Talk:Gaza War/Archive 61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 55 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 65

lead para. of disputed figures

JJGuy's edit was not perfect. Neither was a fix of Jgui's. "The IDF reported that Hamas fighters did not wear uniforms..." - is simply untrue, this is not what JPost says. Besides, the "Engagement with Israeli forces" section cites about 4 sources unrelated to IDF or Israel to support such a claim. Next, the sentence "Further difficulties ..." doesn't cite sources (btw, int_law is very specific as to whom must be counted as a combatant) and as usual brings in the blockade by Israel, forgetting to mention Egypt. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that Jgui either didn't read the source or deliberately misrepresented it. Either way, it's bad.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that that paragraph is an initial attempt (as I stated) - I was going to rework it with additional cites and changes but the article got locked down while I was working on it before I got the chance. In any case I don't think the sentence I added: "The IDF reported that Hamas fighters did not wear uniforms that could be distinguished from the civilian population, so that they were mis-counted when arriving at hospitals" is too far from the cited article's: "The Hamas gunmen who participated in the fighting against the IDF were all dressed as civilians and the majority arrived at hospitals without their weapons or any other signs revealing their status as gunmen." The claim I removed that Hamas ordered its troops to change uniforms is attributed to unnamed "Palestinians" and should certainly not be reported in WP's voice as JJGuy had done; if we want to include this in the article we need someone who will stand by the claim - I was looking for an IDF rep to make that claim but hadn't yet found one - maybe he can?
I'm certainly not wedded to that exact paragraph and suggest we can work on it here while waiting, but I do think that it is an improvement to have the intro paragraph in that section cite the range of opinions as to why casualties were difficult to classify, with both sides of the issue in an NPOV fashion. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Jgui, the "unnamed" Gazans were interviewed by khaled Abu Toameh, the journalist who authored the article. It is a common practice not to name sources especially in places where such statements can result in death or lengthy imprisonment by the authorities. If you wanted to add additional sourced reasons for the problems concerning accurate casualty stats, fine, do so. But to misrepresent a verifiable, reliable source is very bad and totally unacceptable. On a positive note, I congratulate you on your initiative and efforts to clean up the casualty section.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, so this pro-Israeli Jerusalem Post writer somehow crossed the tightly sealed border into Gaza during the Gaza War and personally interviewed Palestinians, and these Palestinians talked to him about Hamas' evil plots? Do you really believe that? Thank you for your comments on the casualty section. Jgui (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked again and can't find a direct source from the IDF, etc. to attribute this to. Unless you can, I would be OK attributing the statement to the writer: e.g. "Toameh of the Jerusalem Post reported that Hamas had ordered its fighters to wear civilian clothing so that they could not be detected by the IDF, and that when these fighters were killed or injured it was therefore difficult to distinguish them from the civilian population" or something similar. It just cannot be in WP's voice, which it was before I changed it. Jgui (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Toameh and the JPost are RS. Btw, he is an Arab, often gathering info from Palestinian-controlled territory. Who knows how he obtained his material? Anyway this is irrelevant - the fact that Hamas had ordered its fighters to wear civilian clothing was stated by reporters who were in Gaza during the war and they are cited in the entry, so 1st half of the sentence could refer to about 4-5 independant sources. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That's great. Please list the 4-5 independent sources. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
New York Times, New York Times, Times of London, Los Angeles Times, AP Stellarkid (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Along with Trumpets of victory strike false note we now have five six independent sources that verify that Hamas wore civilian clothing during the engagement. This should close the matter and when protection is lifted, it should be prominently noted accordingly. Perhaps a separate section on the matter should be considered as the practice by Hamas of wearing civilain clothes not only caused confusion concerning combatant/civilian casualty stats, it also appeared to be employed as a deliberate war strategy by the organization--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen, before the protection is lifted I prompt you to read the article (however messy it is at times). The sentence that says that Hamas wore civilian clothing is there. That said, the article that JJGuy found is indeed relevant to the disputed figures. Does anyone read Italian? - I suggest in the meantime to check out the article by Cremonesi, I think he said something similar, but I'm not completely sure. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs. I agree this is well sourced and belongs as one of the possible reasons for dead being hard to classify. Adding the second NYTimes ref should prevent its being called into question in the future. I would add it if I could, but we'll have to wait for article to be free to edit. Jgui (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps as a first step it would be useful to exclude racists from editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.18.89 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So we have consensus on this issue. Hamas dressed as civilains and this contributed to the problem of obtaining an accurate combatant/civilian count. I will be so bold as to say that there is also consensus on the table that Jgui set up. It cleans things up a bit. Do we have agreement?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not have understood the article specific issue being discussed here but whose combatant/civilian counts are we talking about being confused by civilian clothes ? Which sources providing counts have said that they were confused by this ? Combatant vs non-combatant civilian counts by the likes of B'Tselem etc were to my knowledge based on the standard circumstances of death approach i.e. was the person engaged in combat at the time of death not on what they were wearing. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
From JJGuy source: "The sources agreed, nevertheless, that it was difficult to come up with accurate figures because it was difficult to distinguish between a civilian and a Hamas militiaman. According to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, on the first day of the war Hamas ordered its gunmen to take off their uniforms to avoid being detected by the IDF. The Hamas gunmen who participated in the fighting against the IDF were all dressed as civilians and the majority arrived at hospitals without their weapons or any other signs revealing their status as gunmen".
One of the claims against human-rights groups, particularly PCHR, that regardless of the circumstances of the death it counted many combatants as civilians.
As I tried to show you on several occasions, the "standard circumstances of death approach" should not necessarily be the engagement in combat, but the question whether this person provides "continuous combat functions" (e.g. planning, training, belonging to the armed group).
Speaking of B'Tselem, they applied in many cases the notion of "direct participation in hostilities". The term is not legally defined. They used the definitions provided by ICRC, but the ICRCs publication on the matter was itself criticised by many experts who participated in discussions - there was no consensus among experts and anyway this would not constitute law in itself. If other standards were applied, much more would not be called civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of your/the HCJ's/JCPA's/NGO Monitor's various opinions on these issues and even the notion of a uniform isn't legally defined but my question was 'Which sources providing counts have said that they were confused by this ?' I'm interpreting the JPost statement "Various sources in the Gaza Strip, including medics, journalists and a few Hamas supporters" as a statement that does not include sources that provided counts being used in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sean, when will you grow up, beyond HCJ/JCPA/NGO Monitor, and start taking seriously what I write? B'tselem based their definitions on ICRC publication; ICRC publication is not legally binding, and ICRC's view on "direct participation in hostilities" was objected by several prominent figures in Int_law field. What does A Dutch specialist or a German professor have to do with HCJ/JCPA/NGO Monitor? Those experts had agreed that civilians who act as voluntary human shields should fit within the definition (of direct participation in hostilities), which would make them legitimate military targets. This should go into "disputed figures" because this definitely affected the count.
Quoting again, "it was difficult to come up with accurate figures because it was difficult to distinguish between a civilian and a Hamas militiaman" - this is what the source says, and I have to check out Cremonezi because he might have said something similar. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Setting aside the fact that measuring the degree to which person A is grown up by the extent to which they take person B seriously is a deeply flawed approach, I was being serious. I am aware of the various interpretations and I wasn't joking about the uniforms. I mentioned it because I read this interesting article a while ago. I don't recall mentioning a Dutch specialist or a German professor and I don't intend to get in to debate about what participation in hostilities means. So getting back to the subject, what I don't understand is "This should go into "disputed figures" because this definitely affected the count." Which sources that provided counts are saying that it definitely affected their counts ? It seems obvious that these kind of statements need to come from attributed sources within the organizations that provided the counts. We can't have unnamed Israeli sources in AlJazeera saying that the IDF had problems with their count. It would need to come from the IDF/MFA. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed interesting article. I'll take my time studying it.
Do you have problem with that quote from JJGuy's source ""it was difficult to come up with accurate figures because it was difficult to distinguish between a civilian and a Hamas militiaman"?
Follow me: B'Tselem says in their figures report that they used ICRC's definition of "direct participation in hostilities". ICRC's definition was objected as too restrictive by numerous experts in the int_law field. So far I don't need additional sources. Now if I want to add another sentence that says explicitly that B'Tselem figures were necessarily compromised by the definition they used, then yes I need another source, and I will invoke Monitor if I won't come up with anything better. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, I already inserted it once, so maybe this point be expanded a bit: The authors of the report charged that B'Tselem's classifications of combatant and non-combatant status were "flawed by restrictive definitions." B'Tselem wrote that its classification was based on "a new approach" of the International Committee of the Red Cross ... . --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the paper - reading on page 12: "While there is a practice to wear uniforms in armies, there is not an obligation in international humanitarian law to wear them (mind “self-evident” remark). The wearing of civilian clothes is only illegal if it involves perfidy". Fighting in urban area in civilian clothes is perfidy - too bad you didn't forward the article to Goldstone. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The ICRC continues to define "civilians attempting to shield a military objective by their presence" as persons entitled to protection against direct attack. It states that the conduct of voluntary human shields "does not amount to direct participation in hostilities." And the Washington Times is not an RS to tell us differently anyway. 86.155.18.89 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
86.155.18.89, In light of your unproductive and provocative comments here[1] your comments on the Gaza discussion page are not welcome. This is a collaborative effort by editors who are striving to piece together a factually accurate, well-sourced, concise article. The discussion page is where consensus is built, differences are debated and compromise hammered out. It is not a forum for your deliberate provocations and gratuitous comments--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic, to explain since you asked, yes I have a problem with the original quote (and I think you've already acknowledged and understood the reasons). To be clear though, my problem isn't related to whether the statement is true or false or whether it accurately or inaccurately represents the opinion of the person or persons making the statement. My problem isn't really even related to the context of the statement in this case i.e. casualty counts. My problem is simply that it is a statement by X about the problems Y experienced carrying out process Z when a relationship (information transfer) between X and Y has not been demonstrated. It's like an anonymous person (X) saying that Obama (Y) had trouble doing up his shoelaces (Z) yesterday. If B'Tselem or any of the other sources found it difficult to come up with accurate figures because it was difficult to distinguish between a civilian and a Hamas militiaman it should be easy to find a source in which they actually say this and we should use that source. This seems very obvious and I think you've acknowledged that. If on the other hand 2 medical doctors from the Center for Injury Prevention and Genocide Prevention Program have opinions about classifications in IHL and theories about why the IDF killed so many boys and it's included in the article I don't care. I think the information is worthless personally because it's unsubstantiated speculation that to my knowledge has not been picked up by the international media. As for "Fighting in urban area in civilian clothes is perfidy - too bad you didn't forward the article to Goldstone" that a) is factually incorrect b) misrepresents what the Goldstone report says on this matter and c) is soapboxing. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Sean, you're engaging in original research or analysis, which is something you scolded me over when I questioned the DCI figures. The fact is that the source is reliable and verifiable. That's the gold standard. Now you might have your own opinion on the matter just as I had mine on those bogus DCI numbers but as long as the source is reliable and verifiable, it belongs in there.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is my original research or analysis ? I don't follow what you mean. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I misread your last comment but it seemed to me that you were rejecting an RS based on your own assumptions regarding its conclusions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you mean the Center for Injury Prevention and Genocide Prevention Program, no, if people want to include that it's fine. I'm not sure I would describe it as an RS since sources aren't an RS unless there is evidence to show that they are an RS but it's not making statements of fact so I don't think it matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Now I might be alone in this, but I have to say I like the article protection. I think that if we were to assess it with any detachment, we'd have to say that we've made a bit of a mess of things here. So maybe we should consider protection for a longer period. Let's be honest, when the article says it is "protected" that's not from Johnny IP passing by -- it's protected from you and me.

I think it might be good for us to put the training wheels back on and we can carry on this conversation but the subject wouldn't be the embarrassing article that exists but rather our ideal of what an article about the Gaza War might look like. Or whatever title we decide upon. And maybe in a year or two we'll be ready for the responsibility of a real article. Or we could start small with a subarticle or a footnote. But I think for now it a little break might be helpful for everyone. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe... The question is how little and who is to decide. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for article protection to be removed. I don't think it was protected from you two. It is an important article regarding current events and should be edited currently. I would hope some of the nastier issues, such as the (m word) should go to mediation. I have agreed not to edit it, and won't edit the talk page either for two months, if AGK would agree to unprotect it. Stellarkid (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
What the hell is the "m word", Stellarkid?!?!
I'm trying to stay away from here and it looks like Stellarkid is happy to forget this as well. A big problem for a handful of us has been "MASSACRE". Is the next logical step to go to WP:RFM? We can recycle reasoning and make arguments and make all sorts of noise here but I think it is passed that.Cptnono (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The m word is muddyfunster, a culturally sensitive swear word. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Who won the war?

Hamas failed in stopping the israeli attacks, so Israel succeeded in knocking Hamas pretty hard on the military basis. But Hamas got even more popular than before the war, becouse of this. So I think the results of the war should be changed into:

"Tactical israeli victory"

"Political Hamas victory"

"Both sides decleared unitareal ceasefire"

"Mostly status qou ante bellum"

Anyone who agree? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas got even more popular than before the war" - any proof of that (to my best knowledge, it might have become more popular in the West Bank but not in Gaza, but I didn't do any research)? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
"Hamas got even more popular than before the war?" I find that statement highly unlikely. In fact, the opposite is true. The civilian population was upset with the performance of Hamas and the way the military wing of the organization collapsed in the face of the IDF advance. Many were also upset with the fact that Hamas brought untold devastation to their doorstep by unecessarily provoking a war with Israel. I can provide RSs to back up these claims.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hamas didn't made it to stop the invasion. Therefore, I suggest that this was a tactical Israeli victory, but not necessarily a political victory.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead from the perspective of a Viet Nam Veteran: Tomorrow is Veterans' Day so I must add my experience to this discussion. The word WIN is for board games with strict rules, not for life itself. No one "won." Where's the victory in atrocity? People were massacred and Peace was lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigaiter2 (talkcontribs) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

add this info some one

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090202_gaza_war.pdf

pdf report on war day by day. Lot of infomation. Some one should add this in somewhere  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.185.235 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC) 

what a joke...

Post War Military Assessment

The war resulted in a tactical battlefield success for Israel and represented a significant tactical defeat for Hamas.[229][230][231][232][233]

Several senior Hamas military commanders and politburo members were killed. In addition, Hamas lost approximately 50 explosives experts[234] and experienced “widespread desertion” in the face of the Israeli advance.[234] A former Shin Bet deputy director who co-authored a report on the war noted, “Hamas had planned to stand and fight, but the Iz al-Qassam Brigades proved unequal to the task…and consequently they failed to match the public image Hamas has tried so hard to present of stalwart, proficient Islamic warriors.”[233]

In addition, the Israeli Gaza operation has greatly curtailed years of Hamas rocket fire, returning a sense of normality to Southern Israel.[235] In the year preceding the war, Hamas had fired over 3300 rockets at Israel’s Gaza periphery towns. That number dropped dramatically to fewer than 300 in the 10 months following the conflict.[236]

Defense analyst David Eshel stated “that the success of Operation Cast Lead in the densely populated Gaza Strip shows that an industrial military that coordinates operations among land, air and sea units, makes effective use of advanced technology, and shares intelligence and leads from the front can decisively defeat an asymmetrical enemy.” He further noted that “Israel used a variety of tactics to outflank and defeat Hamas in its own territory,” including, “long-term planning, meticulous intelligence-gathering, deception and disinformation.”[237]

As a result of its poor performance, Hamas has relieved at least two brigade commanders on Iranian recommendations. The organization has also decided to initiate a thorough investigation of the conduct of its men during the operation.[238]


or what a commentary! Cryptonio (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's going on with the article?

It is still protected but nobody is talking about the massacre issue which brought that about. Does anybody have anything to say about that? Or can everyone at least agree to deal with issues on the talk page? I know there were some topic bans for edit-warring. So perhaps there is not much of an issue now. Maybe we can ask for the protection to be removed? --JGGardiner (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happens this source is pretty good factoid-wise. Military Dimensions: The Israeli Arsenal Deployed against Gaza, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 38, no. 3, p. 175. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This too. Day-by-Day Casualties, Israeli Sorties, and Palestinian Missiles Fired. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 38, no. 3, p. 201. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. But the second source is very hard to read, perhaps due to the way it was scanned. The first source is very technical with some very interesting info from a military perspective. Has it beed cited or republished in another RS?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked nor do I think that matters in this case. It's an academic journal by the highly respected and reliable University of California Press, one of many they publish. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
sorry, I don't consider that source objective. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Steve, sorry but your personal opinions are simply not relevant here. Please read WP:RS to help understand WP's definition of Reliable Source. Journal of Palestine Studies is a perfectly acceptable RS and can and should be included. If you question anything that is used from them and think you can add balance by including a relevant opposing citation from another RS, then you are free to do so and no editor here will stop you. Jgui (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The requirement is that a source be reliable, not objective. If objectivity were required, we'd have to withdraw most of the ones used in the article. In any event, Sean's right: an academic journal published by a respected university (system) like UC is always going to be considered an RS. Although, to be honest, I don't think the first article really says anything that I hadn't heard before. That shouldn't be surpring really because most of it comes from Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post and the Amnesty Report -- basically the same things that everyone here has been looking at. And looking at what I put on Cerejota's Cast Lead page, it also missed the SIMON breach grenade. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to be able to exclude all non-objective sources from Wikipedia for articles like this, all journalists, politicians, religious leaders, activists etc and restrict it to sources provided by members of the National Academy of Sciences and related orgs. That pesky RS policy keeps getting in the way though. In the 'welter of conflicting fanaticisms', to use Russell's phrase, I think this source does a pretty good job to collect together the available empirical data. Yes, I'm not sure that the first article adds new information either (I haven't read it all yet) but at least it makes an attempt to collect the information together. That's quite handy in itself. Having said that, it does have the word 'Palestine' in the title and is therefore inherently unreliable or least that's what I gather from site's extensively used as sources in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
If I understood correctly, Palestine Studies accumulated and relied heavily on bulletins issued by PCHR. If this is the case, I don't see what additional value this paper provides. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You understand correctly that they used data from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. They used data from a variety of sources particularly PCHR and the IDF for the daily stats along with all sorts NGO's and the media. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection Survey

Okay that last section got sidetracked, so back to my original question, is there still a dispute here? I think that the protection is supposed to remain until we can resolve whatever caused it. But I think that may have already happened with the edit-warriors being topic-banned. So, I'd like to ask everyone:
"when the article protection is removed, I intend to:"
a) edit productively
b) edit war (identify issue)
c) other (please explain)

Thanks! --JGGardiner (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

C) other. I intend to replace the entire article with a redirect to Conway Twitty, just for the heck of it. But if that doesn't work, I might go for a). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I was planning to put the word Moussaka in the lead and/or a) edit productively. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
My primary intention is b) edit war. It is not about the issue, it is about Sean. The war will continue until he admits that the Guardian is the most biased, anti-Israeli and unobjective source on issues of the MidEast. When this is settled, a) is conceivable. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ridiculous Sceptic. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is the most biased, unobjective source on Middle East issues. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The long and complicated history of the Guardian's reporting on Israel-Palestine issues can't be summed in a Steinberg-like propaganda sound bite or perhaps I should say Dan Kosky-like sound bite since he writes for them. Their reporting is the 'most biased, anti-Israeli and unobjective' source in the same way that J-Street or Avraham Burg are 'biased, anti-Israeli and unobjective'. They're criticised by both sides. Many people take the view that killing and injuring innocents is regrettable but writing a report about it is an affront that causes immense pain and suffering. This isn't unique to the I-P conflict of course. Those people can avoid further terrible suffering and hardship by not reading the Guardian or at least they should stick to the arts section which is quite good. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel that any consensus exists at this article, and I do not support any removal of article protection. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course we don't have an article-wide consensus. We never will. But the article isn't protected for lack of consensus; it is protected because of edit-warring. Looking back on things in the year or so I've been editing this article (talk) I'm actually amazed by the progress we've made. We have the most difficult subject to tackle. Hundreds of problems have come and gone. "Gone" because consensus essentially solved them. It is a temporary solution in some cases but that's how it works.

We're going to have disagreements but as long as we can work them out on the talk page, protection doesn't really help. And in any event, protection doesn't help at all if we don't work out the problems that required it. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, so far I have not seen any realistic or practical solutions offered or discussed here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Solutions to what ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)...new editors won't know what you mean exactly. I'm not sure that I do either. There will never be consensus over words people find offensive. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"Solutions to what?," was your question. have you taken any steps to find out what the other side's issues are with this article? If you don't find out, then there will be no way to show that any consensus was reached on those issues. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have. I asked people to formally define the decision procedure that would be used to resolve the last edit war. That didn't happen. No decision procedure, no decision. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not inclined to edit-war, but what to do when contentious content is aggressively pushed into the article? When editors only work to add or expand on content that supports one POV, and work to remove or relegate content that does not. Revert them and you get reverted in turn, repeat and there you are in an edit war. For example, there have been a number of other "Israeli Victory!" infobox edits added recently by an editor involved here, in other Wiki articles related to the I-P conflict. One can see that a zealous User can often prevail through sheer persistence. Honestly maybe this article is better locked up than hijacked. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You are probably talking about JJGuy, but he recently expressed the will for the more balanced and productive way. And pls don't be so innocent, you're not so POV-less yourself, and neither is anyone who is working on the article including myself. This is ok, though, cause we're not supposed to be opinionless - as long as we agree to contribute in productive way. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The sanctions require all editors to edit in a neutral way all the time. Editors can't edit based on their preferred POV and expect others to fix it. That is not contributing in a productive way. If editors can't edit an article in a neutral way the sanctions make it clear that they should not edit the article at all. RomaC's edits and comments almost without exception address egregious policy violations and blatant POV pushing. That is exactly what pro-Wikipedia editors should do. It seems to be a commonly held view that neutrality is some kind of magical self-assembling emergent property that will appear through the actions of sets of competing POV-warriors, the idiotic 'pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine' view that flies in the face of numerous policies. If there were a large population of editors that might work eventually. With a small population what you get is something much more like a drift towards fixation where one POV eventually eradicates others simply because one side has more time of their hands. There's a good reason why the sanctions require editors to edit in a neutral way all the time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

→Steve, apart for the unfinished "M" business, you do not seriously expect people involved to reach consensus on all potentially disputable issues in the article, do you? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, no I do not. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer you question, JJ, there are editors who are deliberately making it impossible to have a good article. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What Is to Be Done?

My feeling is that the problems we've had are mostly the fault of people editting too agressively and edit-warring. I think there is not complete consensus on this page but that is also very difficult to expect a meaningful consensus beyond an agreement to not edit-war. We should ask that editors who cross the line face disciplinary sanctions that we're warned about and the rest of us accept that an impasse in discussion is not an excuse to ignore other opinion. So here's my little road map to unprotection:

1) Editors agree not to edit-war
2) Editors agree that contentious changes will only be made as a result of talk page consensus
3) "Contentious changes" will include all disputes currently listed on the talk page. Including:

a) The following additions
1) any sort of "victory" in the status field of the infobox.
2) an upper case M to the "Gaza massacre" name in the lead.
b) the following deletions
1) the removal of the "International Law" section to be replaced with the lead from the subarticle
2) the casualty claims made by Hamas. They will also not be moved to the propaganda section
3) the claims that Hamas fighters removed their uniforms or wore civilian clothing in the "Engagement with Israeli forces" sectiom.
4) the portion of the lead which notes the "Arab world" name of "Gaza massacre"
5) the "Post War Military Assessment" section.
6) "Gaza Strip" as a belligerent in the infobox, along with the sublisting of "paramilitary forces"

4) Sean will make a good faith effort go to Israel or a nearby Jewish cultural or religious centre for Tu Bishvat and plant a tree. If he cannot do that, he must plant a tree locally. Sean will also be held to his undertaking that he purchase Israeli figs.

This essentially protects the "wrong version" of the page that AGK protected. But it allows us to make simple edits and to edit in contentious areas as long as we do so appropriately. I intended to include all of the disputes above but if I missed something, that should also be included. I realize that this kind of sucks but I think it affirms our intentions to edit appropriately. At the same time, packaging all the disputes together is the only way to get anything like rough consensus for the whole article.

So how does that sound? --JGGardiner (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Presenting massacre as a phrase or title used more often than others in thre Arab world or elsewhere is still a concern. The capitalization of the m is just a band aid and it has been attempted several times. People are blocked but the dispute is still there. I don't think anyone currently active has or plans on edit warring over it but it still needs resolution. As I mentioned above, I was looking at mediation for this. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
here's a resolution; don't use it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If anyone does have some edits to make, you can request them to be done by using the procedure stated at WP:FULL page. So the article can still be edited somewhat. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Mediation is fine. I'm not really concerned as much about how disuputes are resolved but rather how we handle disuptes that are waiting for resolution. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
some of your requests include:
2) an upper case M to the "Gaza massacre" name in the lead.
b) the following deletions
3) the claims that Hamas fighters removed their uniforms or wore civilian clothing in the "Engagement with Israeli forces" sectiom.
4) the portion of the lead which notes the "Arab world" name of "Gaza massacre"
5) the "Post War Military Assessment" section.
6) with the sublisting of "paramilitary forces
these are all valid and substantial topics with real information. removing them only detracts from the article's content. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I said that all contentious content disputes must be resolved through discussion rather than unilateral edits. The merits of particular content don't really matter here; I'm talking about the process. I did not ask for anything to be removed but rather the opposite. In that section, I was merely enumerating all the current disputes which included those proposed deletions (3b1-6). All were made by other editors and, as it happens, I support none of those proposals. Although the Post War Assessment section might be okay with a major reworking rather than outright deletion. If you look above (and in the last archive), you'll notice that I quite vigorously opposed deletion requests b2 and b6 for example. I have also oppsed b4 since I made an agreement with Nableezy about it in early January and I then spent a long time whining that it was enitrely removed instead because other editors refused to compromise. You might note that I also opposed addition a1.

As I said, my proposal for the article was similar to protecting a "wrong version" of an article which means temporarily preserving one or another version of a disputed article, arbitrarily, while the issue can be sorted out. I'm basically asking for us to have a gentleman's agreement to treat those disputes (and future ones) as if they were protected so that we can move on with the rest of the article.

Let's not fool ourselves, disputed content is always partially protected; editing those excessively while the dispute was debated on the talk page is what got the last two editors topic-banned and the article locked up. I'm mostly just asking everyone to recognize that reality. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
JG, a quick point, regarding b1) the removal of the "International Law" section to be replaced with the lead from the subarticle, I didn't realise it was a disputed change so apologies if I was a bit hasty. I take the view that subsection text should be aligned with and dependent on subarticle lead text throughout Wikipedia. For me it's a practical way to increase consistency and reduce the chaos a bit by centralising development and dispute to subarticles. Of course I also take the view that individual expression should be crushed brutally and everyone in the world should join the CP of China to simplify things, so I'm willing to accept that my views on these article restructuring matters may be somewhat flawed. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You know what, you're right; I was wrong to add it. I compiled my list from a fairly quick scan of the talk as it was then. I think that I counted your discussion with Sceptic in Int_Law section (now in archive 60) as a disagreement. Looking at it now, it obviously is not. I may have been thinking of Mr. Unsigned Anon's point in the earlier "International law" section (also in 60) but either way, my actions were reactionary and I accept that I must be denounced. Although in my defence, the section title was a Lenin reference. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I think that it is really very simple. Warnings and AE for edit warriors. The rest of us just have to agree to let contentious edit disputes unfold outside of the article itself, hopefully in the article talk but beyond that is fine (DR, mediation, whatever). Is that really too much to ask? --JGGardiner (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And let me say that I understand the kind of frustration that Roma identified in the section above. A single edit doesn't have any legitimacy behind it beyond that editor's conviction. There's nothing wrong with undoing that with a friendly explanation. But when the reversion is reverted, he's right that an edit war can result. The appropriate response is to bring to the talk page and make your case. Then it becomes a community matter and no single editor has the right to conclude the debate. We all know that a simple reversion won't end the matter anyway -- it only exacerbates the problems. It is just a masturbatory indulgence, a fantasy that we have the power to publish the articles at the click of our mouse. I think that most of us are adults (or responsible children) and we can handle the consensus process. Maybe we should make a Gaza War sandbox for the few who can't so the rest of us can get back to editing. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I assume this is simply the set of edits which you favor? It does not sound like this set of proposals is the result of two sides having come together to agree on some set of mutually acceptable solutions. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are big holes in this article - eg not a single mention of the word "disproportionate". The editor of the Guardian was threatened in his own office and told not to use the word by a member of the Israel Lobby (this according to the interview of him in the "Dispatches" programme, which is also mysteriously not mentioned here). And yet "disproportionate" is widely used by eg William Hague and Gerald Kaufmann in the House of Commons. And disproportionate retaliation against civilians has been explicity spelled out as a threat by an Israeli General and was reported again in Israeli newspapers while the attack on Gaza was being prepared (March 2008). "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on," said Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army's northern division. Dahiya was a Hizbullah stronghold that Israel flattened in sustained air raids during a 34-day war with the Shiite group two years ago. "We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases," Eisenkot told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. "This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved," Eisenkot added. Only Wikipedia could write an article on this event and not link it to an avowed Israli policy of disproportionate retaliation on civilians. 86.159.244.146 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Hamas also believes in unlimited attacks on Israeli civilians. What's your point?--207.10.186.150 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't write about fiction. There's no policy of retaliation against civilians, as your own quote proves. When an area is used for combat, it can be treated as such (read the Geneva convention). The policy is that such areas will be attacked, to stop their use for military purposes, and that Hezbollah/Hamas cannot hide behind the civilians, as they like to. But it has nothing to do with any wish to harm civilians. And anyway, even that is very limited - attacks have been aborted in a multitude of cases, to avoid civilian casualties. Even in Gaza, where Hamas hid amongst the civilian as best it could, Israel managed to selectively kill Hamas operatives, with relatively few civilian casualties. If you question that last sentence, remember this - there are about 1.5 million people in Gaza, and about 20,000 Hamas combatants - a ratio of 1:75. Even according to the PCHR (a Palestinian, Gaza-based organization), the ratio of casualties in Gaza was about 1:2 (491 militants to 926 civilians; the IDF's ratio is approximately the reverse, 2:1 for combatants). Even if Israel didn't care in the least about civilians, through pure chance it should have gotten a 1:75 ratio. The huge deviation from this shows that Israel made serious efforts to avoid civilian casualties, the exact opposite of your claim that it wanted to kill civilians.
Of course, if Israel really wanted to kill civilians, it did a really bad job at it - three and a half weeks, hundreds of air strikes, large artillery and armored forces, an infantry operation - and only a few hundred civilians killed? A single bomb aimed at one of Gaza's apartment buildings would have topped that, had Israel had any intention of harming civilians. okedem (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Perfect logical simplicity. Well done Okedem.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I find all this quite unhelpful. Setting aside the fact that a set of people are not randomly distributed static trees and that human behavior is neither logical or simple because it's based on non-linear feedback, and that pro+anti Israel hasbara are frowned upon under the sanctions, none of this has anything to do with the article apart from perhaps 'not a single mention of the word "disproportionate"'. That's because the word 'proportionality' is used instead. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to seriously misinform readers on the International Law of deliberate attack on civilians and conceal the fact that this is the avowed policy of both parties.
One of the worst culprits may be Sceptic Ashdod, who wishes us to believe that it is now permissible to attack and kill civilians if they make themselves "voluntary human shields". To this end, he is quoting a notorious non-RS to make it appear that the Red Cross now agrees it is permissible to kill such civilians (and note the wholly unjustified abuse of another editor in there). That is not the position of the Red Cross, and deliberately attacking civilians is not permissible in International Law.
To allow a different impression to go into the article is propaganda and a total abuse of the editorial process. 86.159.244.146 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are convinced me is "one of the worst culprits", who "abuses another editor", make wikipedia a better place - take me to administrator so that he would see that I'm engaged in "propaganda" and "total abuse of the editorial process". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
General complaints are useful for anyone. If there's specific text in the article that you think isn't correct, please present it here for discussion.
I didn't find anything in the article claiming it's okay to deliberately attack civilians, and I've seen zero evidence to indicate this is Israel's policy. I've seen the exact opposite, as proven by Israel's actions in the war, and as explained above. What might be confusing you is lack of knowledge of one of the basic tenets of international law in this matter - the Fourth Geneva Convention, Part III, Section 1, Article 28: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." Thus, when Israel aborts an attack on militants due to the presence of civilians (as it often does), it is, in fact, going above and beyond the requirements of the Convention. okedem (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't be silly. There's a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation for why Israel - while trying to kill as many civilians as possible - unintentionally killed a disproportionate number of Hamas members. People are not randomly distributed static trees you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Garbage. Cryptonio (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect bar chart?

I suggest that the following modified image

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

should be replaced by the original one:

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

I don't understand why the modified version was created. Mange01 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history in the article. But it looks like the chart in the article is illustrating a section about the events before the war as shown in that chart whereas the old chart also includes part of the war which needn't be shown in that section. So that's my assumption. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I remember too. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If you keep the image, the caption should clarify that the war is not included. That solution is okay, but I prefer that the image is replaced by the original version, to show a full picture of the background and outcome of the conflict. Removing the picture would be censoring the truth. Numbers and statistics showing both side casualities makes the article somewhat more objective and neutral. Mange01 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

→I will use this opportunity to express once again my strong opposition to this chart. This is not a car-accidents statistics. This is an ongoing armed conflict. To show just a number of killed, without breakdown of civilians vs soldiers/militants and civilians killed deliberately vs collateral damage, is misleading. We don't have such a chart for killed in an operation - then why do we have such a chart for a single preceding year based on one single (not most objective and definitely not designated reliable) source? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptic, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And again, it's not misleading because it's not leading, it's just numbers, it illustrates the lull perfectly as does the rocket chart and if it included traffic-fatality statistics for Israel there would be a hugely increased number of dead people because Israel's safety performance is quite poor in that respect. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question, these numbers are different than operational numbers. Operational numbers show how many were killed in a particular event, which only tells us, partly, how bad that event was. But to aggregate them like this over a long time they show us the how the situation was developing -- essentially the context to the subject of the article, the War itself.

I do agree that B'Tselem might not be an RS. That doesn't mean that we can't use it, we just have to attribute it as we do now. But if a better source comes up, we should probably switch them. Although if we ever do find an RS they'll probably just be using the B'Tselem data anyway. Probably via Wikipedia of course. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! The time series gives a short historical background to the conflict, it shows how it is escalating. Especially if the war also is included (meaning the chart should be replaced by its original version). There are other charts breaking down the numbers into more categories. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict_casualties . However, I don't like them since the historical perspective is missing. In one of them, the Israeli and Palestine casualities are not divided into the same categories, which may give a biased impression.Mange01 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


"Israel's safety performance is quite poor in that respect" - this is an example of criticism of Israel that I fully acknowledge (I don't think Thailand's record is better, but that is definitely not an excuse).
We beat you easily in a traffic fatalities race. Thai New Year is a bloodbath. Go Thailand!...sigh.... Sean.hoyland - talk 07:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Btw, where is that B'Tselem publication? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it was compiled from this list.[2] --JGGardiner (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems B'Tselem has never been taken to the RS noticeboard. That's a bit surprising. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is taken there, don't forget to inform me, would you? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

→Quick glance at the B'Tselem list reveals that about 50% of that Palestinians in 2008 were killed when fighting the IDF; as for those who listed as not fighting, the list doesn't inform whether some of those were members of the armed groups (e.g. it is possible policemen were at the same time operatives at al-Qassam brigades). Those who were definitely civilians - not clear what percent got killed as a collateral damage. I hope there won't be too much opposition to insert some clarifying remarks to the chart. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the chart is there only to demonstrate that there was a lull in the fighting rather than to comment on the nature of it, given the limited scope of the article and that section in particular. But I wouldn't be opposed if you would like the caption to note that the figures include civilians and combatants. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Garbage. Cryptonio (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Israeli War Crimes

How people can even debate this issue is beyond belief. Israel is, and clearly has been for decades now, trying to kill off the Palestinians and or make life so miserable they leave in order to achieve an ethnically pour Jewish state. Gaza is more or less a giant concentration camp in which Israel controls what food, water, medical supplies, ect go in and out. Israel blows up schools, hospitals,and other public areas housing defenseless people. All this in "response" to the firing of what more or less accounts to bottle rockets into villages that Israel is illegally occupying. How the fact that Israel is illegally in these areas in the first place just gets thrown under the rug is another issue that completely blows my mind. This policy is similar to that of the Nazis. The fact that the international community as whole, specifically the United States and other Western powers do not stand up to and hold these killers accountable the same way the killers at Nuremberg were is a disgrace. I petition that wikipedia recognize the Israeli state for what it is and remove the propaganda that that Israel and US put out that make this look like a two sided issue. Israel are the aggressors its time wikipedia acknowledges that. DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

sources, discussion > opinion, rant. RomaC (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In America and the other Western powers open "discussion" on this matter is not allowed because of the mass controlled media we are subjected to and racist organizations like the ADL. As for sources I could very easy find multiple sources describing in detail the racist and genocidal policies of the state of Israel, including books written by former US President Jimmy Carter and the book on the Israeli Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt as well as the official UN report that condemned Israel. However, doing this would not achieve anything because Wikipedia like the media will continue to counter act these legit claims with falsified claims that in this conflict Israel is merely this poor nation under siege that acts to defend itself. DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is about the specific conflict, the Gaza War. So the sources we use tend to be contemporary to the conflict. The UN report is mentioned in the article and the lead (last paragraph). We also have a whole article on it, United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. But Carter and W&M's books both significantly predate the conflict and won't help us much. In theory they might inform our background but they are probably not the best sources for that. They have more use in general articles like the Israeli-Palestinian_conflict or Arab–Israeli conflict. More generally, you need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You should really check out some of the policies and guidelines, the most important being WP:NPOV. You should also know that you'll catch more flies with honey, especially in this subject area. Some users tried the vinegar approach here and that's why the article is locked up and we're not allowed to edit it now. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo, a little friendly advice. Any one as angry as you obviously are, should take a step or two back before editing. Eh, make that many steps back--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that ranting does nothing for the quality of writing, I don't see people outraged by the Holocaust being told they shouldn't edit. Nor do I see the Holocaust written as if the victims started it, the condition in which this article was locked. Another of the problems that moderators won't allow to be fixed was eloquently described further up the page here. The Dahiya strategy is official Israeli policy, and the article should reflect this. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This entire section is rant. If you genuinely believe something is non-factual, or some relevant, sourcable material is being excluded, point to it so we can discuss. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Garbage. Cryptonio (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

External links on the humanitarian consequences of the war in Gaza

Under the section “External links” the link to the ICRC web page “Palestine” has been removed. Is this a mistake? Could you re-publish it please? The ICRC Palestine page contains various documents (texts, photos, videos) on the humanitarian consequences of the war in Gaza. In “News” visitors can view all daily bulletin and News releases that were published during the conflict.

I addition, a new update and images about the humanitarian situation one year on has just been published.

The link is http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine

thank you

22.12.2009 Taikah (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links: "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" applies. Furthermore, the uniqueness of the content and the ability of editors to summarize the information or use similar non copyright material (ie images) limits the uniqueness of the site. The link does not improve the article enough to justify inclusion of obviously biased presentation and there were too many external links.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The ICRC is "obviously biased" and represents a "particular point of view"? Thats just funny. Glad to know things have not changed. nableezy - 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Things haven't changed cause you got us locked out. But actually it is probably a bit dated for us to link to that particular page right now. It's just their general Palestine page which becomes less and less about the War per se as time passes. We'd probably be better off including links to a few of their relevant reports instead. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
ICRC: "obviously biased".
The organization is the equivalent to a single-purpose editor on Wikipedia. Pushes an agenda and only focuses on certain aspects. Biased is not necessarily a dirty word. It is just the way it is. Cptnono (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what it is you are talking about? The ICRC is perhaps the single most respected organization in the world. Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages. nableezy - 19:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys but these sort of comments do suggest that some editors see only two sorts of sources: "Pro-Israel", and "Biased". Really, this is a problem.RomaC (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Just wandering by and I see that nothing really changed. a bunch of tag-teaming editors haranguing and personally attacking another editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
No one is tag-teaming anyone here (the article is locked for God's sake). One editor is trying to paint an international humanitarian organization as biased simply because it says things he doesn't like. Some other editors are taking issue with that assessment. If you can't stand the fire, don't enter kitchen and start mouthing off. What's your purpose here by the way? Simply to harangue others whose views you don't agree with by casting disapragements?
I agree with JGardiner by the way (not about Nableezy :) but about the link. While the ICRC is a valuable source, thaat particular link sreves little purpose here as it becomes more generally about other issues. We should be mining thir reports though for more substaqntive inormation for the article body. Tiamuttalk 10:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit. "Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages." by Nableezy and Romac's cute pictures are against civility guidelines. And I am not allowed to comment on other editors intentions but Tiamut is? It is not needed as an external link and they have an agenda. There agenda is helping people but it is still an agenda. How did this spiral into a mudslinging fest?Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
And calling another editors remarks "bullshit" is not? Or making a pointed reference about "a single-purpose editor on Wikipedia". You should read something about the things you speak about. Their agenda is more than "helping people", the ICRC is uniquely qualified to speak about violations of the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law. But perhaps it is too much to ask that you do the slightest bit of reading about an organization before you write about it. nableezy - 22:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The way this is going down is bullshit. I was not calling anyone's comments bullshit and I wasn't implying that anyone was a single purpose editor. I wasn't attacking you. Stop always assuming the worst. We have gone over this with your behavior on multiple talk pages. I also don't see the problem. Will it be more palletable if I replace "agenda" with "mission" or "goal"? As I said, "biased" is not a dirty word.Cptnono (talk)
After thinking about it that is really the same thing. It wasn't my intention to attack other editors personally but it did come across poorly to me and "bullshit" seemed like a good summary when less crass words might have sufficed. I can see how it came across as an attack. I'm big enough to admit when I have said something off. I reccomend the three of you do the same since this needs to stop. I'm thinking it might be appropriate to seek a block on all four of us.
Do what you want, but I did not say "something off", whatever that means. Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages, and your comments betray a lack of knowledge about the topic, the background of the topic, and the various organizations that you feel fit to comment about. nableezy - 23:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a collaborative project. As much as it is hard to work with others of opposing viewpoints sometimes that is the way it is. You know that. Your comments kind of go against the spirit of the project. The ICRC is allowed to be biased since they are not editing Wikipeida. They can't possibly stay objective on the subject as a whole because they only focus on one aspect. They have a focus and present information with that focus. The funny thing is that other editors agree that it is not a good external link.Cptnono (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia; your comments undermine the very idea of what this "project" purports to be. This has nothing to do with "viewpoints", and, yes, others agree that the link should not be included, but not because of the inane idea that the ICRC is "biased". nableezy - 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I pointed to the related guideline. You don't need to be upset that someone called the organization biased. I even asked if clarification of the wording would be easier to understand and struck out a comment you felt was inappropriate. I didn't even say they were against Israel but it was assumed by other editors that that was my worry. If they reported on other details of the conflict I wouldn't have said it. Israel does look bad more often than the other side but that isn't the problem with the link. Stop starting trouble when it isn't needed. And if you have a concern with Wikipedia in general ("purports" is often to claim/imply falsely) there is probably a bigger issue that should be handled off of this talk page or by taking another break.Cptnono (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
You "pointed" to a guideline, and then made the wild jump that the ICRC represents a "particular POV" in the context of this page and that they are "obviously biased" and as such should not be included. The guideline you "pointed" to does not support what you wrote. And I do not need you to tell me what "purports" means, unlike others I know the meaning of what it is I write and am careful to make sure I do not say incredibly stupid things. nableezy - 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
If you prefer to link directly to relevant reports or other documents I suggest you the following documents on the humanitarian consequences of the war :

Gaza: one year after war, still no prospect of decent life (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-gaza-update-211209)

Gaza: paying the price - video (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/f01016-v)

Thank you! Taikah (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said I had a problem with it being used for inline citations. Just keep in mind that this isn't an article solely on the humanitarian crisis.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose adding the following new paragraph at the end of the chapter "Gaza humanitarian crisis".

QUOTE

One year after the start of the war, the International Committee of the Red Cross published an article stating that there had been scarcely any improvement in the situation, mainly because of the tight closure, which was preventing reconstruction.

Internal link (closure) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932009_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

Reference : Gaza: one year after war, still no prospect of decent life http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-gaza-update-211209

UNQUOTE

Thank you! Taikah (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That might be better at 2007–2009 blockade of the Gaza Strip since the piece is also about the closure not the war. That page also needs a title change since we are nearing '10. Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. At first I was opposed but I was clearly reading the article to quickly. It is relevant and the quote matches close enough. Some of the concerns was run down stuff before the war so that might need to be tweaked but over all it works. Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hi again! Where are we on this point? After some consideration, I still believe the paragraph fits best in the Gaza War article (at the end of the section "Gaza humanitarian crisis") because this document primarily addresses the humanitarian consequences of the war in Gaza. But if you prefer that it be placed in the article "2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip", please let me know and I can proceed with the edit." Taikah (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I wasn't clear up above with my change of mind. The proposed line is good enough as is in my eyes and no one else has expressed concern. The source does mention run down stuff from before the conflict but it really does fit here for the most part. Since this page is completely locked, it will have to be requested. I'll try to find the template to do so if someone doesn't already know how off the top of their head.
You can also consider using it in both articles not just one or the other.Cptnono (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not offended by the proposed sentence but it is probably too vague to have any real value. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, there had been scarcely any improvement in the situation a year after the conflict. The organization sites the ongoing blockade from hampering reconstruction efforts of homes, medical facilities, and infrastructure." this looks as an opportunity to link to a relevant source and Wikipedia article while providing enough information to say something without giving it tons of weight.
Speaking of effects, does anyone have a source on its impact on Israel's elections?Cptnono (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Garbage. Cryptonio (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

numbers wrong?

http://www.hosem.org.il/ye/New-species-of-militants---Civilians

The website is a website for a group with an agenda, but there seems to be plenty of photographs to discredit at least some of the claims. The problem is finding a RS that checks those claims. --85.250.206.219 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In the disputed figures section we already cite a study from International Institute for Counter-Terrorism that say similar things. Nice pictures though. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I hated posing for those when I played peewee hockey. But it is interesting to see that Hamas has copied the Israeli puffy hats. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Garbage. Cryptonio (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Compensation to UN $10 million

Once editing restarts this needs to go in [3] Edkollin (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Says tons that the local staff is pissed while the administrative side is completely OK (either the local staff are cry babies, administrators are evil, or somewhere in between that we should be emulating). Throw a quick line saying Israel paid for its screw up in at the incidents page and after the UNRWA line here? We can use Template:Editprotected if anyone wants to actually get this in the article.Cptnono (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Garbage. Will never be on Jeopardy! Cryptonio (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Hostilities in Gaza

{{editprotected}} In a lecture on his Canadian tour, Norman Finkelstein turned to the definition of the laws of war in the Geneva Conventions and to a report by NGO Breaking the Silence.[1] from the NGO Breaking the Silence]] to propose that the Gaza War was in fact, a massacre. He repeated these details on an interview on the independent US news broadcaster Democracy Now:

There was no war in Gaza. That’s the main misunderstanding about what happened there. In fact, one of Israel’s leading strategic analysts, he said—after what happened in Gaza, he said the one mistake Israelis are making is that there was a war there. He said there was no war. There were no battles in Gaza.

The picture is fairly clear. Israel flew about 3,000 sorties over Gaza. Every plane came back. None was damaged. None was downed. There was no fighting in Gaza. If you read the reports that were issued by the—the testimonies of the Israeli soldiers, the one consistent theme in all of the testimonies was they never met any Hamas militants, they never engaged in any battles. Some of the Israeli soldiers expressed exasperation: “We came here to fight. We’re not fighting anyone.”[1]

Farazars (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how this would fit. There was also no discussion so no consensus which means you misused the template.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, request disabled, I can't do anything with such a request. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Garbage. Israel cannot be blamed for having superior firepower. Cryptonio (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

White phosphorous typo

There is a typo under the white phosphorous section that says: "completion of the three-day Israesli withdrawal", can an admin fix it? -Solid Reign (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} No consensus has been reached but it's really just a typo.-Solid Reign (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Superb article

I have followed the conflict and its aftermath closely over the last year, and just finished reading most of the article. It is great! The overwhelming majority of what you find on the internet about the Gaza War, or even in print media and tv, is one-sided crap, but this article is clearly evenhanded, painstakingly sourced and incredibly comprehensive and informative.

I don't know if this is the proper use for a discussion page, but to all those editors who worked on the article: thanks! Great job. You've summarized a complex issue so well.

Theonlyedge (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I freaking agree. if it changes(and it probably will) should only be to improve it by following strict editing guidelines. Cryptonio (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested Edit

I am requesting that the following edit be made to the infobox on the Palestinian casualties section, stating that 120 Hamas fighters were taken prisoner, as proviced by this source: [4]

Reenem

I concur with Reenem and request that the edit be made per his/her suggestion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Is that the right link ? Sean.hoyland - talk 01:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Try this link and the figure should be revised downward to 30 Hamas prisoners in the absence of a conflicting figure.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

→I wish contents of this video could be integrated in the entry. I mean his analyses of the strike on the mosque for example. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent vid Sceptic from Ashdod and thanks for the link. I'm sorry to say though that it won't make any difference. Those who hate Israel and the West are driven by ideologies that bear no relation to rational thought.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Tell me about it, JJGuy... But we're here not to convince anyone. Our task is to document valuable encyclopedic material. The edit I would suggest is something like: "Following the visit of the British Army veteran Colonel Tim Collins to the ruins of one of the mosques targeted by the IDF in Rafah, he said that in his view the evidencies of the secondary explosion, that could have indicated weapon's storage in the mosque, are present.[2]
You've got my full support on this--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your support. Unfortunately, I am not an administrator. If supported by consensus, someone else will have to do this for me. Reenem

Except this edit, that i'm sure was removed at some point. Cryptonio (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Israeli response to Goldstone report

I request that the news the broken today regarding the reprimanding of two top Israeli army officers for authorising an artillery attack which hit a UN compound in Gaza last year be added to the article. Israel reprimands top officers over UN compound strike Bjmullan (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to write up the proposed edit in full so that editors can know what they're giving consensus to and so that the admin knows what they are adding. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's a start:
In February 2010, Israel has revealed it has reprimanded two top army officers, Gaza Division Commander Brig Gen Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col Ilan Malka, for authorising an artillery attack which hit a UN compound during the assault on Gaza. In the attack which took place on January 15, 2009, the UN compound was set on fire by white phosphorus shells. White phosphorus is legal for use on open ground but its use in built-up areas where civilians are found is banned under international conventions. "Several artillery shells were fired in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas," the Israeli response to the UN's Goldstone report says.
Responding to the Israeli admission, a UN representative who was in the compound in Gaza city during the attack told the BBC he "expected full accountability from the Israelis," indicating that two UN staff and two Palestinians sheltering in the compound were seriously injured in the attack. The BBC's Jerusalem correspondent, Paul Wood, reported that this is "the first time Israel has revealed it reprimanded any officer for his actions during the offensive" and that "the admission was buried in the document handed to the UN on Friday."[3]
The Israeli paper Haaretz noted that the above "[Israeli] government finding aknowledges, at least in part, allegations by international organizations" adding that "the report that the Israeli government gave to the United Nations last Friday explicitly states that the two senior officers were disciplined after one of the investigating committees noted among its findings that they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa 'exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others.'" Nevertheless, Haaretz reported that the IDF on Monday (Feb 1, 2010) "flatly denied" that the officers in question had been "subject to disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant," however the IDF statement, "did not deny that the munitions were in fact used during the war."[4]
Bjmullen - I haven't participated actively in the editing of this WP entry (Gaza War) so perhaps you'd like to take the above as first draft and work it further before asking editors to add it to the entry. Or anyone else is welcome to take the above as a starting point (note: "admission" is not my term, but in the referenced article itself) --Harel (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Harel, if you edited actively WP entry, you should have known by now that what BBC says (i.e. "... but its use in built-up areas where civilians are found is banned under international conventions) is not true. I'll get to it later. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a first proof:

On February 2, 2010, the BBC reported that Israel had reprimanded two top army officers, Gaza Division Commander Brig Gen Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col Ilan Malka, for authorising an artillery attack which hit a UN compound. The January 15 2009, white phosphorus shelling set the UN compound on fire. White phosphorus is legal for use on open ground but its use in built-up areas where civilians are found is banned under international conventions. "Several artillery shells were fired in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas," said Israeli. Two UN staff and two Palestinians sheltering in the compound were seriously injured in the attack.
The BBC said that this was "the first time Israel has revealed it reprimanded any officer for his actions during the offensive" and that "the admission was buried in the document handed to the UN on Friday."[5]
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz noted that the above "[Israeli] government finding acknowledges, at least in part, allegations by international organizations" adding that "the report that the Israeli government gave to the United Nations last Friday explicitly states that the two senior officers were disciplined after one of the investigating committees noted among its findings that they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa 'exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others.'" Haaretz reported that the IDF had "flatly denied" that the officers in question had been "subject to disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant," however the IDF statement, "did not deny that the munitions were in fact used during the war."[6]

It still needs to be edited down, some of the information may already be elsewhere in the article I have not been here for awhile. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This edit seems OK (but what is the consenus?). We need to include something in this article soon as this is a major piece of news. Bjmullan (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I could care less, but it seems to be Encyclopedia material. Notice how Scpetic attacked the messenger(BBC, not the editor) instead of the message. Wait for Sceptic to 'balance' this crap before the edit goes. Cryptonio (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be dismissive of the opinions of other editors. There is no consensus to these edits and I'm with Sceptic on this.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
How can you say there is no consensus to this edit if you are unwilling to have an input. If you are unhappy with the words them please suggest something rather than be negative. It is so easy to be negative, harder to be neutral. But of course the problem with the about statement is that is very difficult to paint a balance picture on an unbalanced event. I for one still think we go with this edit, unless Jiujitsuguy or Sceptic from Ashdod can come up with something other than comments...Bjmullan (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

<- Can we remove the "White phosphorus is legal for use on open ground but its use in built-up areas where civilians are found is banned under international conventions." ? The IDF say they took this action because in their view the soldiers didn't follow the IDF's rules of engagement. They didn't say that they took this action because in their view the soldiers broke international law so I don't think the legality of firing artillery into civilian areas needs to be mentioned in this text. Bringing in the legal aspect just confuses the issue IMO and it's handled elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this edit in its entirety. The WP issue should not overshadow the article. There already exits sufficient content, liberally peppered throughout the article, dealing with WP. Perhaps the edit can be included in a different ancillary article in abbreviated form.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How about:

On February 2, 2010, the BBC reported that Israel had reprimanded Gaza Division Commander Brig Gen Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col Ilan Malka for authorising an artillery attack which hit a UN compound. The January 15 2009, white phosphorus shelling set the UN compound on fire and seriously injured two UN staff members and two Palestinians who were taking shelter there. "Several artillery shells were fired in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas," said Israeli.
The BBC reported this was "the first time Israel has revealed it reprimanded any officer for his actions during the offensive" and that "the admission was buried in the document handed to the UN on Friday."[7]
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said the "[Israeli] government finding acknowledges, at least in part, allegations by international organizations", and "explicitly states that the two senior officers were disciplined after one of the investigating committees noted among its findings that they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa 'exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others.'" Haaretz reported that the IDF had "flatly denied" that the officers in question had been "subject to disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant," however the IDF statement, "did not deny that the munitions were in fact used during the war."[8]
RomaC (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

→There's nothing to balance, Cryptonio. The whole story is nothing but a scoop.
Haaretz: The IDF Spokesman's Office said yesterday that contrary to the reports provided by the government to the United Nations on Friday, which stated that Eisenberg and Malka were disciplined for using smoke shells containing white phosphorus, they were disciplined not for using the phosphorus shells but rather for giving the authorization to fire regular artillery shells".
While the 2nd part of the sentence is true, the 1st part is not. The report provided by the government to the UN never said they were reprimanded for WP use in the 1st place: "100. The special command investigations also uncovered some instances where IDF soldiers and officers violated the rules of engagement. For example, in one case, a Brigadier General and a Colonel had authorized the firing of explosive shells which landed in a populated area, in violation of IDF orders limiting the use of artillery fire near populated areas. The Commander of the Southern Command disciplined the two officers for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others. 108. One of these incidents involved alleged damage to the UNRWA field office compound in Tel El Hawa.102 The special command investigation revealed that, during the course of a military operation in Tel El Hawa, IDF forces fired several artillery shells in violation of [IDF inner] the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas. Based on these findings, the Commander of the Southern Command disciplined a Brigadier General and a Colonel for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others."
As for the legality of WP in urban area, you should read Professor Newton (expert in laws of armed conflict) testimony to Goldstone: "... in an urban area, where potential perils are snipers, explosive devices and trip wires, one effective way to mask forces' movement is by white phosphorous. In certain cases, ..., such choice of means would be least harmful for civilian population, provided that the use of white phosphorous withstands the proportionality test. ...the white phosphorous munition is neither chemical nor incendiary weapon". Neither him, nor colonel Lane say that WP in populated area is banned per se. Always depends on the circumstances. And this is not the 1st time BBC says erroneous things about laws of armed conflict. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From the practical perspective of encouraging collaboration and consensus here now that the article can be edited again, it's probably better to not SOAP about the BBC or promote particular legal opinions about firing WP shells into civilian areas etc etc. If the talk page is going to be used in that way it would be better for the article to be locked down again in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
As long as BBC or Haaretz or JPost writes that 2+2=5.7 or that bacteria reproduces sexually and these sorts of things could be easily refuted by other sources, we'll keep on using the talk page in that way, call it SOAP or SOUP or TOOTH PASTE if you will. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about pointing out contradictory information in RS. That's fine and you can see that I agreed that we shouldn't state flat out 'it's illegal' per the BBC. It's about the practical aspects of making collaboration easier by minimising the personal views and commentary. All that's required is to provide the information from the other sources. Commentary like 'And this is not the 1st time X says erroneous things about Y.' or 'This is not the first time that X has committed Y crimes.' apart from being completely redundant, just cause trouble. We've seen it so many times all over the place and it would be very simple and helpful to just not do it...unless it's funny of course... Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In fairness to Sceptic, his toothpaste line was cleary a joke even if it wasn't your cup of tea. In addition, he did add this BBC sourced edit today[5] so he may have intended some sort of irony as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know but I'm just trying to prevent further bloodshed and encourage some self-discipline. After all, there is a risk that someone might suggest we mention this which has an exceptionally high discussion-going-off-at-a-tangent shenanigans risk metric. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The real irony was intended today when I added the link to erroneous statement in JPost. And teasing Sean, my BBC-grown fellow, is funny. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I only watch CCTV-4. Doesn't everyone ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
To discredit BBC is easier, heck tell them to say something negative about, even a lie about something, and you'll have ANY government attack it as well. Everything that Hamas or any Palestinian Human Rights group says about Israel is clearly a lie ain't it? Even if it comes from the Hamas PM? Sure siree...
The point is, that the BBC reported this crap, and you stopped searching for a rebuttal at the Spokeperson's statement, but have you looked for a 'mea culpa' at least from the BBC? In any other article, both of these reports would be reported. This is no different than Hamas saying something about Israel, and Israel not waiting 24 hours to either dismiss said statements or discredit the source...you are Israeli aren't you? Cryptonio (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And foolishing on, it is not the BBC who is to fault if anything on this, after all "contrary to the reports provided by the government to the United Nations on Friday"...
But this is not new, I could pull out of my hat not just rabbits, I can also pull 'many', yes a said many, instances where the IDF discredits the antisemitic Israeli government. Cryptonio (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So are we going to add something to the article about this or not? I'm still up for adding the second draft. Maybe I should be Bold...Bjmullan (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible requested edit = UXO

In 2009, the United Nations Mine Action Centre reported that 12 people have been killed and 27 injured in the Gaza Strip from unexploded ordnance since the end of Operation Cast Lead.[9]

...or thereabouts. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff going on. Maybe we should reconsider the article protection? --JGGardiner (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should try it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. Bjmullan (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page for AGK, the protecting admin. I see that s/he is on a short break so if we don't get a response soon, we could ask at WP:RFP. Maybe I should have done that first because of the break but I wanted to follow etiquette. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
A few issues (massacre wasn't the only one) that were edit warred over still haven't been addressed. It being locked hasn't spurred discussion so it might work to do the opposite if people don't hit the revert button over and over again.
For the requested addition, Template:Editprotected can be used if there is consensus.Cptnono (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I happened to see JGGardiner's message quite soon after he left it. Copying to here my response to him, so that all can read if they wish.

    I have removed my protection, without prejudice to a full or partial re-protection in the event of a resumption of disruptive editing. Those who proceed to force their changes into this article, instead of pursuing a consensus through discussion and DR, are reminded that their conduct is disruptive and that they will probably find themselves blocked. AGK 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep the article locked...no clear issues(with clear consensus on resolutions) have been made...delete every single section that exits in the talk page at this time, and begin by enumerating the issue AND possible amending starting by the nuance of massacre. The article doesn't scream racism(nor antisemitism), just plain war stuff. I say is time to applaud some people around here. Cryptonio (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

<= Made the UXO edit here. I also put it in the lead as it impacts on the casualty figures there. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it should go in the infobox? --JGGardiner (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
oops..yes, I guess. Forgot about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have my doubts. Clearly the info is valuable, but does it belong to casualties? Need to check out similar occurences, e.g. NATO UXO in Serbia. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I almost put it in the aftermath part of the article as I wasn't quite sure where it should go. It didn't seem ideal though. They do seem to be classed as casualties from Cast Lead by the UN though... A note in the infobox wouldn't hurt but I don't have strong views on it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not advocating it. I was just curious since we have other information in there that is less relevant in my opinion and because I thought it would come up sooner or later. That's why I didn't ask about the Casualties chart; I know that some editor won't be able to resist putting it in there. For the record I'd still like to see the infobox destroyed. Perhaps with some sort of controlled implosion. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

lead para. of disputed figures

Eh, what exactly is your problem Sean. This matter was discussed by numerous editors just before the article was protected. I've cut and pasted the discussion from Archive 61. I'm asuming that you reverted in good faith and had no knowledge of the prior discussion on the matter. Also, I suggest you read the sources, which include JPost, NYT and AP. Not exactly fringe sources. On this basis I am restoring the edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

JJGuy's edit was not perfect. Neither was a fix of Jgui's. "The IDF reported that Hamas fighters did not wear uniforms..." - is simply untrue, this is not what JPost says. Besides, the "Engagement with Israeli forces" section cites about 4 sources unrelated to IDF or Israel to support such a claim. Next, the sentence "Further difficulties ..." doesn't cite sources (btw, int_law is very specific as to whom must be counted as a combatant) and as usual brings in the blockade by Israel, forgetting to mention Egypt. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that Jgui either didn't read the source or deliberately misrepresented it. Either way, it's bad.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that that paragraph is an initial attempt (as I stated) - I was going to rework it with additional cites and changes but the article got locked down while I was working on it before I got the chance. In any case I don't think the sentence I added: "The IDF reported that Hamas fighters did not wear uniforms that could be distinguished from the civilian population, so that they were mis-counted when arriving at hospitals" is too far from the cited article's: "The Hamas gunmen who participated in the fighting against the IDF were all dressed as civilians and the majority arrived at hospitals without their weapons or any other signs revealing their status as gunmen." The claim I removed that Hamas ordered its troops to change uniforms is attributed to unnamed "Palestinians" and should certainly not be reported in WP's voice as JJGuy had done; if we want to include this in the article we need someone who will stand by the claim - I was looking for an IDF rep to make that claim but hadn't yet found one - maybe he can?
I'm certainly not wedded to that exact paragraph and suggest we can work on it here while waiting, but I do think that it is an improvement to have the intro paragraph in that section cite the range of opinions as to why casualties were difficult to classify, with both sides of the issue in an NPOV fashion. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Jgui, the "unnamed" Gazans were interviewed by khaled Abu Toameh, the journalist who authored the article. It is a common practice not to name sources especially in places where such statements can result in death or lengthy imprisonment by the authorities. If you wanted to add additional sourced reasons for the problems concerning accurate casualty stats, fine, do so. But to misrepresent a verifiable, reliable source is very bad and totally unacceptable. On a positive note, I congratulate you on your initiative and efforts to clean up the casualty section.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, so this pro-Israeli Jerusalem Post writer somehow crossed the tightly sealed border into Gaza during the Gaza War and personally interviewed Palestinians, and these Palestinians talked to him about Hamas' evil plots? Do you really believe that? Thank you for your comments on the casualty section. Jgui (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked again and can't find a direct source from the IDF, etc. to attribute this to. Unless you can, I would be OK attributing the statement to the writer: e.g. "Toameh of the Jerusalem Post reported that Hamas had ordered its fighters to wear civilian clothing so that they could not be detected by the IDF, and that when these fighters were killed or injured it was therefore difficult to distinguish them from the civilian population" or something similar. It just cannot be in WP's voice, which it was before I changed it. Jgui (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Toameh and the JPost are RS. Btw, he is an Arab, often gathering info from Palestinian-controlled territory. Who knows how he obtained his material? Anyway this is irrelevant - the fact that Hamas had ordered its fighters to wear civilian clothing was stated by reporters who were in Gaza during the war and they are cited in the entry, so 1st half of the sentence could refer to about 4-5 independant sources. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That's great. Please list the 4-5 independent sources. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
New York Times, New York Times, Times of London, Los Angeles Times, AP Stellarkid (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Along with Trumpets of victory strike false note we now have five six independent sources that verify that Hamas wore civilian clothing during the engagement. This should close the matter and when protection is lifted, it should be prominently noted accordingly. Perhaps a separate section on the matter should be considered as the practice by Hamas of wearing civilain clothes not only caused confusion concerning combatant/civilian casualty stats, it also appeared to be employed as a deliberate war strategy by the organization--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen, before the protection is lifted I prompt you to read the article (however messy it is at times). The sentence that says that Hamas wore civilian clothing is there. That said, the article that JJGuy found is indeed relevant to the disputed figures. Does anyone read Italian? - I suggest in the meantime to check out the article by Cremonesi, I think he said something similar, but I'm not completely sure. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs. I agree this is well sourced and belongs as one of the possible reasons for dead being hard to classify. Adding the second NYTimes ref should prevent its being called into question in the future. I would add it if I could, but we'll have to wait for article to be free to edit. Jgui (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

<- For example, can you see anything wrong with this sentence "The Hamas gunmen who participated in the fighting against the IDF were all dressed as civilians and the majority arrived at hospitals without their weapons or any other signs revealing their status as gunmen" ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what the source says, word for word. I didn't make it up--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it contradicts reports by other sources. For example, in our article, we have this: "An eyewitness to the only incident investigated by the UN mission that clearly involved Palestinian combatants said that three Palestinian fighters Israeli troops had surrounded in his neighbour's house were, "wearing military camouflage and headbands of the al-Qassam Brigades."[10] The UN Mission did note that reports by other human rights groups indicate that not all members of Palestinians armed groups were always dressed in military uniform.[10]
Perhaps it would be better (i.e. more NPOV) to note that there were conflicting reports? Tiamuttalk 18:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
On, and given the contradictions between the different sources, attributing the different views to their authors would be preferable here. Tiamuttalk 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Cite what ever sources u wish, provided they are RS but don't revert sourced material. That's a no no.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, why not self revert and discuss the proposed edit. Reverting statements that don't comply with NPOV is fine. I can't believe that you don't see any neutrality problems with a sentence which in effect says that all Hamas gunmen committed perfidy ? re: your edit summary, the path is to arrive at a consensus for contentious edits through discussion. I reverted your edit per BRD so that it could be discussed again now that the article has been unlocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Before I "self revert" or take any action to modify the edit, I'd like to know if you read the Khaled Abu Toameh's article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what Sean. Why don't you take a crack at "fixing" the edit. I'll leave it to your capable hands. Please be sure to edit it in a way that reflects what the source says.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a bad start for unprotection. Maybe a bit heated but civil. I don't remember anybody offering anything like JJGuy did in the old days. I think that is worthy of some sort of barn star. I don't have any barnstar making experience but here you go, the Barnstar of, I don't know, deferential editing:

*

You might need to adjust your font size. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
re:'Why don't you take a crack at "fixing" the edit'. I'll answer that. It's because it's your edit and I'm easily distracted. If I do that you'll eventually ask me to come round to your house and do the washing up. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I just downloaded the reference link from B'Tselem in this section (note #255 plus others) [6] and there is a "sticky note" added that this has been 'upgraded to a different article due to further research, or something to that effect. I urge you to take a look at this again and make sure the article is still an accurate representation of the new upgraded version. I would do it but I will have limited internet access during the next couple of weeks or more. Stellarkid (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy seems to have subtracted "did not take part in hostilities", the only category referenced in the new B'Tselem article, from "total casualties" to arrive at this new "combatants" figure. But the main reference document, other categories exist such as "police officers killed at police stations" and "unknown if took part in hostilities". Reverting as we can't use (flawed) OR to calculate stats, respectfully, RomaC (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

<- Thanks RomaC. Jiujitsuguy, could you check your edit and look at what RomaC just did ? B'Tselem, classify the police as "Police officers killed at police stations" i.e. they put them in their own category and don't classify them either as combatants or non-combatants, the footnote in this article under the table says "B'Tselem was unable to classify 36 deaths as combatant or non-combatant; non-combatants includes police officers." and yet you appear to have added the police fatalities to the combatant figures rather than the non-combatant figures (or I suppose we could have a new row). Confused ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, whatever you say Sean--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Did I say something wrong ? I was just trying to expand on RomaC's explanation. You could have just say "no I won't do that". It makes no difference to me. It's useful when people point out mistakes, no ? You thanked Stellarkid and yet I get a sigh. Seems unfair. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Well for starters, Stellarkid didn't revert me. Second, while I understand your explanation, I don't agree with it and it's too time consuming to argue the point but if it means that much to you, thank you very much for elucidating the reasoning behind the revert. I'll sleep better because of it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

lead para. (redux)

I am the editor who wrote the version of the lead paragraph that is under discussion above. I have modified this paragraph as I promised on Nov. 8 to take into account all comments and agreements during our editing hiatus. I started from the version that has been in place for several months, rather than throwing the paragraph out as JJguy did above. The goal is NPOV. Comments? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You have deliberately misrepresented the source for the second time. This wasn't an IDF claim. It was a Palestinian claim made by Palestinians to an Israeli Arab reporter. Moreover, the claim is backed by the NYT and AP (not that it has to be backed up since JPost is an RS)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've partially restored Jgui's edit after JJG's reversion of it. [7] Claims by anonymous Palestinians should be noted to be from anonymous Palestinians. Anonymous claims are less reliable than those named made by individuals who share their identities. The "Israeli Arab" (shudder) reporter writes for the Jerusalem Post (an Israeli newspaper) and doesn't seem to like Hamas much. That's fine, it doesn't make him an unusable source, but its good to attribute his ideas to him and say who he writes for. PS. Jgui's version does a better job at NPOV in my opinion. Though JJG's effort to "tone it down" is appreciated, using weasal words like some and stating opinions of unnamed individuals as fact just doesn't cut it. Tiamuttalk 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget pages 90 - 92 of the Goldstone report. That has some things to say about the various casualty figures. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I hate to get involved in all this stuff. But since you included a diff, I looked at it. Reading the sources, neither the NY Times nor CBS say what their sources are for the clothing claims. So we can't say that they come from "anonymous" Palestinians. We don't know that they came from Palestinians at all. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
JGGardiner, I changed Tiamut's edit back on this one as you suggested since I didn't see that in the Times article either. I guess we could explicitely cite the writers names if Tiamut or someone else feels that is needed.
Sean, I agree this would be a useful source, although I don't think it will fit in this paragraph. I'll work on it unless you get to it first.
Tiamut, thanks for your corrections. I should have re-read the JPost article again in its entirety; I had forgotten that bit from before (I thought he had been quoting someone from the IDF).
Jiujitsuguy, I hope you will try to be quite a bit more reasonable when editing with me. It is really not acceptable for you to completely revert a good faith edit I made ten minutes before, and to do it by leaving an edit history where you accuse me of "deliberate misrepresentation" and "POV pushing" as you do here. You are no longer a new editor, and one would expect that you would have learned some improved manners in your time at WP. Please read my edits and respond to them, and try to refrain from attacking me personally. Thank you. Jgui (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't mean to undermine Tiamut's position. I just happened to check those sources and it wasn't exactly what she thought. That's actually how I got drawn into this article in the first place. It might be that the sources changed since she'd looked or she was thinking of another source. I'm sure it was an honest mistake. Happens to me all the time. These things are always tricky. A statement based on a single article or a few articles is fairly anecdotal but you can't really leave it out either. So it is difficult how to balance the need for inclusion with the need to qualify what was reported. And balance isn't our strong suit in this area.

And since you brought up the subject of editing etiquitte, I don't want to jump on JJGuy but I had wanted to remind everyone generally that bad behaviour is what got this article locked in the first place. So it is important to remember that the standard is not just that we be on our best behaviour but the best behaviour of a reasonable editor, which in some cases is higher. =)

As WP:AGF says, we don't have to maintain the assumption of good faith indefinitely. At the same time remember that it is usually not helpful to let another editor know that you question their faith unless it serves some specific purpose. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to Jgui for what I said but the edit is still very problematic

  • First it’s still a painful distortion of the source. The claim that Hamas militant’s dressed as civilians was a claim made by Palestinians. Not the IDF! Not Khaled abu Toemeh! And not the JPost! It is a Palestinian claim, plain and simple. The fact that it was made by anonymous Palestinian sources should come as no surprise. If you lived under Hamas rule, would you say anything that defies the party line? I think not. It is not uncommon for those living under repressive regimes to provide information to journalists while preferring to remain anonymous. In fact, it is the norm.
  • Second, the edit now finds itself sandwiched between two anti-Israeli edits in a not too subtle attempt to marginalize any possibility that Hamas violated the rules of war.
  • Third, it is offensive that an Israeli source is subject to “special treatment” in that it is stressed that it’s an Israeli source (as if to say that Israeli sources are inherently unreliable). No other sources are subjected to this kind of treatment. On these bases, I’m modifying edit to correct some of the obvious biases.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm leaving the content as is and didn't change a thing. I re-arranged the paragraphs per my second concern. I'm willing to leave the rest as is. I hope this compromise is satisfactory to all--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly I don't agree that the section is still problematic - the original ordering was an attempt to go from the general to the specific - but I appreciate your effort to find a compromise and I for one am fine with it. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gazamontage"

A montage of the Gaza War. From top to bottom right: A Qassam rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards Israel, Grad rocket fired from Gaza hits a kindergarten classroom in the southern Israeli city of Beer Sheva, An Israeli attack in the Gaza strip, Aftermath of an Israeli bombing.

TheCuriousGnome has just added this photomontage file to the article. Removing it for now as I thought it should be discussed, is it NPOV and does it improve the article? RomaC (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Love it. The only thing missing is a picture of Israeli soldiers or hardware (I like the lower left image seen here) Hits rockes, devastation, and shelling. It could also be reduced or expanded. Better than just a map.Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
File:Palestinian militants.jpg is up for deletion.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I like it too however I remain unconvinced about the copyright status of some of the images. They look like quality AFP etc material. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
That is the problem with Palestinian militants.jpg. It might be a good idea if redone.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
tell me which pictures should go into the montage and I'll redo it. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
no need to redo it - Palestinian militants.jpg has been approved by a wikicommons administrator. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the Palestinian militants.jpg on commons ? I can't find it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Already deleted. Top left with dudes in masks and the rockets.Cptnono (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, I wondered what those pointy things were for. So what does that mean for the montage ? Surely, a commons admin can't approve the montage if a component image is a copyvio ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. Due to the Palestinian militants.jpg being deleted from commons, I am going to add a temporary free image into the montage instead for it not to be deleted as well. please help me by choosing a better photo/s from the commons photos we currently have. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The al-Jazeera logo is also cropped out, that is a violation of the license. nableezy - 07:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The current license of the image allows to create derivative work from it (which includes cropping the image). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Does cropping the image conform with 'You are required to leave our logos intact' ? I don't know. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The license requires that you attribute in "the manner specified" by the copyright holder. Al-Jazeera requires that you keep the logo intact and reference the website the image is taken from. nableezy - 07:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not spcified anywhere on this page. Anyone else has something to say about this concern? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The license says You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). That license is both quoted and linked on the image page. The actual image is taken from this video (also linked on the image page) which says According the license, you must attribute the footage to Al Jazeera (but not in any way that suggests that we endorse you or your use of our work). You are required to leave our logos intact, reference this website and the license itself. (bold added). nableezy - 08:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that Gnome's use of the image does leave their logos intact. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. Thats what Im talking about when I say "not funny". nableezy - 08:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You have to upload this WWI poster to commons for saying that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Atta boy Sean, show him how its done. But ... nableezy - 09:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
do'h...This outstanding image from Chicago then. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm banned from the US-Potawatomi subject area so my hands are tied. Although I'd feel a bit uneasy uploading a picture of some American frontier settlement anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Cptnono if we include this in the article it needs a picture of IDF soldiers and/or weaponry. Other concerns: Should the number or size of images be weighted proportionally to reflect real relative force/damage?; Is the kindergarten photo representative or emotive?; Is the militants photo actually from the Gaza War? (if it is copyright free); Does the arrangement (assuming left-to-right-up-to-down as the read order) communicate a cause-effect narrative? Those are my first impressions, also some concerns with the wording in the caption, can get to those later. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

←You needn't worry about cropping out the logo. Despite what they say on their website about keeping their logo intact, that is adding something that isn't in the Creative Commons license that they assigned to the work. But (as always) IANAL. Killiondude (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The CC license specifically says that you must attribute in the way that the owner says. The owner says that the attribution must consist of the logo remaining and a link to the website the image is from. nableezy - 08:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When I left my funny logos comment earlier, I had meant to leave a question also. I wonder about the captions. For example the note that the rocket is being fired into a civilian area. That seems unknowable to me, even if it is in the original. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that info has to go. ..also, I uploaded the pretty balloons. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)...and as a general comment, information in captions should comply with WP:V.Sean.hoyland - talk 12:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of placing a montage at the top of the article; possibly after the description box would be OK. I also don't like the pictures chosen - they seem to have been chosen for their "awesome" factor - big boys who think its cool to see things blow up (yes, I'm one too) - but when you're living in a war zone it's about fear and survival and getting killed and maimed and I don't see any of that here. There are some horrific pictures of injuries to civilians on both sides - are we going to be willing to have pictures of brains scattered around? Because that is what happens when you drop a bomb on people. I also share RomaC's concerns stated above. I don't know - it seems there are plenty of problems in this article already without introducing a big new can of worms, but I'm open to getting my mind changed. Jgui (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that the pictures showed iconic pictures of injuries to civilians on both sides and the massive damage to infrastructure rather than a sanitised 'scenes from the war' holiday montage postcard. However, that won't happen. Perhaps you are right, there are enough problems with the article already. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent lull-section edits

Jgui, pls stop misreading the sources or deliberately misrepresenting them. Nowhere is said that Israel agreed to "stop the blockade, with commerce in Gaza to resume and truck shipments to be restored to at least 2005 levels of 500 and 600 trucks per day". It was merely a Hamas' expectation. Easing the embargo is not a cease of the blockade. Also, if you wish to cite any UN source, pls care to attribute info properly. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

'if you wish to cite any UN source, pls care to attribute info properly'...because ?
Just curious. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Sceptic Ashdod, So is your argument that Israel was given guarantees, but Hamas was only given "expectations"? So Hamas was required to implement their side of the agreement, but Israel could choose to implement their side of the agreement or not based on whim? Do you really believe that??? These are the relevant portions of text from the citations: "Under the truce, Hamas is supposed to stop cross-border rocket fire by Palestinian groups while Israel is to gradually ease its embargo on Gaza and halt military raids." and from the NYTimes article: "Israel and Hamas accuse each other of bad faith and of violations of the Egyptian-mediated accord, and each side has a point. Rockets from Gaza never stopped entirely during the truce, and Israel never allowed a major renewed flow of goods into Gaza, crippling its economy." Since that wasn't enough for you, I've added a new citation to a Nation article interviewing Jimmy Carter: "After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily)."
Sceptic Asdod, I've added the Carter citation, and changed the number of trucks to reflect that. I hope that clarifies this issue for you. And let me conclude by asking you too to please refrain from starting a conversation with me by accusing me of either "misreading the sources or deliberately misrepresenting them" as you do here. May I recommend you read this note left by another helpful editor here. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Jgui, wiki is not about the amount of questionmarks you put, but about verifiability. Both NY Times and Al-Jazeera, RSs, use the wording "easing the embargo". Not a word about lifting the blockade. If you wish to add Carter, you have to attribute the sentence appropriately, and quote something like "According to Carter, Egyptians and Hamas informed him that ..." etc. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents

Kassjab has brought up this issue once again(by removing Gaza as a belligerent) and it must be brought to his attention that this issue has been more than covered(as he may well be aware of).

My point is that if any other party besides Israel were to attack or engage Gaza militarily, the Gaza military won't be the ones responding to that threat, because there is no such thing as a Gaza military(or Palestinian army, for that matter). In fact, it could very well be up to Hamas and the other various groups to defend Gaza in such situation. Simply because this war involved Israel, shouldn't be enough reason to blur the fact that Palestine does exists(and internationally recognized as a state, with or without Israel's blessings). Thus, since the absence of a military(official) in Gaza is not enough reason for Israel NOT to attack Gaza, it also isn't enough to ignored the fact that THERE is a military presence in the territory and when put in proper context, serves in the capacity of defenders in said territory. And that makes Gaza a belligerent, even more so when placed in context of the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Because then, if Palestine is in conflict with Israel(in any level whether politically, militarily, socially) it must be assume that each sides have it's own 'formalities' to engage one another(whether Head of the Health Department, Secretary of Education, etc.) Palestine will not be 'pictured' in disregard, as a scorn, people without a state, as bastards, as nomads or even pricks and dis-colorful.

Since I've brought up this point before i'll be concise this time. Lebanon has a military and so it was not put as a belligerent when Israel fought Hezbollah, etc etc...Hezbollah was the belligerent in that case. Fill in the blanks. I propose for Kassjab 'edits' to be reverted for such reasons. and also, since I know he has been following this article for some time(since he avoided bringing up his case in the talk page for this issue) and thus doing his edits in a sneaky way, after this present atmosphere of cooperation, do not think I have forgotten how to revert etc. I am pretty sure he knows this is a point that has been discussed and is a serious issue. He should know better, and probably does, not to act unilaterally when it comes to something that has a history, of may I say, CONSENSUS! Cryptonio (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he just took his neutrality even more to the center with adding even more 'belligerents'...it is safe to assume that there is no good faith in his apart, so assuming so would be showing mercy more than anything. Cryptonio (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)