Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Beginning of Gaza War

Further information: 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire

(the dissolution section)

Since the cease fire ended in November 2008 but wasn't official till December 18, shouldn't the Gaza War battle box say the war began on November 4 when the Israelis launched their attack on the border tunnel. Resulting in 6 dead Hamas terrorists. It was then the terrorists began launching rockets at Israel again, leading to the December 27 air and artillery campaign and then the January 3 groung assault. I will now change the date to beginning on November 4 2008 instead of December 27 2008.

Allegations...etc

I appreciate, greatly, Sceptic's prompt and reasonable response on the issues that have been raised. I think that if it doesn't show how capable and understanding he appears to be, in the very least it shows that he is willing to conform to Wiki policies, and that's the least we could enterprise on these issues...

That said, I want to make sure that I am understood, and by that I mean that I would like to see every statement attributived properly. And for that purpose I ask him to understand that we can't undermine Wiki's vehicle to present views, by presenting reported statements as facts. Wiki does not contribute in that matter. And so, the following "The report did not represent a cross-section of the army, but rather they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members.[117] An Israeli military spokesperson dismissed the testimonies as anonymous hearsay." cannot be posted without proper attribution, even if it's acceptable through the RS medium. Wiki is not judging what the report says(since we assume is from a RS) rather Wiki asks we give credit where credit is due. In other words, we would like to recognize that the JP read the report and it found such findings. It is all we are asking in this matter. The JP found that the report did not represent etc. That is a judgment statement, and must be sourced to the identity that so view the matter in that way(or in this case). Cryptonio (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, attribution in a case like this is vital but I guess it's just an oversight. Phrases like 'The report did not represent a cross-section of the army,' are meaningless anyway because the term cross-section is undefined and JP are not qualified to talk about sampling methods. I also suspect that NGO Monitor (which as usual is where the nonsense starts before it's picked up by JP, NYT etc) wouldn't know what a good sampling methodology was if it came up and hit them over the head with a big book about research methods. Just thought I'd mention that as I haven't had a soapy rant for a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Throughout our discussions I tried on numerous occasions to show nonsense in Amnesty and others, however only Monitor receives all the credit. Do I have to double the soapboxing here? And since when, Sean, do you take words out of context? Of course the first half of the sentence is meaningless, but why did you dismiss the second half? Katz says clearly that they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members. This is definitely not a crossection, whatever scientific definition you can think of.

Now to the original question from Cryptonio. The logic that guides you here is clear. However, I want you to take a look at this: Ayman Mohyeldin, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Gaza, said: ..."The Israeli military is engaging in very aggresive psychological warfare. They have been dropping leaflets warning Palestinians that they have to flee their homes and warning that anyone who lives in area that could be a possible target that their home will be targeted as well.". When asked to attribute the words to Al-Jazeera correspondent, I was overruled by Nableezy - he says that AJ presented it as fact and no attribution to RS is required. So, I think we either adapt a policy of attribution to RS in controversial issues, or we drop it in accordance with wiki policies. As you see, we won't be able to resolve this one without Nableezy yet again. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, Nableezy cannot overrule you or anybody else. I said what I thought based on my readings of WP:NOR WP:RS and WP:V. If there is a disagreement we ask other people. nableezy - 14:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, in this article, attribute everything, including the pro/psy war statement. I apologize if I was in a position to agree with you on that other matter and didn't, but I don't remember when that conversation took place. Cryptonio (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You was not a part to that conversation, Cryptonio, no claim to you. Are you sure we want to attribute everything? I don't think I'd mine that, but this will require broad consent. Nableezy, Sean, are you ready for this? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<- Sceptic, "And since when, Sean, do you take words out of context?"...since I was about 3 years old. It's served me well ever since. As for "they were troops who had approached the group" etc. Yes, it's the same sampling technique the police use to identify victims of crime. They wait for them to contact them. It's quite effective and it's cheaper than phoning people up at random and asking them whether their car has been stolen today. Thanks for the Jpost article by the way. Will read later. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell me Sean, does the police in Thailand act in similar way? I mean, after several dozens of victims called the police, the police rushes to mass media and publishes the allegations all around the globe, implicating that the whole country is a bunch of criminals? --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. They parade people they arrest in front of the TV cameras, often broadcast a 'confession' and their pictures get splashed all over the tabloids usually next to the bloodied corpses of their victims (no mention of the word alledged) and photo's of bikini clad 'pretties' advertising cosmetic products or perhaps a new baby panda etc. I think you're being a bit harsh on Breaking the Wind or whatever they call themselves. Seems like shooting the messenger. An org that encourages woman to report abuse by men isn't implicating all men. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not the case of Breaking the Table. They are not the messenger, but the judge and the jury: "The testimonies prove that the immoral way the war was carried out was due to the systems in place and not the individual soldier," said Mikhael Mankin from "Breaking the Silence." What was proven yesterday is that through the IDF the exception becomes the norm, and this requires a deep and reflective discussion. This is an urgent call to Israel's society and leadership to take a sober look at the foolishness of our policies." Now tell me again, if the police gets a call that says "They say a man across the streat hits his wife", does police or court take this seriously? Because this is the case with this Breaking the Rules' report (just the first random page): "The Israel Defense Forces used Palestinians as human shields during Operation Cast Lead last January despite a 2005 High Court ruling outlawing the practice, a Golani brigade soldier says. He says he did not see Palestinians being used as human shields but was told by his commanders that this occurred...The soldier said he had heard of other instances in which Palestinian civilians were used as human shields. One time, for example, a Palestinian was put at the front of an IDF force with a gun pointed at him from behind. But the soldier said he had not seen this himself". Or take a look at this (one of 2 testimonies about 'human shields'): [http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/testimonies_e.asp?cat=2 "...and they also brought up moral issues that troubled them such as using civilians. He denied this, but I don't believe him when he says he's not aware of this happening on the ground". Nothing concrete here. So maybe the allegations are worth investigating. But even before any probe into it could have started, the mass media publish it and the next morning our encyclopedian article is expanded with well-sourced sentences about IDF misconduct. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I'm not sure what you expect me to say. What I can tell you is that as soon as I read phrases like 'the immoral way' in NGO reports/press releases I stop listening. If your complaint is that Wikipedia articles are too susceptible to the constant back and forth in the media between partisan sources with conflicting agendas then I agree but that's a 2 way street. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of any of this material being in the article but if it is going to be here then we have no choice but to follow the normal policies etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under impression that you do listen to humam rights NGOs (and reject propagandist-like NGOs), but if that's not the case - no more questions, you're excused. Let's go on with the normal policies. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the above exchange went ahead and made you take your word back Sceptic. I thought we had agreed on sourcing this statement. I do apologize for not making the extra effort to understand the previous exchange, but I think the problem brought is still an issue and that we sort of reached an agreement and then without further discussion things change. Cryptonio (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We didn't, Cryptonio. This is what I said: "I think we either adapt a policy of attribution to RS in controversial issues, or we drop it in accordance with wiki policies." - meaning that one rule should apply to this article as a whole. I find it unacceptable that we make an attribution to JPost in this particular case - either we do it to numerous sentences throughout the article simultaneously or we do not do it at all. I also draw your attention to the fact that general wiki policies would not require attribution in this case, as recent recommendation by Nableezy in the talk page of Gilad Shalit article suggests. To sum it up, you'll have to arrange broad consensus on the issue throughout the active editors of the article to adapt this move; if such consensus is reached, I won't obstruct it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very well, but you only brought one other example related to attribution, and I was not opposed to it. You must then, bring up, like I did, the case where attribution is required and we'll then discuss. You say you want to attribute everything, but what is it that you want to attribute? and furthermore, I will be exceedingly surprised if there is another grotesque example of under representation like in this case. I don't know what Nableezy is doing in another page, but in this page, both him and Sean has voiced their support for attribution. For this fact, I will attributed it once again, and ask you to one, read this paragraph once again, and two, bring up any other case that you feel is not attributed properly. Cryptonio (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

→You write "very well" and do the opposite. First, the only sentence from Nableezy in this thread referred to different discussion, he said nothing about this matter. Second, I don't have to read this once again, I already know this section by heart. Third, if anything is grotesque in here, it is the report by Breaking the Silence, as I tried to show to Sean above. You are trying to interfere in the domestic internal Israeli matter - JPost is qualified enough to report on it, no attribution is required according to wiki policies. Fourth, the following sentences could be attributed but they are not: "The Israeli attack was the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians..."; "In war zones, leaflets warned local residents that they had to flee. It also warned residents that their homes would be targeted if they were located in an area of possible target...". Btw, the following sentence doesn't require attribution to the Guardian: "...despite the hundreds of phone calls to families warning their house is about to be blown up, only 37 were destroyed, presumably as of the 3 January The Guardian article date". Fifth, I insist that the changes of the attribution policy would be done only after reaching general consensus, and not only after you agree to this. Then I promise not to obstruct this. To sum it up, ask Nableezy if you don't rely on me. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, perhaps it might help if I explain my position in this. It's about distinguishing between facts and opinions, between neutral and non-neutral sentences and attributing accordingly. I think you are misreading the policies in this case. The WP:V and WP:NPOV policies depend on eachother which is explcitly stated as "They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another".

The following statement (assuming it is true) is a plain and simple factual statement describing what something is. The stuff that encyclopedias are made of.

Statement A - "they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members"

There are few degrees of freedom here, there's pretty much only one choice of what to say. Nothing particularly controversial there.

The following statement is however a statement describing what something is not.

Statement B - "the report did not represent a cross-section of the army,"

There are an infinite number of degrees of freedom here. There are an infinite number of things that something is not so what is it about this particular is not that makes it special and worthy of mention without attribution ?

• Is it a fact ? No, it's 2 opinions. Firstly an opinion about what comprises a 'cross-section' (without actually stating what would qualify as a 'cross-section' in their view) and secondly an opinion that the sample is not a 'cross-section'.
• Who's opinion is it ? Remember that it's actually NGO Monitor's opinion but that connection has been broken in the JPost article because they don't attribute it to the source. An earlier ref did.
• Is the source of this opinion neutral ? Hardly.
• Given that Statement A provides the facts and is sufficient to describe how the sampling was done what is the function of Statement B ? The most obvious answer would seem to be that it's function is to point out a potential weakness in the sampling methodology in JPost/NGO Monitor's opinion. What happens when you add Statement B to Statement A without attribution ? Since A is a neutral fact and B is a non-neutral opinion then B+A = a non-neutral opinion without attribution.

So, given that Statement B is one out of an infinite number of things that the sampling methodology is not, is an opinion rather than a fact, comes from a non-neutral source and when concatenated with statement A renders it no longer a simple statement of fact as far as I'm concerned, I favour attribution. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Sean, I quickly got lost in your explanations. Maybe you could have said it in less abstract form, something like "Monitor-Katz-Sceptic are zionist propaganda triangle". Who told you btw that it was originally Monitors opinion, stated by Katz without attribution? I don't recall this. Anyway, this is merely your speculation and its value is, excuse me, infinitely low. Now if you return here: Talk:Gilad Shalit#Hamas' children show and see the latest post from Nableezy, maybe you'll realize that a sentence that stated as fact by JPost could be said as such, regardless of deliberations about its scientific values, truth, plagiary speculations, your personal views on Katz, etc. etc. Finally, as wrote before - you don't believe me? Ask Nableezy. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Read it again until you understand it because I intend to attribute the sentence on the basis of my argument unless someone convinces me why not. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to answer your question about NGO Monitor. Here's the piece by NGO Monitor in The Guardian [1] criticising the methodology 2 days before the Jpost piece. It's reachable via the response piece from Breaking the Silence [2] (which is our ref 124) also in The Guardian published on the same day as the Jpost piece. Note that the statement from Breaking the Silence in our article is directly attributed to them. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

With all my sympathy to you, Sean - I won't. You are about to do something inconsistent with wiki policies, and all your appeals to common sense are futile. I promise not to obstruct this - but only after general consensus to alter the attribution policy is changed throughout the entire article. Until then I'll revert you, even though I'm least inclined to start edit warring with you or Cryptonio or anyone on this matter. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, all I'm proposing is making the following amendment (or something less clunky) based on the detailed argument I provided.

OLD: "The report did not represent a cross-section of the army, but rather they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members"

NEW: "The Jerusalem Post reported that the report did not represent a cross-section of the army, but rather they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members"

My concern is neutrality and distinguishing between facts and opinions. These concerns arise from core policies so WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and non-specific 'inconsistent with wiki policies' arguments aren't really going to convince me that my assessment of how to apply the core policies in this case are wrong. I've provided a detailed description of why I think attribution is appropriate in this case. If you would like to provide a coherent argument as to why attribution is inappropriate in this case, go ahead, I'm listening. Adding 'The Jerusalem Post reported' is the simple formula that obtained consensus in the Shalit article. It makes it clear to the reader who is making the assessment that the report did not represent a cross-section of the army..etc. A mandatory, non-negotiable aspect of NPOV is that "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". That is entirely dependant on ensuring that points of view are identified as points of view and attributed. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ease of editing break

Sean, I'm tired of this. I stopped counting how many times I said in this thread that JPost wrote this line as a FACT, not as its (or Katz's) opinion. They could have easily established this fact without help from Kosky, published in a far-away comment-is-free Guardian. Our mutual friend Nableezy said that JPost is qualified as RS, and needs no attribution (in Shalit issue, the attribution went to photos obtained, not the newspaper). He also said that Al-Jazeera is RS, and when its correspondent reports controversial news from Gaza, but presents it as fact, no attribution is needed too. So, I won't make this attributions without his consent. And I don't like changing policies without broad consensus on the matter. If others would agree - I won't object. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a nap. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how an inaction from Nableezy act as induction of your point on this case. If Nableezy has not thrown his weight on way or another, it doesn't mean he agrees with you and disagreeing with the rest. Yes, it seems as if I read Nableezy's statement in one way, the opposite way that you are reading him. You have brought a couple of examples that concerns you, very well, go ahead and attribute them, no one has till now express any opposition. You have worked with numbers on these numbers, numbers in relation with votes, and it seems that there is more than just votes in this matter. I'm not thinking too much about your action on this matter, but take a look at the facts and what the people who are actually discussing this subject matter are saying. Cryptonio (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's set things about Nableezy straight to avoid unnecessary speculations. His only sentence in this thread reflected our discussion Talk:Gaza War/Archive 52#Engagement with Israeli forces#Reply to Nableezy there. Nothing more, nothing less. In that discussion I asked to attribute what I consider controversail report of the Al-Jazeera correspondent. Nableezy disagreed, replying that "when a reporter (of RS) makes a statement of fact in a report the publication is making that statement of fact (of RS)", meaning that attribution is not required. I eventually stepped back. So, as you see, it is not true to say that no one expressed opposition to my concerns - he did and it happened less than a month ago. I can't simply wake up one day and decide to nevertheless insert the attribution, it wouldn't be fair towards Nableezy as a person and it would be against general policies of wiki. Now I'm using his argument to oppose your suggestion to attribute what you consider controversail report from JPost. At least you have to admit I'm consistent. I even removed yesterday an unnecessary attribution to the Guardian.
I'm not sure I understood "the numbers" issue, but if you're implying that you are 2 and I am 1 - this is a wrong argument. Wiki is not about numbers and democracy, it's about consensus. You don't have my consent to make this attribution and I think I made very strong case to tell you why.
I am saying this again: as I see it, this matter is not about attributing one specific sentence to JPost and another to Al-Jazeera. This is about general policy enacted for the entire article. To change it from current standard used, you don't have to persuade me - you have to reach the consensus of all the other active editors in this talk page. If all the others would agree to endorse your policy change - I wouldn't obstruct it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

hearsay

Thanks, Sean, for drawing my attention to almost forgotten thing. One more sentence could be added, based on this: The soldier says his unit employed a variation of the practice, the so-called "neighbor procedure," when it checked homes for Palestinian militants. He says he did not see Palestinians being used as human shields but was told by his commanders that this occurred...The soldier said he had heard of other instances in which Palestinian civilians were used as human shields; and on this: As for the allegations themselves, they frequently rely upon secondhand evidence and hearsay, according to Kosky (is he a member of Monitor? should be checked out). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oded Na'aman has been a member of Breaking the Silence since 2005; Dan Kosky is the communications director of the research organisation NGO Monitor so of course attributions to both are due. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Deadliest attack in 60-year conflict"

The Israeli attack was the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict, which has led some Palestinians to call it the Massacre of the Black Saturday.

Ok, the reason I removed this was:

A) I don't think alarabiya is a wikipedia-certified reliable source. B) This source may only be considered notable by its author and is most certainly not reliable However, the language in the article reads like a blog. The "Massacre In Gaza Black Saturday" is not the subject of the article and is simply a personal heading in the letter/press release. I haven't seen it anywhere else beyond the Arab world.

Also, is it true this was the deadliest day in the conflict? So since 1948, this attack tops em' all? If so, we should explicitly say this is the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I know the subject matter is clearly Palestinian but many seem to merge it with the Arab-Israeli conflict (though I think Palestinian casualties are included in that conflict, right?) I don't know, I haven't been that active on the article so I figured it was better to post here before warring Sean. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think AlArabiya is unreliable? Factsontheground (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it's owned by a despotic oil state and I can't find it in the wikipedia-reliable sources discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan shouldn't you try to achieve some sort of consensus here on talk before blanket-deleting information from an article that is under Wiki sanctions? RomaC (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is removing information sourced by unreliable references considered "blanking?" If you think I violated a rule please report me, if not I'd like a response to my question cause I am genuinely interested. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

al-arabiyya is a reliable source, it is a major news organization. nableezy - 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about al-arabiya, that covers 1st half of the sentence. And maybe, Wikifan, it was the deadliest day, because al-arabiya explicitly says "60 years of conflict with the Palestinians" (of course, it started way earlier, but let's leave it). Anyway, 2nd half of the sentence is based on Massacre In Gaza - Black Saturday, that seems no close to RS. 2nd half must go. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ill get some other sources on that, there were a lot saying the name for the first day was "Massacre of Black Saturday", know of a few in Arabic will look for English. nableezy - 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I can understand your problem with despotism but I live in an oil state (Canada) and I don't see what's wrong with that. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing despotic about an oil state but the despotic state I was referring to also happened to be an oil state. Canada's gettin close though...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, how does Al Arabiya being partly-owned by Saudis discount it as a reliable source? I believe Barack Obama's first-ever interview as US president was granted to Al Arabiya, by the way. RomaC (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Typically, state-controlled media is not reliable, especially media subsidized by a ruthless Islamic theocracy. Is the reference in the wikipedia RS-page? I couldn't find it. Also, Interviewing politicians does not somehow make a source notable - bloggers have interviewed Presidents. You should know this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan according to your edit summary deleting the content: "this simply isnt true, sources arent even close to being reliable and i cannot find an independent source to confirm", you couldn't find a source other than Al Arabiya. I wonder, did you even try? Because I found one on the first page of a garden-variety Google search. Also, on your challenge to Al Arabiya, can you please direct us to the list of "wikipedia-certified" reliable sources you refer to above? Thanks! RomaC (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the second source is a joke. Good job understating its unreliability. There were two issues: A)Is this really the deadliest attack in the 60 year conflict with Palestinians (even though it's been going on since Arab revolts)? And B) Is "black Saturday" really that popular of a term? I know these countries like romanticizing massacres while conducting campaigns of genocide against their own people, so I figured it was worth confirming. I could not find any legitimate references that endorsed this "black Saturday" assessment, and I could not find any references confirming this was in fact the deadliest attack in the conflict. If the term "Black Saturday" is only being emitted from the Arab world or specific Arab/islamic countries, then we should be more explicit and say that. We don't want to get undue weight to what clearly is a loaded term.

Also, Here is the database: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, feel free to file Al Arabiya request. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan that is not a database it is a noticeboard, for discussion. And you have things, as some say, bass-ackwards. You deleted content and declared Al Arabiya "not even close to being reliable . . . owned by a despotic oil state . . . subsidized by a ruthless Islamic theocracy". I and others simply stepped in to stop what we saw as disruptive, advocacy editing. Now, if you truly believe this major news organization is not a reliable source, then it is up to you to start a challenge. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you done? Now, can someone other than Roma please answer my questions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WF, you are the only disputing the reliability of Al-Arabiyya. Like it or not they are a major news organization and meets the requirements of WP:RS. And RomaC is right, absence of a discussion at WP:RS/N means absolutely nothing. If you want to challenge Al-Arabiyya bring it up there, but the consensus here is clear. Al-Arabiyya is a reliable source. nableezy - 08:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, massacre of black saturday now sourced. nableezy - 08:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my only dispute and the reliability of AA has little to do with what I'm saying. I still don't think AA is reliable source anyways, and two users with demonstrative POVs is not a "consensus."

Plus, the second source is total bollocks. I'm not confident this was the deadliest day in the history of the Palestinian/Israel conflict, and I have been unable to independently verify the claim. The Black Saturday statement, sourced by a non-RS, also has not been addressed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please, don't we have other more important things to do? Wikifan, the sentence been edited and better sourced. WP is not about truth, you know, I suggest you leave the AA. --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia doesn't care whether it's information is true or not, what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.198.10 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WF, my counting was that you were by yourself, where RomaC, myself, and Sceptic (wait, he has an assumed demonstrable POV, but it is the opposite of my assumed POV, do they cancel each other out or add like absolute values? Im so confused) all say it is fine. Again, if you want to take that to WP:RS/N, then by all means feel free to do so. nableezy - 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamas response to rocket attacks.

There was a response previously before the section got reworked. Don't know why it wasn't added.

I found this and added it.

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar stated during the operation "they [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques, ... and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." Cryptonio (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate addition. Two points: first, you added it to 'acts of terrorism' subsection, while it seems more relevant to 'attacks directed at civilians subsection'. Second, there's already a sentence in 'attacks directed at civilians subsection' in Hamas response to AI report - Hamas official rejected the report as "unbalanced, unfair and unprofessional," calling the firing of rockets "self defense" and a legitimate response to Israel's actions.[310] - Maybe these two sentences can be merged as one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be a response, or the idea of one, in every charge(subsection) like Israel has, and very detailed ones. That somehow the wording is similar, well the subjects are similar...rockets. Cryptonio (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice - the subject, i.e. the specific charge, is different, but nevermind. The word 'rockets' in the heading is inappropriate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind. While the notion of 'a response, or the idea of one, in every charge(subsection) like Israel has' is perfectly fine, the response should address the charge. Words "they [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques, ... and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way" say nothing about 'legitimacy' to spread terror. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It did addressed rockets though, we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then . It addresses the subject of firing rockets, and of course Hamas is not going to say they are doing it in order to sow terror, that is Israel's line of thought(Hamas' line is that it has the right to imitate Israel(paraphrasing). Cryptonio (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

'we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then' - say it again please? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From the source:" On Monday Hamas militants fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel despite a 10-day Israeli military campaign that reportedly has left more than 500 Palestinians dead.

Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' military wing, warned Israel that Izzedine al Qassam Brigades will continue rocket strikes "for many months" and vowed to strike deeper into Israeli territory. He spoke on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV.

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar also gave a televised address Monday, saying the leadership in Gaza salutes "the resistance men" and that their actions were justified because of what Israel has done.

"They [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." Cryptonio (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the source, and as said, no objection to use words of Hamas official. I don't agree to quote them in 'attacks spreading terror section' because the words address the charge of indiscriminate attacks and not terror. You said 'we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then' - I didn't understand what you mean or what do you suggest. Please say it again. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On the section of spreading terror, how is it that they spread terror? Rocket attacks. "It addresses the subject of firing rockets, and of course Hamas is not going to say they are doing it in order to sow terror, that is Israel's line of thought(Hamas' line is that it has the right to imitate Israel(paraphrasing)". There is nothing else mentioned on the spreading terror section besides rockets. And finally, if they say this ""They [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." they expressed that they are doing what Israel is doing, and if Israel says that's spreading terror, then obviously Hamas thinks Israel is spreading terror as well. It's all they saying with the quote. Cryptonio (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. 'shelled children and hospitals and mosques' - seems like indiscriminate attack. Actually, all our dispute here is speculative, and I didn't express stronger objection because it falls somewhere in the grey zone. I still tend to think it is not so qualified in the terror attacks section. You see, many (including human-rights NGOs) said for a long time that the prime aim of rockets on Israel is not to kill but to spread terror and this in itself is a violation. Israel never said that (and it is impossible to determine it decisively) the aim of attacks in Gaza was to terrify Gazans. Well, I don't know. I told you my opinion. Maybe I'll ask third party to take a look. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You said 'no stronger objection" and "grey area" and I agree with you. I won't be mad if someone else besides you removes(or moves) the quote. Cryptonio (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

→I'll try to get attention of Cptnono (leading military) and Nableezy (leading wiki-policy) experts to decide. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a military expert in any way (I just think the aspect is important) Thanks, though : ) . I look at this article as a military conflict more than a series of international law violations. My initial thought is to put it in the "Rocket attacks into Israel" section. From the way I am reading the source, dude is vowing to fight on and feel's justified. He also thinks their method is similar to Israel's. It is easy to assume that he knows it is controversial and that is why he made the statement but in all reality, "warned Israel that Izzedine al Qassam Brigades will continue rocket strikes 'for many months' and vowed to strike deeper into Israeli territory" "the leadership in Gaza salutes 'the resistance men' and that their actions were justified because of what Israel has done." and "They [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." are all good quotes describing a tactic used. To make it easier on us, the source doesn't mention international law so we don't need to put it in such a section at all.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he refers to "legitimacy" under moral grounds. It is the accusation that must refer to or at least allude(per today's standards) to Inter Law violations. Cryptonio (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think he refers to "legitimacy" under moral grounds." - then under what grounds? Definitely not grounds of laws of war. The accusation is (a direct quote of int-law): "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited". It turns out Cptnono and I think alike - the quotes are good, but the placement is not. Let's see if Nableezy will show up. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

→So far, Cptnono and I think alike, and Nableezy didn't show up. How do we move towards resolution? Cryptonio, you want to bring in anybody else? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, i can wait for Nableezy to say something. Cryptonio (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Either he didn't understand my request to show up here or he ignores it. Maybe you should ask him. Meanwhile, check this out: There was also an outrageous question from the Arab Human Rights Commission, suggesting that Hamas rocket terror against Israeli civilians might be legitimate. The representative asked if Palestinians have a “right to resistence,” while referencing “home-made rockets.” U.N. investigator Mr. John Dugard, who had previously accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity, did acknowledge that even non-state actors have to abide by international humanitarian law and avoid targetting civilians (though he seemed to suggest that it would be legitimate to target Israeli soliders in any context). --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved the whole section to the bottom to draw attention, I want to finish it already. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

too high right now, will come back later. nableezy - 06:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this can go in the intl law section Attacks directed against civilians and civilian objects. Though I see Crytponio's point on the section, the Attacks aimed to spread terror and Attacks from populated areas deal only with rocket attacks. Me thinks perhaps we should be having a section Rocket Attacks instead of the 3 sections that currently only talk about the rockets attacks. nableezy - 14:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like majority supports the idea of moving the quote from 'terror attacks' to 'attacks against civilians'. About the suggestion to merge allegations into one section - I strongly oppose. The charges are different, and I'm trying to address each charge separately. For those who are following, I'm doing the same for the section on Israel - I separated distinction from proportionality. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As a general point on classifications that result in subsections, isn't it better to base these of what something is rather than what someone thinks something is whenever possible ? For example, a rocket attack is a rocket attack. Everyone can agree on that. It can also be described as act of terror or an act of self defence etc but those classifications will vary according to the sources you choose. Just a thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that we are dealing with Int-Law section. We present here allegations of war crimes. Rocket attack in itself is not an allegation of war crime. But there are sources that charge those attacks with 2 different war crimes. If you have sources that say that such rocket attacks are legitimate 'self-defence' or 'right to resistance' (especially if those sources would be neutral) - do please, we'll include them as counter-arguments. Here is another nail to the "terror-spreading" allegation: "their primary impact on the target is psychological". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the way it is split up, I just think it would be better organized if we set it up as "rocket attacks are illegal because they violate 1 2 3" instead of saying "violations of 1, rocket attacks; violations of 2, rocket attacks; violations of 3, rocket attacks". Just my thinking, but there isn't anything wrong with splitting it up like this either. Just think it would be a more logical section layout. Nothing would change in the content. But whatever. nableezy - 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to look at it that way too (including the 'but whatever'). Structures based on what happened/real things are preferable to structures based on opinions e.g. 'songs by X' vs 'songs by X' with a 'crappy songs by X' subsection. What I think is much more important though is that the int-law section should be split off to a sub-article. It has massively undue weight in this article especially given that these are opinions about events in the Gaza War rather than facts that provide information about what happened in the Gaza War. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The response was not moved but deleted. I too, say whatever, but if we can't actually do what we say we thought we agreed on by not saying anything, specially whatever, then I too will say, whatever, but at the same time will like to see this section rewritten down to one section because of it's content(rockets). Cryptonio (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, I do not generally delete a well-sourced info, especially when me myself said before that it is good to go for the article. Look better, it was moved, not deleted, as per Cptnono suggestion, and I wouldn't oppose to include it anywhere else. To the notion of rewriting it down to one section I STRONGLY object. I follow the same pattern for both Israeli side and Palestinian side - the charges are the pattern, not the nature of the attack. No consensus here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
check out Gaza War#Rocket attacks into Israel. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Btw, the recent HRW report provide the same statement you found, see the newest section. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, pardon, as I looked per "Seems like majority supports the idea of moving the quote from 'terror attacks' to 'attacks against civilians'." and not "Rockets attacks into Israel" which is not in the Inter Law section. Leave the quote in the current place, if anything I'll find another one later for the Inter Law section. Cryptonio (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Try HRW report, it is a good place to start. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Factual and legal aspects

http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/news/GazaOp.pdf Flayer (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the report is sanctioned by the state of Israel, this should be absorbed heavily into the article. It appears to be very meticulous, even including thermal imaging and pictures that pin-point Hamas hide-outs blocks away from UN buildings and neighborhoods. Are those pictures free? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

orig, this can be used as a primary source reflecting the opinions of the Israeli government. Not for statements of fact. nableezy - 01:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

and yes the pictures are free as a publication of the Israeli government and thus in the public domain per the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007. But whether or not they should be used is another question. nableezy - 01:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The report cites 3rd party media to corroborate findings. They didn't just "make it up" unlike some organizations. I think some of the pictures illustrating the hide-outs of Hamas and bunkers near hospitals could prove useful in the pertinent paragraphs. Unless those pictures are merely the opinion of the Israel gov...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If they cite 3rd party media we should cite that media, but the conclusions they draw are their own. If the picture is of a random building but the caption is "Hamas hideout" then yes that is the "opinion" of the Israeli government. The rest of the comment not paying attention to. nableezy - 02:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are implying Israel simply whipped out phony satellite images and highlighted random buildings, with "here is teh terroizers11?" XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I didnt imply anything. Primary sources may be used for the opinion of who produced the source. That is what this is. When the state of Israel says this happened, we dont say it happened, we say Israel says it happened. And stop with the jokey emoticons if you want me to take you seriously. This isnt a joke. nableezy - 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I think this source could be used in place of CSIS and the other think tanks if you were amenable to that. Other than that from what I have read it is mostly a repeat of the reports you compiled for the international law section. Though you surely have a more attentive eye than me, havent see much new (though there are some explicit denials of attacks on 2 mosques, saying they were never attacked). Should be interesting once the UN report is released in August. nableezy - 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's 200+ page report covering virtually all allegations and points of attack, have you really read through it? I think it is highly valuable considering the article revolves around Israel and its government. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It came out this morning (Chicago, yesterday morning I guess). I read a lot. There is some new stuff in it like I said, and I wasn't exhaustive in my list, but my suggestion here was to use this in place of the think-tanks which have been questioned as to their reliability for facts, which has been addressed by explicitly citing them, but more importantly as to the notability of their views. If we have an official response from Israel why not just use that in its place. I was saying to use this report a lot, something you seem to be in favor of. But much of it is a duplication of material already in the article and I think it would be better to cite these as the official opinion of the Israeli government rather than use a think tank with ties to the Israeli government. nableezy - 05:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It will certainly add more credibility or at least understanding that x is the official POV of Israel rather than some pimp-tank spinning their wheels. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

→Just woke up and I wonder - when for the heaven's sake did you have the time to read it and to discuss it? I won't be near here throughout the weekend. However, one extremely important thing. There's absolutely - do you read me? - absolutely no way CSIS report is substituted with this one. CSIS is the 3rd party, it is a notable think-tank, their report was noted in the media, Cordesman in the past was critical of Israel and he's even critical of some aspects of Israeli proceedings in the Cast Lead. It is as good as reports from HRW and Amnesty (and even better - not because it is pro-Israeli, but because it is so far the only comprehensive independant report from a military-strategic perspective, unlike human-rights NGOs who has arguable military competence and miscomprehension of IHL). In the meantime, for the sake of fairness, can anyone please take care of anonymous POV edits, inconsistent with WP policies? Ah, about Goldstone team - Nableezy, did you not read my contributions to that section? I don't know what do you expect, but when one future team member says during the war that Israeli actions are war crimes and later accepts membership in the team, and then refuses to recuse herself (and her boss defends her), and when the whole team is assembled to investigate Israeli war crimes only and their mandate was never formally changed - I hope for the best and expect the worst. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't overemphasize it. A Government is a Government. All think-tanks cited are NGOs. They may be pro-Israeli but they are independant. I think it only shows the level of openness of Israeli society. There are groups like Gisha, B'Tselem and Breaking the Promise and there are groups like JCPA, Monitor, ITIC. And there is the Government that provide official state response. No contradiction, no duplicity. Unless of course you agree to remove all PCHR stuff - we have official Hamas numbers of casualties, what else do we need? Was quite surprised to see you, Wikifan, supporting this point. Secondary sources: JPost, Haaretz, Ynet. Nice weekend everyone. Behave yourself, Gentlemen. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we list those thinktanks users will undoubtedly attach "teh pro izrael lobby111!!!" to the front or back, or everywhere. Maybe even in the section title: "Opinions of pro-Israel lobby "thinktanks." See WRMEA. I am partial to your suggestions though. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bumping it because I need it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Island of Consensus - PNA flag

The reflector is is a refinement of the refractors technology. Sometimes you need a bigger light bucket to see more details.

I'm not really sure when using PNA flag for belligerent became "Consensus". I made a survey among non-English language WP articles describing this war. English language article is an exception: PNA flag is not normally used, Hamas flag gets a wide international support. Any thought? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Does Hamas consider itself a part of the Palestinian Authority? From what I understand Gaza is a semi-autonomous piece of land that does not answer to anyone, including the PA. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• We could change all the other wikis to use the PNA flag. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ไทย - we could start here, the flag looks suspiciously green. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That infobox was created based on Israeli media sources and it's never been discussed. Also the fact that there are several thousand Thai nationals in and around Gaza and Eshkol who get attacked by both sides (luckily only one killed so far I think) means that Thai editors are potentially biased......could be either way, hard to tell. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A-ha. But why year 2552? Is it sensible? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Year zero is the death of Mr Gautama. It's AD+543. It's all explained here along with the Thai colour coding system for days of the week. No, it's not sensible but it seems to work okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Spanish uses the PNA flag but what does that matter? From what I understand English Wiki is a semi-autonomous piece of cyberspace that does not answer to anyone, including the Spanish or Swedish Wiki. Wikifan I know you support this pholosophy because you disregarded the Arabic Wiki's use of "Gaza Massacre" just a few months ago. As for timing, I may be wrong but I think this article has had the PNA flag since about March? RomaC (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's cool for Español exceptional speakers. Still other Romance languages such as Italiano, Français, Català, and Português avoid using PNA flag. Both "belligerent" languages: العربية and עברית use green flag. I guess my question is what kind of reasoning could support PNA flag. Again, I missed the discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arabic doesnt actually define the belligerents, only the commanders. nableezy - 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Let the Force (القوى) be with you. Still no PNA flag. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats actually strength and shows the strength of Hamas, the PFLP, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. nableezy - 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All those armed groups fought under Hamas flag, according to Arabic language WP. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It has the symbols for each group shown in the strength of forces. It only lists two commanders both of whom are Hamas so they show the Hamas flag, Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif. Where does it say they all fought under the flag of Hamas? nableezy - 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no PNA flag. Though Palestinian tricolor is visible at PIJ logo color coding and PRC emblem incorporates the flag in its design. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is now. nableezy - 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter what the other wikis choose to do. We have been through this too many times. We have had consensus for using this flag. If you want to try and challenge that you need to get consensus here. Not on the thai wiki or the portugese wiki or anywhere else. But we have been through this before (many times) and we have had consensus for this flag set up. nableezy - 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

PNA flag - reasoning

Go ahead, nableezy. What are the reasons for using PNA flag? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Read here, here. But to recap, the flag of Gaza is not the flag of the party in control of the government. The Gaza Strip is a part of the Palestinian territories. Just because Hamas won an election in the whole of those territories does not mean that the flag of Palestine changed to the flag of Hamas. And most importantly, we have had this conversation too many times, with you starting it almost every time, and consensus among the users here that we use the flag of Palestine for Gaza and the Hamas flag for the commanders. It is time for you to accept consensus was against you and not continually bring up the same arguments over and over. nableezy - 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. What I remember from those discussions, that the disagreement was so wide, that you decided to strip all flags as a "compromise". Later flags re-appeared, without (AFAIK) any discussion. It's time to fix distortions. How could we make such a decision in WP procedural way? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We already made a decision, the flags have been stable for 3+ months. One user besides yourself has changed them in that time. There isnt any controversy or dispute here, you are just making the same arguments over and over. Do you want to strip all the flags? Fine, do that. nableezy - 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note about the name of the flag being used, because I had to check the page after reading what you guys were talking about. Its the Palestinian flag, as in the flag of the Palestine. The PNA is just the name of a temporary body created by the Oslo accords to run the territories for Israel. This was a war between the Israelis and the people of Gaza, who are Palestinian. I realize the PNA also uses the flag, but please don't call it a PNA flag. That's not what it is. It predates it by decades. Tiamut^talk 20:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tiamut. I accept your clarification. The flag has deep national roots, adopted officially by PLO since 1964 and used as flag of Palestinian statehood since 1988. I understand your skepticism about the PNA which still achieved some international recognition. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is a belligerent in War in Afghanistan (2001–present)? Afghanistan? Hardly. Who is a belligerent in 1982 Lebanon War and 2006 Lebanon War? Lebanon? I don't think so. If Hamas were a leading party in the current government in the West Bank too, and the war was waged both in Gaza and West Bank, than it could be possible to say that the war was waged against Palestinian people, who volunteerly chose their leaders. But the matters in NPA are slightly more complicated. Too bad Gaza does not have a flag of its own. Or does it? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Hamas get relatively more electoral support than Kadima did? Or, does Kadima have a flag? Disagree with selective delinking of government and population. RomaC (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For the portion in time the Taliban was the governing authority the War in Afghanistan does list the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as the belligerent. nableezy - 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "flag of Hamas", Roma. I only think it would have been more appropriate to use flag of Gaza instead. Ashdod has a flag, Illinois has a flag, why not Gaza? After all, West Bank and Palestinians there were not part of the war. They are de facto different political entities at the moment. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, if Canada attacked Illinois (good luck punks) the belligerents would be Canada and the US, even if all we needed to slap them back to at least Wisconsin is 10 Chicago police officers armed only with night sticks. nableezy - 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh so that explains why the Illinois Air National Guard preemptively bombed those Canadian soldiers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I have tried looking for a Gaza Strip flag, but havent found anything in what could be called a reliable source. nableezy - 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And if Illinois' government is overthrown by some separatist anarchist movement that would leave de facto (but not de jure) 2 countries instead of one, both having American people (God knows what it is)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC) No seriously, if US would attack North Korea, no one would say that US is waging war on Korean people, right? It would be clear to everyone that the belligerent is a regime of North Korea. In our case, a belligerent is a government of Gaza, and if there's no such thing as Gaza flag, a flag that represents best current situation in Gaza should be chosen. Btw, there's nothing 'wrong'(? not the best word) in this situation - Korea is partitioned, Germany was divided, Israelites were segmented in Judea and Israel entities. And don't tell me this is different because Hamas won the elections throughout PA - we have de facto 2 political entities. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

North Korea is a state itself, Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and claimed as part of the State of Palestine. Nobody has said that it is a separate entity from that. So if not the flag of Palestine what flag do you think should be used? Just the Hamas flag? There were other groups who fought with Hamas in this conflict. And an attack on the government of a territory is an attack on the territory, even if we were to accept that this was an attack on Hamas specifically. nableezy - 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm repeating for the third time, before the split Gaza was an integral part of the state, but not now. De facto this is a separate entity with independant government. Sort of Bavarian Soviet Republic. As for the flag - I'd suggest a traditional tricolor with two additional colors, the blue (sea) and the gold (the beaches). Mounted Shariah policeman can be added too. I told you - in the absence of the Gaza flag, the best next choice is the flag of the leading party of the government. Other groups' flags can be added to commanders section. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with that. Gaza has not seceded from Palestine, the government of Gaza has not said they are a separate entity. There has been no declaration of independence establishing Gaza as anything other than a part of Palestine. nableezy - 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And fot the good reason! Each government, in Gaza and in Ramallah, claim that it is the only legal one. But the fact remains - 2 separate governments, 2 prime ministers, 2 ministers of health, etc. Maybe they use the same flag, but this is de facto different entity. It should be somehow resolved. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But as Tiamut pointed out above this is the Palestinian flag, not the flag of the PNA or the West Bank exclusively. This is the flag for the government of the Palestinians, and in Gaza that government is Hamas. nableezy - 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This I understand. You have to understand reciprocally that a situation when 2 de facto separate political entities use the same flag is ambiguous. How would you deal with 2 Koreas if both had used by chance the same flag? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If they both used the same flag then I would use the flag for both, next to it I would make sure we say North or South, sort of how we do here with the Palestinian flag and the text next to it saying Gaza. nableezy - 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with infoboxes

Future Perfect at Sunrise believes that Infoboxes must burn in Hell

Now I know I've said this before but infoboxes suck. And this shows us why. A line in the 'box or, worse, a little picture, can't say anything that is even slightly complex. Indeed, it obscures everything that we try to explain in the article.

The belligerents line only speaks to readers who are too lazy to read the first bloody paragraph. I would suggest that we remove it and I hope that other editors would consider the suggestion even if it upsets some MOS. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I might consider, but only after you reveal what a MOS is. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style. WP:MOS and a whole lot of other specific pages (like WP:MILHISTMOS). nableezy - 14:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, most readers are lazy... but i'm a conformist and will go with the flow... i even argue about the flags used for the sake of a good dispute, not because i truly care...--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would like that summer would not end. Ever. Still we have to handle winter from time to time. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your metaphor. I live in Canada where it is always summer. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are great. Unfortunately, many readers of wikipedia only look at the lead and this info (sorry, but it is society's dirty little secret when obtaining information) The problem isn't infoboxes, it is the weight that it carries. We need to use caution when adding/removing/wording info found there. It is safe to bet that at least some readers have felt the same way if an established editor has a concern. Be use prudence, let the facts speak for themselves, and leave any opinions out of editingCptnono (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that the weight of the infobox matters at all is because it doesn't say the same things that the article does. It can't. We couldn't simply write the article to fit in one massive colourful box. The box is a god-damned spreadsheet. Look through all the archives of the talk page. We'll bicker and argue about a stray adverb but then condense 20 paragraphs into four words to fit into the box.

The box forces us to take descriptions from the article and make judgements about what they mean. In every other context that is against the spirit of NPOV. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop crying, your tears might freeze. nableezy - 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the vodka content lowers the freezing point. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using PNA flag

"Middle Kingdom" (中国/中國)

I see the main problem with using the PNA flag ( which is also flag of Palestinian statehood and tightly connected to other Arab national flags ) is that it is factually wrong in context of Gaza war. One of main developments of this war is that Israeli tanks did not roll into streets of Nablus and Ramallah, which are parts of future Palestinian state. Diplomats around the world use this flag to designate PNA if we like it or not. PNA did not take any part in fighting. Is there any reliable source support for "Palestinian nation" as belligerent of this conflict? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

When Hamas has talks with other countries, such as meetings with the Arab League in Cairo, they use the Palestinian flag. This is the flag of Palestine, not the flag of the PNA. This attack was on a portion of what are called the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

see here. Khaled Meshal meeting with Amr Moussa (Sec Gen of the Arab League). You see what flag is behind Meshal right? nableezy - 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course they will use the PNA flag - they see themselves as the legitimate government of the PA. But referring to the conflict in Gaza as if it directly impacted the whole PA is like referring to an attack on Taiwan as an attack on entire China (both PRC and ROC). PluniAlmoni (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article? Where do we say this was an attack on the whole of the PA? We say it was an attack on Gaza. And, again, this is the flag of Palestine, not the Palestinian National Authority. Was the Falklands War an attack on the entire United Kingdom? nableezy - 23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Both examples are not good. Taiwan and China are de facto separate entities with different flags; Falklands are not de facto separate entity but an integral part of UK. Besides, the flag must refer to political entity, not people of a certain nationality. As said, Gaza Strip is de facto separate entity, let's assume as an axiom that its representatives consider traditional Palestinian flag as the only valid for Gaza as well. Actually, this means that Nableezy is right - the belligerent on the left is Israel (however, what does ISA doing there?), the belligerent on the right is Gaza Strip (and not Palestinian Authority). I suggest to terminate the discussion and move on. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is the de facto separate entity, for it claims independence and China objects(on enough compromising ground that countries have chosen sides). China is not being claimed by anyone, let alone Taiwan. According to this revisionary claim, the example could and is an acceptable one. We should move on etc, but we can't deny that Palestine is, and has been at with Israel for quite some time, no matter who we may list as belligerent at this time(or today's flag maybe). I liked Agada's momentum this time, but that "the PNA flag is not the flag of Palestine" just derailed all hope. :P Cryptonio (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether Zhongguo includes Taiwan is not universally agreed upon outside the PRC. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that it really matter but I've to to say that Taiwan does not claim independence. If it tried I'd be editing the article about that war instead of this one. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, China has been very verbose about this(daring them to try). Cryptonio (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle Earth

Hercules: The middle of the earth!
Confucius: Nah ...

East of the middle of the earth, there was couple of groups, countries or other entities which acted in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Unlike the colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive, its formal use does not necessarily imply that the belligerent is an aggressor. If you look how this war started and ended, the actors were Israel with Ehud Olmert and Islamic Resistance Movement with Khaled Meshal as its respectable formal heads. They in their official roles declared war and they ceased acting in hostile manner.
|combatant1= Israel (IDF) + (ISA)
|combatant2= Gaza Strip (Principally Hamas)
|combatant1= Israel
|combatant2= Hamas
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The belligerent isnt going to be listed as Hamas by itself for a number of reasons. Hamas is the government of Gaza and unless you want it to say Kadima/Labor instead of Israel you are not being consistent in your postion. A number of other groups joined Hamas in fighting. Really Agada, we have been through this way too many times, you have been saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over. Please stop. NPOV does not mean treating the Israeli government narrative that this was an attack only on Hamas as gospel truth. It does not mean Hamas gets treated different because certain people in this world do not like them. nableezy - 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally , nableezy, let's avoid "this is like something else" allegories. I assume there is no dispute regarding combatant1: IDF + ISA are just Israel's arms. The head of the combatant1's pyramid was Ehud Olmert, during "in a hostile manner" arm waving. Regarding combatant2 both war start and end declarations firmly attributed to Hamas politburo according to independent sources. The head of the combatant2's pyramid was Khaled Meshal (great photo btw), which moved his arms "in a hostile manner" during the conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agada, would you mind reading WP:IDHT and let me know if you want to keep doing this? nableezy - 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive, like this AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? There was an error in the code causing that not to display on the Arabic wiki, I fixed that error. That isnt disruptive. Keeping this argument alive for no reason is. nableezy - 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And you might want to change that picture. I was expecting an elf or something. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an allegory. RomaC (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

December 19 2008: "... Palestinian resistance factions headed by Hamas will act ..."

January 6, 2009: Khalid Mish'al is the head of the Hamas political bureau: Israel will no doubt wreak untold destruction, death and suffering in Gaza. But it will meet the same fate in Gaza as it did in Lebanon. We will not be broken by siege and bombardment, and will never surrender to occupation.

January 13, 2009: ... at the organisation's headquarters in Damascus, 100km from the territory, Musa Abu Marzouq, the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, told Al Jazeera why he believes his organisation is on the verge of victory against Israel ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

January 18 2009: Exiled Deputy chief of Hamas' politburo Mussa Abu Marzouk announced ... a one-week ceasefire in the Gaza Strip...

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

May 4, 2009: The leader (Khaled Meshal) of the militant Palestinian group Hamas said Monday that its fighters had stopped firing rockets at Israel for now ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agada, aren't you being tired of endless discussions about least significant matters? I've been seeing this going on for months. If anything, then ISA should be removed, and Hamas could be substituted with Al-Qassam brigades. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He does have a point though. It was the Hamas leadership outside Gaza that announced the beginning and end of hostilities. These people have no official position in the Palestinian government, no matter who you think the legitimate government is. If they are the ones who called the shots then it is Hamas as an organization who were the belligerents, not Hamas as the government of Gaza. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Hamas does have an official position in the Palestinian government (majority of the legislative council) and they are the government of Gaza, legitimate or otherwise. Having spokespeople and officials outside of Gaza does not change that. nableezy - 16:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamas has an official position in the Palestinian government but the two are not one and the same. Not everything Hamas does is necessarily in its capacity as the Palestinian government. This is particularly apparent when Khaled Mashaal (who's not exactly a "spokesperson" or just an "official") makes the decisions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a name I haven't seen here for a while. I'd be glad if you stay, NMMNG, and help me with numerous things to be done yet - and believe me this is not one of them. Gaza Strip is a de facto separate political entity, whose leadership claim to be the legal representatives of NPA, the flag of Gaza thus is the same tricolor. Note that Hamas flag is attached to the leaders there and I think it is a fair compromise. Now Nableezy, for the sake of reciprocality, Israeli chain of command should start with PM too. It means we can do without Eisenberg. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think "commanders" is meant to be used as it is, it should be the military commanders not the political leaders. So I think the Israeli side is correct and the Gaza side is incorrect. But to make it equal we could either make them both wrong or both right. nableezy - 18:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite, Sceptic, but to be honest I don't have the time or inclination to spend hours of my life arguing minute points in what is a notoriously unreliable section of a semi-reliable encyclopedia. Since every little change requires endless back and forth between the two sides, IMO only someone with the tenacity of a dedicated activist can really influence what the article looks like. Unfortunately I'm not one of those. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, thank you for articulating the point: Hamas and Gaza government is not the same thing. Legitimacy of Hamas controlled Gaza government is irrelevant to this discussion. Here how independent sources describe the events: Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Gaza-based Hamas administration ... In a speech, he called Hamas's ceasefire decision "wise and responsible".. Ismail Haniyeh as PM is speaking on behalf of Gaza government, Abu Ubaida (in the same source), speaking on behalf of Hamas's Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades. Both officials' quotes are reactions to decision made by higher authorities. So Hamas politburo was decision making head and Gaza government and Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades were policy executing arms during Gaza war. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good quote. The ceasefire decision was made by Hamas, but not the parts of Hamas that are part of the Palestinian government. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Kind of unrelated to Gaza war, Palestinian sources describe elections mechanism of the "Political Bureau" and its role: 27/04/2009 Gaza - Ma'an - Hamas leader Khalid Mash'al has been reelected the leader of the movement's top decision-making body, the Political Bureau, for the third time, a high-ranking Hamas source disclosed on Monday. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to implement the change, after weekend. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A number of people have objected, quickly scanning there is me, RomaC, even Sceptic agrees this should be the flag. nableezy - 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see suggested change above, bellow "Middle earth". I accept your "no flags" compromise. I hope I gathered enough independent sources to support the change. Did not you get No More Mr Nice Guy explanations? I assumed silence is agreement... What still concerns you, nableezy? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did see, the issue that both RomaC and I raised is that you are trying to treat the governments unequally. If you want to be consistent say "Hamas" and "Kadima". At least 3 users have said the belligerent should be Gaza. nableezy - 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And silence can mean that others are tired of responding to the same arguments over and over. nableezy - 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

According to you RomaC would write that Israel is occupied by Gaza in order "to treat the governments equally"? Please address decision making mechanism of combatant2. Did you have time to read the sources? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhh no, that makes no sense. nableezy - 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You say "Hamas and Gaza government is not the same thing." Is there any evidence that there were hostilities with Hamas outside of Gaza? Did Israel attack Damascus in an attempt kill Meshal? I must have missed that. These were Gaza government ministries that were attacked, Gaza infrastructure such police stations. Hamas was not alone fighting here, other groups were involved as well. This was not just a war on Hamas as the Israeli foreign ministry would have us believe, and the fact that Hamas leadership outside of Gaza made statements means nothing. The belligerent was Gaza, the political entity that was engaged in conflict with Israel. nableezy - 02:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic maybe we should change combatant1 to Southern Israel. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not following my logic, so no we should not. nableezy - 04:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is unusual for a government to craft their terms and classifications hoping to win public or international support for attacks that leave civilians dead. Note that President Truman, in his historic radio address 65 years ago described "Little Boy's" target as "Hiroshima, a military base". Not surprisingly the Gaza and Israeli governments both use non-neutral terms to refer to the other side. Agada I think what people are saying here is that Wiki should not get tangled up in this rhetoric. Israel and Gaza are the subjects, avoid contentious political qualifications. Support further identifying involved parties and politicians and fighters and so on in the body of the article. RomaC (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Governments are evil - I feel your pain, RomaC ;) Which of the sources brought was of Israeli government? I fail to see how President Truman position on Hiroshima attack is relevant to this discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about these sources? attack on Gaza, air assault on Gaza? nableezy - 04:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Great sources, both concentrating on Israel's attack in Gaza. Regarding combatant2 belligerent (actor performing hostile activity) first source mention: "Hamas continued to fire rockets", second mention: "Hamas has pressed on with rocket and mortar assaults". So those sources also agree that combatant2 belligerent is Islamic Resistance Movement. Looks consistent also with ceasefire declaration attributed to Hamas politburo by sources brought earlier. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Hamas continued to fire rockets" is the same thing as saying "the Israeli Air Force dropped bombs". It doesnt make the IAF the belligerent. nableezy - 05:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Both sources talk about Israel's assault, Ehud Olmert is being mentioned. I'm not sure what point you tried to demonstrate with those sources. Please stop a second before another allegory and think. Do sources report that IAF declared ceasefire? Hamas politburo declared ceasefire on behalf of Gaza Strip. What do you think was Hamas politburo part in Gaza war events? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"politburo"? any sources for this term? RomaC (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RomaC, sourced pretty well. Sometimes spelled "political bureau". Please read provided multiple sources above and under Middle Earth. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I see it always spelled "political bureau" except in the "Chinaview" site -- why did you use a Soviet term? RomaC (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, politburo is shorter and easier to type than "political bureau" ;) And political model definitely reminds a Soviet one where politburo is decision making body and government is policy executing arm. To the point of discussion what do you think was Hamas political bureau part in Gaza war events? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno maybe it's like 'what was the US oil companies' part in the Iraqi invasion'? type of question, bottom line is the government are the representatives of the people of a particular place, ideally at least. No big fan of Hamas but they were elected and formed the government of Gaza. And as was pointed out before an attack on a government can't not be regarded as an attack on the people/place said government represents. RomaC (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideal world - nice allegory, though usually means nowhere. No argument about Gaza government legitimacy - just note regarding decision making process. Could you address to Gaza PM called Hamas's "political bureau" ceasefire decision "wise and responsible". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The source says 'he called Hamas's ceasefire decision "wise and responsible"'. It means there are others that contribute to military decisions. How that matters to the discussion is beyond me. nableezy - 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is prerogative of belligerent to declare war or ceasefire. Sources attribute ceasefire decision to Hamas "political bureau". Thus Hamas "political bureau" is a belligerent in Gaza war. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully concerns (that are not connected to oil industry or usage of atomic energy) are satisfied. I'm going to implement suggested change based on provided sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How "on earth" are you reading consensus for your proposal? Patience in the face of perseverance does not equal acceptance. RomaC (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I heard carefully to your concerns, I hoped I addressed those and supported my points by independent sources. Consensus is not excuse to reject verifiable facts. If you want to continue this change discussion, let me know if you have any constructive objection. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agada I have no problem discussing. The area above is filled with objections to the change you are proposing. Principally I can't accept selective delinking of government and population, which is what I see in your arguments. Of course, there are places in the body of this article -- and in other articles -- where you might propose inclusion of your distinctions regarding Hamas' structure in theory and practice. RomaC (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. I hate edit wars and prefer to resolve disagreements on talk page instead. What do you mean "delinking of government and population"? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It means using Hamas and not Kadima. And you saying Hamas is the belligerent is not verifiable so please stop saying that it is. nableezy - 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Earth to Wikipedia

File:Charon 2.jpg

As Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere gradually freezes and falls to the ground

Is this discussion still going on? I for one cannot believe that our Wiki article still pretends as though Hamas was the only Palestinian belligerent in this war. What about the Popular Resistance Committees (who are not, by the way, part of the Islamic Resistance Movement, which Agada Urbanit is suggesting we write as the sole belligerent). See this link [3]. There are others too. Are we supposed to put up the flags of every tiny organization that participated in the Palestinian defense of Gaza? Or do we just go with the most logical solution, which is the Palestinian flag, the flag of the people of Gaza, the West Bank and beyond, the flag of the Palestinian people (over 1400 of whom were killed in this war), the flag of the government of Gaza and beyond. I say we go with one flag. And we start adding the names of the other belligerents to this article. I tried doing that once, but I don't what happened to the info. Tiamut^talk 16:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I love your passion, Tiamut. "And beyond" rhetoric goes well with "to boldly go where no man has gone before". I personally have no problem with additional and sourced armed groups which joined Hamas Gaza Strip in its fight. Live long and prosper.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AgadaUrbanit, I was inspired by the "Middle Earth" phrasing and funny pics you guys keep posting around here. A special sense of humor, embodied in the comments of editors like Sean Holyland and Sceptic Ashdod, seems to be the norm here.

About the other groups, I'll go about adding some info on them again. Tiamut^talk 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a very high quality soapbox.
Here's a question for you - do the Hamas armed forces take their orders from Ismail Haniyeh and the rest of the de facto government of Gaza, or from Khaled Mashaal and the de facto (and de jure) leadership of Hamas? Nableezy is complaining both sides are not treated equally. Considering they're not the same, that's no surprise. Kadima does not have armed forces independent of the armed forces of Israel, while the armed forces of Hamas do not apparently take their orders from the Palestinian government, lead by Hamas or anyone else in the PNA. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Don't really see the relevance of your question to the topic at hand. Forgive me for ignoring it. Tiamut^talk 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Two sides cannot be treated equally as they are not the same" is neither a logical nor an acceptable argument -- anyway Wiki does approach different subjects equally, that's the whole idea here. Can we please stop this? RomaC (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4216231&c=FEA&s=INT Flayer (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of aftermath and deterrence - ITIC recent bulletin: "The calm in the western Negev continues. Hamas refrains from firing rockets into Israel and its senior figures emphasize for Western ears its policy of restraint." Pay attention to the rockets/mortars chart. The same chart, not including last three weeks, is presented in the Israeli Government report above. If the policy allows, I think it could be used in the article. Interesting to note that indeed last months were the more quiet than during the lull. And here is the NY Times piece: "Armed resistance is still important and legitimate, but we have a new emphasis on cultural resistance...The current situation required a stoppage of rockets. After the war, the fighters needed a break and the people needed a break". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More on aftermath: On Sunday, Gaza militants fired mortars at a crossing into Israel just as Palestinian patients were being transferred for treatment, a Palestinian official said. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Law Explosions

Is this article still about international law? I figured I would "bump" some archived discussions to see if more information could be given to the actual conflict.

• Commanders in the infobox: Should this be amended to include the actual commanders on the ground or the political command?
• Images: Tanks, dudes with rockets or guns, and planes could be useful
• Where should Naval info go? It doesn't seme to fit in the prose with the current layout since we only have 1 source (can you find any others also?)
• Does anyone subscribe to the IAF's magazine? This info could be useful from what I have found and I would hate to have to purchase it or receive an unpaid copy through another method.
• Iranian trained Hamas. This is somewhat interesting due to the West's demonizing of Iran but is really really interesting due to their pseudo commando status. Any sources on this that are tight?
• Any thoughts on the ever expanding intl law section style wise? Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you ask me, no need to bump anything. Every discussion that was started resulted in rewriting the relevant section in Int-Law. I hope I'll find time is the coming days to improve the weapons section there, but anyway I'll start a separate discussion for that.
• Commanders - no specific preference, as majority decides.
• I'll take another look at Israeli Government report, if we could find any useful image there.
• Naval info - why not adjacent to AirForce?
• Can't help with subscription, but here are 4 additional pieces from Defence News, still not fully exhausted: 1, 2, 3, 4.
• Iranian trained Hamas - this is a common knowledge, man. Do we have to reference that 2+2=4?
• Didn't understand the actual question in the last bullet. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I worded it wrong. My point was that I am crabby over the weight of intl law in the article still (boo hoo for me). Hoping consensus will revisit and adjust the commanders in the infobox, Naval is going in, agreed on the math, and hooray more Defense News since I only saw one earlier. I'll fiddle with somethings tomorrow more than likely. Anyone feel free to do whatever is needed if it isn't up to par.Cptnono (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were like any other military conflict, but it isn't. Do you know any other similar event with such amount of attention from human rights groups, politicians, media commentaries and committees - everybody talking about Int-Law violations? Rhetoric question, but the point is that the length of the section is dictated by overweight attention that this topic is given. I argue that it became the central issue of the debates. This is why I dedicate so much attention to it and will be reluctant to any revisions. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think it has undue weight in this article. That's not a criticism, it's a compliment. I wish more articles had sections with undue weight so that more detailed subarticles could be spun off. That's how it's meant to work I guess. I don't agree with your argument that it needs to stay in this article because it's size reflects the weight in RS. The reactions section was spun off to a subarticle precisely because of the sheer volume of information associated with that issue in RS. The intlaw section could be put in a subarticle as is without losing information. Of course then someone would have to summarise it for this article and maybe no one has the time or inclination at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)...also, if you do need a ref for 2+2=4 you can use Principia Mathematica. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputes related to alleged violations of IHL is a core issue, reactions from the world leaders are not. In the meantime, 'Gaza humanitarian crisis', very long and detailed subsection, could be easily spun off into subarticle - with all the respect to the hard life of the Gazan population, this is not a core issue and talks about imminent humanitarian crisis in Gaza circulate for more than a decade now. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are legal opinions about events a core issue ? Aren't the events the core issue e.g. lots of people homeless = a neutral fact = core issue, opinions about lots of people homeless = non-neutral, non-fact = not a core issue. Seems obvious. The core issue for the article is describing what happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We constantly disagree on this one. I argue that your notion of the neutral fact is misleading, because it strips the fact from the context. E.g. 'lots of people homeless' - you suggest to stop here and dismiss everything else. But I demand to preserve the context. Why numerous people in Indonesia are homeless? Is it because their traditional way of life? Is it because of tsunami? Is it because of the authorities' negligence? Is it because somebody ruined them? Why that somebody ruined them - out of evil intentions or because of real and proven military necessity? Another example - hostage killed in the course of rescue operation. That's tragic. But the story gets different perspectives if we ask questions: who killed him - a villain? a policeman? or maybe a corrupted policeman (remember The negotiator?)? or maybe he was killed before the operation and it triggered the start of the operation? So, for me this is not obvious at all and I am convinced the IHL section is a core section of the whole article. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen The Negotiator. But I think that the context should be factual and upfront, like the Star Wars opening scroll. The international law section is more of a Han shot first kind of thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, this is BS. It's like Zeno's 'motion is impossible' argument or perhaps that a butterfly beating it's wings eventually resulted in Gaza being flattened by IAF bombs. The events themselves provide sufficient context. Yes, there's a complex web of causal relationships between events but let's keep it simple and within scope of this article. Motion is possible and the butterfly is not within scope of this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)..also the negotiator was rubbish. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Negotiator was great and for that alone I could file a charge against you. You want to stick to events? Good. The problem is that each observer or commentator see some events and disregard other and gives different weight to each event. You say: "the event is 'Gaza being flattened by IAF bombs'". I say "no, the events are: Hamas placed its military bases amidst civilian population and turned houses, mosques and even hospitals into weaponry warehouses; Hamas launched dozens of rockets on Israel between Dec. 19 and 27; IAF attacked only what is considered legitimate military target." You say "the event is many hundreds of Palestinians are dead". I say "no, the events are: Hamas jeopardized civilians in Gaza in every possible way which is a war crime; civilians got killed". You say "the event is 'thousands of houses were demolished'". I say "no, the events are: Hamas dug tunnels under almost every house in Gaza; Hamas fighters used them to flank soldiers; houses that posed potential threat were demolished". You say the events are: "Amnesty accused Israel of killing dozens of civilian police". I say "no, the events are: 90% of recruited policemen were operatives in Hamas; Amnesty accused Israel of killing dozens of civilian police without checking out their affiliation to terrorist organization". I can go like this for ages, you know. This is why the article is so lengthy. Because there's apparently no such thing as neutral undisputed fact, not when dealing with this highly politicized matter. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I was wrong. I looked up the opening crawl for the first Star Wars "prequel", The Phantom Menace and it reads like it Khaled Meshal wrote it. So never mind:

"Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute. Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo. While the congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events, the Supreme Chancellor has secretly dispatched two Jedi Knights, the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, to settle the conflict.... --JGGardiner (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - changing the lede to use this style to increase readership. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

→Cptnono, check out words of the Givati Brigade commander. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

badass (both your resourcefulness and the candidness of the commander)Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This word (badass) made me use my dictionary - and you no what? It didn't help me because it has several contradictious meanings. But I'll take it in a positive sense :) --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As it should be!Cptnono (talk)

Images from IMFA report

4 images that imho could be used. check it out: Image:GazaWar weapons in mosque.jpg, Image:GazaWar aftermath.jpg, Image:GazaWar double affiliation.jpg, Image:GazaWar military camps.jpg --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The first one is a problem, it is just a claim of Israel that this took place in a mosque and there is no evidence that it took place in a mosque during this conflict. The double affiliation one I also have a problem with. I dont see the point. Unless there is some source saying this person was killed while engaging in armed conflict and that he was counted as a civilian it only seems to try to prove a point. The aftermath one is fine, not sure where it would fit. The last one could concievably be used, not sure where though. But I do have problem with using the pictures from a primary source about "the enemy". nableezy - 18:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually one of the pictures in the mosque one looks like there is a mihrab, so that very well may be a mosque. All the same, it is still from a primary source involved in the conflict so the rest of my above remark stands. nableezy - 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weapons in mosque - and if in the caption to the image it is well-attributed to the IMFA report?
• Aftermath - I think separate section in the article, following 'continued negotiations' subsection, should be created. The image is to illustrate NY Times piece ("The current situation required a stoppage of rockets. After the war, the fighters needed a break and the people needed a break") and recent ITIC bulletin ("Hamas's policy of restraint has come under severe criticism from radical Islamic organizations (such as the Islamic Liberation Party) and local groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the global jihad. Hamas has been accused of abandoning the principle of jihad (one of the pillars of Islam) in order to strengthen its control over the Gaza Strip").
• Military camps - its natural place would be 'Palestinian military activity', so the question remains: is attribution to IMFA report enough.
• Double affiliation - to start with, if anyone wants to determine the image authenticity, the report gives us the name (Adel Abu Awn) and the source (Hamas forum, 20 January 2009), but unfortunately no link. But whoever reads and writes Arabic, this can be traced. The point of the image is to illustrate the double affiliation of policemen in Gaza, either in 'disputed figures' subsection or in 'IntLaw-Attacks on civil police'. Again, attribution can be constructed. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if I think attribution is enough for some of these pictures. I am pretty tolerant of sourcing for pictures (though I do note that all the pictures depicting Palestinian casualties and damage were forced to come from a reliable secondary source (an impossible standard when you also include it has to be free per WP:NFCC until Al-Jazeera released their creative commons collection), a number of other pictures were rejected on sourcing grounds. I have not tried to remove the pictures on the "other side" that did not meet those standards, but these carry conclusions in the photos. The military training grounds one, is there any evidence that these places actually were besides the Israeli government? But lets see what everybody else has to say. I do have reservations though. nableezy - 04:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

General approach is clear. Let's put it this way - I'm not pushing anything, each image will be introduced if the consensus is reached. So, I ask to provide a final opinion on each of the images. Thanks. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious problem is that we risk turning Wikipedia from a neutral encyclopedia into a propaganda instrument of the Israeli government. Some may argue that that is a considerable step forward. Nevertheless, Nab sums it up nicely by describing it as 'using the pictures from a primary source about "the enemy"'.

GazaWar weapons in mosque.jpg - Some weapons somewhere on planet earth. Not informative.

GazaWar aftermath.jpg - Clearly okay (with attribution) and could be used in several articles.

GazaWar double affiliation.jpg - The words in the article are enough to convey the information.

GazaWar military camps.jpg - I like this one. Given very heavy attributions/caveats/disclaimers/this-could-be-bullshit-warnings it could be a nice encyclopedic addition to illustrate the IDF narrative. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Having said that the ideal approach for me would be to balance abstracted, depopulated, military images like GazaWar military camps.jpg by using images of the carnage that resulted from the strikes on those targets. That probably isn't possible unfortunately. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Between the two I actually think the mosque one is better than the camps. At least it shows some weapons in some rooms. It has to be at least half true because the group of weapons looks sparse and decrepit. I don't have my glasses on but it seriously looks like there's some jars in the top right picture that could go into that new Acropolis museum. The camps picture is easier to make up and relies on the ministry's definitions of "military base" and "training camp". Sometimes the Israeli government has different definitions for things like that than I might. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, let's keep it simple. I'll make a subsection for each image and you provide your decision - support or objection. You don't even have to explain why (unless you feel you must) --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

not very successful, at least I tried... awaiting help...--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

4th HRW report, 2 more to come

Yesterday HRW publish another (but not the last) report, this time Hamas Rocket Attacks on Civilians Unlawful. For me the most surprising part is that it took 6 months to issue a report that covers no new ground and largely repeats similar reports and statements; one can only wonder is it coincidence or not, but the publication is just several weeks after the controversial news about HRW raising funds in Saudia using the Israel-condemning report surfaced. Maybe I'll substitute older HRW sources with this one. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

HRW collecting funds from people in Saudi Arabia was discussed in detail here prior to it's move to the subarticle if anyone wants to contribute. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that happens every time somebody releases a report. They tend to say nothing new but everybody gets all worked up anyway. But thanks for the link. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Several secondary sources: AFP, Haaretz, JPost, the last one has this valuable addition, "they pointed out that the International Crisis Group interviewed three Hamas fighters in January who said, "They had often fired rockets in close proximity to homes and from alleys, hoping that nearby civilians would deter Israel from responding." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Several sentences from summary, I find particilarly useful. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"The purpose of the laws of war is not to create parity between parties to a conflict, or to assess their violations in light of their relevant capacities, but to minimize the harm to the civilian population. Violations of the laws of war are not measured in the number of civilian casualties, but whether each side is taking all feasible precautions to minimize civilian loss"

"Since 2001, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have fired thousands of rockets deliberately or indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel...Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have sought to justify the attacks as appropriate reprisals for Israeli military operations and the ongoing blockade against Gaza, and as a lawful response to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. As noted below, international humanitarian law (the “laws of war”) does not support these asserted justifications... such weapons are inherently indiscriminate when directed towards densely populated areas. The absence of Israeli military forces in the areas struck by the rockets, as well as statements from the leaders of Hamas and other armed groups, indicate that many of these attacks are deliberately intended to strike Israeli civilians and civilian structures. Individuals who willfully authorize or carry out deliberate or indiscriminate attacks against civilians are committing war crimes. reprisal attacks that target civilians are prohibited under any circumstances. Even assuming the rocket attacks were intended as reprisals for Israeli attacks that killed and injured civilians, they still are unlawful under the laws of war. The law governing reprisals—defined as otherwise unlawful actions that are considered lawful when used as an enforcement measure in reaction to an adversary’s unlawful acts—does not permit direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilians."

"The rocket attacks have also placed civilians in Gaza at risk. The unpredictable nature of the crude rockets has meant that rockets have struck areas not only inside Israel but also inside Gaza; on December 26 a rocket hit a house in Beit Lahiya, killing two Palestinian girls, ages 5 and 12. In addition, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have frequently violated the laws of war by firing rockets from within populated areas. In doing so, they failed to take all feasible precautions to avoid placing military targets within densely populated areas, such as by removing civilians under their control from the vicinity of military targets, and protecting civilians from the danger resulting from military operations."

But the report stopped short of accusing Hamas militants of war crimes, with officials saying only a court could make that determination...Hamas took responsibility for each of the attacks on its Web site but Hamas spokesman Ismail Ridwan nevertheless denied the charges. "Hamas did not use human shields and did not fire rockets from residential areas. Hamas does not target civilians," Ridwan said. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More on the weapons used

1. Just preceding the ground phase, Haaretz reported that: Hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas. Amnesty stated that If reports of use of cluster munitions in Gaza are correct, it would pose a serious ongoing threat to civilians. However, Dropping cluster bombs before the ground assault is likely to cause casualties among your own footsoldiers, says David Hambling (simple Google search shows that he is notable writer on military issues including this book). 2. Another interesting article by Hambling: Tracking Down Gaza War’s Deadly, Mysterious Cubes. The bottom line: despite Anesty's conclusion that "They appear designed to cause maximum injury", seems like "This type of ultra-precise strike capability is supposed to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties". It is arguable to what extent this indeed happened, but the intent...

And now the question - do we include this and if we do, should it go to Int-Law section - Israel - weapons? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty criticised IDF artillery rounds on Gaza suburbs as indiscriminate attacks. On the other hand, When asked about claims from Amnesty International and other groups that IDF didn't do enough to limit innocent deaths and injuries, Macgregor said, "I don't know how they could have done things any differently. Seven thousand rounds during a three-week war indicates considerable restraint on their part. It would have been much easier to pour 5,000 rounds into a city block in a span of an hour.". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Macgregor was added a few days ago. The shrapnel is interesting because it has been viewed both positively and negatively. How should it go in?Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that you did, and your work is very esteemed, but mine considerations are different. I'm still occupied with Int-Law section. This thread is intended to be a draft for the sake of rewriting weapons subsection there. I'm inclined to add couple of sentences on issues of clusters, shrapnel, DIME, white phosphor. I hope you read that testimony of the weapon's expert for the Goldstone's team. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice

A thread concerning this page has been initiated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Facebook event to recruit Arab and Muslim editors to contribute to the Gaza War article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

This article needs to be semi-protected. [4] [5] BYT (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally support the idea of giving the article more protection and that only registered users should be enabled to edit it. In a meanwhile I'd suggest that every anonymous edit be reverted right away, regardless of the contents. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If vandalism continues I'd support semi protect for a short period but blanket reverting every anonymous edit is a no no. Even Evolution isn't semi-protected and that attracts a lot of insane people diverse views. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Victory

An IP is adding it and it is done improperly. However, we should be able to add some lines on Israel domination and Hamas resilience. These have been discussed in sources.Cptnono (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I kind of liked better uncensored version. Agree though this article is politicized garbage, where facts are under emotions "occupation". AgadaUrbanit (talk)

My uncensored version was after shots and beer after watching my local team getting killed :) . Along with referring to the recent edits as "shit", misspelled "resilience" twice, and was a little harsh (although honest) on my assesment at the noticeboard. Some of the military based sources love talking about the victory, Hamas had the whole PR "victory" spin, and some more neutral sources have had a little bit of mention on it. I think it could be of interest but am not sure of how to go about it.Cptnono (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This Washington Post source contains interviews with Israeli officers and soldiers who took part in the assault. Looks very "military" to my lamer eyes and hopefully might help the hangover. Happy Wiki editing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lamer? That brings back memories. Is this 1998 AgadaUrbanit? : ) I really want this info in and think it could even go in the lead. Something like that requires exceptional amounts of caution. Chime in if you have any opinions!Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Reflist}}

Hi all. What are people's opinions on changing the {{reflist|3}} to either {{reflist|2}} or {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}? The documentation for the template says 3 columns are to be avoided for viewability reasons.--Rockfang (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To which option?--Rockfang (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For removing list3. I have used list2 so am familiar with it. Is there a reason to use other other one? Also, thank you for proposing something that may lead to raising the assessment of this article on the quality scale in the future.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IDF vs PHR

the defense establishment has composed a counterreport to a damming document on the IDF's conduct published by Physicians for Human Rights. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Photographs (and no, I'm not talking about charts) ...

... suggest a numerical parity between Palestinian and Israeli casualties that did not, in fact, exist. BYT (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess, BYT, this is a proper occasion to copy-paste once again the wonderful phrase from the latest HRW report (who are as you know not the greatest supporter of Israel): "The purpose of the laws of war is not to create parity between parties to a conflict, or to assess their violations in light of their relevant capacities, but to minimize the harm to the civilian population. Violations of the laws of war are not measured in the number of civilian casualties, but whether each side is taking all feasible precautions to minimize civilian loss". So, first, your suggestion is fair enough (even though the second part of the sentence could have been omitted); second, I'd rather see that chart in the background section being deleted as misleading and useless. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you you go into more detail regarding your concerns with the chart? Also, has anyone had any luck on finding pictures of tanks?Cptnono (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

...but in a new section would be better since this section heading specifically says 'and no, I'm not talking about charts'. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

<-BYT, if you have any images in mind that you think would add value to the article and which comply with the usage policies please suggest them and they can be discussed on a case by case basis. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not talking about HRW. Not talking about charts. I'm talking about the cumulative effect of the photos, or lack thereof, in the article as a whole. Someone scrolling through the article has to wade through a whole bunch of text before getting any meaningful photographic visual suggesting that there even WERE civilian casualties, and then when one finally finds them, the photos seem to suggest that perhaps two Palestinians died for every Israeli who died in this operation. Compare this and this. BYT (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before and my opinion is that this article is not about dead civilians. That is what the casualties section is for. Since the images are meant to compliment the text, the only way I can see alleviating your concerns would be to not have Israeli casualties represented at all since peppering images of casualties throughout would present even larger balance concerns.Cptnono (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an idea well worth considering. Another (and, in my view, complementary) approach would be to replace one of the photographs with an image conveying the scale of the civilian loss of life more accurately by showing more than one dead Palestinian at a time. BYT (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is finding suitable images with the appropriate licensing. That isn't at all easy. Without actual images to consider it's all hypothetical. I personally thought the image of the policemen killed in the initial attack on the parade was a good image because it's neutral in the sense that people interpret the status of those killed in different ways according to their own views. I don't think Al Jazeera have released that early material under a CC licence. Either way, images evoke strong views here, charges of propaganda, immorality, incitement, censorship, you name it. Everyone has their view so consensus is difficult to achieve. I agree that the article doesn't really do a very good job when it comes to visually describing what happened so if you come across any suitable material post a link so that it can be discussed. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of trying to establish a 100:1 image ratio, I've followed user:Cptnono's lead, above. Just realized my edit was overriding yours, Sean, and my apologies. Feel free to restore if you wish, but I hope you can propose a better solution if you do. There's a major balance problem here. BYT (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooooooh... you opened up a can of worms, BrandonYusufToropov. I personally hated the image removed and thought it was an MOS concern. I like the idea of a) adding a picture of many Gazan casualties and b)adding pictures of military significance. Do any other editors have a concern removing the Israeli casualty picture? We have a serious balance issue but I don't think 1 picture was going to fix it.Cptnono (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not upset about that particular picture - I told you before it is of poor visual quality. That said, I am also not a fan of the two remaining images there... --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We haven't had much luck finding images. The best one I found tonight for the "Media" section was poor (guys with cameras in the commons link). Any thoughts on how to find more resources?Cptnono (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, charts

Any concerns with the charts?Cptnono (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Israelis killed by Palestinians in Israel and Palestinians killed by Israelis in Gaza - 2008.png

I also find background chart concerning, though this is my personal opinion:

1. The chart is original research combining two sources of data into one chart. I'm concerned about comparing "oranges" with "apples".

2. The December column is clearly based on massive Israeli air strike assault at beginning of this war. Thus "Background" might not be the best place for it.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I already explained why I consider background chart of dead as misleading from legal point of view. The same is true from the moral perspecive. About 60,000 British civilians were killed by German's bombings of the UK during WWII, while allied air forces' bombing of Dresden resulted in comparable civilian death toll (the numbers vary from 20,000 to 200,000) in the course of 48 hr alone. Does this say anything about who were the good and the bad in WWII? So of course I support removing the chart completely. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted due to who is bad and who is good but that is more than likely why it was used (apologies to assume bad faith). Comparing oranges to apples is something to consider as well. The fact that some sources contradict it are another concern. Removing it.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries with the revert. Any other thoughts on inclusion or removal of this particular chart?Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Legality, morality, good guys, bad guys clearly have nothing to with this. Arguments can't be made on that basis. The graph is just statistical information. It simply shows have many people were killed in 2008. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone were to make a list of the important pieces of information that are required to properly describe the background to Operation Cast Lead then the number of people killed in the year preceeding the operation should feature near the top of that list because it's pertinent background information. Perhaps the graph could be improved, perhaps it's fine as it is, perhaps just using text instead of a graph is enough, I don't know. It's pertinent information though. Removing it seems hasty given that it's been there for a while and the first 98.6% of the data comes btselem.

Sceptic, try interchanging 'person' with 'rocket' in your mind when you look at the graph. It's just data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the data disputed?Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, is the Btselem data being disputed? If not, the chart is about the most neutral presentation we can hope for covering casualties on both sides in the leadup to the Gaza War, it dispassionately illustrates the ratios and the relative lull from summer to December. About the graph's spike in December, corresponding to the initial IDF assaults, perhaps an asterisk noting that the December figures include deaths in the period covered by the Gaza War article itself? RomaC (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to need to present this information in a graph? IN this particular case, if an asterisks is needed does that show that maybe we should be showing this info differently? I really don't mind it but see that two other editors expressed concern. It looks to me to not be needed so I go for removing it instead of fiddling with something that is unnecessary. Does it improve than article more than it harms it?Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

→There is a text description in the last sentences of that section.
"If someone were to make a list of the important pieces of information that are required to properly describe the background to Operation Cast Lead then the number of people killed in the year preceeding the operation should feature near the top of that list because it's pertinent background information" - I am not aware of this. Number of people killed was never a pretext for the operation for the Israeli side. The same is true, I guess, about the rockets, especially if we recall that the rockets date back to 2001. What I am aware of is that people misuse this statistics for their purposes. For example, Amnesty in their annual 2008 report noted that some dozens of rockets hit Israel after Nov. 4, but resulted in no-one killed. People do use this as an argument - they say: "you see, Hamas killed no one, and what do the Israelis do? Kill several hundred!".
Number of rockets launched was, on the other hand, a pretext for the operation and has high encyclopedic value. Both the number and the trend. Too bad there's no such chart in the article. Because this the core of the Israeli narrative - Israel disengaged from Gaza and the rockets attacks intensified; Hamas seized the power in Gaza and the rockets attacks intensified; Hamas refused to renew the lull and the rockets attacks intensified.
To sum it up, I don't say it has no encyclopedic value at all, but it is the least important thing and the text description is sufficient. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, do you know what hemispatial neglect is ? It's an interesting condition. Simple treatments using mirrors are often quite successful over time. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple, but time-consuming I guess, and I don't think others would wait til the completion of the treatment. So in the meantime, tell me again, why exactly do you think the number of people killed in the year preceding the operation is so important (take into consideration that for Israeli side that I think I represent fairly well it isn't)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Graph for dead and wounded Gaza conflict.png

Oops on casualties chart, original literal description: "Unclear include the major estimates and the dead which are not known to be either civilian or militant. The militant casualties on the side of the Palestinians cannot be verified." If no one objects - this new chart should be removed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The chart doesn't comply with WP:V in the sense that there's no link to the source data. I'd support removal on that basis. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and done. We cannot make a chart for every source's different casualty numbers. Good thing we have text.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Citing a verifiable source and providing a link to the data would satisfy WP:V. We could, for instance, create a chart that uses information from, and links to, this site or a similarly responsible one. Or we could break down the specific news citations and provide links to them, though I think a single source would be better.BYT (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

B'Tselem couldn't be used, BYT. You see, they describe themselves as a watchgroup of human rights in the occupied territories. Gaza Strip however, according to Israeli officials and definitions used in international law, is not occupied by Israel, so their mandate is inactive. Now seriously, you'll have to use multiple sources, too many perhaps, because there are separate figures, depending who you ask: PCHR, Al-Mezan, IDF, Gaza-based MoH, Hamas. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to find a way to summarize the casualty information visually, using verifiable sources. If that means tracking down more than one link, so be it. BYT (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to since the focus is on text per the guidelines. However, if you can find the sources and make an all encompassing graph then you should try it. I'm skeptical but will reserve any judgment until it is created.Cptnono (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono has stolen the words from my mouth. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath image of rockets after the war

Cptnono, why did you remove the image (I know it was installed poorly and I hoped for some help, but nevertheless)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was being a little rash again and did that without comment here. I did not like the "Since the end..." wording since that is easily outdated, thought it could be broken down into prose (I didn't try myself, though), and have a concern with the way it worked layout wise (size was needed to view it but it also overlapped other sections). I am also leaning towards being against the different graphs after the recent discussions. I like data but there are so many problems source wise. If it looks like it needs to go back in please go ahead.Cptnono (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

7300+ words into the article ...

(I counted.) That's how long we take to get to a discussion of casualties. Perhaps it's a complex enough event that that span is inevitable. Yet once we do get there, no headline explicitly guides the reader to a discussion of civilian casualties.

Given that the civilian casualties in Gaza were (and remain) a major global news angle on this story [6], [7], [8], I wonder why we are (perhaps inadvertently) de-emphasizing this topic, and what changes in titles and/or subtitles in this section might be worthy of discussion. BYT (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Civilian casualties is a terrible thing. It is covered in the infobox, lead, casualties subsection, and intl law subsections. Everyone reads an article differently and I read this article as going into exceptional detail on civilians. If we add a "Civilian casualties" section in the "Casualties" section will it help readers looking for the information?Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think so. BYT (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple editors did good worked on the section so they might be some help (not trying to volunteer anyone). If you want to try it might get reverted pretty fast if you add in anything that looks like bias but you could try adding a subsection and breaking down the current prose to see what other editors think. Keep in mind the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle since it is a preferred method by many editors. Hopefully others will chime in before you do so but if you want to go for it you can. Your fresh perspective could be valuable to improving the article.Cptnono (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Again Cptnono said it all. Now I for one most interested in Int-Law section, and I can easily get there via the contents. I sincerely think that the matter of civilian casualties is covered well, and though the concern is clear, but the sources above said nothing new. All that is there is already covered in the article and in the subarticles. If you have anything concrete in your mind - go ahead, we'll examine it. I personally prefer that it would be first tried in the talk page - but then again I can't stop anyone from inserting text directly in the article. Specifically about Al-Fakhoura school incident, there's a mention in the text (see ground invasion) with the redirection to the subarticle, that includes many testimonies by local residents. Worth reading. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My chief concern right now, as I mentioned above, is the fact that headlines do not reference the clearly relevant issue of civilian casualties. BYT (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is something I will disagree with. Try a subseciton within the already included casualties section and it will provide an easy 1-click solution for people looking for the info. We are not here to promote views and the article is already slanted in some people's eyes so adding informaiton to lead the reader to certain conclusions on the circumstances of the civilian casualties will not be acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside for a moment such issues as the direction of the article's "slantedness" -- :) which I am beginning to sense is not a good topic of conversation for this page -- would you support a subsection entitled Civilian casualties? 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

This is very premature but does anyone want to start making minor edits to get this article a little higher on the quality scale? It should be our goal. There are major issues that will not be fixed anytime soon and this conflict could kick-off again at anytime. Maybe we can start toying around with the style and grammar issues now? For example, I started a sentence with a number which is a nono. Take a look at User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet and try a few minor edits to see if it can be improved.Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)