Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Gaza War part two?

• Israeli air strike kills 2 Hamas gunmen in Gaza - medics Tiamut^talk 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Two Gaza militants killed by Israeli gun fire: "A state of non-binding, unofficial lull between Hamas and Israel has been shaken in the last few days with the death of six Palestinians, including a fisherman and three smugglers, by Israeli fire in three incidents." Tiamut^talk 00:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And in other news, in the West Bank: IDF troops kill Palestinian youth suspected of hurling firebombs. But its a lull, right? Only seven Palestinian dead in as many days. Tiamut^talk 00:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know this was a news feed. With opinion pieces!

• Gunmen die trying to place device near area of Gaza border fence regularly patrolled by soldiers No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not, the third link I provided was a total indulgence. The first two though, and the one you posted above, may be relevant to this article. Tiamut^talk 00:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is relevant to the article. There's no official lull; number of similar incidents in the last 7 months is much greater; somehow, Tiamut, you pick only incidents where Palestinians were killed - why don't you try to look on the incidents where Palestinian armed groups attacked IDF soldiers along the Gaza border, or rockets fired, or terror attacks prevented? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would share. Forgive me if you find it irrelevant. I don't only pick incidents where Palestinians were killed. I included these because I thought they represented an escalation that might lead to a renewal of hostilities. Do you know of any Israelis who have been killed since the war ended that I have missed? Tiamut^talk 09:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why you didn't think that a Qassam rocket fired at Israel or that four mortar shells hit western Negev are not escalations worthy of reporting here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because nobody died or was injured? Tiamut^talk 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not for lack of trying. Not to mention that Israel didn't kill those two Hamas guys that prompted you to start this, either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

→if we are up to this: Two Hamas gunmen were killed in what appears to be a malfunction of an explosive device they were attempting to place near an area of Gaza's border fence regularly patrolled by soldiers, Palestinian sources reported Tuesday; The cause of the deaths remains unclear. Hamas initially said the men were killed in an Israeli airstrike, then said they had been shot and later said they were killed by Israeli tank fire. Be serious. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again last night, Palestinian teen killed in Gaza shooting, but I was wrong to assume these deaths would lead to a renewal of the hostilities. I forgot that nobody seems to give a damn. So, I'll refrain from posting similar news here again, as the section could get quite large without ever leading to renewed war, and ever being of use to our articles. I will keep my eyes out for an Israeli death though, and be sure to let you know, as their deaths actually tend to matter. Tiamut^talk 15:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice WP:SOAP. I for one do not share your disappointment that these deaths do not lead to renewed war. At least this time you got the most up to date version, unlike the links above where you were still blaming Israel for what Palestinians already said was a "work accident". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic with objections to someone presenting "links" and "further reading material" on this page about "things" related to this conflict?...oh my Cryptonio (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Article re-org

I propose either

• a) the prop/psy section becomes a subsection of the campaign section
• or b) it continues to be treated separately like media and goes below casualty/effects sections

My thinking is that it's either part of the campaign or it isn't. If it isn't then it's less important than casualty/effects sections. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is another section based on allegations of wrong doing so even though I would like to see it worked into the campaign section the tit-for-tat way it reads may not be appropriate. If there is a way to work it into the campaign section it should be done. A simple subsection as you suggest would work.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• no objection to the sub-section offer.
• anyway, this should be above "effects" section.
• "Gaza humanitarian crisis" is incompatible name for subsection. Suggest substituting 'crisis' with 'situation'. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a convincing argument for crisis -> situation I'll make a donation to charity. Unfortunately it will be HRW but don't let that put you off. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Make a donation anyway, it's a mitzvah. It's not about whether there is a humanitarian crisis or not - it's about the policy regarding names of articles and sections of encyclopedia. Do you think it would be appropriate to give title "The horrible consequencies of eating M'cDonalds hamburgers" to the article? Or "The unmatched superiority of Roger Federer as the all-time best tennis player ever"? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to mitzvah. I've not read that article before and I've never known the meaning of the word so I learned some new things. My knowledge of Hebrew comes from..um..Seinfeld, Curb etc so it's pretty extensive as you can imagine. I believe it's referred to as a crisis in the title because a) that's what many, many sources like the UN, ICRC, BBC, Arab League, EU etc etc called it and importantly b) it was a crisis. I appreciate that in Tzipi-Livni-MFA-world it would be called something else like "Move along, nothing to see here" but luckily we go by the sources for naming. Crisis is a perfectly neutral way for wiki to describe it as far as I'm concerned. Just pretend it was somewhere else and it was an earthquake. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I will not respond to (b), because then we will not reach a resolution til 2010. However, I used your advice and took a look at some recent most horrible natural disasters - Hurricane Katrina, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Cyclone Nargis, 2005 Kashmir earthquake - guess what, I didn't see the word "crisis" used in the titles of sections. The words used most are "impact" and "effect". I don't see why it should be different here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I remember to mention the sources ? That could be the reason why it would be different here. Anyway crisis just means crisis. It's not controversial (apart from perhaps in Israel or maybe it's just you and Tzipi). It's what it was called by people who know about these things. It doesn't say "Gaza humanitarian horrible situation caused by those pesky Hamas/IDF boys with their rockets and bombs". Maybe Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I liked "Darfur conflict" in the examples there. And I don't see the word "crsis" as totally neutral. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How about in Financial crisis of 2007–2009 and related articles ? Again it's named per the sources. Do you see it as neutral or non-neutral ? If you see it as neutral but the Gaza context as non-neutral are you able to understand why you think they are different and explain what the differences are preferably supported by wiki policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Named per sources, yes - i don't think you'll find even one that would disagree. Besides, it is a common name of the ongoing economic event (ah, and you just can't say 'Financial impact' - impact of what?). Moreover, in our case this is a subsection of the 'Effects' section. So, in 'Effects' of the Gaza war we have 'Israel' and 'Gaza Humanitarian Crisis'. The inevitable conclusion is that the title of the subsection should be 'impact' and in the text bring whatever sources to imply that the war reulted in crisis. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is the tit for tat that cptnono was talking about. "We can only re-qork the psy war section if we ALSO re-work Humanitarian Crisis section." Cryptonio (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MFA report

Regarding this edit that I've just reverted. The MFA report page 50/51 says

• "While these warnings, unfortunately, could not eliminate all harm to civilians, they were frequently effective, as aerial surveillance many times was able to confirm the resulting evacuation of numerous civilians prior to an attack by the IDF".

Whereas the edit said

• "The Israeli Government report claims that while the warning systems implemented by the IDF were not totally perfect, they were highly effective, since aerial video surveillance by IDF forces confirmed the departure of civilians from targeted areas prior to the attack as a direct result of the warnings".

Rewriting MFA text in this way with added peacock words, removal of the mention of harm to civilians and removal of the MFA disclaimers like 'many times' and 'numerous civilians' and replacing them with an all encompassing general statement 'confirmed the departure of civilians from targeted areas prior to the attack' so that it appears even more favourable than the original text is inconsistent with WP:NPOV amongst other things. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

p. 100: "While the warning systems implemented by the IDF did not provide a 100 percent guarantee against civilian casualties, they were, in fact, highly effective. Aerial video surveillance by IDF forces confirmed the departure of civilians from targeted areas prior to the attack as a direct result of the warnings". Self-revert and a small apology would be appreciated. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

...but I wouldn't object to insert 'many times' or something like that. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You want me to self-revert the removal of yet more MFA propaganda from a section already overflowing with that kind of material and apologise ? um..no. How about not adding it instead ? Have you read through the Air Strikes section recently ? Do you think that it a) presents a neutral, balanced description of the air strikes and their effects so that readers understand what happened and it's effects in the real world or b) presents a sanitised abstraction of events presented from the perspective of the Israeli military ? I think it's closer to b) than a) and I think that's a problem. Adding this material makes the problem worse rather than better. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You could have at least apologize for implying that I deliberately mispresented the IMFA report wording in more favorable way (while I actually copy-pasted text from different section and even offered a reasonable compromise), but whatever. Well, next time at least be honest with yourself and tell that you simply don't like the contents. As you know, I'm not the biggest fan of human rights groups - does it mean I delete contents I dislike? No. On several occasions I even inserted it myself. But. I search for counterarguments and insert it whenever find such. Take my advices, Sean: 1) you're overheated, take a break; 2) do not engage in calling names. Calling everything Israel says 'propaganda' amounts to cheap propagandist trick too; 3) the best way to fight the contents (well-sourced, well-attributed, presented in neutral way, having high encyclopedic value) you don't like is through more contents. Bring more relevant info. We'll discuss it. Finally, this was the first sentence directly from IDF or Israeli Government in that section. Everything else there, even if attributed to IDF, is sourced in magazines/think-tanks/newspapers and many of the sources are not of Israeli origin. Try to understand, Sean, that what you (and many others) see as great human tragedy has a totally different look from the military perspective. At least some military experts (excluding Garlasco) would agree that what you call 'sanitised' and 'propagandist' is the actual description of what happened there. Again - you feel it is not what happened? Be constructive, bring more information. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are noted. Okay, firstly, the MFA report is quite literally propaganda. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the MFA's job. If you are offended by the word or regard it as 'calling names' then you don't understand the word. Call it PR in your mind if it makes you feel better but propaganda is a standard, perfectly respectable and neutral term. There is nothing inherently wrong with propaganda as a source for us but by it's very nature it's non-neutral and presents a selective subset of information to promote a particular perspective, the perspective of the MFA in this case. The fact that it's propaganda doesn't tell us whether the information is true or false but it does tell us that we (actually you as you made the edit without consensus) need to be very aware of it's influence on WP:NPOV compliance in the article and take steps, mandatory steps that are part of core policy here to ensure that we are maintaining neutrality. This has nothing to do with what I like or dislike and this isn't a fight for the hearts and minds of readers. You can safely assume that mostly I don't care. I'm more interested in the cumulative effects of strings of words by volume. That's what articles look like to me, patchworks of bias.

Editors shouldn't have to fight over neutrality by continuously having to add more and more information into an article to counter balance material in a kind of neutrality war of attrition. We are getting perilously close to the point where someone adds something factual and pertinent but negative from the Israeli nationlist perspective so an editor balances it by adding well sourced information saying that IAF planes use environmentally friendly fuel or that the drones are quiet to minimise the adverse effects of noise on children's developing ears. Less is more, we only need the important information.

For example, we don't need to keep repeating over and over again in many different ways in many different places that the IDF say they took precautions to avoid harming civilians. Yes they did. They also killed lots of civilians. These are just simple facts that are related to eachother. We don't need to ram them down people's throats repeatedly. Wiki editing shouldn't be about competing sets of biased editors. We're all expected to be neutral in our edits. It should be easy. It's an editor's job to balance their own edits and ensure that they don't introduce imbalance. I don't think you are doing that enough. I think you insert far more material promoting the MFA/IDF version of events than you either remove or balance with opposing views. Over time this one sided dedication is problematic because you can't rely on others to fix it. Try to switch your 'you don't like it' argument around in your mind. Ask yourself why you are adding more material to a section that already has clear neutrality problems without obtaining consensus and apparently with little concern over it's effects on neutrality other than the expectation that others will fix the problems. Perhaps the problem is that you like the information rather than that I dislike the information. Either way it doesn't matter, motives are irrelevant. What matters is that adding the information takes us even further away from neutrality. Removing it may be constructive although I take your point about this being the first IDF statement in that section. More material should be removed/condensed/summarised in that section in my view.

What I would ask you guys is to try to imagine it as a long (~270 words) section derived from Hamas government sources describing the lengths they went to according to their propaganda to 'defend their people' and maximise the number of IDF kills and ask yourself honestly whether you would treat the information in the same way you would treat MFA sourced info and whether you would think that it adds value to the article. I don't think you would treat it the same way. I think you would recognise it for what it is, propaganda and treat it accordingly, taking steps to balance it with Israeli or other sources.

It seems to be difficult for you guys to understand how utterly different our perspectives are in these matters. I am not at war. I don't have enemies or comrades in a nationalist battle. I don't have a conflict of interest. I'm not within scope of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_counseled. Are you ? My concern is partisan editing in Wikipedia, it's a problem and it's one of the few things I take seriously. It's really as simple as that. I am pro-Wikipedia, not anti-X, Y or Z. This article isn't on my watchlist because it was a 'great human tragedy'. There are plenty of those. It's on my watchlist (along with several others) because of highly motivated editors with strong partisan perspectives (like you guys) who impact the neutrality of articles sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. I have no interest in promoting any particular narrative here other than describing what happened neutrally. Israel vs Palestine, IDF vs Palestinian militants etc are X vs Y for me and civilians are civilians so in that sense I have a pro-human bias which inevitably translates as a pro-human rights bias (and unfortunately being totally sociopathic in my editing is too much of a stretch).

As for implying that you 'deliberately mispresented' something, yes I can see your point so if it makes you feel better, stops you crying like a girl and helps us move forward I apologise for that. I stand by my removal of the text though but note that the text you re-inserted is an improvement but again without consensus. I would ask you to take a dispassionate look at the part in the Air Strikes section shown below and see if you can come up with any convincing arguments as to why we need all of this material to convery the simple fact that measures were taken to alert civilians. Is there a good reason why we can't sum this up something like below ?

OLDAmong IDF's measures to reduce civilian casualties were the extensive use of leaflets and phone messages to warn Palestinians, including families in high-risk areas and families of Hamas personnel, to leave the area or to avoid potential targets.[37][91][92][93] Israel used F-4 Skyhawks to deliver more than 2 million leaflets urging the population to evacuate.[85] In a practice codenamed roof knocking, the IDF issued warning calls prior to air strikes on civilian buildings. Typically, Israeli intelligence officers and Shin Bet security servicemen contacted residents of a building in which they suspected storage of military assets and told them that they had 10–15 minutes to flee the attack.[94][95][75] At several instances, the IDF has also used a sound bomb to warn civilians before striking homes.[91] In some cases, IDF commanders called off airstrikes, when residents of suspected houses have been able to gather on its roof.[91] IAF developed small bomb that is designed not to explode as it was aimed at empty areas of the roofs to frighten residents into leaving the building.[37][92] Israel's military used low-explosive missiles to warn civilians of imminent attack and to verify that buildings were evacuated prior to attack.[85] Some of the attacks took place sooner than the warning suggested and many calls were not followed up with attacks.[96] The Israeli Government report claims that while the warning systems implemented by the IDF did not eliminate all harm to civilians, they were apparently effective, due to the fact that in many incidents aerial video surveillance by IDF forces confirmed the departure of numerous residents from targeted areas as a direct result of the warnings prior to the attacks.[97]

NEWThe IDF used various measures with the stated aim of reducing civilian casualties including leaflets, phone messages, sound bombs and roof knocking. An Israeli Government report stated that while the warning systems did not eliminate all harm to civilians, they were "frequently effective, as aerial surveillance many times was able to confirm the resulting evacuation of numerous civilians prior to an attack by the IDF".....preserving all of the refs if you like.

Lastly I'd like to thank NMMNG for showing the restraint to simply write 'hear hear' which is genuinely appreciated. Having said that, if you ever feel like having another rant, go ahead. It's unlikely to have the desired effect. It's nothing personal. I have encounters with highly belligerent kraits, pythons, cobras, rat snakes etc in my normal day to day activities. If you can find a way to literally spit toxic venom via a talk page it might help but probably not. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note. I get a good laugh every time you admonish Sceptic for not being neutral. I don't know if you really think you're some kind of example of neutrality, or you just like to say you are, but seriously, your edits are often POV. And considering there's one Sceptic fighting multiple Seans, you can give the guy a break every so often from harping on his supposed POV when you're at least as bad as him, if not worse. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day. I hope a snake doesn't eat you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

Well, I can't seriously claim to be an example of neutrality given that statements by the likes of NGO Monitor about Palestinians and statements by Stormfront about non-Aryans often look pretty much the same to me. I am an example of mostly not caring though which helps. Sceptic gets plenty of breaks and he's made great contributions to the article. He's also about as biased as it's humanly possible to be without actually pulling a muscle, bless him. If you see me make what looks like a POV edit to an article from your perspective let me know because it will look like a neutral edit to me. Although I'm never wrong about anything ever it's possible in theory I suppose. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can show me where you repeatedly told someone you thought was pro-Palestinian that he is not neutral, that he's posting propaganda, that he should take a break from being a mouthpiece for whoever, etc. The fact you spend most of your time on talk pages making life difficult for people like Sceptic, is POV pushing just as if you actually edited articles rather than mostly just revert edits you find too pro-Israel... errrr... "not neutral enough". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are pretty clear and important differences in my experience. Experienced editors who you might regard as pro-Palestinian tend in general to add material that complies with WP:V and WP:NPOV using reliable international highly respected sources (at least in the pages I pay attention to). In the real world the sources are regarded as reliable and approximately neutral but in the parallel universe of Wikipedia where many editors seem to rely on extremist/propaganda sites like CAMERA/NGO Monitor etc for information (or actually work for them) these highly respected sources are regarded as biased against Israel or anti-Semitic or some other nonsense. The material is usually entirely uncontroversial e.g. ~100% of sources agree...occupation status, illegality of settlements, Golan Heights are not Israeli territory, the West Bank is the West Bank etc etc. These so-called pro-Palestinian editors are almost always opposed by extremist/fringe editors (often obsessive returning banned editors) who manufacture controversies and accuse them of things like dehumanising jews and anti-semitism which would be laughable if it didn't happen almost everytime over and over again about the same non-issues. In fact any pro-Wikipedia editor who tries to deal with Israeli nationalist pov pushing in Wiki gets labeled pro-Palestinian (as per you are with us or against us). If you revert edits by pro-Israel crazies using the nonsense produced by extremists criticising HRW or some other the highly respected organisation you are labeled a marxist etc. This is what happens when you deal with extremists. Of course extremists don't realise they are extremists which makes it even funnier. They think they view is perfectly sensible and that the rest of the world is wrong. Luckily this page is largely extremist-free apart from the occasional drive-by but the long term dedication of non-extremist nationalists can be just as problematic. If there were no pro-Wikipedia editors this encyclopedia would fill up with Israeli propaganda in no time. I don't see a similar problem with pro-Palestinian editors. Their motivation in my experience is to simply describe reality using RS rather than distort reality using biased sources and propaganda. The similarity to the evolution related articles is very clear. We have a lot of trouble with fringe editors on all of the evolution related articles. I don't waste my time telling 'pro-evolution' editors that they're not being neutral. That would be pretty dumb and a waste of time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see a similar problem with pro-Palestinian editors". That's priceless. You don't see "long term dedication of non-extremist nationalists" among pro-Palestinians? Really? I won't even ask about pro-Palestinian extremists because at this point I doubt you'd recognize one if he was sitting in your lap.

What you just said amounts to "I agree with the pro-Palestinians, therefore all their sources are legit, their opinions mainstream, and they're generally a bunch of really nice people who only want a better encyclopedia and don't have a single nationalist bone in their bodies".

I must return to my first suggestion and encourage you to take a good hard look in the mirror. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sean you are not usually so long-winded! (But crystalline commentary as always.) I note that the Israeli armed forces' phone calls to the citizens of Gaza ("we are going to bomb you") are in the concerned section introduced as "IDF's measures to reduce civilian casualties"; whereas the calls made from Gaza to Israeli citizens ("we are going to bomb you") are being treated as "psychological warfare". Does this distinction result from quantity or quality of the calls placed? RomaC (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't need this kind of favors from you, Sean, and I will move forward with you regardless of you apologizing or not. This, though, is not a proper way to do it ("...makes you feel better, stops you crying like a girl and helps us move forward I apologise for that...). If you don't feel like doing it - don't do it at all, be a man, stand behind your word.

So I will move forward, after I'll find time to remove that 'small' tag 'cause I don't see a thing. Just a general comment - as long as the contents is kept, there will be no problem to work out the wording. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on, that was clearly a joke, remember you have a sense of humour. Don't make me get Falk to ask you to apologise for crimes against neutrality. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

rewriting the para. about IAF effors to reduce casualties

→I've read your suggestion. Here is my countersuggestion:

• 1. add "specific" before "phone messages".
• 2. the following sentence is missing: "In some cases, IDF commanders called off airstrikes, when residents of suspected houses have been able to gather on its roof.[91]" it is stated as fact by Haaretz, but i wouldn't mind adding some word of speculative nature, like "presumably".
• 3. you omitted the sentence: "Some of the attacks took place sooner than the warning suggested and many calls were not followed up with attacks.[96]"
• 4. "see also" link would be added to "Roof knocking" article at the start of the subsection. and yes of course all the refs preserved. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1. fine
• 2. i don't think it's important enough in the whole the air campaign. maybe it means that sometimes they didn't call off the airstrike, who knows. it's a statement about a subset of the set of all airstrikes and we don't know how big the subset is i.e. did it happen 1 time, 10 times, 100 times etc. it's difficult to assess it's due weight. it's also a statement in the israeli press about the behavior of palestinians during a conflict between israelis and palestinians. i'd rather see this kind of information from neutral RS. Anyway, others may disagree with me.
• 3. again i think this is a detail about an unknown sample size. i can see that someone might consider it important from an IHL perspective or a IDF psy warware perspective but it's speculative. some of the airstrikes probably missed their targets too.
• 4. okay. that's not how spiders build webs but that's what the manual of style says we should do for reasons i've never understood.

Let's see what others think. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• 3. You are full of surprises, Sean. I thought it was merely an oversight of yours. Let me give you an argument here (and I desire it is registered as 'speak for the enemy'). In some IDF units, there is a goal to reduce car accidents to zero. Examining the statistics, it is clear it is unreachable practically, but it should be sought. The same applies here. The coordination between those who give warning and the pilots should be 100%, lives are at stake. The reality is different. I agree we don't have a sample size, this is why it is impossible to make any conclusions, but we don't have to. We merely say that according to some sources, some attacks were executed earlier than expected or without warning at all. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, forgot to mention, of course some strikes missed the target - p. 141 in the IMFA report (Al-Daia family) is apparently the most unfortunate one. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• 2. I'll start with the 2nd part of the sentence. I don't mind removing the words "when residents of suspected houses have been able to gather on its roof". It could be substituted with (citing from IMFA report p.96) "when a pilot approaching a target identified the potential for disproportionate collateral damage, he or she would refrain from attacking the target or even — when possible —would divert a missile already fired, as occurred occasionally during the Gaza Operation.221".
• 2. 'it's difficult to assess it's due weight' - yes; 'maybe it means that sometimes they didn't call off the airstrike' - maybe. but I think 'in some cases' addresses these speculations pretty well. You know, I once came across this argument that charges against Hamas of human shielding are irrelevant because there is not a single case when IDF refrained from such an attack. Well, at least according to Israeli sources, this is untrue. I can't find at the moment the most suitable words to explain why this is extremely important, but it is. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If no further cooperation emerges, I'll do what I see fit. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

off-topic

Hey Sceptic, still awaiting your reply re the distinctions above (IDF phone messages are "efforts to reduce casualties"; while Hamas messages are "psychological warfare"), would like to hear your reasoning -- especially considering Israelis could evacuate to say, the USA or Sweden; whereas Gazans were pretty well stuck in the war zone. Is the difference in the messages qualitative or quantitative, do you think? RomaC (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have this feeling, Roma, that you are not so familiar with the article yet. Read 'Propaganda and psychological warfare' section, it has both Hamas threats and IDF leaflets and phone calls.

I'll give you a distinction though. There were two types of phone calls and IMFA report details it. The first one was general one, saying that e.g. staying in the house where ammunition is stored is dangerous. The second type was a specific warning to residents of the legitimate military target several minutes before the strike. If you would hear the testimony of prof. Newton, expert in laws of war, to the Goldstone mission, you'll understand that the rules require to give civilians at risk an effective warning that is feasible from the standpoint of the commander in charge. So, either way you look at Hamas messages, they fail the requirement, because even if they have no other feasible means, they are too general and in no way could be considered 'effective'. On the other hand, the 2nd type of calls above, several minutes before the imminent strike, provided that it is followed by the surveillance to confirm civilian's departure - fall within this requirement. It could be mentioned as a counterargument that (according to Palestinian sources) many such calls were not followed by the attack at all and so were merely sofisticated means of psy war. Well, this is a speculation and we can't know for sure. Number of explanations could be given here, e.g. there was still doubt that civilians evacuated. Anyway, even if it could be seen as a part of psy-war, it could also be seen as effective warning to civilians aimed to spare at least to some extent their lives.

There are about 1 million Israelis (maybe slightly less) within the radius of rockets available to Gaza armed groups. How exactly do you think they are supposed to evacuate to USA or Sweden? 2 more million are within the reach of Hizbullah rockets in the North - so why woudn't we all depart to Alaska or Birobidzhan or maybe simply drown ourselves in the sea to save the world from excessive trouble? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So your argument, if I understand it, is that Israel's phone messages were qualitatively superior to Gaza's phone messages because Israel delivered warnings of their attacks in a more selective and timely manner. This may be true, but in any case I find it ironic that information on Israel's phone messages falls under a section titled "efforts to reduce casualties"; as Israel inflicted far more civilian casualties on Gaza than Gaza did on Israel during the time period in question. Now, both Israel and Gaza's phone messages are, as you note, already covered in the 'Propaganda and psychological warfare' section. If we want to include reference to only Israel's phone messages in a new section, shouldn't it be titled something like 'Israel's failure to reduce civilian casualties'? That might reflect reality, rather than an intention as claimed by one side. RomaC (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no such section "efforts to reduce casualties", it is merely a paragraph inside "air strikes" section - so we have nothing else to discuss, don't we? Anyhow, without these efforts, the number of civilians killed could have been ten or hundren fold. Moreover, the sources used clearly describe these practices as "efforts to reduce casualties". Whenever you have sources that say 'Israel's failure to reduce civilian casualties', we'll resume this. Bear in mind that the responsibility for the vast majority of civilian deaths is on Palestinian armed groups who did not do what's feasible not to intermingle with civilian population.

Do you know how many US civilians were killed by Japanese during WWII? and how many civilians in Japan were killed by US forces?

The so-called "irony" of yours does not make International Humanitarian Law. It says nothing about absolute number of civilians killed. Go listen to that testimony I mentioned above to have the slightest of the slightest idea of what IHL is. Maybe ratio of civilians to fighters have some meaning in regard with some specific attacks, but certainly not always. Absolute numbers are invalid.

You are fooled by PCHR numbers. Gaza populace is very young, 50% are kids below 18, the rest are adults, about 25% men and 25% women. PCHR state that out of 908 civilians killed, 117 are adult women and 311 are children below 18. The rest, 479 (and I verified it by putting their list in Excel manually) are men. If you are familiar with 5th grade algebra, you can do the rest. And now the advanced lesson - ratio of boys to girls aged below 13 is close to 1:1 within statistical margins; but among children aged 16-17 the numbers are 11 girls vs 68 boys. Interesting, isn't it? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Roma, do you read Italian? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Allo Sceptic. A distinction should be made between reflected and projected when analysing information. The media has reported and neither side has denied that both Israel and Gaza sent warning phone messages to people on the other side of the conflict. This information is unchallenged as it is a reflection of reality. However, information such as "without these efforts, the number of civilians killed could have been ten or hundred fold", which is basically what you are trying to communicate through your edits to the article, is informed by the projection of an alternative reality (a reality, in your example, in which 90,800 Palestinian civilians would be killed). Hypothetical models may serve speculation but they are not encyclopedic, suggest we stick to the facts, including absolute numbers, which do not make moral judgments. The Empire of Japan and the United States of America both killed many civilians in the Pacific Region and I have edited and continue to edit a few articles related to that conflict, perhaps you could come and participate there, it might be good practice in objective editing? RomaC (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell me again, where in the media did you see that 'Gaza sent warning phone messages'? Show me the word 'warning', would you? And all the words about my edits in the article are nothing more than speculation of yours. My edits are always as far as I recall are well-sourced and written in NPOV manner and I never elude the debate whenever my opponents assume good faith. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check the (Israeli) link I provided, the word "warning" appears in the first sentence. RomaC (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, you're right: "...warning them that the offensive in Gaza will only bring about massive rocket fire on Israel". But maybe you'll agree with me that there is different connotation in 2 following cases: (1) "i warn you that if you wouldn't leave my sister alone, i'll kick your brains out" and (2) "i warn you not to feed the crocodile in the zoo to keep your arm intact". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no sister and I avoid zoos, and I don't deal in connotations or abide advocates -- I have a suggestion, please begin editing articles about zoos and I will help you in whatever way I can -- Sceptic did you know there are 3,025,766 articles on the English Wikipedia? Most have nothing to do with Israel. I hope you are interested in contributing to the project ~ it's a good one! RomaC (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in contributing wherever I regard myself competent, and I wish others would too. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Roma, these are superlatives and platitudes you and everyone else who will have to deal with this article needs to familiarize oneself with. Either you speak their language or you don't. Hey, good luck. Cryptonio (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here goes Dr. Mads Gilbert

if someone is interested: Ninety percent of casualties brought to Gaza's main hospital during Israel's winter offensive against Hamas were civilians, according to a new book by one of Norway's most famous and controversial physicians; According to the IDF, Hamas' leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, operated a command center inside Shifa Hospital throughout the three-week offensive. But Gilbert says he saw no indication of this.

Nevertheless, The Palestinian Authority's Health Ministry accused the Hamas-run de facto government's security services of turning medical centers into virtual prison;

also, Cremonesi had a good reason to say that "It's possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas" - full article in Italian explains that the reason is that Hamas fighters were not taken to conventional hospitals. I'll try to find the link later. So yes, actually Dr. Gilbert is right. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

...and of course another journalist reporting from Gaza ...when Israel destroyed the prison on Sunday he and the others were transferred to the hospital. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Case in point Tiamut. Cryptonio (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Priorities

Wiki recommended page size ~30kb, 100kb max. This page 228kb. International law section 71kb. I guess we need some major pruning/spliting. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we have approval. Like I said before, I am happy spliting it off now but don't see a problem with Sceptic or anyone else having a few days to get a draft for the summary. It doesn't need to be perfect the first time throught but might as well make it as close as possible.Cptnono (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, look what I done did. I am sure we can work out a better summary if needed. Sceptic might blow a gasket seeing how evil I am, but we should be able to work it out. nableezy - 07:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great. I think we can probably even get the summary shorter than that with a bit of work. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didnt put too much thought into it, just grabbed sentences seemingly at random. nableezy - 10:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And then in another thread you're complaining edits been done violating consensus. You can't say you are unaware of the initial discussion Cptnono started above. Well, I guess this means next time I won't be putting things on discussion page but go straight for the article. Gaza humanitarian crisis impact will be spun off next. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I am pretty sure I read the consensus for splitting the article correctly, and you need to remember that nothing is lost here. The summary can be improved, all the text is in the history of this article and in the intl law article. Trust me, all will be well. Down below is a different issue where there is no such consensus. nableezy - 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Too boozed up now to reread it and I can only assume you are having a good enough evening yourself to surprise us like that. Nice work. As long as we all play nice we should be able to reintegrate anything essential. I'm working on a block on another article so see you guys in a few days. Thanks for showing some balls Nab!Cptnono (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, Nab has support for his bold edit. Also, the subarticle is now the master so if you are going to make changes the changes should be made there first and then here if necessary. However, we need to remove material from here rather than add more. The article is still 169kb. It should be about half that size at most. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sceptic, The principle that Nab did it without input comes across a little off to you it sounds like. Start a subsection on the talk page of anything that looks like stuff you want to add or remove from the summary. You can even be bold and replace it with your own draft but there is no reason we need to start edit warring or getting pissed. I am still hoping this will be an easy split. Any other section wouldn't be a problem but we have to be extra cool with this one since it is a subject that gets under so many people's skin.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget it is "readable content". Sources and images are not included in that number. Does anyone know how to find the number on that?Cptnono (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that true. I'll try to figure it out. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We could always copy the article (not the source but how it actually displays) into a sandbox than remove each inline citation number and the handful of images but that seems like too much work. I think your point is clear: the article is bloated. The next problem is what gets moved into the random spinoff articles. I don't want to see the Intl law section meet the same fate of some of them (never updated) but at the same time each round fired doesn't need mention.Cptnono (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Support is not necessarily consensus.
The sentence I added already exists in the Int-Law article, it was simply to balance the left contents. It could be removed, but only together with something else from that para. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ballpark readable content based on recommended method (at wp:article size) is about 75kb which isn't too bad. Still a bit chubby. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Article's ToC still includes IntLaw subsections though. Does anyone know how to fix it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It still has the Israelis and Palestinians subsections, why would it not display it? Why would we remove that? nableezy - 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A summary was used per the splitting guidelines. As much as this article needs a treadmill we can't remove complete sections if they are relevant.Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, we are at about 82kb if I did it right. Copy and paste in txt -> to Word -> find and replace all brackets and numbers with spaces (Do spaces take up less than numbers?) -> removed nonprose such as ToC and image text -> paste into sandbox -> save then displays in edit screen.Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

background

Agada recently changed the long-standing text that was painfully fought over somewhere in the archives from

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis, including both civilians and IDF personnel, were killed and 1,509 were injured by Palestinians in "direct conflict" related incidents in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. During the same period 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed and 8,308 were wounded by Israelis in "direct conflict" incidents.

to

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in "direct conflict" related incidents and 1,509 were injured. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents.

His last edit summary said that "Both civilian and security forces" is redundant. I would like an explanation as to how that is possibly redundant. I wouldnt mind including the indirect attacks, but I felt that it was best to only include things that OCHA said were undeniably a part of the overall conflict. The internal violence though is wholly irrelevant to the section. It being included in a report on total casualties over the past 3 years in no way makes it relevant to the Gaza War. An explanation as to how it is would be appreciated. nableezy - 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

nableezy, please read the verbose commit logs, there are explanations to all the questions you have raised. I'd appreciate if you self-revert, to fix WP:3RR violation. Let's be calm. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The OCHA report include "Physical protection" statistics – concerns incidents where there were casualties. These include deaths and injuries in Palestinian, Israeli and foreign nationals who were killed or injured in the occupied Palestinian territories or in Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2. Despite you POV, OCHA regard "internal violence" as relevant to "Physical protection", OCHA report explain that "internal violence" category includes casualties caused by factional violence or family feuding, internal demonstrations (that are linked to the conflict/occupation) and shooting of alleged collaborators with Israel.

3. According to report Israelis, generally could be either civilian or member of security force (such as Israeli police). Likewise Palestinians, generally, could be civilian or members of Palestinian militant groups.

By your questions, I have a feeling that you have not read the source. Hope your concerns are satisfied. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but not necessarily related to the Gaza War, which is the topic of this article. It is relevant to the overall conflict, but how is it relevant to this conflict? As to point 3, you are right, Palestinian and Israelis are either civilians or member of security/militant forces. Why would we not make clear that we are talking about both when discussing these casualties? And it is odd for you to say I did not read the source as I was the one who found this source and entered the original information a long time ago. The OCHA report covers more than we need to in the background. Not everything that they cover is relevant to this conflict. We needed numbers on how many of each side were killed or injured by the other side in the years preceding this conflict and OCHA provides those numbers. It is not necessary to use every single thing that they list in the report, only what is actually relevant to this conflict. nableezy - 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This report brings statics of incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Not relevant to Gaza War specifically. If we include casualties statistics from this report, we should include it as-is if we like it or not. Casualties of conflict are casualties of conflict. All have red blood. And I'm not saying we have to include this report, which I agree is only "slightly" relevant to Gaza War. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But how is it relevant to this page? You and I clearly do not agree on this, suggest we wait for others to speak up. Others, please speak up. nableezy - 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree the source, which talks generally about incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, might be not relevant to this article. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate if you self-revert, to fix WP:3RR violation. Let's act as Wiki gentleman. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3 revert rule, though if you wish to report me feel free. Either way, you shouldnt be repeatedly reinserting the same edit after it has been reverted with a pointer to the talk page. I suggest you leave the long-standing consensus based text in until we have some other people comment. nableezy - 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada why should Nab "self-revert"? You changed a long-standing section on the article, not he. Now, the edit you are trying to add is confusing, as it introduces a number of subsets and distinctions not present in the clear and concise version that served the article well for many months. Let's be reasonable. RomaC (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

@RomaC, it's so easy to support edit warring. Did you read the OCHA source and arguments of this discussion or just geo-locating my IP is enough to enter this discussion? Could you clarify, do you still stand by your suggestion that an Israeli WP editor should get his/her hands off articles that "have anything to do with Israel"? Thank you for such an enlightening 3rd party pro-Wiki opinion. Sorry, I'm not impressed. In the end Wikipedia is changing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If we include casualties statistics from this report, we should include it as-is if we like it or not. Casualties of conflict are casualties of conflict. All have red blood. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how internal conflict casualties are relevant to the background of this conflict? Can you explain why we would need to use everything in a single source? nableezy - 07:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between how they were killed and Agadas's edits are welcome. Claiming that its no good because it changes "long standing text" kinda goes against whet we're all about here at WP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am claiming it is no good because it removes some relevant information and adds other unrelated information. I am saying leave in the current (before your revert) text because it is the current consensus. And your revert is also against consensus. nableezy - 08:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

@brew, 10x for kind words.

@nab, I'm not following you. Could you elaborate:

1. Which relevant info is removed? What new info is added by saying both civilian and security/militant forces? Would not just saying Israelis and Palestinians, like report does, is enough?

2. Which unrelated ( to what ? ) data is added. Do you disagree with OCHA analysis that those casualties related to conflict/occupation? On what do you base your opinion about casualties distinction in relevancy/relatedness?

Generally, I'd like to satisfy all editors concerns. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The report actually does explicitly say it includes militants and Israeli security forces, defining them as "all member of the Armed Forces, the Border Police, and the Police". The report also includes the number of children killed separated from the rest, should we also include that? The report includes a lot of detail that is relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page but is not relevant as background to 'this' page. Not everything a source writes needs to be included. Can you explain how this is relevant background to this conflict? nableezy - 18:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But since the two of apparently feel everything in the report should be mentioned I'll be adding the number of Palestinian and Israeli children killed in the years before the conflict shortly. nableezy - 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you cant have it both ways, you cant say "this information is in the report so it goes in" and then try to keep out other information in the report. OCHA specifically reported on the number of children, so following your logic above why are you removing that? nableezy - 13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, this disagreement began when you replaced long-standing, clear and concise content with selected data that introduced a number of subsets and distinctions, arguing that because that data was in the report it should also be in the article. (We should "include casualties statistics from this report ... as-is if we like it or not", you wrote above.) Now, another editor has done just this, and you are reverting them. For the sake of consistency, I will revert, although I believe the original text was better. Don't you think? RomaC (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the original was clear, concise and better. But if there is an insistence to include things from the report just because they are in the report this should also be included. nableezy - 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice indeed. Love it :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So why are you reverting it? nableezy - 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Was the reason for your changes the articles my feelings? Whatever... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. But no, I did not add anything to the article because of your feelings. nableezy - 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont change your comment after it has been replied to. The reason for the change I made was that you and brewcrewer were able to editwar in the idea that everything in the report should be included. Your words were we should include the info from the report "as-is if we like it or not". So I did that. What is the reason for you to go back on that now? nableezy - 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears there is a consensus to return to the original comparative data text, doing so. RomaC (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really original, which substituted "direct hostilities" by "other side attacks". Let's not censor info about span and origins of Palestinian casualties of the conflict. Still agree with Nab, the source is only "slightly" relevant to the Gaza War.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt agreeing with me and you are combining numbers the source doesnt combine in your edit, and taking out qualifications that the source uses. nableezy - 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And there clearly is not consensus for that edit Agada, why do you keep making it? nableezy - 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not productive. Agada your edits and the long additions that resulted were discussed and a return to the original text supported (you posted "Nice indeed. Love it.") But then you changed your Talk comments, and now a few days later you are back making the same sort of edits, which makes other editors respond with reversions. Could you either leave this as is or take your arguments to RfC? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You kind of have strange way to form a consensus. The OCHA report include Physical protection statistics – concerns incidents where there were casualties. These include deaths and injuries in Palestinian, Israeli and foreign nationals who were killed or injured in the occupied Palestinian territories or in Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you disagree with OCHA analysis that those casualties stats (you are removing) related to conflict/occupation? On what do you base your opinion about casualties distinction in relevancy/relatedness? I'll have sporadic Internet connectivity this week, hope you could address this question for consensus sake. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way why did you remove the information on children killed? That is also in the "OCHA analysis that those casualties stats (you are removing) related to conflict/occupation". We dont have to include everything that is in the report, just what is relevant to this conflict. If you want to include all these things that is fine, but dont combine numbers like from "indirect conflict" with "internal violence". And include the parts of the report you dont like, such as the casualty counts for children. nableezy - 05:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet access at last. Let's not pour gasoline on the fire. I'm not sure where I combined "indirect conflict" with "internal violence", though I did aggregate together numbers of "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents to improve the readability. Any objection there? I have no objections to your additions as long as it's not motivated and reasoned by other editors feelings. So if you think breakdown by adults vs. children Physical protection statistics worth mentioning, get serious reasoning to support the change. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is objection to combining stats the source does not combine. And "get serious reasoning to support the change"????? It is the exact same reasoning you are trying to use, are you now saying that is not "serious reasoning"? nableezy - 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian ceasefires

Sceptic, I added something to balance your MFA ceasefire breach addition because you didn't. I'd much rather be working on articles about Sub-Saharan music. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not standing in your way, you know. But nevertheless I reverted your edit. Can you please provide the relevant excerpts from the Physicians' report (because after brief scan I got somewhat different impression on what's written there, but maybe I looked at the wrong places). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand about not standing in my way. NPOV is clear. If you add something you need to ensure NPOV and balance it. If you don't do that you aren't complying with NPOV. Of course it won't always be possible but you are meant to try rather than relying on others to do it for you. It's pretty easy in this case because both PHR and Amnesty cite the same case but PHR cover more cases. So the right thing to do would be to not add anything until it's balanced i.e. gather your MFA material, look for material to balance it and then add it together.

Did you look at the pages listed in the citation, page 10, the in depth case study of the people allegedly shot during the pause who subsequently died because they were not given medical attention and page 60 the main section called 'Attacks during the truce' ? Something not clear here ? I'm not going to copy/paste copyrighted material from a report and put it here. I've reverted you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not standing in your way - you are free to work on articles about Sub-Saharan music.

Yes I did. In two cases I saw, the report does not present it as fact, but as a testimony delivered by local witnesses. I'm inserting the attribution, unless you can show otherwise.

Don't preach me about my responsibilities. Before I joined the editing, the article was horribly biased in multiple ways (e.g. 'psy-war' section - only sentences describing Israeli pracices were used, while Palestinian ones from the same very sources omitted) but that never bothered anyone except me. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt exactly true. From the article as it was the day before you graced us with your presence the article contained the following in the propaganda/psych warfare section: Before the end of the pre-conflict ceasefire, Hamas started boasting that it had countless surprises awaiting Israeli troops, should they advance. At the start of the conflict, Hamas declared that the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit had been wounded by Israeli fire, later announcing that his condition was no longer of interest to them. Throughout the conflict, Hamas repeatedly released messages that they had killed or captured Israeli soldiers, even though no Israeli soldiers were actually captured during the fighting. Also, Hamas sent messages in Hebrew to Israeli citizens' mobile phones warning: "Rockets on all cities, shelters will not protect you." But Sean, Sceptic has added information from sources critical of Israel so I dont think he needs the lecture. nableezy - 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to answer here because I got messed up with phrasing and unintentionally mislead you. Of course there were sentences about Hamas practices. What I meant was that the sources used for Israeli practices included also additional Hamas practices that were omitted, e.g. "the biggest psy-weapon in Hamas arsenal is home-made rockets" and so on. I'm sorry again for creating false impression, that was not my intention. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know he has but I respectfully disagee in this case. I have no problem with attribution Sceptic although shouldn't you also attribute the MFA statement to specify where the info came from ? If you notice, my edit quite carefully mirrored the wording and nature of yours even down to the formatting of the ref. That wasn't an accident. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

IMFA statement is a statement of fact, it is not attributed to anyone. In fact this info could be tracked down, by for example checking the logs of rocket alert in the targeted towns' municipalities on these days. I am quite sure that even more reliable way to verify if it's true or not is at TV channels - all three major channels in Israel broadcasted non-stop the developments and each attack on Israeli town was reported on-line. Contrary, the statements of the Palestinian witnesses (time and circumstances of the attack) are more hard to confirm. Actually I pointed out to at least one such incident - the Abd Rabbo family - when the version told differed from one source to another. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite agree with you there. The evidence presented by the independent investigators is presented as fact in the same way the information from the MFA is presented as fact. As they say, they only include "cases that provide clear, concrete and reliable information". Perhaps the attribution should be changed to reflect that statement so that it more closely reflects the source and their methodology. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

On the pages you refer to I see only testimones from the locals. But I admit I didn't read the whole report (and don't feel like reading it now). This is why I asked you in the first place to show, based on what you read there, your perception. Ah, and btw, why did you wrote that IDF violated daily ceasefires? Isn't it more appropriate to say that in at least several incidemts IDF allegedly attacked unarmed civilians during daily ceasefires? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more rigorous than that. My perceptions don't really matter though. It's better to just stick to the source. You can decide for yourself but the investigators regard it as concrete and reliable. I didn't say 'violated'. That's a strong word. I said 'breached' which is the exact word used in the report on page 60. I was trying to keep that statement as short as possible, stick to the source and not go into any gruesome details about what happened and who it happened to, what their combatant status was etc so that it mirrored the simplicity and terseness of your 'fired a total of' statement. I don't think the details are necessary. If we had details we would then need to add some details about the 44 rockets in some way to balance it. I thought it was better to keep it simple. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we settled to leave it as it is? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. We have better things to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

rocket remnants etc.

i excuse myself for not being all that active etc and also whatever...but i didn't want to remove the picture for the remnants of rockets fired etc. [...] just the caption about capt. Obama. So please, if you don't feel too bothered, Agada or anyone else, put the picture back on the page. Thanks, and my apologies, just haven't had the time necessary to deal with all of this. Cryptonio (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought Nab removed that pic after I added the rocket chart in the same section on the basis that the rocket remnants pic was pants. (That phrase won't make sense in the US). Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did, it is a useless picture. The chart actually provides some information, that pic does not. nableezy - 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't following. Do you know who did that chart? What is the source? Is it possible to separate numbers of rockets in December to before the official date of lull expiration, after the date and before the start of the hostilities, an afterwards? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The source ref is on the chart but its ITIC. You can just click the chart to get further details but in terms of priority, any interest in fixing this Israel_outline_north_haifa.png, currently my favourite map in Wiki ?

interesting article

from IDC Herzliya: Hamas seeks new doctrine after Gaza War failures. Havn't decided what to do with it yet, but at least it is worthy archiving it here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

casualties

Under “Casualties” I deleted the last sentence, “Hamas claimed that it lost 48 of its fighters and that at least 80 IDF soldiers were killed” since the claim had already been stated in the first paragraph of this particular section. Repeat of the same claim or sentence is redundant and serves no purpose.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also added the following: "IDF figures were reinforced by a report from the Israeli based Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), which stated that at least 1,000 of the Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip were Hamas combatants or suspected of being combatants.”

The section cites B'stelem's findings so it was important to add the findings of an NGO with a different perspective.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

B'tselem actually investigated the casualties, the ITC reported on another groups investigation saying they were basing it off of the PCHR list. The ICT report is disputing the findings of the PCHR report, and it is already included in the "Disputed figures" subsection. nableezy - 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

in the breakdown of the number of Palestinians killed from birth until the age of 18, the ratio of males to females increased dramatically as the age increased. Thus, B'Tselem found that 33 males and 27 females were killed up to the age of six (1.2 male/female ratio) compared with 26 males and 4 females between the ages of 17 and 18 (6.5 male/female ratio.) The authors concluded that "the findings suggest that a very large number of the 153 males, aged 11 to 18, could have been involved in, drawn into or exposed to combatant situations either as shields, fighters, circumstantial helpers, sporadic helpers or accidental bystanders." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting but a gender/age casualty distribution like that could be consistent with sampling skew caused by cultural factors that may influence differing levels of exposure of girls vs boys of various ages in an urban combat environment because of differing roles and responsibilities within the family. Preferential targeting of males as a function of age is also consistent with the results if the weapons systems used had high resolution targeting systems. There are many ways to interpret those results but without empirical evidence to support a particular interpretation it's difficult to assess their relative merits. Consequently, in my view, interpretations should be treated with caution. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

you know, the numbers seem strange. i checked out my excel file where i put PCHR data. there are 11 girls aged 16-17 and 68 boys aged 16-17. i am quite sure this could not be attributed to 'sampling skew', because for ages younger than 12, the approx. 1:1 ratio is very consistent (while the absolute numbers are around 5-10 dead for each age). i agree that speculations must be dealt with caution, but you can't rule out the possibility that majority of these boys contributed to military effort of armed groups in Gaza. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you pay some attention to the cultural factors, already mentioned above. Without making sterotypes, I think its fair to say that in many cultures, including the Arab culture, men are put into social roles that would be at greater risk. Again, not to make sweeping generalizations, but women have a tendency of staying at home, away from areas of commotion. In times of war, then, it would be male young adults who'd be expected to leave the safety of their homes in order to fetch food and medical supplies etc. From what I know of Arab culture, this responsibility certainly wouldn't fall on the shoulders of girls.VR _talk 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

'you can't rule out the possibility that majority of these boys contributed to military effort of armed groups in Gaza'. You can by carrying out field work, interviewing the witnesses and looking at the forensics just like a traffic accident or a crime scene. That is what has happened in very many cases and the results have been published. It's then possible to describe in this article what is known rather than speculate about what is not known. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Jiujitsu above the link for “Hamas claimed that it lost 48 of its fighters and that at least 80 IDF soldiers were killed” appears to be broken Plus "claim" is a word to be avoided is it not? RomaC (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

meanwhile i'll post 2 links with partial info, and later i'll check out my archive for Al-Jazeera article with all the numbers.

only 48 Hamas fighters killed

it lost just 48 fighters. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Abu Obeida claimed only 48 Hamas fighters were among the 1,300 Palestinians killed

According to Abu Obeida, no less than 80 (!) IDF soldiers were killed, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with the terrorists - unfortunately no independant link is currently available. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

archiving relevant publications to Goldstone report

A UN war crimes investigation into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza has found evidence that both sides committed "war crimes,".

Israel called the Goldstone Commission Report "nauseating" on Tuesday, saying it created an unjust "equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization" and lacked the context of a decade of terrorist attacks by Hamas.

Israel has argued the opposite, citing numerous examples when IDF soldiers risked their own lives to assist Palestinians in need of medical care. One case came on January 9, when the commander of the Golani Reconnaissance Battalion ceased operations and ordered his men to help load handicapped Palestinians into ambulances sent to evacuate them from Jabalya to Gaza City.

The authors summarize their findings: "The Mission investigated 11 incidents in which serious allegations of direct attacks with lethal outcome were made against civilians. There appears to have been no justifiable military objective pursued in any of them. (will check out later if this includes Abd Rabbo story). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The mission believed the Israeli military operation was "directed at the people of Gaza as a whole" to "punish" the population.

Hamas also adamantly denied allegations by human rights organizations that it had improperly used ambulances as a cover during the operation, or that it deliberately targeted civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The report, added the source, "Not only rewards terror it also encourages it... The defense establishment is gearing to give legal counsel to IDF officers and the proper legal and diplomatic steps are already underway in order to render this report invalid." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In Gaza, a spokesman for Hamas said it fired the rockets at Israel to try to defend itself. “We did not intentionally target civilians,” said Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas adviser. “We were targeting military bases, but the primitive weapons make mistakes.” But the report did not take a position on the number of Palestinian casualties, noting that they ranged from the Israeli government figure of 1,166 to the Hamas number of 1,444, without saying how many were civilians. (this link has more, it is just for archiving purposes).

Fair enough then, please continue with other sources but try not to copy/paste extracted copyright material to this page too much. One or two sentences at most or whatever the limit is. I forget but you should check about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

They said that Israel failed to take “all feasible precautions” in using white phosphorus shells in the attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza City on January 15 despite the presence of up to 700 civilians. It also criticised the use of white phosphorus in attacks on Al Quds and Al Wafa hospitals. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"I can vouch for the independence and the integrity of all the members of the mission," he said . --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel is correct that identifying combatants in a heavily populated area is difficult, and that Hamas fighters at times mixed and mingled with civilians. But that reality did not lift Israel’s obligation to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

strange name, strange activities

the one who calls himself Arabmaniac (sounds slightly offensive, don't you think) made some edits that are likely incompatible with our policies - i'm using this cautious language simply because i didn't look at all the edits done. so i ask (Nableezy or someone who can do it fast and easy) to make a damage assessment. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic I'm disappointed -- You say you didn't read the edits but even a cursory glance reveals the lot as childishly-written, grammatically-mangled, terribly misspelled and obviously inappropriate Israeli right-wing POV vandalism. Do you believe it falls to someone you regard as "pro-Palestinian" to revert this sort of thing? Respectfully, let's be pro-Wikipedia. RomaC (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

i said "all" the edits, didn't i? now seriously, the revert you did - did you revert in one edit all his edits or just the last one of his? i recall Nableezy at one point used some kind of s/w to take care of multiple edits at once and this is why i explicitly mentioned him - he's very good with this kind of things. i assure you that if the situation was reverse (like some left-wing pro-Arab vandalism) i would still ask him or anyone to do this because the only way i know is to revert them one-by-one. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I also don't know how to revert multiple edits from one editor, so what I did was go to the last version before his series of edits, open that for editing then save it. Then put what I'd done in my edit summary. But yeah I think there's a better way just don't know what it is. RomaC (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Navigation popups gadget in your prefs. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it looks like that crazy person is trying to help. Gaza masacre in the lead (especially that early without War in the South) being mentioned has always been contentious. Removing it without discussion is bad, though. Lead doesn't need that many sources per WP:LEAD. Hamas is better than Hams. Meh... reverting all and warning. Next time will be an easy block. We could probably request it now but I would rather be watching porn on my other window. Cptnono (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PMoH figures

How come the PMoH figures are not quoted in the infobox? When one sees that Israeli government figures are quoted, one would assume that figures found by the Palestinian ministry of Health, which has far greater access to info inside the Gaza Strip than Israel, would also be mentioned.VR _talk 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

== Removed unreliable source ==

Hi all. I just removed this link and the information sourced to it, that Tel Aviv and Haifa are more densely populated than Gaza. Mere Rhetoric is not an WP:RS. Please do not reinsert this information again without establishing its reliability. Tiamut^talk 09:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think which one is more dense means shit. Plenty of sources say that the theatre had a dense population so operations were challenging. Source those since it is related to the conflict and not editors (I actually think this one was spearheaded by Nab who is pretty great) poking around data sources unrelated to the conflict. Low priority since it is worded fine but a little bit of ref clean up could help. Principle, navigation to related research, and aesthetics... nothing more.Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The UN report found the density of the population of Gaza to be relevant. It mention it multiple time, once in this content: "The Government's statement that "civilian populations inevitably and tragically suffer during a time of armed combat, particularly where the combat operations take place in densely populated urban areas”668 may be correct, but this does not relieve Israel from its obligations under international humanitarian law." I think its inclusion is relevant and important. I'm not sure I understood your comment though, so if you care to elaborate, I'm all ears. Tiamut^talk 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to read what I said? It is relevant but the sources could be better, FFS. To elaborate, we don't need two human rights reports when 1 source will do and we certainly don't need an extra line of commentary asserting the fact when a line discussing why it is important will do. Also, you can look at those sources all you want but if you bothered to look at the military aspect you would see that it is stated without so much whining.Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I did read what you said and I explained "I'm not sure I understood your comment though." So I don't really understand your apparent impatience with me. I don't think its "whining" to mention one of the salient facts about the Gaza Strip. I believe we have discussed this before a number of times and many sources were provided attesting to its relevance in the background section. I'm quite intimately familiar with the contents of the article, thank you very much. Perhaps you might consider being a little more polite with people who are trying to understand your position? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I cam across bitey. The line was added when editors were going back and forth over every little thing to prove a point. In the hub bub it was asserted that yes, Gaza is packed. Unfortunately, implications and links to sources were made but it wasn't spelled out. The prominence of sources pointing to human rights organizations while disregarding other aspects (although the press had a field day so it is hard not to) comes across whiney not this particular edit or source.Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Its okay, sorry if I can off as oversensitive. I think I understand what you are trying to say. I've modified your addition slightly (I removed part of the sentence about being forced to adopt other tactics (didn't see it in the source cited) summarizing it more as "posing tactical challenges to Israeli forces". I also restored the numbers related to population density. I hope the modifications meet with your approval. Tiamut^talk 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit conflict resulted in me switching it within seconds. Adjusted the wording instead of your revert. All meanness aside. Let me know and I will slap more inline citations in but I am trying to minimize the numerous cites used for a single line here. I removed the CIA stuff since it doesn't matter. It can stay in if needed but thought it would be good to remove the clutter.Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, hi there. I didn't "revert" as you accuse me in that edit. I restored the factual information you deleted and married it to what you added that was supported by the source you added. I do want to see other sources that support the wording you chose. I don't know why you reverted to restore your addition as is, changing only one word, after I objected to the aclk of sourcing supporting your formulation. I'd appreciate it if you would self-revert and discuss here. Or if you would supply the sources that support what you added and restore the CIA factbook info. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit at 10:36, 17 September 2009 looked like a revert from the edit differences.

Roma wants to talk: I think it looked fine as it was event though it was in the completely wrong section. It was worded per the sources (I can add more) and if the reader wants to look up the data they can click on the wikilink that was preserved. It states that both the IDF and HR observers were concerned by the pop density. What's the problem? The line is only in there to imply that Israel was to stomp around killing innocents. there is absolutely 0 reason to mention ref the HR groups and not military except to imply that Israel is bad. I would move moving this to the lead with a modification of my edit that clearly lays out the facts. In case you missed it:

The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It among the most densely populated places on earth. Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers.

Cptnono (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like RomaC reinstated the longstanding version and has opened a section for discussion below. I think your edits were problematic for a number of reasons, which I stated above. We can continue discussing below to gain consensus on what to modify and how. Tiamut

I think it is the upgrade but those edits should have conflicted. Regardless, my proposal is up above. Screw the longstanding version since it sucked.Cptnono (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, its being discussed below, where your proposed version has been pasted beside the longstanding version so that people can compare and discuss. I urge to participate in the discussion there. Tiamut^talk 11:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Background section edits

The opening to this section,

"The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It is one of the most densely populated places on earth. According to the CIA Factbook as of July 2008, it holds a population of 1,500,202 on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi)."

was changed to

"The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It among the most densely populated places on earth. Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers."

Mindful that the long-standing version was settled after much discussion I hope we can address Cptnono's proposed edits here. My concern is that the phrasing frames intent vis a vis the assaults, where this could more appropriately be neutral background information. RomaC (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I share your concern. I also do not see which sources support the idea that Israel revised its tactics to minimize civilian and troops casualties. According to the UN report, the Israeli definition of the "supporting infrastructure" of Hamas basically amounted to the entire population of Gaza who were rather indiscriminately targeted. So I have major problems stating the Israel tried to minimize casualties in the background section when many many sources strongly disagree with that.

I remain supportive of the prior version, though I am willing to consider including mention of other things, that are balanced and well-sourced. Tiamut^talk 11:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Transparency and admittance to screwing up: I didn't realize it was the background section while making the edits. (I suck as bad as the previous version :) ) That being said, we can add it into the assault section with half a dozen sources describing Israel's claimed restraint and there definite adjustments of tactics + another mention in the background to drive home the point of how bad it was or we can put it in the lead where it touches on both aspects. The background section should still say that it is densely populated but it doesn't need several sources and it certainly doesn't need the CIA info since that was only there to finish the argument a few months ago.Cptnono (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see the usefulness of something along the lines of what you wrote in the assault section. Question though: "to minimize civilian and troop casualties" isn't this kind of vague? and seemingly paradoxical since steps to minimize troop casulaties often result in additional civilian casualties and vice versa. What source are you using for this?

About the CIA info, I'm for keeping it, because I like numbers and details, but I'm open to hearing other people's views on the subject. Tiamut^talk 11:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hell yes it is vague. That is the name of the game. I can add in the measures taken and start citing how it was compared to previous wars in sources discussing the actual conflict or it can be generalized which keeps down the bloat (see the previous conversation regarding splitting). I prefer not to go tit-for-tat but instead to present sources in a factual concise manner. The lead should stay short but this is madly important. Unintentionally, this discussion is about adjusting the lead which is one of the most important parts f the article for many readers. The Inl law section already goes into mad detail (even though it was split) on the concerns with the population density. An extra line in the Operaitons section was added about a month ago to address the pop concern bu it can be expanded if it is not clear.
• In regards to the CIA factbook. It is only in since Nab wanted to prove to others who are long gone (brats who just wanted to moan about who was right and who was wrong) that the area is populated and the human rights observers were concerned. The source does not discuss the topic and is yet another line that can go. If we got rid of the similar shit lines in this article we could actually focus on getting it raised in the assessment scale.
• Background: "The Gaza Strip is a densely populated strip and these are the problems associated with Israel" Operations: "Israel did x,y, and z" Lead: My proposal.Cptnono (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Slow down a second. You want to change the section in the background to omit the population and area details and you want to add the text you added to the background to the introduction now? That's a huge change. I think given that there are still problems with how the text is written, its not appropriate for the lead right now. It ascribes a tactical intention to Israel as fact that is contradicted by other sources. And upon reflection, I think the population and area figures are actually quite relevant. It helps the reader to know how many people live in Gaza and how big it is.

The most problematic part to me is Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties. Which sources are you using for this statement. It is said in Wikipedia's neutral voice as though it is a fact, when I believe that it is an Israeli claim. Just as the targeting of the entire population of Gaza is a UN claim regarding Israel's tactical behaviours and objectives and is atttributed to it, I think at the very least, we need to do the same here. But I'd appreciate you citing the statements you are using for this part of the sentence here first. Tiamut^talk 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I do to a certain xtent. I know it is a big change. That jerkoff mentioned the extra stuff about Tel Aviv and it got me to thinking that the stuff in there currently was done at a relativity early stage of this article and hasn't been improved upon. Since I did them already, I am fairly confident that the military based stuff have the sources and the appropriate lines so am not worried about tinkering with them for now. I would be happy to expand on them but I think they are OK (I'll double check before doing anything drastic, BTW). What I am worried about is the intention of the density line in the background being used to say "HEY, LOOK AT THESE SOURCES ABOUT DEAD BABIES... oh there are some other sources about the density somewhere else that you don't need to care about". The amount of detail and sourcing isn't appropriate. The reader can click on the wikilink and the need to have extra lines to prove points is over. If you take exception with minimizing civilian and troop casualties I would recommend striking out civilian (the focus on preventing IDF deaths is not disputed at all) and stating Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers." and then later going into further detail on the amount of precision strikes used. This would keep the claim that civilian casualties were minimized out of the lead while letting the numbers speak for themselves on the percentage of proper hits made and human rights observer's allegations speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how mentioning the population and area figures = screaming about dead babies. I believe that the relevance was reviewed in the previous discussion on the matter; i.e., these are facts that were included in many background reports by reliable sources. I can dig up the individual refs again if you like. I think there was that concern previously when there was also information about the number of people under 15 years of age, but that's no longer there now, so the inference you say is being made, is gone now.

I wouldn't mind adding to the intro a sentence about the revised Israeli tactics to reduce troops casualties. But I'd like to ask again if you can point me to what sources you are using to draw that conclusion because I'd like to see the information in context. Tiamut^talk 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? I finally figured out what the problem was "minimizing civilian casualties" and now you want to go further. Let me open another beer and see what I can find to get these sorted out. Off the top off my head, IDF commanders did not want to answer for the amount of shit they saw in Lebanon.You oculd read the article and google, too. BRB.Cptnono (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I do appreciate your openness to modify your proposals. The new sentence is not bad at all. I just wanted to do some more reading of things you are reading to write it. If you're not reading anything specifically about it and its just informed by your general knowledge, I'm sorry for troubling you.

I suggest you be bold and add your sentence to the introduction as proposed here. If someone has a problem, they'll either modify it or revert and we'll move back to discussion per the WP:BRD cycle. I don't think you should remove the pop and area figures again from the background though, until we here fromm more people. Cool? Tiamut^talk 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. How would it look if I called you out and you weren't able to do the same.

Prevention of dead IDF (striking out civilian should be done since that is so disputed)

• [1] (this is a PDF of a Washington Post piece)
• [2]
• [[3] my favorite lines include the "higher-intensity theaters" and "protected friendly forces and helped reduce unintentional targeting of Palestinian civilians."
• [4] (2 pages clicky. Dense does not show on a ctrl+f but asymmetric describes it close enough)
• There are a few more but this was a quick google search and off memory of sources already used in the article. I think there is also further info in the sources that are more critical of the tactics but limited my search. There is a great artillery one but I am not sire if that is included.Cptnono (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

About the population density in general:

• In Dense Gaza, Civilians Suffer] in The New York Times: "It has always been the case, over years of conflict here, that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security. But six days of Israeli airstrikes have surpassed previous operations in scale and intensity; the long-distance bombardment of the Hamas-controlled territory has, however well aimed at those suspected of being militants, splintered families and shattered homes in one of the most densely populated places on earth."
• Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation in The Guardian: "There has been reckless and disproportionate and in some cases indiscriminate use of force," said Donatella Rovera, an Amnesty investigator in Israel. "There has been the use of weaponry that shouldn't be used in densely populated areas because it's known that it will cause civilian fatalities and casualties."
• And there are many more. I've noticed not many mention the specific population and area figures, but they do stress the danger to civilians (like those above), while others stress that half the population is under 15. [5] I would consider dropping the pop and area figures to mention the impact on civilians or include a note on the youthful composition of the population. But I do like having the figures, because like I said, it gives some dry factual context about how many people live there in how big an area. Either way, I feel elaborating on population density in the background in one or all of these ways is appropriate. Tiamut^talk 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, thanks for the sources. I'll be reading them. Tiamut^talk 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the population density was a huge factor from all aspects. There is an interview I want to try to find again which was intersting (Basically another commander said: Screw the Palestinians no dead IDF boys). I could care less who looks bad since some people won't be satisfied (ie: moms of either fighter will be pissed). So can we get it in the lead where it belongs, kill the extra sentence and sources in the background, and stop being worried about every editor on this page having an agenda? To tell you the truth, Tiamut, you have made it perfectly clear that you are biased. That is OK as long as you remember that while editing and don't fuck up the mainsspace.14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Population figures and the area are usually mentioned in backgrounder sections to the conflict, like this on at at the BBC website. Tiamut^talk 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't be bad to settle down some and allow other editors to weigh in on the various proposals. RomaC (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm settled, but that was rather rude of Cptnono. I try to be conscious of my bias while editing. While I invite discussion on any specific edit I have made to an article that is perceived as having introduced POV, I'd prefer that he not use crude language to imply I am generally incapable of NPOV editing, due to my proudly announced loyalties. We all have them, I'm just more up front about mine than others, and I do have the ability to self-reflect when approached nicely. Tiamut^talk 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: this isn't a BBC website. If you want it included you need to find a source that makes the corralation. If you don't it is called synth and people should give you a hard time about it. That was typed in a friendly tone though, Roma, so don't worry about it. Drop the pride since I'm not impying you suck just saying we all have bias Tiamut.

And to you Roma, why is this page still this low on the assesment scale if it is that important to you. I've said it (go look at the archives): Garbage. We get closer and closer and the best way to fix it is to get stuff straight. If anyone thinks it is off they need to pipe up so it can get fixed and stop worrying about what news report got picked up by your chosen internet news site.Cptnono (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And don't make snide comments and get upset by fuck.Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Use "fuck" all you want. Just don't imply that I "fuck up" or could "fuck up" maninspace when we are discussing content together. It's distracting, rude and off-topic.

As for the rest, I'll let others comment since I've lost my taste for further discussion here. Tiamut^talk 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imply that you fucked up anyhting. I said don't fuck it up. Maybe this is why the guidelines ask us not to use terms like fuck since people read it wrong. So fine: I don't care if you are biased. Your edits have been primarily to demonize Israel come across in a pro Palestinaian fashion with disregard to other elements of the conflict. My edit have been to clear them. Bias is OK just don't fuck up the mainspace.Cptnono (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't accept that description and view it as a personal attack. Please do review my last 10 edits to this article. If you can point to one of them that was made so as to "demonize Israel", I'd be quite surprised. So, before removing myself from this discussion totally, I'd ask that you strike that last accusation here. I don't edit with that motivation at all - I edit to share information. Tiamut^talk 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned it on your talk page. Don't pretend you don't have a bias. You don't have to look far to see what your intention is since edit summaries in the last couple dozen say enough. Don't get pissed off. Your edits are just as biased as everyone elses. The difference is that your new to this article and I mentioned it.Cptnono (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I answered you on your talk page. So please strike the sentence Your edits have been primarily to demonize Israel or provide evidence for this false assertion. Otherwise I'm afraid I won't be able to let this go. Tiamut^talk 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

doneCptnono (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish you just would have stricken the sentence without adding the rephrasing which is still speculative, inaccurate, and off-topic, but whatever. Tiamut^talk 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

hey, my user page has local sports crap on it. You're the one with Palestinian girls and a flag. Take the criticism and change it or don't edit here.Cptnono (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm free to put whatever I want to on my user page, and you are free to comment about it on my talk page if you have a problem with it. You are not free to use what is on my user page as a way to malign my editing in mainspace on article talk pages. Now, if there is a specific edit I've made here that you think is POV that you would like to discuss, please do so. If there isn't, then you should stop talking about me and motivations because it has nothing to do with article improvement, which is what this article talk page is for. Tiamut^talk 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being offended and trying to save face on the article talk page you should take the constructive criticism. Hit the history button while on the main page than drill through the edit summaries. Like I said on your talk page, Duck test = you contributing for a sole purpose here. I have done mainly military and stopping bloat lately but have been more then happy to do little crap and have tried to not let personal opinions cloud my personal judgement (although they have and I try to admit it). If you get so bent out of shape by one little comment up above then there is a problem. Is the current proposal OK or not?Cptnono (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on continuing this discussion here even after I asked you to confine it to my talk page, or point to specific edits here that are related to article improvement? You seem intent on proving that people other than yourself are biased in the things they add to this article. Point out something specific, if there is nothing content-wise that's related to article improvement, then stop talking about it here! Its disruptive. Tiamut^talk 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now can we stop the butthurt or do you want to talk more? Here is my proposed changes:

• remove CIA factbook in the Background section since it isn't neeeded
• remove extra sources on density
• Add line to the lead saying " Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents were raised by human rights observers."

Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your first two proposals. About the third sentence, I think it combines three separate issues clumsily and without enough detail. I would suggest we work more on isolating the different points.

• Israel adopted revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties. (Why? Its not just because of population density. There are some clues in the UN report regarding the "Dahiya doctrine")
• Gaza's high population density prompted concerns over the welfare of resident by human rights observers. (I think this part needs work too. Another important cause of concern was the lack of safe places to go.)

Anyway, any changes to the lead need to be discussed thoroughly with others. Tiamut^talk 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)