Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 3 February 2009

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Belén Fernández (12/28/2008). "Hanukkah Games in Gaza". The Palestine Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2008.

A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 January 2009.

For previously archived Lead section material: Archive 22 and 23

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

"Israeli army said they shot the farmer" - removal request

It is hard to believe that IDF spokesperson would do such a thing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is your source where Israel rescinds that comment? Cryptonio (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Get real. His has lawyers you know. I've googled and found 3 references:

• http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10678349.htm
• http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/so-much-for-the-israeli-cease-fire/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict

I do not think this is a reliable source. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Get working. Google Israel's rescue, explanation or flat-out denial they did such a thing. Cryptonio (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. Actually it is better to see how this incident was reflected in other RS in order to achieve better encyclopedic value to this article. I did not see any IDF press release, maybe you? At best we could say Xinhuanet by unclear author reported that ... BTW Xinhuanet already published Hamas press releases before: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-03/04/content_755607.htm AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, I don't know of any reason to doubt that Xinhua is generally a reliable source, but you raised an interesting issue. I did some checking, and couldn't find any other RS stating the incident as fact. I found several RS's stating the incident as an allegation by a Gazan speaking to Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. B'Tselem on its own is not a reliable source. It seems to me then that the alleged incident should best be described "So-and-so told Israeli human rights group B'Tselem that a Palestinian farmer was shot on January 18...". If other RS's can be found that refer to the incident as fact, we should also refer to it as fact. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC simply say "Medics in Gaza said a Palestinian farmer was killed by gunfire." Sean.hoyland - talk 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AlJazera reports: After the incident, Israeli forces opened fire, killing a Palestinian farmer, Palestinian medical workers said. MX44 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why we have this pesky little thing called verifiability... :D--Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, thank you for checking. So no IDF press release? MX44, Thank you for the link. I think you cite another "farmer" incident, but apparently by the same source: Hamas employed MoH official Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein, he is medical worker alright. Cerejota (talk) thank you for providing verifiability. While, apparently, there is nothing surprising with "(Hamas) medical workers report farmer killed", on Jan 18 and this allegation was reported also by BBC and B'Tselem. From other hand "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" clearly presents red flag. IDF spokesperson would not state something that out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. How BBC and B'Tselem managed to miss this apparently important press release? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included...

So what do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

if there is no problem with one source reporting that a doctor said the casualties were 500-600 and we have that in the article, then why should this source be a problem? Untwirl (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

btw- cerejoGaza? i think you should apologize for that and try to remember to be civil. Untwirl (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

agad - you need to apologize and strike it, not just delete and pretend it didn't happen. Untwirl (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is copy-paste accident, thank you for noticing. I'm really sorry Cerejota (talk). This is honest mistake. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl (talk), it was not my intention. can we return to "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" quote? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

no prob - accidents happen. did you see my example? "if there is no problem with one source reporting that a doctor said the casualties were 500-600 and we have that in the article, then why should this source be a problem?"Untwirl (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This quote has a name of Italian known author, quoting "anonymous" Palestinian doctor. I fully agree with you there is to much of ""anonymous" reports in this article. If you want to remove it - go ahead. It is irrelevant to this discussion subject.

To the point, I'm not really sure that unnamed Xinhuanet author really quotes IDF response. There is no evidence about this claim of responsibility by IDF in war crime. This is highly unusual. You should consider process that IDF has for press releases in atmosphere of "bracing for slew of lawsuits". Everything IDF is saying is being filtered by Judge Advocate General. Why no other source confirms it, while reporting "medical sources" allegations? Do you see my point? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources that is all I have to sya about this - I mean, if it did happen, it will be trivial to find sourcing --Cerejota (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see we on the same page, Cerejota. So if there is no other sourcing, please balance this "Ceasefire violations" quote and credit it clearly to Hamas sources. I personally would remove it completely, since "farmer" incident happened while Hamas initially "vowed to fight on". It's also acceptable to move "farmer" Jan 18 incident to Incidents section, where it rightfully belongs. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Sean's source was also about the separate, later "farmer" incident. In our (Jan 18) incident, the guy who said he saw it was not a medic, but the brother of the person allegedly shot. Like I said, I haven't found any source other than Xinhua that speaks of it as fact, though a few sources attribute it to B'Tselem "as heard from the brother". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So is there WP:consensus to remove first paragraph of Ceasefire violations section? Any other suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am all for consensus, but we have this AFP (also mentions "8 year old girl"), I think there is an attribution issue. Sources clearly mention "medics" as the source of the information, and we should say so.--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I agree to what you say. Also according to IDF there were exchange of gun fire on Jan 18. "Medic" is wishy washy for "Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein". Is he mentioned accidentally in both Jan 18 and Jan 27 "farmer" allegation cases?

Anyway, use "medics" and add "8 year old girl" but let's move it to Incidents. Agreed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks I need your opinion how to move forward. First paragraphs is out of context in Ceasefire violations since it happend while militants fired rockets and Israel launched retaliatory air strikes (AFP link). We did not find sources for Israeli army said they shot the farmer. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

the source is: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10678349.htm

it should not be removed - it should be attributed to xinhua. if edits reported by only one source are to be removed - then the unnamed doctor's estimate of casualties should be removed as well. i'm sure there are others ... i think this type of requirement will open pandora's box. Untwirl (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

what about "Hamas fired grad rockets from Media Office Building. "

the video shows a reporter saying she heard a loud noise and thinks that a rocket was fired from the building. how does her untrained opinion on a noise with no visual verification qualify as an exceptional source? Untwirl (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed. The atmosphere for reporters in this area and conflict, is not the best one to get ALL media outlets to report on everything that its happening. Taken this, then will Al Jazerra be disqualified as well, we knowing that is one of the few media outlet permitted inside of Gaza? BTW I was not rude, you were the first to say 'get real' - I simply took exception.

Say that, Israel has not denied the incident yet, or yet to provide their side of the story, then go ahead and specify that, but remove it because Israel has yet to acknowledge that did something? I apologize, but we are not under obligation to neither wait for an acknowledgment from Israel or remove reliable information that gives Israel an unwarranted black eye.

Say, fairness? Dubious remorse in my honest opinion... Cryptonio (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was established that Israeli army said they shot the farmer never happened, this is not a fact. Calling Hamas reports of civilian casualties Ceasefire violations during the morning when Israeli officials announced a unilateral ceasefire but Hamas "vowed to fight on" and militants fired rockets is twisting a truth. Blackeagle said elsewhere There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Cryptonio, thank you for bringing up fairness into discussion. I hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

After this long discussion I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267161730&oldid=267155196 AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

i think you acted too soon. there are only you and possibly cerejota that agree with this removal. consensus could best be reached by attributing the statement to xinhua. using your own logic, israeli govt's censorship policy would never allow israeli media to report such a thing, therefore the only sources that could repeat such a statement would be foreign. this is not an opinion piece. unless youre suggesting that all material from and links to xinhua should be removed, then i dont see a problem with "according to" prefacing any contentious material that is reported by what we have considered a reliable source for this article. Untwirl (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that is was in the wrong section. I did not remove, I moved it to Unilateral ceasefires where it belongs from timeline point of view. It happened on Jan 18 AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus on either of your edits. If you agree with what Blackeagle stated, then your objection to Ceasefire Violations is mute. More importantly you don't have the authority to discredit reliable sources. I would like to re-read where in this conversation it was 'proved' the incident never happened, or that the quote from the Israel military was a lie. In the incidents to follow, it clearly stated that the IDF did in fact shot at farmers etc(for whatever reason), how then is it far fetched to believe the accuracy of the article you are questioning when it clearly said that the IDF had shot a farmer?

if you ignore what was just asked of you, just simply explain where in this discussion was proved that the article you are questioned is a lie, or as you put it, it wasn't a fact. Cryptonio (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your current line of thought does not merit an argument about what is actually in questioned before reverting your unilateral edit. I, was who reverted your edit. Cryptonio (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, This edit was discussed here for two days. Many agreed that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I assumed silence as WP:consensus, but was mistaken. Cryptonio, so you still say that "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" is a fact worth publishing? Could you explain you position? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I sure can Agada. "In the incidents to follow, it clearly stated that the IDF did in fact shot at farmers etc(for whatever reason), how then is it far fetched to believe the accuracy of the article you are questioning, when clearly said that the IDF had shot a farmer?

And also, "many agreed" sounds too complicated for me, perhaps because the discussion was so simple. You first objected on grounds that Xinhuanet is not a reliable source, the claim is fine, but what is not right is not to substantiate that exact claim.

You then argued that the statement made is not per IDF "standard", which is fine, except that you objected on grounds that the whole incident did not occoured. The burden is not on truth sake's but on credibility.

You are not looking for consensus, rather for the removal of this media reported bit.

If you are not working for consensus, how do you expect you'll get the section deleted? Cryptonio (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No WP:consensus

It was clearly established that there is No WP:consensus on the subject. I argue that first paragraph of Ceasefire violations should be removed.

• The events are described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, relevant quote: Gaza medical sources reported civilians killed.
• Israeli army said they shot the farmer is clearly a red flag according to verifiability. Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included

I'm new here. Let me know if I understand it right. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The source you have presented, does not go into details about the incident that is currently presented in Ceasefire Violations. Notice then, that not much information is known about this incident as a whole. This same source "AFP", does not discredit 'at all' what is stated in the Xinhua article. Now, since your source does not provide much information about the incident, neither an Israeli response, why would you want to discredit, what appears to be the only other news article that apparently covered this story? You have my consensus, that you have found another source on this matter. But you continue to ignore the argument that is presented to you. i will add the "AFP" article as source to the first paragraph in Ceasefire Violations. Cryptonio (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not consensus, the problem is WP:V. I insist and concur with Agada, Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. I have yet to find verification that the IDF admitted the shooting. If we do, it stays, if we don't, it goes. We do find verifiability that the incident happened. So the incident stays. Simple. --Cerejota (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I think that events are described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, relevant quote: Gaza medical sources reported civilians killed.. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Misplaced Pages states as a fact that "Israeli army said they shot the farmer", quoting in my view in this particular case Hamas source - Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein. Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument was made about having information included in the article that only had ONE person as source and was in itself an Exceptional Claim( so high-quality sources needed is muted).

You want me to find 'verification' about something that is included in the article, that i DID NOT write? you are looking for MORE sources? how many sources will satisfied you? do we have to work towards your satisfaction in this matter?

Cerejota, you are entitled to disavowed Xinhua as a source. Don't get ahead of yourself. Cryptonio (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"

Just that in this matter they received a good chunk of cash from Hamas?

Cerejota, can you repeat again, what is that you concur with Agada on again? Agada just saw the light from the same tunnel you are about to travel through. Cryptonio (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Just that in this matter they received a good chunk of cash from Hamas?" So, Cryptonio, are you claiming that Hamas has enough cash to bribe the Chinese government? That the Chinese government would favor Hamas over it's second larges arms supplier? Blackeagle (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You made me look this up. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

"The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel," Cryptonio (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant, but it's funny how absurd conclusion (like murder justification) could be drawn from solid statistics. See: http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4728/1231958480954uo4.jpg AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that image funny, I find it offensive (and the math is incorrect, too). May we please refrain from gender-based jokes? Thank you kindly. Tell someone (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit I suggest you strike your "funny" bit of misogynism above. RomaC (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, my wife and daughter approved this joke, but I'm sorry if you find it offensive. Being male I love woman in general, and thank God for their existence, assume good faith. BTW statistics in the picture look credible to me ( and my wife ), but I'd be glad to be corrected. To the point.

• I'm still waiting for confirmation that Israeli army said they shot the farmer, otherwise this "fact" should be removed.
• I insist to move January 18 morning "farmer" incident to Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph.

Cognitive relativism has its limits. Any suggestion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To this point, it could very well be, that the article has the appearance of standing on just one leg(as per some 'crafty' rationale) but is the actual position of the article, or its merits what should be debated? To that point, we here in Wiki select the latter, and to that point, whether 'cognitive relativism' is employed or not(as per some witchcraft) is not open for debate. Cryptonio (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprisingly, I understand and agree with Agada's point. Israeli army said they shot the farmer would be Israel claiming they were responsible for a war crime. "Oh sure, we saw this farmer plowing his field and so we shot him. What's the big deal?" Israel might acknowledge that it shot a 27-year old man (or whatever -- just using example) who Palestinians claim was a farmer "just checking his field". So the point is, this statement is a redflag statement, like admitting to murder, out of character etc etc as Agada pointed out above. It requires "exceptional sources" ... one Chinese (if generally reliable) source does not qualify. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

War crime? who is judging Israel's actions? We are not discussing Israel's actions in this matter(even the supposed absent 'explanation' for their actions). What a reader believes warrants further action against Israel is not of ANY importance here. Furthermore, even the 'gravity' of the action itself is of no concern here. Notice that in here, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ijkYFQac8SjkWN53E259A5P2Cr2w, which is the second source mentioned, it does not include other accounts of occurrences that is not related to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. It does not, for example, mentions that an old man died of an heart attack peacefully. So, the article implies, by its nature, that Israel's actions had something to do with the farmer's death. The example that you give to Israel's side of the story is of no bearing on this matter either, for there hasn't been any Israel explanation on this matter, which is perhaps the reason why 'some' might object to this article, who's both sources, albeit being the only ones to be presented, are reliable sources. On Israel's admittance of murder, should we bring up examples where Israel in fact admits to murder?

A source that counters Israel's 'fathom' explanation of this matter has not yet been written. Cryptonio (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Using the argument that, "Since Israel has yet to deny or confirm this incident, or giving their version of this matter, the article CANNOT be true, or factual"... Cryptonio (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Cryptonio. Please reread verifiability. In any case the problematic phrase get only 3 hits using google, so Misplaced Pages is in the good company, reporting this 'fact'. Could you explain your reasoning why January 18 morning events should not go to Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, where events of that morning are described? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, your talk page is read-only. How did you do it and is it intentional? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being dim but I've never fully understood this dispute. It's not exceptional for the IDF to shoot people in the security buffer zones around the Gaza strip. It's covered by the military rules of engagement under which their soldiers operate there. I'm just saying it's not especially unusual. Anyway, that probably doesn't help much. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree Sean, enough is enough (talk to non-talk-able). I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267995438&oldid=267995015 Hope it is balanced and neutral and better reflects reality.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean I need to stress IDF open-fire orders do not permit shooting unarmed farmers even in buffer zone. Another question is were there reports of IDF ground forces in Khan Yunis (translated park/stay for nigh here) area? AFAIK infantry and tank troops entered only to north of Gaza strip, but maybe I should be corrected. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The IDF have shot unarmed people in the buffer zone. For example . Maybe the soldiers were prosecuted for it.... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean you might find it surprising, but if law is broken people get prosecuted by law. And indeed there were precedents in the past. I hope you do not suggest that IDF open-fire orders do permit target unarmed people? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be surprised at prosecutions when there are clear breachs of the law but the law is often applied weakly/loosely at borders when security comes before everything else for various pragmatic reasons. I would be extremely surprised if the IDF rules of engagement allowed the shooting of knowingly unarmed people mainly because the average soldier wouldn't obey such an order. However, the fact is that unarmed people are shot. That's what happens in these situations. It happens here too. If it was up to me there wouldn't be any borders anywhere, no visas, no passports. Problem solved....sort of. We can then all go and live somewhere nice like Laos, Oman or maybe all move to Oregon. It's quite roomy. Anyway, off topic... Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But Sean's comment is all about WP:OR while Agada's point is not. IDF rules of engagement do not permit shooting unarmed civilians, thus it would be highly unlikely ie "out of character" and "against an interest they had previously defended" (ie "we do not target civilians") and thus would fall under the "Exceptional claims require exceptional ("high quality") sources. (Note the plural) -- just stressing the point for the benefit of Cryptonio. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not follow that the rules of engagement saying something makes it highly unlikely that a soldier does the opposite. Somebody making a claim that is in opposition to what the IDF has said does not qualify as an exceptional claim. Nableezy (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit Agada, but also addressed your concerns:

"The first death after the ceasefire was a Palestinian farmer who was shot dead by an Israeli soldier while checking his farm in Khan Younis, on the morning of 18 January. The Israeli army said they shot the farmer because he was approaching land occupied at that moment by Israeli ground troops. There has not been an Israeli report addressing this matter in furtherance. "

Cryptonio (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

EDITor Evb-wiki has not been seen in this talk page or has addressed this subject matter. His edit for this reason can be taken as vandalism. Will revert. Cryptonio (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

jta

i don't think, the "global news service for jewish people" meets the demands of WP:RS. excerpts from their self concept (http://jta.org/about):

JTA is driven by the belief that knowledge is power, and that only by being better informed can the Jewish community be better connected.

Over the years, the Jewish community has come to rely on JTA as the single most credible source of news and analysis available about events and issues of Jewish interest anywhere in the world.

--Severino (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends, I would agree that for controversial subjects they are biased, but they are a reliable source in the sense that they are not a blog. For some articles in wikipedia it is a reliable source. In this one, I think there are better sources for the information it conveys, in particular with more reporting reach and more rigorous fact checking etc.--Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To make that suggestion reflects one's own editorial bias. JTA is WP:RS in the same sense as every other news organization on the planet. That JTA's target audience are Jews is irrelevant. By analogy, suppose there was a CanadianTA that said it is driven by the belief that knowledge is power, and that only by being better informed can the Canadian community be better connected? How does that deny it's WP:RS or suggest any bias, unless you think their mission is to misinform the Canadian people? There is nothing about this which even suggests bias, although one might expect that topics of interest to the Jewish Community would receive more coverage. This seems like a double standard. By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism. Doright (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context". if, for example, serbia is at war with croatia and a serbian news agency/news platform says something analogous about itself (to deal with THIS parameter), that would raise doubts about their reliability/impartiality as a source in this war, yes. btw, does your recitation have the purpose to impress somebody?--Severino (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Severino, I'm reading what you wrote but I can't make sense out of it. You wrote, " serbia is at war with croatia and a serbian news agency/news platform says something analogous about itself (to deal with THIS parameter)? What are you trying to say? Doright (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop calling people anti-semites, its a dick move. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, calm down. No one called anyone an antisemite so please stop your incivility. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, dont imply people are anti-semites, it is a dick move. Nableezy (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, it is especially rude, impolite and uncivil to again engage in the same name calling that I already objected to. It is a personal attack and is not helpful to anyone. Also, I did not imply anyone was an antisemite. It might be helpful if you reread what I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doright (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, let us look at what you wrote. First, 'This seems like a double standard'. That implies a double standard is being used. Next. 'By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism'. Here you equate said double-standard with antisemitism. Since you implied that a double standard existed, and then equated this supposed double standard with antisemitism, you did in fact imply some of being antisemitic. It might be helpful if you actually know what it is you are writing before you click 'Save page'. Nableezy (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, the statement, "This seems like a double standard," does not imply that a double standard is being used. "Seems" does not equal "is." As you say, "It might be helpful if you actually know what it is you are writing before you click 'Save page'," it seems that you are unable to converse in a civil manner. Notice, that does not mean that you can not converse in a civil manner. It means it seems that you can't. I am not saying you can't. Maybe you can. It's really not that complicated. In any case, I think we are done here. Doright (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be one is equivalent to implying one, you dont quite go out and say it but you put it out there. But yes, it appears we are done here. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I glad you now understand that I did not say what you claimed. Doright (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You did say what I 'claimed' but are apparently unwilling to withdraw those comments and apologize, thats why we are done. Feel free to have the last word, but dont think you understand what I am writing because it is clear you cannot even understand what you are writing. Nableezy (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had told the editor that I was sorry on their user talk page. And they told me they were not offended. So it would seem your histrionics are just that. Doright (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See also: Godwin's law

—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

You may like to know that Godwin's law can be easily understood as a case of The Livingston Formulation that is often used by antisemites. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it a dick move, it is cheapening the very real suffering of those who have faced true antisemitism. When everything is antisemitism, nothing is antisemitism. How Doright arrived to the conclusion that JTA is to be treated differently because it is a Jewish source is beyond me - so are Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, and we like them. There is no double standard, quite the contrary, we apply to this partisan source the same criteria Doright applies to the ISM and PNN - and even, unbelivably to Al Jazeera.

—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

Cerejota, show me the diff where I applied your criteria to ISM and PNN Al Jazeera. Your claim is false. Even so, one must conclude that you would not agree with such an application of such a criteria to Al Jazeera. Yet, you say, "we apply to this partisan source the same criteria." This appears a contradiction that can only be explained by yet another double-standard. Cerejota, you repeatedly refer to "we" in your above statements. Who are the "we" that you are refereeing to other than yourself? Also, the only "conclusion" that i "arrived to" was. "JTA is WP:RS in the same sense as every other news organization on the planet."Doright (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, it is true that the target audience of a given source is irrelevant. What we use to measure reliability are basically two things: how other sources verify the information give, and how a given sources view the given source. To lesser extent we also use common sense... This is why the ISM is not really a reliable source around here, and why the ISM isn't either. As I already said: there are better sources for the information it conveys, in particular with more reporting reach and more rigorous fact checking etc being Jewish is irrelevant. If you even imply that an editor is antisemitic again - unless of course that editor says something like "death to the jews" - you could be blocked. Read WP:ARBPIA. --Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, with misleading (see above) and uncivil ("not only is it a dick move")and threatening edits here, I suspect it is far more likely that you will be blocked. Again, false claims and contradictory arguments do not help the project. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also a dick move is putting comments in the middle of somebody elses post. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We includes me too. I don't beleive it's an RS either. I think you guys should both chill. Doright your allusion to anti-semitism was innapropriate. Disagreeing with a Jewis source doesn't make anyone a racist and to imply so is rediculous. Nableezy you assertation that Doright has been making "Dick moves" is plain rude and an uncivilised way of making a point. If someone dissagrees with you, no matter what is said, devolving the discussion to petty name calling doesn't help anyoneAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"I call a spade a spade it just is what it is." (5 pretend dollars to who can name that artist) Nableezy (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Andrew's Concience, can you show how and why JTA is not a WP RS along with the specific elements of the RS guideline that support your belief? If not, I think this entire discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. Also, no one here said or implied anyone here was "a racist." Furthermore, I did not make an "allusion to anti-semitism." Respectfully, Doright (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doright but to say "To make that suggestion reflects one's own editorial bias." followed by "By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism." is an unambiguous accusation of antisemitism against Severino. Since that wasn't your intention then you just need to be a bit more careful with your language so that calmness prevails. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, Thanks for the suggestion and it is a point well taken. You are correct that it wasn't my intension. At the same time, I must say I don't agree with your analysis that it is "an unambiguous accusation." In fact what I wrote is not an accusation. But, I'm not sure how much additional effort we want to put into beating this dead horse. Doright (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, no problem. I always enjoy a good dead horse flogging session myself. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuck that, in this very thread you have twice accused somebody of antisemitism. The quote above where you implied a double standard and equated that with antisemitism, and when another editor wrote See Also: Goodwins Law, you interrupted their comment with this: "You may like to know that Godwin's law can be easily understood as a case of The Livingston Formulation that is often used by antisemites." I request you strike both accusations, stop denying and apologize, and that you cease in implying such motivations by other editors. Nableezy (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

...apparently the horse was just napping. Similar thing happened at a Buddhist cremation ceremony I attended recently. Of course the guy can laugh about it now that most of the facial burns have healed. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Me thinks thou doth protest too much. To say that a particular and well documented rhetorical formation is often used by antisemites is a far cry from actually having "accused somebody of antisemitism." It does seem, along with your use of of expletives, that you are either unable to or refuse to reflect obvious distinction in your edits. Doright (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, saying you don't beleive this conversation will be fruitfull is not true. What you should have said is, "I'm not going to get my way." and as for the anti semitism shot. You can't just say anything you like and then make it ok by saying you didn't mean it. You couldn't jump off a building and halfway down say it was a joke and you take it back. So keep it off the talk page. As for the source, it's clearly a biased organisation. The website practically says. Come here to learn the Jewish version of Jew stuff for Jews. You wan't to pick apart WP:RS and make your interpretations of every line I can't stop you. But I'll point you to WP:CONSENSUS which you clearly don't have.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrews Concience, Firstly, I didn't say that. Secondly, even with your miscomprehension, it would be absurd for you to claim that you know what I believe better than I do so much so that you are in a position to be saying my statement about what my belief is "is not true." I said, "can you show how and why JTA is not a WP RS along with the specific elements of the RS guideline that support your belief? If not, I think this entire discussion is unlikely to be fruitful." Notice, the conditional "if." Unfortunately, there seems to be a widespread reading comprehension problem on this page. And, it would appear that I was correct about the fruitlessness. You could not identify how the JTA violates any element of WP:RS. That makes the conversation not fruitful and merely an endless restatement of your premise in the form of a conclusion. A bit circular. And, yes, if you can't show how the JTA fails to meet the criteria of WP:RS then there is no basis for your claim. Just typing "WP:RS" is meaningless. It appears that failing an actual argument for your position, you claim a consensus. By the way, are you claiming that a consensus exists for your position that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is not a WP:RS? Doright (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You got a problem, seek dispute resolution. Focus on the content, not the editors: JTA is iffy as a source for the same reason ISM is.

And crying "personal attacks", "incivility" and then doing nothing only to get other editors to actually become uncivil and launch personal attacks about it is the oldest trolling move in the book. The oldest. As in I think Jimbo did it in the begining or something.

Sorry, I am out of troll food. But I might be able to buy some with the 5 pretend dollars Nableezy is owing me for identing Jay-Z as the author of the line.--Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Jay-Z stole that line, still waiting. Nableezy (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, second the request that you strike your highly offensive accusations of "antisemitism" if you want to continue discussion with other editors here. RomaC (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

please don't split user comments, doright. new comments on the bottom.--Severino (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a recent discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard in regard to the JTA. The way I interpret the discussion was it is considered reliable. The only difference between it and any other RS is that it "collect(s)and disseminat(es) news among and affecting the Jewish communities of the diaspora as well as Israel." It does not skew it, it collects and disseminates news of interest to Jews worldwide, and has for 90 years. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there is another major difference, straight from WP:RS: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. JTA is not that. Haaretz and Jerusalem POst are both sources targetted to a Jewish audience and published in a language mostly spoken by Jews, yet we consider them mostly reliable. JTA is different because it is less prestigious, is less well-known, less subjected to scrutiny by other realiable sources, and with a lesser amount of journalistic resources. This includes the fact that it is narrowly targetted - but to whom it is targetted is irrelevant, except in cases were the target audience is the subject. For example, JTA is definitely a reliable source when dealing with news from religious debates, obituaries, and Jewish history, as any specialized news source would be. However, as a simple perusal of the JTA funding page shows, it is a commited Zionist publication, in other words, it is a partisan publication, funded by a veritable who's who of Zionist organizations and foundations. It is its partisanship that is problematic, not its Jewishness, as you seem to imply, and Doright has stated (in spite of the denials using disingenious language). Using the JTA is similar to using the Palestine News Network. In fact, it is the flip side of the coin.

When faced with partisan groups that would otherwise be reliable sources, we must be careful to provide verifiability. I have no opposition of including JTA sourced material around here, I do have opposition to having it be used as a sole source in controversial claims, or used in lieu of more reliable sources, such as more general reliable sources.--Cerejota (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in knowing what is the edit that Severino objects to which references the JTA? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ISRAELI SOLDIER KILLED JAN 27 2009 WAR NOT OVER..CASUALTIES

Ceasefire is not official end. Casualties must be changed to 15 one soldier and another will b taken from life support! Total 12 soldiers! ALWAYS ADD IF SOLDIER GETS KILLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego (talk • contribs) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't freak out it's already being discussed in the talk page, might be archived by now. Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact I beleive you'll find discusion on the talk topic "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" - removal request" Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, one soldier was killed, so total is 14, 13 right now is wrong! There is another soldier in critical condition (at least one) I expect him to day by March, so watch out for that~!

13 was before the ceasefire 1 was after. Not to say it shouldn't be mentioned, it's a question of how to mention it. Something that I believe is being discussed. As for the poor bugger in critical condition, he's already counted as wounded I would imagine. If he does die he can be represented in fatalities. The fact that you think he might die by march is neither here nor thereAndrew's Concience (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The soldier, God rest his soul, was a muslim beduin. I think it's worth mentioning in the article that muslims killed more muslims than any other ethnic group in the world. And btw I think there's no danger to the other soldier life so you can take your foot out of your ass. 87.69.41.159 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just be thankful that you haven't been blocked for repeated vandalism yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* you try to be helpfull.........Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

InfoBox civilians break down

Since Palestinian sources clearly blur the line between civilians and combatants, reporting an unknown number of Hamas commanders as civilians it is only fair to remove it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal above can be discussed with other editors rather than making unilateral edits thanks. RomaC (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It was already mentioned here by other editors. I'm for WP:consensus. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What was mentioned was removing the breakdown from the infobox, not removing the civilians from the infobox. Nableezy (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It just comes across a little jumbled and not necessary to have all of the data in the box. Civilian casualties should be mentioned but the breakdown in the actual section would be much cleaner for the article.Cptnono (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with with AgadaUrbanit. The section below makes the "blur" even more problematic.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You agree that civilian casualties should not be mentioned on the Palestinian side of the infobox? Nableezy (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Never said that and I don't know where you got such an idea from.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that is what it appears he is arguing. Nableezy (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it looks like we don't break down the PCHR numbers. The three asterisks are for the line which says the 940 number excludes policemen. The information beyond that point is just a list of civilian deaths that we are aware of, not that they were part of the PCHR count. It might be a little unclear. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely unclear. Blackeagle (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If civilians are typically mentioned in infoboxes there is no problem with having the number in there. It really doesn't matter too much. What does matter is that we have too many cells in the table and so much of a breakdown we need to specify the information with 4 asterisks. It is sillynessCptnono (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope I reflected consensus in my edit, removing '***' and '****' AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Help

Ahhhhh. Help. I'm new to editing and I'm having trouble with reference tags. The section on Effects is tits up at the moment because of it. Can someone please fix it, or tell me how to fix it :)-N00B Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it, but you should try using the refTools, they are now available as a gadget in your preferences.--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry again for the silliness. You might wanna wait though. It seems you had an issue with the content.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can have an issue with content and also have issues with broken crap. I'll let you decide which is more important for me ;)--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is already a well sourced significant section on this in the article, I am renaming the section with the name you gave it, because it is more succinct and direct. It definitely doesn't belong in "effects" because it was not one notable effect but a part of the military aspect of conflict itself. I had a brain fart and didn't realize that there was such a section, and thought you introduced new info. Of course, I should have known better as I had worked that section before.--Cerejota (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah that's fine. I didn't see it mentioned and figured it should be. If it's in there somewhere I can't complain, thanks for your help Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Israel–Gaza war — There has been a lot of discussion around this, and there seems to be a growing consensus towards this formulation, from RS and wikipedians. Its time for another poll. This will require admin close as article is move protected. — Cerejota (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Support - just in case it was not clear. :D --Cerejota (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've already said a few times that I'm okay with a "war" title. I pointed out a while ago that it comes up more than just about anything else in news searches. And it does seem to be the most common name in both Israeli and Arabic news sources. I guess we can't be sure that it will endure in the long run but that's a long way off in the distance either way. So for now I'm more than happy to support the name change. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - a much clearer and more sensible title than the current one. It will be an improvement at least.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - In addition to thousands of reliable sources which have used the term "gaza war", google search also has more results for "gaza war" than "gaza conflict". Some of those reliable sources are:

• Parsing Gains of Gaza War، The New York Times
• Ceasefire may not end Gaza war, BBC News
• Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation, Guardian
• Gaza: War, from a distance, The INDEPENDENT
• How the Gaza War Could End: Three Scenarios, Time (partners with CNN)
• Gideon Levy / Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel , HAARETZ
• War on Gaza, Aljazeera
• UNICEF: Children bearing brunt of Gaza war, CNN

--Wayiran (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We've got a comparison of how many results the different terms return in the RM preparation section, above. Blackeagle (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Many news sources also use "war in Gaza", but this is not as good as "Gaza war" or "Israel-Gaza war". 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - However, due to a recently diagnosed TS related medical condition whereby I apparently have an unconcious tendency to promote antisemitic conspiracy theories such as that the US provides financial aid to Israel and Egypt I am ineligible to vote. Consequently I would like to propose that anyone who has either been the accusor or the accused in some "that's antisemitism" impoliteness in WP recently be excluded from this vote. That should speed things up enormously. I would also like to propose that anyone who wants to use the word antisemitism on this page from now on must first make a $250 donation to the ICRC. This should help to counter the tumbling market price for the use of the word and stop it being handed out like Jelly Babies. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Israel-Gaza War - btw sean- did you know that if you think lenny kravitz music is terrible you are racist and antisemitic, but if you liked his old stuff but you think his newer stuff sucks you are a new racist and a new antisemite? Untwirl (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Indifferent- I do however disagree with the "antisemitism" remarks... but feel that SH should be able to allowed to vote no matter how pukey one finds his smug remarks. V. Joe (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a Jelly Baby to settle your stomach V. Joe. They worked for me after reading some of your more controversial comments here. There was a serious point buried in my smug, pukey remarks so I welcome your support in any drive to ensure that the word antisemitism is given it's due weight in discussions here and I hope I can count on you to challenge anyone who uses it inappropriately, disrespectfully or devalues it in any way by making dim-witted accusations against any editors here. I think this is probably one issue that we can agree on. By the way, pukey is $100 to the ICRC. Forgot to mention that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - This conflict is part of something bigger that has been going on for over 50 years now and no side has declared war on the other as of yet.Knowledgekid8716:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Though as I remarked below, I don't know that we need the 'Israel' part. Blackeagle (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Pure original research. Those links represent nothing more than the pov of the reporters. Israel deployed a force in a scale of a division wich is barely a maneuverable force. The best description for the fighting is a military operation. Lack of military background doesn't justify this change, no offense. 87.69.41.159 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support (loosely) It may not be a "war" but this is how much of the media throughout the world title and/or refer to it.Cptnono (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although this term is second-best, "Gaza war" is better. Israel is a recognized country and Gaza is not, so the current proposal's juxtaposition of the terms is awkward. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no opposition to "Gaza war" - but I took what I understood as an emerging consensus. Is anyone opposed to "Gaza war" who supported "Israel-Gaza war"?--Cerejota (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since Israeli officials don't call it a war. Flayer (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Current title is good for me but the suggested is little better, more concise. Brunte (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title (1) includes a date specification, since this isn't the first Gaza-Israel conflict and probably won't be the last (2) uses "conflict" instead of war because war denotes a more complete military engagement - in this case only one side has a military to speak of, so using "war" would seem to give an inaccurate impression. I'm not against finding a better title, but Israel-Gaza war isn't it. Avruch 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is an official definition of a war; it's not just a term that can be thrown around freely. Israel never declared war on Hamas, because Hamas is not a state, rather a terrorist organization. Therefore, this was neither officially nor technically a war. Furthermore, to title this the Israel-GAZA War is absolutely ridiculous. If this change goes through, it will only be further demonstrating to the public just how biased wikipedia truly is. Israel's military operation was not against Gaza; it was against Hamas. If you were hellbent on including war in the title, which I still maintain is incorrect, you should at least have enough neutrality and objectivity in you to concede that it should be "Israel-Hamas War". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Avruch. Israel's Gaza war' is closer, but tendentious. But I think we should patiently await to see how specialist journals on international relations, conflict and the Middle East decide how it is best called. There's nothing wrong with a provisory title, in lieu of RS consensus which will take time to come on line. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Israel-Gaza war" gets a few dozen true google news hits (I looked through them te separate the wheat from the chaff). As was established above, Gaza war and Gaza conflict are in the low thousands. I doubt that "Gaza conflict" will be used in the news for long without the addition of modifiers, since it can be confused with other things once the searing memory of this round-of-fighting wears off, but the more powerful "Gaza war", without modifiers, may well remain the moniker of choice, and so so I think we should be eyeing that name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: This was a massacre, not a war. War requires an army: What army does Gaza Strip maintain? Where are the Gazan tanks? Would we call the Warsaw Ghetto uprising a "war"? I have come to prefer the Israeli name: "Operation Cast Lead". It's Israel's baby, so Israel gets to christen it. NonZionist (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose--Fipplet (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote.--Cerejota (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - lacks the date in the title. Also, it's questionable whether Gaza, which isn't a recognised political entity, can be a participant in a war; that proposed title implies something much less one-sided than what actually happened. Terraxos (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support The term 'conflict" seems to imply that this is just a disagreement between two parties. The article already uses terms related to warfare as truce, attack, broad offensive, air raids, ground invasion, target is bombed, third stage of the operation, etc. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• OK, I've sort of changed my position. I now oppose Gaza war compared to something like 'Israeli asssault on Gaza', but I still support it over the status quo (conflict).Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I would oppose merging for now, the conflict warrents its own article, but a limited merger may be warranted upon the undisputed conclusion of the conflict. --Pstanton (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Dates not needed, as there is no disambig.--Cerejota (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do we need the 'Israel' qualifier, or could we just go with Gaza war? I don't think there are any other Gaza wars we need to distinguish it from. Blackeagle (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we do, as otherwise there could be confusion with the internal struggle in Gaza last yearJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think 'war' would be stretching it as a description for Fatah–Hamas conflict, but if people were confused we could always put a disambiguation link at the top of the article. Blackeagle (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think "Gaza war" is descriptive enough. Lets try for consensus this one time...--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• War was never delared on either side so how can it be called a war? The news may call it one, but doesnt it have to be a fact for wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Declaration_of_war http://en.wikipedia.org/Ongoing_warsKnowledgekid8716:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

verifiability, not truth. If the consensus of the sources is "war", even if it is a ridiculous media invention with no basis on reality, we should give it weight.--Cerejota (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that horse is already out of the barn. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraq War, and 2006 Lebanon War were all undeclared, yet they are all have wikipedia articles with 'war' in the title. For that matter, I don't find any reference to a declaration of war in the Six Day War or Yom Kippur War articles. Blackeagle (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I lean towards Gaza War per the discussion from Blackeagle and BrewcrewCptnono (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

From the military point of view, the "Israel-Hamas War" seems to be more correct. --Wayiran (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, can't be, because about 5 groups are listed as Beligerents on the 'Gaza' side, including Fatah and some other groups.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would ignore comments from editors not actively involved in discussions and editing, and ideological arguments, such as that from the recent anon account. We should base our naming on editorial decisions from RS, most oppose here do this, but partisan, WP:BATTLE/WP:SOAPBOX arguments are discouraged, and generally invalid. Can we discuss this without climbing in our soapboxes?--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• After thinking this over, I think 2008-2009 Gaza war would be the best title, by analogy with 2008 South Ossetia war. There's no need to actually mention Israel in the title, if the date is used; there's only one war that took place in Gaza at that time. Israel-Gaza war is somewhat more ambiguous, and (I think) falsely implies a certain equality between the belligerents, which wasn't really the case. Terraxos (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. There is a precedent for this in the 2008 South Ossetia War. 2008-2009 Gaza war seems to be the best choiceAndrew's Concience (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents (yes, again)

Per Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I would like opinions on listing incidents. Summaries are good but the list has turned into news. Misplaced Pages is not for news. In particular, a doctor on TV lost a kid and it was very newsworthy since it was an interesting and tragic story. However, this doesn’t mean it is encyclopedic. So I would love to revert the revert but am open to any good reasoning as to why this one occurrence should stay in. Also, we should probably address all of the other fluff in the section.Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If an incident is notable enough for it's own article, a link is all that's necessary. If it's not notable enough to merit an article, it probably shouldn't be in this one. That sort of thing is what the timeline article was created for. Blackeagle (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with botht the general point and the specific point.

On the general point, the notability of an incident is an objective fact: if RS cover it, the probability is that it is notable. Notability is not tied to being able to exist as a stand-alone article, for example we have List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. The bulk of the items there are not worthy of their own article, but taken together they represent a thoroughly encyclopedic addition to knowledge: using your criteria, we would limit this article (and related ones) to one or two notable events. A great loss for the project.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on what "not news" is intended to cover: we are encouraged to keep up to date in current events, and use news as reliable sources. In fact, we have WP:ITN, which is news. "Not news" is intended to provide a threshold on encyclopedic value of a given item. An encyclopedia article on a conflict should list notable incidents, including reactions in the media, incidents involving previously notable people etc. "Not news" is not against reporting news, it is against using the tone, intent, and immediacy/recentism of news media in encyclopedic articles - and mostly in the context of stand-alone articles, not of inclusion of news items within wider articles. There is a clear difference between being journalistic and being encyclopedic, but simply reporting on events is not one of them.

On the specific item, an interesting and tragic story if notable enough is precisely the stuff encyclopedic articles on events should be built on: it provides the zeitgeist of the event. But there is more: the figure involved was already notable, as a media figure and physician, so we are commenting on somethign that happened to a notable; notable crap that happens to notable dudes is encyclopedic in itself. If we list all the Pokemon in the world why not this? I reverted your removal of the material, but I see some room for improvement.--Cerejota (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The guy wasn't notable enough for Misplaced Pages until this event or someone just never got around to making him an article (he has one now kind of). If Alison Angel can't have a page than why should he :). In all seriousness though, I don't hate this info being in the article I just have a problem with editors adding anything they see on the news into it. This article is already bloated (someone mentioned in the footnotes section above) and this section plus its spin off page are perfect examples. The Arion and Dignity are two other incidents that are great stories to read about while taking a lunch but don't seem to be encyclopedic. Hopefully some other people will express some opinions on this since I might be completely wrong on this one.Cptnono (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on Arion and Dignity, they are key parts of the military aspect of the event - and the Dignity incident in particular involved notable people. I am afraid you are setting the bar way to high: if we follow this logic, none of the rocket attacks should be listed in wikipedia. While having a BLP or bio in wikipedia is a clear mark of notability, lacking one isn't. Besides the "no one got around to making it" problem, notability is not the only criteria for having someone with their own article, there is other criteria, such as having enough to write (notability is black and white, so a notable can give you just a few lines, or give you three articles worth of text). And BLPs from Israel are notoriously lacking, for example,

And I disagree that the way to fix a bloated article is to remove relevant information: it is to rewrite to be more succint (as I do with the headers all the time), and to follow WP:SUMMARY. But ultimately well sourced, relevant, and notable information should be included. This is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no deadline. Take your time, this can be fixed, but not by deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously if all the Pokemons are in. Unfortunately, the incidents section has been contested for awhile now for several reasons. Take a look at the archives and see how many times it has come up. It has been such a concern to other editors that it has been removed from the page and placed into another article (which itself is garbage). The incidents in both articles have turned into a list of anything bad Israel might have done that was picked up by the wire services. It is not good enough and all of the discussion here has not fixed that. I agree with you that it might be fixable but don't preach to me about Misplaced Pages standards because we can play that game all day. The incident section is trash. It has been since the beginning and it should be fixed.Cptnono (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: After rereading some of the references and events, I noticed that attacks on mosques and schools along with info on white phosphorus munitions are already integrated throughout the article in an appropriate way in the right places. Will removing the duplicate mention of these from the Incident section be a sufficient fix?Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The incidents section should go. It just encourages editors to add more and more, since if one is mentioned it is hard to argue why another one should not be. If the 'incidents' are important enough from a historical perspective - and some of them are -, they should be mentioned elsewhere in the narrative (as indeed they are already). The analogy of the rocket attacks is a good one, because they do not belong in an encyclopaedia either.--84.190.9.187 (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the incidents section should go, define the incidents exactlly, most put (If not all) are what israel did which makes it a bit one sided.Knowledgekid8716:56 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, notable incidents are notable because the sources made them so. One should not confuse asymmetric with one sided: the conflict was asymmetric, so the incidents will be asymmetric. This is formal logic. We must be careful to present the incidents in an NPOV fashion, but this is not done by removal - and by an large they are presented NPOV already. The recent suggestions that well-sourced, notable, information are beyond me: this is why we are here, to add encyclopedic information.

Perhaps Israel should give better weapons and training to Hamas, that way, the incidents are less one sided. --Cerejota (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Television has reported that shrapnel removed from the daughter and the niece, who are now in Tel HaShomer (hospital), shows that they may have pieces of metal that are from a Grad-type Katyusha rocket - and not from any ammunition used by the IDF - in their heads. Israel doesn't shoot Katyusha rockets. Hamas does.

The saddest part of this is that Dr. Abuelaish is apparently the rare 'Palestinian' who strives for peace. Apparently, even he could not keep the terrorists from using his home. See: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/01/palestinian-doctors-daughter-may-have.html

I have not seen this Channel 1 Israel TV report, but local witness on the ground (my brother) confirmed that it indeed happened. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you are normally quite civil, but putting quotes around Palestinians and saying it is rare for them to want peace, you are soapboxing in a possibly inflammatory fashion. Think about how you would feel if someone said "He is the rare 'Israeli' who strives for peace". Furthermore, perhaps you were honoring your username, but that is simply not true. For example, a poll in September 2008 had this result:

Notice that the question is not do you want peace, but if there would be. Almost 60% of the Palestinians think this will happen by the time their children are adults. And there are other polls etc. I would offer that the majority of the Palestinians not only wnat peace with Israel, but want to have a good relationship with Israel, and see this as achivable within a generation. I will not repeat the words of Yitzah Rabin that I have quoted before, except to reflect on the fact that we are all humans, who bleed, shit, love, and hate the same.--Cerejota (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscanner analysis also shows a statistically significant interest by Palestinian IP editors in Britney Spears. An interesting and somewhat unexpected factoid. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, using scare quotes around "Palestinian" suggests that you deny the existence of Palestinians. Also, arguing above in a backhanded way that these "people" are mostly against peace is indeed Soapboxing and, like your earlier 'joke' about femicide, is inappropriate here. RomaC (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you RomaC, Palestinians do exist, and don't you loose your sleep: woman in my surrounding are safe :). I hope the hate will stop and people of peace will raise their voice. If you read carefully you'd notice that I just quote blog of Carl in Jerusalem, which is unworthy for Misplaced Pages inclusion. I personally think that situation on the ground is very sad and complex, the war generally is extremely ugly especially from close distance. Here is very shocking Newsweek quote:

Why just we can't all live in peace AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Way off topic. Does any of the above have any bearing on the article? If anyone has any thoughts on how to work in the UN HQ bombing incident it would be appreciated. It is touched on several times throughout the article already and does not need to be here. The sources and a few lines are good so I don't want to delete it if these can be used somewhere else. Also, is there consensus on whether the Doctor's event stays or goes?Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree way off topic. To the point, The Doctor's event incident mostly discussed in blog type media. Channel 1 investigation report did not get into Web RS AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now merged three of the "incidents" into other sections of the article. Any edits (not full on reverts) to the latest Jan 15th one are greatly appreciated. Does anyone have any other thoughts on what to do with the remaining few? I don't know where they should be but still think the incident section needs to go.Cptnono (talk)

Israeli ambassador: Gaza attack prelude to attack on Iran

The Israeli ambassador to Australia spoke candidly when he thought the cameras were off:

"(He said) the country's recent military offensives were a preintroduction to the challenge Israel expects from a nuclear-equipped Iran within a year," Cummings said. During the meeting, held in a relaxed breakfast setting, Mr Rotem spoke about the war in Gaza, which has killed more than 1300 Palestinians. Cummings said Mr Rotem made the point that "Israel's efforts in Gaza were to bring about understanding that we are ready to engage in a decisive way."
-- Angus Hohenboken (2009-01-31). "Iran will soon pose N-threat, says Israel". The Australian. Retrieved 2009-01-31.

I've been making the point that we should not divorce the attack on Gaza from the larger context provided by the series of recent Israeli attacks (Gaza in early 2008, Syria in 2007, Lebanon in 2006, Iraq in 2003). All of these wars follow the 1996 "Clean Break" plan, developed by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and others for Benyamin Netanyahu. If we are going to change the name of the article, we should call it the "Israel - Middle East War", or go along with the neo-cons and call it "World War IV". We impose POV when we exclude crucial context, just as we would impose POV if we were to treat Germany's 1939 attack on Poland as an "Isolated Response" to "Polish Terror".

"Clean Break" calls for:

• "reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation",
• a "new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies",
• "seiz the strategic initiative ... engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran".

-- Richard Perle (1996). "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Retrieved 2009-01-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) I do not believe that suppressing this information is justified! NonZionist (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm against nuclear weapons in general, but if Israel can possess them, why doesn't Iran have the right to do so. I don't trust Israel any more than Iran. After all, which of them is constantly attacking other countries/territories?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Off topic but Iran signed the NPT treaty so they have no right to nuclear weapons. They can pull out of the treaty. Israel has not signed the treaty. You can read all about it here as there are quite a few people working on these issues in Wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And they are both Parliamentary Theocracies, as is Gaza currently. Religious nuts with nukes, what fun! That said, Sean is correct, under international law, Israel's nukes are legal, but Iran's aren't. Period.--Cerejota (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly though Arabic public opinion favours Iran having nukes. See the bit I added in Iran_and_wmd#Opinion_in_the_Arab_and_Islamic_world last year based on the annual University of Maryland survey. Not great news for NP efforts. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Arabic public opinion favours an Iranian Nuclear weapons program. Iran is the biggest player in the Arab world. Death to the west and all that buissiness. The Saudi's are BFF's with the states and with Israel swinging it's arms around a bit. A nuclear Iran would have the political presence to make itself into the region's superpower. A superpower that is run by Arabs for Arabs, it's like their biggest christmas wish. But enough about all this OR and unrelated talk. On with the article at hand I say Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Iran isn't an Arab country. They don't speak Arabic, nor are they ethnic Arabs. Arabs are a minority group within Iran. Blackeagle (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Middle Eastern then, my mistake. my points still apply. Perhaps musslim would have been better but I didn't want to offend them (They get so cranky j/k :/) Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

casualties, IDF, fog of war

I see that we are qualifying casualty figures. While I often repeat that the fog of war means that these figures are inherently unreliable this close to conflict, I am concerned by the use of IDF figures. How does the IDF know this? They are neither on the ground, nor the government of Gaza, nor do they have any access to hospital information. It would seem to me their figures are a best estimates, and worse wishful thinking about the "targets".

The BBC has a great analysis on the "fog of war" and casualty figures. I think we should include ranges without qualifiers other than the sourcing like this:

Deaths:

100-1000

As it stands, its ugly. But I would like to hear arguments as to why the IDF figures are to be considered reliable, vis-a-vis health organizations on the ground in Gaza.--Cerejota (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think we should be getting into assessing the reliability of primary sources. Misplaced Pages is generally pretty good at assessing the reliability of secondary sources, but we generally don't have the information or expertise to evaluate primary sources. As your question implies, we don't really have any idea what sort of methodology the IDF used to come up with that estimate. They could be taking a wild guess, or they could be relying on SIGINT and human sources on the ground in Gaza. Similarly, we don't have any idea how the Palestinian Ministry of Health came up with their numbers. They could have a list of the dead by name that's been carefully checked for duplication or they could just be adding up numbers of dead and missing with lots of double counting (for comparison, on September 30, 2001, estimated casualties from 9-11 was over 6,000; since then more careful checking has reduced the total to less than half that number). I think that all we can do is quote the various totals given in reliable secondary sources that reference these numbers and note the primary source those estimates originally came from. Blackeagle (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do have a way to evaluate primary sources: we use secondary sources whenever possible and they tell us how reliable the primary sources are. I guess my point is that we should not use primary sources, but secondary sources for casualty figures. --Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should use secondary sources to determine which figures we should give prominence to. As far as I can see the casualty figures, almost universally quoted by neutral reliable English language sources and international agencies conform to the estimates made by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. In the text, we should state that the IDF has questioned these figures, but the IDF figures cannot be placed on par with the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures. Note that I'm making no prior judgment on the reliability of these two sources; merely noting that secondary neutral reliable sources tend to quote one figure far more than the other. Please see my post below for several references. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Human shields in Gaza

"Gaza victims describe human shield use" By JPOST.COM STAFF "Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields." Relevant?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 February 2009

Extremely relevant as part of "Palestinian military activity", but it is quite an extraordinary claim, so it should be subjected to verifiability via more sources.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, I would like to know if they are related to Yasser Abd Rabbo. --Cerejota (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not much of an "extraordinary claim", these types of allegations are as old as the I-P conflict itself. The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and WP:V has no requirement for a multitude of reliable sources. There's enough sentences with silly string citations. Moreover, the JPost says that this information comes from the Al-Hayat al-Jadida. So it looks like all POV's are satisfied (unless there's some card-carrying Hamas supporters here). If we want to be extremely cautious we can always go....."According the Jerusalem Post, the Al-Hayat al-Jadida has reported that..........."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that makes sense... but is still extraordinary in the sense that it can be controversial: as I said, is definitely relevant.--Cerejota (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

if its added, it should be followed by this from amnesty international reporting idf taking over civilians home' and vandalizing w/ graffiti and excrement. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-soldiers-leave-gaza-homes-devastated-condition-20090123

"In most cases, the families had fled or were expelled by the soldiers. In some cases, however, the soldiers prevented the families from leaving, using them as "human shields". Untwirl (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea, once we get a reliable source for that, of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh puhleeze, the credibility of AI trumps that of JPOST. BTW the evidence of Israelis using Palestinians as human shields (and literally) is overwhelming. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does not. Amnesty International is not even a news source, it doesn't even meet the WP:RS threshold. The Jerusalem Post is considered a valid reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

AI is a RS, on the same grounds that HRW is a RS as demonstrated here. Al-Jazeera is also a RS as is the JPost. Nableezy (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

here are some more

do you like haaretz? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060390.html "On Monday, on one of the walls of the house that became the IDF position from which soldiers shot the two brothers who died at their father's side, we found two inscriptions in Hebrew: "The Jewish people lives" and "Kahane was right," referring to right-wing extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane."

or http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059513.html "Report: IDF probing racist graffiti left by soldiers in Gaza"

the independent? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/my-terror-as-a-human-shield-the-story-of-majdi-abed-rabbo-1520420.html "My terror as a human shield: The story of Majdi Abed Rabbo"

brisbane times? http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/writing-is-on-the-wall-for-gaza-peace/2009/01/30/1232818724423.html

the australian? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24987294-2703,00.html

ynet? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3664281,00.html "Givati troops leave 'Death to Arabs' graffiti in Gaza" Untwirl (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: You see to have gone off topic. The issue here is whether Hamas has been using humans as shields, not whether some 18-year old troops have messed up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

this is the problem. as an american (i'll divulge that) when us troops are accused of atrocities in iraq or guatanamo my knee jerk reaction isn't to deny it. i call for an investigation, and hope the soldiers and commanders responsible are punished. from your side of the pond, you are so biased that you call shitting in peoples cooking pots and holding them hostage "messing up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire." yes report on the hamas using them if it is verified by more rs. yes report on idf actions that have been reported on in multiple rs. spend some time finding rs like i have and then advocate for their inclusion Untwirl (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: Your comments are a bit unclear. If your English is not up too par, you might want to contribute to the Misplaced Pages of your native language. Regarding the substantive issue, all of the links concern vandalism, not human shields. The one article that did mention the use of a human shield is from the notoriously anti-Israel The Independent and is solely based on the statements of the "shield" himself and has yet to be independently verified. I rest my case.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, let me slow it down for you since you seem to be missing my point.

1. you say neither amnesty international nor the independent are reliable due to their "notoriously anti-Israel stance."

2. you advocate for the inclusion of jerusalem post, seemingly asserting that they don't have a pro-israel slant or an "anti-hamas" slant.

3. your bias is crystal clear, hence my observation above of your brushing off war crimes as "some 18-year old troops have messed up some house that was ruined anyway from Hamas fire."

do you need further explanation? maybe you should translate it into your native tongue so you can understand it better. Untwirl (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just to join Untwirl in his diversion for a moment, ie the one regarding some IDF troops messing up someone's Gazan house, I urge you to read this fascinating Letter to Gaza Citizen: I am the Soldier who slept in your HomeTundrabuggy (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

oh how cute, blame the victim:

"I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self-pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. "

btw - please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes. Untwirl (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah, wrong gender, tundrabuggy Untwirl (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

amnesty international nor the awarding winning independent with their vastly experienced journalist donald macintyre are reliable sources ? that's funny. i'm getting flashbacks to the whole bbc arabic is unreliable because it uses squiggly writing unpleasantness. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your characterisation is very cute but self-serving and false. No one made such a claim except perhaps you just now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

tundra -your friend brewcrewer said exactly that

"That's a great idea, once we get a reliable source for that, of course" (linked to criticism of amnesty)

and "The one article that did mention the use of a human shield is from the notoriously anti-Israel The Independent

care to retract your statement? Untwirl (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Background

I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267764091&oldid=267753026 Your suggestions are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not good. why? Looks confusing and not neutral. And some futher edits made it as the first line in section. I reverting it and suggest you put it in 'Conflict escalates section' Brunte (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestion. I've tried to touch casus belli of this conflict according to timeline and events prior to Lull 2008 , which described in Background section. Could you explain how you find it unbalanced? What confused you? I'm not really sure how this edit could be integrated in the 'Conflict escalates section', since deals with events after Lull 2008. Could you explain? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My wrong, conflict escalates section suggestion was a nobrainer. But a justification have nothing in the background to do. And your justification was onesided. That is the answer to both your questions.'Casus belli' is already in the lead. Brunte (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The background is supposed to expand upon the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No justification for anything, on my side. Quoting 3d party sources about events on the ground. I'll re-commit. And indeed looks like another cycle of violence is underway. It's funny how justification for more bloodshed could be found. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is considerable justification given in a narrative voice. You are overloading that section with everything you think Hamas is guilty of and with barely any mention of any Israeli actions or justifications from Hamas for these actions. Nableezy (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quoting word in word Xinhua, Jpost and Aljazeera in time line order. What do you mean narrative voice? I propose that we discussed facts and not questions like blame, guilt or justification. Please be fair, any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So you disregarded the opinion you asked for... Brunte (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This was added today to the background section, "Since 2005 the Palestinian militant groups have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens"; I have used equal space to add corresponding UN figures on Palestinian casualties: "while in Gaza since 2005 more than 800 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, airstrikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations." RomaC (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I discuss my changes with you in order to get better neutrality and balance. Again let's not get into who killed more, this line of discussions will lead us nowhere. People of both sides of the boarder are suffering for no clear reason. I'd prefer to discuss facts and not persons or put blame on each other. Please do not call names. I'd be glad if you'd look into diff and explain what is wrong with additions. For no all I get is total removal L:). It is far from Misplaced Pages:BRD. Thanks. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To me the amendment is the perfect example of how this article should be written. RomaC's approach is systematic, neutral and provides balance/symmetry. Try to ignore the numbers and the names of the countries when you read it. It's textbook NPOV to me. Just facts and figures speaking for themselves. There's no blaming or name calling. Maybe 'targeted killings' could be improved but I don't know how. Yes, it might make Israel look bad/good for some people depending on their views but that shouldn't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, thank for explaining basics of NPOV. I agree that we should talk only about facts and bring 3d party quotes as-is, without original research. Talking about good/bad is irrelevant, and depend on POV. Still we are not on the same page. RomaC is great editor but he commented on some unrelated amendment, which was not added by me. Could you comment on this proposed diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=267985738&oldid=267973921 Could you relate to each of 3 quotes? Which one is NPOV and which one is not? How it could be improved? Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, explaining things to people when they already understand them perfectly well or 'stating the bleeding obvious' is apparently a gift of mine so I'm reliably informed. You're much better off asking experienced editors like Cerejota to review your edits than me. Anyway, for what it's worth...I don't see the following sentence as necessary since it's covered further down...(and we already have a huge spike in the word count when it gets to rocket/mortar etc). What's the value added for you, specifically mentioning Ezzdine Al Qassam so that a link is possible and noting that it goes back to 2003 ?

Ezzdine Al Qassam, the armed wing of Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), claims responsibility for launching rockets into southern Israel since March 2003.

Again, not sure about this. Palestinians get kidnapped by the IDF all the time, lot's of them. That's one of the things that annoys Hamas etc obviously so I'm not sure that the fear of kipnap without actual kipnap is very notable.

Subsequently Palestinian sources reported that European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing for fear of being kidnapped or harmed.

This one seems fine and notable to me

Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.

Actually, I hadn't noticed some of the other stuff in there e.g.

• "Hamas considers Israel an illegitimate state and is doctrinally committed to its destruction". I thought Hamas officially supported a 2 state solution like everyone else whatever the rhetoric of their propaganda. The Middle East is rich in rhetoric.
• I guess Egypt aren't really blockading the coast. Maybe they would if the Israelis weren't....

Probably doesn't help much.Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with sean's assessment

i would add that these parts are an issue:

"allowing only enough goods to avert a humanitarian or health crisis."

um, wasn't there a humanitarian crisis, blackouts, food rationing, etc during the blockade before the conflict? how can we say they allowed enough goods to avert it if it happened?

"Since 2005 the Palestinians have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles of various types into Israel, hitting cities such asSderot, and Israel has responded with heavy air strikes and a total blockade of Gaza.Hamas and other Palestinian paramilitias increased the number of Qassam rockets, Grad type rockets and mortars fired from the Gaza strip into Southern Israel around 600%. Israel conducted airstrikes on Gaza during 2007 and 2008, against Hamas and other targets."

the structure of "palestinians launched rockets/israel responded" is pov. it could just as easily be stated "israel blockaded, destroyed farms and orchards, demolished homes, and refused to allow in enough goods to sustain the population/hamas responded. lets just state all of the actions and let people decide who responded to whom. Untwirl (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, thank you for analysis. I see what you mean. I'd appropriate if you could integrate the relevant quotes/sources into the section in clear NPOV way. Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

reactions section

i thing this is misleading

"Rhirty-five states, mostly in the Muslim world, condemned Israel's attacks, though none expressed support for Hamas. Bolivia, Jordan, Mauritania and Venezuela significantly downscaled or severed their relations with Israel in protest of the offensive. Thirteen states, mostly in the western world, issued statement supporting Israel or its "right of self-defence."

"mostly in the Muslim world" and "mostly in the western world" parts that i dont get. are japan, france, switzerland, mexico, spain, etc etc muslim countries? those parts should just be left out. Untwirl (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with WP:SYNTH. We can reword sources to fit the encyclopedic voice, but we should never draw conclusion not drawn by the sources themselves.--Cerejota (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It needs to be rewritten. Lose the numbers, lose the 'mostly in the' parts leaving almost nothing, probably the more general the better. Maybe even simply use what is in the main article

International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict came from many countries and international organisations. International reaction to the conflict was also notable in the level of civilian demonstrations all around the world, which in many cases displayed sentiment significantly different from the official government line.

It's interesting to note that there isn't really even consensus over there about what condemnation is etc so the catagorization required to make these kind of statements 'x countries mostly in' summary statement is doomed and not what we're meant to do. Copy/paste is easier. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that having the numbers there is ok, if we can agree upon it. However, "mostly in the Muslim world is misleading" (what defines "mostly"). Also what is the point of bringing religion into this?VR _talk 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

CerejotaSean, this exact paragraph was discussed over at the International Reactions article, and received consensus. VR, "mostly" means "more than half of the countries specified", and we're not bringing religion into this, we're bringing politics. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's not there anymore is it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What isn't where? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Many things but this time I meant the paragraph back up at the top quoted by Untwirl from this article i.e. "Thirty-five states, mostly in the Muslim world..." etc is not in the International Reactions article (or is it?). Maybe I'm missing your point. Perhaps you are saying that this paragraph was agreed over there in the International Reactions article and put in this article (but not that one).....and what Untwirl says below. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph was suggested by user:Saepe Fidelis on the International Reactions talk page and received consensus there. As far as I know, Saepe never put it into the International Reactions article; I don't know why. The paragraph is just a common-sense summary of the info in the "Countries" section in that article, all of which is sourced. "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing" - from WP:SYNTH. Is anybody arguing that there is a change in meaning here? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

unless there is a source that says "mostly mulsim countries condemned israel and mostly western countries supported them" this is or and synth. there are many descriptors that could be used, these particular ones are very pov. it doesn't belong there. Untwirl (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

so, we have a rough consensus to drop the muslim and western qualifiers and just state the numbers, yes? Untwirl (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that approach if the numbers are derived from the reaction article + discussions/consensus on categorisation of reactions there i.e. on the basis that the reactions article is the master for this info. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)..........to clarify in light of Jalapenos' comment below. Apologies for my lack of clarity. I'd prefer the muslim world and western world dropped from that sentence. I'm okay with just numbers if...see above.... Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a "rough consensus". Untwirl supports removing the information, I oppose, Sean (if I understand him correctly) conditionally opposes, and the conditions are filled - you're all welcome to look at that discussion page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i support, sean supports, vr supports, cerejota supports, you oppose. sounds like a rough concensus. i'll repeat this point because it is important: unless there is a source that says "mostly mulsim countries condemned israel and mostly western countries supported them" this is or and synth. there are many descriptors that could be used, these particular ones are very pov. it doesn't belong there. Untwirl (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

the crickets i hear lead me to believe that this is a workable change. i will make it. Untwirl (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

UN School

UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School - by Maayana Miskin . Now clearly confirmation from a less "biased" source would be necessary. The article refers to the Toronto Globe and Mail. This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. Yes, here is the original article: Account of Israeli attack doesn't hold up to scrutiny Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

this is not repeated in any rs. Untwirl (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprising, since it's a new story. Globe and Mail is highly reliable; no reason not to put the info in the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does israel come clear from blame anyhow? The bombs killed civilians outside and wounding civilians inside a school? How does you suggest we change the article after this new fact Tundrabuggy? Brunte (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the information that the attack landed outside the school was already added to the article yesterday, in this edit Blackeagle (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. Much noice for nothing then. What is your intention with this Thundrabuggy? Brunte (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) tb - your statement "This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school. " is implying that somehow israel would be released from culpability? would that also explain the un headquarters? Untwirl (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to deliberately target anyone for something to be considered a war crime. You can still fall foul of the principle of proportionality e.g. fire at a couple of guys, oops, kill tonnes of people. Anyway, never mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, first of all, this " Israel faced mounting international pressure for a ceasefire after incorrect preliminary reports indicated that the school itself was hit,and announced a three-hour "humanitarian truce" is completely OR, one report cited mentions that the 'lull', 'pause', whatever was came "amid growing international concerns about civilian casualties from Israel's military operations in Gaza and a day after Israeli forces fired on several U.N. schools in Gaza." i'm taking it out. as well as "the school itself - OR again.

the so called breaking newsstory from globeandmail has not been reported by other rs, hence "exceptional claims blah blah blah Untwirl (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

from the article "On January 6, 2009, Israel struck outside a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians. "

i think we have enough rs for this fact that we dont need to use globe and mail Untwirl (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want to take a citation to an RS out? What would you propose to cite for that sentence instead? Blackeagle (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

how bout this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama Untwirl (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really seem like a substitute. The whole point of the Globe and Mail article is that initial reports, like the Guardian article you linked to, were incorrect about where the mortar rounds landed. Blackeagle (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

how did the children in the school grounds get injured? no one specified exactly where the mortar rounds landed. this is a straw man argument Untwirl (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They were injured by shrapnel, "While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed." The article includes quotes from multiple individuals, both eyewitnesses and the UNRWA operations director, that the rounds landed in the street. I don't see how this meets the definition of a Straw man argument. Blackeagle (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent."

"the shell didn't actually hit the school building, like you said it did"
"therefore all that hubbub from the world about firing at the school was unjustified"

the fact remains that israel admitted that they fired at the school because they thought 'militants' were firing from there, which they later admitted was untrue. Untwirl (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're the one making the straw man argument here. I've never said anything to the effect of, "therefore all that hubbub from the world about firing at the school was unjustified". The fact that an Israeli government spokesman says something does not automatically make it true. Blackeagle (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

actually i was referring to the author of this section's original reasoning, "This is of course relevant, since Ging, made a point of saying that he had given Israel the coordinates, thus implying that Israel was responsible for war crimes for deliberately bombing a school." as well as your "initial reports, like the Guardian article you linked to, were incorrect about where the mortar rounds landed" my point is where the rounds landed is irrelevant, and every other reliable source which doesn't print this 'story' obviously agrees. idf fired at the school. they admit it. period. Untwirl (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, the facts are always relevant. If the rounds didn't hit the school, then we should say they didn't hit the school. "Every other reliable source", including the IDF statement, were all based on the initial, incorrect reports. Blackeagle (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

so do you want to say "fired on a school but hit just outside, killing 43 civilians"? what is your point? they fired at the school. people were hit by shrapnel inside the school grounds. is the shrapnel not part of the mortar, intended to hit a target?

and every 'fact' isnt relevant, thats why we discuss inclusion here Untwirl (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that not every fact is relevant, but everything in the article should be factually true, to the best that we can determine. As far as what to put in the article, I'd say something like: "On January 6, 2009, Israel mortar shells landed outside a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." Blackeagle (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i would agree with ""On January 6, 2009, Israel tanks fired on a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." the shells didn't just "land there", the school was intentionally fired on. and the source needs to be one of the dozens of more reliable ones we have Untwirl (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear that it was tanks that did the firing. Israeli tanks do carry mortars (they're about the only country in the world that mounts mortars on their MBTs) but they have other mortars in the service too. I think we ought to stick with "mortars" rather than "tanks".

The other problem is one of intention. Israel has said both that they targeted the school itself and that they targeted an area next to the school. I think we should either include both statements, say that Israel issued contradictory statements as to whether or not they targeted the school, or just stay away from intent and simply say that the shells hit close to the school and killed a lot of people. Blackeagle (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From the Globe article:

• The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs got the location right, for a short while. Its daily bulletin cited "early reports" that "three artillery shells landed outside the UNRWA Jabalia Prep. C Girls School ..." However, its more comprehensive weekly report, published three days later, stated that "Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools ..." including the one at issue.

The good ol' U.N. Ever consistent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Oh, but you seem to have missed this:

• • In other words, the UN didn't report anything. When I say fog of war, this is the kind of crap I mean. If we all got out of the WP:SOAPBOX for a few seconds we might see these things--Cerejota (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kind of crap indeed, "They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard... But we had seen it before" You could clearly see that IDF spokesperson released the discussed video before this incident happened and marked 29 Oct. 2007. see http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI Still Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Brunte (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That there is a lot of confusion, due to disinformation. Thank you for asking, Brunte. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Like this you mean ? WikiEN-l Conflict of Interest and lobbyists for foreign governments :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Sean, now I'm Shin Bet agent :) Usually you're very balanced and neutral and in my eyes you earned a lot of credit with your suggestions. Let's not get into personal attacks. Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of personal attacks or rudeness so we should be okay. It was just a joke (with of course a serious side). Personally I'm more concerned at them calling people like us 'intellectuals'. It doesn't give me a good feeling about their grasp of reality. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement ""On January 6, 2009, the IDF fired on a UNRWA run school sheltering 400 Palestinians, killing 43 civilians." is factually accurate. the debate over where the rounds landed is not relevant and the article (UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School)is misleading (ie. the un admitted nothing different from what they had said all along). Untwirl (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement isn't accurate. The rounds didn't actually hit the school, the article should reflect that. The IDF has issued contradictory statements about whether or not they targeted the school. If you want to say something about whether the IDF intended to hit the school, we have to either acknowledge the conflicting statements. Blackeagle (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement is accurate. If they fire close enough to wound 43 people they must have landed the thing on the doorstep. The fact that it wasn't a direct hit doesn't mean that the school wasn't "Fired upon". Any army is obliged to fire their weapons in a manner that does not cause indiscriminate damage, this is the reason WP rounds are contraversial. There can be no doubt that the injuries in the shcool DID occur, and that Israeli mortar fire was the cause. Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

exactly. the shrapnel (or whatever) that hit and injured people on the school grounds is part of the shell, regardless where the shell lands exactly. therefore, the school was fired upon, and hit, by mortar fire. Untwirl (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

At the time of this "incident", it was not clear what happened. Israel's rules of engagement are that they return fire when they see where it comes from. They also may have specific military "targets" but that's another story. When the story first broke that they had hit a school, they assumed they had returned fire-for-fire, since those are the operating rules. When UNRWA and Palestinians claimed "No one was firing from this school" "It was a refuge for civilians" "We gave Israel the coordinates" and "We don't fire from schools," Israel released an earlier film demonstrating that gunmen indeed have and do fire from UNRWA schools. They did not pretend that this film was this incident. They were demonstrating that Hamas gunmen fire from schools. However, when it was finally acknowledged by some (not the UN!) that there was not a direct hit on the school, some people still want to give the impression that there was. It is most likely that there was fire from the area, and Israel responded. Indeed had the locals actually been in the compound, they would not have been hurt, since no one in the school was hurt. There is a huge difference between targeting a school (while aware of its coordinates) for no reason, and returning fire when fired at and avoiding the school. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And they're all good points Tundrabuggy. I never said that Israel targeted the School, nor did I say they hit it. However there is no excuse for blind firing in the vecinity if an internationally protected target, there's no excuse for poor accuracy in civilian populated areas and there's no doubt that people were killed or injured by Israeli mortar fire at the UN school. Israel has an internationally recognized, proffesionally trained army. Simply saying a mistake was made is not good enough. Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties in the Lead

Currently, the lead paragraph on casualties reads "However, as of February 1 2009, the number of Palestinians killed, and the proportion of Palestinians killed who were civilians, remains a matter of contention. According to figures compiled by the Israeli military, between 1,100 and 1,200 were killed, over 700 were militants and 250 were civilians. According to the Gazan Ministry of Health, about 1,300 Palestinians were killed, 900 were civilians, including 410 children, and the remainder were police officers and militants."

I think this is inaccurate and does not accurately reflect the secondary sources that we have access to. Most mainstream news organizations report the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figure without qualification. For example:

BBC: "More than 1,300 Palestinians killed"

Washington Post: "after a conflict that left 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead"

Mail and Guardian(South Africa) "killed nearly 1200 Palestinians

UN " 758 people in Gaza (On Jan 9) .. according to Palestinian reports cited as credible by UN officials."

AlJazeera: "1,300 people, at least 410 of which were children"

Reuters: "Israel's Gaza offensive ... killed more than 1,300 Palestinians. Gazan rights groups said 700 civilians died, many of them children."

Economist: "About 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them more than 400 women and children, in nearly three weeks of fighting." (On January 15)

It is true that the Israeli military has questioned these figures, but the Israeli figures have not been widely taken up by neutral reliable sources. Of course, we should include the fact that the IDF has questioned these figures, but the IDF figure cannot go ahead of the other figure and I think the phrasing should make it clear that an overwhelming majority of sources accept the other figure. In light of this, to present these figures as a matter of serious dispute misrepresents the sources. I propose something to the effect of: "About 1,300 Palestinians have been killed, according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health . The Israeli military has questioned the number of civilian deaths ." Jacob2718 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree that "Most mainstream news organizations report the Palestinian Ministry of Health Figure without qualification," however i dont believe israel's 'estimate' is relevant at all. we wouldnt quote hamas for how many israelis died. Untwirl (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The IDF has spies, no doubt, and informants. It cannot, itself, do what people in the field and hospitals, are doing, direct crosschecking of dataq in hospitals with the families. Since in the war, the IDF shot 'everything that moved' (words of a northern commander), as in Vietnam, statistics are systematically tilted to 'identify' whoever is shot as a enemy, i.e., here a Hamas operative. Like all armies and governments in war, it's never been particularly reliable, in any case.

Apparently there is intensive work being done to control and crosscheck the figures given by the Palestinian authorities, now underway. Some of the difficulties are well explained by Donald Macintyre in The Independent Sunday, 1 February 2009]

'a count of the dead and the wounded is possible. And it has been and is being done. There is a difference of 85 dead between the figures that have been published by the Palestinian Ministry of Health and those that have been arrived at by the two leading human rights centers in the Gaza Strip - Mezan and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. This gap, however, is not a result of an intentional inflation of the number of dead and wounded, but rather the result of a number of errors that occurred because of the heavy load: For example, in the aerial bombardment on Saturday, December 27, of the civilian police buildings in Gaza City, seven students of the nearby UNRWA vocational school were killed. All of them - inhabitants of Rafah. It is possible that they were listed twice - once as people from Rafah who were killed and once as people killed in Gaza City. There were people who were taken to Shifa Hospital who when they died were transferred to hospitals in the places where they had lived. It has happened that by mistake a number of names were listed twice. Sometimes there is an error in the name, which is later corrected. Sometimes neither a corpse nor remains have been located. In this way, the body of H., an Iz al-Din al-Qassam member, was lost. Only his shoes, which were found, confirmed that he had been killed. Four members of the Haddad family, parents and two children, got into a car and fled the army that was approaching the Tel al Hawwa neighborhood. A shell incinerated the car. The neighbors were able to identify the four scorched corpses only by the license number of the car, and they reported this to an investigator from the Palestinian Center. Nor is anyone able to intentionally lessen the number of Palestinian fighters who were killed. Every family is proud to say that its son fought and was killed in battle, so that sometimes the error could be the other way around: that someone is called a fighter because a certain organization adopted him, but in fact he was killed in his home and did not even know how to fire a rifle. Investigators who are very familiar with the field have their own ways of knowing who was an armed fighter and who was not. When on January 14 there was a report of four corpses in Shokka, east of Rafah, the field worker from the Palestinian Center knew the name of one of the dead and knew that he was from Iz al-Din al-Qassam. He concluded that two of the others, who were his age, were also in the military organization. However, the fourth man was 42 years old when he was killed, which is not so congruent with the profile of a "fighter," and inquiries to his family confirmed that indeed he had no connection to the armed group.

In the two human rights organizations the confirmation of the names of those killed, their identity, their age and their sex is carried out in a number of ways: In real time, each of the organizations had field workers present at the hospitals. They saw the bodies and spoke with family members. Other investigators did everything in their power - in conditions of mortal danger and running between the bombardments - to get to the place where people were killed and wounded. If not there - then to the home of the family or the wake house. If this was not possible during the course of events - it is being done now. Each investigator has a detailed questionnaire that he goes over with all the affected families and in which all the details are recorded. The work of getting everything down in writing will take at least a month and a half or two months. Then in all likelihood the slight gaps in the figures of the two human rights centers will be corrected.

The data, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, as of January 22, are as follows: 1,285 dead, of whom 1,062 were non-combatants (895 civilians and 167 civilian police). Of these, 281 were children (21.8 percent) and 111 were women. There are 4,336 wounded, among them 1,133 children. The 6-year-old girl who we saw in the Zeytun neighborhood, who holds her hands up in the air in fear every time the photographer brings his camera near her, is not included in the list of the casualties.'Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, of course Israel killed some 99% non-combatants according to PCHR. What happened to the 410 children that were killed earlier? That's a discrepancy of 130 children. Did they count ALL the children twice? How old are children? Is a 16 & 17 year old considered a child? Now since Israel only killed some 200- odd "combatants" why weren't the so-called civilian police or others able to stop these "combatants" from firing into Israel and causing retaliatory fire? It was not as if they had got no warning as to what to expect. In fact, today's news includes Olmert saying that they will have a "disproportionate" response to the current rocket fire . It would make sense if the civilians who appear to outnumber the militants considerably, were to take matters into their own hands for their own safety. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Well, that is why a number of us have argued for not putting the casualties in the lead at all, but we were over-ruled. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you go back to primary school and work out the percentages. 1,062 non-combatants of 1,285 makes 223 combatants, which as a percentage of 1,285 comes out, at a glance at around 16-17%, meaning by their calculations 83-84% were civilians/non-combatants, not 99%, as your queer calculation asserts. If you read front-line Israeli reports from the IDF there was actually very little contact with Hamas. Most were killed on the first day, then went underground. Their strategy was survival. All sides exaggerate, spin and tilt figures in war. The Palestinians at least had this excuse, they had to make their calculations with several thousands people in a few weeks registered at several hospitals, and conflicting data from several sources, while under siege. The IDF calculations were done in comfortable quarters, mostly by counting all dead as around 75% 'Hamas operatives', the figure they pushed from the beginning. We'll know in a month or so, and will then update.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

so warning of a "diproportionate response" (against civilians, i presume) somehow justifies it? hamas warned israel that rockets wouldn't stop until they lifted the blockade, which they didnt, thereby according to your reasoning "causing retaliatory fire" by hamas rockets. Untwirl (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some weird concepts of mathematics operant here. The lead now has

About 1,300 Palestinians were killed including 900 civilians and 410 children (with the remainder being police officers and militants) according to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The Israeli military claims that 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed.

Both figures are nonsensical ('and' as in 900 civvies and 400 children should be '900 civilians, of whom 400 children' (that figure should itself be adjusted down), otherwise you get 900+400 = 1,300, no place for militants. Likewise the IDF is made to claim that of 1,100 killed, 700 were militants and 250 civilians, meaning 150 were neither militants or civilians. What were they, zombies?

Does anyone actually control this farce (farcir 'to stuff', an appropriate French verb). It is a farcical stuff up. I note also in para 1 an unfixed ref., standing out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources do indeed qualify the amount of causalities. It would be kinda irresponsible on their part not to. See Battle of Jenin, where Palestinian claims of massacre were later found to be nonsense and the IDF numbers were correct.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

brewcrew, where are your links for this statement? jacob provided 6 or 7 to back up his assertion. once again you are jumping in with your opinion that isnt based on rs. if you want to make contributions to this discussion, do some homework. Untwirl (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: Please stay WP:CIVIL, if you want to contribute to this talkpage. The links he provided are the exception. We all know that the amounts of dead people are almost always qualified to the source. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

be civil? your suggestion that i contribute to a wiki of my native tongue was condescending and uncivil. i simply asked you to provide some sources for your opinions, which you have yet to do. what "we all know" is irrelevant - provide a source. Untwirl (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i see you dont mind being slapped with a trout. well, here goes - *whap* Untwirl (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a native tongue ? You should probably give that back. Tongues and such like sometimes have local cultural/religious significance. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

my native tongue is cruelty free and certified organic. mmm delicious. Untwirl (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: Please stay WP:CIVIL, if you want to contribute to this talkpage. Bullying doesn't last long around here, call it the revenge of the nerds if you will. --Cerejota (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The figures need to be attributed, especially if they are disputed. We have numerous sources attributing the claims, the opener found some who don't (yet they might do in other articles, e.g. reuters attributes those figures to Hamas here). There is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not attribute their figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow.

Also, there is no "mainstream" consensus of secondary sources to not cite the Israeli figures, as the opener suggests, and even if there was, we would not be supposed to follow. The Israeli figures were just recently released, and all that was released was a kind of a "preview" that is yet to be completed. It is thus no surprise that they are not yet cited by everyone. We need secondary sources to wp:verify information, but we need to present these informations following wikipolicies such as wp:npov. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On checking the problem is that the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on its website does not give official figures. No official figures apparently exist for the IDF statistics. The IMFA only cites for this information the same newspaper articles our own article cites, and frankly this is pure lunacy. That a government cite newspapers for statistics that it itself is the source for. The IDF figures in the newspapers are revelations made off-the-record, or privately, to journalists by briefers. This is complete contrast to the Palestinian case, where there is an official source for the figures (may be wrong, but at least they assume responsibility for their calculations)

Secondly, the IDF does not 'claim' these are correct figures. The IMFA site says that the IDF 'believe' that 700 are Hamas operatives. To claim is to assert a fact, to 'believe' is to take on trust, in lieu of definitive evidence, that such and such is the case. Therefore the wiki description should have the word 'belief' for the IDF figures until their report comes out.

As to the discrepancy I pointed out between 950 (militants and civilians) and 1,100-1,200 total, the remaining 150/250 are believed by the IDF to be mainly Hamas militants also. So so far, only in as regards the IDSF/Israel figures we are in the realm of belief. The PMH figures are asserted on the web-site to have been based on extensive crosschecking, and are generally supported by an independent authority (the in loco UN people)Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

skapp - there does seem to be a mainstream consensus not to cite israeli figures. (see jacobs examples above) the (one) example you linked to does attribute their numbers to "medical sources" in gaza, but it also makes no mention of (unofficial) israeli estimates. 7:1 mainstream sources that dont attribute their numbers, and 8:0 that don't mention israeli estimates, seems to be in consensus on not adding the israeli estimate or qualifying the number with moh or hamas. Untwirl (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Militant Activity

This section requires some serious work. For one, it is written almost entirely from the perspective of the IDF. Almost every piece of information here can be traced back to IDF sources. We need to use more neutral sources.

Second, I don't understand why we need to go into such extensive detail on the exact military tactics that Hamas used. For example, there is a separate subsection on "tunnels and booby traps" which, apart from reading very poorly, seems quite irrelevant and deserves a line rather than a subsection. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is not true that "almost every piece of information can be traced back to IDF sources", much of it can (there was more independent information that was mysteriously removed: I'll dig it up and restore it when I get the chance). The reason for this is simple: Hamas aren't talking much to the media, so much of what is known about the subject comes from IDF sources. If you can find independent or Hamas-based information that isn't there, by all means put it in. The details about tunnels and booby-traps reflect a focus by the reliable sources. This is presumably because those constituted a major part of militants' combat preparation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I shortened the section a bit. Presumably the IDF used land-mines and other "traps". However, we can hardly have a subsection on that. I think the problem here is that it is hard to get reliable information. Some of the Palestinian groups involved in combat, put out some information about their combat activities. The reason it was not put in, during an earlier discussion on this topic is that most of it is probably not verifiable. The same holds true of IDF reports. That's too bad; we'll have to keep the section brief till we get better sources. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of several paragraphs of sourced information. If you feel the content on this topic is incomplete, I suggest dealing with it by adding information. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jacob: Please don't remove sourced material because you don't trust the source of the reliable source. If there are reports to the contrary you can add them. It is important that for contentious material that it based on IDF info that the article state that the info comes from the IFD. However, it is inexcusable to remove the information. If it is reported on by reliable sources it cannot be removed unilaterally. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See also section below which is related.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Changes I've made to Rocket attacks into Israel section

The problems with it were:

a)We don't need details of every rocket attack on this page, that's what the timeline's for, so I've linked to it
b)There was a lot of detail about rocket attacks that happened before this conflict.

I've removed problems. Please don't reinstate without consensus here.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jandrews23: That's not way things work around here. If you want to remove sourced material from an article because you don't like it, you should gain a consensus for its removal, then remove it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

not only is jalapenos reverting what he calls removal of sourced information, he is using misleading edit summaries to remove sourced information. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267885640&oldid=267883555 Untwirl (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

and i agree that we dont need to document every rocket attack. do we mention every airstrike or tank attack, or gunshot by idf?Untwirl (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ::User:Jalapenos do exist reverted the changes, justified above, without any consensus here, and saying to see the discussion page. I see no reasonable argument for his changes. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jandrews. Procedurally, when one wants to remove several paragraphs of long-standing, sourced information, one must seek consensus, preferably by listing the proposed edits separately and discussing each one. You are welcome to do so here. I can begin the discussion by noting that, contrary to your claim, the page is far from including details of every rocket attack (there were several hundred of them), rather the page had basic details of several of the most notable rocket attacks, notable because of direct hits on targets, serious casualties, etc. Last I checked, there was no mention of rocket attacks from before this conflict, but even if there were, that would not justify removing content on rocket attacks during the conflict. In addition, you removed content unrelated to rocket attacks, and so far have not explained your removal. Please do so. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, I'm glad you agree that the content dealt with in the edit you refer to was sourced information, as you will see if you check the edit carefully that I was restoring content removed by Jacob, and that I did not remove any content whatsoever. I expect an apology for your false accusation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

jalapenos - did you follow that procedure when doing this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267885640&oldid=267883555 why did you use a misleading edit summary for your removal of info? Best, Untwirl (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, this is the same edit you mentioned above, and which I pointed out did not involve the removal of any content whatsoever. (We both got stuck in an edit conflict on the talk page). I still expect an apology, of course. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mentions of previous rockets? How about:

• 'Since Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip completely in 2005 the Palestinians have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles of various types from Gaza into Southern Israel, hitting major population areas such as S'derot, Netivot, Ashkelon and Ashdod as well as numerous other towns and villages causing over 1 million people to sleep in bomb shelters and causing panic amongst the populace. The strike range of these rockets has increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure'
• 'From June 28, 2004 to January 27, 2009, fifteen people have been killed in Palestinian rocket attacks and dozens wounded'

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Those lines must have been added recently; good catch. I agree with you completely that they should not be in the "Palestinian militant activity" section, since they do not deal with the events of the conflict. They are relevant to the Background section. I would heartily support moving what can be salvaged from those lines (they have a POV problem, too) into the background section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

jalp - i apologize unreservedly. you did just move the part i thought you deleted. Untwirl (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i still believe "that we dont need to document every rocket attack. do we mention every airstrike or tank attack, or gunshot by the idf?" Untwirl (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I responded to this above. Currently the section only documents a few of the most notable rocket attacks, similarly to the section on the Israeli campaign, which mentions the most notable airstrikes. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can be spicy, but this a cool solution...:D Brewcrewer: of course consensus must be discussed, but removal of un-discussed material - specially one out of section, and with undue weight, is OK as long as there is no edit warring. That is what we call around here WP:BRD, nothing to get hostile about.--Cerejota (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon me joining the discussion without having read the whole section, but I just wanted to add that thirteen rockets and several mortars were fired at Israel today. Any volunteers to add that to the graphic? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that this info was moved to the Background section, "Since 2005 the Palestinian militant groups have launched over 8,000 rockets and missiles into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens". I have used equal space to add corresponding UN figures on Palestinian casualties as follows: "...while in Gaza since 2005 more than 800 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations, airstrikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations." RomaC (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now if we can just get that kind of systematic approach to NPOV throughout the article we're in business. Nice work RomaC. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, RomaC. The only reason I moved the text you quoted to that section, rather than deleting it, is because jalapenos would have just reverted it otherwise.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jandrews, for future knowledge: I wouldn't have reverted such an edit, and it would likely have been improper for me to do so. I had reverted your removal of several paragraphs of long-standing, sourced information without discussion. This would have been a removal of a little bit of recently added sourced information with some discussion (i.e. with me), and thus a different case. I also happened to agree with you that the info did not belong where it was and that it suffered from POV problems (see above), but, again, that's not why I wouldn't have reverted it. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents: Is this vandalism or what?

Why removing such well sourced and important paragraph from the "Incidents" section:

UN Headquarters: On January 15, the IDF shelled the UN headquarters in Gaza where hundreds were sheltering. After analyzing the Unexploded ordnance, the UN has asserted that the compound was shelled by 155m White Phosphorus ammunition.. 3 people were injured and hundreds of tons food and fuel were destroyed, drawing condemnation from European countries. Israel claimed Hamas fired from the site, but apologised for the "very sad consequences" calling its attack a "grave error". After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident.

And the remover even completely deleted that the compound (which hosted hundreds of refugees) was hit by white phosphorus as asserted by the UN. How can this be explained? --Darwish07 (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And let's be clear, this is different from the school incident discussed above. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I moved it. The information is almost all there it just isn't under the disputed incident section now. I merged it with a previous mention of the event. Read the article. The white phosphorus was edited slightly but still mentioned. The only thing not included in my edit was the European countries line since it was ambiguous and the sources stated only a few. Go ahead and edit but don't accuse me of vandalism if you don't feel like reading the compete article.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, The white phosphorus part was not "edited slightly" as you state. It has been moved from "The UN has asserted that the compound was shelled by WP" to "according to a spokesman". This is downplaying of well sourced information. The cited UN report, which was removed, clearly said:

The type of UXO removed confirms that the compound was shelled by 155mm White Phosphorous artillery.

And this was not a spokesman, this was a UN official report. I'm assuming good faith cause I think you thought it was a quote randomly found in a news website, but it was not. You didn't read the cited report first, and yes, I also didn't read the subarticle. I didn't accuse you of vandalism, I was questioning if this was vandalism "or what". Anyway I'll return the paragraph to the main page itself, cause this is an important incident and it was not even summarized in the main page before moving. You may want to discuss this afterwards, cause this section was moved without discussion here. Peace. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Both versions stated that white phosphorus was used. Both referenced UN. Yes, the later referenced only one spokesman so I apologize if several UN representatives said this. 3 shells is just as encyclopedic as the size of the ordinance. You're being a little picky and I can only assume defensive. Also, if you scroll up, you'll see a discussion about the incident section so again, stop falsely accusing me just because you didn't read the page.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: The link for the report is not working for me. If you honestly think my neutrality is off go ahead and tinker with the wording. It now states "The UN asserts white phosphorus shells were used during the attack." simple, to the point, the truth, should be OK.Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

the un didn't "assert", they "confirmed". when you take out the analysis part and then add "assert", you degrade the authority of the source. you also removed the un's response to israel's assertion that hamas was firing from the site. the original wording was more npov. Untwirl (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It said assert previously (before I touched it. Scroll up). Changed it to confirmed. Not that complicated.Cptnono (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: The link to the report is not working. If someone can add the source that would be fantastic. "you also removed the un's response to israel's assertion that hamas was firing from the site" - Don't follow you on what line is being referenced, Untwirl. Go ahead and add it. This is also the 2nd time you've chimed in on an edit to hastily without reading it close enough.Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) better to chime in and realize i'm wrong than to make pov edits without discussion as you seem bent on doing. however, if you read more closely you will see the line i refer to: "After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident." (scroll up)

enough with the snide comments ("not that complicated", "editors pulling at straws", "this is the 2nd time . . .") you obviously weren't reading closely enough yourself or you would see the line i am talking about, unless you are being wp:dense? try to agf, and i will do the same. Untwirl (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Point made. The edits, however, were discussed. You have had two knee-jerk reactions to my edits. Apologies for coming across crass but that is incredibly frustrating. I've even asked other editors to edit the Jan 15 incident since I was concerned with POV (which was, arguably, there before I touched it). Go ahead and add the line if you want it there. Done.Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

no prob. sorry if i've seemed to be jumping on your edits without cause. thanks for being amenable to compromising. Untwirl (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Understandable given the complexity of such an intense issue. No worries.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapons related word counts in the article for interest

2 aircraft
3 airstrikes
3 army
5 artillery
5 bomb
3 bombed
1 bombings
3 bombs
5 booby
1 explode
1 exploding
4 explosives
2 gun
1 gunships
2 helicopter
2 helicopters
3 katyusha
3 launchers
3 missiles
19 mortar
5 mortars
6 phosphorus
6 qassam
47 rocket
34 rockets
2 rockets'
4 shelled
5 shelling
13 shells
6 tank
2 tanks
Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Call me vulgar and immature, but I found the line "5 booby" to be kind of funny. Now if only the Hamas messages to Israelis' mobile phones had said "booby on all cities, shelters will not protect you", instead of "rockets...", we'd be able to crank up the booby count a bit. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too and I deliberately didn't go and check whether it was accompanied by 'trap' because that would have ruined the Woody Allen-esque Sleeper (film) images I had in my mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

how bout, "boobies will not save you!" "booby is not your friend" "or "death to boobies!" Untwirl (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What, no mention in the article of UAVs, the drones, with their special missiles, and surveillance cameras that allow controllers at headquarters to view with great clarity everything on the ground, with such precision that indeed, they consistently killed children and civilians, even in open fields, as Amnesty reports. Bet there were high 5s all round the video feed at HQ when catching this 'breaking news' beamed back from the drones.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Section Title: 'Gazan response' or 'Palestinian militant activity'

Please say which title you think is better, since otherwise this is just going to back and forward between Jalapeno and me.

• 'Gazan response'

Support since it naturally follows 'Israeli offensive' and also because 'Palestinian militant activity' does not sound neutral, it makes it sound suspicious and illegal(maybe it is, but then 'Israeli offensive' should be changed to something like 'Israeli attacking troop activities' (OK a bad one but I can't think of better)Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Better After some rereading I think that 'Palestinian militant activity' sounds more negative than 'Israeli offensive' and is therby not npov. Brunte (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• 'Palestinian militant activity'

• Discussion

I think neiter. If 'Israeli offensive' stands, the other should be something with 'defence' in it. ex 'Palestinian defence' or 'Palestinian defence of Gaza' Brunte (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't any of these options are all that great. "Gazan response" is pretty generic. It doesn't really say who is responding and doesn't convey that most of the response was military in nature. "Palestinian militant activity" is only slightly better. It says a little bit more about who but is just as generic as to what. "Palestinian defense" doesn't really fit because many of the activities (rocket attacks) are defensive only in the sense of "the best defense is a good offense". On that basis the Israeli actions could be considered "defensive". Anyone have any other suggestions? Blackeagle (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I really have to conclude that we probably shouldn't have two separate sections for Israeli and Palestinian actions. These are really two sides of the same coin. Does it really make sense to talk about the Israeli Ground invasion in one section, then Palestinian Engagement with Israeli forces further down on the page?

So, how about reorganizing the Campaign section like this:

• Israeli airstrikes - the current Air strikes and Warnings subsections
• Palestinian rocket attacks - the current Rocket attacks into Israel subsection
• Ground invasion - the current Ground invasion, Attack on Gaza City, Preperation, and Engagement with Israeli forces subsections
• Attacks on Israel from outside of Gaza - the current subsection of the same name
• Notable incidents - the current incidents subsection
• Ceasefires - the current Humanitarian ceasefires and Unilateral Ceasfires subsections

Propoganda and psycological warfare would get folded into the media section or article. The very first paragraph under Palestinian militant activity describing the militant groups involved and the Internal violence subsection get spun off into their own section describing who's involved on the Palestinian side.

It's a pretty big change, but I think it would make the article a lot better and get away from the current "he did, she did" format Blackeagle (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is January_2009_Gaza_attacks article nessesary ? Merge in here perhaps.

I read January_2009_Gaza_attacks and find it contans much less extra material compared to the section 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Internal_violence than other linked articles have. I suggest either its merge in and deleted or that section Internal violence to be tighten or merged with another section. Discuss. Brunte (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely merge. No reason to have a separate article. Blackeagle (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

People are calling it a good article and it IS featured in the main news section, before you remove or merge it I would take a poll.Knowledgekid8717:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Even issues that are purely aspects of this article are being spun off because of WP:SIZE. January 2009 Gaza attacks is not purely an aspect of this article, and should clearly not be merged. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

War aims

The ex-parliamentarian Uri Avnery remarking on the war aims expressed, not by official declarations, but by many interviews in the press and on television in Israel during the campaign, writes as followes:

The things said during the war by politicians and officers make it clear that the plan had at least two aims, which might be considered war crimes: (1) To cause widespread killing and destruction, in order to “fix a price tag”. “to burn into their consciousness”, “to reinforce deterrence”, and most of all – to get the population to rise up against Hamas and overthrow their government. Clearly this affects mainly the civilian population. (2) To avoid casualties to our army at (literally) any price by destroying any building and killing any human being in the area into which our troops were about to move, including destroying homes over the heads of their inhabitants, preventing medical teams from reaching the victims, killing people indiscriminately. In certain cases, inhabitants were warned that they must flee, but this was mainly an alibi-action: there was nowhere to flee to, and often fire was opened on people trying to escape.' Uri Avnery, 'Under the Black Flag', Counterpunch 02/02/2009

It's only his synthesis of comments made to the Israeli public. There is, in most wars, a distinction to be made between public declarations concerning the casus belli and the actual reasons for going to war, esp. one that is a war of choice, as was both this and the recent Iraq war. So any authoritative comments from IDF strategists or political sources that use the kind of language Avnery remarks on, in explaining the war's aims, should be noted for eventual use.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Brunte (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli 'shock' victims may have crept back in

Do people remember the previous discussions about this? The Israeli govt includes 'shock victims' in their casualty figures. In the infobox it now says 182 civilians injured. I would guess this includes shock victims once again. As noted before, there are probably over 1 million victims of shock in Gaza.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to determine the exact number of "shocked" victims because mass media tends to be more selective when it comes to Israeli news, but perhaps we shock can technically be categorized in the injured section. Also, depending on one's proximity from an explosion, "shock" could imply physical damage. Lest you forget, shock can cause internal and psychological injuries. But I doubt 182 victims injured also includes those who were "shocked." Under your reasoning, the victims would exceed 50,000. Sderot and Ashkelon have been experiencing daily rocket attacks for over a year...Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Shock can be a physical condition. An adrenaline rush can widen your vains causing a sharp drop in blood pressure. This is where the term "Scared stiff" comes from, with the person being physically unable to move. I'm not sure it's enough on it's own to threaten someones life though. Obviously if you have a large open wound and go into shock you can bleed out, but I'm pretty sure on it's own it won't leave any lasting damage. At the most a lie down, perhaps some hydration and the victim should be fine in a day or two. Certainly would require some medical attention though just in case. So I guess it could count. It's not on par with bullet & shrapnel wounds though. (Forgot to sign in)Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Acute Stress Reaction, which is the kind of shock I mentioned above, also see Circulatory Shock. Circulatory Shock comes in multiple different forms, several of whitch can in fact cause death by organ failiure if not medically treated, therefore it seem there can be no question that these numbers belong in the casualties sectionAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been against counting them together. Although I would note that we also count Palestinian psychological victims. I included a link to this a while ago but the head of the PCHR counting said that they had counted about a thousand fewer wounded than the MoH and he attributed it to the MoH counting psychological trauma. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think they should be counted together either. But there are also sources from Palestinian medial officials saying they believe more than 50% of all Gaza residents will suffer from PTSD and other psychological trauma. Nableezy (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been arguing for weeks that we should include information about psychological trauma. But not to combine it with other injuries in the infobox to create a combined "wounded" number. Back then nobody agreed with me that we should include any sort of psychological trauma at all. Although back then we mostly just had the Israeli "shock" figure. If we get Palestinian information I wouldn't be surprised if a few editors become more interested. Even though I did include an article with Palestinian information like two weeks ago. But I don't know if anyone read it. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about PTSD or people who are having nightmares because they saw some nasty things. I'm talking about the people who suffer from the medical definition of shock. As in they hear a bomb go off and their bodily reaction can put their lives at risk. If it is the latter it should be mentioned in the casualties. If they require medical attention as a direct result of the conflict then they are casualties. If they are having nighmares or PTSD they should be left out of casualties, as this reaction is purely psycological. In summary I think that if immediate medical prevention is required to save their lives then it counts. If it needs counselling or therapy it doesn't count. This is not an attempt to make light of psycological trauma, merely my suggestion of how this issue can be resolved Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Info box Palestinian casualties questionable

While three sources are provided, all seem to be referencing Palestinian medical workers or Palestinian-organized services. Including reuters and UNOCHA give the impression that these media groups are independently verifying the death/wounded toll, when in fact they are just citing (albeit subtly) information from Health Minister of the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian medical services.

I honestly couldn't care less about the casualties themselves, but the Palestinians have a long history of inflating, embellishing, and often times falsifying information regarding casualties.

Maybe this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I know for a fact those sources would be considered unreliable from a POV perspective, but they're the only ones we can go by for now.

I think Israel might have their casualty estimates, perhaps that could also be included? Like, say "casualties disputed" or something along those lines. Be cordial, please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times already. The numbers provided by the Palestinians have been widely reported in all media, cited by the UN, HRW, AI and Btselem. We can certainly include official Israeli estimates, but it should not take prominence over the statistics that have been used in every single source that I have seen. Hamas has also disputed the number of Israeli soldiers killed, would you also like to include that and say those numbers are 'disputed'? Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We do have the IDF figures in the infobox: 700 militants and 250 civilians. It is missing their total which also includes a couple hundred who have not been identified either way. Or so they claim. If we have Hamas figures I'd include them also. Although Hamas is the government (or really the state) of Gaza so I guess that kind of makes the MoH numbers the same thing. If they have a claim for numbers of Israeli soldiers killed, I'd include it also. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that, at least I think, is nobody uses those numbers at all. Everybody is quoting the Palestinian numbers for Palestinian casualties and the Israeli numbers for Israeli casualties. Until there is some independent verification on either side I dont think we need to vary from that. In the media, at least what I have read and I like to think I sample from a pretty wide spectrum, the Hamas claims for IDF forces killed are mentioned in passing as just that, as are the Israeli estimates for Palestinian figures. I think it would be better if we did the same, for the infobox include what is being widely reported until we get an independent number, and somewhere in the casualties section bring all that up. Nableezy (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

vandal ip

could someone report it? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=268117343 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

restored sentence: antisemitic violence

i dont remember exactly, but i do recall a question being put forth as to whether this violence relates directly to this conflict. the source itself says violence has "tripled." doesnt this mean at least one third of it is unrelated? Untwirl (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just mentioning it has greatly increased would suffice? Saying 2/3 of anti-simetic violence is a result of this conflict is probably more detailed than it needs to be, and we can't be sure of that whole "Trippled" buisiness anyway. 2/3 is a definite amount and we don't have definite, or do you have a source of a survey or something?Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i didnt restore it, just questioned its relevance. i think 'greatly increased' is fine, if it needs to be here at all. Untwirl (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably not all that relevant. Considering that the conflict appears far from over after those attacks that took place in the last few days. Eventually the size of this article will be called into question and things like this will probably get trimmed out anywayAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What we can say for certain is that the reporting of antisemitic incidents has increased. RomaC (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed below, move all suggestions there from now Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"anti-semitic incidents"

jalps - 2 of us now have agreed and removed material that is duplicated word for word in the international reactions section. it should be summarized and that is all. don't say "see talk" when you have not posted anything discussing this to the talk page. i will wait to revert you until others weigh in. Untwirl (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I seem to get into talk page edit conflicts: I was posting my comments here but lost the edit conflict to your comment, so I'll just respond to it. Jandrews twice removed two whole subsections of the article, "Israel" and "Antisemitic incidents", without discussion. After the first time he did it, I explained above that this is not done: when removing large portions of sourced text, one must seek consensus first on the talk page. The fact that you agree with Jandrews is of absolutely no relevance, though your input in a discussion in which you explain why you agree with him would certainly be relevant and perhaps influential in determining the outcome of the discussion. You have just begun such a discussion, contributing the sole argument that the content of one of the subsections in question ("Antisemitic incidents") is duplicated word for word in another article. If that is the case, I can assure you that the other article copied from here and not the other way around. If you think there was some problem with them doing that, I suggest you take it up on that article's talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This article starts to be bloated with proisraeli material with less connection to the conflict. This section is one of them. I find 'antisemitic incidents around the world conected to this conflict' complicated. Do muslims see diference between jews and israelis? Is Muslims attacks against jews, who most of them support israel antisemitic? In any case israel dont make it easyer to be of jewish heritage. Brunte (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Brunte, but I don't understand what you're saying. Could you perhaps be clearer? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What part dont you understand? Brunte (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything past the first two sentences. (Though I'm not sure I understand even those two sentences: how is information about antisemitic incidents "pro-Israeli"?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything, this article is pro-Palestinian. Virtually all Palestinian-news media, especially government casualty reports, fail every wiki reliability laws. Yet, oddly enough, we still use them as references. So let's end this pro-Israel b.s because we all know it's the direct opposite. The international media has been biased against Israel from the start of the war. And since this article is heavily reliant on international sources, the article is undoubtedly slanted. Now, can we move away from the pro-Israel tirade and focus on the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a section of anti-musslim attacks in the article? Seems like having the section at all is unnecesary. If you look at the disussion above I said merely a mention that the attacks occur should suffice. It seems impractical that we list the anti-jewish incidents when this article is about the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. It just seems to me that this is a tangent issue and while it may be a direct result of the happenings of this article, it does not need more than a brief mention Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I support that. Brunte (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A. If you have information about notable attacks against Muslims which, according to reliable sources, were directly related to this conflict (as you agreed the antisemitic attacks being discussed were), then by all means add it to the article: WP:BOLD. B. The subsection does not list "the anti-jewish incidents"; it briefly mentions a few of the most notable incidents, without even going into basic details. C. The subsection is a part of the section "Effects", which, as its name implies, does not deal with events of the conflict, but with "direct results of the happenings" (your words). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Equal weight is important. If we're publishing content demonstrating the results of the war but not necessarily part of the actual fighting, then all sides must be posted. IF there's reputable sources that report on the growing anti-Semitic/anti-Israel protests occurring throughout Europe and the Middle East, then it MUST be included. Under your reasoning, everything that wasn't physically influenced shouldn't be included - like international reactions, organizational opinions, etc. After all, "it just seems to me that this is a tangent issue and while it may be a direct result of the happenings of this article, it does not need more than a brief mention." Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reservations about an exclusive "antisemitism' section, maybe an inclusive "backlash" subsection to International reactions section would be germane. But how do we judge whether a physical assault on a Jew in Paris is directly related to this event? Or if the decision to ban Arab parties from the upcoming Israeli elections is directly related to the event? Seems we would be opening an ugly can of worms here. But go ahead, if the section includes info relating to both sides. RomaC (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I think that notable backlash attacks against any group, considered by reliable sources to be directly related to this conflict, should be in the subsection, and the title of the subsection should reflect the content. I don't think that the subsection should be in the International reactions section, since that section deals with views and public expressions thereof, whereas this subsection deals primarily with tangible actions, and is thus more suited to a section dealing with concrete effects. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I owe you an apology Jalapenos. I was under the impression that the section had been changed to a list of anti-simetic happenings. I read over the section again. And while it's longer than I would have made it, I don't think that it's unbalanced or unworthy of note. The fact that I thought it had been moved from the section that it's in sparked my remarks about having an anti-musslim section. When the section is viewed as a whole and not in individual sections it is not unreasonable. Further Anti-Simetic of Anti-Jewish is more appropriate than "Backlash". It is what it is and what it is, is anti-simetic violence and discrimination as a result of this conflict (Don't know if that all bade sense) Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you needed to apologize for anything, but I appreciate that you did. Thanks. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

if you insist on overcrowding this article with 'effects', i suggest adding this:

• anti-arab incidents in israel

"When the leader of Israel's religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of "Death to the Arabs." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26%2FBNStory%2FInternational%2F%3Fpage%3Drss%26id%3DRTGAM.20090126.wisrael26&ord=18771778&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

and this:

"Israel's election panel disqualified two Arab parties from running in the February 10 elections based on a motion filed by two far-right parties which claimed they did not recognise the Jewish state's right to exist. "Obviously, the right wing is stronger with the war. The Israelis are selling more cheap popularity in the streets," said Jamal Zahalqa, head of the parliamentary group of one of the two parties, the National Democratic Assembly. . . .The leader of the Greek Orthodox community in Sakhnin, father Salah Khoury, has organised a campaign to send food and clothes to Gaza, but fears the consequences of supporting the Palestinians in the enclave. "We identify with the people in Gaza, but we don't want to endanger ourselves," said the Arab Israeli. "We want to stand in our land. We're scared. Right wing Jews see us as enemies." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0R8Cdp-6NO1kvXp38rf3KRMk7Aw

and articles about settler violence against arabs in the west bank, which i shall find shortly. Untwirl (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Untwirl, your efforts to find relevant information for the article are laudable, though I would stress that the aim of adding information should never be to "counteract" information one thinks should be omitted, per WP:POINT. About the first incident: I don't think hate speech is notable enough for a summary section, which is why I refrained from including incidents of hate speech when creating the section. About the second incident: this was already discussed a while back, with the conclusion being that no reliable sources consider it related to the conflict. By the way, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned that decision by the Central Elections Committee, so in effect nothing actually happened. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I also have problems with this section, as it represents only one side of the backlash. First, this: "Italian trade union Flaica-Cub called for the boycott of shops owned by the "israelitic community" ("comunità israelitica") in Rome, interpreted by the media as Jews, in protest at the Israeli offensive. Following an outcry and threats to sue the union under Italy's anti-racism laws, the union stated that the proposed boycott was directed at products made in Israel ("Boicottaggio dei prodotti israeliani")" is too long considering it seems to boil down to a misunderstanding. As it is the strong suggestion here is that a boycott of Israel constitutes antisemiticism. What we're left with is a few assaults, some angry letters and a lot of spray-painting. If this is going to be covered then it has to be covered as it relates to both sides, not only as "antisemiticism." For example, we should include "A blue Star of David with the words "Israel forever -- Arabs never" was spray-painted on a back door to the Sts. Peter and Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church in the Washington suburb of Potomac, Md. Local police said the incident is being investigated as a hate crime." No? RomaC (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Rome boycott: I've seen quite a few news articles on the boycott, and none of them took the union's post-fact explanation seriously. I agree that the description of the incident is too long. I originally wrote it very briefly, then another editor added the details, presumably he thought it was fair to get the union's side in; I didn't want to delete his contribution. Regarding the church defacement: I could see making a case for including it, but then we would have to include other incidents that happened after the ceasefire, which I wanted to avoid for length reasons. Additionally, the source you brought did not connect it to the conflict (and considering it happened almost two weeks after the ceasefire, I don't see why it would be considered connected). Finally, there's a notability issue. I think what makes a defacement of a house of worship notable is the defacement itself, with the message being secondary. In this case, the message is undoubtedly anti-Arab, but is the defacement itself an anti-Muslim act? Surely not, because it was a church being defaced. So what was it? Anti-Christian? You get the idea. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe we should clarify the anti-semitic part and explain that arabs are actually semites, too (sons of shem) so violence against them is anti-semitic as well by definition. Untwirl (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Antisemitism#Etymology. It was precisely because I expected misunderstandings such as these that I objected to user:Cerejota's naming of the section "Antisemitic incidents". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reducing the importance and relevance of the strongly-supported anti-Semitic protests occuring throughout the world to various incidents in Israel IS anti-Semitic. World opinion is woefully against Israel, as is the protests against it. Equalizing Jews taunting Arabs and Arabs taunting Jews is laughable. There will always be some people who have a differing opinion, but the case remains: Anti-Semitic outbreaks far outweigh any anti-Muslim/Arab protests. And keep in mind, the majority of anti-Semitic outbreaks are intense and violent. And while there is a significant number of pro-Israel protests, very few even remotely resemble the activities organized by pro-Arab/pro-Palestinian groups. When did 10,000 angry fundamentalist Jews storm a predominantly Arab housing project and throw moltolv cocktains and rocks at the windows, whilst screaming "glory to the God of Jews" and watching a German officer storm into the Arab ghetto and taking down the flags? http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950850066&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Oh, and that source could be used in the article. A sovereign democratic government banning the waving of Israeli flags is VERY relevant to this article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No its not. Just as it is irrelevant that it is still illegal to wave a Palestinian flag in Israel. Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And I can think of a few times recently such actions have been directed at Arabs in such cities as Hebron. Nableezy (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you have to accept that if the international media is biased against Israel regarding this topic, the Misplaced Pages article must be biased too, because Misplaced Pages's policy requires sticking to the reliable sources, and until books and academic papers are written about the conflict, the media is the main reliable source we have. If you don't accept this, you will simply not be able to be a productive contributer. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, good night everyone, I'm going to bed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is mind-blowingly retarded. Why wikipedia still sanctions propaganda-fallacy driven articles such these is BEYOND ME. No wonder nothing ever gets done in these kinds of discussions.

And Jalapeno, don't accuse of not being a productive contributor. You are the one who is unproductive solely based on your refusal to publish facts. There is plenty of reliable sources that provide a far differing spin then what is seen here. Sleep well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikfan, a concern I have here is that if we take the number and scale of anti-Israeli actions as greater than the corresponding anti-Arab actions, and then declare that treating both with the same regard is "laughable", would it not then be consistent to apply the same relativism to damage and casualties in the conflict itself, and dismiss Qassam rockets as "laughable"? RomaC (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalap, I respect what you are saying, that the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the ban on Arab parties in the Knesset, and if this means "nothing happened" there, then it would be consistent to conclude that nothing happened in Italy, where the union re-named its Israeli boycott campaign. RomaC (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

if it is "reducing the importance and relevance of the strongly-supported anti-Semitic protests occuring throughout the world" (and according to you, anti-semitic) to include the fact that there has been a pro-israel backlash against arabs, then you have a very broad view of anti-semitism. as cerejota once wisely said, calling everything antisemitism "cheapen(s) the very real suffering of those who have faced true antisemitism." Untwirl (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? What is the line between acceptable, or "true" anti-Semitism. As far as I can tell, the bangwagon hate occurring throughout the developed world is anti-semitism. The stone throwing, the beatings, the massive angry protests, the lawsuits, everything. It's all rooted in hate, and it is light years ahead of any event organized by extreme Zionists. There is no excuse to be ignorant. The facts are right under your nose. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

you contend that, "Equalizing Jews taunting Arabs and Arabs taunting Jews is laughable." and i say there is no difference. jews do not have a monopoly on oppression and prejudice. all people deserve to be treated with respect, jews, arabs, blacks, etc. i'll just repeat and agree with you that "there is no excuse to be ignorant." Untwirl (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-Lede

I've brought these two archived conversations back, for its information and work.

Lede

I know the lede is a powder keg, but for the benefit of readers who actually want to read the article to know what happened, I made two small additions.

1. Added "in the Gaza Strip" to specify where Israel's military campaign was. 2. Added "on its southern communities" to specify where Hamas rocket attacks were.

I also wikilinked the first mention of Hamas in the lede instead of the second mention. I have a grain of hope that these changes won't lead to endless partisan bickering, but...they probably will. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Stylistically 'in the Gaza Strip' goes better after Operation Cast Lead. Have presumed to adjust. Only problem with adding 'in the southern communities' is checking that the sources quoted use precisely that wording, as attribbuted to Israeli spokesmen. Do they?Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources I've seen usually use "towns and communities", "towns" or "communities". There was already a discussion about the phrase "towns and communities", with Nableezy arguing that this was weasel wordage and Cerojota and I arguing that it wasn't. The way I remember it is that Nableezy eventually accepted our position, but I can't speak for him. In any case, these are the phrases used by RS's; I chose a one-word phrase instead of a three-word phrase so as not to provoke arguments that I was giving the rocket attacks too much air time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and though Cerejota doesn't believe me, I argued that 'communities' is the default word for anywhere where Israelis live, and is never used to Palestinians, in most I/P articles. Here Gazans don't ever live in 'communities', though all their refugee camps and town-units are clan-structured communities. Hamas fires all over the Negev, mostly into the desert, even if it aims at settlements or towns.One argument for communities is that the many kibbutzim in the Sha'ar haNegev are not towns. On the other hand, most places hit are townships. In any case, technically, one should have this sort of phrasing sourced. We are dealing with 'stated' claims, and stated claims should follow the official Government statements to the word.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that you have that gripe, because one of my pet peeves is that "villages" is used in the media only for Palestinians and not for Israelis. Since "village" has no particular administrative meaning, but does conjure images of a bucolic, peaceful New-England-type setting, I consider it to be borderline weasel-wordage in the I-P context. But since it's a problem in the RS's themselves, I would never argue against its use in Misplaced Pages, as long as it was adequately reflected in the cited sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I use neither. It is interesting also that Israeli village gets 77,400,000 hits on Google. 'Village', when not upmarket nouveau-bucolic, has a touristy tone, whereas 'community' is schmalzy. I refer not to general usage, but to I/P usage. Israel's stated aims, are of course those announced in the press by government and IDF spokesmen. These naturally have absolutely nothing to do with its real aims, given that Hamas had accepted to reaffirm the truce. The real aims are already coming out in strategic reports all over the place, and have nothing to so with 'protecting southern communities', which is quite simple: accept a truce, one that allows people in Gaza to eat regularly. But this is soapboxing of course. The problem remains. The links I checked that are supposed to underwrite 'southern communities', are old links, and do not mention this as the stated aim. The stated aim was generic, to stop rockets being fired.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli village" has 13,600 google hits, most referring to Arab-Israeli villages or reconstructed villages. "Palestinian village" gets 84,200 google hits. I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of never getting into rambling talk page discussions not related to the article. I can control myself when seeing opinions I disagree with, but when people get facts messed up, I get sucked in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert, both 'Israeli village' gives me 24,800,000 now, and 'Palestinian village' over 1,200,000. It doesn't matter either way to me. My point was (a) Wiki I/P usage and (2) the fact that nowhere in the three sources does it state Israel's intent was other than to halt rocket fire. No mention of 'southern communities' which appears to be your construction. Note 31 by Amos Harel however has this.

The Israeli objective is clear: deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter. Ostensibly, it will not prevent heavy rocket fire on the Negev towns, but it will likely make it more difficult for Hamas to carry out more damaging attacks against Israel.

This is not of course Israel's stated view, but that of an opinionist- The notes 32,33,34 all refer simply to an aim of hitting 'Hamas-linked' infrastructure and stopping rocket fire, as in the original had it before you changed it. I'll restore the old version, which was more succinct, until evidence is forthcoming that the stated view was that of stopping firing into just one part of Israel, (the known military objective was to destroy Hamas's capacity to strike Israel, and stop it from achieving an upgraded capacity to strike anywhere in the country). I hardly need add that rather than arbitrary sourc es from newspapers we need a specific declaration by the government on the 27th. referring to the purpose of the assault. If this exists, and uses language that justifies your proposal, or a different formulation, by all means bring it up. If we get the official gov. or IDF (same difference)declaration, we can get rid of the three newspaper refs, which are arbitrary, and as such improper.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, Nishidani, here are three sources explicitly stating that Israel's aim was to stop Hamas rocket fire on its "southern communities" (as opposed to, say, its northern communities). For simplicity's sake I'm limiting myself only to Associated Press articles. I agree that since the RS's - and not just the Israeli government - state as fact that this was Israel's aim, saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you. In fact, since the reliable sources use the phrasing "years of rocket fire", I see no reason not to follow them on that, too; but we can leave these issues for later.

* All 15 council members agreed to a press statement drafted by Britain and France that welcomed Sunday's unilateral cease-fires by Israel and Hamas militants following Israel's offensive aimed at halting years of militant rocket fire by Hamas on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza. * Israel launched the war on Dec. 27 in an effort to halt years of militant rocket fire by Hamas on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza. * Israel launched the war on Dec. 27 in an effort to halt years of militant rocket fire on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza. (different article, different author)

This should sate your desire for "forthcoming evidence". Now please restore the more informative, if somewhat less succinct version, and please never waste my time again by demanding that I prove trivialities. Also, please please please don't ever again make me sit through your extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing. As a symbolic admission of my partial guilt in this case, I'm striking through my earlier comments that were not directly related to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My two changes to the lede were proposed together, since one adds info on Israeli violence (and thus vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Israeli editors) and one adds info on Palestinian violence (and vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Palestinian editors), while both add necessary information for the naive reader. Nishidani was the only one who objected, predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence. Since he has not responded to me, and more importantly, since no one else has objected to my (in all honesty, ridiculously cautious) change, I am restoring it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so rude. Your time is no more valuable than my own. Were I as ill-mannered as you seem to be above, I should reply that you wasted my time by inserting a phrase unsupported by the old references. It is standard wiki practice to anchor one's edits and wording in references. My drawing your attention to this was neither rude, nor time-wasting, but a matter of editorial scruple. If you demand precision from others, expect it from those who examine your own edits. You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective. It remains for me your edit proposal, now with proper references. I don't know about wikipedia, but that's how historians work. And I do not understand, in closing, your remarks about my 'predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence'. If I have unilaterally removed info on Palestinian violence, while agreeing to that on Israeli violence, I'd appreciate a link to show where. The only edit change a made to your lead suggestion was repositioning words for stylistic smoothness. Otherwise, unlike yourself, I left an edit I didn't agree with intact, as courtesy obliges when one's fellow-editor takes the trouble to engage in dialogue. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

'saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you.'

I didn't insert 'stated aim'. It's been there for some time, unchallenged. I agree with it. 'Stated aim' is perfectly correct, since several articles I've been reading by military and political analysts, not all with my POV by any means, assert that these two 'stated aims' often bruited about in newspapers, do not reflect far more complex considerations behind Israel's decision to go to war. To replace 'stated aim' with 'aim' is to presume we here know exactly what those real intentions were. We aren't at this state, in a position to know anymore than this. There is a very serious distinction to be preserved here.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, Nishidani, could you both stop with the personal attacks please? Blackeagle (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? I won't push it, but I haven't attacked anyone, and will not engage further if this is raised again. Take it to my page if you think I have. Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the content of either of your changes, but now we've got quite a run on sentence. It's made even worse by all the (parenthetical) statements. How about splitting it into two sentences, something like:

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's stated intention was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and target the members and infrastructure of Hamas." Blackeagle (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

where has nishi made a personal attack??? i see him being exceedingly patient while being accused of "extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing"

if jalapenos were serious about regretting disruption he should strike that statement and apologize. Untwirl (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The person who made the remark should not be allowed to light a fuse that isn't there. I checked. I mistook a newbie for an administrator and took the crack as an instance of administrative nodding, to be countered. This has blown over. Jalapenos and I are, essentially, discussing technical problems in the lead. We disagree. We argue. No harm done.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blackeagle, I don't think either Nishidani or I engaged in a personal attack, but I did fail to keep cool. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adopting Blackeagle's suggestion above about splitting one sentence into two. It is a stylistic necessity and does not change the content at all. If anyone objects to it for some reason, they can say so here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A point, as I see my name up there; I was never involved in this discussion, though I favor a word other than communities. I think there are any number of words that fit better, and the one I would think fits the best is 'southern Israel'. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC) And I also think it should say with the 'stated aim'. It is Israel's stated aim, there are a number of sources that question these were the actual aims, questioning whether or not it was motivated by upcoming elections, or by the knowledge that support for Israel in the White House could not be assumed to be as strong upon the inauguration of Obama, or any other number of reasons. The easiest way to sidestep that is to explicitly say this is the stated aim of the Israeli government, which can be both well-sourced and verifiable. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article uses "stated intention", rather than "stated aim". Does anyone have a preference for one over the other? Blackeagle (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would favor 'aim'. I think intent would apply to wider vision, a military campaign has aims and goals, it is a tool of intent. Just me though. Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "aim" until being shown a good reason for "intention", at least because its used in one of the sources I quoted above. Nableezy, can you give an example of a high-level RS, say a news item from a major news organization, that assumes the alternate aims you mentioned or casts doubt on the "stated aims"? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I'm still researching the issue of "stated aim" vs. "aim", but I thought I'd post this tidbit. Iranian Press TV, which is, to put it mildly, biased against Israel, cites the aim of ending rocket attacks against Israeli towns as fact: "Tel Aviv launched Operation Cast Lead on December 27 to put an end to rocket attacks against southern Israeli towns." Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To be clear up there I meant I would go with 'stated aim'. There are no sources that report as fact anything that I said above questioning the stated aims, there are certainly editorials by notable authors about that, but I wouldnt think of including them in the article. The reason why I would favor stated aim is this. I don't think anybody can accurately report what any government in this world is actually trying to do. What we get is what they say they are trying to do. I would be wary of saying anything that a government says about its aims or intentions without first qualifying it as what it is, the aim that is given to the public. It goes both ways, Hamas saying their only intention is lifting the siege is only that, what they say. Nableezy (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason many of the RS's cite the stated aims as fact in this case is because there are some stated aims that are inherently plausible. If a gov't builds a bridge over a river, the stated aim of "enabling people to get from one side to the other" is inherently plausible. I agree that in war we need to be exceptionally careful, becuase gov'ts are prone to conceal things in war, but I don't see why we need to be more careful than a large portion, possibly the majority, of the reliable sources. By the way, if we do go with "stated aim", we have the added responsibility of citing the stated aim fully and accurately, as it was stated, which means pretty much quoting from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The government may also be making strategic landing strips for fighter airplanes with that bridge (from a conspiracy as to why the US has the Eisenhower Interstate System). Governments consistently hide their true motivations from the public, I just don't think we can take any at its word. Nableezy (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not addressed: "You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective." -Nishidani

Because if we DO go back to the beginning of this conflict(and we should when addressing the lead), we'll find the following:

Dec 30 - Israel attacks Gaza for the fourth day - http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=54699 (from the BBC)

On goals(aim) - "Israel's defence chief earlier said his country was fighting a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas."

On whether to use 'stated' or not - "Israel says its aim is to end the rocket attacks by Hamas-linked militants - of which there were reportedly more than 40 on Monday."

Dec 27 - Israel's attack on Gaza kills hundreds - http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11323391

On goals - "The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel."

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said late Saturday that the goal was "to bring about a fundamental improvement in the security situation." He added, "It could take some time."

"Stated"? - see above plus "Israel warned it might go after Hamas' leaders, and militants kept pelting Israel with rockets - killing at least one Israeli and wounding six.

Dec 30 - Israel Assaults Hamas In Gaza - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/27/israel-launches-air-strik_n_153664.html

On goals - "Israel's stated goal is to cripple Hamas' ability to launch rockets at Israeli towns, which means that a ground invasion is becoming more likely as it becomes clear that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job."

"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has declared "all-out war against Hamas."

"Stated"? Yes. But infrastructure? and since Hamas fire those rockets from civilians area, not having military bases of their own, police stations and houses in gaza are Hamas' infrastructures?

I recognized Nishidani's point as being that from the beginning there was ambiguity as to what this Israel's attack was to bring Israel itself. Now there was a target inside Gaza, Hamas, there is war, but is war about what? goals? yes to some degree, but most of those goals can't be archived until conquering has been archived(re:Iraq war, AND Israel's previous occupations of both Lebanon and Palestine)...so to cripple Gaza, only Hamas's "infrastructure" was the "stated" goal?

At what point, even Israel's foreign minister was at odds with what the prime minister was "stating" as the goals for this operation.

Needless to say then, it would be a great disservice if we use Israel's "stated goals" as of Jan 30.

My humble suggestion is to leave it as "The operation was aimed at..." Stated is a loaded term.

There should be even more discussion on this BTW. Cryptonio (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Dec 30 - ANALYSIS / Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza - http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051024.html

On goals - "The operation's goals, as defined by the cabinet, are "creating a different long-term security situation in the south, while bolstering Israel's deterrence." The IDF does not interpret this to mean a complete end to the rocket fire, as it considers this impossible. Rather, its goal is to eliminate Hamas' desire to attack Israel. The bombing campaign has so far dealt a severe blow to Hamas."

Fire in the hole. Notice ref to "as defined"(so they are defining what they are stating? or vice-versa?) plus IDF does not interpret what's been stated(which of course was defined before it was stated) which at the end, they disregard what was stated for them(perhaps rather just defined, in order for them to interpret on their own?) because they found what was 'defined' for them impossible(or what they interpreted as being defined to them). Cryptonio (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a really hard time with complaints that "community" should not be used in the lead but "Massacre" is A-OK. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, thanks for the input. Misplaced Pages is not calling it a Massacre, we just say who is. Here, wikipedia is using the term 'communities', not just saying who is. There is a little bit of a difference there in case you were wondering. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New section re lead

Jalapenos do exist and other committed editors. I'm extremely wary of touching leads until agreement is established via discussion. It used to be fairly balanced. What we have now, on checking it this morning, is gross reduplication, which the text didn't have earlier. It reads:-

(a) with the stated intention of stopping Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).

(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008. Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce. Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce. Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.)

(c) On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire and the smuggling of weapons through underground tunnels from Egypt. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade.

In my view (b) relatively untouched since the beginning, is fairly balanced. However (a) and (c) repeat the same phrasing, and this should never occur in leads.

The Ist para describes the Operation, Israeli's objectives. The second gives background and reciprocal blame or claims. The third repeats the already explained 'intentions' of para one, simply changing 'stated intention' with 'stated objective', while adding a further one (tunnel smuggling), and repeats the claim made by Hamas in para 2. Israel in (c) which is all repetitition, gets 24 words, Hamas 15.

Para (c) is therefore repetitive, reduplicates parts of para (a) and para (b), in violation of WP:LEDE. Since it says nothing new, but hammers away, I suggest it be removed, with an eye however to conserving in some form the 'tunnel smuggling' bit. However retain that, with a RS showing it was the explicit view of the IDF/Gov, and you then have a balancing problem. For Hamas, those tunnels mainly serve as corridors for food and goods to get round the blockade.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that (c) is mostly repetitive. What about moving the smuggling allegation to paragraph (b). Have it read something like:

(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008. Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce. Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce. Israel claimed cross-border tunnels were used for smuggling weapons while Hamas insisted the tunnels were necessary to supply Gaza with goods and food. Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel using the smuggled weapons.

Blackeagle (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does that paragraph purport to explain? Why the truce was not renewed? You have Hamas claiming that Israel was not lifting the blockade as justification, though it is not clear whether that was agreed upon as part of the truce agreement. You have Hamas holding one cross-border tunnel raid as a reason, and give Hamas' rationale for the tunnels. You say "Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks using smuggled weapons." Nowhere does it acknowledge that Hamas fired weapons and mortar into Israel the entire time of the truce, really ratcheting it up in November & December. It does not state that Israel considered this to be a "serious breach of the truce". The fact that the weapons were smuggled was not Israel's reason for this counter-offensive. It was in fact the constant, almost daily fire throughout most of the truce that was the main reason -- and Israel did in fact hold the constant firing on the "southern communities" to be a "serious breach of the truce". Israel's view isn't really reflected in this paragraph except perhaps as an afterthought. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is intended as a readability edit rather than a content edit. The content itself is pretty much identical with what is currently in the article, it's just arranged a bit less redundantly. Do you prefer the current version to what I proposed above? Blackeagle (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was meant as the "universal 'you'" as opposed to the "personal" you. If it were clear that we were talking about the reasons that the "truce" was not renewed, as opposed to the first paragraph which supposedly is talking about the reasons for "Operation Cast Lead" itself,' it would not then be redundant, though it might be similar. Hamas and Israel could not come to terms to extend the truce. Then Hamas' stated reasons & Israel's stated reasons, fairly. If you are not going to explain why there was no extension of the truce you could leave it all out or put it in later in the background section. ie "A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008. Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce." End of story. Just a thought. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the lead has received exceptional cosmetic changes, there are a few that are necessary still. I will bring a few that I believe will enhance the article, with the help of the last conversation on record on this matter. Since the archived conversation was taken into consideration, I assume that it has wide support and warrants an edit before further debate.

• Para A "The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's stated intention was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and target the members and infrastructure of Hamas. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎)."

It has been widely referenced, that the MAIN reason(perhaps even the only reason) given by Israel in support of the military operation(at the beginning of the conflict), is to stop rocket attacks by Hamas on southern Israel. One of the actions, that in Israel's view had to be done in order to archive this goal, was the targeting of 'so called'(but widely accepted as) Hamas' infrastructures. To this point, it should be made clear, that those attacks against Hamas' infrastructures were part of the operation but not a goal in itself, since the actual implementation of the operation, in itself, was not a stated goal. These changes are reflected and supported by the same sourced material of the Para's current format(and more were also presented). Also, before the operation, Israel had no information on what Hamas' response was going to be, so the targeting of its members was not a goal, but part of the operation since Israel was planning in using its military to archive the goal of stopping Hamas rockets. Here we must make the distinction between overall goals, and military operations. Not surprising in itself, since Israel(understandingly) would not make its actions known beforehand.

As for 'campaign's stated intention', on those same sources in support of the information, it does not include that phrasing, simply because it would be redundant. Once Israel makes its intentions known as a statement, and thus stated, it is taken as authoritative. If then, we go ahead and quote those intentions or aim, we are presenting the actual statement, and it doesn't need to be reminded(but sourced yes), that at one point it was stated, for we are quoting or resuming what that statement entailed. Only when there is a question on whether the party has made its intentions clearly, should our job be to clarify(by the input of known documentation) what those intentions were. And so, it would warrant the usage of the word "stated". In this matter, it is widely known that stop Hamas rockets were the reason given by Israel at the beginning of the conflict, and that in order to archive that goal, a military operation(with military actions) was the order.

Last, there was no mention at all about "southern communities" and I'm not surprise( in good faith, of course) but surely disappointed that it is till there. Almost all material used at the start of this operation, used the phrase "Southern Israel" as any respectable publication would.

New Para

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's aim was to stop Hamas' rocket attacks on southern Israel's and included the targeting of Hamas' members and infrastructure. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).

Cryptonio (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention to the ceasefire and the breach of the ceasefire should be made also?

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's aim was to stop Hamas' rocket attacks on southern Israel and included the targeting of Hamas' members and infrastructure. The conflict is currently under ceasefire(negotiated on */**) however the conditions of the agreement were not fully agreed upon by either party, and several infringemments of the ceasefire have caused further violence. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎). Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

International/Legal issue is heavily biased and needs balancing

Israel section is bloated and contains far more info then the Palestinian section. Also, I think we should include counter-opinions regarding the legal criticism. I know for a fact that many notable and more qualified than Richard Falk, who is more of an advocate than a legal expert.

Can we agree on this?

Oh, another thing I think we need to de-emphasize our inclusion of Richard A. Falk in the section lead. He possesses nowhere near the credibility nor the impartial opinion necessary to be considered a legal expert. What I mean is, if are going to continue using his name, his extreme bias must be established. Passing him off as impartial, which this article does, is simply a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't agree. Falk speaks on behalf of the UNHRC in his official capacity. His important statement was released by the UN on behalf of the world community. This is not a statement by a fanatical anti-Israeli blogger. It's the UN. If anything the section needs to emphasise that and de-emphasise the Falk as a person aspect. Your argument amounts to saying that the UN is extremely biased and that the article should point that out. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol. No, that's not my argument. And I couldn't care less if he was speaking on behalf of Jesus Christ himself, he is a controversial figure and recognized for his extreme bias and shouldn't be passed off his an impartial legal judge. This was the interpretation of the section author and NOT the media or the world. Please do not put words in my mouth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, he you didn't address my other points. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he did. Falk is fully qualified to speak on international law and is an official representative of a UN organization. That is how he is presented and that is how he should be presented. That some don't like what he has said does not change any of that. Nableezy (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is ignorant. Falk is fully qualified to speak internationally because he was appointed by a UN-sanctioned organizations. Extreme analogy: If Hitler was appointed as UNHRC legal expert, would that make his opinion crystal truth and therefor be passed off as fact? Hardly a fair analogy, but it's the same reasoning. Falk is a questionable figure, and choosing him while ignoring many other notable people IS blatant bias. And, neglecting to emphasize his controversy as an "expert", or in the least highlighting the ethical challenges filed against him, IS bias. If our goal is to report facts, and those facts can be ascertained quite easily through simple research and discussion. then we MUST do that. And like I said, it was the interpretation of the original subsection author and not the world. I'm not denying his opinion is important, but passing it off like it's evolutionary science is, in good-faith terms the ultimate shade of ignorance. And in non-good faith terms, lying. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'r looking for balance where there isn't one to be had Wikifan. The fact is that Israel have been accused of a lot more International Law violations than Gaza. Between the WP contraversy, UN facility attacks & civillian deaths all alleged Israel simply has more to answer. Not saying that they were right or wrong, or what the ruling on these allegations should be. It's just the nature of the beast here, Israel has an internationally recognized government and that makes them beholden to some things Hamas might get away with Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, focus on what I said instead of reducing points into simple sentences. If you're going to avoid my arguments, then just don't respond. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a brief statement something like 'Falk, a controversial figure amongst supporters of Israel' but is there really any point given that it's redundant/self-evident ? What I would say is that the whole section probably needs to be split off to a sub article and summarised in this article. It's too big. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ease up turbo. You said that "Israel section is bloated and contains far more info then the Palestinian section" I think that I made concise argument against that point. The reason I didn't comment on your dislike of Richard Falkis because it wasn't worth mentioning. Whether you like it or not Sean and Nableezy said perfectly why he was a reliable source. That you didn't agree didn't make them wrong. That the discussion didin't go your way doesn't make our address of your issues anything but full, and calling me out like I was out of line was foolish Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He is fully qualified because, as the article you linked to says: "a Bachelor of Laws from Yale University, and a Doctor of Laws from Harvard University. He is Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, and was Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara (2001-04)." And your extreme analogy is beyond an analogy, it has reached the point of stupidity. I am sorry if that is uncivil, but complaining about bias when writing in a biased way, and complaining that the world media is biased against Israel, and now that somebody who is appointed by the UN, unlike Hitler, as an expert in the field of international law and specifically how it relates to the I/P conflict is also biased just does not carry a whole lot of water. You have some information about the man as it relates to his views in general try putting that in the Richard Falk article. Here, when he speaks on behalf of the UN it is as if the UN is speaking. He has been appointed this position by the UN and official statements are made not just in his name but in the name of the UN as well. Nableezy (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Come'on. Type "Falk" in the above search engine and you will see identical arguments. I'm not denying his qualifications according to his academic portfolio, or the fact that he was pointed by the UN. No, the thing is, I don' care. I really don't. I'm not denying that he is neither of those things. I'm simply saying his position of authority is highly contested by major media and equally notable figures, and this NEEDS to be addressed. Or, in the least, supplamented with an opposing viewpoint. As I said, we're giving the hate Israel party a FREE pass just because it's the UN. Let's take the UN out of the equation, it's still Richard A. Falk. My analogy was PERFECT because it used your exact reasoning in the context of a villainous person, unlike Falk. But your justifications could be applied to the Hitler scenario. Let's end this b.s and focus on balancing the section. If you're concerned by NPOV, and you believe the section is perfectly fine as is, I question your judgment as a wikipedia user. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The UN appointed Richard Falk to be a "spokesperson", look up spokesperson. They didn't appoint him Emperor of the world. He performs the function of a tape recorder. He could eat babies in his spare time. The fact is he speaks as the UN's mouthpiece. He doesn't dictate policy. He doesn't sit on any council. He just stands in front of a camera to put a face to the UN. Now if Richard Faulk was leading the investigation into the International Law violations, then I'd be right behind you cryin foul Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Andrew, but we're giving him the credence of Emperor in the the way he is portrayed in the international lead. I remember the original international lead about a month ago and didn't even remotely paint Falk the way it does here. And we had the same information then as we do now. What happened? Oh yeah, user bias. Of course. SHOCKING! Like I said, search Falk in the engine. This isn't a unique argument, we just got tired. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) to fan:

falk as hitler? i'm going to agf here and hope you're kidding. let anyone comparisons of israel to nazi germany, and they're anti-semites, but you can throw this rubbish around?

falk and the un are reliable, notable, and npov. if you feel the whole world has an anti-israel bias, maybe you should contribute to the mars wiki Untwirl (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles