Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Gaza massacre

Vent may refer to: Volcano, an opening in the Earth's surface which allows molten rock, ash and gases to escape.

Reopening this discussion due to recent IP edit. Am concerned about RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that (so and so said it was a massacre while speaking to blah blah). Not a huge deal but it comes up here and ther and want to see if anyone has any thoughts. Would prefer this not turn into a hurricane of shit (100 other things deserve more attention) and just wanted to have a discussion available.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, with all due respect, I've been messing around other I/P articles, and the word massacre is used sparingly as lives in a cat. This usage is all for show and title names. That it is used here, at the expense of RS, should be ignored, IMO. In other words, there is conflicting reports, on how many people must die in order for the killing to compromise a massacre, it doesn't even take into account HOW they died, since violence it's always involved in these matters. This is due to the 80's approach to sensationalism etc. Well anyways, thought I would 'vent', a la coors d'light. Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually according to survey I made among other language Wikipedia articles describing this conflict my feeling is that the word massacre is not used as frequently as a skilled predator like Felis catus might think. We could make a pie chart maybe (according to language) to observe this point :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What's changed since this line with 6 citations with quotes obtained consensus ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "massacre" here is inappropriate, non-neutral, and used only as a political tactic. If you do a Google search of "Gaza Massacre 2009" today, there are 1.38 million results. Contrarily, searching "Gaza Crisis 2009" comes up with 12.1 million results. "Gaza War 2009" returns 42.6 million results. It is clear that "Gaza Massacre" is the outlier. Most times I have seen the term used it is used in quotes, citing only what Hamas has tried to brand the Israeli operation. (Operation Cast Lead 2009, by the way, comes up with 136 million results). "Gaza Massacre" is not what "the Arab world" calls the events in Gaza; it is merely what some in the Arab world have used to refer to those events. It should thus be included under the section on "international reactions." Major international news sources--including the most mainstream Arab media, Al-Jazeera--refer to it as the Gaza Crisis. The lead paragraph is too important to include something so contentious and unclear as the "Gaza Massacre." thedefenestrator 14:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

The search term results that have been given above are extremely incorrect. Here is the actual google results "gaza massacre" 156 k, "gaza crisis" 310 k, "gaza war" 866 k, "operation cast lead" 540 k, but all gaza massacre, crisis or war articles contains "operation cast lead" as a term. I don't know why did you searched for "gaza massacre 2009" anyway like it was a movie title, but "gaza massacre 2009" gives 24 k and "gaza slaughter" 30 k with "gaza genocide" 58 k pages. Also the search numbers doesn't involve pages like Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese or so just a conclusion by search terms will not be correct. Kasaalan (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should perhaps be in quotes too. However, even if Palestinian militant groups were the only ones to use this term I think it should still be in the lead and attributed to them because it's the name they gave to this event. I would hope that the name provided by one belligerent is given the same weight as the name provided by the other belligerent. We aren't talking about article naming here or the actual name of the event according to Wiki guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt need to be in quotes anymore than Cast Lead needs to be in quotes. Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre, it doesnt matter if anybody thinks they shouldnt call it that, but one of the sides uses a name, and like the name the other side uses it should be included. Nableezy (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And as before, I am not opposed to just saying "Hamas, the government of Gaza, has named the conflict the Gaza massacre". Nableezy (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A major problem with said attitude is that one belligerent is purposefully promoting blood libels and antisemitism and their naming modus-operandi should be neutralized by the other POV about the value of said title. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blood libel? Antisemitism? By using a name that contains the word massacre? I'll let that go, dont want to get into a pissing match. We dont make judgments here, we inform the reader. The government of Israel has called this conflict Operation Cast Lead (and a number of people have voiced displeasure of naming this after a childrens song), the government of Gaza has called this the Gaza massacre. Wikipedia needs to treat these two the same. Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not even a remote way of comparing the use of terminology of Israel with that of Hamas and yes, I whole-heartedly (and with the backup of reliable sources) stand behind saying that Hamas is antisemitic. If we were to merely use each side's terminology, that is the same as using "Iran calls it a hoax" in the lead of the Holocaust article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas being antisemitic isnt the point, how is the use of the term Gaza massacre antisemitic? The answer doesnt even matter though, even if it were antisemitic, and its not, that would be wikipedia making a judgement, which again is something we dont do. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nabliezy,

I'm well aware of wikipedia policies and everything I'm saying here is backed by sources. The "massacre" charges have indeed been charged as antisemitic and there's been notable criticism on the rhetoric as a whole as well. I'm in full support of adding the "Massacre" descriptive to the lead though, if it is combined with assessments that "The Gaza war triggered many expressions of antisemitism (i.e., statements against Jews at large) in the Arab and Muslim world, both by Arab leaders and politicians and by columnists. In their statements, they evoked antisemitic motifs taken from both traditional Islamic sources and from European ones. Cartoons featuring similar motifs were published in the Arab media."[1]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an article for that, Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and we cover it in this article as well. But it does not belong in the lead. If you have sources saying that the very name is antisemitic bring them and we can add them to the article, but the lead is not the place for arguments between the sides. Nableezy (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review my previous example about the Holocaust article and respond to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran wasnt a 'side' of the Holocaust, and that the present President of Iran has denied that the Holocaust killed the number of Jews that scholars say were killed isnt all that relevant. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair and unbiased to use the wording "Hamas, the government of Gaza (or perhaps, 'Hamas, the party in power in Gaza'), has named the conflict the Gaza massacre" in the lead paragraph. thedefenestrator 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

I also am in favour of Nableezy's recently proposed/added qualifier. It is more specific and perhaps more accurate than the 'in much of the Arab world' qualifier.Kinetochore (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing recent: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_17#Lead_proposals Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of sourcing that the Arab world described the fighting as a massacre in Gaza. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are, I think the way we had it was fine and accurate, but the names that matter are the ones used by each side. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Arab world is not a side in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I am suggesting that this was a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The main sides here were Gaza and Israel. The names the governments of those two sides use are the ones that matter. If you want to return it to say the Arab world has called it the Gaza massacre that is fine with me, I changed it because other users had problems with the wording and I think that there isnt a problem by specifying that Hamas has called it this. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, your additions do not belong in the lead, and now another user who has not made any attempt to discuss the issue has readded them. Lovely, I was taking bets on when this article would again descend into a POV battle from its very beginning. Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Off course they do belong but I've got no objection to returning to a version which does not include the "massacre" blood-libel terminology while we discuss this further. To be frank, it seems as though you are quick to dismiss Israeli perspectives while giving undue credence and notability to those of the militant organization involved. Anyways, I'd like to start with the issue of the "part of the Israeli-Palestinian" conflict text which I've changed. This original phrasing is both incorrect and is also not supported by the source. Give it a look (the source) and let me know if we're at conflict on this issue. We'll move on to the other issues after this one which can be resolved quickly, I'm sure.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

could you please stop with the rhetoric about blood libel? We include the name each side uses, no commentary on it. That you think the name is bad or wrong is irrelevant. There was no source for 'part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict', I will get one if you insist. But an armed conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is most certainly part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nableezy (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. That you want to add something unrelated to 'balance' massacre, is not even worth considering. What does antisemitic acts have to do with what the arab world calls the war?

That Hamas controls Gaza comes from the AP, Hamas governs Gaza.

That Iran has ties to another an arab population is not surprising, what is surprising and, you know, dumb is to try to put Iran in the lead. Iran doesn't even belong in the article period.

That these things only make sense in your mind, is not notable. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Cryptonio,

I think you should take a step back here from the language you're using. Please comment on content and not on fellow editors. If you have content concerns that something doesn't belong in the article, please make sure to be specific and to elaborate on your perspective.

Thanks and Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He didnt call you dumb, he called the edit dumb, which is also something he shouldnt have done, but lets not clutter up this page for no reason. Nableezy (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think the resolution of this dispute represents everything that is awesome and revolutionary about Wikipedia. Thank you to everyone who participated with good intentions. thedefenestrator 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

Too bad it aint over, I have a feeling we will see the opposite side of wikipedia in the coming weeks. Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuck, didn't even look at this discussion until now. Sorry, gents. Saw an editor remove it and it get reverted so thought a place to discuss would be OK. Doesn't look like anyone's feelings were too hurt but sorry for the extra back and forth. $5 says 2 months until the next round!Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Added the actual search term results from google as a reply. Kasaalan (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of issues

Section started per the following diff: [2] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of

• I've made a few changes to the lead which were all reverted.[3] It feels as though a tag-team mentality is ruling this page since no one has bothered, best I'm aware, to give a look to my explanation that (at least) the first section about "part of the ongoing [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]" is (a) false, and (b) unsupported by the source (pg.5). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, with respect, if you start equating a name used by some people to describe the actions of the IDF with blood libel and antisemitism and you claim that this event is somehow not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict many people will simply stop listening to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, with respect, not many people just don't understand the difference between Hamas and their "mukawama" and Fatah and their "fedayeen". One represents the Israeli-Palestinian struggles of the recent past while the other, which indeed derives some history from said conflict, is something difference. My notes (and understanding) on this are indeed backed up by the cited source.

p.s. we can discuss the "massacre" antisemitism issues in the relevant section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: this seems like it could be an easy issue to resolve and it's a shame that there's no discussion made here. The source doesn't say "part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict". The cited page 5 of our only source says that it was "shaped by the entire history of the struggles" but it would be more accurate to apply a similar wording to our article. I'm open to discussion and suggestions, but this does need to be addressed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Government of

• Also, Hamas is not really "the" the government of Gaza. This mukawama organization entered politics and won a majority vote. After very few agreed to speak to it, including the Fatah, they occupied the strip by force and are now ethnically cleansing anyone who has a semblance of belonging to Fatah. Basically, it's still just an unrecognized mukawama organization who carved up "Hamastan", a place of Islamist rulership, for themselves. Obviously, we're not supposed to go into detail on this in the lead, but we should note that they are first and foremost a mukawama organization and not "the government of Gaza". I'm sure even al-Azhar and Henniyeh would agree here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 08:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They are the governing authority of the Gaza strip, aka the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Best I'm aware, there's a difference in this case between Government and Governing in this instance. We have a situation of a split people with two governments who do not recognize each other's legitimacy. Hamas, a militant organization with a "political wing", is occupying Gaza just as Israel (a democratic state) is occupying Arab villages in the West Bank. A suitable terminology would name Hamas' main 'organization/movement' title prior to mentioning their rulership over Gaza. I'm open to rephrase suggestions that address these two issues.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting it simply...

Hamas are a terrorist organization in illegal occupation and to give them legitimacy as "the government of Gaza" seems absurd. Simply put, them being in control doesn't mean that they are "the government" and i believe the text "government of Gaza" should be changed. Here's a compromize suggestion that works ok for me: How about, "Hamas, the de facto government of Gaza"?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, strangely enough I would agree partially with Nableezy regarding rhetoric in general and illegal occupation and ethnically cleansing rhetoric in particular. I'd go easy there. I would call this internal Palestinian conflict as ongoing civil war. Still while both Palestinian parties/governments regard themselves as the sole legitimate Palestinian government only PNA gained international recognition. It was clearly notable during this conflict, for instance when Abu Mazen represented Palestinians in Egypt hosted cease-fire ceremony. And also in reservations of international donors about cooperating with Hamas with regard of rebuilding Gaza after Israeli offensive. Bottom line agree de facto addition is appropriate. Keep well and warm. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah de facto is all proper, but not in this case. Hamas won elections, and those elections weren't disputed(the results that is) so there is no footnote to add to Hamas' capacity to govern. We understand that we must accommodate certain aspects of international standards of 'labeling' when it comes to the territories, but that is not a free pass to illegitimate or to scorn the little normal, day to day, familiarity that the Palestinian Territories enjoy(in full democratic honors I may add). So to bring up the PLO or the PNA or Fatah for that matter, it would be our responsibility to identify them in their actual role. Now of course asterisk would be added to properly place them in context, but not at the expense of Palestinians actions at the booth. And plus, whether it was the PLO or the PNA or the dancers from Congo, all of this organizations have fallen out of flavor with Israel when they stop accommodating Israeli demands for "peace". So Hamas wouldn't be any different, since they represent Palestinians as well. The book(Israeli lost law) has been thrown at all of these organizations in equal portions. Cryptonio (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Cryptonio,

I think you're confusing elections in the USA with those of the Palestinian Authority. The current Hamas "victory" status is more like winning a Blood-Sports match than taking a majority voting. When no one wanted to talk with them after their movement got more votes for "parliament" seats than Fatah, they decided to make the sham of an election^* into a violent coup where Fatah members were abused (read: cleansed[4]) from Gaza. To still use the "won the elections" claim and suggest there's any semblance of democratic thought behind the way they are currently in power is just to repeat Hamas' sloganeering. The victory would have been acknowledged had Hamas relinquished their terrorist agenda and embraced their new role as a political party (kinda like Israeli party Likud). Instead, they chose to further ratify their status as a "mukawama" organization rather than a democratic party so I'd request that you avoid suggesting they are "the choice of the people" (usually used by blood-thirsty Israelis who don't care if a civilian is hurt by the IDF). To be frank, I think "de facto" is a huge compromise considering who Hamas is and how they took control over the strip (democracy had nothing to do with it), but I'm willing to make this compromise considering the lead is not meant for controversial statements if they can be avoided.

p.s. please follow the facts: Hamas has been rejected by the Arab nations as the representative for the Palestinians and their issue.

p.p.s. Israel and the peace process has nothing to do with Hamas' violent coup. "Blaming the Jews" (per accommodating Israeli demands for "peace") is not a great way of building consensus.

^* Hamas' party was forced into the system by the US despite being undemocratic - kinda like someone forcing the US to add a really violent KKK group into the US elections.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point. Did the laws for parliament(which you placed in quotes, as to disregards its functions or authority) allowed for a Hamas victory? Yes they did. Did Hamas followed the laws set in order to govern? yes they did. So then, de facto is not necessary because nothing illicit(as say, coup of state etc) happened in order for Hamas to govern. Now, I am not getting into what the hell did Fatah do in order to get in that mashing with Hamas, and I am not sayign they were to blame, but if a party wins, a party wins and its actions can only be challenged either at the parliament or at revolving elections. I could care less about the electoral process in the US. But hey, look at Bush jr, he won elections and then stifled dissent even in its own party, told the country the democrats were a bunch of un-american sissies etc. Did he waged war against the democrats? He didn't have to, when push came to shove, an equal number of democrats voted to authorize the Iraq war as repubs did. In all actuality, what Hamas and Fatah finished in the streets what was started at the booth, is of no detrimental(passive/aggressive) furnishing against Hamas LEGALITY to govern.

Hey, seriously I was not too far off when i said what you thought i meant 'whole heartily'. Nothing worked with the PLO, PNA, FATAH, ABBAS(the most nicest person in the world)(and ABBAS before Hamas was anything worthy of mention) or even before all of them. Nothing worked, even when it was Israel who was supposed to give up land, Palestinians gave even more land to Israel while all of this "negotiations" were going on, and nothing worked. Now explain to me how Hamas was "undemocratic". Did you meant to say instead "barbaric"? Cryptonio (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, and please provide a source if you have one that says I am, Hamas did not follow the laws set in order to govern. Also, I'm fairly certain that the whole "revolving elections" thing is ancient history by this point in time. There seems to be a gap between the democratic perspective you're presenting here and the actual situation. I'd suggest a review on what reliable sources are saying to help close this one but there's the added problem that some sources, mostly left-wing and pro-Palestinian ones, persist on differentiating between Hamas' "political wing" and their militancy. Here's a sample source on the government part of Hamas (and Fatah) - [5]. To be frank, I don't see a bigger compromise than "de facto" that I could make (I'd prefer "Mukawama organization in power at Gaza" or simply "the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip"[6]) and it's a bit frustrating that even this is rejected. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC) adding the option that is most reasonable per sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas sweeps to election victory - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm

No mention of 'irregularities'. I am not sure what you mean "didn't followed the rules". Not then, not now did have I heard of anything diminishing Hamas electoral victory. Except of course, what happened next with Fatah. Now, that you think no more elections will take place in Gaza, is not something I'm not willing to defend or make any conclusion on it. Cryptonio (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with "de facto", then the best solution is to go with the generic -- "the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip"[7] -- view on Hamas. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your 'best solution' is not a solution at all. You are creating a problem where none exists. Hamas is the government of Gaza. They are the governing body in Gaza. You want to introduce extra commentary where it is not appropriate. Nableezy (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly me. Check it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006#Pre-election_opinion_polls

You have not presented any concrete or even half-detailed proposal on why de facto should be included. As is, the rules set in the elections, did not included a provision that calls for the winner of the elections to be called the de facto anything of Gaza. By now, I forgot everything you have said till now. It doesn't have to take a missive or even a paragraph to state why we should add an asterisk to the governance of Gaza. Cryptonio (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is first and foremost an Islamist militancy organization or movement and only afterwards, their "political wing" has a semblance of (an unrecognized) governing body after in the Gaza coup in 2007 they killed and arrested all the other parties' elected officials. I've provided a clear sample of this in reliable sources[8] and it would seem that you are suggesting we misrepresent Hamas as though they are only a governing body. I gave two suggestions on resolving this and if we can't move forward there ourselves, then I see no alternative to WP:DR (perjaps an WP:RfC) if you believe that is an acceptable way to move the dialogue forward. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify. 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC) fix link 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation. Hamas has a political wing and a military wing. Hamas' political wing is the governing party in Gaza. Hamas is the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify electoral status. 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

I have no objection in saying that Hamas' political wing is the government of Gaza. However, we are discussing the Hamas-Israel conflict and to corner Hamas as only a political wing is indeed a misrepresentation. A pretty big one to boot.

I can't see you convlincing me to disregard the non-"political wing" portion of Hamas so I figured dispute resolution is the next step.

Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to act except unilaterally. "and it would seem that you are suggesting we misrepresent Hamas as though they are only a governing body". You want a commentary as per "Hamas won parliamentary elections, thus it makes them the ruler and kings of Gaza". The same thing can be said about any other office who gained access through elections, yet that is not standard here in wiki. Yeah Chavez called Bush the devil and whatnot, but that doesn't carry over once we walk pass the fringe(on either side).

Dude seriously, if you go up to anyone, and the first thing that comes out of your 'views' is this "Hamas is first and foremost an Islamist militancy organization or movement and only afterwards, their "political wing" has a semblance of (an unrecognized) governing body." and that body rules in your favor, i will say not a word and hang myself promptly. Cryptonio (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there mention already that Hamas also fires rockets besides hitting people upside their heads with the gavel? Cryptonio (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
Jaak, there is no misrepresentation that Hamas is only a political party. Governments have armies, or here militias. And there is plenty of information on the military wing of Hamas. Maybe you would have a point if we said the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is the government of Gaza, but we are not saying that. Nableezy (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well,

For starters, anyone who has a "militia" is technically a "militant organization" regardless if they have a "political wing" or not. Secondly, reliable sources describe them as "the Islamic militant group Hamas"(Reuters) and "the Islamist group ... de facto ruler of Gaza"([9]) which doesn't exactly coincide with describing them as "only a political party"(Nableezy). Please avoid making this misrepresentation in the future.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The US is a 'militant organization'? How about the state of Michigan? And I didnt say "only a political party", so please avoid misrepresenting what I wrote. Nableezy (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas did gained remarkable representation in Palestinian legislative election, 2006. No argument about it. While we talked about Michigan and elections, we missed somehow next step of democratic process - forming a government. Abu Mazen in his role of President of the Palestinian National Authority dissolved Hamas-Fatah government headed by Ismail Haniye [10] at June 14 2007 and formed new "emergency government" headed by Salam Fayyad. Legitimacy of such step was disputed by some sources [11]. Still so far international community, including UN, does not recognize Hamas government headed by Ismail Haniye and its rule in Gaza, see this conflict cease-fire ceremony. Thus de-facto is appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

De facto would be appropriate if de jure were not contested. By adding de facto you make the judgment that they are not also the de jure government, something that is highly contested. It is better to make no claims as to whether or not they are de facto, de jure, or both and simply say government, without qualifications or adding both de facto and de jure. Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? According to UN international law experts - de-jure President of the Palestinian National Authority/Abu Mazen appointed government headed by Salam Fayyad rules both in Gaza and the West Bank. I'm personally not a law expert though. Which international institutions contest that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why have a Parliament? and have elections to elect a Prime Minister? Cryptonio (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. In Palestinian National Authority political model there are a Parliament, a President and a Government. AFAIK, President of the Palestinian National Authority has an authority to dissolve governments and appoint "emergency" one. Civil war sounds like an "emergency" to me. I'm not sure what is Parliament role in such scenario though. I also would not hold my breath till new round of elections in 2010 (??) in Gaza at least. From political role play point of view, reminds me of Tzippi Livni anecdote. She is going to be a Prime Minister (ha-ha), since she's leader of largest fraction in Israeli Parliament after 2009 elections. But Shimon Peres choose Benjamin Netanyahu to form a government and Parliament agreed :) Bottom line forming government is an important step. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be no denying that Hamas is the governing authority of the Gaza Strip. That is equivalent to saying Hamas is the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Israeli occupation though ;) I have an Egypt stamp in my passport, Egypt Hawaii was awesome and locals speak Hebrew and very friendly. Did not get to pyramids though. Hope you have a good trip. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Livni was going to have problems setting up a majority(somehow) etc. Hamas had a pretty good hefty majority of seats. But you are unto something, at least when it comes to understanding what WENT ON between the PNA and FATAH. It seems, since the same people in Fatah were the ones in the PNA, no such 'conflict' like the one you have presented mattered. But now, since is Hamas the one in charge in Gaza, I wouldn't be surprise if you came up with more arguments to posture yourself by your position. Cryptonio (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio. you are correct regarding the Israeli anecdote, the president had to choose someone from party he politically opposes, by law. And not good looking (according to RS) blond from his party. In my eyes, Palestinian and Israeli political models are just "we miss you constitutional monarchy". When elected President, kind of King/Queen politician resigns his/her party. Formally President chooses PM in WP:NPOV fashion, elections directing the dynamics strangely are formally secondary though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Massacre and propaganda victory

• This seems to be the only real point of contest between us and it might need external perspectives if we can't compromise. Sources calling the event a "massacre" come from the Arab world who is a direct and notable party in the current war - the propaganda one - where naming conventions repeatedly evoke antisemitic motifs both from the christian and Islamic world.[12] Among other mukawama motifs, is the declaration of "Allah inspired victory" and this is as notable (if not more than) as all the "massacre" blood-libel hypocrisy (that's what it is) as it takes a huge volume of the post-event discussions. Since the "Massacre" naming in highly controversial for its antisemitic allusion and abuse (usually the word is added with the combination of "killing children"):
  Sample: "The massacre of Gaza is self-evident proof of the new SS: Zionist soldiers."[13]
  We cannot merely keep it as is since "that's how they call it". They also called it "Gaza victory" saying "Gaza Victory Paved the Way to Jerusalem" and other such mukawama sloganeering and I'm fairly certain there would be an objection in adding that title ("Gaza Victory") 'as is'. This is an emotional topic, I'm aware, as humans are being used/puppeted but Wikipedia's guides for neutrality are important here as they protect both Jews and Israelis from the smear campaigns as well as the Islamist movement in Gaza. In short, I'm open to adding the "massacre" blood libel rhetoric if it's noted that it's seen as such. Otherwise, we're giving an undue level of prestige of sorts to a fragment of one side's propaganda since it's clearly not "just a name". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Man why haven't you been banned by now. Ashley got a year in the can for saying some of the same stuff you are now regurgitating. We have no use for any of this crap, and it is what it is, crap. If you so nonchalantly call Hamas a terrorist organization, if Ashley got booted for so plainly exposing the action of Zionism at the rise of Israel, you should be terminated from these projects. On top of that, you continue to propose these changes that make no sense whatsoever.

"as humans are being used/puppeted but Wikipedia's guides for neutrality are important here as they protect both Jews and Israelis from the smear campaigns as well as the Islamist movement in Gaza."

Are you kidding me? Are you using legally prescribed drugs ILLEGALLY? Just tell me right now, for how long are we going to have to stand up to this and be treated as kids?

Preposterous! Blasphemy! Cryptonio (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To Cryptonio Was that trip really necessary?

Jaakobou I share your concerns about use of fringe sources and undue weight placed on such things. But the terminology of "Massacre" is not just Arab, it is used by anti-Zionist (not anti-Semitic) articles around the world. The Nation has commented: "Barak just oversaw the disastrous Gaza massacre, now condemned round the world". The Huffington Post has a section called "Gaza Massacre". The Squicks (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know in a minute. Cryptonio (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo The Squicks,

There's a very thin and complex line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Best to avoid it in this instance and focus on the main body being accused of using antisemitic motifs with this naming style (see above example) as there's not much value in discussing which sources are anti-Zionist. I'm open to rephrase suggestions that incorporate these sources as well but I'm fairly certain this is a step in the wrong direction for achieving a consensus where we'd want a conservative wording (in lead of the article).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We present the name used as just the name used. We dont say anything else about it, nothing else needs to be said about it. If you think that the use of the name is antisemitic that is fine, go post that in a blog somewhere, but it does not belong here. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

I'm already aware of your perspective that "it's just a name" and that's how it should be written. While I made an effort to explain myself, adding sources to boot, you've simply repeated your initial "we'll write just the name" perspective on the issue which is clearly in disagreement.

I'm open to compromise suggestions that deal with the issues I've raised and I'm willing to keep an open mind to reasoning as well.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So would you object to me adding sourced statement saying that the Israeli government is inhuman (note not inhumane) to name this operation that resulted in the killings of 1400+ after a children's song? Nableezy (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

and you need sources saying that Hamas calling this the Gaza massacre is antisemitic, not that antisemites have used the name as well. And a RS not somebodies opinion. Nableezy (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the source I addressed the "[The Jewish] massacres perpetrated by the Israeli forces in Gaza" issue with my provided source and that the phrasing was balanced and conservative as well.

but have also been charged with evoking antisemitic motifs in their statements.[14]

I'm open to other suggestions, but you've stuck to the one that insist that it's "just a name".

p.s. please avoid needless comments that suggest Israel deserves these antisemitic references (per Israeli government is inhuman .. operation that resulted in the killings of 1400+). We can talk all day about who is responsible for the Palestinian deaths but this is not germane to the issue of the Arab naming and rhetoric conventions for their fights with Israel.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC) clarify some 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC) +c 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is germane (and who said anything about deserving antisemitism, if you havent noticed I reject your idea that Hamas using the name is antisemitic), you argue that we should report what MEMRI (notice I how I asked for a RS) thinks of the name, but you dont want to report what people think of the Israeli name? What does having 'evoking antisemitic motifs' have to do with this. You want to add something to the reactions section it might fit there (with a better source) but you are trying to include commentary where it does not belong and only for the 'side' that you agree with. Nableezy (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that this very "name" is Arab commentary and not just a name. This is not about sides but about misuse of the lead to promote a[n antisemitic] context driven naming convention. There is no equivalent by the Israeli side that I'm aware of so this is indeed not germane to the discussion.

p.s. MEMRI is a reliable source for this article. They are certainly more reliable than al-Jazeera or the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights or the 'Arab News Network' which are currently used in there as well. Anyways, the issue still seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you stand by the position that 'massacre' is just a name. If you'll accept that it is not then we've made a step forward.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you imply, or deduce that those who say it's just a name, simply reported, are in someway or capacity engaged in believing the same 'motifs' that 'those' who use the name for 'antisemetic' reasons? If that's the case, a simple oath would do, in order to disdain that accusation, as a simple statement from you makes it true. No, I don't have antisemetic reasons for opposing you in this point or disagreeing with you.

This is perplexing to say the least. "but about misuse of the lead to promote a[n antisemitic] context driven naming convention." This is taken from, the patriot act or another dangerously written document like it. How you seem to connect massacre with antisemitism(or the sending of secrets code and messages by puppets through the lead) is beyond me, too bad is not a work of art though, i would be the first to applaud if that was the case. Cryptonio (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio,

I'm fairly certain I hadn't accused you of anything and to be honest, I'm having difficulty discerning when you are being serious and when you are not following the drug use suggestion[15] and the "hitting people upside their heads with the gavel"[16] thing. In any event, I don't believe I've made any suggestions to the beliefs of fellow editors but I apologize if you felt that making an argument about the content was a direct assault on your character. I had no such intentions and have no special reason to believe it either.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, MEMRI is most certainly not 'more reliable' than al-Jazeera, and where is the PCHR used for a statement of fact (and they are not 'more reliable' than the PCHR either)? Sorry, but no, it is the name used. The name used by Hamas for this conflict is the Gaza massacre. You want to put criticism of the name for one, at the very least be consistent and say that criticism of both is acceptable. I dont think either should be in, that is a consistent position. An encyclopedia is not the place for such pushing of views, the name used by Hamas is the Gaza massacre. That is unambiguous statement of fact. That you do not like the name is completely irrelevant. It is the name used. And if you notice, you are the only one arguing this point. Everybody else was satisfied by attributing the name to Hamas. Yet for some reason you persist on this quest to label things as antisemitic because you think they are. Nableezy (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe bandying the term "antisemitic" around is not productive and is highly objectionable to many people here. An edit review reveals this as a strategy of Jaakobou. Original phrasing "...has been called the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world" is accurate. Knowing that I/P articles attract extremists, it's important for Wiki we not let reason be railroaded. RomaC (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back RomaC. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Saying the massacre is called only by Arab World will not be fully correct, but generally true if you replace arab world with muslims and leftists

Arab Side

Arab World Reacts to “Gaza Massacre”

gazasiege.org

Israeli Side

Antisemitic Statements and Cartoons in Wake of Gaza War Sided article since he even categorizes anti-Israel cartoons as anti-semitic, trying to add all jews into it, yet has some point and good sources.

Global

Some photographs after bombing This is why bombing over one of the crowdests population in the world can be called massacre, even you don't call that it is mass destruction since they demolished considerable amount of homes and property

The Politics of the Gaza Massacre Forget Hamas - it's all about the home front

IDF Soldier's Civillian Targetting T-Shirts

Israel Army T-shirts mock Gaza killings by Al Jazeera pregnant palestinian women on target of sniper 1 shot 2 kills t-shirt for IDF soldiers

Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings by Sky News Text and Photographs

College Clubs

Oberlin College Students for Free Palestine on Israel's Offensive in Gaza

Penn State Students for Justice in Palestine; Fighting displacement, discrimination and apartheid from Palestine to State College Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar; British Member of Parliament George Galloway on Palestine, Apartheid Israel and the Middle East

A.C.L.U. Slams John Bassett Cancellation of Dr Finkelstein Talk at Clark University

normanfinkelstein.com

Jews Against Zionism

AcademicsforJustice New Jewish Australian Committee for Dismantling of Zionism

True Torah Jews Against Zionism Orthodox Jews against Zionism and Israel state

Might be useful. Kasaalan (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying the massacre is called only by Arab World No, you are simply wrong. The article does not claim that only the Arab World uses the terminology. It simply says that the Arab World uses the terminology. That's it. The two statements "The Arab World uses the terminology" and "The Arab World along with others uses the terminology" are not contradictory. The Squicks (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The language is clear. Otherwise, if we edit to specify only Hamas, the second stage of the edit process becomes a fight to include a qualifier for Hamas, which opens the mother of all cans 'o worms. The version that stood for a long time is stable for a reason. RomaC (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My position on this is that it is called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world, but that doesnt matter. My feeling is that we have the name that each side has used. But I dont have a problem with in the Arab world either, just dont find it all that necessary. Nableezy (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Upon review, 'Gaza War'[17] is exceedingly more common than 'Gaza Massacre'[18] so it would seem that the debate over the nature of the "massacre" title is irrelevant for resolving this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, the point is the government of Gaza, Hamas, has called this the Gaza massacre. That is why the name is there. Much like Operation Cast Lead being there, because that is the name the government of Israel has used for this. Nableezy (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We'd need a real review on sources concerning Hamas alone since you're making quite an exceptional claim considering my recent review. Also, please avoid confusing Hamas' "political wing" from the "Hamas" movement.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete Gaza massacre from the lead again Jaakobou, before gaining consensus for that. Tens of pages in the archives were devoted to discussing this issue, and the general consensus was to equal space to Arab and Israeli narratives by bolding both Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre. Deleting it without gaining consensus is sure to spark an edit war. I have reverted your deletion and ask that you refrain from repeating it again until we have polled all interested editors. Tiamut^talk 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your request for sources to back up Nableezy's claim re: Hamas, there are these:

• Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, called on al-Qassam Brigades to continue and intensify rocket fire into Israeli communities bordering Gaza, blaming "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."
• Hamas called the assault a "massacre".
• Hamas condemns Gaza 'massacre'

Even Abbas and the quisling PA called it a massacre:

• Abbas condemns Gaza "massacre" as Israeli raid kills 15 Palestinians.
• PA: Gaza 'massacre' threatens talks

Not to mention many others, including Norman Finkelstein, Hugo Chavez, GulfNews, etc. Tiamut^talk 16:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I applaud you for collecting 7 sources, there's the slight issue that more than 7 million sources call it a war. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 7 million sources that does not provide a narrative within this context. In other words, there is Side A israel calling in it an operation, and Side B Hamas/Arab world calling it a Massacre. 7 million sources would be Side C calling it a war. Do you want to provide Side C with some space(mind you, it shall be taken out of your allotment)? And to who would you referenced to? the AP? BBC? under what capacity? "The major news organizations have called it a war"? Cryptonio (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm able to follow your logic explanation. Hamas and the Arab world calls it mostly a War, not a massacre so I had no intentions on bringing in a side C. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like you did bring side C into the equation. Nicely done. Cryptonio (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not following you. Who exactly is this side C that you're talking about? (just to make sure we're on the same page, pleas also note who you believe sides A and B are).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Victory"

There is clear association between victory and parade. God save the Queen. 8 out of 10 best quality of life countries according to UN are constitutional monarchies. Those french bastards got us all confused ;)

many sources put victory in quotes since it is silly. we could add a line to explain it, get rid of it, keep it as is, or all sorts of other craziness. thoughts? ding ding...Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as the sources do not support it. The first source, when actually using the words, is not using it as a name. The second source says a victory in Gaza, taking about it rather then naming it, nowhere in the last source does the phrase appear. But a certain stalking editor is trying to get me blocked for 3rr infractions, so I'm going to stay away for now. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it until it is resolved.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My main thought is that the lede looks absurd now. There are two sides to this conflict. Side A calls it X, side B calls it Y. The rest should go in the body someplace. I'd say "Israel calls it cast lead (he), Hamas calls it the gaza massacre (ar). It is also known as the gaza war (he+ar)" should cover everything. If someone calls it a victory or a defeat or a tie or whatever, put it in the body under "other names for the conflict". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

amazing how much you agree with me. Nableezy (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Screw you hippie! :) Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite yet, maybe one day be able to call me that ;) probably not tho Nableezy (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how archive 17 slipped under my radar. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The archives are a magical place, full of lollipops and leprechauns, and even once in a while a good idea, and even rarer an agreement on a good idea. The only problem is, if somebody were to read through all of them their head would explode out of the amount of sheer nonsense that they would have overloaded their brain with. Nableezy (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to go on record saying that the archive system sucks balls. Yes, I said balls. There should be, at the very least, a mechanized voting system where you press a button, your vote goes on record and the system can display previous votes somewhere where I don't have to go digging in 5234 pages of archives.

Someone else should invest the time in implementing this, naturally. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that if there's a consensus stated here, then you shouldn't need to violate 3RR as you can simply leave the edit which goes against consensus alone whilst reporting the user who is going against consensus to the proper forum. Simply add a dispute tag to the page or after the line in question in the meantime. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

true that, and no worries, you shant see me at that forum again (hopefully) Nableezy (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for warning. I'm sorry to break this brotherhood in arms "edit war" festival, I have to disagree. The end of this conflict was celebrated by victory parade in Gaza and it is an official position of rulers of Gaza. We can not just ignore it. Internationally this position was welcome in Syria, Iran. Indeed there are sources in the archives. I did not really get reasons for removal, I'd like to restore it. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes they claimed victory, they did not name it the Gaza victory though. Nableezy (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The official name in the Arab world is "Gaza War". I have no objection to a version that only keeps the most common name. Anyways, "Victory" is as much a name as is the "Massacre" naming convention. They are both Mukawama driven and they compliment each other. To be frank, I feel as though several editors on this space are in violation of NPOV and it's always disheartening to see such a thing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'official name'? On what basis do you say that? We have quotes from Hamas officials using Gaza massacre as the name. Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre. They have not called the conflict the Gaza victory, I showed why the sources dont support that. But instead of actually showing why I would be wrong you just make a blanket statement not at all supported by the sources. Nableezy (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And as far as in violation of NPOV, I agree some editors are, but I think we have very different opinions on which editors those are. Nableezy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally for me "Victory" + "Massacre" made a perfect match together and finally got me to say "A-ha" on categorization of later term. Not that Jaakobou did not say it implicitly. I reviewed the sources and indeed the outcome is "Victory". "As we won the Gaza war ..." said Hamas political bureau chief. So English Al Jezeera and Hamas politbureau chief use Gaza war name for this conflict as an event. Looks to me that NPOV way is to move "Gaza Massacre" to Propa-psy section of this article. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

uhh no. Gaza massacre has been used as the name by Hamas. The names each government used is in the lead. Nableezy (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nableezy in this source the government used Gaza War name. Are not you confused? Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda. Is not it a NPOV style organization of the article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple sources with quotes from Hamas calling the event the Gaza massacre, in both English and Arabic. No, I am not confused. I know what you propose, and it will not fly. This has been proven time and time again that the name Hamas used for the conflict is the Gaza massacre. Nableezy (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. massacre expression was widely used, not only by Hamas but also by Fatah, Hugo Chavez and Oxford student hippies. Now it's also proven that Hamas did not give massacre name any exclusive rights. Do you agree that using massacre is kind of Propaganda?

By who? Wikipedia? No. We present it as the name used, which it was. Nableezy (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Get that "massacre" garbage out of this "victory" discussion! I have no problems adding in info on them spinning PR or whatever it was but it would deserve a complete line or two of text in another section that it fits into better. I know we are supposed to let facts speak for themselves but this victory "title" that you want to use has plenty of sources discussing it in context.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that the concepts 'full victory', 'Pyrrhic victory', 'inconclusive', 'partial defeat' and all the rest are directly related to the end of the conflict, why wouldn't it belong in that part of the article. The lead is bloated enough already. The Squicks (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rituals have formed a part of human culture for tens of thousands of years. Rituals can aid in creating a firm sense of group identity. Some say ceremony is kind of Propaganda. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, Squicks, and Cryptonio= I stopped having an imaginary friend when I was 8. Why couldn't you? Trifecta: We don't necessarily support Gay Marriage, but we are not against it either, why have beef with us ah?

In that case, let's take a look at why Israel would copy a page from the US in 'naming' its military operations. In short, it is a way to de-barbarize or take the "spiciness" out of what is actually going on. Imagine Bush going live on national tv saying something like "We are going to use 300 F-16s and a few Marines and kill everybody who gets in their way". Yeah, Americans are pretty much militarized and that phrase wouldn't have brought much condemnation from the general population, but it would have caused trouble when the "coalition" comes into the equation. So, a name more acceptable like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" gives it a more noble connotation(plus all that crap about bringing democracy etc to Iraq). So that Israel calls its "operation"(as given it a more 21st century karma, as in "war is acceptable" "war is a necessity etc) some chump change like "whatever" takes away the reality and concentrates its population with the "goals" or to ask for acceptance from the population to something that these military geniuses conjured up as a solution to the problems. That Hamas calls it a massacre is, in their view, kind of humbling("gee, we just got out butts, umm, you know..."). that we human beings behave like animals is nothing new. And that both sides have reasons why to call their actions in one way or the other is nothing new either. Mebleh. Cryptonio (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hands of Karma Cryptonio! I made a research about Nonviolence and Ahimsa, Go Ghandi, colonies should burn in hell! Here is copy paste from Hinduism view on Self-defense, criminal law, and war: The concept of ahimsa as expounded in the scriptures and law books is not meant to imply pacifism; war is seen as a normal part of life and the natural duty of the warriors. In the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Krishna refutes the pacifist ideas of Arjuna and uses various arguments to convince him that he must fight and kill in the impending battle. According to this interpretation of the scriptures, face-to-face combat is highly meritorious and fighters who die in battle go to heaven. The apparent conflict between ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita has often been resolved by resorting to allegorical readings. Such readings are based on Theosophical interpretations and were notably represented by Mahatma Gandhi, who made clear throughout his life and his own commentary on the Gita that it was "an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil." According to some interpretation of Islam, Jihad struggle is a spiritual one against enemy within, in fact Jihad is an integrated part of Nonviolence tradition. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to like you bud. Yae yae, holy books are one thing, reality is another. Isn't Islam about peace? yet mess with them and watchout! I don't make apologies either for Buddhist, we all like and enjoy wars(except me, of course). But notice, for example, similar anti-pacifism connotation even in the New Testament. Revelation 3:15

"15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: "

The explanation being, that good and evil are clearly defined(and not by Israel), but that doesn't mean that everything in between is gray area, AND NOT SUBJECT TO JUDGMENT(in all three of Abraham's faiths). Arjuna is not weak, nor a non-believer(infidel) he is refusing to fight, but, he's standing right next to khrishna(the all within the all, in Buddhism) and telling him that ultimatley, above rules and regulations(laws) his word is final, because it is not logic that brings us closer or seperates us from "The Being". In other other words, and this quote I can quote from any faith, Romans 6:16

"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

What this means, we are our own masters as long as we serve, because no matter who we serve, we will be looked at us servants. And then of course, Mohammed is who he is because he was a servant. So don't be too hard on peace. There is purpose for both, peace and war, but we should look after one and despise the other(by the New Testament).

We could get down with the Torah, if its more of your preference, but nice work on Buddhism/Hinduism. Cryptonio (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which brings up this other point. Atheist get all over Christians for believing in the "barbarism" in the Old Testament(as if they had anything to do with the Old Testament) but they give Jews a free pass. I mean, the only reason that i could fathom for a Christian pastor to bring up the Old Testament in front of a congregation, is to bring up people like King David. BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DID KING DAVID KILLED!!! But then, of course, this correlates my previous point on what Krishna is telling Arjuna. Cryptonio (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can not be civil taking about David dude. He was a real bastard. The prophet Nathan confronts David, saying: "Why have you despised the word of God, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife." Some call it love though ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yae yae, but that David took Bathsheba is not quite the point, because David had concurbines and whatnot. But it is more of a testament to Uriah than David's actions(since he is King, and I will provide reference on this in a minute). You must notice, rather, what Nathan tells David earlier.

"There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2The rich man had very many flocks and herds, 3but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms,[a] and it was like a daughter to him. 4Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him." 5Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan,(C) "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, 6and he shall restore the lamb(D) fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity."

David's "adultery" is not what David himself is condeming, rather that a rich man took the only valuable possesion that a poor man had. And notice that even the death of Uriah isn't an issue, after he was a military man and military man die, eventually.

But now to the point i said i would pick up later. I am not of the opinion of condemming David or judging him, I think you overstreched yourself a bit. Notice here. 2 Samuel .

4And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.

5And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?

6And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.

7And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.

8And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.

9He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.

10So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

11Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him:

12And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the LORD, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword.

13And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.

14And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?

15And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.

16And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD's anointed.

So, I wouldn't say negative stuff about Prophets. But that's just me though. Cryptonio (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I object to the Trifecta statement above. I strongly support gay marriage. If I didn't support it, then why would I name myself after a term from amateur gay pornographic fantasies? The Squicks (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Herod the Great, Attila the Hun and "Hungarian Notation"

File:HerodtheGreat1.jpg

WTF? Massacre of the Innocents is not just a name. Ding dong.

Hungarian notation is a naming convention in computer programming, in which the name of a variable indicates its type or intended use. Apps Hungarian notation doesn't encode the actual data type, but rather, it gives a hint as to what the variable's purpose is, or what it represents.

• strName : Variable represents a string ("str") containing the name, but does not specify how that string is implemented.

Most, but not all, of the prefixes Simonyi suggested are semantic in nature. The following are examples from the original paper:

Herod (Hebrew: הוֹרְדוֹס Horodos, Greek: Ἡρῴδης Hērōdēs), also known as Herod I or Herod the Great (37 BC – 4 BC in Jericho), was a Roman client king of Israel. Christian scripture reports Herod perpetrating the Massacre of the Innocents, described in Chapter 2 of the Gospel according to Matthew. Most recent biographers of Herod do not regard the massacre as an actual historical event.

Back to Simonyi. There are RS reports he was Hungarian. In his role naming convention inventor he would not argue that epitome of cruelty and rapacity would be semantically appropriate name for Attila the Hun. Ding Dong ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly propose to leave lede with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda. Is not it a NPOV style organization of the article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring everything but the last comment, no it is not a 'NPOV style organization of the article'. We have the names the government of each side used, Cast Lead and Gaza massacre. That is what NPOV is. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Factually, with all due respect ( and there is a respect ) the Gaza government used Gaza War name. I kind of concerned about semantics and hint of purpose, or what it represents. The massacre expression is used a lot all right! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have one instance of him using "Gaza War", and I would like to see the Arabic of that statement to see if he said the war in Gaza, war on Gaza or what. We have multiple quotes of them using the Gaza massacre as the name in both the original Arabic and the reported translations. You cannot just disregard what you want, there are a ton of sources of Hamas using Gaza massacre as the name of the conflict. Nableezy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody argues that many (we should not single Hamas out) used massacre rhetoric as you put it. What is "Hamas name" is disputable. So in your opinion, principally Wikipedia should not see this interesting naming convention as Propaganda technique? Just a name, common, you hippie! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decide what is propaganda or not. You should know this by now. Gaza massacre is the name used by Hamas, we have a number of sources that show that to be the case, and no matter how often you repeat the same irrelevant argument it remains irrelevant. I dont plan on dealing with this anymore except to say if you want to change what has been in the lead for going on 4 months get consensus. Nableezy (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this massacre rhetoric sparking and venting all the way. Wake up, this is not a consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouting NO doesn't mean much, sorry. Consensus is based on editing and the strength of your arguments. You, nor anybody else, has presented a policy based argument for removing it. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this has been regurgitated ad nauseum, but I have no problem continuing to put my two cents on the record. There never was a consensus for it's inclusion and there never will be. However, even a consensus for its inclusion means nothing. Under no circumstances can a lead of an article place an blatant lie (lots of dead people does not mean a massacre took place), that is propogandistic and is defamatory to an entire country.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I think as to the accuracy of the name, Wikipedia does not say that this was a massacre. Wikipedia says that the Arab world has called this event the Gaza massacre (my preferred version saying Hamas has called this the Gaza massacre). Do you actually dispute that, or is it just you think the name given is defamatory? Nableezy (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So how exactly can you make a policy based argument to not include it? Tell me exactly what is non-NPOV with this generic formulation. A and B fight some 'war'. A calls it X, B calls it Y, and most of the world calls it Z. The Wikipedia article says the following: "Z is a war between A and B. A has called this X, B called this Y." Nableezy (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nab: You're just stating what the lede says, but instead of using the names and the countries you're using letters. Restating it with letters doesn't make it more rational. The fact remains that one of the names is a defamatory lie and it can't be given prominence in the lede. It's not Wikipedia's fault that one side decided to use a name that is unacceptable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Using letters helps identify whether or not you can show an issue with the lead based on policy. I really dont want to argue with you on whether or not it is a 'lie', but what you are saying is that because Hamas used a, lets just say objectionable to some, name for the event, that Wikipedia should then not allow that name to be given the same representation as the name the Israeli government has used, which I might add has been criticized as being objectionable to some. That is an argument I cannot accept, it has no basis in policy and depends only on ones personal perceptions. Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And would you mind pointing out the irrationality in the "Z is a war between A and B. A has called this X, B called this Y."? Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nab: You don't want to argue whether it is a lie, but that's the crux of the issue. You equating the "objections" as if both sides objections' are on the same ground. While the P's have problem with the I's terming the operation as a song (i'm sure they didn't think it would last that long. i'm sure the operation-namers [who actually has that job?] would have come up something better like "operation defense of the homeland" had they known what would occur) it does not compare the I's objection to the P's name. Granted, a song is somewhat mocking and cheapening and there are grounds for objections to that name. On the hand, these objections do not compare to the objections of being accused of systematically and purposefully killing civilians, which is the mainstream definition of "massacre." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

10x dudes for teaching me defamatory. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you cannot just remove a name that has been stable in the article without consensus, please refrain from doing so unless you have a consensus. Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for its inclusion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly a 'wide' consensus, but if you look in the archives I think you will find that there had been a 'rough' consensus (and not just made up of the 'pro-P' editors) that the name should be included. That said, consensus is a result of editing, and anything that has been stable in this article for so long I think would be fair to say is a consensus based. Nableezy (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And are you really advocating this unilateral removal, something that would likely spark an edit war among a number of editors? Nableezy (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The archives indicates that there's no consensus or "rough consensus" for its inclusion. Nor has the article been stable. See User:AgadaUrbanit's talk page, which is replete with your warnings that he nor remove the term again. I'm advocating for a clear consensus before controversial and defamatory material is placed in the lede of an article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1 warning about this, though he has been warned for numerous other removals of sourced info because he didnt like it (he was in fact reported to 3rr, I asked the admin to withdraw the complaint when he said he would stop with that type of behavior). And the article has not been stable, the lead has been stable. But my question to you is this. Can you make a policy-based argument for its exclusion? Nableezy (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you do an archive search on "Gaza Massacre" you will get an insane number of results, with a number of them leading to discussion where both the majority of the editors and the strength of the arguments (strength related to policy) are in favor of its inclusion. Your entire argument here, self-admitted, is that you feel the name is untrue and defamatory. You do not dispute that this is the name used by Hamas. The truth of the name is irrelevant, all that matters here is what has Hamas called this conflict. The answer to that question belongs in the lead, just as the answer to the question what has the Israeli government called this conflict belongs in the lead. To argue otherwise is to argue against NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Including "massacre" in the lede is unencyclopedic, NPOV-violative, and WP:N-violative. If Hamas chose to use a propagindistic and blatantly defamatory term for the war it does not mean that it warrants inclusion in the lede, just like lots of things that they say do not belong in encyclopedia articles. It doesn't make a difference that they are a party to the war. Not one reliable mainstream source makes any mention that Hamas called this war the "Gaza Massacre". If after all that was written about the war, not one mainstream source found it important to say that Hamas calls this war the "Gaza Massare", the war's WP article should not include that information. The lede's claim that Hamas calls it the Gaza War is the only statement in the whole entire article that cannot be sourced to to a mainstream source. Did Hamas call it a "massacre"? Sure. But they say lots of things. It is up to the mainstream sources to decide which Hamas statements they find newsworthy and which they don't find newsworthy. What is clear at this point, is that mainstream sources do not consider the Hamas name to be newsworthy, thus their name is unnotable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple RS quote Hamas spokesmen using that name. They did not just call it a 'massacre', they explicitly called it the 'gaza massacre'. And take a look at other battle or war articles, the name each side uses is in the lead. Nableezy (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They might have quoted the Hamas spokesperson who called it the "Gaza Massacre" as part of his general statement, but that doesn't go to the point. Mainstream sources do not say in their own words that "Hamas calls this war the Gaza Massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it for now, till "rough consensus" for wording and section is formed. No place for "edit wars". Let's discuss it in civil way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this the so called 24 hour consensus? This has been beaten to the ground with arguments. And I won't argue this any further. Two people opposing it is not consensus. Thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment in commit refers to OR bellow. Sources do not note X (Hamas, Arab World, Oxford hippies) call this conflict Gaza massacre. From other hand there is source where Khaled Mashal, head of Hamas, called this conflict war: "As we won the Gaza war ...". What event/conflict does he refer to? Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming controversies

How about this, a section in the article discussing the names and issues that people have with the names? You can bring all your sources on defamation and blood libel, and all the sources on issues with naming this after a childrens song as well. The names would stay as the names in the lead with any controversies or complaints about those names in this supposed section. Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that idea if not for the fact that it's OR and it's not really a controversy. As far as I know, no reliable sources consider this naming issue to be a controversy. The whole "controversy" is going on only here at WP. The mainstream sources have basically ignored this "massacre" term and rightfully think that mentioning this defamatory and untruthful term isn't worth the paper its printed on. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it isnt really OR, there are sources bringing up issues with each name, maybe controversy isnt the right word for it though. And mainstream sources (albeit Arab news sources) have in fact used that as the name on occasion, there is a bbc arabic source using it, al-arabiyya used it as well. Just a thought, gets shot down dont care too much. (and i really do refuse to argue about the truthfulness of the name, because i like you and dont want to make you cry, and my opinion doesnt mean much as far as the article goes. but the biggest reason is that i dont think it matters, it is truthful to say that Hamas used this as the name, WP does not say that this was a massacre so i dont see what the issue is) Nableezy (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If Hamas thinks that Jews originate from Apes, should their opinion be placed in the lede of Jew?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. And you dont see the difference there? Hamas is a party to this conflict, in fact a primary party to this conflict. The name they use for this conflict needs to be included, just as the name the Israeli government uses for it needs to be included. Nableezy (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and we have been through this ad naseum. No one can deny its used by Hamas. No one can deny Hamas is one of two main parties to the main conflict. No one can deny that the Israeli name for the operation is bolded and that Cast Lead refers to some religious children's song (making it somewhat offensive to some people out there). No one can deny some people out there are offended by Gaza Massacre. None of this matters. What matters is given all significant POVs their due representation per NPOV. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record (and apropos libel), "cast lead" doesn't refer to a "religious children's song". It refers to a Hanukkah song by Bialik. The conflict started during Hanukkah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

@Nab: There's not much of a difference. Hamas, and Islam in general, play a major part in forming Judaism, how Jews think, how Jews choose to live their lives, etc. Thus, if they think that only Jews originate from monkeys or pigs, their opinion of Jews is as relevant to the lede of Jew as their misconceived, defamatory and propagandistic name they decided to give to the war is relevant to the lede of the war article. For further detailed and specific policy violations, see subsection above and below. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we're getting off topic here, discussing common roots, it was interesting to learn that Islam rejects the Biblical portrayal of David (Arabic Dawood) as an adulterer and murderer. Kind of controversy avoided. I was relieved that Bathsheba still marries David after all. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming WP:OR

Danger Danger - High Voltage Dreidel

Wikipedia procedures rule big time. None of the sources note "X (Hamas,Arab World,Oxford hippies) name for Y (Gaza war) is Z (massacre)". To some fellow editors naming claim looks like WP:OR. Is there ground for removal? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've searched high and low for a reliable source that states "Hamas calls the war the "Gaza Massacre" but have yet to find one. Thus, WP's use of the term apparently violates wp:or/wp:synth, if not wp:n.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean noted that wp:n does not apply to article content though (see WP:NNC). In my eyes the ease of changing variable X value with Hamas, Arab world or Oxford hippies demonstrate original research claim. If anyone disagrees with WP:OR argument please step in, your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

you are removing a name that is sourced to statements by Hamas. That is not OR, if you want change it to say multiple Hamas spokesmen have named the conflict the Gaza massacre. but you are trying to censor out a name given by one side. 64.53.208.76 (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon. This change has been discussed ad nauseum. See above. More in archives. Basically we're guided by WP:OR. More experienced fellow editors explained: "RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that". Thank you for your understanding. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

@IP. We don't know that they named it the "Gaza Massacre". NO reliable source has said so. Our synthesizing of Hamas spokesperson statements is WP:OR. In addition, the name is WP:UNDUE- violative. You see, if no reliable sources felt it was newsworthy to report what name the Hamas spokesperson called this war(whenever people die as a result of Israeli actions they have a tendency to automatically call the incident a "massacre"), it is obviously not that notable. So is mainstream sources think it's unimportant, our emphasis of this information in the lede violates WP:UNDUE. A better place for this information, assuming the WP:OR is resolved, is in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Propaganda and psychological warfare section of the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

you both miss the point, you want to censor out the name given by Hamas, and you have statements from Hamas calling it the Gaza massacre. that is censorship because you dont like the name they gave. 64.53.208.76 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear friend, please assume good faith here. Please respond to Wikipedia procedure argument. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

you apparently think that the only names that matter are the names the Israeli government uses. Wikipedia doesnt work that way, at least it shouldnt if it does. This is garbage, I have read your comments above, you want to remove it because you think it is defamatory or untrue. Sorry, but a whole bunch of the world think that this was a massacre, and you want to remove what the other side has called it out of a sense of defending the national image. That is great that you feel that conviction, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to exercise that defense. 64.53.208.76 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all it will improve this discussion if you spare some time and register into Wikipedia. While we're all undeniably humans, still try to assume good faith. We're guided by Wikipedia procedures. Please respond to WP:OR argument. Would you like to bring new reliable source to resolve WP:OR issue? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

@IP. They surely don't think it was a massacre. The mainstream definition of a massacre is the "systematic and intentional murder of large group of defenseless people." What happned in Gaza doesn't come close to that definition. Why some choose to call it a "massacre" despite the fact that it is clearly not a massacre, I don't know. But regardless, it all depends on what mainstream reliable sources say. All these sources have totally ignored name. They might have ignored the term because they don't lower themselves to using blatantly untrue, propogandistic and defamatory names, or because they know that calling Israeli actions "massacres" is old news, or simply because all the mainstream sources are run by the Elders of Zion. It doesn't really make a difference why they decided to ignore the name. If they decided to ignore the name, our empahsis of the name in the lede vioaltes WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It cant be UNDUE because we give one line to it, it cant be OR because we have statements from Hamas calling it the Gaza massacre, hell we even have a BBC Arabic source calling it the Gaza massacre. Get off it, you know you want to remove because you dont like that they called it that, you even admitted above you do not dispute that they call it that but want it gone because you think it is defamatory. 64.53.208.76 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, give one line to it is not very strong argument in my eyes.

• Factually, with all due respect ( and there is a respect ) the Gaza government used Gaza War name. How do we know that this is the same event?
• Did you follow Al Jazeera English reports and how did they call this event?

And believe me everybody aware that Gaza massacre rhetoric is used a lot, and not only in the Arab world. Nobody denies it.. While Wikipedia is not censored, the material included should be according to Wikipedia policies. See top of this talk page for links. Open yourself an WP account and dive in. Your opinion is welcome. Current one line does not stand WP:OR standard. Could you relate to this argument? Or still think of fellow editors in terms of "secret identity"? Keep cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The UNDUE issue doesn't really require debate because of the WP:OR problem. Regardless, even if it were one line it is in the opening paragraph of the long article and it is in bold. So it is UNDUE. A perfect place for this information, that would not be wp:undue-violative, is at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Propaganda and psychological warfare.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. RS weren't the ones who called the war Operation Cast Lead, they were simply repeating the name giving by Israel. In the same way, RS have repeated the name giving by Hamas. That it was called a war by other RS is not the end of the world. Can we move on, this is dumb. Cryptonio (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, what is your point?

(1) We should remove Operation ...

(2) WP:OR is useless

Stay cool AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

@Cryptonio. The mainstream sources that refer to "Cast Lead" have either used the name as a matter of fact or they have said that Israel refers to the operations as "Case Lead". On the other hand, no mainstream sources have yet to be presented in which they refer to operation as the "Gaza Massacre" or have even said that some in the Arab media refer to the operation as the "Gaza Massacre." Its obvious that some in the Arab media refer to the incident as the "Gaza Massacre". But if mainstream sources have effectively ignored this naming, our emphasis of this name in the lead is wp:synth-problematic and wp:undue-violative. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are saying mainstream sources, i said RS. Cryptonio (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They're synonymous, fapp. You may interchange "mainstream" with "reliable" in any comment of mine. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's try this again then. RS did not named the operation as Cast Lead, they simply repeated it, after hearing the Israeli use that name. Any RS then, who repeats Massacre, are not doing so by naming the operation, they are simply repeating what Hamas said. Then, whatever it is that you are asking, in order to say "If a RS 'calls it' that than it's oka" does not make any sense, simply because they are not "naming" the operation, they are simply repeating what they've heard. Don't believe what I'm saying?...check it.

"no mainstream sources have yet to be presented in which they refer to operation as the "Gaza Massacre" or have even said that some in the Arab media refer to the operation as the "Gaza Massacre."

No RS have been presented who has called the operation as Cast Lead, I'm sure they have made a point that that's the name giving by Israel. That the Arab media hasn't refer to the war as one thing over the other is of no concern here, because the Arab(nor the Israeli) media have no say on this(on what to call the operation, thus the media refers to the fighting as a war). The Israeli media repeats what the IDF called the operation, again, they are not naming the operation themselves, and if they were, well, that's them. More than ample RS have been presented where Hamas refers to the operation as the Gaza Massacre(and thus, the Arab media, repeats what Hamas called the operation). Capiche? i surely hope so... Cryptonio (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the great Robert Fisk in this piece refers to the war as "Israel's Gaza shenanigans". I suggest replacing both Operation Cast Lead and the Gaza Massacre with that to settle the matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

it is not OR and it is a nonsensical position to take, as we have multiple statements from Hamas calling it this. If you want to remove that then also remove every statement from a non-secondary source from the Israeli MFA or the IDF or the IICT. stop playimg fast with the rules to support your agenda. Gandusaleh (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm on board with User:Sean.hoyland's compromise. Although reliable sources do give coverage to the operation name and don't give coverage to the propagandistic name, if that is what it would take to make the article's lede somewhat mainstream, that's what we'll have to do. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda and psychological warfare

Mo way to graphically describe a disaster of sensibly blending of two roots

Why that heading? Israel spent a lot of money and made a lot of effort making thousands of phonecalls and dropping thousands of leaflets to warn residents of incoming attacks. Why is the 'warning' part left out, that was the purpose. Also, like I wrote in the article, but was removed, the warning mentioned that people who had terrorists and weapons hidden in their homes, or near the area, needed to leave before their houses were bombed. The IDF emphasised this to show that they weren't targetting civilians, that anyone associated with Hamas terrorists (sorry, militants), needed to disassociate themselves, i.e. get out of that area, and not get invlved with militants or storing their weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.35.19 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That heading is there because the sources describe what is covered in that section as propaganda and psychological warfare. Nableezy (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence, was just about to start this section. So far, we have 'Before the end of the pre-conflict ceasefire, Hamas started boasting that it had countless surprises awaiting Israeli troops, should they advance' without source. Let me contribute a little:

If you are stupid enough to enter the Gaza Strip, we will fight you. You will face not only thousands of fighters but a 1.5 million people who will fight you, out of their desire to die the deaths of martyrs, Khaled Mashal at a press conference in Damascus, March 1, 2008.http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e028.pdf

If you commit a foolish act by raiding Gaza, we may have a second or a third Shalit, said Khaled Meshaal. If you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive then a black destiny awaits you, you will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of the God. You entered like rats, added Hamas spokesman on Al Aqsa TV. Gaza will be a graveyard for you, God willing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4077764/Hamas-threatens-black-destiny-if-Israeli-soldiers-enter-Gaza.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas hides the casualties suffered by its operatives. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e037.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The exaggerated description of the IDF forces and their abilities was coupled by descriptions of alleged military “successes” which Hamas spokesmen were keen to boast of as the fighting was coming to an end. For example: a false announcement on abducting an IDF soldier on January 12, publications about a rocket attack (which never happened) on an IDF base 50 km away, the supposed destruction of 11 Israeli tanks, taking (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod, and more. Of particular note was the “victory speech” of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades spokesman Abu Obeida (Al-Aqsa TV, January 19), which was rife with false descriptions of the “heroic campaign and war of salvation” waged by Hamas. Thus, for example, according to Abu Obeida, no less than 80 (!) IDF soldiers were killed, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with the terrorists. Abu Obeida claims that the IDF is loathe to publish the real number of casualties, reporting instead that they died in car accidents (according to IDF Spokesman data, as at January 19 ten soldiers were killed during the operation, including four who died as a result of friendly fire ).http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e048.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas strictly forbids the publication of the names of its terrorist operatives who were killed during the fighting , especially since the ground operation began. http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901133351/global-terrorism/operation-cast-lead-update-no-12.html. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree this section is a POV toxic disaster. Kind of Vulcan mind meld of Propapsywar. Really, Nableezy. Reliable sources has nothing to do with that. Sceptic, thank you for new sources. To make things better we could:

1. Remove redundant stuff about "day before" and "surprise" - it is already discussed in Conflict Escalates.

2. Put relevant "Propaganda" stuff into Media. Calling Israeli media campaign (PR) a Propaganda is far from neutral. Some sources do that - Wikipedia should remain NPOV.

3. Break psywar stuff neutralized with new sources integrated between belligerents and make two Psywar subsection of Israeli offensive and Palestinian military activity.

This section needs serious work. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My aim was to put more weight to psy war Hamas leads. I think it deserves a separate subsection. I would like to see eventually all the headlines I provided: concrete threats and intimidations by Hamas seniors; hiding number of casualties; false claims of success and victory. Of course I wouldn't mind dispersing Israeli propaganda a bit.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to put Israeli psy war in the context. Some believed Israel wanted intimidate Gaza population, however others saw it as warning to civilians in Urban warfare battlefield. Additions of new sourced material usually undergo WP:BRD, so be bold and in case of revert feel free to discuss to satisfy fellow editors concerns. Is there any objection to structural article change? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is how it is percieved:

Before and during the Cast Lead Operation, Hamas' senior representatives released number of statements designed to intimidate Israeli decision-makers from launching any military operation in Gaza and to cause demoralization among Israelis. Speaking from Damascus on March 1, 2008, Khaled Mashal promised to fight any Israeli aggression with 1.5 million people who will willingly die deaths of martyrs. On the eve of the ground incursion by Israeli forces, Khaled Mashal presumed that if IDF launch ground offensive, black destiny and abductions await Israeli soldiers. Hamas spokesman added that with the God's help Gaza will become a graveyard to Israeli troops.

In an effort to boost the morale of its fighters, Hamas prohibited publishing photographs, names or details of those members of the resistance who got killed or injured in the fighting.

On the video launched on Al-Aqsa TV on January 10, showing the names of Israeli towns hit by rockets, it was implied Tel-Aviv is the next target and that 'all options are open'.

In the course of the operation, Hamas released numerous announcements, exaggerating military success achieved by its fighters. For example, Hamas claimed on January 12 that IDF soldier was abducted; declared destruction of 11 Israeli tanks; took (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod; hit an IDF aircraft over the northern Gaza Strip. Following the end of the fighting, Hamas proclaimed victory and estimated that no less than 80 IDF soldiers fell in Gaza, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with its fighters. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Hamas engaged in psywar + propaganda.(been waiting a long time to say that). Sources of course must address these actions as such(pro+psy) to avoid misrepresentation issues. Within the section itself, we could address that multiple RS talk about Israel's actions in other terms other than pro+psy, so perhaps is not necessary to break anything up or add another section, although if done right, and followed through, all options are more than available. Cryptonio (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understood what you are actually trying to say, though seems like you do not have general objection to include the above. I'll try to insert it and if you have reservations, we will discuss it.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the one para where I couldn't verify the sources used had identify practices as pro + psy war. The rest I checked. Cryptonio (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This one darnit "In another report compiled by IITC, evidencies for Hamas’s effort to perpetuate a victory myth in the warfare are produced: in the course of the fighting, Hamas released numerous announcements, exaggerating military success achieved by its fighters, claiming that more IDF soldiers were abducted; declared destruction of 11 Israeli tanks; took (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod; hit an IDF aircraft over the northern Gaza Strip. [198] Following the end of the fighting, Hamas proclaimed victory and estimated that no less than 80 IDF soldiers fell in Gaza, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with its fighters. [199]" Cryptonio (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We would like a response on these two matters please.

Read here: [25]. 'And there is another fact coming to light ever more obviously, visiting the hospitals, clinics and families of the victims of Israeli fire: In reality their numbers appear much lower than 1300 dead and another 5000 injured, as reported by the men of Hamas and repeated by the UN officials and the local Red Cross. “The dead can’t be more than 500 or 600. There are many youths between 17 and 23, recruited by Hamas, who sent them quite literally to the slaughter.” Said the doctor from the Shifah hospital who under no circumstances wanted to be quoted for he risked his life.' In my view, Cremonesi report is not helpful right now in the dead count section. However, as I said before, it will be more than helpful for other sections of the article. Fear and intimidation of the local population seems appropriate for the psy-war section, even if the headline does not say so explicitly. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the standard that we've been working with in here. if you notice the pro+psy war on Israel, all sources explicitly address the techniques under those terms, otherwise it wouldn't have stood the test of time. I don't know what your reason would be to include that information under any other section, because you have yet to provide one, but know that by simply implying that it should go there is not a reason. Cryptonio (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Related to this posting in the article of course.

A reporter from Gaza stated he had difficultly gathering evidencies as the local population is terrified of Hamas and threatened when not collaborating with the 'resistance'. [199]

If the RS does not address them as pro+psy war, then you are the one who make the judgment to call them that, and that would be WP:OR. I hope that this doesn't take much time to understand. Cryptonio (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue, the paragraph in question cite The battle for hearts and minds (198 and 199 is the same source). To start with, 'the battle for hearts and minds' and 'effort to perpetuate a victory myth ' sound a synonym to 'propaganda' to me. If this is not convincing, here is more from the text of the report: 'Operation Cast Lead was also a virtual war of TV screens, media, and public opinion. The battle for the hearts and minds is now entering its critical stage, with Hamas attempting to create a narrative according to which it has won the war (“divine victory”) or at least was not defeated standing against the fearsome war machine of the IDF. That effort is coordinated by the Hamas leadership in both Damascus and the Gaza Strip and is shared by the Hamas media, Al-Jazeera (which gives strategic support to Hamas's propaganda campaign) and Iran and Syria ' para. 1; 'Those who follow Hamas's propaganda, the statements made by its leaders, and Al-Jazeera TV, may get the impression that the IDF's activity in the Gaza Strip focused solely on harming the civilian population, while terrorist operatives are not seen and not heard.' para. 10; 'the Hamas propaganda emphasizes its ability to continuously fire rockets at Israel during Operation Cast Lead, including at Israeli cities not hit prior to the operation. Hamas spokesmen noted that, before the war, the rockets only reached Ashkelon (up to 20 km from the Gaza Strip), but during the war it reached such distant places (located up to 40 km from the Gaza Strip) as Beersheba and Ashdod. During the war, Hamas's propaganda even bragged that more population centers (up to Tel-Aviv) would be put in the range of fire' para. 13; 'the false statements made by Hamas about the IDF's alleged losses and about events that never happened have yet to create the desired effect in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion' para. 16 (again, sounds like synonym to 'propaganda'); 'the Israeli home front functioned properly during the rocket fire in Operation Cast Lead, not providing Hamas's propaganda with enough “proof” to establish an image of victory' para. 17. In short, the entire report is about Hamas' propaganda. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of propaganda.

Just in case, Hamas hides the casualties suffered by its operatives: 'to confirm (through Al-Jazeera and other media) the false propaganda message that Israel's military operations are aimed against Gaza Strip residents and that only the civilian population is being hit by the IDF and is paying the price.' para 3.c

Regarding the second issue. To start with, do you agree the sentence based on Cremonesi report is correct? If not, why? If yes, where do you think it fits best? Or maybe you think it is not significant enough to be mentioned? Lorenzo Cremonesi: 'These Locals are often threatened by Hamas...“This is not a new fact, in the Middle East, Arab societies are missing the cultural traditions of human rights. It happened during Arafat’s regime that the press started being persecuted and censured. With Hamas it is even worse,” said Eyad Sarraj". Now, to say that intimidation, physical violence and censorship are not means of psy-war aganst own population is, in my view, concealing.

While preparing this reply, I came across this:Creating a Citizenry Prepared for Terrorism. I should have thought of it earlier. 'The public must understand that terrorism is psychological warfare'; Terror as a Strategy of Psychological Warfare 'The modern terrorist differs from the common criminal in that he is motivated by a political agenda', 'way to the terrorist’s ultimate political goal runs through a vital interim objective—the creation of an unremitting paralyzing sensation of fear in the target community'; A Form of Psychological Warfare 'Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear in the attainment of political change. It is thus undeniably a form of psychological warfare. Terrorists use violence—or, equally important, wield the threat of violence—because they believe that only through brutal mayhem can their cause triumph and long-term political aims be attained.' Is there any doubt that rockets on Israeli towns, sowing terror, is means of psy-war? Is there any doubt that intimidation of Gaza own population is means of psy-war? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first issue, it seems as the article itself is propaganda, I am not going to touch your explanation either. Since it's 'sort' of sourced, i'm leaving it at that.

On the reporter's statement, I have doubts I exist, so if the reporter's article does not address the claims as pro+psy war, I don't think it belongs on that section and I am not going in the business of looking for a place to put information. By your explanation on the first issue, don't you think that the reporter's article does not belong in pro+psy war? yes, I did not payed much attention to your argument trying to put words on the report's mouth. In conclusion, I personally no longer have a problem with Issue number 1, and I insist the reporter's sentence be removed from the pro+psy war section. Cryptonio (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first issue, I will anyway be adding more sources so it would not be based solely on IITC report. On the second issue, I fail to see how did I 'put words in reporter's mouth'. My source clearly says that 'Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you'; 'Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas'. Nevertheless, since 'Hamas reprisal attacks' section is now renamed into 'Hamas political violence', the sentence is indeed more appropriate there. Are we settled? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I improved the citing and added other sources, including Al-Jazeera and Ma'an News agency that support many of the findings in the IITC report.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

About Lorenzo Cremonesi's statements

Cremonesi's statements about estimated casualties and violations of human rights of Gazan civilians by Hamas can be found on the external links listed by myself.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

LiveLeak is not an acceptable source. And rules about NPOV and placing due weight on given statements mean that Cremonesi's ideas, if included, only merit around two or three sentences... not four paragraphs. The Squicks (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right about LiveLeak, but what about the other three sources? I think that the BBC, The Jerusalem Post and Israel Today are acceptable sources. Cremonesi's statements are also mentioned here and here, so I think that this information should be included; there is a big difference between 500 to 600 deaths and 1,100 to 1,500 deaths. If the estimates given by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the Israel Defense Forces and the Gaza Strip-based Palestinian Ministry of Health (controlled by Hamas) are cited, why not those of Cremonesi? I think that this issue should have been discussed before removing the information added by myself.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You didnt address the major concern, which was undue weight. His numbers are his own, and when we didnt have official numbers from the Israelis or Palestinians they were useful. Both sides say more than 1300 dead, do you have a reason why we should also include this one reporters number? Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think this is getting undue weight, then by all means, edit it down to what you think gives it reasonable weight. Don't go and just delete it. It's from an RS and gives important perspective on some possible reasons for the discrepancy between the official numbers by someone who was on the ground during the conflict. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We have been through this before, this information was once in the article. There was consensus to remove it as we got the official numbers from each side. Due weight here is no weight. Not every little piece of information you find on google needs to be in an encyclopedia article. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you justify keeping this content that is based on one reporters opinion? An opinion that has been disproved by all involved parties. The IDF says 1100+, yet you want to dedicate multiple paragraphs to this. Can you give a single rational reason why a single sentence should appear about this outdated and inaccurate number. Again, a number that nobody recognizes as having any validity. This does not belong in the article, and instead of making an actual argument you just re-revert it. Nableezy (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Partially agree. Indeed, this is no help for fatalities issue (even though empty beds is interesting finding in itself). However, his report and evidencies he recorded might be helpful in other sections. 'Palestinians told Cremonesi of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances'; 'A woman spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets'; 'Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292938156&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in the line that we had back before it was agreed to take it out. Please do not reinsert 5 paragraphs dedicated to a single reporter. We can go over the rest of what Sceptic said in another section and where it might fit. Nableezy (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:RS stating, among other things, that the Hamas was using civilians as human shields, that they used schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings and other densely inhabited locations to launch attacks, that they arrested, tortured and killed supposed political opponents, and that a certain doctor told him certain things about the dead and wounded.

It is not about the reporter, it's about the report from a RS. If you'd like to condense all that information (much of which is corroborated by other RSs, by the way) into a few lines, by all means, do so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is a city, so wherever armed militants would hide behind or over should be either "schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings" or any other type of building anyway, I am not sure how this should be called human-shielding this is regular guerrilla warfare in a city, do IDF really have to bomb a house where civilians living while they invading a city covering behind safe tanks. That is no good reason for me. On the instant a militant stays in a clear area, a jet will bomb him, you cannot expect anyone to throw himself as a clear target. Hamas has near no heavy arms that can even penetrate the tanks anyway. If IDF really like to clear Hamas that much and don't harm civillians, why don't they send troops for 1v1 fights with rifles. But bombing them afar along with civilians, is much more easy for them. If Hamas is human shielding, then IDF is human targeting. Try to be fair for the situation. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and WP:OR. Your personal views on the situation notwithstanding, if a RS reports that, for example, Hamas was using schools, mosques or public buildings to launch military attacks thereby rendering these buildings legitimate military targets according to the laws of war, that should be reflected in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you actually justify your reverts, or is that asking for too much? Nableezy (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An article with the propogandastic "massacre" placed in the lede is not unduly weighted when it provides ample discussion on the amount of dead. The Israeli number's shouldn't preclude anything. After all, Shimon Peres himself was hoodwinked in another "massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

welcome back, but why include this number from somebody that is rejected by both sides? Nableezy (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nab, but as you're well aware it's the reliable sources that rule the day around here. And as outlined above these types of discrepancies on both sides are not unprecedented.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sources rule, but the report of a single reporter gets the same treatment as the numbers used by the governments of each side which get thousands of times greater weight in the sources? This is a number from the middle of the fighting, that both sides confirm is low. The IDF has confirmed 1100+ dead, yet we dedicate paragraphs to somebody who based his numbers on how empty the hospitals felt to him? Nableezy (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cremonesi is mentioned at length, violating undue weight for just one reporter, whose rushed testimony gets several lines. Secondly I can't see where the page sources his comments. Where are the footnotes to the articles he wrote (he wrote many, and several could be quoted to give different impressions)?Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the death tolls given by the IDF, the PCHR and the PMoH don't necessarily imply that Cremonesi's statements aren't relevant. He's an experienced reporter who works for an internationally renowned newspaper. He allegedly was on the ground, interviewed Gaza Strip's inhabitants and a doctor, visited hospitals and witnessed relevant facts, something that wasn't made by other journalists of the international media and investigators of the ICRC, HRW, AI, UNRWA,... If we trust the media and these organizations, who didn't base their figures on exhaustive investigations on the ground, but on Palestinian or Israeli sources (specially those of the Palestinians), and then we say that Cremonesi's statements are necessarily wrong or irrelevant, I think that something fails here.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the source in the article for his statements? Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy of WP:RS does not require that the reliable sources provide their sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I read several articles, and that one article is the one originally sourced, and no longer so. This is a rapid translation of what he wrote of some of the hospitals in that brief visit. Nothing like it is being cited from Cremonesi.

'A choral scream of 'shahid, shahid'(matyr) accompanies one on entering the hospital. Two stretchers red with blood, on them two corpses. Men, youngsters, brains dripping from the skull. Some women dressed in black, their faces without veils call on Allah, and weep. When they catch sight of a western journalist they weigh in against Israel and its nazi crimes. Some wounded then come in, at least six. One is shaken by continuous trembling: he too has a head wound. You can't recognize his face the nose split, the eyes opened wide. Today Israel hit the villages of the south eastern zone hard, the ones that face the Negev desert. Two names continually crop up: Abasan e Kuza, with, respectively 25.000 and 16.000 inhabitants. "Practically all the most serious victims of the last 24 hours come from those two villages'. Our hospital sends the hardest cases to the most important hospital, the "Nasser" Hospital of Khan Yunis," Kamal Mussa, the institute's administrative director tells me. Chaos dominates the place. The guards allow everyone in to the emergency treatment area. The doctors seem professional, many of them have studied abroad, in Cairo, but also in France, Italy and the United States. There's no shortage of medicines, nor equipment. But the crowd is excessive, the emergency ward's overwhelmed by it. 'The Israelis have no humanity, they fire into the thick of crowds, don't distinguish between soldiers and civilians, aim at children, fire at homes,' the members of, the Qodeh and Argelah, the clans hit hardest (by the attacks) scream. One fact seems obvious, at least for south Gaza: there's no malnutrition. Notwithstanding the price rises, and the shortage of certain kinds of food, the blockade on movement, no one is dying of starvation in Gaza. 'The situation's much worse in the great refugee camps further north, like Jabaliah. But here in the south there's no lack of food', Saber Sarafandi, a 30 year old intern doctor tells me. He and his colleague, the nurse, Mohammad Lafi, just back from a long course of specialization in the US, are clearly moderates. There's little they share with the culture of holy war and islamic fundamentalism propagated by Hamas. To the contrary, they look on the lads with long bears and in black uniforms moving about the reception area with a certain distaste. Yet they both are assured of one fact: 'It's true that Hamas broke the truce and caused the beginning of battle to precipitate on the 27 December. But Israel had us in a stranglehold, and nthey had no alternative. The gravity of things are so much a matter of the targeted murders which israel perpetrated even during the truce. Rather, it's the sealing off of Gaza like one big prison. Hamas's choice was one between being killed over a slow fire, or quickly in war. And they were right to choose the immediate clash, a scream (of remonstrance) to the outside world. Because of this they are winning the population's sympathy. Hamas today is stronger than it has ever been amongst out people'. . .At the Nasser, it's the administrative director, We’am Fares, who supplies us in detail with the figures for the war. All 350 beds in his hospital are occupied.'Just today we have taken in 12 dead and 48 wounded, aged between 13 and 75. From the 27th of December we (alone) have had 680 dead, and 183 wounded, at least 35% of whom were children under 14 years of age.' . .Christopher Oberlin, a Parisian surgeon who arrived three days ago on behalf of the French government (speaking of phosphorus wounds),'I personally haven't seen any victims of it, and I don't know whether I would really be able to distinguish them from other wounded, I'm not a doctor with experience of war wounds'. But he's certain of one thing.ìThe Israelis say that only 30% of the Palestinian victims are civilians. This is a blatant lie, and I am ready to testify to that bvefore any international tribunal. The exact opposite is true: at least 80% of the victims are children, including babies, women, and old people. What they are doing here is shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it. And the wounds I've seen are horrible.. A good many patients die in surgery'. Towards 10 pm other ambulances full of wounded arrive. A painful scene follows, lightened only by the wide smile of Asma, a 10 year old young girl with a throat wound, who speaks nonetheless rapidly, almost happily, and promises that she will go on to study at the university.'Lorenzo Cremonesi, A GAZA TRA MACERIE E RABBIA (In Gaza, between ruins and wrath).Corriere della Sera, 14 gennaio 2009

The 500-600 people who have died, does not specify absolutely anything. How many where civilians and how many were combatants? if they were all civilians, they surpass the total number of IDF's civilian casualties. And if 300 were combatants and 300 were civilians, they actually underestimate IDF's total combatant numbers, in direct contradiction to the statement that says, PCHR over-estimated civilian casualties. And if 450 were combatants and 150 were cicilian, the reporter's count actually under estimated the casualties count according to the IDF and PCHR, making both parties guilty of over-stating casualty counts. I am removing this section, for good reasons. Cryptonio (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Then, are Cremonesi's statements less valid only because they overestimate or underestimate the death tolls given by the PCHR and the IDF? The IDF also underestimated non-combatant figures given by the PCHR, and the PCHR overestimated non-combatant figures given by the IDF. So, according to your point of view, Israeli and Palestinian figures should be removed, too.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The PCHR and IDF aren't over or under estimated. They are unverified for now, and the reporters figures does not verify neither one of them, but does criticize one side yet neglects to state that it is also in contradiction with the IDF's numbers. Why are you arguing this for ah? can't see the point? The UN report will look at both, the IDF's and PMH's numbers, it is safe to say, when looking at range, under-over, that the reporters numbers will be make looked as a field excursion by a reporter while the war was going on. The reporter simply does not criticizes the IDF's numbers but does the PHM's, if you can find a report that criticizes both, then it would go up there. Don't add this up again if you don't have any good reason, thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In a number's dispute, the reporter's statements don't provide enough verifiability if it's used to verify actual count etc. The two figures here in dispute are the PMH's numbers and the IDF's, the reporters statements and numbers in this context, are used to get an outside account(in lieu of UN numbers), but when it criticizes one side and not the other, when it's own numbers are in contradiction with both camps, then it no longer serves it purpose, and so the whole commentary can be rendered obsolete. This is elementary as in, get it the first time. Cryptonio (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And who does provide enough verifiability for you? The IDF? The PCHR? The PMoH, which is under Hamas control? The reporter says that 500 to 600 people were killed, the IDF says more than 1,100, the PCHR and the PMoH say that more than 1,300. The verifiability of all of these sources is questionable; the neutrality of the Israeli and the Palestinian sources is also questionable. Then appears this reporter (who made more than a field excursion) quoting a doctor, and his numbers are less valid only because he critizises only one side? Israelis and Palestinians also critized just one side (that is, the other) but their unverifiable figures were put in this article. By the way, is not a contradiction citing the PMoH death toll and delete Cremonesi's death toll, which is based on a declaration of an individual who presumably works for the PMoH?--Follgramm3006 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio: That's not the way things work around here. You can't discount and wholly delete a reliable source because you have issues with the content. Please revert. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The content has issues with the article, that you don't want to follow the case being made is not my idea of fault. I was not the one who added this information, I was the one who removed it. Statements by both sides, and ample has been made, critisizing the version of the other are more than welcome. The UN report shall make everything good. That in the meantime we have a report by a reporter, in such a delicate matter, is of no use to us and does no justice. That the report critizes Hamas when it doesn't, where it doesn't is not right, and of course that it fails to address the other side's "accounting mistake" is the main issue. Cryptonio (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a RS reporting on events pertinent to this article. What you think is right or not about how this RS treats Hamas is also irrelevant. This is how wikipedia works, for good or bad. Feel free to include other sources that say this source is wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all RS reporting about the subject is included in this article. So that "one size fits all" barrage is not welcoming. It is not about Hamas, bud, it is about criticizing PHM numbers when its own numbers are also in conflict with IDF's numbers. Feel free to find a source that would criticize both sides numbers. Cryptonio (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) has been notified of WP:ARBPIA here. If he doesn't stop edit-warring I'd suggest you post a notification on WP:AE -- further reverting will only escalate and won't help the article. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.04.2009 07:04

I do not need to find a source that "criticize both sides" that is not how wikipedia works. You need to find a source that criticizes the source you don't like. We were reaching something several editors from both sides of the issue seemed to be able to live with, but apparently that's not good enough. I won't edit further since I'm close to WP:3RR but I'm sure someone else will. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Follgram seems to have trouble conversing. Another argument against the source he keeps reverting, is htat the reporter quote ONE single doctor. What doctor is this? head nurse? the reporter doesn't even 'allude' that the doctor is a director or something like that, able to speak in that capacity. I would like a response on this matter, before reverting this again. Cryptonio (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Read here: [19]. 'And there is another fact coming to light ever more obviously, visiting the hospitals, clinics and families of the victims of Israeli fire: In reality their numbers appear much lower than 1300 dead and another 5000 injured, as reported by the men of Hamas and repeated by the UN officials and the local Red Cross. “The dead can’t be more than 500 or 600. There are many youths between 17 and 23, recruited by Hamas, who sent them quite literally to the slaughter.” Said the doctor from the Shifah hospital who under no circumstances wanted to be quoted for he risked his life.' In my view, Cremonesi report is not helpful right now in the dead count section. However, as I said before, it will be more than helpful for other sections of the article. Fear and intimidation of the local population seems appropriate for the psy-war section, even if the headline does not say so explicitly. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the standard that we've been working with in here. if you notice the pro+psy war on Israel, all sources explicitly address the techniques under those terms, otherwise it wouldn't have stood the test of time. I don't know what your reason would be to include that information under any other section, because you have yet to provide one, but know that by simply implying that it should go there is not a reason. Cryptonio (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are people here who think that Cremonesi's information should be included. In my point of view, Cremonesi's information is interesting for the article, and the PCHR response, too.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Im with you bud, anything Cremonesi is all important to this article. Nicely done. Cryptonio (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

All of this civility is going to drive me to drink. You gotta be Cremonesi himself Follagram, not only you add this information to the article, information that was included in the article for a LONG time and almost in its entirety, and that was removed by a Pro-israeli editor(whose name i will withold for a fear for my life). Plus you also add the external link of the report to "SEE ALSO"? IN ITALIAN?? that move is more to make the report more relevant than what it is. You have to be Cremonesi, trying to get some air space in the article. And can somebody tell brewcrwer i don't appreciate him writing in my talk page. Thanks all. Civility rules kids, be nice to one another. Cryptonio (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To Cryptonio. I left a rather lengthy response to your inquires in psy-war section. Cremonesi issue is of course the most problematic one. I think it is more than obvious that terror (including own population) is means of psy-war. I provided some links that indirectly support it. If you still oppose, I will seek a way to challenge your standard. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating certain 'tag lines' in hopes that it becomes the standard. And those tag lines are pretty, obvious, POV. You throw these lines as if we have to adapt to your terminology and beliefs. It's not working, dude. Cryptonio (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not Lorenzo Cremonesi.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Inter law section

Can someone explain how this isn't WP:SYNTH since the reporter's remarks isn't even sourced? And where in either of the "two" sources is International Law violations are mentioned? as per long standing requisite?

Il Corriere della Sera's correspondent for the Middle East, Lorenzo Cremonesi, reported that Hamas used Gazan civilians as human shields, and that they carried out armed operations from schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings and other densely inhabited locations. Cremonesi also reported that Hamas arrested, tortured and killed supposed political opponents and people allegedly involved in acts of collaboration with Israel. Cremonesi stated that he based his report on interviews with local citizens. The political violence allegations have been corroborated by a HRW report on the subject.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that launching military attacks from hospitals and press buildings (at the very least) are breaches of international law.

There was a source for the Corriere stuff, must have gotten lost in all the reverts that went on yesterday. I'm not touching this article today so nobody would have an excuse to try and block me, but I'm sure you can find it if you're really interested.

Also, I think the name of this section should be changed to something along the lines of "International law and human rights". The (badly named) "Hamas reprisal attacks" could be merged into it as well as it covers some of the same stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We should mention the journalist's objection, yet only limited to 1 or 2 sentences at most, along with proper references for further research in reference section. Yet dedicating him parapraphs long, is out of question. He wasn't the only one in town. If they were such outrageous difference in numbers, UN reporters or other journalists would definately notice. Kasaalan (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We were able to limit the Cremonesi stuff to a couple of sentences about how he didn't see a lot of wounded and a couple more about other information he gathered like so, in a way that at least Nableezy and myself seemed to be able to live with. That was reverted. Feel free to weigh in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because I'm a whiney little girl about it... the section is still off and needs to be restructured. Don't mind most of the content just the flow and weight given to certain sources.Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check Cremonesi completely since he claimed he visited 4 hospitals and they were not that crowded, but did he also checked Red Cross and UN hospitals, because they clearly say they are overwhelmed by the patients, "A health expert with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Gaza said on December 28 that hospitals were "overwhelmed and unable to cope with the scale and type of injuries that keep coming in." The ICRC noted that medical supplies and medicines were already badly depleted as a result of Israel's prohibition of most imports into Gaza since Hamas took full internal control of the territory in June 2007." [20] Kasaalan (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the 'police' issue

Righ now, the 'disputed figures' subsection says that 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223]' and 'IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police assist rocket launching squads, however HRW argues that "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities".[224]' I argue that first sentence is POV citation of [223]:http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelgaza-civilians-must-not-be-targets. This is what it actually says: "Firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of Israel's actions in Gaza," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "At the same time, Israel should not target individuals and institutions in Gaza solely because they are part of the Hamas-run political authority, including ordinary police. Only attacks on military targets are permissible, and only in a manner that minimizes civilian casualties." "Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets," Stork said. "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose." And later, the definition: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' [224] is very partial (and apparently inaccurate) quotation of HRW itself. So, what I propose is that the full definition is given: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' This is significant, since the second part of the definition that I emphasized was simply taken out. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to explain this exact point here. There are some refs there you can use. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the second sentence, [224] I see it as a partial (and apparently inaccurate) quotation of HRW itself. I am not an expert, but in my comprehension, "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities" contradicts the definition. The definition, provided by HRW itself, says 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities'. I understand this that if a policeman is at the same time a member of the fighting force, it is not required to catch him launching rockets or engage in shooting. Anyway, for now I can live with the second sentence, but I hope there will be finally broad consensus on the first one.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Mr ex-Nice Guy, this is simply astounding!: http://www.btselem.org/english/Legal_Documents/HCJ_769_02_20061214_Targeted_killing_Ruling_Summary_Eng.doc

I think we can cite whole paragrphs out of there. Cheers.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So, we agree on the point. Still, I have to emphasize once again: this is not a matter of interpretation. I argue that the first sentence taken from [223] is partial out of context misquoting of the source itself.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You will also notice that here and here HRW says it is legitimate to target the homes and offices of Hamas and Hizbollah military commanders. They don't need to be shooting at anyone at the time. The main misunderstanding here is that some people want to believe that "taking direct part in hostilities" means "shooting someone right this second". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To emphasize it with Summary of Judgment from HCJ:'a civilian who has joined a terrorist organization and commits a chain of hostilities, with short periods of rest between them, loses his immunity from attack for the entire time of his activity. For such a civilian, the rest between hostilities is nothing other than preparation for the next act of hostilities'. The hostilities between Gaza and Israel didn't start in December 2008 and didn't end in January 2009 (unfortunately)Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC).

'A civilian who violates this principle and takes direct part in hostilities does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct part in hostilities he does not enjoy the protections granted to a civilian. He is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject'. It might be OK from PCHR to count policemen with double affiliation as 'civilians' but it is OK to target those policemen and this is of course an important distinction. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, maybe we should take this to combatant where we can get some more eyes which are not involved in this specific conflict, and once we get the whole thing hashed out there, we can apply the conclusions to other articles where relevant. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, though I doubt it will be read soon.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. A person is either a combatant or a non-combatant. A person is either a civilian, or a member of an armed force. You can be a civilian and a combatant. You can be a member of an armed force and a non-combatant. The fact PCHR uses "civilians/non-combatants" is misleading in and of itself. How do they classify civilian combatants like (to give an extremely obvious example) someone who's not a member of any organization who takes his personal hunting rifle and joins a battle? They can put him in either column and still be technically correct. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the deepest knowledge about the issue, yet try to reconsider the status of a policemen in Palestine first, and I am not very sure the Palestine policemen even do carry guns. So that might be a reason, I will check the issue. Also even if they do carry guns, policemen in no country has any heavy-weapons that can object against armed troops like IDF, which carry heavy artillery that can even resist to any soldier that equipped heavily. The result would be instant death, against bullet-proof jackets of IDF, or tanks, or jets anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you find, Kasaalan, some very original arguments. Whether or not police in Gaza carries guns is irrelevant. What is relevant is how come many of the policemen killed have simultaneously double duties in police and Hamas. Go read Obituaries for Fathi al-Kurd, police officer and at the same time artillery unit commander in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Asked an expert about the situation, and Gaza policemen carry guns, and even rifles time to time for various reasons, my mistake. I also sent a letter to PCHR about the issue. Yet, PCHR may not be able to get every record, so while they listed them as policemen, they might not know they were also member of armed wing of Hamas. Moreover since the counter sources also POV, we should also check if their claims are true. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We got carried away. The prime reason this section was started is this: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223]', which is POV citation of [223]: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelgaza-civilians-must-not-be-targets. It should be 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

During the strike noone can distinct, if a policeman is Hamas militant or not, so if the policeman shoots he is not civilian but if he doesn't shoot the policeman should be called civilian. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting fully is more helpful. I agree on taking full quote.

Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes, especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.

Also the report you provided clearly shows IDF even bombed graduation ceremony of police students, dozens of students killed in 1 strike. So when they bomb policemen and police students, expecting police to not involve situation is a bit of a dream. They even bombed traffic police station. So how a graduation ceremony can violate international rules for police to be called civilians. So at least we know 40 of the policemen that killed should be considered as civilians. Some rare policemen might have been members of armed wing of Hamas, but that cannot justify dozens of police candidate's bombing in their graduation. Kasaalan (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it right to bomb the policeman? Maybe. Maybe not. But what the heck does this have to do with writing the article? We don't have to decide for ourselves whether or not Israelis are devils or are saints. This is not our mission.

The article says: HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223] and IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police assist rocket launching squads, however HRW argues that "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities".[224]

This fairly represents what HRW thinks. I don't see how there can be a dispute here. The Squicks (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue Sceptic Ashdod brought up here is that [224] which is a newspaper piece contradicts what HRW says in [223] which is its own publication. To wit, "Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.". The BBC piece is unsourced in its claim of what HRW says about the issue. That is the dispute. I'm new here. What's the procedure in such a case? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is some more info from HRW:

extended quote from HRW collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
May Israel lawfully attack police stations and police personnel in Gaza? Israel has launched repeated attacks on police stations in Gaza, killing and injuring large numbers of police. The legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors; it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets. Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities. Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities. Without further research on the ground, it is not yet possible to determine whether the police stations struck by Israel served any military purpose, and were therefore legitimate objects of attack.

I think from that we can say the following regarding HRW's position:

Human Rights Watch has stated that police are presumptively civilians unless they are directly participating in the hostilities. (note: I dont think we need to formally incorporated into the armed forces, Gaza has no formal army) If they do take part in hostilities they may be attacked while actively participating in the hostilities. HRW also stated that police stations are presumptively civilians unless they are being used for military purposes, sush as serving as military headquarters or storing weapons. However, even if the police stations are legitimate targets, laws concerning proportionality dictate that disproportionate harm to civilians, including police, does not occur. source

Nableezy (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're playing fast and lose with the definition of "armed forces". Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza and AlQassam Brigades are their official army, with a diciplined chain of command, etc. You don't really think that they get extra protection because they deliberately refuse to distinguish themselves from the local population by wearing a uniform or insignia, do you? In fact, they get less. They are unpriviledged combatants.
Anyway, both your HRW quote and mine specifically say Hamas fighters are legitimate targets. Also, for the 15th time, "taking active part in the hostilities" doesn't mean "participating in a battle right now", as the fact that military commanders may be targetted in their homes and places of work proves. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is still going on. We need to get past this. No, Nableezy isn't playing fast and lose with the definition with the definition of "armed forces". He's just using the same definition used by the Supreme Court of Israel, HRW, ICRC i.e. the definition in the Third Geneva Convention. No one, not the Surpreme Court of Israel, not the IDF, not the IDF's lawyers, not HRW, not ICRC, not the UN, absolutely nobody has said that Hamas are the "armed forces of a party to a conflict" in the way that HRW use the phrase and are therefore entitled to POW status etc. They are not "armed forces of a party to a conflict". It's irrelevant so it could be excluded because as you say they are a type of civilian behaving as a combatant, an 'unpriviledged combatant' or 'unpriviliged civilian' or 'illegal combatant' whatever term is used, they mean the same thing and can be attacked under certain circumstances. Those circumstances most certainly are disputed and very obviously so. The IDF's views are the IDF's views [21]. They aren't shared by many others. What are some of their views ?

• Is it okay to kill a traffic cop or a cadet on parade ? Yes. Why ? Because the IDF's lawyers categorize them as part of a "resistance force in the event of..etc". That is controversial.
• Is there evidence that the individuals actually are part of a resistance force ? It doesn't matter to the IDF's lawyers because it's not based on evidence about individuals. That is controversial.
• Is it okay to kill people (let's say a child) in a house containing a suspected 'illegal combatant' or who re-enter a house after an IDF warning even if those people aren't Hamas people. Yes. Why ? Because the IDF's lawyers catagorize them as either "voluntary human shields" or "are taking part in the fighting" merely by their presence. That is controversial.
• Is it okay to assassinate a person because they are a suspected member of an organization ? Yes. Why ? Because they are a "terrorist operative". Terrorists are regarded as being "directly engaged in hostilities" all the time by the IDF's lawyers no matter what they are actually doing. Legalization of assassination is very unusual indeed and is one of the best examples for me to illustrate the difference between the IDF approach and others e.g. you won't see the army in the UK firing missiles from drones at suspected terrorists in the Pakistani communities in Northern England because, well, they might have a few legal problems. You will see them occasionally assassinating Brazilian people who they think are just about to detonate a suicide belt. That illustrates the radical difference in interpretation of 'directly engaged in hostilities'.

We aren't here to decide/discuss whether the IDF approach is right/wrong, legitimate/illegitimate, legal/illegal etc etc. Things are just going round and round in circles. We just need to accept that there are differences in legal interpretations and point out the differences between the IDF's lawyers permissive, broad approach to these matters and the opinions of others if it helps to clarify a dispute over the status of a casualty or the legality of an action.

We should also not forget to mention that the PCHR classify 255 policemen as civilians and 28 as militants. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're playing fast and lose with what I said, as evidenced by you bringing up POW status when I said "unprivileged combatants". But never mind that. Your WP:soapboxing isn't of much interest to me either, to be honest. Feel free to erect as many strawmen as you like, and then knock them down if that makes you happy.
I did post in the wrong section though. I was talking about how PCHR catigorzises Hamas fighters as civilian/non-combatant, not about the status of police in general, and for that I apologize. If you have any ICRC refs regarding Hamas fighters' status as non-combatants, I'd be happy to see them, as I mentioned earlier. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually actively participating means right now. No more nice guy is wrong on on that. Nableezy (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Bears are actively participating in the NFL despite not playing a game right now. "Hostilities" denotes something ongoing, not a one time event. Again, the fact it is legitimate to target a military commander at his home or office proves you don't have to be doing something right now to be actively involved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for appealing to my other sensitivities, but it is a tad different. Below is an ICRC source that spells out what the phrase means, and it does mean while actively participating. You are using definitions that are not in line with what the sources say. A military commander is not equivalent to a police officer, a military commander by definition is not a civilian. We have sources that say "while actively participating" not "once having participated". Nableezy (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, I have no interest whatsoever in soapboxing. My personal views on whether the IDF approach is right/wrong/pragmatic/illegal etc etc are 100% irrelevant. All soapboxing absolutely has to stop on this talk page because it just gets in the way. I was simply providing some pertinent examples where the IDF's lawyers views are a) considered to be controversial by others and b) can produce a mismatch in casualty catagorization. I'll say it again, we just need to accept that there are differences in legal interpretations. And I mentioned "armed forces of a party to a conflict" and POW status specifically because you said Hamas are the "official army". Official "privileged combatant" armies aren't made up of "unprivileged combatants". Even the IDF's lawyers haven't tried to have that cake and eat it. Shalit is not an "unprivileged combatant" even if the people holding him in effect categorize and treat him as one by withholding POW rights. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

you won't see the army in the UK firing missiles from drones at suspected terrorists in the Pakistani communities in Northern England because, well, they might have a few legal problems If memory serves me, the British did do essentially that. They had a shoot-to-kill policy of Irish criminal suspects. They even freaking allied themselves with Loyalist terrorists/gangsters to assist them on this. They committed acts against civilian people who did nothing military just because those civilians were connected to the IRA.

This is soapboxing, obviously. But gosh-darn-it I feel offended It's stupid, but still.The Squicks (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I am starting it for the third time already, cause you (Nableezy, Squicks, Kasaalan) simply fail to understand what we are discussing here. We are not discussing here legitimacy or justification of some attacks on police, we are not discussing policemen status, we are not discussing here proportionality. We might discuss it in Int. law section. What we are discussing is how can you say (in the 'disputed figures') the following sentence represents what HRW thinks: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.'? Claiming that they dispute IDF is like saying they pick a side here, which is simply intrue. They pick no side. HRW is not disputing anything. They merely say: '"Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets," Stork said. "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose." And later, the definition: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' So, again, they say it depends. What we should do here is either provide definition by HRW or full citation of Stork.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that 'HRW dispute IDF combatant classification of the policemen' is erroneous for one more reason. [223] refers to legality of the attacks on police, not their classification as militants or civilians.

If we are sticking to HRW, here is, again, an excerpt from HRW's Q&A regarding legal aspects of the conflict (and not classification issue, emphasis mine): '...The legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors; it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets.'; 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' 'Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities. Without further research on the ground, it is not yet possible to determine whether the police stations struck by Israel served any military purpose, and were therefore legitimate objects of attack. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas#_May_Israel_lawfully. Same applies of course to mosques. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What I try to show here, is that HRW is neither justifying nor condemnig the legality of the attacks on the police. They say it depends on number of factors. Attempting to interpret their words in pro-IDF or pro-Hamas way should not be the task of Wiki editors. So, the wording here should be edited to neutral. HRW is neither disputing nor arguing with IDF. Both sentences are wrong.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with what I wrote above? Nableezy (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote Human Rights Watch has stated that police are presumptively civilians unless they are directly participating in the hostilities. For 11th time already, this is not what HRW says. This is what it does say: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' Do you notice the difference? This is first. Second, you write 'If they do take part in hostilities they may be attacked while actively participating in the hostilities' and later 'Actually actively participating means right now'. This is interpretation, taken out of context. This is because you omit in HRW statement, 'unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities'. [side note: from the Israeli side, it is simply irrelevant whether they are taking a direct part in hostilities or not, since from the Israeli perspective they all are Hamas fighters, simultaneously and constantly, because by definition the police there is incorporated in the Hamas military wing, in the same way border police in Israel is incorporated in the IDF.] Third, all the above, and proportionality issue you mentioned, does not belong in 'disputed figures' section but in Int. law section. [223] and all the HRW links here do not dispute or argue with IDF classification of policemen as militants but examine issues of legality of the attack on the police. Finally, and this is important for you and all the others to grasp: when dealing with the police issue (not some particular strikes but the concept in general) HRW are not saying in the links provided IDF was entitled or not. They cite int. law and either we cite it completely or do not cite it at all. Hope I made myself clear. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see the difference. But this is an exact quote from HRW: "Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities." I didnt write "right now" in my proposed text, I wrote it in response to NMMNG. Again, this is a direct quote from the source cited above: "poice who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." How would you phrase "whenever and for such time as actively participating in hostilities". Here is some more from the ICRC: "direct participation in hostilities by civilians entails loss of immunity from attack during the time of such participation and may also subject them, upon capture, to penal prosecution under the domestic law of the detaining state." and later "Within these parameters, little doubt exists that a civilian carrying out an attack would be directly participating in hostilities. In the same vein, legal experts seem to agree that civilians preparing or returning from combat operations are still considered to be directly participating in hostilities, although precise indication as to when preparation begins and return ends remains controversial." It is clear that active or direct participation means for the time they are participating in hostilities. Nableezy (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I deal with police stations in "HRW also stated that police stations are presumptively civilian unless they are being used for military purposes, such as serving as military headquarters or storing weapons. However, even if the police stations are legitimate targets, laws concerning proportionality dictate that disproportionate harm to civilians, including police, does not occur." which is based off "Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities." from the source. Nableezy (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And I didnt omit anything, I was using a different source, the entire text of which you can see in the collapsed section above. Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, friend, I have to run now, stay tuned. Right now, reread this paragraph and we will talk later: 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, we have a consensus on what the sources say. Now let's go back to the reason I started it all. The sentence in 'disputed figures' says: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification' [223]. Can anybody show me (without going into interpretations of int. law) where exactly does [223] dispute IDF combatants classification?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I *think* I see your point, they did not 'dispute' that the policemen were combatants, they disputed the reasoning (which Israel has given as 'anybody associated with Hamas is a valid target'). That is in this quote, again in the collapsed section above: "it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets." I see your issue with the language, how would this work for you:

The IDF has stated that police and police stations are valid targets as they are associated with the Hamas government. HRW has said that an assertion that police and police stations are "automatically valid military targets" is incorrect and that a number of factors determine whether or not police and police stations can be considered as valid targets. (and also include the PCHR response to the IDF saying that the police are valid targets).

Will get a source for each statement, Nableezy (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to speak for Skeptic here, but that a number of factors determine whether or not police and police stations can be considered as valid targets seems to me to be problematic. It's not like HRW was deliberately vague about what those factors are/were. They were quite specific about it, and it seems to me to be a bit confusing or possibly even misleading to the reader not to mention exactly what those factors are/were.

The terminology "is incorrect" also seems a bit... off. What they are arguing about is their interpretation of international law. A spelling test answer is either correct or incorrect. Same thing for a math test answer. As a matter of interpretation of something, one person can make a really lousy case, but that would not make them incorrect in that sense. The phrase "HRW disagrees with this interpretation" makes more sense.

"they are associated with" seems inaccurate. The IDF is not bombing anyone just because they voted for Hamas or because they took a flu shot from one of their offices or whatever tangent association. "they serve" or something along those lines would be more accurate.

This is the worst sort of nitpicking, I know. But I hope that you can see where I am coming from. The Squicks (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Im just trying to avoid bloating the casualties section, my thinking was the 'number of factors' can go in the international law section. But if yall want it here too that is fine by me. Re 'they are associated with', we have a source explicitly saying that as the given reason by Israel, will look for it later tonight, but if you have better language by all means put it up. Nableezy (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good news, guys. We are, at last, making progress. Yes, Nableezy, in [223] HRW are not disputing classification of the fatalities. They are addressing the issue to what extent are attacks on the police are lawfully justified. So, we are kind of agree this belongs to the int. law section. Next, 'The IDF has stated that police and police stations are valid targets as they are associated with the Hamas government' is misleading. It is true that IDF targeted many government installations for that reason, but to say that policemen and police facilities were targeted merely because they are associated with the Hamas government is oversimplification. The main reason, and I will provide you with sources, is because police as a whole is incorporated in the Hamas' military wing and many policemen actually hold Hamas' military wing rankings and command posts simultaneously to their work in police. This is why it is crucial, and I am glad The Squicks realizes it, to mention those factors exactly as they are. Finally, [223] say that 'Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets, Stork said. It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose.' I will repeat again - regarding police and police stations, Israel did not make a neither blanket nor arbitrary decision on this matter. Thus, saying that HRW 'argues' or 'disputes' with IDF is erroneous. Both sentences in 'disputed figures' section are inappropriate. What 'disputed figures' section must say is that 'PCHR civilian count included those killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations' (almost there in the text) and that 'IDF regards all the policemen killed as militants' (still missing, but we will work it out). Nableezy, The Squicks, do you understand what I am trying to say? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat paradoxically, but 'The IDF's views are the IDF's views' as Sean said. This is the first (but definitely not the last) of sources to support the above. Go here [22] 'The "incrimination" of the policemen (that is, justifying an attack on them) was based on their categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. In our eyes, all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army, just as in the face of the enemy's army every soldier is a legitimate target'. I am not trying, guys, to convince you all the IDF attacks on police and police facilities were justified. It can be disputable. But the arguments and counterarguments must be conveyed precisely. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Next, here [23], 'Israel has made clear it regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters'. Not because they are 'associated' with Hamas, but because they are 'equivalent of armed fighters'.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another link here [24]. 'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target'. INSS, btw, is The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an independent academic institute that studies key issues relating to Israel's national security and Middle East affairs. Is it neutral? Maybe not. Is it RS? I think it falls within definitions of Wiki RS. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The anything associated with Hamas line is from a BBC source quoting an unnamed Israeli spokesman:

But when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.

later on it also includes this definition from Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm." I agree the bulk of the issue should be covered in international law, but I think it partially belongs in the casualties, as we say that the IDF counted police as combatants while the PCHR and PMoH did not, we should briefly explain why in that section. Will look at your links in a bit, just wanted to let you know I didnt pull 'anything associated' out from nowhere. Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And for NMMNG, that source also contains this: "However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities." Nableezy (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, one suggestion. It would help a bit if you could say exactly what changes you want to make to the section and what sources you want to use. I feel we are going around in circles arguing about slightly different things (and combining the argument on what the intl law section should say and what the casualties section should say). Would you mind drawing up your idea of what to change? Nableezy (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC is nothing if not a reliable source, but the attribution of the term 'affiliated' these is questionable. It's a paraphrase of an off the record anonymous source.

For something with this degree of vehement dispute, I would preferably stick to the official released statements. This goes for Hamas too. Something along the lines of The IDF said that it believes that Gaza police and Gaza police agents as inherently equivalent to or something along those lines. The Squicks (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How about= The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza police and police stations as inherently equivilent to armed soliders since, it believes, Hamas has incorporated them into its military wing. HRW has said that police and police stations constitue valid targets only if they are targeted when they actively participate in hostilites. The PCHR (...) The Squicks (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more or less agnostic as to whether or not we should refer to (an) Israeli think tank(s) if we also refer to the PCHR. It depends on whether or not notability can be demonstrated as well as whether or not that group is part of the Israeli government vs really independent. The Squicks (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I really dont think you can compare a human rights organization with a think tank. That said, notability and due weight would be the only real concerns for using them, so long as their views are explicitly attributed to them. Nableezy (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I didnt take that as a paraphrase, I took that as a direct quote from an unnamed Israeli military spokesman. Nableezy (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

INSS was named in top 5 think-tanks in ME and North Africa, btw. [25]. Are we agreed on notability? I guess I already said they are independant, but if there is doubt I will search for additional proofs. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We are getting closer. The first sentence of The Squick's proposal is more or less fine. The wording is not perfect, but the meaning is almost accurate. I will provide shortly my version. The second sentence is inaccurate. It should be 'HRW has said that police and police stations constitues valid target only if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities' [26] or '...if the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities.' [27].--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC). I deliberately omitted 'police stations', they can be addressed in int. law section, but irrelevant to fatalities figures. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, let me remind you that if we are (and we indeed are) discussing changes to 'disputed figures' section, it is better and more appropriate to rely on sources released after the fatalities numbers published, and not before. I insist this is more appropriate: 'Israel has made clear it regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters'. [28]. so, actually, the first sentence from the Squick's proposal can go like this: 'The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza policemen to be inherently equivilent to armed soliders fighters, thus including them in the militant's count.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, agree with parts, disagree with others. Much of the commentary on the legality of targeting police came after the first few days of initial strikes, which were largely targeted at police and police stations. Sources commenting on the legality of the issue itself are fine from whenever. But, I am fine with the sentence you put above for Israel's position. I am also fine with "HRW has said that police constitute valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". But I would also add "are presumptively civilians" with a result of "HRW has said that police are presumptively civilians but may be considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". Nableezy (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

also, remove the "thus" from your sentence. Nableezy (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC [29] with all due respect to RS, fails here. It says: 'Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities'. However, both here [30] and here [31] HRW actually says that policemen can be targeted if 'the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities.' Moreover, HRW elaborates that 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' The confusion arises from concentrating on the second sentence, while ignoring the first. This is why, I repeat, it is crucial to provide the exact wording from HRW and not rely on the tetriary source. This is why the second sentence from the article is erroneous.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree again, but I dont see a conflict between the two, as the next sentence in the q&a hrw source says: "Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." The BBC, which attributes this to HRW, is just qualifying what "such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." Nableezy (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule we prefer secondary sources to primary ones on wiki. See WP:PRIMARY. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh! We are almost there. "HRW has said that police are presumptively civilians but may be are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". OK?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza policemen to be inherently equivilent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count". OK?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BBC, I wrote and I repeat again, that both sentences are equally important: 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' BBC says IDF has evidence some policeman launch rockets from time to time. If this is the case, the second sentence you retyped is correct. However, and I will not cease to say it, this is not the only case. IDF regards policemen in Gaza as inherently equivilent to armed fighters. Thus, the first sentence is equally important. Now a side note (and let's not make the whole story from it) - as I understood Wiki policies, HRW here is a secondary source, since they provide the reader with definitions from int. law, which thus is a primary source. BBC, citing HRW, become tetriary and less reliable source. From all the above, I kindly ask to reconsider the sentence from the 'disputed figures' section that cite BBC.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one responds, I will chatter with myself a bit. Perhaps what is confusing here is to realize the simultaneous double affiliation of police in Gaza. I guess what my opponents think is that a policeman in Gaza can sometimes be engaged in terrorist actions and be the regular poliveman all the other time. This is why they cite that sentence from HRW q&a: "Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." Indeed, an individual can't be working at two jobs at the same time, can he? He can go to one at the day shift, and to another at the night shift. However, there is no contradiction at all - one is a son of his parents and at the same time he is a brother to his parents' children. The same with police in Gaza - from Israeli POV, the police there is incorporated in Hamas' military wing, similar to the border police in Israel. Thus, the question 'whether policeman X was killed in combat situation or not' is irrelevant. He could be a orchestra musician or clerk - he is part of armed forces to the conflict. The same applies, as mentioned, to border police in Israel.

I thought of an analogy that might help understand why citing only Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities is erroneous. You are taking driving lessons, and your instructor tells you that if you see a yellow light while approaching junction with lights, you should go on moving if already entered the junction and stop if you are before junction. Would this be incorrect? No, the statement is correct. But what about red and green lights? The same applies here. Citing merely the sentence above is covering the 'yellow light' issue. The previous sentence is eually important: 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack (red light), while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted (green light).' Since Israel regards police in Gaza as incorporated in Hamas' military wing, all the policemen from IDF perspective are 'green light'. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"war in the south"

does one hebrew source qualify this for the lead? untwirl(talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

there are a lot of sources for it if you do a google search, but i dont think it is really needed and is somewhat unnecessary bloat. but i dont have too much of a problem keeping it. Nableezy (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this doesn't help but I have heard it on the radio (mmm... so I say) from a guy who was there. I'm sure there will be more out there if you google it.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this should remove. It is only sourced in hebrew, there's no evidence in english. Plus, it sounds more like a geographical description than a name for the war, there's no evidence they were coining a name. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Article rename

I know that this topic has been discussed many times before, and no consensus has been reached so far, but wouldn't 2008/2009 war on Gaza be a far better title than the current vague one? Imad marie (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza War is appropriate. The War on Gaza is not. Israel was not waging war on Gaza but in Gaza against a terrorist organization.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

on implies that the war happened between two unmatched entities. Still, "Gaza War" is better than the current title. Imad marie (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, right. One is terrorist's nest (no offense intended towards those who are really innocent uninvolved civilians) and another is sovereign state. If you are an expert in martial arms, surrounded by bunch of hooligans, does it mean you can't use your skills to defend yourself? Having a military advantage over the adversary is legal. Nice try, though. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try for what? What did I try? And in what way does the title I suggest imply that Israel should not use it's military?! if you can't make constructive comments then maybe you should not make ones at all. Imad marie (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree Offensive on Gaza, or War on Gaza seems more accurate and these are names that can be found in reliable sources. Don't mind sceptic's soapboxing/hasbara, if anything his comments brings no relevance to the discussion. Anyway, I think we can reopen the discussion to find a better and accurate title. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not Gaza massacre then?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider that name to very accurate. These antisemitic terrorists do as well. But our personal feelings do not matter. For NPOV reasons, and the fact that this name is not a name used in Western reliable sources, we will have to stick to a neutral name like Offensive on Gaza or Gaza War. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Like War on Cancer? The "war on X" seems to be used mainly where X is something abstract like War on Drugs or War on Terrorism. I think that "<date> <location> conflict" is the best NPOV way to describe a conflict that doesn't have an obvious commonly used name.
By the way, nice picture and title. Way to promote constructive discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the compliment. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting all the nonsense in the past, I would hope we can agree that major news sources have used the 'Gaza War/war' as the name of this conflict and from there it should be trivial agreeing that if that is the case then we should also be using that as the name. Can we agree to that? And if so, does somebody want to start a RfM and go through the filing procedure? Nableezy (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not discussing this again, and I'm forsure not doing anything that involves any procedure. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well every single person who has commented in this section, from as far as I can tell most of the POV spectrum agrees that Gaza War should be the title. I will take care of the process for my more lazy Semitic cousin. Nableezy (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's from my grandfather. He was so lazy, he was always packing for his international trips at the last minute. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard that used toothbrushs are smuggled to Gaza through terrorist nest tunnels to mitigate the brutal dental hygiene blockade imposed by Israel. People are apparently having to pick their teeth with rocket and gun parts most the time. Dentists are having to hide as they're been categorized by IDF lawyers as part of a plaque resistance force. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

After the 10th person got stabbed to death with a sharpened toothbrush, you can't be too careful. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Gas Reserve

Why there is nothing in the article about Gaza gas reserve and what Israel and British Gas are doing about it? Here's something to read:

• War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields

--Saba84 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because neither belligerent has mentioned it though reliable sources and there's no development plan for the field yet. Not sure what you mean about "Israel and British Gas". BG pulled out of Israel and are trying to get rid of their one remaining Israeli licence block. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War — The major sources use Gaza War/Gaza war as the name of the conflict, for a sampling: AP [32] [33], Reuters [34], Washington Post [35] [36], Haaretz [37], BBC [38] [39], The Times [40], The Guardian [41] [42] [43], CNN [44] [45], Newsweek [46] [47], Time [48] [49] — Nableezy (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Support most popular name in mainstream English language sources. Tiamut^talk 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - per Nableezy's excellent rationale. Nableezy (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded. I'd also note that this name is not the one preferred by either party, is the most popular one in mainstream English language sources and thus abides by WP:NAME and WP:NPOV. The names preferred by each of the belligerents should remain in bold in the lead paragraph as usual. Tiamut^talk 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fine Not a name that I prefer but I can live with it. It is a name that is commonly used in English RS. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • Hear you Falastine fee Qalby, beating in my heart loud and clear, but the "War on Gaza" while used by Al Jazeera English (and more accurate given Gazans have no army to speak of in the conventional sense) was not as widespread as Gaza War, and we have to go to with what the English sources say here. Tiamut^talk 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So are you guys only voting yes purely as a temporary stepping stone to change the title later? The Squicks (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading that again, that sounds more like a personal attack than an honest question. I absolutely didn't mean it that way. I'm just asking whether or not ya'll would like to put that to a vote as well, and make arguements about that as well, and so on. The Squicks (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Though not loudly ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support If only it was this easy to get Israelis and Palestinians to agree elsewhere... The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks like this is what it's being called by major English speaking news outlets. I hope this solves the stupidity in the lead, too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Should it be 'Gaza War' or 'The Gaza War'?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid definite and indefinite articles at the start of names. It does not constitute "the title of a work", and "the" is not normally capitalized within a sentence.google:"The Gaza War" 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Too ambiguous. Several wars have occurred in Gaza, and many have been referred to as the "Gaza War" by mainstream media. I think we are taking their naming out of context. I'd prefer 2008-2009 Gaza War, though I'm totally ok with the current title. At least we won't have to change it when the next "Gaza War" erupts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an example of another event known as the Gaza War? Nableezy (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support About timeCptnono (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is too long, this one is shorter, and the conflict term, is too small for a big scale war like this anyway. If the name is too ambigious maybe we can call it as 2009 Gaza War or 2009 Gaza Strike. Yet a naming convention is required. Kasaalan (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Far much better and more descriptive than the current title. Imad marie (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Are we going to be changing 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict as well? What about the other pages in the series? The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't treat this as a part of that 'series'. Here we have a clearly defined event and the scope of the article shows that. If there are any other articles in that series that deal with a clearly defined event then those should be renamed to whatever the event is known by. Here we have a pretty clear answer, those not as much. Nableezy (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A naming convention is required, he has a good point. If we don't have a naming convention that might lead to confusion. Kasaalan (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just have to mention that history prevailed on this one. How many times was this title floated? Hope all the other bullshit gets fixed sooner or later (3-8 mos) and pro-whatthefuckever editors won't be so butt hurt when changes are made that make their side look bad. Thank whatever God the headlines are done with on this issue. While I'm humping my soapbox over here how about you forget about this article so the littlest garbage that is not important such as the title, the 1ooMkb , irreverent images, the fucked up law section, and whatever else is on the mind of some idiot who wants to use wikipedia like a blog is reworked into an actual piece of work that doesn't favor one side or the other. How many times was this title floated?Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Also just noticed that peoples votes were changing: Grow some balls and stick to your convictions or at the very least stop warping articles to suite your ideas.Cptnono (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what was that? Please strike out that horrible personal attack immediately. The Squicks (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

According to The Squicks and Sigmund Freud it would appear as gay group sexual activity. And "gay" of cause could mean Happiness like :). Thanks for improving WP:V of my user page, mate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The Squicks (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So? Do we have consensus for the move? Imad marie (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Exercise in Math

Someone added the following to the disputed figures subsection: 'Cremonesi also quotes Christopher Oberlin, a French government doctor, "the Israelis say that only 30% of the Palestinian victims are civilians. This is a blatant lie, and I am ready to testify to that before any international tribunal. The exact opposite is true: at least 80% of the victims are children, including babies, women, and old people. What they are doing here is shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it". First of all, [227] is in Italian. It would be nice to read the translation of the entire article in English. Secondly, this highly emotional statement could have been relevant before, but not after the fatalities report. Let us recall the PCHR data: PCHR puts the death toll at 1,417, of which 926 were civilian, 236 were combatants and 255 were members of the Palestinian security forces; out of 926 civilians and non-combatants, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. This leaves us with 497 males above 18. I put PCHR list in Excel, and there are indeed 497 males above 18, out of which 97 males above 50 (50 is because the oldest militant/policeman is about 50). All in all, we got 116+313+97=526 children, women and elder males, 37%. Males 18-50 are 236+255+400=891, 63%. How come the group that constitutes less than 25% of the general population (we should have counted 97 elder males to match 25% of the population), comprises 63% of the fatalities? Even if we examine just the civilian fatalities, 400 males 18-50 out of 926 is 43%, closer to 50% than to 25%. Is this an idea of shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it? For those who would say I am soapboxing again and making original research, I would reply that this week ICT released similar report, examining PCHR own data, reaching the same conclusions. Since I intend to insert it in the article, wouldn't Oberlin's words seem somewhat embarrassing? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Just because Christopher Oberlin may happen to not be right does not automatically make him un-notable. We quote Hamas on this page several times, when the vast majority of our readers probably consider them to be full of it. See WP:TRUTH. The Squicks (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, don't look at that. The Squicks (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually made almost the same point about the other Cremonesi article, specially on this "Secondly, this highly emotional statement could have been relevant before, but not after the fatalities report." Dude, believe me, Cremonesi's statement stood in the article for a long time, and it was removed after better numbers came from PCHR and the IDF. That people find use still for it, its beyond me(but not beyond reasoning, since it is inserted now for POV-pushing). This article you are addressing now, was inserted by a fool, but that fool tried and tried not to do it, because it is a travesty, unnecessary really, but nothing like contradicting Cremonesi with Cremonesi. Numbers don't seem to add up on neither of the reports. But, on Wiki grounds I don't see anything wrong with it, specially since there is a link, on Italian, to another of Cremonesi's reports. By the way, Nishidani would be able to translate the rest of the report if he's up to it, don't tell him I sent you though. Cryptonio (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Oberlin's notability or verifiability of his statement. I think this statement, more political than factual, adds nothing to article's encyclopedian value. However, if there is general consensus - let it stay. I merely try to draw the attention of the editors that his numbers, when compared to those of the PCHR, look ridiculous. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The same should be said about quotation of We’am Fares. According to PCHR, the total number of children below 18 is 22% (313 out of 1417), compared to his assessment that children below 14 alone constitute at least 35% of fatalities. Is someone is interested, I could tomorrow tell the exact number of children below 14, but I assure it will be less than 14%. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that there might be an issue with WP:V? Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Holly mother of God... Cremonesi didn't contradict himself. He just did what reporters usually do: interviewing people. He just interviewed a supposed doctor who told him something, and then he interviewed other individuals who told him other things, and he published all the information he received from others. Maybe all of these statements (those made by the supposed doctor, those made by Christopher Oberlin,...) are false, maybe not. In fact, I think that is impossible to know a verifiable death toll. What I know is that isn't necessary to write that somebody is a fool, we aren't kids, I think.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's strange. As I mentioned before, 'The PCHR's representative Hamdi Shaqoura reaffirmed on March 26 its own figures, saying that extensive investigation and cross-checking was done in researching the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed'. Too bad no one inserted it in the article yet, maybe I will.

One of the Wiki goals is (set me right if I am wrong) is to put things in proper context. According to PCHR data, total number of children below 14 (0-13) is 171, 12% of total fatalities. However tragic in itself, the death toll of 12% vs 35% (at least, according to Fares) provides somewhat different context.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Follgram, you need to take a deep breath and read, not just look at letters. I didn't called you a fool. Don't act as if you like what we have now in the disputed section regarding Cremonesi. Cryptonio (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with what we have now in the disputed section regarding Cremonesi. Also I agree with the inclusion of the ITIC and the ICT reports.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How about adding another sentence in the middle of Cremonesi: 'Talking to BBC, Cremonesi speculated that lower than expected filling (occupancy? can someone help me with a proper word?) of hospitals during Gaza war could be attributed to the Hamas tactics to take their casualties to secret hiding places rather than hospitals, making it impossible to know how many of them had died.'--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for letting us know you aren't Cremenosi. i was really convinced that you were, you know...

That misconstrued paragraph says nothing about what Cremonesi said. He said, that hospitals weren't filled to his expectations(not everyone else's). It leads (by the reporter reporting on Cremonesi, with the word However) that a reason could be that Hamas wasn't taken their casualties to the hospitals. This is of no use anyways. Cryptonio (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question regarding fatalities classification

The article currently says that 'PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations.[43]' However, 43 says 'The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan, two top Hamas leaders assassinated, along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes, said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.' I am not 100% sure the meaning was expressed correctly. Opinions?

Next, PCHR says 'PCHR consider the IOF’s classification of police officers as combatants illegal: this classification constitutes a wilful violation of the principle of distinction, a key component of customary international law. Hamas is a multi-faceted organisation, exercising de facto governmental control of the Gaza Strip. As an organisation, it cannot be considered an armed group. Rather, a distinction must be made between Hamas’ armed and political/civil components. The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the military wing of the Hamas organisation, they are an armed group, and are considered as combatants according to IHL. However, Hamas’ political and civil wings are comprised of civilians, who are legally entitled to the protections associated with this status, provided they do not take an active part in hostilities. Civil police, and governmental officials cannot be considered combatants. Attacks intentionally directed against these individuals constitute wilful killing, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a violation of customary international law.' They don't say they count members of armed group as civilians when killed in non-combatant situation, don't they? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I need to repost the HRW articles about how it's legitimate to target military commanders in their homes? PCHR is deliberately fudging IHL (again). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Seems like we (you, The Squicks, Nableezy and myself) managed to work it out in the 'police' rubric (I interpret silence as consent with my latter posts there)and I am about to make some improvement to 'disputed figures' subsection based on our discussion. I was simply wondering about two issues: 1. Does it infer from [43] that PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations? Cause the actual sentence in [43] is somewhat ambiguous. If it did, then comes second question: by doing so, did PCHR not contradict itself? Cause they say that indeed 'The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the military wing of the Hamas organisation, they are an armed group, and are considered as combatants according to IHL', without making any differentiation between 'combatant' and 'non-combatant' situations.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say. In one they say "Hamas members" in general (but give someone like Nizar Rayan as an example) but in the other they talk about the Hamas armed wing. The way I understand they tally the numbers, they will count someone who's a member of the armed wing as a civilian/non-combatant if he wasn't in a combat situation at the time he was killed. That is, if he was in the street with his rifle, but wasn't actually shooting at anyone at that instant because he took a break to blow his nose, he's a civilian/non-combatant according to PCHR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think you are right, but it is important the article will produce PCHR count method precisely. I will not be touching the sentence until find more on the issue, or someone else will share us with his understanding.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to see, at least for me, that both sides are blanketing themselves with interpretations of statements given by HRW. That some of us take it upon ourselves to prove one side right and the other right, umm...comic relief? Cryptonio (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone U.N. Investigation?

I was getting together some info on that for another article and assume it is also relevant here. Will either give best links I find or put in a paragraph, depending on my energy levels and if no one beats me to it.  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, but.. is there really info already? I am not sure he even got started...but I can be wrong on this one. Anyway, accidentally came across this: '"The report of the UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur is unbalanced and contributes little," junior foreign minister Bill Rammell said in a written reply to a parliamentary question published Wednesday.' If there would be no objection, it will be placed near Falk.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting things in a context and challenging PMoH figures

The article says: 'The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health (PMoH), has stated that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians [41]'. And later, 'The PMoH stated that 437 children under the age of 16, 110 women, 123 elderly men, 14 medics, and four journalists were among those killed. The wounded include 1,890 children and 200 people in serious condition.[211]'. However, it is important to realize and emphasize that, according to [41], 'The [Health] ministry [in Gaza], like most Gaza government agencies, is run by Hamas'. Later, in 'disputed figures' subsection, 'UN Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes has stated that the PMoH figures have not been seriously challenged.[222]' OK, it is indeed what he said, but to state that PMoH figures 'have not been seriously challenged', is (excuse me harsh language) laughable. [41] says that 'Zakout [of PCHR], asked about the discrepancies in casualty tolls, said she believes there has been some inadvertent double counting at the ministry, an outcome of the chaos of the war'. Indeed, 437 of 1324 (33%) vs. 313 of 1417 (22%) is a challenge. Yet another group, The Al Mazen Centre for Human Rights, ( Counting casualties of Gaza's war ) counts 1,268 people killed, among them 288 children and 103 women. Strangely enough, BBC says their 'numbers are much closer to those of published by the Ministry of Health', while they are really closer to those of PCHR. Not to mention that Israeli sources challenge PMoH numbers even more. Finally, BBC produce other insights into Cremonesi report: 'Mr Cremonesi later told the BBC the doctor had told him the dead also included youngsters aged 17 to 23, described by the doctor as "Hamas recruits who were literally sent to be massacred". .. However, he pointed out that Hamas fighters killed in the conflict may not have been taken to hospital, but to secret hiding places - and that it was impossible to know how many of them had died.' For the sake of neutrality, I would add that 'Mr Cremonesi stressed his article was not meant to diminish the impact of the Israeli bombardment, which he said appeared to be "collective punishment" on the civilian population'.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything more Cremonesi will be challenged as WP:UNDUE.

That there discrepancies between Palestinian groups is of no concern since they all are at odds with IDF numbers. This is funny though "One of the problems with the PCHR’s methodology is their claim to precise knowledge of the circumstances of every Palestinian casualty." Claims made by the 'precise' accounting by the IDF. Israel has claimed many 'firsts' in this war, but none are more remarkable than the distinction of knowing the names of the people who they killed. At many levels, that has to be a feat of great proportions.

That figures weren't seriously disputed cannot be dismissed, simply because they could be confirming them(the UN could). Cryptonio (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a big deal to know the names of casualties. I hope you understand that. As for the circumstances, this is disputable. One interesting thing you should know. I've been wondering, is hailing somebody as 'martyr shahid' indicates he was a militant. The answer I got is that so far, on al-Qassam message boards, no women or infants were referred to as "shahids." Of course this is not a proof yet, just the first indication. It's funny in itself you chose one specific sentence from the report, when it has so many others, for example 'PCHR claims that all 239 policemen killed should not [be] considered members of armed forces (combatants), unless explicitly recognized as such. However, our research into Hamas websites has revealed that a considerable number of these policemen were also members of the Hamas resistance apparatus — and thus were explicitly recognized by Hamas as combatants.' Anyway, I didn't like your rephrasing of the (4), so I copy-pasted it from the report. The report doesn't say if any of those 314 (including children) were actually fighting when killed, or not.

As usual, I got carried away. Seems like we can write the entire article on Cremonesi, what did he report, what he was told and what did he tell others.

I still don't get something. According to PMoH, 33% of the dead are children. According to PCHR - 22%. And you say the figures are not challenged?

Going back to the initial reason of this thread. Context. Until yesterday, I didn't realize (and so would any other average reader) that PMoH doesn't refer to the entire Palestinian authority, but rather it is a Health Ministry in Gaza alone, and, as [41] puts it, is run by Hamas. This is not to contest or ridicule their statement. But it should be mentioned explicitely in the article that PMoH is a part of Gaza government agencies, under the rule of Hamas.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That Hamas doctors(and this is childish, is Israel's Health ministry run by Hamas as well?) are placed in administrative position(if that's actually the case) doesn't mean anything negative, so no need to add such mundane information, unless of course you continue to push POV. The ministry is run by doctors, similar to any other country in the world where Health is run by people who has nothing to do with health(lawyers, HMOs, etc etc.) And as to the further 'lawyering', i am not in the mood. I've said from the beginning, i was not personally interested beyond the initial killing of policemen on day 1 of the operation and don't think HRW was protecting them all, if at all.

Health ministry in Israel is subjected to Israeli government, this is trivial. Health ministry in Sweden is subjected to Swedish government, this is also trivial. PMoH is subjected to Hamas government in Gaza (and not PA government in Ramallah), and this is not trivial. Nothing negative or positive, just a context. In the same way, if someone says that 'according to Korean Health ministry, the Koreans are the healthiest people on Earth', it should be clarified was it a statement of ministry in North Korea or South Korea.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad you understand what's trivial and what is not. Too bad Gaza is not a divided peninsula. The distinction of Health Ministry IN GAZA was included to address the trivial concerns you are now addressing. I am pretty sure that if Ramallah has something to say to anyone in Gaza(or about Gaza), no one is stopping them. Hamas this Hamas that, this isn't Israel's POV, this is including information concerning Israel and it's relationship with Gaza(in this instance). Can we stay on point? BTW, a discussion on Hamas legitimacy to govern(without "preciosity") is located up. Cryptonio (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, can you please adapt somewhat more constructive attitude here? I am not questioning Hamas' rule legitimacy or trying to imply that PMoH under Hamas is unreliable. Every one judges for himself. As you might know, Norman Finkelstein puts his trust in them completely, and he is entitled to do so.

Try for a second to get to my point, thinking as an average reader. As I understood it so far, Health Ministry IN GAZA meant a branch (or representative) of PA Health Ministry. I failed to understand it is not related to PA in Ramallah and means Health Ministry as a part of Hamas Government in Gaza. If I misunderstood it, every average reader will. This 'distinction' is not distinct enough. BTW, is there a reason why PMoH figures are separated between two paragraphs? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How in hell does an average reader reaches that conclusion? "Health Ministry IN GAZA meant a branch (or representative) of PA Health Ministry"

That you make this point in order to put the ministry under Hamas rule is not good enough. WP:OR. Cryptonio (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And who's saying that Health In Gaza is not part or even UNDER Health at PA? Cryptonio (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No OR at all. Follow the link in the article: The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health. It explicitly says that it is lead by the Hamas government. Now go to 43 cited in the text for PMoH numbers: 'The ministry, like most Gaza government agencies, is run by Hamas'. Seems like you are trying to grasp to OR in order to leave things vague. What are you afraid of? Why not to say explicitly, 'PMoH, part of Hamas Government in Gaza, has stated that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians'?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary? The Health Ministry in Gaza, Hamas is the government of Gaza. the Health ministry in Gaza, if it has public officials appointees, the government of gaza would be in charge of appointing them, right? If the office if of regional significance, then the PA does not meddle in those appointees, or maybe it does, this is the whole point, how do you know that the PA does not have some sort of presence or authority in the Health ministry at Gaza? What is your intend to say, "Hamas controls the Health ministry?" that is done with POV purposes. The distinction is not needed, because the issue of who runs the ministry is of no issue to this conflict. Period. Cryptonio (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an issue, Cryptonio. The minister is a political figure who has a boss. By trying not to make explicit distinction you are engaging in POV yourself.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Did not proof read. But you are connecting one point here, another there, hoping that everything magically comes together, in favor of certain party. Dude, yes...okkaaa, he is a political figure, and...he has a boss?...and...???...the one sentence article, here in wiki, on the Health ministry says that is run by Hamas, with no sources given. Then, you bring a source, that also says the ministry is run by Hamas(as it should, no special distinction at all, they are responsible for it), but the article is not about whether or not the ministry is run by Hamas. SYNTH? Cryptonio (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Context, my dear Cryptonio, it is all about the context. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

PMOH by itself, gives YOU the impression that is 'independent'. PMOH, controlled by Hamas, is said to imply that it's numbers can't be trusted. "PMOH, a Gaza governmental office, ..."? And this is not either or, this is a compromise where none is needed, but hopefully you'll see a tad beyond it as well. Cryptonio (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can when you want. "PMOH, a Gaza governmental office, ..." sounds good enough to me. Now how about combining two sentences regarding their nuumbers together?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That would look like a run-on sentence. right now is one sentence over the other. what's wrong with that. Cryptonio (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanton killings and context

There is a paragraph, poorly written, that ends with 'However, according to the Jerusalem Post, a recent IDF investigation concluded that these reports were false.[292] The IDF claimed that the soldiers only repeated rumors and what they read in the media without having seen anything themselves.[293]' I think one detail is important for the context. The IDF investigation was released about 10 days after the initial publication. However, the reports that soldier's testimonies are based on hearsay, appeared almost immediately in Israel. Too bad only Camera gathered them together. I guess I will be told it is not a RS. Anyway, here the authentic video from Israeli channel 2 is provided, saying that 'Channel 2 defense correspondent Roni Daniel reported that the soldier who supposedly witnessed the sniper shoot a mother and two of her children has now admitted to his brigade commander that he didn’t see any such thing: "I didn’t see it myself. There were stories like this. I wasn’t in that house and everything I said was only on the basis of rumors. At the gathering it was a friendly talk, and that's how I related to it." The only other source I found so far, suggesting that testimonies were hearsy, is by Maariv, second largest daily newspaper, here, but only in Hebrew. To sum thing up, IDF didn't claim in its report that those testimonies were based on rumors and not first-handed evidence - that was already known. The IDF in its report concluded that those cases didn't happen, or happened in completely different way, restating that indeed the cause for all the fuss was hearsay.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "claimed" here blatantly violates Wikipedia guidelines about words to avoid.

But as for your major point, that Maariv article seems to merely repeat the beliefs of the IDF. The Squicks (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn;t understand your first remark. Where did the term 'claimed' (neutral in itself) violated the policy? Anyway, there would be no problem to restate anything I wrote so far.

My major point is exactly the other way round. Pay attention to dates. Maariv first reported that 'the soldier has now admitted to his brigade commander that he didn’t see any such thing', and only a week later IDF issued a formal statement, claiming those incidents didn't take place.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, how could I forget. Danny Zamir, the head of the Rabin Pre-Military Academy, puts the whole story into context. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian military activity

Some additions I consider to insert:

1. Palestinians told Cremonesi (yes, Cremonesi again) of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances. A woman spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets.

2. For military purposes, Hamas operatives wear paramedic uniforms and commandeer ambulances. An ambulance driver told there was no problem to co-ordinate with the Israelis before picking up patients, ("because they have all our names, and our IDs, so they would not shoot at us"), while the more immediate threat was from Hamas, who would lure the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety.

3. 'Anyone who stands up to Hamas is killed'; 'Hamas has used brutal force against any dissenters in the Gaza Strip'here. Members of Gaza family told official PA newspaper that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them. Those who tried to object were shot in the legs. here.

4. A nice map.

5. They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups. Suicide bombers are another hazard. On Saturday a man wearing an explosives belt sprang from a side alley in Jabaliya as an Israeli patrol walked past. They shot him seconds before he could detonate himself. Hamas has yet to capture an Israeli soldier — a top priority — but is trying hard. Another Hamas tactic, said Mr Ben-Yishai, was to spring from tunnels concealed beneath floors, or behind sinks in houses where Israeli troops were sheltering, and open fire. here

6. Much of the same here and here. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

7. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. [50] Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new here, Number 7 is related to roof knocking and it was included at some point in the article. I don't see why more information on roof knocking could be inserted.

israel already makes mention of parademics being hamas members. What else do you want? WP:OR?

There is already a section on Hamas political violence stuff. More of the same is not needed.

I don't read maps.

And much of the same is much of the same. Mebleh. Cryptonio (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking is one thing, and putting residents on the roof to prevent attack is another. This is a part of 'human shielding' tactics that (regardless of voluntarily or not) contradicts IHL.

IDF said that some paramedics killed were part of fighting forces. What does it have to do with general tactics to wear paramedic uniforms and commandeer ambulances? Nothing. No OR here, just citing sources.

Tactics to wear civilian clothes, to try to kidnap soldiers, to execute suicide attacks - all these things are not mentioned at all.

Political violence - I see now someone deleted the relevant sentence from there. It will be reinserted.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That civilians climbed to the roof, is mentioned IN THE SAME paragraph as roof knocking. And not only that, civilians climbing to the roof, was also a practiced by regular civilians in order not to be harmed by Israeli attacks. So was the case of the Doctor's family, who climbed to the roof, thinking they were going to be safe. And this is totally documented. I'm not going to go off on this because you have not said anything useful.

"general tactics" will that be a new section?

Civilian clothes? umm yeah, didn't you bring up a source that says many Hamas fighters ditched their uniforms and went home? Oh they were trying to kidnap Israeli soldiers, how dare they! how rude!. Ohh the magical and deadly suicide attacks, can't be use in wars, oh no. Berated dude.

If you are referring to the sentence on Cremonesi in the Political violence section, I removed it because you had inserted something that was not included in the source. check the edit summary. Cryptonio (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

'That civilians climbed to the roof, is mentioned IN THE SAME paragraph as roof knocking' Would you be kind enough to show me the sentence? Maybe it is the early hour that hinders my sight.

Your feelings or justifications are irrelevant, in the same way as my personal attitude to Hamas. There is a section in the article 'Palestinian military activity', that partially covers the tactics. 'Militants booby-trapped houses and buildings and built an extensive system of tunnels in preparation for combat' is already there, regardless of our dispute.

'Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you' sounds like a threat to me. You can't, Cryptonio, have them both. There are evidencies of Hamas intimidation of the local population. So, either it goes to psy war section, or to political violence. Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That civilian interviewed by Cremonesi were terrified, yet they talked, has nothing to do with political violence, since Hamas is making the case that they are contributing to Israel and not FATAH!.

Those are not tactics, they are military operation, thus 'Palestinian military activity'.

Things keep sounding like 'something' to you, can we make this clear, what you 'feel' whether hunches or sensations, does not belong in the article. Hamas accusing Fatah members of collaborating with Israel is already included in that part of the article. check it

"The Hamas government in Gaza endorsed the killing of Israeli collaborators but denied allegations it had attacked members of Fatah during the conflict. A Hamas spokesperson said that the internal security service "was instructed to track collaborators and hit them hard."[231] Hamas also said that "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law...if any collaborator is sentenced to death, we will not hesitate to carry it out."[232]"

see?

No I referred to the actual source, when said that mention of civilians climbing to the roof was already in the "article". That actual part actually, was in the article, right in the mix with roof knocking, and it was eventually removed etc. Let me tell you something dude, what you are doing, is adding information that some editors have added it and later removed. This is one of those cases. The way the article looks right now, is because all editors have avoided doing the same thing you are now doing. i'll let you know, as i've been doing, every single time you try to add information that was already added, spent some time, and then removed. all because the state of the article was more important than POV pushing. you'll see. Cryptonio (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Members of a Gaza family (whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters) have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields. This is slightly different from executing collaborators, don't you think? Gaza victims describe human shield use.

An order to 'remove unform' is not a part of military operation? Luring the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety is not a part of military operation? Concealing those reports is blinding an eye on the realities of the assymetrical warfare, a regular army vs. irregular. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources you brought did not addressed them as military operations. Human shields allegation are made in Inter Law(with sources that address the allegations as Inter Law violations). Not every single article on the subject belongs in the article. Can you accept that? You want to bloat the article with the same information all over the place. Give the readers some credit, that Israel says A, does not need for you to 'overflow' that point with every single report on the matter that you come across with. You are not putting things in perspective, is not your job, but it is mine to tell you. You think that editors in here does not have access to the same information that you do, the problem really is, that most editors are not in the business of tilting the freaking article towards one way. We are simply presenting the major events plus those that received considerable attention in the media. These trivia bits are not necessary. You make the point of army vs irregular, yet you find it necessary to include that certain hamas members removed their uniforms. Did they even had uniforms in the first place? You have no idea the amount of information that was trimmed by all sides in here, and you seem like you want to add some more. Not necessary? in your view it is, and you are more than welcome to keep bringing all of these stuffs up, but don't be surprised if you keep finding opposition on these matters. Cryptonio (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The editors here had exactly the same sources, but strangely enough there was merely half sentence regarding Hamas psy-war before I picked up the glove. In several sentences I recited the same sources that are cited about Israel. Why no one included all the pros and cons?

The allegations without a single piece of evidence are pointless. Moreover, in 2., 3., 5. I provided non-Israeli sources that are more than relevant to Hamas 'engagement' of IDF. And all you could say is 'Did they even had uniforms in the first place?'. Very funny indeed. Either you lack the perspective completely or you are even more biased than me.

So, your views, however valuable, are merely your opinions. I would seek someone more balanced to decide on the issues. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. That you picked up a section that needed your "valuable" input, was not my fault, why are you blaming me?

"The allegations without a single piece of evidence are pointless" I dont know what that means, but it sure sounds dangerous.

You were the one who brought up the source that said, Hamas ditched their uniforms and went home. This is the problem with your "work" you bring up these supposed event(s) that could have very well had happened ONCE and you want to mass blanket everything in sight with that ONE event or source. In the words of the great Agada, "exceptional claims requires exceptional sources". In other words, you want to give Undue weight to your POV pushing, and no editor in here who respects Wiki is going to accept that. Again, good luck. Cryptonio (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Police issue once again, from another section

So far, my posts regarding the police delt with 'disputed figures' subsection. Now I want to address the 'air strikes' from the 'Israeli offensive'. The sentence in the article says that 'Israel contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities.[91]' If 91says so doesn't mean this is accurate. We were discussing it before and I hope reached acceptable compromise. I don't think the issue should be discussed here, it would be addressed in the 'IL' section. However, if there is a general will to cover it briefly, it must be something like:

'HRW stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.[224] 'IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army.'Consent and advise. I will say it again. The IDF's interpretation of the police as part of Hamas military wing can be disputable. But when regarding police, the justification for the attack must be conveyed precisely. To say that Israel attacked police just because IDF contended they were combatants is wrong, they were attacked because IDF perceives police in Gaza to be incorporated in Hamas military wing. The issues with other political installations are different, and should not be mixed. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Apropos, the indirect evidence, and it would be inserted in IL section, comes from ITIC again,

'In an interview granted by Hussein Abu Azra, commander of the National Security in the Gaza Strip, he elaborated on that service's activity during Operation Cast Lead. At the end of the interview, Hussein Abu Azra emphasized that his forces would be part of the resistance to “any act of aggression against the Gaza Strip” and that they would defend the civilians using all means possible (Al-Risala, March 3). In an interview about the functioning of the Hamas police in Operation Cast Lead, Hamas police chief Jamal Jarah said the following: “The police was able to defend the resistance home front by tracking down agents and arresting them”; “the police took part [in the fighting] alongside the resistance [a commonly used term referring to Hamas's military-terrorist wing] and helped it defend the soil of Gaza” (Pal-media website, February 22).' Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, circumstantial evidence accrued through WP:OR, since it does not provide DIRECT evidence that these policemen in fact actively engaged Israeli forces during the Operation(they were targeted, because of Israel's interpretation, and not because of their actions, as prescribed by international law). It has not been brought, to what extend, policemen actions during a military operation would disqualified them as civilian(or in peace time for that matter). It is why, of the distinction being made, that they must be actively engaged during the military operation. That by having policemen training with the military, entitles Israel to void their civilian clarification, is not under any law. Furthermore, in what country, does policemen are totally separated from the military? and at the same time, widely engaged(with their toy guns) in the fighting during a war? That they took part of the [fighting](why would this be in brackets?) WITH their civilian duties, again does void their immunity. Statements made by Police Heads is not evidence, and even if they were, we only include both sides interpretation of the law, and not evidence since that would be WP:OR, because they are not empirical. Haven't you included Israel's rationale for these attacks already? "evidence" is of no use here. This is included "if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party", it is not up to us to present evidence supporting either of the sides, or claims. Cryptonio (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Statements made by "police heads" are not evidence as to what the police force they're in charge of was doing? You must be kidding. If this guy said they were fighting alongside the Hamas military wing, of course this should go in the article. It gives important background.
It's you who is engaging in WP:OR with your "toy guns" and "in what country..." etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What evidence does a statement constitute? Under what rationale(or under who's?). Point was rather simple. Cryptonio (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot, WP:OR Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said on numerous occasions, Israel Border Police is the military branch of the Israeli Police. They are incorporated in IDF. Israel perceives police in Gaza in the same way. Is the perception correct? Disputable. But this was the argument to attack the police, and not because they were "combatants" who were or were not engaged in hostilities. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel was looking at their own policies to determine if an attack was legal? Palestinains or Hamas for that matter, have not made that claim though, that policemen were "officially" incorporated into the military wing. That, now, as you try, place them under that label, "officially" by OR is not acceptable. Cryptonio (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not me who's trying, it is the IDF from the link. This is how IDF (not me) sees the matter. As Sean put it, 'an IDF view is an IDF view.' It may be wrong or right, it is not an issue here. To say that Israel 'contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities' is to distort both IDF's view and HRW's view.

This is what HRW says: 'HRW stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.[224]'

And this is what IDF thinks: IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army.'Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that Israel's view is already included? Good. What we were actually arguing was the OR which you inserted here. My point is, statements made by Israel, explaining israel's views and counter arguments, are more than enough, as they are necessary, but the OR on "evidences" has went too far dude. Again, Palestinians nor Hamas have prescribed themselves to Israeli interpretation. And that "evidence" you presented, is not official, and can't be brought to correlate Israel's view, because that would be...? you know it...WP:OR, not background information. Cryptonio (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not, and that is all the discussion here. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Caution is required here to avoid synthesising potentially erroneous statements and putting words into the IDF's mouth. HRW said 'armed forces' in the third geneva convention sense as is clear from other statements by them and by international law itself i.e. true combatants not illegal combatants. IDF said 'armed forces' in the sense of a resistance force in the event of an IDF incursion into Gaza i.e. illegal combatants. The IDF have never claimed the right to attack any Palestinians on the basis that they are armed forces in the third geneva convention sense, in the sense that HRW mean it. It would be misleading to suggest that the IDF justify the attack on the police on that basis or that HRW 'armed forces' = IDF 'armed forces'. The IDF attacks people on the basis that they are illegal combatants. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

HRW said "Hamas fighters". I don't know why Sceptic is using a quote that doesn't exactly match the situation when he has a much better one which I posted here and elsewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We are apparently bound to go through this over and over again. We can use, Guy, another HRW statement. 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' I would personally prefer here 'if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict' for the simple reason. Despite Sean attempts here to put words into IDF's mouth, Israel's justification of the attack on police was 'IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army.'Consent and advise. Now Sean, pay attention. PCHR also thinks that 'The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the military wing of the Hamas organisation, they are an armed group, and are considered as combatants according to IHL.' here. What you wrote is irrelevant. Legal or illegal combatants, IDF regards police to be incorporated into al-Qassam Brigades, that would make all of the police fighters and legitimate targets. Either way you put it, the sentence in the article is totally wrong.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, so far you provided us with this: Consent and advise, and I find it very useful. Provide us with another source, that justifies IDF's attack from other perspective, or gives basis (relevant to attack on the police issue and not to the status of prisoners) to your speculations, and we will consider them. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel is not quite making any distinction though. "all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army". They are interpreting as if, the police had no civil duties, and from the start, they weren't part of the 'armed forces", they WERE the armed forces. HRW is saying, the police is not a target UNLESS etc etc, but Israel is saying, 'there is no civilian police force to respect at all'. It is why then, Israel brings up "moonlighting", and thus why HRW says "However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities."

Now, in order to have that moniker of "Hamas fighter", HRW is saying they would have to be engaged in combat in order to be attacked. This is the point the you and Mr guy keeps refuting, but no matter how you look at it, it is obvious that when these policemen are engaged in military activity, they are no longer police but Hamas fighters.

Now, what you both are arguing, and is not being said by no party, whether Israel or HRW, in legal terms that is, but Israel is saying it quite simple(under no protection) is that since policemen moonlight as Hamas fighters, they can be attacked when not engaged in hostilities, and not only that, when they are actually working as policemen. That somehow HRW says that is oka, it is erroneous, and there are ample statements by HRW that it is not oka. Just because they are policemen, they have protection under inter law, and they did not gave up that protection when they were attacked, and thus Israel says "all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army" and then again "anything affiliated with Hamas is a target". Cryptonio (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, there is a great difference within any HRW statement that you bring, and that is the classifications of, as you and Mr guy wants it, being "Hamas fighters moonlight as Policemen" and HRW classification of "Policemen who moonlight as Hamas fighters". The difference is enormous, and you guys picked up the side that is not the side being taken up by HRW in ANY of their statements. 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio is entirely right. The sentence Israel contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities.[91] is fine. We could repeat the fine distinctions of why the Israeli Forces believe what they do here, but there's no need for doing this if we already explain so earlier.

No offense meant to Sceptic Ashdod as a person, since Sceptic has contributed a lot, but I think that this debate should just be dropped. The Squicks (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Cryptonio is not representing what I said or what HRW said correctly. To put it in his words, HRW says that a Hamas fighter who moonlights as a policeman is a legitimate target, while a policeman who moonlights as a fighter is a legitimate target as long as he's directly involved in hostilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

→Cryptonio, Israeli sources, as one I repeatedly cite, Consent and advise, say nothing about 'moonlighting'. They say, and I think you grasp it, that IDF regards police in Gaza as inherent part of Hamas' military wing, in the same manner as Israel Border Police is part of IDF. Whether this claim is right or wrong is debatable, but this is what IDF says. Another Israeli NGO says the same: 'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target.' INSS. The fact that some policemen also moonlight by launching rockets should not undermine and veil the notion that according to IDF, the policemen, all of them, are by definition Hamas fighters because IDF regards police to be incorporated in Hamas military wing.

To Squicks. No offense taken, but the reason I started this section is a sentence in the beginning of the article, section 'air strikes' from the 'Israeli offensive'. I suggest to remove it, since the subject is addressed again elsewhere. About the sentence. The first part is wrong, and let me remind you your own words: 'The IDF said that it believes that Gaza police and Gaza police agents as inherently equivalent to or something along those lines', is what you wrote last time. You see? IDF says police is an inherent part of al-qassam brigades, and that was the reason for attack on police. The second part is also wrong. HRW doesn't argue with anyone. It says: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities' here or 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' here. Cryptonio continues to ignore the bolded words, while bringing only the italic sentence. To sum things up, 'HRW stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.[224] 'IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army.'Consent and advise. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic "IDF regards police in Gaza as inherent part of Hamas' military wing, in the same manner as Israel Border Police is part of IDF"....this is so very wrong. Are the Israel Border Police regarded as illegal combatants by the Supreme Court of Israel ? Are the IDF illegal combatants according to anyone ? Please, the IDF don't need your help to justify their actions especially when the justification you appear to be trying to construct is completely at odds with theirs and the Supreme Court of Israel.

• What you are doing is something like this "Shalit has not been allowed visits from the ICRC. The ICRC state that 'terrorists', as illegal combatants are not entitled to POW status. Hamas state that Gilad Shalit is a Zionist Terrorist".

Do you see what I mean ? While these sentences appear to make sense locally when you put them together the resulting combined statement is totally misleading and gives a false impression of Shalit's status and rights from the ICRC and pretty much everyone elses perspective.

• Let's try another one "HRW state that soldiers in a war, as priviliged combatants can be attacked but are entitled to POW status if captured. Al Qaeda state that their fighters are soldiers in a holy war. Al Qaeda captives are denied POW status by the US government".....again, each sentence is okay but combined together they are completely misleading.

The article mustn't give the false the impression that the IDF regard Hamas and people connected to Hamas as "armed forces" in the third geneva convention sense, "privileged combatants" like IDF soldiers and justify any attacks on this basis. I have already provided the Supreme Court of Israel source that makes it clear that this is never the case. It explicitly states that they are never "armed forces". Their legal status is "illegal combatant", is always illegal combatant and they are attacked on that basis according to the IDF's lawyers interpretation of when it is legal to attack illegal combatants. I have already shown that the HRW "armed forces" quote is a word for word quote of the third geneva convention. Look for yourself. It doesn't matter which HRW quote or any other quote you pick, it doesn't change the fact that the IDF always categorise Hamas + the police etc as illegal combatants=unprivileged civilians and act accordingly using IDF rules. Every IDF attack is constrained by that legal categorisation. Any statements from any source that talks about the laws of war as they apply to privilged combatants is irrelevant. The only statements of relevance are those that apply to illegal combatants. If you want to distort Israel's justification for attacking Hamas and the policemen etc and give the impression that they are attacking them because legally they regard them as soldiers, priviliged combatants (just like the IDF or the border police) in a war go ahead but at least be aware that that is what you are doing. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, you might have a point hear, but what I say is that in the context of attacking the police, it has no relevane if Hamas fighters are legal or illegal combatants. What I try to say is that IDF regards police as inherent part of Hamas armed forces (or terror batallions, or unpriveleged fighters, or whatever). Your link from Haaretz says so.

Either way we look at your post, which is nice speculation in itself, it only provides more basis for my claims that sentence in the article 'Israel contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities.[91]' is wrong both ways. According to you, IDF doesn't contend that police are 'combatants', at least not in the legitimate sense. So, how is the first part of sentence is correct?

Now about the second half. HRW has no argument with IDF. HRW states when it is legal to attack police and when it is not. HRW says that 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.' According to IHL, police could be attacked if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict, it is not required that a certain policeman is taking direct part in the hostility.

Again, Sean, try to understand. Either way we look at the sentence in the article, from IL or IDF perspective, it is wrong. It says half-truths, produced by some mainstream media. It neither reflects IDF views, nor IHL criterions. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Once more, Sean. You may think I am wrong, you may think Israel is wrong, you may even think the whole world is wrong. But at least, give some credit: 'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target.' INSS. As I mentioned before, INSS might not be a reliable source, but they are definitely notable. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What I want you to see, all of you, that both here and here HRW clearly says that '...legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors'. To say that '...human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities' is to produce one such factor and disregard all the rest.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You failed to see the point. This "HRW says that 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.'"

Does not offer protection to this "IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army."

It is why then, you bring this up "'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target.'"

This would offer protection under "formally incorporated", and that is the case that perhaps Israel is 'making', but not through any legal means. They are not saying, that legally, the police in Gaza was incorporated into the armed forces, they are saying, they were part of the armed forces to begin with(at least they saw them in that way). And the reason why, is because they moonlight as rocket launchers, or that in case of an invasion, the police would react like 'regular' Hamas fighters would. But notice that inter law does not say anything about how they would react. Israel assumes, that since the policemen are Hamas fighters, it doesn't matter what they do, when Israel attacks, Israel will target them. Again, these mentality is at odds with HRW statements, and you fail to see this. And you will continue not to see this, because you are defending one party and I don't care who freaking goes to court or not. I clearly see the point that NO HRW statement has addressed the IDF classification that the police was incorporated into the armed forces, except one brief mention that police, of course, had civil duties etc. I'm done with this. We could start from the Consent article, and work a response from there, but that would require some 'research' in order to find out if the UN or HRW has said anything about IDF's beliefs that they were "formally" incorporated, I don't think they would take the part of "policemen would react like hamas fighters" seriously. Cryptonio (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions surrounding roof knocking

This is what 104 says, from January 2: 'The main feature of the Israeli Air Force (AIF) attacks in the last 24 hours was the escalation in the targeting of residential houses belonging to Hamas leaders and militants. Some 25 such houses were attacked. Most of their residents received prior phone warnings by the IDF, informing them about the intention to bomb the house and advising their evacuation. In some cases the strike occurred only 5 minutes after the call. Additional people received similar warnings that did not materialize, thus leaving families in a state of panic and uncertainty. The estimate on the total number of Hamas leaders’ houses targeted so far is 45. There has been extensive damage caused to thousands of houses all over the Gaza Strip.' At the same time, 'propaganda' section says '37 have been destroyed', on Jan. 3. So, the dates must be inserted and discrepancy addressed, otherwise average reader understands that all in all only 37 warnings did materialize.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some 25 such houses were attacked." 25 who received the warnings. 45 total houses belonging to hamas leaders were attacked, but not all received the warnings. At the propaganda section, 37 houses, belonging or not to hamas leaders, were destroyed after receiving these warnings. Two different topics here. Cryptonio (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic, that might be correct, I would have expected the latter number to be equal or greater.

But there is another point. The dates of the cited numbers should be added (and they were made barely at the 1/3 of war), otherwise a reader understands that during the entire war some 40 warnings materialised.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected the latter number to be equal or greater. Perhaps. Prehaps not. This doesn't really matter, does it? Facts are facts.

The dates of the cited numbers The dates are mentioned- in the references. Any reader who clicks [104] will see the date. The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, who really checks references? Me myself didn't, until yesterday. When you read encyclopedia, do you personally check every reference? Me don't. So, as I repeat, it's all about the context. Comrad Kasaalan, during our conversation about IDF efforts to reduce civilian casualties, wrote '..., yet read in wikipedia that most of the calls are false, only 20-30 calls were for real.' Truth? Hardly, merely a verifiable statement from a (how did you put it?) NGO with clear political agenda (I refer to PCHR of course). Nevertheless, Cryptonio added a date there. The contents is OK, the language of the sentence is awful (not that my English is perfect, but...).--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, who really checks references? Me myself didn't, until yesterday

So- as you admit- people do look at reference dates. After all, this is what you yourself just did. The Squicks (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sir, I opened the link ...Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)