Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.23.47.101 (talk) at 06:18, 6 September 2012 (→‎Gaza Holocaust). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Meaning of "cast lead"

I think the article lead (lede) should be modified to include clarification of the meaning of "cast lead". The Hebrew name (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) means cast in the sense of forged not in the sense of thrown. How about inserting just before "Israel's stated aim" like this:

(The Hebrew name means cast in the sense of forged.)[1]

I would omit the <ref> but here it is for discussion if people want it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Ilabila, a new editor made a controversial change. It was reverted. This is where it needs to be discussed. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing conreversal its support by WP:RS also the DLV should have stated his reason in talk before reverting--Shrike (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing controversial ? Interesting. I just said it's controversial as did DLV so there is a disagreement and a different approach is used by the Reuters source that is already there that you ignored. And no DLV didn't have to say anything on talk when he reverted. He does have to use an edit summary to explain why he reverted and he did - "Highly disputed claim. This has been contradicted by numerous sources since the Haarets report the day after the attack". Sean.hoyland - talk 11:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are WP:RS that was brought.If there is different accounts we should bring claims of different WP:RS.Do you object?--Shrike (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i fully agree with sean here. highly controversial and disputed claims must be confirmed by several reliable sources in order to comply with wp:verifiability.-- altetendekrabbe  12:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that I see here is that the Haaretz report was published the morning after the attack so is probably not the best source for establishing the facts about the civilian/combatant ratio, given that the UN fact finding mission, the mainstream human rights organizations, the Israeli government, pro Israel NGO's Palestinian sources etc. all conducted investigations and published on the issue long after the Haaretz initial report. One of the main issues under dispute regarding the casualties on the first day is that a significant proportion of the casualties were civilian police (including 90 cadets and their families at a graduation ceremony). The UN, and human rights organizations assert that they are civilians unless actively engaged in fighting, while Israel's declared policy s that they were all targeted as "Hamas operative". This issue is discussed in the casualty section. If you want to bring the initial Haaretz claim then we are going to have to document all the counter claims and explain the discrepancies between the different sources and the various rebuttals that have been offered by involved parties. Personally I don't think it is a good idea to open up that can of worms because the section will very soon get bogged down documenting all the significant opinions (which should probably discussed in the casualty section). Dlv999 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the police force also be Hamas members, nobody disputes this, so why is this biased towards one POV? I suggest writing "Hamas members" as opposed to "operatives" which could be viewed as a less loaded term.Ankh.Morpork 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion ongoing. You should stop editing until a consensus forms. There is no deadline. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Support AnkhMorpork's edit because it is sourced to a reliable source and that is the criteria. There is absolutely no reason to prevent this edit which is reliably sourced and supported by other editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you have this from the New York Times which corroborates Haaretz; Palestinian officials said that most of the dead were security officers for Hamas, including two senior commanders The Palestinians themselves acknowledged that most were Hamas security officers! What more do you need? I expect HoyLand to self revert and if not, explain his reasons for not doing so.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another source from CBC Although most of the dead were Hamas security forces, at least 15 were civilians, according to Palestinian officials. There are multiple sources that can substantiate the edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone objecting to the edit, made by three different editors and supported by four, should show cause why three reliable, verifiable sources (NYT, CBC and Haaretz) should be discounted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explicitly confirm that you do not intend to follow BRD and wait for a consensus to form ? I insist that you provide a clear answer to the question. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is simply no reason for the BRD in the first place, and at either rate, a growing concensus has formed with backup from numerous credible and reliable media outlets.--Activism1234 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
seems to me, after reading the above and following what has been happening, that there are 3-4 RS that say exactly what the edit said. controversial? maybe, but certainly well sourced. i have seen many things here in wikiworld that i think are controversial and have been told (even by you, sean) that the RS stands. yes, be sure not to have UNDUE, etc., but it stands. Soosim (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RS stand, but that means representing all views published by RS. If we are going to include this material from the initial news reports from the day following the strike, we are also going to include the material published after significant investigations were carried out to the effect that many of the victims of the first days attack were civilian police, many of whom were traffic cadets and band musicians at a graduation ceremony with their families, regarded as civilians by the UN fact finding mission, the mainstream human rights organisations, etc. If the decision is to go into this issue at this point in the article I will be happy to bring all the sources that represent the variouls published opinions on this issue. Dlv999 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly bring in the U.N. fact-finding mission, but I'd also expect it to be mentioned that the author of the report, Richard Goldstone, later disapproved of the report, said much of it was pre-determined and biased, and one-sided and taken from interviews with a certain group and trusting their words, and recommended that it be removed. In the same step, it may also be appropriate to link or cite various sources that refuted the report, specifically the part you are arguing about. Otherwise, there's really no point in it.--Activism1234 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I am observing is a break down in due process in the topic area. This instance is one of many recent cases. The question for me is not about some words in this article. It's about the wider issue of whether I need to switch from trying to being patient, trying to follow BRD, and expecting others to do the same, or focusing my efforts on doing something that might help make the topic area function properly so that editors who do follow due process don't have to waste their time dealing with editors who don't. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is not a valid reason for reverting an edit that is properly sourced and confirmed by multiple sources, as pointed out above by Jiujitsuguy and Soosim. Still, a discussion has taken place, and it's pretty clear that there was no reason to revert the improvement that was properly sourced by credible news sources.--Activism1234 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a valid reason. That is exactly how it works. A bold edit is made, it's reverted and a discussion then follows to find a consensus. When editors won't follow the BRD cycle on issues where there is disagreement, things rapidly break down. It becomes disruptive and often results in edit warring. All sorts of controversial information can be properly sourced and confirmed by multiple sources in this topic area. It would be trivial for an editor to select properly sourced information that is confirmed by multiple sources to tell any story they want in this article or any other in the topic area. Editors regularly disagree about how to handle content, which sources to use etc, and when that happens they are required by policy to try to reach consensus through discussion. They are required to have the patience to achieve that and there is no rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Dlv999 states, "The issue that I see here is that the Haaretz report was published the morning after the attack so is probably not the best source for establishing the facts..." JJG significantly improved upon this and supported the content with multiple sources. Contrary to your assertions, edits that seek to rectify a perceived issue do not require your vouchsafing before their submission. I shall remind you that BRD is not a policy or guideline and in fact expressly states: BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. Despite this you have self-righteously reverted three times citing a policy which explicitly disapproves your conduct. Your edit summaries make clear that you are seeking to impose this policy on others and your combative editing has to stop. You still have not made a single talk page comment directly discussing the merits of the edit. Since you seem unfamiliar with BRD I shall further quote: "However, don't get stuck on the discussion It isn't BRDDDDDD either. Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or, better yet, considerably less time than that." JJG was operating in accordance with this policy, unlike yourself, and your depictions of his editing otherwise is wholly erroneous. Ankh.Morpork 18:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's charming and helpful. Now, if you could just focus for a moment on the problem rather than me it would be better. Of course I am aware that BRD is a guide but it provides a practical framework for WP:CONSENSUS which is policy. Edits made while a discussion is ongoing that clearly won't have consensus are not helpful. It's disruptive and it's edit warring. Now, to be fair to JJG (and unlike you) he made an effort with his last edit to move things forward but it was already clear from Dlv999's comment at 13:00, 9 June 2012 that this wouldn't resolve the issue. The way to resolve the issue is to be patient, bring sources, discuss things and find a solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You still do not appear to have acknowledged that that this "is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." While it is useful and perhaps advisable aid, you have reverted three times and have sought to impose this policy on others both in the article and in the talk page. This is disruptive and verges on edit-warring especially when you have scarcely commented on the edit in question. You have even decided to create a thread titled BRD dedicated to enforcing this guideline. It is worrying that an experienced editor such as yourself feels it necessary to browbeat editors about their views on BRD, (whom you acknowledge were making an effort to move things forward) when you yourself are acting contrary to this essay, and I request you explain your actions. Ankh.Morpork 19:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A call for responsible editing, or for a rewriting under administrative guidance.

This article is a total mess because editors are patching in googled information on sections without reading for context. Sean hoyland has a point. The process of responsible editing appears, on key articles, to have broken down.

Jiujitsuguy's most recent edit, for example says, with 3 sources (on excessive sourcing, see below) says:-

  • At least 225-230 Palestinians were killed, most of them Hamas security officers

Had he read above this, he would have noticed the following, a mere two lines up.

  • Approximately 140 members of Hamas were killed, including Tawfik Jaber, head of Hamas' police force

So 140 members of Hamas were killed, no wait, 225-300 Palestinians were killed, most of them Hamas security officers. The way this flows, whatever the editors' intentions were, is that 140 reads as most of 225-230, when it is a touch over half (60%), all in the space of three lines. The reader is left only with bepuzzlement, or a nod of the head at the incompetence of wikipedia as a source, and as an encyclopedic project.

The key vice is over-sourcing from immediate reportage. To get an idea of why this is completely garbled by promiscuous, intensive, ill-focused sourcing, suffice it to look at war articles, generally, and for the area.

What have we for Gaza War? which lasted 23 days? a massive jumble of 489 (which must be close to a wiki record) notes, mostly from period newspapers - for a 3 week blitz that has 60 more notes than the article for the 11 year-long war in Afganistan. The only impression one gets is of tendentious illegibility.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding what you are suggesting. The edit made by Jiujitsuguy was sourced appropriately with what are undeniably WP:RS. If you don't consider 60% to be "most", that's fine, but it's WP:OR for you to make that judgment call. If the WP:RS call it "most", then so should we. Unless I am misunderstanding you, I assume that your point of view is that Jiujitsuguy's addition should be removed. What policy supports that view? Because to me, it sounds like WP:CENSOR. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to understand what writing clear English, that does not create misunderstandings in the reader's mind, requires. Jiujitsuguy's edit is symptomatic of useless multiple sourcing that contradicts, or gives the appearance of contradicting, what the article says a few lines above. When you edit, you should at least read the whole section, and preferably, if you've read it the whole article.
I see you haven't addressed the main point. Following his selective use of three dated RS which contradict what the text says just above, we now have 489 sources. Perhaps they're all RS. Wikipedia articles on wars far more complex than this have a medium of half that number of RS. Even the Afganistan war which was 191 times longer than the Gaza war in temporal terms has far fewer notes. That is the key problem.
Thirdly, with so much to fix that is obviously crass, but ignored, I suggest editors are not reading the article at all, but looking at things that they might perspectivize in partisan terms. I deduce this from a few random things in the lead:
  • 'three-week armed conflict that took place in the Gaza Strip during the winter of 2008–2009, which started on December 27, 2008.'
That comma there after which means that the winter of 2008-9 began on December 27, which is news to the world of climatologists.
  • 'Palestinian groups continued firing rockets in response to what they characterized as "massacres".'
'continuing' is used there to conflate the rocket-firing before the assault, with the responsive rocketry after the assault began. You can't do that logically, because the sentence would imply that pre-war rockets into Israel were responses to the 'massacres' that took place after the beginning of Operation Cast Lead.
  • 'infantry units were given an 'unprecedented level of access to coordinate with air, naval, artillery, intelligence, and combat engineering units during this second phase.'
That looks like WP:OR, and is dumb. Access to what? 'Access' is hanging in the air. The comma after 'intelligence' shouldn't be there, for it deprives all three adjectives of the noun they modify; 'to coordinate' should come after 'units', 'to coordinate (ground operations) with them', if you accept the otherwise unsourced statement.
  • 'Israel first declared a unilateral ceasefire.'
'First' placed thus syntactically obliges one to continue with Israel as the subject of a further clause. (Israel first declared, and then). What the editor must have intended to write is that Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire (which implies it was the first to stop shooting).
  • 'The legal status of the Gaza strip is disputed, Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza.'
That has, in context, a comma where a full stop, or a colon is required.
  • the UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs, who. . .'
Organizations require 'which', not 'who'.
  • 'January 2006 legislative elections brought Hamas to power of Palestinian National Authority.'
that is garbled English, and untrue if it means anything that its constituent words try to imply it may.
This, and much else suggests to me that the unpolemical chore of simple editing care is being ignored, and editors are failing to read the article, as they look at how to get POV leverage into snippets from googling. The result is a mishmash of useless triplicated, quadruplicated sourcing, often contradicted by accounts that were written in the cold hindsight of extensive investigation afterwards.
And don't add silly links, with absurd innuendoes, to irrelevant policy. This has nothing to do with censorship, and everything to do with editorial responsibilities to make an article, clear, cogent, brief, and impeccable documented from the best RS, not just any RS.And as long as this bickering attitude over edits persists, serious editors won't come in to fix this. Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis with anti-tank missles, PLO without tanks?

I am not too much into this subject, but unless there is some use for anti-tank missles other than tanks, that sounds pretty fishy to me. Either the PLO had tanks that were not mentioned, or Israel was not using anti-tank missles. Is it possible that there is another use for anti-tank missles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.55.129 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antitank missiles can be used for a number of secondary tasks depending on the model of missile. They can be used against all types of vehicles, cars, trucks, etc. they can be used to destroy strongpoints such as a bunker or a fortified house. they are very very useful for taking out snipers. No, really. If a Sniper is sitting a mile off behind a wall inside an apartment it is almost impossible to take him out with rifle fire, bur an ATGM can bring the roof down on him from two or three miles away. the cost of a missile is high compared to a rifle round, but very small compared to an officer or trained soldier.13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC) David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk)

Gaza Holocaust

Why does Gaza Holocaust redirect to this article and what can we do about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonkeltron (talk • contribs) 03:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should not redirect here. No news source has used this wording. Holocaust is defined as reckless destruction of life or mass slaughter according to dictionary.com, which does not properly describe Operation Cast Lead.--108.23.47.101 (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before.
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_19#Gaza_Holocaust
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_17#Gaza_Holocaust
Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not meet the definition nor is it used by either side of combatants. It appears to be somewhat biased wording placed on as a result of an outside, uninvolved party and as such should, in my personal opinion, not be seen as encyclopedic. However, as well all seem biased, you too from your posts in 2010, I think it is best to have an RfC on the matter from outside parties, which I opened below. Please allow outsiders to comment on this issue as you already made your opinion clear.--108.23.47.101 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be redirected to from Gaza Holocaust?

Should this article be redirected to from Gaza Holocaust as a result of the decision of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_67#RFC which determined that the one side of the argument termed it Gaza Massacre (not Holocaust) and the other Operation Cast Lead?--108.23.47.101 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is for this, not RfC. You would need to nominate it again. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary. 1965. p. 950. cast, forged ... יצוק {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)&oldid=511029277"