| Revision as of 02:57, 28 December 2008 editHillock65 (talk | contribs)4,431 edits →Against Operation Cast Lead← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:16, 4 January 2025 edit undoOnceinawhile (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers49,721 edits →Table |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{moveoptions}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Notice|<big>'''The ] images have the logo because the Creative Commons license requires it.'''</big><br />These are free images with an attribution restriction.}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel|class=Start|importance=Mid|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Notice|For previously archived Lead section material: ''']''' and ''']'''}} |
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=Start|importance=Mid|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Notice|'''Sources''' for the article can be found at ].}} |
|
{{MILHIST|class=start|B1=yes|B2=no|B3=ye|B4=yes|B5=yes|Middle-Eastern=yes|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Notice|The inclusion of Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre in the lead of the article is discussed in ].}} |
|
|
{{censor}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
|
{{ITN talk |
|
|
|date1=27 December 2008 |
|
|
|date2=17 January 2009 |
|
|
|alt=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=b|B1=yes|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|Middle-Eastern=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{ITNtalk|27 December|2008}} |
|
|
|
| collapsed=yes |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
| title= Hanukkah Games in Gaza |
|
|
| author= Belén Fernández |
|
|
| date= 12/28/2008 |
|
|
| url= http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14543 |
|
|
| org= The Palestine Chronicle}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| title1 = 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict |
|
|
| title2 = Gaza War |
|
|
| title3 = Gaza War (2008–2009) |
|
|
| title4 = 2008–2009 Gaza War |
|
|
| collapse=true |
|
|
| list = |
|
|
* Title discussion: 30 December 2008, ]; 30 December 2008, ]; 3 January 2009, ] |
|
|
* RM, Multiple options, '''discussion continued''', 4 January 2009, ] |
|
|
* RM, Multiple options, '''discussion continued''', 4 January 2009, ] |
|
|
* RM, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Multiple options, '''no action''', 10 January 2009, ] |
|
|
* Further title discussions: 13 January 2009, ]; 15 January 2009, ]; 16 January 2009, ]; 22 January 2009, ]; 29 January 2009, ] |
|
|
* RM, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Israel–Gaza war, '''no consensus''', 5 February 2009, ] |
|
|
* RM preparatory discussion: 11 February 2009, ] |
|
|
* RM, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza war, '''no consensus''', 26 February 2009, ] |
|
|
* Further title discussions: 3 March 2009, ] |
|
|
* RM, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Operation Cast Lead, '''no move''', 6 March 2009, ] |
|
|
* Further title discussions: 5 April 2009, ]; 30 April 2009, ] |
|
|
* RM, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War, '''moved''', 6 May 2009, ] |
|
|
* Further title discussions: 20 May 2009, ]; 28 May 2009, ]; 21 August 2010, ]; 23 December 2010, ]; 24 June 2011, ] |
|
|
* RM, Gaza War → Operation Cast Lead, '''no consensus''', 20 March 2012, ] |
|
|
* Further title discussion: 10 March 2015, ]; 26 July 2015, ] |
|
|
* RM, Gaza War (2008–2009) → 2008–2009 Gaza War, '''no consensus''', 22 March 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, Gaza War (2008–2009) → 2008–2009 Gaza conflict or 2008–2009 Gaza incursion, '''not moved''', 21 May 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, Gaza War (2008–2009) → 2008–2009 Gaza War, '''not moved''', 14 October 2023, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{ARBPIA}} |
|
|
{{tmbox|image=]|text=<center><big>'''WARNING</big><br>In accordance with ], editors of this article are restricted to 1 ] per 24 hours'''. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}} |
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
<!-- Do not remove the sanction template --> |
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2015-12-27|oldid1=696788414|date2=2018-12-27|oldid2=875589318}} |
|
|
{{page views}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Palestinian casualty figure == |
|
|
<s>It appears that the user LOTRules insists on re-adding a death toll of 225 to the article. Where is the source? I have read the article and watched each video on 3 times, and there is no indication of the number 225 anywhere. Either I've missed something, and will gladly be corrected when the precise location of the figure is given, or please find another source/stop adding incorrect figures. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:Nevermind, it appears that the article has been updated (I refreshed). My apologies. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Debka" is not a reliable source... linking to Reuters instead.] (]) 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I added the link to the BBC previously. What is this "debka" nonsense you speak of?. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> |
|
== Title == |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
Could we discuss the Title of this page because all other pages about the attacks on Gaza strip by Israel are in Hebrew Operation Names.--] (]) 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
: I agree. The operation has a name. ] (]) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
::I don't. The current ''"2008 Gaza Strip Bombing"'' seems fine. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
:::Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different? ] (]) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
::::If we change this one we'll have to change all but that's ok. It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem. My problem with the gaza strip bombing is that there were many bombings in 2008 against gaza, see ]. So we should find a better name or leave this one but not return to the operations name as it is only called that way by the IDF and the rest of the world calls it gaza bombings or something... --] (]) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::::What about ''"Late 2008 Gaza Strip bombings"''? I think it avoids both ambiguity and the not-widely-known operation names. ] (]) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The name of the article is bad. Very, very bad. "2008 Gaza Strip bombings" is very ambiguous, because this was not the only bombing to occur in Gaza this year. Further, opening a can of worms here, it sounds too much like ] or ]... those were not military campaigns; this was. There is probably no overtly prominent name for this event, but if there was one, it would certainly be Operation Cast Lead. "2008 Gaza Strip bombings" is just a description -- and not a very precise one. -- ''']''' 23:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well "Operation Cast Lead" would be actually better than 2008 Gaza bombings, but it isn't known for that name, internationally I mean.It's fine with me if u return it to that name but wait until 3 more Users or the majority of the biggest contributors agree.--] (]) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I believe the Military History project has been over this countless times, so I'd suggest checking their discussions before adjusting other articles. ] (]) 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Calling the article by its Israeli codename shouldn't be seen as expressing a positive opinion on its morality; Nazi operations are routinely referred to by their codenames, e.g. ]. The article was started at ] and has been moved twice. I don't see a compelling reason to call it something less specific, like '2008 Gaza Strip bombings'. ] (]) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:We should wait and see what unfolds between the two sides. Its current name, 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previoulsy fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response. ] (]) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I endorse the name change. Seriously guys, "Gaza Strip Bombing"? LOL. ] (]) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: I'm in favor of the Operation name. That make sens for me. The other israeli operation have a name. Number of casualties isn't a reason for the name of the article.] (]) 00:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Moved. It's mentioned by "operation Cast Lead" on the ], in news articles, and elsewhere, the "2008 Gaza bombings" title was uninformative/unspecific, and the original move was performed without discussion by a user with less than 50 edits, the majority of which weren't even this year. So, there was also a bit of ]. Plus, we've got a little bit of consensus here already. Let me know if I did it all correctly! ]<small>]</small> 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: And ] informs me how, describes what? It provides no information at all! It describes nothing! Please make sense. I fixed it: ] clearly descriptive, clearly neutral. If you want alternatives, please provide them but ] is neither neutral nor descriptive or specific. Please see ], ] etc, etc, etc. Thanks!--] (]) 01:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Fail''' Operation name is not neutral, or all of the suddem neutrality doesn't matter? ] is much more sensible, descriptive, and neutral. Thanks!--] (]) 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::VERY persuasive Cerejota. I object to the sudden name change AGAIN. Why is the Operation Cast Lead not neutral? Are we offending Cast Lead??? Is this some mysterious element that deserves some special sensitivity? Sometimes I laugh at how partisan wikipedia is. ] (]) 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral. We can all have a laugh at how partisan wikipedia can get later, but the sooner we eliminate the potential trouble spots that these I-P articles have, the better we server the encyclopedia. This isn't the first time we have been around this block, and experience teaches to eliminate the trouble at the root generates a better article. We have managed more or less at ] (which was initially named after the Israeli name for the operation). What makes me laugh is why we have to have to engage in this edit warfare every time instead of realizing that one-sideness is not productive. Thanks!--] (]) 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::By YOUR LOGIC we should thus revert ] to something a little more neutral, because it was coined by ONE SIDE. You're using false logic and watery claims to eliminate conflict that isn't there. Operation Cast Lead is the NAME of the OPERATION, which, if you didn't know, is the topic of the article. I know, caps represent yelling, but I'm only using caps to emphasis the importance, which some here tend to ignore. Now, we (as in the people who discussed this) went through a lengthy 4 paragraphs arguing the previous titles, and then you <b>unilaterally</b> change the title without even waiting for a response....since when did this process become the norm? Even if the title was "Yet another nazi evil jew attack on the innocent", you are still obligated to jump through all the hoops just like the rest of us. You or someone please revert the title to its original form or I will be forced to seek the opinion of a higher authority who might not be so cordial. ] (]) 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*The Article Should be called "'''The Isrealian Gaza Massacre 2008'''" , just like the countless brutish atrocities of the Zionist regime. |
|
|
See the ] for example and then dare to be stupid enough to say to me that this is NOT a massacre ! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
]. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
== Public relations campaigns == |
|
|
|
|
|
i've started off the section on public relations campaigns with info from a Haaretz article on the Israeli govt PR campaign. i've added a {{Missing information}} tag warning about the need to get info about any similar campaign by the Hamas de facto govt of Gaza Strip. i would imagine that because the latter do not have a massive international network of embassies/consulates, they cannot carry out a campaign using anything like the same techniques with any chance of efficiency - i.e. they cannot get their ambassadors etc. to put pressure on local media groups around the world and on national politicians around the world. However, what i imagine is not an NPOV fact. Anyone with a non-original-research, referenced idea for what we can put here to balance the section? |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify the tag: IMHO we certainly '''should''' include info about either the Gaza Strip de facto government's public relations campaign (whatever that is) or the lack of such a campaign if it is documented to be absent. i don't (presently) know which is closer to the wikipedia (NPOV) version of truth. ] (]) 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think you have two options. First is waiting for the ] response and public relations activities (if they'll ever be one!). Second is to consider renaming the section to ''"'''Israili''' Public Relations Campaigns"''. I'm with the second option till any new activities appear from the other side. Thanks for assuring neutrality. ] (]) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Why is this relevant now? this better not be a white-wash attempt to portray the IDF as if it is trying to sell the war to the international community, or give the image that Israel is trying to cover up something. this is a friggin war, not a paparazzi scam. ] (]) 00:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't get your point. Is this criticism for including such information, or criticism for the acts themselves?] (]) 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Criticisms for the motivations. why is an anticipated PR campaign relevant at this juncture? I've seen countless articles on and off wikipedia where many users try to give the appearance that Israel is at the ready to spin whatever war their in, like the country is some coiled up celebrity publicist. ] (]) 01:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Wikifan: i think you missed the point of the {{Missing information}} tag and my two whole paragraphs at the beginning of this section. ] and the media clearly have an important effect on the effectiveness of military/political conflict during the late XX-eth and early XXI-st centuries. At the moment we (wikipedians on this page) don't know if the Gaza Strip de facto government is planning a comparable campaign to that of the Israeli government. However, we do know that the Israeli government has announced that it will carry out such a campaign in parallel with the military campaign. You might also have missed the fact that the source for the paragraph is Israel's oldest daily newspaper, founded in 1918. ] (]) 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I didn't miss the point. giving the impression that Israel is trying to spin the war is not an activity that is part of wiki policy. second, i read the source, quite thoroughly, and your paraphrasing is grossly incorrect. for starters, israel new "pr campaign" goal isn't simply to defend this operation: "Livni instructed senior ministry officials to open an aggressive and diplomatic international public relations campaign, in order to gain greater international support for Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip" so the root of the section is misleading. i will revise...] (]) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Palestine News Network== |
|
|
|
|
|
It is used as a reference and source, yet it is far from unbiased. It is pro-palestinian, pro-Hamas website and it is against any sort of peaceful solution. It also engages in egregious anti-semitism <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
PNN is the only source for the 780 wounded figure, CNN just said over 400 wounded, and they didn't say whether the 400 wounded were civs or militants. |
|
|
:Probably most news media sources from country X used in any wikipedia article are pro-country-X and pro-government-of-country-X, so that's not any higher degree of bias than is typical of CNN, NYT, BBC, etc. As for "against any sort of peaceful solution", i'm sceptical but you could try to find an external, reliable source for that if you thought it to be relevant. i'm also sceptical regarding the claim of racism, but again, even if it were true, then at the level to which it's true, that would apply to a large majority of news media generally considered reliable in the english language wikipedia. i also strongly suggest you read through and think about ], which is a ] meta-page that discusses the issue of systemic bias in quite some detail. |
|
|
:In any case, given that the bombings are happening to people in the Gaza Strip, maybe you could recommend to us some different news organisations in the ] that you judge to be reliable. The closer a news organisation is to the physical location of the event, the more likely it is to have in-depth information on what's happening rather than N-th hand reports by someone sitting in a comfortable hotel in another country. It will in general also be more biased in favour of the local culture, but that's the case for all news sources. We do not exclude US newspapers for events in the US or British newspapers as sources for events in the UK, so we cannot exclude Palestinian newspapers for events in Palestine. ] (]) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes PNN doesn't even meet blog standards. deleted. ] (]) 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::See above. ] (]) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Done. PNN is akin to a radicalist blog. It's rooted in nationalism and prone to extreme bias pending subject (most notably, Israel). It's like using a fundamentalist Christian site as evidence in determining the pros and cons of atheism. ] (]) 01:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::So we keeping Debkra file out, right? Thanks!--] (]) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reopening of crossing == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are two conflicting reasons for the reopening of the crossing given in the article. The first is that it was in response to international pressure; the second is that it was a deceptive act taken to reassure Hamas. Do we have a conclusive source one way or the other? ] (]) 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:On review of the sources (the NYT and Haaretz) for the respective claims, there is no source at all for "bowing to international pressure", whereas the Haaretz article is a classic no-names 'leak' from the Israeli defense department. Modifying the article accordingly. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pictures == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does someone know where to get free pictures or can someone help with the fair use rationale in the available picture please. I will add another picture of the air strike after a minute. Israel has released a video of their air strike can someone get. It is in the public domain if it's by the government right?--] (]) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Please assist with copyright tags... == |
|
|
|
|
|
before adding to article! ] and ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey everyone, two hours to discuss a name change is insufficient. Note the text in the tag above: ''"If, after a few days,"''. So let's top reverting name changes and give time for a calm, NPOV discussion. Let people's emotions cool off. i actually think that '''December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing''' is probably not too bad, but i've put the tag in in order to stop a "renaming revert war". |
|
|
|
|
|
Arguments i can see so far, mostly quoted from the ]: ''(adding signature to clarify who "i" means since the sections below may evolve - it was i who put in the {{moveoptions}} tag above ] (]) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC))'' |
|
|
|
|
|
===Against ''Operation Cast Lead''=== |
|
|
* It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem. |
|
|
** Counterargument: "Unfair", "civilian casualties" and "poem". Is this about emotional blackmail? The source name of an military operation should not be linked with the outcome of action taken. They are two completely separate things! ] (]) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* It is only called that way by the IDF. |
|
|
** Counterargument: In historical documents and books the offensive will be called by this term. ] (]) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* This term used mostly by the IDF and is not used by major news sources. --] (]) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===In favour of ''Operation Cast Lead''=== |
|
|
* Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different? |
|
|
** Counterargument: A precedence of POV naming of articles is not a valid argument in favour of continuing the tradition. |
|
|
* Calling the article by its Israeli codename shouldn't be seen as expressing a positive opinion on its morality; Nazi operations are routinely referred to by their codenames, e.g. ] or ] when the USA/UK overthrew the elected prime minister of ]. |
|
|
* isn't known internationally. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Against ''2008 Gaza Strip bombings''=== |
|
|
* Ambiguous, because this was not the only bombing to occur in Gaza this year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Hamas claims of casualties== |
|
===In favour of ''2008 Gaza Strip bombings''=== |
|
|
|
Hamas never said that 600-700 of its members died. The Haaretz article in fact quotes Hamas as saying 200-300 Al-Qassam brigades members died, but also quotes Hamas saying 49 of its members died. It also quotes "250 killed" at the police station, but these are not strictly from Hamas, nor is it clear if they are combatants at all. It also quotes an additional 150 security personnel, and again its not clear if they were combatants in the Gaza war or not.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Al-Qassam Brigades actively works with Hamas, but is not Hamas. In fact, it was originally part of Fatah. Here, I think Hamas is just specifying the number of combatants each group lost, rather than contradicting itself. |
|
===Non-arguments=== |
|
|
|
:<br> |
|
* 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previoulsy fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response. |
|
|
|
:Israel considers police and security officers to be combatants if they enter combat when they're on duty -- regardless of whether they're Israeli or Palestinian. As far as I've been able to tell, Hamas doesn't count them as combatants even if they enter combat and are on duty. |
|
** Non-argument because if the motivations for the attacks are irrelevant in the case of '''2008 Gaza Strip bombings''', then surely they are irrelevant in the case of '''Operation Cast Lead''' too. |
|
|
|
:<br> |
|
*** Counterargument: It is not a case of motivations here. If confrontation continues a conflict may evolve and may turn out as '''Hamas-Israel Conflict 2008'''. ] (]) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: |
|
* Further, opening a can of worms here, it sounds too much like 2002 Bali bombings or 2005 Amman bombings... those were not military campaigns; |
|
|
|
:<br> |
|
** Non-argument because it's not up to wikipedians to decide that bombings by non-state actors are fundamentally different from bombings by state actors. |
|
|
|
:"To deconstruct these figures properly, the status of the Gaza police must first be considered, since approximately 250 of them were among those listed as 'civilians' who were killed. Although the Goldstone Report concludes that the Gaza police force was a 'civilian law-enforcement agency,' there is overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise. |
|
|
:<br> |
|
|
:"The Gaza police has its origins in the Hamas Executive Force. When the Executive Force was formed in 2006, its commander announced that the force was 'the nucleus of the future Palestinian army. The resistance must continue. We have only one enemy. They are Jews. We have no other enemy. I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people.' According to the report, the Executive Force merged with a reorganized PA police in October 2007. |
|
|
:<br> |
|
|
:"Despite the fact that the Executive Force no longer technically exists, during Operation Cast Lead a police spokesman said, 'Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded.' This is conclusive evidence that the Gaza police were not entitled to the protections accorded to civilians in war. In addition, evidence suggests many policemen were combatant individuals regardless of their connection with the police. |
|
|
:<br> |
|
|
:"According to one count, 91% of the policemen killed were either members of a terrorist organization or in infantry training, with a 'decisive majority' of casualties belonging to military wings. |
|
|
:<br> |
|
|
:"In any event, reasonable people can and do disagree as to the status of the Gaza policemen killed by Israel. they cannot simply be lumped together with infants and other obvious non-combatants for purposes |
|
|
:of listing the number of dead civilians." ] (]) 06:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Forgot to ping: @] ] (]) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{re|Oakling}} Sorry for the delay. The source you cited seems to be a ] work by two authors known to be pro-Israel advocates. There are a few misleading claims here: |
|
|
::*"The Gaza police has its origins in the Hamas Executive Force." |
|
|
::**What the police ''used'' to be has no relevance. We know that ] used to serve in the IDF, but given his IDF service ended in Apr 2023, he was rightfully considered civilian on Oct 7. |
|
|
::*"According to one count, 91% of the policemen killed were either members of a terrorist organization" |
|
|
::**Well, yes. According to Israel all Hamas members are considered terrorist, yet we know that Hamas also runs the civilian aspects of Gaza. |
|
|
::*"Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded." |
|
|
::**This appears to be a misleading translation. The man who made these instructions clarified "{{tq|Mr. Shahwan stated that the instructions given at that meeting were to the effect that in the event of a ground invasion, and particularly if the Israeli armed forces were to enter urban settlements in Gaza, the police was to continue its work of ensuring that basic food stuffs reached the population, of directing the population to safe places, and of upholding public order in the face of the invasion. Mr. Shahwan further stated that not a single policeman had been killed in combat during the armed operations, proving that the instructions had been strictly obeyed by the policemen.}}" (416) |
|
|
::**Further, the Goldstone report notes that 75% of police had been killed in a surprise Israeli attack before the ground invasion began. |
|
|
::*Further, "{{tq|the Mission notes that there are no allegations that the police as an organized force took part in combat during the armed operations}}" (417). Indeed Dershowitz doesn't provide any specific examples of police taking part in combat. |
|
|
::Other RS consider the police to be civilians, for example (page 588) and .''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2024 == |
|
Now we're at '''December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing'''. |
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|ans=y}} |
|
|
, but could someone add the following word in bold, which is gramatically more correct?: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most right-wing opposition parties, '''including''' ], etc, etc, etc |
|
Are there any suggestions for a better name? ] (]) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you're intent on staying away from the operation name, why not '''December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes'''. That's much more descriptive than the vaguer "bombings". (Edit: I don't mean to sound critical, and the summary you've written up is quite constructive. Thanks) ] (]) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::The current name is OK, although I stand by my opinion that referring to it as Cast Lead is NPOV. I can see two potential problems if the action extends past the new year (which is likely) or Israel mounts a ground offensive (possible). I agree 'bombings' is vague. ] (]) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with '''December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes'''... its even more descriptive while remaining neutral and a decent title. Plus if there is ever a ground component, we do a different article: ] Thanks!--] (]) 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
I changed as it seems a minor refactoring, the main debate seems to be over the use of the IDF Operation name. Thanks!--] (]) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Lol. Cerejota, it hasn't even be an hour. Let's go back to Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever. |
|
|
What is the logic behind Operation Cast Lead? Well, according to you, Cerejota: "It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral" Operation Cast Lead is the official title designated by the Israeli military and recognized by the world. Therefore, it is the only valid title for the article. We might as well change ] to something that we all as a biased and flawed people can agree on. I understand there is some intense resentment for Israel, but this is a moot argument. Operation Cast Lead is the title of the article, period. Anything other than that is simply false or ambigious. If we're going to lie, we can at least come up with something a little more creative than Gaza Strip Bombings. :D ] (]) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"Operation Cast Lead" already has numerous google results, on blogs, etc. "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" will only give the wikipedia page. ] (]) 02:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Also, virtually every other war is titled according to its operation (] – ] – ] –]) on wikipedia. Why should this be any different? ] (]) 02:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: Agree with the points by Chesdovi and Wikifan12345. This was manipulation at its finest. You didn't wait for feedback, and the above points are hand-picked to serve the position of those supporting the current title. ] was just slapped under "In favour of ''2008 Gaza Strip bombings''" with no explanation whatsoever. You didn't wait for feedback or counterpoints, and you ignored a perfectly valid point above that the military campaign name does not indicate support for the action. With certain attacks (like the Amman bombings, Bali bombings, etc, etc), we use a descriptive title because there is no prominent name available. Here, we have one, even if it's not a household name. Let's not make this about drawing sympathy for Palestinians; this is standard nomenclature. -- ''']''' 02:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Misplaced Pages seems to be the only place where ''Operation Cast Lead'' features so prominently. You won't find this on CNN, BBC or other main news sources. If IDF classifies it as such, it is fine, but the whole world knows about this event as ''the Gaza Strip airstrikes, Gaza assault, Israeli Gaza operation''. If the ground offencive evolves from it, than it needs to be changed again. But so far, the Cast Lead Op needs to kept in the text, not in the title, this article is about the whole event, including humanitarian and political aspects, not just an Israeli military operation. --] (]) 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks--] (]) 19:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Careful about POV == |
|
|
|
:{{done}} ] (]) 00:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== First Gaza War == |
|
Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose adding "First Gaza War" as an alternative name for this conflict. I , with supporting references, but was reverted by {{u|Slatersteven}}. I didn't think this would have needed consensus before being added. It's a minor addition, it's properly-referenced (and there are many other references that could be added), and the name is used more often recently to distinguish this war from the other Gaza wars. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
This kind of statement can start nationalist edit wars in Misplaced Pages. To avoid this, the above statement should have more than one source. All sources must be of impeccable reliability. This comment is to help Misplaced Pages, not support or oppose one of the combatants. ] (]) 02:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Do any RS call it this? ] (]) 10:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Huh? I added three RS's in my edit. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry, but it does not alter the fact, this should not have been done without consensus. ] (]) 10:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sorry, I didn't notice the hidden message when making my edit. I should've looked more carefully.<br/>Aside from that, do you oppose "First Gaza War" being in the article as an alternative name? – ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, I just happen to think the rules apply to everyone, even if I agree with them. ] (]) 13:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*I'm unsure about adding the First Gaza war to the first sentence given ], an eminent scholar on the ], considers it to be the 10th conflict/war over Gaza. I'd propose something like "The conflict is sometimes called the "First Gaza war", while other scholars consider it the 10th round of the Israel-Gaza conflict."''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Table == |
|
I fully agree with you. Thanks!--] (]) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], do you have any feedback on the table I just added? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== Palestine News Network citation == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi {{ping|Vice regent}} the table is excellent. Really very valuable. ] (]) 22:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Several users insist on reverting my passage revision: "Palestine News Network reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded. Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives." TO: <b>Palestinian Medical Sources</b> reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded. Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives. To begin, PNN isn't even close to being a reliable source, but because few have been reported, I'm willing to let it slide until another more reliable reference can be obtained. Second, PNN is not a base for Palestinian Medical Sources, nor are these sources cited in the article. The statement isn't even exaggeration, it is simply false. To be perfectly honest, however, the article would be better off without the citation at all. The number cited by PNN could be as high as 10,000 and it still doesn't merit any weight, for their reporting is highly unregulated or recognized by any remotely professional media entity. ] (]) 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
Hamas never said that 600-700 of its members died. The Haaretz article in fact quotes Hamas as saying 200-300 Al-Qassam brigades members died, but also quotes Hamas saying 49 of its members died. It also quotes "250 killed" at the police station, but these are not strictly from Hamas, nor is it clear if they are combatants at all. It also quotes an additional 150 security personnel, and again its not clear if they were combatants in the Gaza war or not.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Done