether this makes them a partisan organisation or not. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should know better that to use wiki article as support for your argument. Nevertheless, I'm sure you didn't miss, on that page, the following names - Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University; Professor Bernard Lewis; Dr. Uzi Arad, ;Dr. Ephraim Kam,;Professor Mordechai Abir; Professor Gerald M. Steinberg - yet for some strange reason those names didn't make it into your above post. Does EI have comparable names on its staff? A more comprehensive list can be found here- [19], and a quick browsing through the names will confirm what I wrote - the research staff is made up of academics, many of whom are notable experts in their fields. Of course the center has its own agenda, as do the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. But the simplistic equivalency of "this blog is partisan, this think-tank is partisan, thus they are equivalent sources" is a false equivalence. NoCal100 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hence my use of the phrase "for what it's worth" in respect of the WP page (and actually of course there were seven IDF related names at the top of the list, apologies for that). And yes, I did also notice the name of Bernard Lewis there, as I have now noticed Efraim Karsh, Uzi Landau, Richard Landes, Daniel Pipes etc on the much longer list you've linked to on the JCPA site. Thankfully, EI does not have comparable names on its staff. Flippancy aside, I repeat my point that both are valid places to go to for a particular POV and in order to source the opinions of those who write under their auspices. Both are quite explicit about where they are coming from. In addition Ali Abunimah for example is often published elsewhere and EI cited with approval by mainstream media, even though it does not drape itself - and nor of course could it, admittedly - in the often-spurious trappings of a "think-tank". --Nickhh (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are thankful that EI does not have world renown experts on the subject such as Bernard Lewis. No more needs to be said. NoCal100 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The JCPA site is obviously unsuitable as a source for an unbiased account of what international law might have to say about the attacks. Its talk about "genocide" is inflammable. Inclusion of this material is clearly WP:UNDUE and borderline trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to this personal opinion, which I disagree with, and as I've pointed out, it's also been published in the Spectator. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A blog that call the UN "Club of Terror" is not neutral. I will remove it again. Do not put this kind of stuff back unless it you have a reference to a reliable source, such as a refereed academic journal with a good reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source is "neutral". Falk is not neutral either. Wikipedia does not require 'neutral' sources - it requires reliable sources, which both the JCPA and The Spectator are. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus, as that is disruptive behavior. NoCal100 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Weiner and Bell quotes, though farcical, should be left in, because they show just how convoluted and detached from reality one needs to be to justify this aggression. However, they should not be paired up with Falk or any other serious legal authorities. We should not use format to create the appearance of dialogue where there is none. Let the Weiner and Bell statements stand alone.
The artificial division between "Attacks by Gaza Strip" and "Attacks by Israel" imposes a symmetry where there is none. Eliminate these misleading subheadings. Instead, have one subheading for Falk and one for Weiner and Bell. NonZionist (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what's going on here only proves that I was right when saying we should delete this section altogether. Please don't edit the section without consensus. I undid the last two edits. --Omrim (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ignore the discussion we already had.[20] --Omrim (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started to delete the most obviously propaganda. The JCPA web site is not not a serious source on international law regarding Israel's occupied territories. But as I am so clearly outnumbered by Zionists here, I will leave you guys. Bye-bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
duh!. It's the nature of all internet communities to have debates, don't be so sensitive and assume WP:AGF. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Dershowitz

If are going to include the "assertions" of a fanatic like Falk, surely we can find an opinion of Alan Dershowitz? He is far more notable than Falk, in fact, he is one of the most prominent experts on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I can't find anything though....hmmm...Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wikifan, didn't see you for a while. Alan Dershowitz is also clearly pro-israili biased to the level that he's much criticized by the Israili author Norman Finkelstein in his books for his bias. I'm not against adding pro-israili POV ofcourse, I'm against adding more bias to a section that's currently over-biased. Removing the quotes by Falk means making the paragraph pro-israili and anti-Palestinian beyond imagination. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and criticizing Israel actions do not make people fanatics. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's pro-Israeli yes, that's how opinions work. If we are going to include legal scholars like Falk, then we should include similar scholars like Dershowtiz. I'm not trying to create a bias balance, but the distribution of opinion should be fair. Cherry-picking biased opinion while rejecting others is ridiculous. I seriously just want to delete the legal section if this doesn't get sorted soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's another quotes in the paragraph alleging Palestinians of genocide and war crimes (which we're yet to see if they'll be included or not), don't you think that this makes the distribution of opinions go to the Israeli side even more than needed ;-) ? Really, I'm with you. I want to get rid of this stupid Legal opinions section too. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockets Hit Ashkelon

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

doktorb wordsdeeds 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous comparision

The infobox gives strengths as 176,500 regular troops (Israel) and 20,000 militants (Hamas). That's patently ridiculous. Hamas would have all of its available troops available on-the-ground inside the strip. Israel has created havoc from the air, but how many troops would it have on-the-ground inside the strip. The infobox is so misleading it is hard to agf and not believe it was deliberately intended to promote POV. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's ridiculous is the recent removal of sourced information on IDF troop strength. Now, after infobox edits of the last 24 hours, Israel has no aircraft or personnel involved in the "conflict." I won't revert or discuss, I want to see how far this will go. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RomaC, it wasn't removed. It was replaced with info about the number of reserves but bad markup prevents it from showing. Like you, I'm just curious to see have far people are willing to go with this approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro is becoming non-neutral and POV (Israel POV) again

Intro is becoming non-neutral and POV again:

  • Israel vs Gaza Strip (neutral) became Israel vs Hamas (represents Israeli POV, ignores fact that bombs don't first check Hamas party/armed wing membership evidence before killing)
  • writing only Operation Cast Lead favours the Israeli name; the closest thing to the Gaza Strip name is Massacre of Black Saturday someone removed this; here's the URL

Boud (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we go an entire thread without saying "POV"? It has lost all meaning on this talk page and it is frequently used as a substitution for just saying what you mean. Granted, you actually explained what you meant, but it would have meant the same without the use of "POV". It's enough to say X and Y ignore the Palestinian position, rather than X and Y are POV. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Boud, it's ridiculous, no casualty figures and almost all the focus is on aggression by Hamas. But, we took our first step down this slippery slope when the title and article focus were changed. This is no longer an article about the unprecedented ferocity of the recent IDF airstrikes on Gaza, this is now an article about a few days in the general Israel-Hamas conflict. The subtle distinction opens the door to all sorts of artful arguments for "equal" and "balanced" content because now "it's a two-way conflict." (See: gaming the system.)
For example, consider: Battle of Hiroshima -- The Battle of Hiroshima refers to a flareup in an ongoing conflict between the United States and the Japanese Imperial Army Forces, which intensified when an American plane dropped a bomb on a target in southwestern Japan on August 6, 1945. According to American sources, the attack targeted an area of Japanese Imperial Army military production, and was launched to damage the Imperial Army's infastructure and stop its ability to attack targets in Asia and the Pacific. Japanese forces had broken the peace between the two countries on December 7, 1941, with an attack on Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii. After that time, the Imperial Forces had intensified its attacks against civilian targets in Asia and the Pacific, killing an estimated 10 million. The Battle of Hiroshima was a response to these attacks, according to American forces. In the conflict, Japanese militants fired rockets and guns and threw stones at the Enola Gay aircraft, and one crew member suffered burns to his upper leg when a thermos of coffee spilled during evasive actions. He was transported to a military hospital where he is listed in stable condition. There have been reports of injuries and deaths among Hiroshima militants due to the conflict, but we'll get to that in paragraph number six . . .
Who will step up and start an article about the IDF airstrikes themselves? That's the only way we'll bypass this bullshit. RomaC (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's becoming silly. I think in particular the contributions by User talk:Thebiojoe are unhelpful (possibly unintentionally). The event has a broader context which as usual is getting buried under the rubble. The lead needs to be dramatically reduced in size and simply present the basic facts within the context of the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to rewrite the intro somewhat, removing repetition (the old version repeated over and over again that Israel launched the attacks in response to Hamas rockets) and adding Hamas point of view that Israel broke the ceasefire by not respecting the terms. I think the latter is important to have in the intro for balance. Offliner (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would all be resolved if you kids stopped looking at the lede/intro/lead as a way to introduce new information into the article, and rather as a summary of the information already in the article. My one addition has been uncontroversial and survived several waves of edit war because it does exactly that. I know we are throwing all kinds of polices overboard here, but can't you guys at least give good olde, ranty, illegal-page-mover Cerejota one tiny New Years gift and let him have the WP:LEAD obeying intro he wants and craves? This isn't about neutrality or other stuff, it is about WP:LEAD. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the people inflating the lead aren't coming here to discuss things and get consensus. Cerejota, if you can make the lead strictly comply with WP:LEAD while avoiding concious/unconcious systemic bias either way, go for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit I described above was reverted by User:Thebiojoe without giving any reason, so I reposted it. I think its important to have mention of the six-month truce in the lead as it establishes a connection to the wider conflict. Offliner (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, see below. We have a "Background" section, the lead should quickly summarize, not give the who story out. It should create more questions in our reader's head than give answers, in order to encourage them to read the rest of the article. Marketing, if you will. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current locked version of the intro is from the Israeli POV and could be considered Israeli propaganda. "...when Israel responded to an increase in rocket and mortar fire...". The problem is the word "responded", this is a claim by one side, it shouldn't be in the intro without qualification. Jleske (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD compliant, unbiased intro

Any biases are unintentional, I swear. So please WP:AGF.

I also included a series of invisible comments. I am making them visible here because I want them discussed too.

My goal was to write an intro based solely on the information otherwise found in the article, with sourcing for controversial issues. I also put all sources at the end of the sentences rather than when needed. Lastly, the last line has no sources because all you have to do is go to the section and see the reactions: its borderline WP:SYNTH, but all good ledes are borderline original synthesis.

Also, I already put it into the wild, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss and include changes...


NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, SEE HISTORY TO SEE THE ORIGINAL


NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, SEE HISTORY TO SEE THE ORIGINAL

Discuss intro proposal

A few comments:

  1. The conflict did not begin "when the Israel Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes", but long before. At the very least, when the truce ended, and Hamas launched dozens of rockets in a single day. This needs to be clear, otherwise the context is lost, and the reader is left thinking - "oh, so Israel just decided to attach Gaza for no reason". A tiny bit of history and context are needed here.
  2. "after planning the operation for over six months" - Period of planning is irrelevant. Countries make plans to deal with contingencies. This is standard practice, and really means nothing. It might be worth mentioning in the background section, but is of too little importance for the lead.
  3. "Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities." - This sentence leaves me with a bad taste. It makes it seem as though Israel is claiming there was rocket fire, but who knows. The rocket fire is real, and this ought to be clear. Again - context. Years of rocket fire.
  4. The TV station and Science building bit seem to be too detailed for the intro.
  5. "There have been confrontations between naval vessels off the coast of Gaza" - makes it sound as if two navies clashed, whereas it was only a meeting between a single civilian ship and the Israeli navy. Better to keep only the "Israeli Navy has shelled targets in Gaza" bit.
  6. "Hamas has responded by launching a series of counter attacks with rockets and mortars" - same issue as 1, really. Hamas was firing dozens of rockets before the operation started, so to characterize these launches as a response isn't justified.
  7. "small number of short-lived ground incursions." - I've seen little support for this claim. Actually, I've only heard Hamas makes that claim, but no independent confirmation. In fact, the China Daily source at the end of that sentence does not support this assertion.
  8. I'd like to see some mention of the increasing range of Hamas attacks in this conflict, something along the lines of: "During the conflict, Hamas rocket attacks have increased in range, hitting, for the first time, Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Beersheba."
Thanks, okedem (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Okedem on most of the points. As a sidenote, I recently added Hamas' claim that Israel didn't comply with the terms of the ceasefire to the intro (for balance.) I think this is important for the same reasons Okedem described on point 1. The reader shouldn't be left thinking "oh, so Hamas just decided to intensify their rocket attacks and break the truce for no reason." They probably had their reasons; that Israel failed (in their point of view) to respect the terms of the truce probably was one of them. Offliner (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To point 3: No one denies that the rocket attacks were real. However, no one except Israel knows the real reasons for the attack. So "the strikes are a response" is not a fact, but an assertion by Israel and the wording should reflect this. Offliner (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas claims - yea, you're right about that.
Point 3 - I know, but somehow the wording of that doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps the causal and temporal relationships need to be separated. So it's clear to the reader that A) There were a lot of rocket attacks, and B) Israel says its actions are a response to those attacks. okedem (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, these are fair points, okedem
Please consider the following as responses, some in disagreement and some in agreement:
  1. The intro is not to give a complete view of the events, but to explain what THIS article is about. However, my proposed intro covers this issue clearly and in an unbiased fashion:Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities. I really don't know how we can rephrase the sentence without moving to one or the other POV, I really don't and I tried very hard. However, this topic, in the intro, deserves little more than a sentence (see below #2). We have a HUGE (nearly a third of the article) "Background" section which goes into some detail, besides a ton of articles spanning back into the 19th century and the first Aliyahs. We are covered.
  2. Nope, it is an unquestionable fact of the background and the source is the IDF, so it isn't idle speculation. However, nothing sinister is implied, it only opens the question "Why they planned for six months?" And we provide the answer right away "a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities". Since the background is a third of the article, we need to have it in the intro.
  3. I understand this, but please trust me it wasn't my intention to leave anyone with a bad taste, see my explanation in #1. Can you come up with a better sentence, or atleast a counter propossal?
  4. I kinda agree, but I hesitated to take it out as they had been in the intro for many, many edits. If we can reach consensus on removing them, I am for it, for the same reasons as you: too much detail. Now, in the body of the article these are key facts, for which both the fact of the bombing and the fact that the TV station and Univeristy are linked strongly to Hamas need to be mentioned, and the Israeli statements as to the university being used to manufacture bombs need to be given space.
  5. I hear your point, and I see I was mistaken: I though there had been other incidents. I support removing the mention of the destiny incident from the intro (not the article), but the naval blockade must be mentioned, as it is a fact that should be in the intro (ie it is a core part of the IDF's goals and strategies).
  6. How about "Hamas has responded by continuing its attacks with rockets and mortars (etc)"? It is actually factually correct supported by sources etc.
  7. "small number of short-lived ground incursions." Youa re actually correct, I took some fellow editors claims at face value (pro-Israeli mind you). We all KNOW that you cannot effectively use JDAMs, most UAVs, and naval shelling without forward observers and special operations infils, but this is for the history when its written (I love Israeli military history, it is usually so honest, so you learn all the nasty juicy details :D). RS do not support the assertion. BTW thanks for pointign it out, because I thought it was factual! (and I read one source only).
  8. Thats going into too much detail territory, which we both agree is crappy territory. If you notice, I included the "maximum" range. At most, i'll add something like "increasing the range from previous attacks to up to". But this thing about range is more for aticles than intro. I just wanted to address what others have raised about the intro being solely about Israeli actions, which was felt as biased.
Things we agreed on, I am doing, as it is my propossal :D. I am not putting it in the article just now, to wait for further input. I think this is precisely the type of productive exchange we should be having, and I thank you for laying out evrythign clearly, and specially, for being constrained in what is surely an emotional issue :D. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Response below is for okedem, due to edit conflict)

I agree with several points but disagree with others.
1 can be easily resolved by saying that the operation cast-lead started the airstrikes.
2, I disagree, because there is an entire section on this in the article, and the lead is supposed to reflect what is in the article. If anything this point should be expanded.
3, I agree we should *very briefly* mention both Hamas rocket fire, and Israeli attacks on and blockade of Gaza.
4, agreed.
5, agreed, and briefly mention the dignity incident (e.g. "Israeli navy clashed with a civilian aid ship and shelled targets in Gaza").
6, well they were launched before the strikes, and are also a response. They are both.
7, no comment
8, considering point 4, I think it would be too much detail (unless there have been casualties in Beersheba and Ashdod).VR talk 10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break #1 due to length

2,3 - if the planning bit is expanded, we can also include the context, which would solve 3.
5 - Regarding aid, though, I'd like to include the fact that throughout the fighting, Israel has been allowing about 100 aid trucks a day to enter the strip (maybe in the paragraph discussing Humanitarian issues/blockade). It's quite unusual for a state of fighting to be accompanied by humanitarian aid from one belligerent to the other, so I believe that's worthy of mention.
6 - No, I don't think we can claim they're a response. They were launched just the same before the airstrikes. Saying it's a response means it wouldn't have happened without the airstrikes, which is doubtful.
8 - The expansion of the threat to include such large cities (5th and 6th in Israel) is important. It greatly affects the Israeli side's actions. okedem (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing the intro with the article! :D See my proposal re: hamas rockets (but what you think, is, how can I say this, irrelevant - its what the sources say, even if what you think is the truth!). Israeli cities: since we mention cities in Gaza, we should mention the cities in Israel, no brainer bias-wise. I agree on the trucks, and where to place the info, but where is the sources and verification (do the current ones mention it, let me check)? I wouldn't expand at all on beckground, except maybe mention this is part of the wider I-P warfare? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, even Al-Jazeera verifies the humanitarian aid, quoting Tzipi Livni [21]. And hell, they are a tabloid, un-capable of balance, as we all know! :D--Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still see some systemic bias creeping in. It seems Israel is hitting military targets (apparently the 1.5m people living in Gaza have vanished or are they all military targets including the children that have been killed ?) whereas Hamas is hitting civilian targets. This is not really what is happening is it as the casuality figures make clear. Targeting a TV station is a big deal under international humanitarian law unless it's directly contributing to military operations. I think it probably deserves a mention. We seem to be missing some context. Hamas decided not to renew the ceasefire. Why ? What's been happening in Gaza recently that might make them want to do that ? Why are they firing rockets ? What have the Israeli's been doing in Gaza preceeding this event, in November for example ? Please let's not include something about aid going in now unless it's placed in the context of Israel's obligations under international law with 'occupying power' status and what they have been doing with aid (etc) preceeding this event. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, all of those questions are not to be addressed in the lede/intro/lead. They are for the article itself. I agree with the systemic bias issues you raise, but I am not sure the intro is the place. Also, lets try not to do WP:SYNTH: the narrative must come from the sources, not ourselves.
I know for a fact that Israel has bombed civilian targets, but not because they are evil Zionist Dogs hell bent on Palestinian genocide, it is simply because it is impossible to hit something in such a dense place as the Gaza Strip and not hit something civilian. Even when your weapons are precise to ten meters, chances are your non-civilian target is five meters from a civilian place - its called margin of error, look it up. The Hamas attacks are basically random shots into the void, their intention is to pursue assymetric warfare, economic disruption, and strees on its enemy, not to kill civilians because they are bad big wolves (in fact, after 3,000 rockets in a year the death toll is much lower than a single day in this conflict, for murderers they are not very effective). War sucks, this conflict should end, and there are assholes and good people on both sides, yada yada yada. However, all these truths I hold self-evident are irrelevant. The sources tell me something and thats it. That is what I write neutrally, verifiably, and in an encyclopedic format, and hope that others, faced with the facts come to the same conclusions. T'is simple. --Cerejota (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but really my point is that it's not simple. It's notions like "they are a tabloid, un-capable of balance, as we all know!" applied to Al Jazeera but not to other major media outlets in the US and elsewhere (often with much lower reporting quality than Al Jazeera particularly when it comes to context) that can result in unconcious systemic bias. Al Jazeera is a reliable source in the sense that the BBC and CNN are reliable sources. Neutrality with verifiability requires balanced sourcing from reliable sources. This article could easily accidentally become another element of an assymetric conflict rather than a useful, balanced and informative article in an encyclopedia. You can see that by studying the (no doubt good faith) edits that have occured today. And the lead in particular needs to avoid wandering blindly into this kind of pothole/bomb crater. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know I was being ironic about "Al-jazeera" right? They are the Arab Fox News, they have some balance and editorial controls, but ultimately they also have an editorial focus based around the religious right-wing in the Arab world. They are far from unreliable, but also far from unbiased, in particular their language. Another good comparison is the Jerusalem Post, also same editorial commands: right-wing religious. Its all basically a huge case of Pots callign Kettles black. That said, my favorites in the region are the Daily Star (Lebanon) and Haaretz (Israel), they always deliver where others fail. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is pretty inaccurate to describe Al-Jazeera as having an editorial focus based around the "religious right wing". Same for the Jerusalem Post - yes it stands on a pretty right-wing agenda, but I'm not sure it would be accurate to stress any particularly religious aspect to that. And having said that, both are of course reliable media sources for the simple issues of fact that they choose to report, regardless of their biases - which afflict all media sources to a lesser or greater degree, the Daily Star and Haaretz included. --Nickhh (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on the assessment of all media having biases, including my faves. That is why I am such a strong supporter of verifiability besides accepting it as policy. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Cerejota's numbered list responding to me -
1,3 - Well, I still don't really like it, but I can't come up with a better phrasing right now, so let's stick to that one.
2 - I don't dispute its factual accuracy, but I don't see its importance at this level. Military operations are nearly always pre-planned, even if the events precipitating them were surprising. Nations/armies make contingency plans, which are then put into action if needed. Mentioning the planning here seems to give it a malevolent air ("so they were planning this all along, during the truce! Treacherous bastards!"). (Please note I'm not accusing you of anything here.)
4 - Well, we'll see what the others think.
6 - That's much better, thanks.
8 - Your solution to this in the proposed intro seems fine ("..esclating the distance...").
Regarding aid - I'm not sure I understood you there, but the sources for aid are in the day-by-day sections, so please take a look at them, there.
Thanks, okedem (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1,3:Thank you for understanding, we should continue to seek better phrasing, thats the advantage of a wiki!
2 - I think its important to tie up with the near daily rockets attacks. The reader sees that, ask herself Why plan? And the has that answered by Oh, rocket attacks! This also reminds me we mention nothing of the cease-fire, but its because even reliable sources can't agree even within themselves on what to make of that.
4 actually, I actually removed before, I think!
6-8 thanks!
Aid: I actually deserve a medal for this one: It is currently sourced using Al-Jazeera to verify Jerusalem Post. Now, in the history of the I-P conflict articles, has anyone managed to join those two to source a single sentence? If no, then I just did :D. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was made to realize by RomaC that there is indeed one lingering bias, which is the focus on Israel hitting military targets and Hamas hitting civilian targets. Thing is, this is pretty much what the sources are saying. The only way I think we can resolve this is that the sources are also saying that about a third to half of the casualties are civilians, including children etc. I think we can add to the strike part language that says something like this: "the strikes have nevertheless resulted in heavy civilian casualties." This is factually true and verifiable, but I can be flexible as to what wording to use. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply refine the labels when they appear in an RS. Provide the details. instead of "military target", specify the target -- e.g., university, television station, ministry, etc.. Instead of "conflict", provide the numbers of people killed by the IDF and the number killed by Qassems. The reader will then get to decide for himself whether a 40-to-1 kill ratio over a period of years is a "conflict" or a "slaughter" NonZionist (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agre that this hsould be the case in the article. But the lead need to have brevity, and this cannot be achived by describing everything. By necessity, we must use general instead of specific instances. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bush has blamed Hamas

Someone please add this: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/02/bush.gaza/index.html?iref=topnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.105.105 (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BREAKING NEWS!!! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!! However, you are in the wrong article: try International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict --Cerejota (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian civilian casualty photos removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Pictures were copy-vio. Please be careful people. --Cerejota (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Operation Cast Lead, wounded Palestinians 02.jpg
Palestinian girl wounded Dec 28, 2008 in Gaza City.
File:Operation Cast Lead, wounded Palestinians 01.jpg
Wounded Palestinians in Beit Lahia on Dec 29, 2008.

I added civilian casualty photos from both sides. The admin Tariqabjotu removed the only labeled photos of Palestinian civilian casualties from the article (the ones to the right). See this diff: [22]

He left in the 2 photos of Israeli civilian casualties that I had added. I don't know if Tariqabjotu realized what he did. The edit summary was "image overload." I agree that the helicopter and F-16 jet photos should have been removed now that we have casualty photos, and need the room. I did not add those helicopter and F-16 jet photos.

But as someone who categorizes casualty photos from many wars, I can tell you it is rare to get timely free images onto Wikipedia of civilian casualty photos while the war is going on. Or oftentimes ever. Free images of civilian casualties are frequently hard to find for many wars. Even years later. And if we want to humanize this war, then we need civilian casualty photos from all sides. And during the war.

I am returning the two images, and I hope they are left in, and that everybody sees the logic and fairness of what I am doing. I see no problem with image overload. Many pages have many more images. And various image galleries too.

I will consolidate the Palestinian and Israeli Dec 29 2008 images in gallery form in order to lessen the appearance of image overload. Images are smaller in gallery form than when posted as thumbs on the right side.

<gallery> </gallery>

See the above wikicode for galleries. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also put the images in gallery form on Dec 28, 2008. Now the page looks much less cluttered. Here is my last version: [23]
--Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Wikimedia Commons; we should be illustrating the content as we go along, not putting as many pictures as possible in the article simply because they are available (especially since we already have a collage of several in the infobox).
I am not going to respond any further to your comment, though, because you have suggested bias might have been a reason behind the edit even though there was no evidence of that. It doesn't matter that you say "I don't know if [I] realized what [I] did".; it's akin to the ill-advised statement "not to be offensive, but...". If you want to join the cohort of contributors to this article who can't discuss any element of it without suggesting bias, fine. But my time is too important to waste on responding to them. Return with a comment that doesn't make baseless accusations and then we'll talk. -- tariqabjotu 13:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if what I said came across as an accusation. Feelings are high right now. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology, although your comment did put me up to writing this. As you said, it is rare that we find free images of civilian casualties. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another failure of WP:AGF... I'll be honest, I have a good radar for the underhanded, but Timeshifter didn't seem like that.--Cerejota (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Welshman. I've been married for 20 years, happily and with two children. I am not related to any Palestinians or Israelis; I count myself 100% Celtic-Welsh. Retired headteacher. Why the credentials? For every 1 Israeli killed in this war, 100 Palestinians have died. What I see is an injustice towards the Palestiniain people. I have watched Sky news and BBC news (English medium) ALL day. No images of those poor dying children. Turn to Al Jazeera, and yes - we can see the blood, and how one sided this war is. NOW THEN, do we want Wiki to become a sensor? A red hand types... By NOT publishing an image of shot, bleeding, dying children we contribute to the insanity caused by Israel. I have been faithful to Wiki over the years for one reason: it's free, unbiased speech. An honest Wiki will show the madness of war (all wars)... in order to take the romance out of it. Then, and only then, will it stop. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a sad world! Half an hour ago I submitted an image of a crator caused by an Israeli air-bomb. It was taken off a few seconds later - but no name was given! As far as I can see, the image is genuine. Why take it off? Israeli dark glove?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualties in the Lead

Strongly support putting casualties in the lead -- figures are highest ever in Gaza and we have reliable sources. Presently casualties are in paragraph 14 and the infobox, which article-reading eyes do not scan. Concise casualty info belongs in the lead, something like: "More than 400 Palestinians and four Israelis were killed in the first six days of attacks." Here's an edit that clears space for the above casualty info: remove "after gathering intelligence for the operation for over six months" as Israeli is always gathering intelligence, as pointed out above this is hardly remarkable and definitely not worthy of the lead; and On 27 December 2008, (11:30 am local time (9:30 am UTC) can be changed to "On the morning of December 27, 2008." RomaC (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. I always oppose casualty figures in the intro of current events. The reason I disagree is because this figure will continuously change, and we need a stable place to put them. We have an info box for that purpose. Adding them to the lead only serves to add more clutter to an already over-sized lead, and makes it difficult to update, besides being completely redundant with the info box. When this is over, and we have stable figures, then perhaps. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Clutter"? I think casualty counts are critical in understanding the scale and impact of a conflict. And I can't accept "difficult to update," currently the article is changing every few minutes, updating timeframe casualty figures every few days will hardly be a strain, anyway you don't have to do it yourself there are plenty of other editors around. By the way, currently in the lead are: "Israeli airstrikes hit various high-profile military and security targets..."; and "Hamas has responded by ... hitting civilian communities. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including an empty school." How is the normal reader to interpret this other than to conclude that Hamas has caused civilian casualties and Israel has not? That's why good old facts and figures are useful high up. By the way I do see casualty figures in the leads of most Wiki articles on Hamas attacks. Comments from editors please. Cheers RomaC (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Providing detail is one way to circumvent the systemic bias that infests our abstractions and generalizations. Specify the precise nature of the "military target": Is it a university? a tv-station? a social ministry? a private home? Specify the nature of the "conflict": Is it 1-to-1 or 40--to-1? This elaboration is necessary because the generalizations are skewed and misleading. NonZionist (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a mention in the intro of civilian and belligerent casualties, to give an idea on the scale of these events. Also, the intro now mentions Israeli civilian casualties (quite rightly), but does not mention Palestinian civilian casualties (which are 1 or 2 orders of magnitude greater in number). That seems imbalanced to me. RomaC's suggestion of cutting out the mention of 6 months of intelligence gathering seems very sound, that also struck me as an odd thing to highlight at the top of the article. Ta. Fences and windows (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RomaC: I see your point on civilian vs military, but its an issue of sourcing. I do think I have a solution, but could you please discuss my proposed intro? Lets try to centralize the discussion around concrete proposals we can all view? That said, as to casualties in lede in other articles... are they for current events? Please read what I wrote again, I specifically said in current event articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree as per Cerejota on taking the casualties out of the intro as the casualty count will change and we need the intro to be stable. There is a place for casualties below and civilian vs military casualty issues can be ironed out. Also agree with Fences and windows cutting the mention of 6 months of intelligence gathering as "odd" - or worse, POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we agree on something. Now, explain to me how inclusion of a verifiable fact in the intro, verified by the IDF, is POV? I still do not understand how it can be! I can understand, however, that it can be used to introduce novel syntheis. However, the two don't go hand in hand: one can both present the fact and defend against it being used to pursue synthesis not supported by source. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is not the fact but how it is presented that makes it POV. The presentation in the lead implied, as I stated earlier, that Israel was sitting around planning heavy air attacks on Hamas while Hamas was simply honoring a truce with Israel. That's POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be in favour of having the casualty numbers of both sides in the lead, as per RomaC. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please change all casualty counts to indicate that "civilian" counts do not include male deaths. This is well documented but is not reflected in the current page. Specifically the infobox claims that ~25% are civilians (figure from the UN, does not include men) and then extrapolates that ~75% are members of the security forces, police etc and sites some NY times article that says nothing of the sort. This is clearly wrong. No one has released a total count of civilian deaths that include men. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, which the UN cited at least once for its death count (on 12/28 see UN document: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf see AMCHR source: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=919) publishes death counts daily but only states TOTAL, and WOMEN AND CHILDREN counts. The only exception is the 12/28 release which states 20 women, 9 children and 60 civilians were killed that day. It is unclear if the civilian count there is additional civilians or includes the women in children. In any case the count on 1/3 by AMCHR has 363 total dead, 77 women and children. The women and children casualties represent 21% of the dead in their estimates, close to the UN's claim that ~25% of the dead are "civilians." Clearly, male civilians are NOT being counted in any death count so this needs to be CLEARLY stated every time a death count refering to "civilian" deaths is refenced. Please make the necessary changes and monitor to make sure they remain.

Daily death counts can be found in at least two places: 1. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php 2. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection&section_id=97&static=0&format=html

AMCHR is consistently lower then OCHA. The recent figure of >400 deaths that the UN is citing (as of 1/3/09) is from the Ministry of Health in Gaza (see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_03_english.pdf).

Thrylos000 (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source of photos questionable

I've been holding back, but I'm going to have to bring this up now. Am I the only person that finds it a bit hard to believe that all of these new pictures were taken by one (freelance) journalist? This would require him to cross the Israel-Gaza border multiple times, something that I find quite improbable. Further, I have found some of his images attributed to other sources elsewhere with the captions he used on Flickr. For example, just here, this image is attributed to AP photographer Majed Hamdan, this image is attributed to AP photographer Hatem Moussa, and this image is attributed to Haim Horenstein of Getty and AFP. They all have identical captions as well. I'm sure we could find all of these photos elsewhere, attributed to professional photographers (who don't have them released under the appropriate license). -- tariqabjotu 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sucks. Oh well. Here are some advanced Flickr searches that pull up only free images posted or taken after Dec 26, 2008 with "gaza" or "palestine" somewhere on the image page:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=gaza&l=commderiv&d=posted-20081226-&ss=2&ct=0&mt=photos&w=all
http://flickr.com/search/?q=gaza&l=commderiv&d=taken-20081226-&ss=2&ct=0&mt=photos&w=all
http://flickr.com/search/?q=palestine&l=commderiv&d=taken-20081226-&ss=2&ct=0&mt=photos&w=all
Of course, one has to ignore all the images uploaded by Amir Farshad Ebrahimi. Also, one should search for the image caption via Google if the image seems questionable.
Other search words can be used. Use Flickr advanced search:
http://flickr.com/search/advanced
Check all the boxes for "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content". Then upload the images that are acceptable to the Commons, and categorize them under
commons:Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or its subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note of formatting sources

Fellow editors,

When new sources, please:

  1. Give your source a meaningful, unique name. I've seen several instances of some ref being named "ynetnews", or "jpost". These sites are used throughout the article, and we might get our sources confused (when later trying to call a ref by its name alone, like: "<ref name="ynetnews"/>").
  2. Use the citation templates, such as "cite news", or "cite web".
  3. Look at the new footnote afterwards, to make sure you didn't forget something in the formatting, like forgetting to fill in the "url" field.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background text

Most of the background text does not respect sources, but paraphrases them with wiki editorial POVs. Take one example. The way Rory McCarthy's Guardian article is twisted. What he was saying was not 'both sides'. He was specifically analysing Israel's unilateral breaking of the ceasefire, which had held. He was saying what Haaretz (many other sources could be cited for the crucial significance of Barak's decision here) said on the 28/12/2008. 'Israel's violation of the lull in November expedited the deterioration that gave birth to the war of yesterday.’ Haaretz Editorial , ‘Define the objectives in Gaza 28/12/2008Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. The "both sides" SOUNDS fair, but when we look at the details hiding behind the abstraction, we see that the term is part of a systemic bias. I propose changing

Following this, violations of the cease-fire agreement were made by both sides, with a major eruption of violence occuring on 4 November 2008 when Israel carried out a raid into the Gaza Strip in which troops killed six Hamas militants.[39]

to

A major eruption of violence occuring on 4 November 2008 when Israeli troops, four months into the ceasefire, raided the Gaza Strip and killed six Hamas gunmen.[39]

and I invite the pro-Israel people to SPECIFY the nature of the violation by the "other side", if any. NonZionist (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it tradition to use editorials (also known as opinion articles) to verify/support facts? Serious question here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

What is most likely the true number of fallen Palestinians - is it the given 350 or is it more closes to the 420 given by Palestinian sources and medical personnal in the region? Great Gall (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

civilian protests

http://kuruc.info/r/2/32802/ there was a protest in Budapest. 78.92.64.1 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the information you found in the article: just logg in or create an account - sure that won't be hard, then all you have to do is to include a section on the protest with the source you found! Take care! Great Gall (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm a registrated user in an other-languaged Wikipedia, I'll register, but my English is catastrophic. Great Gall, please in this time paste that information into the article, thank you. 78.92.64.1 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come there are references to protests Against the Israeli operation, but non who support Israel? -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because there are so few - you would not make much of an impression with just enough protestors to count on one or two hands! :) In any case, your average Joe Schmoe won't protest in favour of a nation killing dozens of innocent women and children. Great Gall (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seem that's exactly what these protesters are doing - cheering on a nation that is shooting rockets at civilian communities. NoCal100 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, NoCal100 is 100% correct. Secondly, there are plenty of protest in Support of Israel, but for "some unknown reason", almost no media is covering it. Almost, the biggest protests against Israel are in Arab/Muslim countries, and it's quite obvious. I think it puts "international protests" under a comical light. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are. It would be better not to cheer for either party. Anyway, cover all protests under one section if possible. Great Gall (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point to listing and linking to every single location where a protest took place? This does not look very encyclopedic to me. How about shortening this lengthy list to a sentence taht says protests took place in many cities, and perhaps calling out the more significant ones (in terms of size, or otherwise). NoCal100 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to move or change civilian protests section

It is getting too long. I support NoCal100 suggestion to shorten it (maybe just list all the cities in a paragrph, rather than bullets). The other option is to start a new article (similar to the one on reactions) where we can add some more details (numbers of protesters, dates, etc). Thoughts? --Omrim (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to International reactions--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this move decision was made prematurely. It's just a list. I've been working on it for the last five hours and would have appreciated someone dropping me a note before deciding to toss it to another article. The details on the protests can go into the other article, but some form of the list should stay here. Perhaps it could be organized by country with the cities listed in brackets. Could someone restore it here for now until more discussion takes place? Tiamuttalk 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Why must "some form of the list should stay here."? What encyclopedic purpose does it serve, beyond what is already in the section? NoCal100 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so against having a list here in some form? Why was the decision made to move it only a few hours after it was made? What happened to discussion and trying to achieve consensus? Or respect for your fellow editors' work?
There is a vast difference between a detailed and sourced list of where protests have happened and a truncated two sentences in that section which doesn't cover anything at all. The international demonstrations are a big part of the story since these events began and deserve coverage in this main article. I agree that detailed discussion of them can go into the International Reactions spin-off article, but I don't see why we should remove a list of where protests took place from here. I'm open to discussing how to restructure it. Do you have any suggestions? Tiamuttalk 18:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I explained what I have against this list - it is not encyclopedic, and does not provide anything beyond what is currently in the section, which is that protests occurred in dozens of cities. If there is value in naming and listing every single city, then, as suggested above, we can create an article called List of Cities where protests related to the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict were held, so the information can be conveyed without unduly burdening this article with such a long and pointless list. NoCal100 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - moved to [[24]] and left a summary. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. NoCal100 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it was my suggestion I still think it should have more room in the main article. How about listing all cities in a single paragraph (rather than bullets)?--Omrim (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wht's the point? Say there are 300 cities in which such protests occurred, why would we list every single one, rather than say "protests occurred in 300 cities"? NoCal100 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are an encyclopedia of effectively infinite size so we can provide that information, i think it is of historical note that there were peaceful demonstrations in 18 different places in the UK today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7809216.stm (Hypnosadist) 22:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also list the cities/places of interest that have held rallies in support of the offensive? Listing all 300 cities doesn't seem necessary, excluding "major" or notable cities. I've never seen that in an article. This article is cluttered as is with blatant bias and opinion against/for Israel. Maybe we should start another article that can store all the hate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two_protesters_edinburgh.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edinburgh_January_protest_.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:For_Bush_and_Israel.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.203.224 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can any one add it to the article? it is in Scotland Edinburgh in Princes Street 3 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.203.224 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I categorized the images in this Wikimedia Commons category:
commons:Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict protests
There are many more free protest photos on Flickr and in other photo archives. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Demonstrations.

This article is locked to most Wikipedians. Could somebody please insert "Dublin, Ireland" on the list of places where demonstrations have taken place. Here are some refs http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85911, http://demotix.com/en/2009/01/03/demonstration-against-israels-military-offensive-gaza-strip, http://www.politics.ie/foreign-affairs/39410-today-5pm-israel-embassy-ballsbridge-demonstration-against-israel-murderers.html Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwhi (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin and Cardiff added, as they are cities. We had one down the road as well, in Caernarfon, but I'd better not add that one! There is so much injustice in the world. It's time to be counted (even for the middle aged collar and tie brigade, like myself. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic efforts?

We need a section on the diplomatic efforts to stop the conflict. A search for the prefix "diploma" in the Article or Talk does not produce any relevant results. Surely diplomatic activities are a relevant part of the "international reaction". Here is an article describing the EUs diplomatic effort for example. Is there other information available that could contribute to an overview of the diplomacy efforts surrounding the conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.6.6 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could some one add link to the Arabic Wikipedia 

ar:مجزرة غزة ديسمبر 2008 Reads : "Gaza massacre (December 2008)"

--78.150.203.224 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add it. However, a couple of editors are against adding it, claiming that the title is biased or does not cover the same event because it reads "December Gaza massacre". I don't find this a compelling argument. It's obvious both are discussing the same event. One could argue that this title is biased since it creates a false parity between the military actions of the 4th strongest army in the world and those of militants tossing in homemade rockets. But that's just my POV.
What do others think about wikilinking to the Arabic page? Tiamuttalk 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Arabic article is title 'Gaza massacre' or something similar, we should not be linking to it, as it introduces a POV rejected for this article's title. NoCal100 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic sources use "Gaza massacre" much more than "Israel-Gaza conflict", which is why that article is titled that way. I don't see why we should reject the wiki articles in other languages simply because we don't like their titles. Tiamuttalk 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because "we don't like their titles", it's because we like NPOV. If the Arabic Wikipedia has lower standards than the English WP regarding NPOV, that doesn't mean we should lower our standards to accommodate it. NoCal100 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely ridiculous! Who cares what the other wikipedia names the events, its the same subject subject. Plus, who knows, they might rename the article soon or in the future. No justification for not linking it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the procedures here in the en-wp but the attempt to remove the arab interwiki in the hebrew wikipedia (which I come from) was quickly dismissed. Someone wrote above that is is unprecedented in en-wp. If so, then surely that link has to be restored. יחסיות האמת (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic link is at the top of the link list, which see>--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back basically because I saw a lot more people leaning towards adding it than removing it in the other discussion above and as has been mentioned, POV disputes are not grounds for removing interwiki, claims the article is not the same are not same don't hold much ground as anyone who even uses an electronic translator can figure out they are about the same topic. --Shipmaster (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fuller discussion is here. Consensus appears to be towards inclusion. Even if some editors think the title or contents are (in their eyes, by definition) biased, I am not sure that means we should not link to another language WP page. This is after all common practice, and inevitably pages in other languages, written by editors from other countries, are going to show differences. --Nickhh (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone listed a translation of the article, so those making a judgment solely based on the questionable title should see that for reference. From what I recall, the article was essentially a POV attack on Israel and Jews as a whole. It used the term "Zionist Aggressors" dozens of times, commonly references the attacks as a massacre rather than a war/conflict, and is loaded with fallacies and borderline propaganda. Any linking of that POS article will be immediately deleted by me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here's a translation. While the machine translating isn't very good, you can get a general picture of it. Currently, the article does describe, very roughly, the same events as the English one. It is very POV and propagandist in nature, but still deals with the same topic. At least they do mention the rocket fire on Israel, though they frame it in a very certain way. The article, at least right now, actually contains a section titled - "role of Hosni Mubarak, the traitor". It is a piece meant to persuade the reader, not to inform him/her.
Sadly, I believe the interwiki should remain. Any Arabic speaker who wishes to read it doesn't need our help anyway. If Arabic Wikipedia wants to shame itself, let it. I guess they have yet to internalize the concepts of neutral reporting, and delivery of facts as opposed to opinions. okedem (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Google translation, and the version I looked at does not refer to "Zionist aggressors", at least not "dozens of times". It's not perfect, but neither is this article. And as discussed endlessly, massacre is a subjective term which is applied to various different events, often depending on where the viewer is coming from. Is there dodgy stuff in the Arabic WP article? Of course there is, as there is in 100s of en.wiki articles, including both seemingly innocent slight POV and some truly ridiculous and offensive content which can sit there for months before common sense prevails. And all this is irrelevant anyway, the link should remain regardless of what one or two editors here happen to think about the quality of the article, it is totally standard practice to have these links. Oh, and has anyone asked editors on Arabic WP whether they want to be inter-wiki'd with this article, which frames the conflict as an equal two-way battle? However insane that idea is, obviously. I mean it's not as if there's a world beyond the US, Europe and Israel now, is there? The smell of arrogance and self-righteousness seeping out of a lot of comments here, is, well, somewhat instructive.--Nickhh (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article a couple of days ago so I'm sure some heavily biased materials have been weeded out. But we cannot be ignorant here. Arabic is not a diverse language, those who speak it tend to possess the same general opinion of Middle Eastern topics. That's just a fact. And in combination with such a controversial article, it's beyond me why we would add even further POV-pushing until this article is settled. I don't see the necessity nor a reasoning in including the link. There was a long discussion that responded to your exact points somewhere in the archive, I'm too lazy to find it but I know it's there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, POV disputes have never been grounds for interwiki removal, you said it yourself, some of the heavily biased materials have been weeded out, some of the other material are under active discussions, just like any other article undergoing development. I am pretty sure some systemic bias will remain, but since we have some very good articles NPOV wise on the topic on ar.wp, the statement that people who speak Arabic generally have the same opinion about the middle east is pretty much a blanket statement. Regardless, all that is beside the point, the large majority of people commenting on this thread and the one above do not believe that POV disputes are grounds for interwiki removal, period. --Shipmaster (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If the standard of comment here is going to sink to the level of "Arabic is not a diverse language" and "those who speak it tend to possess the same general opinion of Middle Eastern topics. That's just a fact" - while bizarrely appealing for us "not be ignorant" - then my slightly jokey comment about the Arab WP not wanting to be associated with us may be closer to the mark than I thought. And even if those observations were true, what on earth has that got to do with removing an interwiki? To repeat, as noted above and below, and elsewhere previously, just because one or two editors don't like what they see as the POV on display in another language WP, is no reason to override basic and standard practice. --Nickhh (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrorK is right. The link should never have been included since it violates NPOV guidelines. Regarding consensus, since when is Wikipedia's NPOV policy a popularity contest?
It is unacceptable to remove an interwiki link because you regard the article as too POV. Indeed I'm concerned enough to raise this issue here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Interwiki links Incidentally, I'm pretty sure interwiki links are maintained by bots, so if the Arabic article is linked by one other wikipedia or if they link to us or some other language on the conflict, then it's going to come back eventually anyway. Perhaps it's possible to disable the bot but there is clearly no good reason in this case. It is an article about the same thing, POV or not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDF entered the Gaza Strip

Right now. Guy0307 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard as well reports of eyewitnesses saying this. Until reliable sources confirm it, though, mention of this can't be placed on the article. 217.44.215.61 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BBC reporting it now, saying confirmed by Israeli military source. Ground troops entered gaza, dont know if its a full invasion or a raid tho BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN reports also [36]--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit 2nd hand from unnamed sources --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any CNN or BBC article about it, but I linked to Haaretz and YNet. Even though they are Israeli sources, I think that's quite reliable. If you disagree, replace references with BBC/CNN/whatever. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

theres now a BBC source someone can add http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809959.stm BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For: hr:Sukob Gaza-Izrael 2008.-2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.60.245 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will add now. BlueVine (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect classification of Palestinian Casualties as "combatants", that's original research

The current casualty figures say that 75% of the dead on the Palestinian side on "combatants". There is no link to support this claim. I maintain that this is original research / interpretation that is not supported by reputable sources.

There is significant evidence to the contrary. For example, the day with the most casualties was the first day of bombing. Here is the New York Times account of that day's casualties:

Taghreed ElKhodary, Ethan Bonner. "Israeli Attacks in Gaza Strip Continue for Second Day". New York Times. December 28, 2008.
"Israeli officials said that anyone linked to the Hamas security structure or government was fair game because Hamas was a terrorist group that sought Israel’s destruction. But with work here increasingly scarce because of an international embargo on Hamas, young men are tempted by the steady work of the police force without necessarily fully accepting the Hamas ideology. One of the biggest tolls on Saturday was at a police cadet graduation ceremony in which 15 people were killed."

Just because someone is employed by Hamas as a policemen, does not make them a combatant. I will change the wording to that used by the NEw York Times in its most recent article on the casualty count. It used the term "Hamas security personnel."

Escalation Feared as Israel, Continuing Bombing, Lets Foreigners Leave Gaza
Medical officials in Gaza said 430 Palestinians had been killed and some 2,200 wounded since the Israeli campaign began last Saturday. The casualty figures include many Hamas security personnel members, but the United Nations has estimated that a quarter of those killed were civilians.

--John Bahrain (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


According to information already on the article, 138 of the Palestinian dead are police. Counting them as civilians, half the killed are civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.57.110 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I take pretty much everything Hamas says like a grain of salt. They're notorious for embellishment, sensationalism, and downright lies. One article against the dozens of sources establishing the difference between civilian and soldier is in my eyes enough to keep the material as is. Let's face it, Gaza is a chaotic state. Citizens aren't policed, and odds are, those who armed tend to be loyal to the militant government. Plus, "police" is commonly understood to be combatants. A vast majority of the gunman are trained in "police" camps. mmkay? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan12345 "mmkay" is childish and rude and adds nothing to this discussion. And arguments like "I take it with a grain of salt"; "They're notorious"; "odds are"; "it's commonly understood" and "a vast majority"; are unsourced and not really helpful either. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh get off your horse man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't backed your assertions up with anything other than innuendo, so your comments come across as bigoted, self discrediting and inappropriate. I haven't read anything from you that doesn't sound like Zionist jingoism. Perhaps you should stop trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk)
Comment on edits, not editors. Personal attacks are not going to be tolerated. NoCal100 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't attacking anyone. I can't see how "mmmKay" is particularly offensive. Clearly you guys need some ammo in an attempt to hide your blatant bias. Comments such as "Zionist jingoism" is more than personal and merits a report. Why don't you follow your own advice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please archive alot of the talk page

With ground troops in Gaza there will be alot of new information coming in fast. Please can someone archive most of the talk page? all the rename info can go for sure, this lags badly for some thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, & possibly article title, to be revised per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV

The lead sentence is genuinely bizarre:

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to an ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas which accelerated in the last few days of 2008 when Israel responded to an increase in rocket and mortar fire by launching a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip.

This is pure original research. We are absolutely alone in calling this the"2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict," absolutely alone in framing it as part of an "ongoing conflict" which "accelerated" at the end of 2008, etc.

It may be that five years from now, this is how RSs will frame this event. It is not how they are framing it now. I am going to fix the original-research problem. Neutrality is a challenge here, obviously, and I welcome and solicit everyone's input. But neutrality is not achieved by departing entirely from the reliable sources and devising a novel framing device because one or more editors finds it fairer and more broad-minded and more suited to their view of events.

Many people are heated here, and understandably so. But let's do our best to edit within policy.--G-Dett (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you should present your suggested changes here, before launching what will almost certainly lead to yet another edit war. NoCal100 (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is accurate and seems pretty stable at the moment, the important thing is the content. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal, that's precisely what I am doing. I'm presenting the problem first, just so that we can at least verify that there's a consensus that the current lead violates WP:NOR. I'll present an alternative soon enough, but while you're here, can you verify that you do agree that (a) the lead sentence and title violate NOR, and that (b) we shouldn't violate NOR? And if you have suggestions for fixing the problem, I'd like also to hear those.
Forget bias (real and alleged) for the moment. What the lead is doing now is trying to get out ahead of the historians, framing the broader view before the RSs have done so. Classic original research, bias aside.
BritishWatcher, what I'm talking about is content, and your opinion that the title is accurate is original research. If you think it isn’t original research, could you please point me to a reliable source that is calling this the “2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict”? And who describes the bombing campaign as an “acceleration” of same? Thanks, --G-Dett (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the lead violates WP:NOR. This article's subject has been called 'The Gaza massacre" by some sources, 'Operation Cast Lead" by others, and "War in Gaza" (or variants thereof) by many others ([25]). Adding the specific dates is common wiki practice to distinguish it from other Gaza conflicts. What do you propose as an alternative? NoCal100 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer sure the title is a problem either. I've done searches now without the dates, and "Israel-Gaza Conflict" gets several hundred thousand (as opposed to 9 hits – all from Wikipedia – for "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict"). So please excuse me there. I am still concerned about the framing. From what I can tell, no one is referring to this as an "acceleration" (or any synonyms I can think of) of an ongoing conflict; by and large, they're framing this as a major Israeli operation mounted in response to Hamas rocket-fire. The title may be fine, but we're still trying to get out ahead of the historians here by presenting this as a ratcheting-up of an existing state of affairs. Israeli spokesmen and strategists are themselves referring to this as a "game-changer," and other mainstream journalists are calling it unprecedented. We seem to be quite alone in our euphemistic broad view.--G-Dett (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think is ok to describe 'a major Israeli operation mounted in response to Hamas rocket-fire' as an acceleration, but I would not object to using that exact phrase (e.g: The 08-09 Israel-Gaza conflict is a major Israeli operation mounted in response to Hamas rocket-fire) in the lead lead. The lead should of course describe this as a 2-side affair - Israeli air/ground strikes, and Hamas rocket attacks. NoCal100 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times is now calling it a "War on Hamas." The Washington Post is calling it "Israel's Attack on Hamas." CNN is calling it Israel's "assault on the Hamas-ruled territory." The most common headline phrase seems to be "Assault on Gaza." These are all from today's headlines. The phrase "Israel-Gaza conflict" gets google hits for appearing in this or that website, but it doesn't seem to be the framing device for the major reliable sources.
This isn't surprising: Hamas' rocket attacks have been going on (off and on) for a long time. The current situation is notable (lead story in every major mainstream newspaper in the world for eight days running) because of the unprecedented scale of the Israeli operation, now said to consist of two phases, first airstrikes and then ground invasion.
It seems to me that we have to follow the reliable sources in how we frame this story. The reliable sources are currently newspapers and periodicals; history books will follow. Neutrality should be achieved through some other means than a major reframing of the story. As it stands now with the reliable sources, the story is about Israel's large scale assault on the Gaza strip. Hamas' rocket attacks are a minor component of the news reporting of that story, and a more major component of the opinion-analysis of that story. Our article should be following that lead rather than blazing our own trail.
My suggestion:

Israel's 2008-2009 Assault on Gaza, known as Operation Cast Lead, began on December 27 in retaliation for Hamas' renewed Qassam rocket attacks on southern Israel. On January 3, after eight days of aerial attacks, Israel launched a limited ground invasion.

With perhaps a link after the first sentence to List of Qassam rocket attacks? Does that make sense?
I'll tell you what doesn't make sense. The reader of the article in its current state has to read through the entire lead, plus two more complete sections and thousands of words, and get to the fourth section – "Development" – to find out when the thing they've been reading about in the papers, Israel's assault on Gaza, actually began. This anomaly is a direct result of our novel framing of the subject.--G-Dett (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is also calling it 'Gaza Conflict' (see the promo for AC360). The BBC calls it "Gaza Conflict - [26]. Reuters calls it "Gaza Conflict" [27]. UPI calls it "Gaza Conflict - [28]. The quotes you are referencing seem to be directed to the current ground attack. Renaming this article to something long the lines of '"Israel's Attack on Hamas." will not fly, as it is a POV that ignores the rocket barrage by Hamas that preceded it, as well as the ongoing bombardment of Israeli towns by Hamas rockets. If we want to focus just on the Israeli operation, I will not be opposed to renaming this article Operation Cast lead. NoCal100 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal, you're right that the BBC has used "Gaza conflict" in a headline, though here is a list (I think exhaustive) of every other framing phrase the article you link to uses to summarize the story: "Israel's military offensive," "the bombing campaign," "the violence," "the offensive," "continued Israeli offensive in Gaza," "the bombing raids on Gaza."
But to your broader point about titles and POV, isn't it the case with every article of this kind that it's named after the major operation that gives it notability in the eyes of RSs, that it takes its framing cues from the RSs themselves? Since when do we try to "correct" what you see as imbalanced framing? Thus we have Second Intifada (not 2000-2006 Israel-Palestinian violence), Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not 1945 U.S.–Japan conflict), Bombing of Dresden in World War II (not 1945 U.S.–Germany conflict), etc. Each of these titles "ignores the X that preceded it."
Furthermore, the current framing opens the door to the inclusion of other Xs, Ys, and Zs "that preceded" the operation that mainstream RSs are covering. For example and most notably, the blockade of Gaza. What is to keep an editor from making that part of the framing? As soon as you've departed from RS-precedents in framing a subject, the door is wide open to that. This is precisely why there's a prohibition against original research in the first place.
Please understand me on the following: of course Hamas' Qassam attacks against Israeli civilians has a major place in this story. They are Israel's causus belli, and a major focus for pundits and analysts commenting on this story. But the story itself, as far as the reliable sources are concerned, is a major Israeli assault on Gaza, unprecedented in scale and duration.
This bears repeating: we don't achieve NPOV by reframing a story to suit our own sense of fairness and the long view. We achieve NPOV by neutral writing and the inclusion of all major points of view.--G-Dett (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have Falklands War, not Argentinian Invasion of Falklands. We have 1948 Palestine war, not Arab Invasion of Israel, and countless other examples. When we have large-scale events, we often have a name for the main one, such as World War II, alongside names for specific incidents, operations or battles within that conflict, such as German Invasion of Poland, or your examples of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or Bombing of Dresden in World War II. if you want to focus this article just on the Israeli offensive - fine - let's rename it Operation Cast lead, and make it a sub-article of a larger article that will put the Israeli attacks in the context of the broader conflict - as multiple reliable sources have done. NoCal100 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have Falklands War because that's by and large how the event is known by reliable sources. If it were framed by most RSs as Argentinian Invasion of Falklands, then we'd call it that. See 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example – which isn't called 2002-2003 U.S.–Iraq conflict, even though many people think Iraqi provocations during that period were key to the situation. It's called 2003 invasion of Iraq because that's how most RSs frame it, how they circumscribe their topic.
And this is true of all your examples. In all of the examples you've just given – whether for large-scale events or specific operations – the title Wikipedia uses reflects how the preponderance of reliable sources have framed the subject. This article's title, however, does not. Rather, it reflects how you and other Wikipedians believe the subject ought to be framed and considered.--G-Dett (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not true. I have shown you that every major news source, from the BBC to UPI, has referred to it as the Gaza Conflict. You are selecting certain references over others to allege a framing that does not exist. NoCal100 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent]I'll grant you that we're both being selective with regards to headlines. I take it you do agree that our framing should reflect the framing of the RSs? If so, perhaps we could approach this more systematically. We could for example take the A-1 headlines & article ledes from the major mainstream newspapers and periodicals for the last eight days (or alternately, the last two weeks), aggregate the data and see exactly how they're framing this.

I'm quite ready to be proven wrong on this, and I don't claim yet to have researched this systematically. I'm working on impressions, but I do think they're pretty solidly founded. I have not read any major journalist who frames this story as an ongoing conflict that got "accelerated" on December 27. And I think it would be very strange for, say, a New York Times reader who comes here after reading a headline story about Israel's "eight-day war on Hamas" to have to read through thousands of words and multiple sections before getting to information about when the bombing campaign he's been reading about, day after day, actually began. That strange situation reeks of original research. Everyone else is talking about a story that began on December 27; we've substituted a different framework because we think it's fairer to Israel. I don't see a precedent for doing this on Wikipedia. There is certainly no precedent for it in the examples we've given above. American patriots have not succeeded (nor perhaps even tried, for all I know) in changing 2003 Invasion of Iraq to 2002-2003 U.S.-Iraq conflict.

Even the two or three cites you've provided (with the phrase "Conflict in Gaza" in the headline) make very clear that the story they're talking about begins for them on December 27th. Here's the lede sentence of your UPI story: Israel's airstrikes on Gaza have exposed the rift between Palestinians who want to make peace with Israel and those who support Hamas, observers said. Here's the first sentence of your Reuters story (a minor "Q & A" feature): Israel launched a ground offensive in the Gaza Strip on Saturday after a week-long air campaign against Hamas militants firing rockets into the Jewish state. Sounds a lot like my proposed lead sentence. And here's the first sentence of your BBC story: Mass demonstrations are being held around the world in protest at Israel's military offensive against Hamas, as the campaign enters its second week.

Shall we place a little wager, and look at the lead paragraphs of the A-1 stories in tomorrow's editions of the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal, and see if they're framed in terms of Israel's 8-day assault on Gaza, or rather as part of an ever-unfolding Israel-Gaza conflict that precedes that?--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure tomorrow's A-1 headlines will say something along the lines of "Israel launches a ground assault" - will you then be recommending we rename this 'Israel's Ground Assault"? I'm positive that on June 6th, 19944, most papers had headlines describing "Allied Invasion Of Normandy", yet our article is still called World War II. The naming has been discussed twice already, and the consensus was for the current title. Your case for renaming, based on an admitted selectivity in headline selection , is not compelling. NoCal100 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow's headlines will indeed be about the ground invasion, which is why I suggested we look at the lead paragraphs. Will they say something along the lines of "The months-long conflict between Israel and Gaza took a new turn yesterday, with Israel sending in ground troops," or will it be something closer to "Israel's eight-day assault on the Gaza strip went into a new phase yesterday, with the beginning of a ground invasion"? My wager is on the latter.
The invasion of Normandy happened on June 6, 1944; our article on it is called Invasion of Normandy. The larger background article is World War II. Similarly, this article should be called something like 2008-2009 Assault on Gaza. Its larger background article is Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --G-Dett (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already suggested that we can focus this article on the Isreali operation, and call it Operation Cast Lead. But if it is not going to have that focus and that title, then it will be called "Israel-Gaza Conflict", as numerous sources have described it. NoCal100 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you say to the American patriot who argues, We can focus this article on the American operation, and call it Operation Iraqi Freedom. But if it is not going to have that focus and that title, then it will be called 2002-2003 U.S.-Iraq conflict, as numerous sources have described it? Do you say, right on brother?
Which of the major reliable sources are using "Operation Cast Lead" in their headlines and lead sentences?--G-Dett (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CNN for one: "The goal of Operation Cast Lead is to halt what Israeli officials describe as a near-constant barrage of Hamas rockets into the southern part of the country from Gaza. [29]. The Sydney Morning Herald would be another "The second stage of Operation Cast Lead to end rocket attacks by Gaza militants on southern Israeli cities began under cover of darkness about 8pm Israeli time" [30]. All of the Isralei media do as well, of course. NoCal100 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking you if you could find any mainstream anywhere who used the phrase somewhere once. We're talking about framing. The CNN article you've linked to doesn't use the phrase at all; I don't understand why you've presented it. Bravo on the Sydney Morning Herald thingie. Haaretz is not covering this under the rubric of Operation Cast Lead. Is the Jerusalem Post? Check out Fox News; you might find what you're looking for there.
If Wikipedia has a habit of covering major military operations under their nationalist brand names, I am not aware of it. I trust you'll understand when I say that your RS evidence is underwhelming.--G-Dett (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree with G-Dett. This is a central problem to the article, without fixing it right away, the article will not cover what people are coming here to read about, which is an attack, of unprecedented magnitude, by Israel on the Gaza. RomaC (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN for one: "The goal of Operation Cast Lead is to halt what Israeli officials describe as a near-constant barrage of Hamas rockets into the southern part of the country from Gaza. [31]. The Sydney Morning Herald would be another "The second stage of Operation Cast Lead to end rocket attacks by Gaza militants on southern Israeli cities began under cover of darkness about 8pm Israeli time" [32].
I think "Israel-Gaza Conflict" is unsatisfactory. "Israel-Hamas Conflict 2008-9" or "2009 Gaza Invasion" might be better. It's too soon to say what this particular incident will be known as historically. Decades after the end of the Second World War Operation Barbarossa has stuck wheras Operation Eagle hasn't. I would say that what terms news media are currently using for these events are a poor guide to what an encyclopedia should call them. Oh... and at the top of this page there's a banner saying that this article has been referenced in news media but as it happens that is a story exactly about how this operation is called "Operation Cast Lead" and contrasting it with "Operation Summer Rains". We will have to wait and see and perhaps amend the title of this article accordingly. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo, superb post. The proper WP name at any given time is a function of the consensus of reliable sources. This is necessarily more volatile in the early stages of something, but it's not our role to get out ahead of the historians. Anon, you can write. Get yourself registered and become a regular.--G-Dett (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The word escalation as it is used in the article implies two sides provoking each other to employ greater force, which gives a falsely neutral impression in this context. We should say it is an escalation on Israel's part (since Hamas has indeed intensified its resistance in response) or not use the word escalation at all. This is for the obvious reason that Operation Cast Lead is admitted by the Israelis themselves to have been a surprise attack, and a decisive escalation solely on their part to wipe out Hamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my prediction above, here are the headlines+leads from today's New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal:

  1. NYT: Israeli Troops Advance, Bisecting Gaza: Ground Fighting Widens a 9-Day War on Hamas
  2. WashPo: Gaza Attacks Further Split Arab Rulers, Public: Israel's offensive against Hamas illustrates the widening chasm between longtime Arab leaders and those they govern over the Palestinian cause.
  3. WSJ: Israeli Troops, Tanks Push Deep Into Gaza: Israeli tanks and troops poured into the Gaza Strip Saturday night and by Sunday afternoon appeared to have pushed deep into the north of the territory, as the Jewish state launched a ground assault against the militant group Hamas. The land attack marks the dramatic escalation of an Israeli offensive that Palestinian hospital officials say has left as many as 470 Gazans dead and wounded over 2,200 since it began on Dec. 27.

"Israel's 9-Day War on Hamas," "Israel's offensive," "Israeli offensive." In every case the story frame is the Israeli offensive that began December 27.--G-Dett (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground attack confirmed

Ground troops are entering Gaza strip as January 03, 2009, 1 PM. EST.[37] Please update article. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. BlueVine (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English source: [38] Nableezy (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image sources

Search for free images from multiple sources:

On the search form put checkmarks in front of these:

- Search for works I can use for commercial purposes.
- Search for works I can modify, adapt, or build upon.

This will ensure that only free images are found. Only free images can be uploaded to the Commons.

Download the largest version of images, and then upload the images to the Commons,

and categorize them under

See the above talk section: #Source of photos questionable. Some people upload non-free copyrighted images to Flickr and other image archives. One way to tell is by searching for the image captions via Google. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove soldier casualties

there has been no confirm of soldier casualties, it is simply a Hamas psycological trick so please remove it from the summary card at the beggining of the page.MarioDX (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. According to Israeli sources, there were 10 wounded soldiers. None dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomaed (talk • contribs) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplications in "Ground Attack" and "January 3" sections

Same facts are being reported both in the "ground attack", "developmet", and "naval operations" sections. Now that the ground attack have begun, this is turrning to be much more than airstrikes and relativly low scale naval operations. I sugget we change the structure so all information is delivered ONCE, in a coherent manner. Options: Lose both "naval operations" and "ground attack" sections and move their content to the relevant chronological part in "developmet"; Or, make sure that "development" is only dealing with airestrikes (we would have to change the title), and move all naval and ground activity to their proper sections. Thoughts?--Omrim (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would copy part of the "Ground attack" section into "January 3". After the ground incursion, the previous build-up could be described. Sarejo (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could a mention of the implications of the ground invasion be added either to Ground attack or January 3rd. For example France is now condemning Israels land offensive. Where would that belong (its a big development) and shouldnt just be sidelined on the international reactions page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Section has been created at Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)#Requested move for further discussion--Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third renaming discussion: this is not a two-sided conflict

This is an Israeli operation designed to wipe out resistance in the Gaza strip. The current title is misleading. It could apply to the conflict running continuously for years. The article should be about the current assault. Almost no news source refers to it as the "Israel-Gaza conflict". Most people see it as an Israeli attempt to wipe out the Hamas organisation. This isn't a POV, its a fact. Hamas rockets are nothing new, they have been firing them before this moment.

It is usually described in the press as something like "The Israeli attacks on Gaza"(BBC news).

Therefore, the name should be returned to something like "2008-09 Gaza Strip Bombardment and Invasion" or "The assault on Gaza".

Can we please have a thorough discussion about how to name this article in a way that people would think to search for if they were looking for the article?

I'd imagine most would search for something like 'Gaza bombings' or '2008-09 Gaza Strip attacks'


Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course a 2 sided conflict, with Hamas rockets falling on Israeli cities daily, both before the Israeli strikes and after. Multiple news sources including CNN, the BBC, Reuters and UPI refer to it as a conflict. NoCal100 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that while I agree the article should be renamed, I do not agree with Jandrews23 that "this is not a two-sided conflict." As NoCal says, of course it is. The article should be renamed because the framing of the subject should follow the reliable sources, and they have clearly and consistently presented the story as Israel's "Assault on Gaza," "War on Hamas," etc. They have not for the most part framed it as the "Israel-Gaza conflict." --G-Dett (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
jandrews, you are wrong. Without two sides involved, it isn't a conflict. You are very selective when you say it is usually described in the press as something like "The Israeli attacks on Gaza"(BBC news). I just did a google search for "Gaza conflict". Here are the first half dozen results (less the wiki ref).
  1. Israel wants to entangle Lebanon in escalating Gaza conflict, Daily Star, Lebanon.
  2. Gaza conflict, heading, in The World
  3. Battle Plans in Gaza Conflict, BBC
  4. Domestic politics fuels Gaza conflict, CS Monitor
  5. Gaza conflict timeline, London Telegraph
  6. Obama Monitoring Gaza Conflict, CBS News
I did this little exercise because I knew it would be easy to balance your statement. I don't have a hard and fast preference for how we should describe it, but whatever it is, it has to be POV. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does 'Operation Cast Lead' have its own article or is this it? If this is the article about 'Operation Cast Lead' why not name it as such? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the parent. This is a question of categories. The Israeli assault ("Operation Cast Lead") is an event in its own right, and it is *orders of magnitude* greater in terms of violence, casualties, strategic ambition or any other metric one might choose, than the Hamas resistance. Let me make an analogy - would you call a robber stabbing an elderly lady a "fight" if the elderly lady happened to swing her handbag in response? You would call it an assault and we are talking about the same disproportionality in terms of force employed in this conflict! This is an *assault*. There should be no truck with Israeli propaganda.
I've been arguing this for days. The Hamas rockets have been flying for years, this article is about a specific air and sea (and now ground) attack of unprecedented ferocity. The current framing of the attacks in the muddying context of a larger conflict (as a 'flareup' or 'escalation' or whatever) is exactly the original research we are meant to avoid, as more editors are finally discussing. Title should be something like "Israeli Winter 2008/9 Invasion of Gaza," article should be about the attacks that have been the world's top news story for a week now. RomaC (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is not the way to have these discussions... we have a process, lets have it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israeli site hacked

I have now posted information about an Israeli site being hacked by people in support of the Palestinians for the THIRD time.

I don't think it should be casualy removed, as I understand the way Wikipedia should work.

If anybody should feel the information would better be moved (as opposed to REmoved) to another section, that I would be able to understand. Actually, I'm not too convinced myself the place I found for this information is the best one. But still, such a move should also be discussed.

I would be happy to hear my more experienced collegues express themselves on the points I made, and the questions implied.Debresser (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a war between people who support Palestine and people who support Israel. At least, it's not that way for me, really. WP:AGF --Darwish07 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the opinion of Darwish07 that this information is "utterly unrelated" to the subject, I respectfully have to contest his opinion. The section is called "Reactions", and it just happens to be that one of the reactions to the ongoing conflict was the expression of support made by ways of hacking into an Israeli site.Debresser (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was inconsistent to read the reactions of the UN, the European Union, the African Union and other involved parties and then directly read that a no-name Israeli website is being hacked. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hacking information you posted is unsourced. If it happened, even if you saw it, you still need to supply reliable sources to add it to the article. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary irrelevant particularly if government websites were involved. The reason for the hacking is likely related to the conflict. For example the 2008 South Ossetia war mentions some hacking incidents. But regardsless, what we need are reliable sources which discuss the hacking (in relation to the conflict). In case there is any confusion, screenshots of the alleged hacking are not reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nil Einne in both aspects: that the information is relevant, but cannot be posted as it is unsourced.
I thank you all for the discussion, and think the subject can be considered closed.Debresser (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Information

I have posted new information on the subject. This time with references. So I honestly do not think it may me removed any more. Moving it to another location also does not seem justified in view of above discussion. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps making a new subsection would be in order? Either right in the section 'Reactions' (and the corrolated article 'International_reaction_to_the_2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict'), or in the section 'Public relations campaign'. Your opinion? Debresser (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date?

why does it say January 2-present? Should it not say December 27-present?-Kieran4 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? On what subject? Please specify, so any mistakes may be corrected.Debresser (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Falk

As for the naming controversy and other elements of this article, I have little to no opinion... but I do feel that whatever his merits, Proffesor Falk's opinions are given too much weight, as he is mentioned at least 3 times. V. Joe (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment he is quoted twice on one subject in one section, and once on another subject in another section. Given his expertise and function, that does not seem excessive to me. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Assassinated" not "killed"

I think we need a dose of reality here. When a person is deliberately targeted, for their military or governmental importance to an organisation, and has a bomb dropped on them that is an act of assassination not merely killing. Doesn't matter whose side you take, it is assassination. I think this needs to be reflected within the article.The Night Walker (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines "assassinate" as:
1: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons
You are correct to note the prominent person aspect of the word, but the method (secretly, unexpectedly) and the negative moral connotations (murder, treacherously) don't fit the context of the armed conflict going on or Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. "Kill" is neutral, sufficient, and exact.
89.139.102.5 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have to agree with night walker on this. on the wiki page list of assassinated people there are many hamas leaders. assassination is not a pov, and its not only used for 'good' people. Untwirl (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong at least twice Untwirl, and therefore so is The Night Walker. 1. The point lies not in whether the person killed was "good" or "bad", just in the method, as pointed out before. 2. Many Hamas leaders have indeed been killed unexpectedly (=assassinated) in the past, and that is why they are listed as 'assassinated people', but this is not the case here and now. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous "use" of quotes

There are way too many quotes used in places where they aren't needed. Even when reporting what someone else said, there is no need to place quotes on isolated words cited. The quotes can change meaning from citation to allegation.

Examples of unnecessary quotes:

Aidan White, Secretary-General of the International Federation of Journalists "condemned" the destruction of the television station.

Another one, which can convey a subtle allegation, as in "they said it's due to security reasons, but really it isn't":

Israel has banned reporters from entering the Gaza strip since November 2008, citing "security" reasons.

89.139.102.5 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we do this all the time. In particular in "Reactions" sections, but also in point/counter-point situations. If a quote is verifiable and sourced, and from a relevant source (the Secretary-General of the International Federation of Journalists is certainly relevant when dealing with media being attacked). These are facts and hiding facts because they are not convinient is against policy. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

the only source for Israeli casualties is a Hamas source [33] , we should wait for the IDF report or a more natural one and not be used as a tool in the Hamas's psychological warfare. --217.132.189.80 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30 Israeli soldiers were injured

can someone add it to the table? here is the source [34] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.189.80 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Palestinian Legislative Council building

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


Requested move

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

Survey

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

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

Proposals

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Currrent name is fine.

  • Oppose - The situation has escalated with the ground incursion and the name is to vague. I always held it as a temporary placeholder and one of the conditions has changed.--Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Even though the ground invasion by the Israeli forces is currently underway, Hamas is still launching rockets at many Israeli cities the past few days. The title should remain as it. Even I read CNN was labeling this conflict as Crisis in the Middle East, which I think is too vague. --Roman888 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War

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

  • Support - This is what this is and what it will be called in ten years. This event is way different than other related warfare. In fact, the Israeli leadership has called it "all-out war", something they do not tend to do. --Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - Are we really in a rush to change the name? "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" is a descriptive title and not the proper name of an event. But Israel-Gaza War is a name. So it seems inappropriate to unilaterally label this the Israel-Gaza War on Wikipedia until a significant number of published sources start calling it that. 72.66.67.46 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

2008-2009 Gaza Offensive/Israeli Offensive in Gaza

Perhaps this is the solution.

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

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

  • Support It's factual, objective, and reflecting more upon the very nature of the event. Israel did attack Gaza in an attempt to destroy Hamas. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - one sided. Israel didn't woke-up one shiny day and decided to attack. Such title depicts Israel as the aggressor here - an issue which is highly controversial. Even the EU presidency called it a "defensive" action. --Omrim (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counter-argument: Apparently this is what you feel upon reading the proposed title, but that is not necessarily what it means. This is a factual description, i.e., it has nothing to do with whether the offensive (the aggressive attack) is justified or not. It's an attack, and it's admittedly aggressive (250 people killed in the first day). Note that this doesn't necessarily imply that the offensive is evil. For example, if Hamas WAS evil, then an offensive must be due, and is actually a good thing.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Why does conflict start with a non-capital c, while war starts with a capital W? JVent (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, "War" is a given name, while "conflict is a mere description. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are the police not counted as civilians?

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

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

All positions should be stated in the Intro

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

"However, Hamas disputes this, asserting [35] that this is a continuation of "Israeli crimes against Palestinians", while others state [36] that the rocket attacks by Hamas were preceded by Israeli raids in Gaza.

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

I would phrase it better, I hate the "However". We should be able to express the point of views of either side rather than as a point/counter-point as a Point A and Point B.
So I say:
Hamas has called the attacks a continuation of "Israel's crimes against Palestinians".[37]
BTW, can we get at least one more source?
What "others think" doesn't need to be on the intro, as it belongs in the reactions section, which is covered by a few lines in the intro already. This is the intro, not the article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas claimed motivation for ending the ceasefire was included in the previous version of the intro:
"A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on December 19; Hamas did not renew it and stated the continued Gaza Strip blockade as the reason.[13]"
Here's the wording from an even earlier version:
"A truce between Hamas and Israel ended on December 19th, when Hamas intensified its rocket attacks on Israel.[39] Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the Gaza Strip blockade.[13] Israel says the aim of Operation Cast Lead is to destroy Hamas' capability to launch rockets on Israel."
But this was removed in the new version by Cerejota. I think it is important to have this in the lead, because 1) it establishes a connection to the wider conflict, 2) explains Hamas' point of view on the end of the ceasefire (Israel's point of view is already there.) I'd also like to point out, that the current version of the intro does not mention the six-month truce at all. Any opinions/suggestions? Offliner (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Discussion and resolution of bias in introduction

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

The intro reads like a list of Israeli military accomplishments.

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

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

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


References for talk page

  1. ^ http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2008/081231_Gaza.doc.htm
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haaretz1050426 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Harel, Amos (December 27, 2008). "ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe'". Ha’aretz. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  4. ^ "Israel braced for Hamas response". BBC. 2009-1-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7804051.stm
  6. ^ "Israel vows war on Hamas in Gaza". BBC. December 30, 2008. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008.
  7. ^ Timeline Israeli-Hamas violence since truce ended Ha'aretz, by Reuters
  8. ^ At least 205 killed as Israeli pounds Gaza, Alarabiya, 27 December 2008
  9. ^ LEFKOVITS, ETGAR (Dec 30, 2008). "Human rights group protests Gaza civilian casualties". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  10. ^ Amos Harel. "Most Hamas bases destroyed in 4 minutes". Haaretz. Retrieved December 28, 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  11. ^ Yaakov Katz. "A year's intel gathering yields 'alpha hits'". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 28 December 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  12. ^ ElKhodary, Taghreed (December 28, 2008). "Israeli Attacks in Gaza Strip Continue for Second Day". New York Times. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  13. ^ a b c "Israeli jets target Gaza tunnels". BBC news. December 28, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference aljazeera_mosque_tv was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Israel strikes key Hamas offices
  16. ^ "Hamas military labs in Islamic university bombed".
  17. ^ Roni Sofer. "IDF says hit Hamas' arms development site". ynetnews. Retrieved 29 December 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  18. ^ "Gaza relief boat damaged in encounter with Israeli vessel - CNN.com". cnn.com. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  19. ^ "Pro-Palestinian activists say Israel Navy fired on protest boat off Gaza shore". Haaretz/Reuters. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  20. ^ http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/09/01/0101.htm
  21. ^ [1]
  22. ^ Black, Ian (December 27, 2008). "Israel's hammer blow in Gaza". Guardian. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  23. ^ Curiel, Ilana (December 27, 2008). "Man killed in rocket strike". ynetnews. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  24. ^ "Rockets land east of Ashdod". Ynetnews. December 28, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  25. ^ "Rockets reach Beersheba, cause damage". YNET. 2008-12-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  26. ^ "Israel reinforces troops, ground offensive possible". China Daily. December 28, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
  27. ^ "Israel Confirms Ground Invasion Has Started". MSNBC. 2009-01-03. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  28. ^ BARZAK, IBRAHIM (2009-01-04). "Israeli ground troops invade Gaza to halt rockets". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-04. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  29. ^ a b Israel and Hamas under pressure for Gaza aid truce Reuters 2008-12-30
  30. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123000509.html?hpid=topnews
  31. ^ Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza, Haaretz. December 30, 2008.
  32. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123000509.html?hpid=topnews
  33. ^ http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/29/news/ML-Israel-Defense-Minister.php
  34. ^ "'Humanitarian aid flow in our interest'". Jerusalem Post. January 1, 2009. Retrieved January 3, 2009.
  35. ^ "Gaza mourns as strikes continue". Al-Jazeera. January 1, 2009. Retrieved January 3, 2009.
  36. ^ http://www.cnn.com/
  37. ^ http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/orienteproximo/home/tropas-de-israel-cruzaron-la-frontera-de-la-franja-de-gaza_4741416-1
  38. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809959.stm
  39. ^ Robert Berger. "Tensions Rise as Hamas Ends Truce With Israel". VOA News. Retrieved December 19, 2008. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Limited editing?

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

I agree.--Omrim (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)&oldid=261893370"