Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:52, 27 September 2009

The Al Jazeera images have the logo because the Creative Commons license requires it. These are free images with an attribution restriction. Al Jazeera allows this page to use them.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza War (2008–2009) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

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 High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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

The move from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict to Gaza War is discussed in /Archive 47#Requested move

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza War (2008–2009) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

background

Agada recently changed the long-standing text that was painfully fought over somewhere in the archives from

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis, including both civilians and IDF personnel, were killed and 1,509 were injured by Palestinians in "direct conflict" related incidents in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. During the same period 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed and 8,308 were wounded by Israelis in "direct conflict" incidents.

to

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in "direct conflict" related incidents and 1,509 were injured. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents.

His last edit summary said that "Both civilian and security forces" is redundant. I would like an explanation as to how that is possibly redundant. I wouldnt mind including the indirect attacks, but I felt that it was best to only include things that OCHA said were undeniably a part of the overall conflict. The internal violence though is wholly irrelevant to the section. It being included in a report on total casualties over the past 3 years in no way makes it relevant to the Gaza War. An explanation as to how it is would be appreciated. nableezy - 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

nableezy, please read the verbose commit logs, there are explanations to all the questions you have raised. I'd appreciate if you self-revert, to fix WP:3RR violation. Let's be calm. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The OCHA report include "Physical protection" statistics – concerns incidents where there were casualties. These include deaths and injuries in Palestinian, Israeli and foreign nationals who were killed or injured in the occupied Palestinian territories or in Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2. Despite you POV, OCHA regard "internal violence" as relevant to "Physical protection", OCHA report explain that "internal violence" category includes casualties caused by factional violence or family feuding, internal demonstrations (that are linked to the conflict/occupation) and shooting of alleged collaborators with Israel.

3. According to report Israelis, generally could be either civilian or member of security force (such as Israeli police). Likewise Palestinians, generally, could be civilian or members of Palestinian militant groups.

By your questions, I have a feeling that you have not read the source. Hope your concerns are satisfied. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but not necessarily related to the Gaza War, which is the topic of this article. It is relevant to the overall conflict, but how is it relevant to this conflict? As to point 3, you are right, Palestinian and Israelis are either civilians or member of security/militant forces. Why would we not make clear that we are talking about both when discussing these casualties? And it is odd for you to say I did not read the source as I was the one who found this source and entered the original information a long time ago. The OCHA report covers more than we need to in the background. Not everything that they cover is relevant to this conflict. We needed numbers on how many of each side were killed or injured by the other side in the years preceding this conflict and OCHA provides those numbers. It is not necessary to use every single thing that they list in the report, only what is actually relevant to this conflict. nableezy - 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This report brings statics of incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Not relevant to Gaza War specifically. If we include casualties statistics from this report, we should include it as-is if we like it or not. Casualties of conflict are casualties of conflict. All have red blood. And I'm not saying we have to include this report, which I agree is only "slightly" relevant to Gaza War. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But how is it relevant to this page? You and I clearly do not agree on this, suggest we wait for others to speak up. Others, please speak up. nableezy - 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree the source, which talks generally about incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, might be not relevant to this article. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate if you self-revert, to fix WP:3RR violation. Let's act as Wiki gentleman. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3 revert rule, though if you wish to report me feel free. Either way, you shouldnt be repeatedly reinserting the same edit after it has been reverted with a pointer to the talk page. I suggest you leave the long-standing consensus based text in until we have some other people comment. nableezy - 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada why should Nab "self-revert"? You changed a long-standing section on the article, not he. Now, the edit you are trying to add is confusing, as it introduces a number of subsets and distinctions not present in the clear and concise version that served the article well for many months. Let's be reasonable. RomaC (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

@RomaC, it's so easy to support edit warring. Did you read the OCHA source and arguments of this discussion or just geo-locating my IP is enough to enter this discussion? Could you clarify, do you still stand by your suggestion that an Israeli WP editor should get his/her hands off articles that "have anything to do with Israel"? Thank you for such an enlightening 3rd party pro-Wiki opinion. Sorry, I'm not impressed. In the end Misplaced Pages is changing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If we include casualties statistics from this report, we should include it as-is if we like it or not. Casualties of conflict are casualties of conflict. All have red blood. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how internal conflict casualties are relevant to the background of this conflict? Can you explain why we would need to use everything in a single source? nableezy - 07:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between how they were killed and Agadas's edits are welcome. Claiming that its no good because it changes "long standing text" kinda goes against whet we're all about here at WP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am claiming it is no good because it removes some relevant information and adds other unrelated information. I am saying leave in the current (before your revert) text because it is the current consensus. And your revert is also against consensus. nableezy - 08:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

@brew, 10x for kind words.

@nab, I'm not following you. Could you elaborate:

1. Which relevant info is removed? What new info is added by saying both civilian and security/militant forces? Would not just saying Israelis and Palestinians, like report does, is enough?

2. Which unrelated ( to what ? ) data is added. Do you disagree with OCHA analysis that those casualties related to conflict/occupation? On what do you base your opinion about casualties distinction in relevancy/relatedness?

Generally, I'd like to satisfy all editors concerns. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The report actually does explicitly say it includes militants and Israeli security forces, defining them as "all member of the Armed Forces, the Border Police, and the Police". The report also includes the number of children killed separated from the rest, should we also include that? The report includes a lot of detail that is relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page but is not relevant as background to 'this' page. Not everything a source writes needs to be included. Can you explain how this is relevant background to this conflict? nableezy - 18:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But since the two of apparently feel everything in the report should be mentioned I'll be adding the number of Palestinian and Israeli children killed in the years before the conflict shortly. nableezy - 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you cant have it both ways, you cant say "this information is in the report so it goes in" and then try to keep out other information in the report. OCHA specifically reported on the number of children, so following your logic above why are you removing that? nableezy - 13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, this disagreement began when you replaced long-standing, clear and concise content with selected data that introduced a number of subsets and distinctions, arguing that because that data was in the report it should also be in the article. (We should "include casualties statistics from this report ... as-is if we like it or not", you wrote above.) Now, another editor has done just this, and you are reverting them. For the sake of consistency, I will revert, although I believe the original text was better. Don't you think? RomaC (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the original was clear, concise and better. But if there is an insistence to include things from the report just because they are in the report this should also be included. nableezy - 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice indeed. Love it :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So why are you reverting it? nableezy - 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Was the reason for your changes the articles my feelings? Whatever... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. But no, I did not add anything to the article because of your feelings. nableezy - 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont change your comment after it has been replied to. The reason for the change I made was that you and brewcrewer were able to editwar in the idea that everything in the report should be included. Your words were we should include the info from the report "as-is if we like it or not". So I did that. What is the reason for you to go back on that now? nableezy - 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears there is a consensus to return to the original comparative data text, doing so. RomaC (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really original, which substituted "direct hostilities" by "other side attacks". Let's not censor info about span and origins of Palestinian casualties of the conflict. Still agree with Nab, the source is only "slightly" relevant to the Gaza War.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt agreeing with me and you are combining numbers the source doesnt combine in your edit, and taking out qualifications that the source uses. nableezy - 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And there clearly is not consensus for that edit Agada, why do you keep making it? nableezy - 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not productive. Agada your edits and the long additions that resulted were discussed and a return to the original text supported (you posted "Nice indeed. Love it.") But then you changed your Talk comments, and now a few days later you are back making the same sort of edits, which makes other editors respond with reversions. Could you either leave this as is or take your arguments to RfC? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You kind of have strange way to form a consensus. The OCHA report include Physical protection statistics – concerns incidents where there were casualties. These include deaths and injuries in Palestinian, Israeli and foreign nationals who were killed or injured in the occupied Palestinian territories or in Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you disagree with OCHA analysis that those casualties stats (you are removing) related to conflict/occupation? On what do you base your opinion about casualties distinction in relevancy/relatedness? I'll have sporadic Internet connectivity this week, hope you could address this question for consensus sake. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way why did you remove the information on children killed? That is also in the "OCHA analysis that those casualties stats (you are removing) related to conflict/occupation". We dont have to include everything that is in the report, just what is relevant to this conflict. If you want to include all these things that is fine, but dont combine numbers like from "indirect conflict" with "internal violence". And include the parts of the report you dont like, such as the casualty counts for children. nableezy - 05:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet access at last. Let's not pour gasoline on the fire. I'm not sure where I combined "indirect conflict" with "internal violence", though I did aggregate together numbers of "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents to improve the readability. Any objection there? I have no objections to your additions as long as it's not motivated and reasoned by other editors feelings. So if you think breakdown by adults vs. children Physical protection statistics worth mentioning, get serious reasoning to support the change. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is objection to combining stats the source does not combine. And "get serious reasoning to support the change"????? It is the exact same reasoning you are trying to use, are you now saying that is not "serious reasoning"? nableezy - 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing civilians and armed forces on both sides, since it does not provide any additional info without breakdown. I think one ref tag is enough, the first one is redundant. The best way to display 5 categories is table and it's what OCHA source does. Since we use sentences with words we should summarize the source without distortion, the curious reader can always read the source for all the details. If you still think we need to break numbers for all 5 categories, I will not object for such change. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It does provide additional info, it makes it clear that it includes both civilians and military personnel. And again, there is no consensus for your edit, stop trying to force it in. nableezy - 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you reverting without addressing my question about Physical protection. I call it forcing. In my eyes current wording distorts the source. According to OCHA Israeli Police are not considered civilians so current wording is not accurate. Maybe we could say that there were civilian casualties on both sides?AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What about saying "civilians and military personnel" "distorts the source"? And why is it needed to give the name of the report in the text? These sentences:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs physical protection statistics of casualties in Palestinian territories or in Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in "direct conflict" related incidents and 1,509 were injured. During this time, 1,735 Palestinians were killed and 8,308 wounded in "direct conflict" related incidents. There were civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict.

are terribly written. It is both confused and confusing. I am restoring the original text and ask that you make suggestions here and try to gain consensus for your changes. nableezy - 22:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

IDF is not the same as Israeli Police. "Physical protection" statistics are being distorted. I don't mind you fixing my broken English. Just reverting is not constructive. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs physical protection statistics of casualties between years 2005 and 2008 in Palestinian territories and Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there were 116 Israelis killed and 1,509 were injured in "direct conflict" related incidents. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents. There were civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed IDF personnel to "Israeli security forces" which is the wording the source uses. That clears up one issue. Multiple users have already taken issue with your including the other casualties and with your combining those that the source does not. Also why do you want to include these casualties and not the children. Your reasoning has been it is in the source so it should be included. So are the stats on children. Why not include that too? nableezy - 23:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing IDF bs. Let's deal with completeness of physical protection statistics and discuss additional statistical break-down of types of human beings later. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents" and 1,509 were injured. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents. There were civilian (including children) casualties on both sides of the conflict.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is like you are not paying attention to a single thing anybody says. Why are you combining "disputed" "reckless handling" and "internal violence". Why are you not including the numbers on children. And why are making a confusing mess of a simple set of sentences? And why do you keep trying to push it into the article? nableezy - 06:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey man it took you week to get the IDF bs I explained number of times. HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DEAD CHILDREN INCLUSION. Stop screaming about it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada again there is no support here for your edits and the reasons have been explained above in detail, yet you persist in pushing them into the article. Also, please remain civil, CAPS can be regarded as rude and are at least ironic when followed by "Stop screaming". Have you considered a RfC? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably missed in details explanations. Please enlighten me. Could you explain why we should exclude some Physical protection statistics and on which basis? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

249 is a signifigant number. I see the concern being mentioning the explosives screw ups and not the several other reasons mentioned, though. There is nothing wrong with saying x amount of people died during the conflict leading up to this conflict. The concern is pointing out explosives and not the other reasoning makes Gaza look like they had it coming. When some of it was factional violence related to the conflict. That being said, there is nothing wrong with saying a signifigant number of people died due to the conflicts but it wasn't Israel pulling the trigger. This should get further expansion in the main article regarding the background and a quick line without """""""" everywhere might work.

I also don't see why we are mentioning kids at all. It reads like it is in only included to assert who the bad guy is. I'm cynical but "some kids died on both sides" seems silly and doesn't provide any informaiton that improves the article. Of course kids died. People are starving or getting explosives dropped into their living rooms.Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to include everything as Agada is trying to certainly the numbers on children should be included. It was covered in depth during this conflict the number of children killed, it would certainly be relevant to get numbers on the past in the background. But Agada is not just doing that, he is also combining numbers that are not related. "Internal conflict" has nothing to do with "disputed" events or with "reckless handling of explosives". And two of those have nothing to do with this conflict at all. nableezy - 18:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob, Nab, go ahead. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And "internal violence" stats while being related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (according to OCHA report) are not combined with other categories, so I'm not sure why you repeat this nonsense. BTW if you want to provide detailed breakdown of all 5 categories of physical protection casualties of OCHA report, I don't mind, I told it in the past. Though agree with Cptnono, the attitude of "ah in this case I'm going to add kids stats" is strange at least. Anyway peace man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, wtf? Why are warring this in? Multiple users have objected and you just keep going. Fine, will be including them broken down and with the children. nableezy - 22:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The section was clear, concise and neutral; now it's bloated, confusing and POV. Persistence shouldn't trump policy but apparently some people value advocacy over editing. Ridiculous, so now let's have even more additions. RomaC (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Replacing IDF-sourced background info that only covered Pal. rockets with UN/HRW figures covering both Gaza rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli shelling of Gaza. RomaC (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... children multiplied by too many. We are not seriousley considering adding that many lines about children while disregarding women, elderly, men, midgets, Capricorns, etc, right? What is wrong with being broad (x amount of palestinians died doing y).Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(bloat)

As Cptnono notes, yes there are a hell of a lot of numbers being crammed into this section after recent editing.

To reduce bloat, consider the current text:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed and 1,509 were injured in "direct conflict" related incidents in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, including civilians and Israeli security forces. During the same period 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents. 128 Palestinians were killed in "indirect conflict" incidents, 20 in "disputed" incidents, and 101 in "reckless handling of explosives", as well as at least 749 in "internal violence". Over the same period of time 302 Palestinian children were killed in "direct conflict" related incidents, with 11 killed in "disputed" incidents, 29 in "indirect" incidents, 51 in "internal violence" and 7 due to "reckless handling of explosives". During that time period 11 Israeli children were killed in "direct conflict" incidents and 1 in an "indirect conflict" incident. The number of Palestinian children killed in 2006 may be under-reported. From 2007 to October 2008 743 Palestinian children were injured in "direct conflict" incidents, 20 in "disputed" incidents, 44 in "indirect conflict" incidents, 61 in "internal conflict" and 44 due to "reckless handling of explosives". Over that same period 14 Israeli children were injured in "direct conflict" related incidents.

could we reduce it to something like this:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed and 1,509 were injured in "direct conflict" related incidents. During the same period 1,735 Palestinians were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents.

or this, which was the original:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis, including both civilians and IDF personnel, were killed and 1,509 were injured by Palestinians in "direct conflict" related incidents in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. During the same period 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed and 8,308 were wounded by Israelis in "direct conflict" incidents.

For brevity and readability I support the second option, myself. RomaC (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, seems you have not followed the discussion, Nab acknowledged that "IDF personal" does not reflect the source and fixed it. In addition Cptnono noted that "civilian/kids" part does not provide any info. You also are not accurate about "original". Could we also consider third option:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents" and 1,509 were injured. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Cptnono, it adds information. But I also think the original is best, though I could see adding specifically "disputed" incidents as relevant. nableezy - 13:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The only parallel set of data is the concise and balanced "direct conflict incidents". If we look at for example "Indirect conflict incidents," we can see from the report that this messy classification includes "casualties resulting indirectly from the conflict and occupation of the oPt. They include casualties caused by Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), traffic incidents, “home made rockets” missing their target, deaths in prison, deaths from probable underlying medical conditions that occurred during military operations, or where access to medical care was denied." For this there are no corresponding Israeli stats. Also your proposal above is flawed as you are adding up three distinct categories to create a set of aggregate figures. This is synthesis and original research, as has been pointed out many times in the discussion. Finally, you've argued repeatedly for adding other data, basically saying that it is in the report therefore should be in the article; which is the same position other editors then took in adding data on children. Now we have bloat. Suggest we can be either inclusive or selective, but not selectively inclusive. RomaC (talk)

Your claim to "parallelism" is an original research, you're making distinction (selection) not present in the source. Quotes: These include deaths and injuries ... in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.' Moreover, the report explicitly clarify that irrelevant (to conflict) stats are out: Reports of casualties resulting from accidents, or from violence in the context of criminal activities are not included. The reality of conflict is asymmetrical. For instance report uses different terms for combatants. So it is not a big surprise that categories of casualties are specific to party involved in the conflict. Forcing the source to make symmetry between parties, where it's not present in the source ( and reality ) is not called balance. Please note that number of editors accepted significance of inclusion of all categories, technically your opinion is a minority one. Though it does not necessary mean that you're wrong. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are combining things that are not relevant to this article. This is not an article on the entirety of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and we are under no obligation to include everything that is in that source which contains a number of statistics such as the number of days curfew has been imposed in occupied territory. We do not need to include everything in the report. And if you feel that we do then why would you argue against including the number of children casualties in the article? OCHA also felt that to be relevant to their report. nableezy - 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't ge the concern here. x died in direct incidents while a couple hundred died due to noncombat related causes related to the conflcit.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why include the noncombat at all? Why not just have it the way it was with just the direct casualties? nableezy - 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that this is a background section best kept clear and concise. So why not: According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "direct conflict incidents" between 2005 and 2008 killed 116 Israelis and 1,735 Palestinians and injured 1,509 Israelis and 8,308 Palestinians. These figures carry an inline citation, and have not been disputed by any editors. All this elaboration is mostly creating obfuscation. RomaC (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume the edit was originally in to make a point ("this many died in combat ops but don't forget this many died from trying to make bombs"). I don't think the making bombs needs to be in specifically but a couple hundred is a significant percentage in my opinion so non combat related deaths might be worth mentioning. I don't know how to word it so it doesn't become more bloated but I know adding all of the info about kids and nothing else isn't the key.Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I see Cptnono's point here. The thing about all the other data in the report is that there is not just the bomb-making accidents, as has been pointed out there are also figures on children, on curfews, on traffic accidents and so on; as well as "disputed" death/injury figures which may or may not relate to the conflict at all. My point is that no editors are disputing the main, "direct conflict" figures, and that could be where we find our consensus. RomaC (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that the report used stupid terminology. A guy blowing himself up making a bomb or another getting killed for not siding with whatever faction is directly related. I view it as similar to a plane carrying troops going down due to a mechanical failure or internal violence in Italy during WWII. The source has some good numbers it looks like but they are catagorized funny. The "disputed" thing makes it even worse.Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the report does not specify who was killed by who, only the numbers on those killed, so even a suicide bomber was killed in a directly related incident. But again I favor either just the direct conflict numbers being included or if we have to include everything then include everything. Not just the parts Agada likes. nableezy - 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of flattered, but I do not think that my "wants" and "don't wants" should be an excuse for additions into the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to be flattered and I agree that what you want or like should not matter to the article. If you could kindly stop pushing in things because you like it without regard to consensus it would be appreciated. nableezy - 21:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid from personal attacks (pushing rhetoric). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote is not a personal attack, it is a simple description of your actions. It is not attacking you as a person. nableezy - 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You should assume good faith, you're making baseless allegations, instead of explaining strange argumentation of your additions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

read WP:AGF before citing it. nableezy - 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

archiving relevant publications to Goldstone report

A UN war crimes investigation into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza has found evidence that both sides committed "war crimes,".

Israel called the Goldstone Commission Report "nauseating" on Tuesday, saying it created an unjust "equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization" and lacked the context of a decade of terrorist attacks by Hamas.

Israel has argued the opposite, citing numerous examples when IDF soldiers risked their own lives to assist Palestinians in need of medical care. One case came on January 9, when the commander of the Golani Reconnaissance Battalion ceased operations and ordered his men to help load handicapped Palestinians into ambulances sent to evacuate them from Jabalya to Gaza City.

The authors summarize their findings: "The Mission investigated 11 incidents in which serious allegations of direct attacks with lethal outcome were made against civilians. There appears to have been no justifiable military objective pursued in any of them. (will check out later if this includes Abd Rabbo story). --Sceptic from Ashdod 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The mission believed the Israeli military operation was "directed at the people of Gaza as a whole" to "punish" the population.

Hamas also adamantly denied allegations by human rights organizations that it had improperly used ambulances as a cover during the operation, or that it deliberately targeted civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The report, added the source, "Not only rewards terror it also encourages it... The defense establishment is gearing to give legal counsel to IDF officers and the proper legal and diplomatic steps are already underway in order to render this report invalid." --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In Gaza, a spokesman for Hamas said it fired the rockets at Israel to try to defend itself. “We did not intentionally target civilians,” said Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas adviser. “We were targeting military bases, but the primitive weapons make mistakes.” But the report did not take a position on the number of Palestinian casualties, noting that they ranged from the Israeli government figure of 1,166 to the Hamas number of 1,444, without saying how many were civilians. (this link has more, it is just for archiving purposes).

Fair enough then, please continue with other sources but try not to copy/paste extracted copyright material to this page too much. One or two sentences at most or whatever the limit is. I forget but you should check about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

They said that Israel failed to take “all feasible precautions” in using white phosphorus shells in the attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza City on January 15 despite the presence of up to 700 civilians. It also criticised the use of white phosphorus in attacks on Al Quds and Al Wafa hospitals. --Sceptic from Ashdod 12:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"I can vouch for the independence and the integrity of all the members of the mission," he said . --Sceptic from Ashdod 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel is correct that identifying combatants in a heavily populated area is difficult, and that Hamas fighters at times mixed and mingled with civilians. But that reality did not lift Israel’s obligation to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

amazing - Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch: "For example, we know Hamas has stored weapons in mosques, so when Israel targets a mosque, we don't scream war crime". Why didn't he share this knowlede with Goldstone? --Sceptic from Ashdod 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

also amazing - Hamas says they were not targeting civilians, dubious perhaps, but not a single mention of this in the article. Meanwhile there are 417 words in the article asserting the (also possibly dubious) claim that Israel was not targeting civilians. Sceptic would you care to suggest some edits to address this imbalance? RomaC (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Background section edits

The opening to this section,

"The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It is one of the most densely populated places on earth. According to the CIA Factbook as of July 2008, it holds a population of 1,500,202 on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi)."

was changed to

"The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It among the most densely populated places on earth. Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers."

Mindful that the long-standing version was settled after much discussion I hope we can address Cptnono's proposed edits here. My concern is that the phrasing frames intent vis a vis the assaults, where this could more appropriately be neutral background information. RomaC (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I share your concern. I also do not see which sources support the idea that Israel revised its tactics to minimize civilian and troops casualties. According to the UN report, the Israeli definition of the "supporting infrastructure" of Hamas basically amounted to the entire population of Gaza who were rather indiscriminately targeted. So I have major problems stating the Israel tried to minimize casualties in the background section when many many sources strongly disagree with that.

I remain supportive of the prior version, though I am willing to consider including mention of other things, that are balanced and well-sourced. Tiamut 11:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Transparency and admittance to screwing up: I didn't realize it was the background section while making the edits. (I suck as bad as the previous version :) ) That being said, we can add it into the assault section with half a dozen sources describing Israel's claimed restraint and there definite adjustments of tactics + another mention in the background to drive home the point of how bad it was or we can put it in the lead where it touches on both aspects. The background section should still say that it is densely populated but it doesn't need several sources and it certainly doesn't need the CIA info since that was only there to finish the argument a few months ago.Cptnono (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see the usefulness of something along the lines of what you wrote in the assault section. Question though: "to minimize civilian and troop casualties" isn't this kind of vague? and seemingly paradoxical since steps to minimize troop casulaties often result in additional civilian casualties and vice versa. What source are you using for this?

About the CIA info, I'm for keeping it, because I like numbers and details, but I'm open to hearing other people's views on the subject. Tiamut 11:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hell yes it is vague. That is the name of the game. I can add in the measures taken and start citing how it was compared to previous wars in sources discussing the actual conflict or it can be generalized which keeps down the bloat (see the previous conversation regarding splitting). I prefer not to go tit-for-tat but instead to present sources in a factual concise manner. The lead should stay short but this is madly important. Unintentionally, this discussion is about adjusting the lead which is one of the most important parts f the article for many readers. The Inl law section already goes into mad detail (even though it was split) on the concerns with the population density. An extra line in the Operaitons section was added about a month ago to address the pop concern bu it can be expanded if it is not clear.
• In regards to the CIA factbook. It is only in since Nab wanted to prove to others who are long gone (brats who just wanted to moan about who was right and who was wrong) that the area is populated and the human rights observers were concerned. The source does not discuss the topic and is yet another line that can go. If we got rid of the similar shit lines in this article we could actually focus on getting it raised in the assessment scale.
• Background: "The Gaza Strip is a densely populated strip and these are the problems associated with Israel" Operations: "Israel did x,y, and z" Lead: My proposal.Cptnono (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Slow down a second. You want to change the section in the background to omit the population and area details and you want to add the text you added to the background to the introduction now? That's a huge change. I think given that there are still problems with how the text is written, its not appropriate for the lead right now. It ascribes a tactical intention to Israel as fact that is contradicted by other sources. And upon reflection, I think the population and area figures are actually quite relevant. It helps the reader to know how many people live in Gaza and how big it is.

The most problematic part to me is Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties. Which sources are you using for this statement. It is said in Misplaced Pages's neutral voice as though it is a fact, when I believe that it is an Israeli claim. Just as the targeting of the entire population of Gaza is a UN claim regarding Israel's tactical behaviours and objectives and is atttributed to it, I think at the very least, we need to do the same here. But I'd appreciate you citing the statements you are using for this part of the sentence here first. Tiamut 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I do to a certain xtent. I know it is a big change. That jerkoff mentioned the extra stuff about Tel Aviv and it got me to thinking that the stuff in there currently was done at a relativity early stage of this article and hasn't been improved upon. Since I did them already, I am fairly confident that the military based stuff have the sources and the appropriate lines so am not worried about tinkering with them for now. I would be happy to expand on them but I think they are OK (I'll double check before doing anything drastic, BTW). What I am worried about is the intention of the density line in the background being used to say "HEY, LOOK AT THESE SOURCES ABOUT DEAD BABIES... oh there are some other sources about the density somewhere else that you don't need to care about". The amount of detail and sourcing isn't appropriate. The reader can click on the wikilink and the need to have extra lines to prove points is over. If you take exception with minimizing civilian and troop casualties I would recommend striking out civilian (the focus on preventing IDF deaths is not disputed at all) and stating Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers." and then later going into further detail on the amount of precision strikes used. This would keep the claim that civilian casualties were minimized out of the lead while letting the numbers speak for themselves on the percentage of proper hits made and human rights observer's allegations speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how mentioning the population and area figures = screaming about dead babies. I believe that the relevance was reviewed in the previous discussion on the matter; i.e., these are facts that were included in many background reports by reliable sources. I can dig up the individual refs again if you like. I think there was that concern previously when there was also information about the number of people under 15 years of age, but that's no longer there now, so the inference you say is being made, is gone now.

I wouldn't mind adding to the intro a sentence about the revised Israeli tactics to reduce troops casualties. But I'd like to ask again if you can point me to what sources you are using to draw that conclusion because I'd like to see the information in context. Tiamut 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? I finally figured out what the problem was "minimizing civilian casualties" and now you want to go further. Let me open another beer and see what I can find to get these sorted out. Off the top off my head, IDF commanders did not want to answer for the amount of shit they saw in Lebanon.You oculd read the article and google, too. BRB.Cptnono (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I do appreciate your openness to modify your proposals. The new sentence is not bad at all. I just wanted to do some more reading of things you are reading to write it. If you're not reading anything specifically about it and its just informed by your general knowledge, I'm sorry for troubling you.

I suggest you be bold and add your sentence to the introduction as proposed here. If someone has a problem, they'll either modify it or revert and we'll move back to discussion per the WP:BRD cycle. I don't think you should remove the pop and area figures again from the background though, until we here fromm more people. Cool? Tiamut 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. How would it look if I called you out and you weren't able to do the same.

Prevention of dead IDF (striking out civilian should be done since that is so disputed)

• (this is a PDF of a Washington Post piece)
• my favorite lines include the "higher-intensity theaters" and "protected friendly forces and helped reduce unintentional targeting of Palestinian civilians."
• (2 pages clicky. Dense does not show on a ctrl+f but asymmetric describes it close enough)
• There are a few more but this was a quick google search and off memory of sources already used in the article. I think there is also further info in the sources that are more critical of the tactics but limited my search. There is a great artillery one but I am not sire if that is included.Cptnono (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

About the population density in general:

• In Dense Gaza, Civilians Suffer] in The New York Times: "It has always been the case, over years of conflict here, that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security. But six days of Israeli airstrikes have surpassed previous operations in scale and intensity; the long-distance bombardment of the Hamas-controlled territory has, however well aimed at those suspected of being militants, splintered families and shattered homes in one of the most densely populated places on earth."
• Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation in The Guardian: "There has been reckless and disproportionate and in some cases indiscriminate use of force," said Donatella Rovera, an Amnesty investigator in Israel. "There has been the use of weaponry that shouldn't be used in densely populated areas because it's known that it will cause civilian fatalities and casualties."
• And there are many more. I've noticed not many mention the specific population and area figures, but they do stress the danger to civilians (like those above), while others stress that half the population is under 15. I would consider dropping the pop and area figures to mention the impact on civilians or include a note on the youthful composition of the population. But I do like having the figures, because like I said, it gives some dry factual context about how many people live there in how big an area. Either way, I feel elaborating on population density in the background in one or all of these ways is appropriate. Tiamut 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, thanks for the sources. I'll be reading them. Tiamut 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the population density was a huge factor from all aspects. There is an interview I want to try to find again which was intersting (Basically another commander said: Screw the Palestinians no dead IDF boys). I could care less who looks bad since some people won't be satisfied (ie: moms of either fighter will be pissed). So can we get it in the lead where it belongs, kill the extra sentence and sources in the background, and stop being worried about every editor on this page having an agenda? To tell you the truth, Tiamut, you have made it perfectly clear that you are biased. That is OK as long as you remember that while editing and don't fuck up the mainsspace.14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Population figures and the area are usually mentioned in backgrounder sections to the conflict, like this on at at the BBC website. Tiamut 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't be bad to settle down some and allow other editors to weigh in on the various proposals. RomaC (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm settled, but that was rather rude of Cptnono. I try to be conscious of my bias while editing. While I invite discussion on any specific edit I have made to an article that is perceived as having introduced POV, I'd prefer that he not use crude language to imply I am generally incapable of NPOV editing, due to my proudly announced loyalties. We all have them, I'm just more up front about mine than others, and I do have the ability to self-reflect when approached nicely. Tiamut 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: this isn't a BBC website. If you want it included you need to find a source that makes the corralation. If you don't it is called synth and people should give you a hard time about it. That was typed in a friendly tone though, Roma, so don't worry about it. Drop the pride since I'm not impying you suck just saying we all have bias Tiamut.

And to you Roma, why is this page still this low on the assesment scale if it is that important to you. I've said it (go look at the archives): Garbage. We get closer and closer and the best way to fix it is to get stuff straight. If anyone thinks it is off they need to pipe up so it can get fixed and stop worrying about what news report got picked up by your chosen internet news site.Cptnono (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And don't make snide comments and get upset by fuck.Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Use "fuck" all you want. Just don't imply that I "fuck up" or could "fuck up" maninspace when we are discussing content together. It's distracting, rude and off-topic.

As for the rest, I'll let others comment since I've lost my taste for further discussion here. Tiamut 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imply that you fucked up anyhting. I said don't fuck it up. Maybe this is why the guidelines ask us not to use terms like fuck since people read it wrong. So fine: I don't care if you are biased. Your edits have been primarily to demonize Israel come across in a pro Palestinaian fashion with disregard to other elements of the conflict. My edit have been to clear them. Bias is OK just don't fuck up the mainspace.Cptnono (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't accept that description and view it as a personal attack. Please do review my last 10 edits to this article. If you can point to one of them that was made so as to "demonize Israel", I'd be quite surprised. So, before removing myself from this discussion totally, I'd ask that you strike that last accusation here. I don't edit with that motivation at all - I edit to share information. Tiamut 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned it on your talk page. Don't pretend you don't have a bias. You don't have to look far to see what your intention is since edit summaries in the last couple dozen say enough. Don't get pissed off. Your edits are just as biased as everyone elses. The difference is that your new to this article and I mentioned it.Cptnono (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I answered you on your talk page. So please strike the sentence Your edits have been primarily to demonize Israel or provide evidence for this false assertion. Otherwise I'm afraid I won't be able to let this go. Tiamut 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

doneCptnono (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish you just would have stricken the sentence without adding the rephrasing which is still speculative, inaccurate, and off-topic, but whatever. Tiamut 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

hey, my user page has local sports crap on it. You're the one with Palestinian girls and a flag. Take the criticism and change it or don't edit here.Cptnono (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm free to put whatever I want to on my user page, and you are free to comment about it on my talk page if you have a problem with it. You are not free to use what is on my user page as a way to malign my editing in mainspace on article talk pages. Now, if there is a specific edit I've made here that you think is POV that you would like to discuss, please do so. If there isn't, then you should stop talking about me and motivations because it has nothing to do with article improvement, which is what this article talk page is for. Tiamut 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being offended and trying to save face on the article talk page you should take the constructive criticism. Hit the history button while on the main page than drill through the edit summaries. Like I said on your talk page, Duck test = you contributing for a sole purpose here. I have done mainly military and stopping bloat lately but have been more then happy to do little crap and have tried to not let personal opinions cloud my personal judgement (although they have and I try to admit it). If you get so bent out of shape by one little comment up above then there is a problem. Is the current proposal OK or not?Cptnono (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on continuing this discussion here even after I asked you to confine it to my talk page, or point to specific edits here that are related to article improvement? You seem intent on proving that people other than yourself are biased in the things they add to this article. Point out something specific, if there is nothing content-wise that's related to article improvement, then stop talking about it here! Its disruptive. Tiamut 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now can we stop the butthurt or do you want to talk more? Here is my proposed changes:

• remove CIA factbook in the Background section since it isn't neeeded
• remove extra sources on density
• Add line to the lead saying " Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents were raised by human rights observers."

Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your first two proposals. About the third sentence, I think it combines three separate issues clumsily and without enough detail. I would suggest we work more on isolating the different points.

• Israel adopted revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties. (Why? Its not just because of population density. There are some clues in the UN report regarding the "Dahiya doctrine")
• Gaza's high population density prompted concerns over the welfare of resident by human rights observers. (I think this part needs work too. Another important cause of concern was the lack of safe places to go.)

Anyway, any changes to the lead need to be discussed thoroughly with others. Tiamut 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The fun thing about the lead is that it is a summary. If you can take all the source provided above and say that density was not a concern in figuring out the tacticts (safving troops) and then take all of the sources and allegations to conclude that human rights organizations did not think density was a concern I will call you a liar. So anyway, mjy one line proposal is sourced and speaks the facts.Cptnono (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, your edit seems to imply that the population density was only an issue because Israel supposedly changed tactics to minimize civilian casualties. That is not what WHO, the Goldstone report, AI, or HRW (all of which talk about the population density) seem to find as the important aspect of Gaza being so densely populated. The NGOs have said that Israel should not have used certain weapons in such a high population area, the WHO say that the density is a factor in increased risks in the spread of disease with hospitals being destroyed. You are taking a simple line and putting a spin on it. All due respect but you saying that others are trying to either demonize Israel or make the Palestinians look better is misplaced, when I read the line as you wrote it I see an attempt to say "look how good one side is". I also think the CIA numbers should stay as background information on the theater of conflict. Your line on Israel modifying tactics can go in the campaign section. nableezy - 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I apologized and clarified the demonize comment. The other editor has only edited in a fashion that is favorable to the Palestinians. It hasn't been worded in a POV manner so there isn't a problem if that is the type of edits he wants to make. Hell, most of mine have focused on IDF stuff recently so it was a little hypocritical and I said some stupid stuff.
• Now that that is cleared up, where are you getting "your edit seems to imply that the population density was only an issue because Israel supposedly changed tactics to minimize civilian casualties." I struck out "civilian" up above since it is so disputed and still think it should say that human rights observers expressed over concerns. It says "*Add line to the lead says: "Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents were raised by human rights observers." Easy to miss with so many lines in this discussion page.
• Also, is my assessment of why the CIA line is in correct? When you (I think it was you) were trying to add what is now well sourced density info others were saying no. Now that we have several sources (both military and human rights based) saying it + a wikilink for further info the CIA factbook line is extra. We don't need it anymore in my opinion. That is why I want it in the lead. The density was a huge concern that was part of the equation of too many civilians getting killed or injured while it was also something that adjusted Israel's tactics in an attempt to see less dead IDF soldiers. Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My point back in the day on it being in the background section as a simple fact was that it influenced so many different parts of the article. It influenced the military operations of Israel as your source (and I gave one of a retired Israeli officer talking about the same thing back then), it influences the humanitarian issues as the WHO reported, it influenced the casualties section as many sources reported, it influenced the international law issues as NGOs have said. So in the background I felt it should just be stated as a fact and in each individual section say how that fact is relevant. In the military planning section include whatever sources say how Israel adjusted tactics, in the humanitarian crisis say how it is affecting issues of disease control, in the casualties section say whatever and so on. The background should be as to the point as possible. nableezy - 06:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is fine we just don't need the extra CIA line in the background. There is a wikilink for more info + two inline citations with another several availabel that discuss the topic. I think it should be dropped to one line in the background section.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on removal of the extra CIA line? Any thoughts on making a 1 line mention of the density in the lead?Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you accept something like "The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. With a population of 1,500,202 on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi), it is one of the most densely populated places on earth." with no inline citation of the CIA factbook (but keeping the link to the source)? I don't see a problem with that. But this still belongs in background, where we should present relevant info on the time/place the event took place. RomaC (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

POV in lead

The lead says "Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities, and schools, were attacked and destroyed, according to Israel because many of them were being used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets."

That is clearly Israeli POV, but it has been attributed to Israel so thats good. But I wonder why we don't have Palestinian POV in the lead? In particular Hamas' rationale for rocket attacks (i.e. as a protest to the blockade)? We should either just state the facts. Or if we intend to include POVs, they should come from both sides.VR _talk 16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly a tendency I've seen in I-P articles is for editors to add content supporting one side and then wait for others to balance it. I call that advocacy not editing, and if I ever make a billion dollars and buy Misplaced Pages I'll prohibit it. But for now we have this reality, unabashed. Often a concise edit could be made that covers both sides' positions, but instead we get adversarial edits and more bloat than balance. RomaC (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody wants to edit in a "pro-Palestinian"(pro Hamas) or even observe the fact that there was another side of the "official story". What I mean is, that Palestinians are outkasts for letting one or two groups do the talking for them. They don't have a voice within the mainstream mentality, which is very "anti-terrorism". Yes, advocacy, and even worse, propaganda. But, take a look at Israel's side of the story, and you'll see that is not written on anything meaningful. So thus, you must inadvertently "attack" Israel and whatever else comes between a well written article and the crap of system that we have right now. Hey, convince noneone, keep an eye on WP:Bold. This is crap, Israelis aren't any better human being than Palestinians, we are talking about being weak and being powerful, and not their circumstances. Bullcrap, what are we advocating for? ahhh, the answer is misleading to some, and rationable to others. Read and find holes, but don't lose your soul in the process. Wiki this, wiki that, bullcrap. I'm still on sabbatical btw. Cryptonio (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Both, editors and readers are going to justify themselves. I take this seriously when I'm drunk. To wit, cheers...What is a human being? Both of you got faults, and so everyone else. Wiki is not here to save the world. And if there is no one to save the world, guess what, it's a free game, free-for-all...Hey, I say, enjoy! Some jerks said once that all men were created equal, and they themselves had "others" to do their job for them. Catch this drift, that we are arguing, is a good thing, these "court martial" will last forever if we don't evolve. Freak it, I don't disagree with what people say, I just don't care much for it. Go to Vegas, have some fun, and try not to get married. I did it! I looked out the window, and I said, "Vegas, imma kick your butt tonight"...and I did, got the shirt too...Come up with better questions. Elaborate. Cryptonio (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

POV cuts both ways in the lead. I had never seen this article before (it was mentioned in the NOR noticeboard) so I looked at it just now and noticed that "Gaza Massacre" is placed in boldface in the lead. I have POV concerns regarding that, independent of the point raised in this section. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A number of sources have been provided showing that this was the name used in among both Arabs and much of the Arab press, and, most importantly, by Hamas, the government of Gaza, for what the Israeli government called "Operation Cast Lead" which is also in bold in the lead. The common name, Gaza War, and the name each of the involved parties used, Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre, are placed in bold in the lead, as is common practice in war and battle articles. And I dont think I am exaggerating when I say that probably 10 complete archive pages, of the current 50+, are devoted to this issue. nableezy - 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! No surprise there. I take it that this article is, oh, mildly contentious?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a bit, 56 archives for an article that started in late December. Makes for some fun reading though if you want to go through it. Good times. nableezy - 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Even has its own search engine, I see. Under Arbitration Committee supervision, but I think you really need the Security Council! Seriously, the article is pretty good. I learned a lot of things I didn't know before. I'd guess you don't get many people making that kind of observation, so I thought I'd say it. It's reasonably neutral, too.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to VR's question -- if we say "Israel attacked because there were rockets coming from Gaza" then why not "the Gaza rockets were provoked by an Israeli blockade"; and then "the Israeli blockade was in response to suicide bombings" and so on. Suggests the effect of a reflection in a mirror reflecting in another mirror and back to the first and off to infinity . . . what's that called? "Tit-for-tat editing"? RomaC (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A war resulted from "all of this"...how to put this in perspective...What language could condensate that...happy Halloween...yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with JohnnyB256, POV cuts both ways in the lead. Since archives show that consensus "is not very wide" for such "just a name" addition. And none of the sources say that "name for Gaza War in Arab World is Gaza massacre", probably it's not notable enough and constitutes WP:SYN. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada this edit ignores months of discussion and a long-standing consensus your action here on the other hand is unilateral. Kindly control yourself. RomaC (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, POV only slightly cuts both ways. Probably there is no need in consensus (and those archives kind of indicate great support). You sometimes note that good edit does not require a lot of explaining on talk page. Sorry you do not bring any source supporting phrasing for such naming. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, you're welcome to respond here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, there was consensus for the name and if you wish to remove it you need consensus to do so. nableezy - 15:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would not call it a consensus, at least not a wide one. Though thank you for showing me ancient history. Looks like regulated conflict resolution to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Gaza Massacre should be mentioned in the lead, as it was previously. Also, I think the previous (longer) description of the UN report in the lead was better. Now the sentence does not have much information content -- in almost every recent war both sides committed war crimes, but the report I think was actually highly critical of Israel and this should be reflected in the lead. In short, I think a previous version of the lead was much better. Offliner (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede is neutral now and contains all the information that is necessary for a lede to have. Contains the who, the what, and the when. oops! and the where. The why is expanded on below, as appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the part where Arab and Muslim press calls it "massacre" under media, where it is more appropriate. Please feel free to expand on it, and properly source it, in that context. I would do it but can't until later. This is a good compromise. Keep the lede clean and free from POV and include the "massacre" opinion in the media section. Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense. It is not "POV" in the lead, it is representing the POV of one of the involved parties in a NPOV way. And I dont see you removing "war against Hamas" if you really think the lead needs to be "free from POV". nableezy - 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not nonsense. There are a number of editors here who agree that it is POV and unsupported by the evidence. Those editors are ridiculed and condescended to and their edits dismissed as POV. The burden is on those who wish to insert the "massacre" contention to provide support for it until (something like) consensus is achieved. The fact that you have acknowledged that you believe that this is Israel's war against Palestinians instead of Israel's war against Hamas as the government of Gaza, despite all the evidence against that position, makes it clear the bias that you are editing from. Further you have to do somersaults and abuse the English language to defend your position. I see your preference is for tendentious editing (however honestly believed) and edit-warring instead of trying to make the best and most accurate and neutral article you can. Too bad. Stellarkid (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

police

regarding this edit. OCHA does not say that police are not civilian, it says in their report "Israeli security forces" are comprised of the armed forces, the police, and the border police. It does not say whether or not they would be classified as combatant and it does not say under what circumstances they would be a combatant. And it does not deal with the casualties of this conflict at all. Taking this piece of information and juxtaposing it with analysis on whether or not police killed in this conflict or combatants or non-combatants is original research. nableezy - 06:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

10x for discussing. I'm not sure I agree with you. The Terminology chapter, page 4 defines basic terms:

Israeli security forces – are defined as any member of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Border Police. Private security personnel are not included and are considered to be civilians.

Please note the private security, which unlike security forces are considered civilians. The OCHA terminology divide casualties to two mutually exclusive sets: civilians and security forces. Each person has to be either civilian or member of security force, but could not be both. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But it does not combing them into combatants ans non-combatants and it does not say if killed within Israel are civilians or non or if killed in the occupied territories what they are. And it does not talk about this conflict. You are making an argument when the source does not make that argument, that is original research. nableezy - 13:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "combatants and non-combatant" terminology: it is not used by OCHA. Still according to OCHA, member of "security force" (such as policemen or IDF soldier) can not be "civilian". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not what they say. They say that for the purposes of their statistics they count all those people as "Israeli security forces" because they are all members of the "Israeli security forces". And again, that document makes no comment on whether or not police killed in this conflict are combatants or non-combatants. It is original research to include it in that section. nableezy - 14:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the document does not say a thing about police force being combatants or non-combatants. No such argument by my side also. Though the document says about inclusion of casualties, which are members of Israeli Police, into civilian count. Do you understand from the document that "Israeli security force" could be included in the civilian count? Thus the suggested change:

UN OCHA excludes Israeli Police members who were casualties of Israeli-Palestinian conflict from civilian statistics count and regards them as "security forces".

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring what I wrote. Yes it defines police Israeli security forces, but no it does not include them in "armed forces" as it includes "armed forces" separately from police in "security forces" and it does not talk about casualties in this conflict. It is original research (specifically synthesis) to use this in that section with that statement. If you want to include the definition of security forces in the background where we use the source fine, but here it is original research. nableezy - 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I've addressed your arguments. The combatants and non-combatant terms are not mentioned at all in the document or in the suggested addition. The document talks about casualties of conflict. There is no synthesis/original research, just reflection of one and only document. Could you clarify why in your opinion the change is original research with citation of Wiki policy? Moreover you already accepted that Israeli Police is not included in the OCHA report civilian count in the background, so I'm not sure why you're arguing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One more time. The report makes no mention as to whether or not police killed in this conflict are civilians or not. By placing it there with arguments that do directly address the topic you are advancing an argument that the source does not support. It is original research to place that sentence next to others that are talking about whether or not police killed in this conflict are combatants or non-combatants. And again, the source does not say that police are part of the "armed forces" which is what you are linking to and it does not say that they are not civilians, it says that they are included in "Israeli security forces" without calling all members of that set combatants or non-civlians or whatever. nableezy - 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, could you please stop trying to force in the same edits like this every single day? You are introducing original research by putting in a source that does not deal with the Gaza War at all to support a premise about disputes about police in this conflict. nableezy - 06:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, considering your remarks I propose wording closer to source: Israeli Police and Israeli Border Police reported with Armed Forces as "Israeli Security Forces" by United Nations OCHA-oPt.. Based on following source sentence: Israeli security forces – are defined as any member of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Border Police.. Hope there is no ambiguity here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You considered one thing but ignored the major issue of trying to advance a POV through sources that do not support that POV. I included your note on the Israeli police in the OCHA report where it is relevant, in the section dealing with the OCHA report. nableezy - 06:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you kindly could drop POV allegations or at least base it on violations examples. Though I have to agree that Disputed Figures as paragraph is a toxic explosion of POV and opposite POV. Saying that I'm not aware of any limitation why any particular source can not be used multiple times in this article. It is important to know in which framework UN humanitarian experts work in oPt regarding Israeli Police. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do any of the numbers that the UN released contain info on Israeli police killed during this conflict? Do any of the UN reports make any mention of the civilian status of Israeli police in this conflict? Any at all? Does the report you are citing contain any information on any casualties during this conflict? Does anything that the UN released in that report make any mention of the issue of civilian status for police killed in this conflict on either side? If not why are you including it in the section on casualties during this conflict? How is that specific source relevant to the arguments in that section on police killed during this conflict? Or is the entire purpose of the inclusion in the section on casualties during this conflict to argue against the classification made by HRW and others on the civilian status during this conflict when the source itself makes no such argument? Sources may be used many times, where they are relevant. You are attempting to advance a POV by making an argument through a source that the source does not make by placing it in that section. nableezy - 07:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm adding report period (2005-2008) considering your remark and OCHA-oPt citation permission. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is like you are purposely not reading or even attempting to answer the issues. This line Israeli Police and Israeli Border Police reported between 2005 and 2008 with Armed Forces as "Israeli Security Forces" by United Nations OCHA-oPt. does not belong in the disputed figures section. It does not address the disputes raised during this conflict. It deals with background information, it is in the background. nableezy - 08:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence provides valuable info about Israeli Police status, in context of Palestinian Gaza Police classification dispute. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not in that context you are making that up yourself (OR) to push a POV. nableezy - 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I try to understand why you continue reverting this change and frankly I can not. "push POV" sounds like personal attack to me. If something does not make Israel look bad it should not be included in the article? OR is kind of ridicules in context on one-to-one mapping between single source sentence and proposed phrasing which you helped me to improve. The point of the paragraph is critique of Israeli sources practice to include Palestinian Police dead with militant group dead in the same row in their statistics table. We compare what is practice for reporting Israeli Police dead. This is called balance. I hope you do not deny that if UN OHCA oPt see dead Israeli Policemen and dead IDF infantry trooper they put it in the same raw in their statistic table? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The OR is trying to tie this with the dispute over police killed during this conflict. The source does not make any comment on the dispute over the classification of police killed in the conflict and makes no comment on the actual classification of police killed in this conflict. It also does not explicitly classify police as not being civilian, it says that they are segregated from the civilian count and included with security forces, but does not say they are not either civilians or presumptively civilians. To use this line in that section is OR by making an argument the source does not make, and the argument is being made to advance a POV. nableezy - 20:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As you are intent on edit warring this into the article and nobody else has replied to this I have requested clarification from others here. nableezy - 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is about including police in the militant's count. The addition does not say a thing about "civilians" of "presumably" those are arguments of critique. The addition states the fact of long standing reporting practice of UN OHCA oPt. Hope you don't imply that Gaza war changed standards of reporting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The source does not comment on the dispute, you are including it based on your own opinion of what it means. The source does not mention one thing about the classification of police killed during the conflict and does not address any of the arguments presented in the section. It is there strictly to advance a POV that the source does not support. nableezy - 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The source do not comment on Palestinian police reporting, it even does not define in Terminology what Palestinian militant group term is, despite the fact that the term is being referenced. The addition does not say if Israel's reporting was right or wrong. Saying that something should not be included in the article, because it does not make Israel look bad is POV pushing. Sorry for personal attack ;). I firmly disagree about relevancy. The comparing practice of reporting of police of both sides in the conflict is balance. This is what we do here in this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We dont provide "balance" by making arguments the sources do not make or by using them on topics that they do not address. That is OR. That the source does not mention any of the casualties in this conflict shows that it does not belong in a section dealing with casualties in this conflict. You are continuing to edit war information in that is problematic without regard for WP:CONSENSUS. nableezy - 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is an argument not supported by source. The addition is stating a fact backed by source. I respect your opinion, but you represent consensus as much as I do. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do, and when there is no consensus for a disputed edit it should be removed. You are forcing it in without consensus, and there is now another user who feels this is original research by synthesis. nableezy - 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I saw this mentioned on the NOR noticeboard. The edit in question is advancing a position that the Gaza police are armed forces. That point is not made in the source. Therefore, it is synthesis, in my opinion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello JohnnyB256, I appreciate your opinion. nableezy helped me to improve the phrasing to reflect the source as close as possible. The addition states about Israeli Police reporting practice by UN OHCA oPt (2005-2008). There is no claim whatsoever about Gaza police, why do you say so? Please define "advancing". Try to assume good faith. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about "good faith" which refers to intentions, but to the actual content of the edit. It is placed in that section to provide a counter to the stance that police killed during this conflict are non-combatants. The source does not actually counter that, so in this section it is attempting to advance a position that it does not actually support. Original research is not just about following the words of the source, the words of a source can be used in ways that the source does not. That is what is done here. nableezy - 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not about your intentions, this is about the substance of your edits. Repeatedly invoking AGF does not make your edit not original research to advance a premise the source does not support. nableezy - 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

advancing rhetoric != AGF

Maybe you could elaborate about substance problems of my edits. But for me now it's time to sleep. Talk to you tomorrow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AgadaUrbanit, here's the problem. If the source said something like "Israeli police casualties are counted as members of security forces, so therefore Palestinian police casualties by right should be counted as armed forces casualties," then you could certainly make that point in the article. But if the source makes no such connection, that is synthesis. My suggestion is that you locate a source addressing that particular point from the Israeli perspective, rather than juxtaposing this in the article, where it is synthesis. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF before citing it again. nableezy - 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256, I do not say a thing about Palestinian Police. Why do you put words into my mouth? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not. He is explaining that the way you are juxtaposing the unrelated OCHA information implicitly makes the argument. That is the original research, you are implying the source supports an argument it does not by placing it where you are. nableezy - 06:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. Why do you say the addition is implying anything about Palestinian Police? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If it does not imply anything about the Palestinian police why are you placing it in a section about how Palestinian police killed in this conflict are classified? nableezy - 07:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And what is not accurate about my comments? If you want to make an accusation like that back it up. nableezy - 07:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Main points of inaccuracy: You say The Israeli government has asserted that they are "combatants". "combatants" term is inaccurate and not used by Israeli sources. The more accurate claim is: (Israeli government has asserted Gaza Police) inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count. I think also your speculations about my intentions are inaccurate: there is no claim about Palestinian Police. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not inaccurate, the Israeli government has said that police are "combatants", see here, "In other words, more than nine out of every ten alleged “civilian police” were found to be armed terrorist activists and combatants directly engaged in hostilities against Israel." (my emphasis) nableezy - 18:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this a latter (to dispute) Israeli paper try to answer HRW claims and use its terminology. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. The source though lacks "secondary" credibility in my eyes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli MFA lacks credibility for saying what the Israeli government has said? That is an interesting one. nableezy - 06:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I acknowledge that MFA statement addressed "combatants" status of Palestinian Police. You were correct. I mean that Israeli government is far from neutral (due to the fact it's belligerent), thus Israeli government statement lacks "secondary" credibility in my eyes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition does not imply a thing about Palestinian police. Just comparing report practice of belligerents Police force. This is called balance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More precisely it is called false balance. You just admitted that you are using the report to make a comparison that the source does not make and that no secondary source has raised. That is original research. The source is being used to advance a position that the source does not make. A completely uninvolved person agreed it is original research, I sincerely hope you will not return the material absent consensus to do so. nableezy - 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have not you noticed I've stated: it is important to know in which framework UN humanitarian experts work in oPt regarding Israeli Police. I firmly disagree about relevancy. The comparing practice of reporting of police of both sides in the conflict is balance. This is what we do here in this article. Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. The source (and addition) clearly say: "UN OCHA-oPt put Israeli Police in the same row of our report table with IDF". This is a fact. Hope you don't deny it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not important if no secondary source raises the point. You cannot just make up what is an important comparison that is not compared by reliable sources. And my comments were accurate. And I dont deny it, it is included where it is relevant, in the background section. Not where you are using it to advance an argument the source does not make. nableezy - 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OCHA is a secondary source and their report raises the point of Israeli police place in their report table. We disagree though on relevancy. We dive into "para-legal" discussion thus it is important to examine precedents. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent) I wasn't relying on anyone's comments in particular, as everybody has been, forgive me, a bit long-winded. I just looked at the edit in question, which I presume is as it is AgadaUrbanit's last edit to the article, and reached my own conclusion. My problem is that it inserts a discussion of the way Israeli police are treated as casualties in the midst of a discussion of the same issue for Palestinian police. Whether the balance is false or not is beside the point. I don't think you can do that unless the original source makes that comparison. As I suggested earlier to AgadaUrbanit, what's needed to balance out that section, which I presume is his/her desire here, is something from the Israeli side making that point specifically. Now maybe I'm being too strict in my interpretation of WP:SYN, but that is my feeling on it. I think this subject would benefit from more input from uninvolved editors familiar with this policy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256, appreciate your opinion. Could you clarify how the addition violates WP:SYN? What is not allowed is combining multiple sources ( not a case here ) or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The source (and addition) clearly say: "UN OCHA-oPt put Israeli Police in the same row of their report table with IDF". Am I missing something? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My conclusion, reading the contested passage cold, was that since Israeli police are listed as civilians, the same should apply to Palestinian police. Now, that's my own brain at work, but at that point a WP:SYN red flag rose up. None of the sources cited in that article made that point. You may be interested to know that I tend to agree with that conclusion, but I think it needs better sourcing. Believe me, I was not influenced by anyone in making that conclusion, and as I said I'd dearly love to get more opinions. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note in the Military History Project. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love more opinions. JohnnyB256, of cause you have your own head. I'm sorry you understand it this way. I question your "advancing rhetoric", which you have not explained. WP should be neutral. Hmm, I'm not sure what "Israeli police are listed as civilians" means. I also would like to warn about drawing a conclusion from Israeli Police status precedent to Palestinian Police. There is a dispute here - a lot of opinion without definite truth. I think that some precedent facts would improve this article quality. I'm not sure how sourcing should be improved. Usually in this article we prefer secondary sources to primary ones, to improve neutrality. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

editorial in lead

Why should we include an editorial critical of the contents of the UNHCR report when there are a number of other editorials that are praising it? That we include that the Israeli government (and the US government) are critical of the original mandate and the contents of the report (not so much the US but certainly Israel) is fine, but including a random editorial does not strike me as proper. nableezy - 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that if we include the Israeli POV on the UN report in the lead, we would have to include the Palestinian POV too. This would become an unde focus on critique over a report. The report critiques both sides. Is there a problem with keeping its conclusions in the lea sans commentary from either peanut gallery? Tiamut 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

First, The Economist is not an Israeli POV, and we won't be able to get anywhere if we don't agree on that basic fact. Second, the UNHRC is not taken seriously by much of the western world and has been criticized regarding its attitude toward Israel by two UN Secretaries General, among other UN figures. I'm only mentioning this so that you don't get disappointed when you see the volume of criticism of this report, the committee that wrote it the resolution that mandated it. Third, as I said in my edit summary, having the UNHRC report in the lede is plain recentism; it should not be in the lede at all. A sentence noting that war crimes by both sides were alleged by various third parties is enough. If we agree on this, there won't be any problem re the lede. Fourth, if the report is praised by POVs as notable as The Economist (by, not in), those POVs have as much of a right to be in the article as the Economist's POV, according to WP:UNDUE. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The report is definitely now recentism and undue. At this point, with no direct outcome to the report, it is just 'another' report, so it should not be in the lead. The lead should be fact, brief chronology, and minor explanation. Other issues should be in body. --Shuki (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is not recentism or undue. This is the most comprehensive report by a UN agency on this conflict, just because it was recently released does not mean that it should not be given its due weight (which is substantial). nableezy - 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that a claim that the UNHCR "not being taken seriously by much of the Western world" would need to be well sourced, as it's a bit of an extraordinary claim. (what about the non-Western world, BTW?) To the contrary we do have sources (which I can provide) underlining the weight of the report --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here: "The report, which was described yesterday as a milestone by lawyers" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/un-report-goldstone-israel-gaza --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explicitly stated, in an attempt to prevent anyone from sidetracking this discussion, I did not suggest writing that claim in the article, I merely noted it to avoid unnecessary tension in the editorial process. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, regarding recentism. Lets examine the following hypothetical (sometimes known as a straw man), which may be more familiar to readers familiar with the US judicial system (apologies if it does not translate). X is charged with some crime based on a search that is challenged. The appeal of his conviction is heard before the US Supreme Court who rule (lets say the ruling came down yesterday) that the search was indeed illegal and so the conviction is set aside. Should that finding be restricted from the lead because it happened recently? This is a report that has been anticipated for months and is the most comprehensive report from the UN on the topic. That it happened recently does not mean we should not include something that is as notable as this in the lead. As far as including the Economist editorial, I think there is a place for it. But the lead is not the place for such opinions, the section where it details the actual report and the controversy surronding it may be, and the sub-article International law and the Gaza War would certainly be a proper place for inclusion (also that section is becoming bloated again with things that belong in the sub-article). nableezy - 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Shuki and I never said that the report doesn't belong in the lede because it's recent. We said that it doesn't belong in the lede because it's not important enough. Arguing that it is important enough because it "has been anticipated for months" is where recentism comes in. That the report "is the most comprehensive report from the UN on the topic" says zilch about its importance in absolute terms. The most comprehensive report on the war, period (as oppposed to a specific aspect of the war: int'l law), was that by Anthony Cordesman. And yet nobody (including me) argued for including that in the lede. Hmmm... Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion shouldn't be sidetracked, I was commenting on the claim you made about the UNHRC, in the context of discussing editing this article, which appeared in light of e.g. the source I quoted to not be accurate. --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The report is definitely now recentism and undue by Shuki. I do see that you did not raise that issue so sorry for addressing that hypothetical to you. As to undue, the similar argument applies. A major report, anticipated for months, was released, the most comprehensive by the UN on this conflict to date. I dont see how including that in the lead is undue. nableezy - 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We both said that the inclusion was recentism. WP:RECENTISM is not a claim that recent material should be discriminated against; that would be silly. It is merely a recognition that there is a tendency to give recent material unjustified preferential treatment. I already addressed your other comments. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But you didnt address my other comments, you only made the assertion that it being the most comprehensive report by the UN means zilch to its importance then apparently taking issue with Cordesman's analysis not being in the lead. There is a simple explanation for that, the Center for Strategic and International Studies is not exactly the United Nations, and Cordesman report, while certainly notable and is indeed heavily cited in the article, was not given the same weight as this report in the sources. This report has been receiving steady coverage since it was first commissioned and has been given major coverage by sources (compare just the results of Goldstone report gaza September 2009 searched on BBC vs Cordesman gaza on BBC, and that isnt even getting into the coverage leading up to the report being released over the past few months). This isn't "unjustified preferential treatment". A major topic of the coverage of this conflict are the international law violations that have been widely reported. An authority on the topic released a very widely cited report. A report that has been reported on for months before it was even released. That you think this compares to the Cordesman report whose coverage pales in comparison to Goldstone's does not make much of an argument. nableezy - 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe if there is some disagreement as to the relevance, significance or importance of the United Nations' definitive report on the incident, we should simply look and see how it is treated by media etc. They decide, not Wiki editors. RomaC (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion, as you don't mention an absolute standard by which to measure these things, nor do you mention what time frame you have in mind to be examined. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, if receiving a lot of news coverage for a particular period of time is a sufficient condition to be included in the lede (which I don't think it is), then the widespread criticism of the Goldstone report should also be in the lede, as it is also receiving a lot of news coverage right now. So I assume you won't mind if I add it. If and when news coverage of the criticism outweighs coverage of the actual content of the report, we can summarize the criticism without the content; It seems in fact that this is already the case, but right now I don't feel like making the effort of convincing people who are predisposed against accepting that possibility. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not my point, the news coverage was in response to you saying that it being the most comprehensive report by the UN not meaning jack regarding its notability and then making the comparison to the Cordesman report not being in the lead. And I dont mind a short mention of the controversy surrounding the report being included, but I do mind it being sourced to an editorial in the lead. I think my position is slightly more nuanced than you are assuming. nableezy - 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Jesus, Nab, that article is not an editorial except to the extent that all Economist articles are editorials. That's what their articles are like. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This Economist article is not an editorial, the one cited is specifically listed in the "Leaders editorial" section, which is in the "Opinion" section of the Economist. It is reporting opinion, not the opinion of a single person I grant you but of the editorial board of the Economist. My feeling is the lead should be for what is presented as facts. nableezy - 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By Jove, you're right, and I was wrong. It is in the opinions section. But the distinction between "presented as facts" and "presented as opinion" is artificial in this context. Essentially, all criticism, including criticism of countries, is opinion (hopefully based on facts): there's no reason for us to discriminate against those who present their criticism more prudently. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, regarding your edit that added the following:

The report and the resolution mandating it were criticized as flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated by Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the United States State Department and Congress, UN Watch, The Economist and others. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch encouraged the implementation of the report's recommendations.

I think, and I may be mistaken, that most of those cited only criticized the original mandate and not the actual report as being "flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated". Could we please clarify which is which? nableezy - 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea to list personal/editorial/governmental criticisms of the UNHRC report opens a can of worms. If you're looking for it, there is individual, media and governmental criticism on just about any report/information/data in this (or any other) article. Also, criticism of a report's personnel/methodology etc. does not necessarily mean rejection of its findings. RomaC (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also in the rush to discredit the report, the actual controversial content was removed from the article. Content before commentary please. RomaC (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Mary Robinson citicized only the original mandate. The rest criticized the report itself or both. We could separately state the criticism of each major figure/group, but I think it's important to be as brief as possible in the lede. Roma, the fact that a UN report drew such widespread criticism from significant figures and institutions is notable in and of itself. As for your your last assertion, I agree, though I'm not sure what your point is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Did the state department actually criticize the findings? for some reason I thought their criticism was of the mandate. nableezy - 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They criticized both the mandate and the report as unbalanced. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the following sentence in the article somewhat troubling for a number of reasons.

Judge Goldstone’s findings drew sharp criticism from the Obama administration who claimed the report was unfair to Israel and did not take adequate account of the “deplorable” actions by Hamas during the war.

1. 'Sharply' - no per WP:OPED

2. The Obama administration didn't claim it was unfair to Israel. The NYT claimed that the Obama administration claimed that it was unfair to Israel. The State Dept just said Although the report addresses all sides of the conflict, its overwhelming focus is on the actions of Israel. While the report makes overly sweeping conclusions of fact and law with respect to Israel, its conclusions regarding Hamas’s deplorable conduct and its failure to comply with international humanitarian law during the conflict are more general and tentative. It would be better to let the State Dept speak for themselves rather than let one source put words in their mouth in my view.

3. The following statement in the same press conf is presumably of equal importance so may be worth a mention. We also have very serious concerns about the report’s recommendations, including calls that this issue be taken up in international fora outside the Human Rights Council and in national courts of countries not party to the conflict. We note in particular that Israel has the democratic institutions to investigate and prosecute abuses, and we encourage it to use those institutions.

4. Link to NYT source missing from ref. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone Report

Following the paragraph dealing with Goldstone's report, I added views that were critical of his findings. It's important for the sake of balance and objectivity that views of a different perspective be presented. Someone took it upon himself to deliberately skew portions of the edit while deleting other relevant sections. If it is done again, I will revert and will continue to do so as the only motivation for this type sabotage appears to be bias. My edits were brief, well sourced, cross-referenced and extremely relevant.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Goldstone's report drew heavily on findings from Marc Galarsco, the recently disgraced military analyst who allegely covorted and interacted with Nazi sympathizers thus calling into question Goldstone's findings, particularly those dealing with military matters such as the use of various tactics, munitions and weapons employed by the IDF. Galarsco and his relations with Goldstone are fair game and germane to the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, it is not wise to call good-faith edits "sabotage" or to explicitly threaten to edit war. The section was badly skewed to the detractors viewpoints, one was replaced with a supporting viewpoint, of which there are many, to give due weight to those views. You are making no attempt to abide by WP:NPOV, a core policy. This article will not be turned into a platform for opinions that only one "side" supports. nableezy - 03:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine I've got no problem with Falk's viewpoint but Chinkin only heaped pre-goldstone-report condemnation on Israel and not Hamas. To suggest otherwise is not only misleading but false. In addition, as I stated in a well-reasoned explanation before, the issue surrounding the taint of Galarsco is fair game and its out there for everybody to see. Let the Wiki readers decide for themselves. What are you so afraid of, the truth? In the interest of compromise, I won't revert Falk's viewpoint but my initial edits which are, relevant and well-sourced stand.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, show me the source that says that Chinkin issued a pre-report condemnation of Hamas. You can't because no such source exists. You keep on slipping Hamas into the sentence and you compromise the integrity of the article by inserting facts that are false. Her pre-report condemnation focused exclusively on Israel. Plus, I also noted Goldstone's defense of her and his reasons for keeping her on so that his decision to retain her wouldn't seem completely arbitrary--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I "slipped it in" once as I didnt notice your revert of that part as well, I only saw the removal of what I replaced the Garlasco nonsense. As far as it being "fair game" there has not been a single substantial accusation that his findings were actually wrong, just condemnation for a hobby he has. That may seem relevant to you, but it is not to this article. The reports that Garlasco participated in were published by HRW, not Marc Garlasco. And those reports have not been retracted by HRW, nor have they been seriously challenged. Trying to coach in the current flavor of the day of the oh so reliable NGO Monitor crowd into this article is nonsense. It has no relation to the actual conflict and is only a sideshow. I apologize for blanket reverting all of your changes, but you reintroduced the issues of both due weight to detractors comments as well as overloading this article with information better suited elsewhere. These lines:

Critics also charged that the NGO Human Rights Watch played a central role in the formation of the UNHRC Mission and that Judge Goldstone, who was a member of HRW’s board, drew heavily on some of HRW’s findings, which were critical of Israel. Goldstone’s detractors point out that many of HRW’s reports were compiled by HRW’s military analyst, Marc Garlasco, who has been a harsh critic of Israel. On September 16, 2009 HRW suspended Garlasco after revelations of his alleged interaction with Nazi sympathizers.

do not belong in this article. It is wholly POV (calling Garlasco a "harsh critic of Israel", saying he has "alleged interaction with Nazi sympathizers") based on the source you are trying to cite but doing so incompletely which phrases these allegations in the more accurate Critics of Human Rights Watch have suggested that Garlasco's enthusiasm for Nazi-era badges and uniforms goes beyond historical interest and makes him a Nazi sympathizer or anti-Semite. and The analyst, Marc Garlasco, is a former Pentagon analyst who has worked on Human Rights Watch reports critical of the Israel Defense Forces, such as "Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.". That is both a WP:BLP violation as well as providing undue weight to the critics of the report. nableezy - 03:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit you are taking issue with is this by User:Dailycare. Again, I apologize for reverting that part of the edit, it was an oversight in looking at the complete diff of your edit. nableezy - 03:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the source you cite to allege that "critics of Goldstone point out" does not mention a criticism of Goldstone or the report a single time. I removed that. nableezy - 04:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

no problem. I won't object to your last set of edits and your apology is accepted and I too apologise for coming off harsh.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

if you dont object is there a reason you again inserted the following:

Moreover, the criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by disgraced Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco, who was suspended by his employer for interacting and cavorting with Nazi sympathizers.

As far as I can tell you are citing this source. You again included "interacting and cavorting with Nazi sympathizers" which is absolutely not supported by the source and is a WP:BLP violation. That source does not support the charge that Garlasco has "covorted with Nazi sympathizers". The source contains the following: On her blog, Just World News, Cobban notes that on Web sites where Garlasco contributed, he interacted with "people who clearly do seem to be Nazi sympathizers," and Critics of Human Rights Watch have suggested that Garlasco's enthusiasm for Nazi-era badges and uniforms goes beyond historical interest and makes him a Nazi sympathizer or anti-Semite. nableezy - 05:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I reworded it to avoid the BLP issues in that edit, but it still says much of the same thing. I dont think this is needed at all though, this is a trivial issue that has not raised any real issues with the actual report. But I wont remove it. nableezy - 06:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He did more than just collect Nazi memorabilia, he had a morbid facination with it. In one example, he discusses getting "shivers" just talking about an SS jacket and in another, he states that he would "kill" for some Nazi medal he was ogling over. His internet chat name when entering these Nazi chat rooms was "Flak 88." Could be an innocent reference to the famed German 88mm gun or something more sinister. The number 8 corresponds to the 8th letter of the alphabet which is "H" and 88 among naziphiles is code for "Heil Hitler." Hence the HH = 88. Since this is such an important issue that incriminates the IDF in its entirety, and the incriminating documents rested principally on reports compiled by a possible Nazi sympathizer, I would have liked to have seen the original language employed and allow the Wiki reader to decide for him/herself. However, I won't fight you on this and will leave the edit as is as I believe that you have the best interests of the article at heart.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a citation from the letter Chinkin co-signed: "We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks." So we can see what is "false" and what is not. I'll re-add "and Hamas" to the article with a link to the letter. --Dailycare (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinkin

There you go again slipping in “Hamas’ into the sentence for the third time and for the third time I will revert you, though I will leave the remaining part of your edit (“before seeing any evidence” to “prior to participating in the mission”) unmolested as technically, you are correct. Chinkin saw evidence (what that evidence might be, well, your guess is as good as mine), just not the commission’s evidence.

The first paragraph of Chinkin’s petition rejects Israel’s contention of self-defense. The second paragraph is dismissive of Hamas rocket attacks claiming that they do not “amount to an armed attack.” The third details Palestinian casualties and property damage while neglecting to mention anything about Israel. The fourth discusses the large disproportion between Israel and Palestinian casualties and reaffirms that Israel is the “occupying power” despite her withdrawal in 2005. The fifth calls Israel the aggressor and states that Israel acted contrary to “international humanitarian and human rights law.” It further states that Israel’s actions are “prima facie war crimes.” The sixth paragraph gives an honorable mention to Hamas almost as an afterthought but true to form, finishes with condemnation of Israel.

Thus, the thrust of the petition is clearly aimed at Israel which is the subject of the harshest criticism. Hamas is mentioned in just two places while criticisms of Israel are peppered throughout. Thus, your edit is misleading and inaccurate and warrants reversion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, overall there are two points to be made: firstly, it's an indisputable fact that the letter condemned Hamas' rockets as war crimes, and secondly, Goldstone made the point that the letter condemned the rockets when defending Chinkin, as the Jerusalem Post article states. Therefore the mention that the letter condemned Hamas should be there. We might also keep in mind that Chinkin is a professor of international law, and that other reports have reached similar conclusions as the Goldstone report, so the facts in the matter aren't as contentious or complicated as the present form of the article would seem to suggest. --Dailycare (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Chinkin's petition condemns Hamas rocket fire but the thrust of the petition's invective is aimed at Israel. You can not realistically argue otherwise. The petition mentions Israel (and not in glowing terms) 13 times and Hamas gets a fraction of that. Moreover, the attorney's who requested her removal from the commission specifically did so because they perceived her to be biased against Israel based on her prior proclamations. They did not request her removal becuase of her position on Hamas.

I am not arguing the merits of Chinkin's or Goldstone's positions. I am just stating that her critics charged her with being biased based on statements she made and petitions she signed which were construed by the attorneys to be vehemently anti Israel. That is why they requested her removal. If you want to add an additional piece stating that she also condemned Hamas, by all means do so. But to include Hamas in the sentence and making it seem as though the attorneys requested her removal based on anti-Israel, as well as anti-Hamas statements is extremely misleading and is in fact inaccurate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Divining what the "main thrust" of a document is is WP:OR. If you want to include that, you need a source saying that the document was "vehemently anti Israel" whatever that means. However we're discussing a minor point and I can make a compromise edit that you'll probably be OK with based on your comment above. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just include everything that was in the article...no as a diving source but a source that brings understating to the article...Cryptonio (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sudan strike

I added a small section on the Sudan strike. I did so because it occurred during the war and involved the belligerents. Hope this is okay with you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel stated that one of objective of Gaza War is stopping "import" of weapons like factory produced rockets which Gaza government launched into Israel before and during the war. Looks like a nice well sourced addition with military details like weaponry used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AgadaUrbanit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Under what command did Israel felt it needed to stop such rockets...Oh, it felt threatened....ok, just fine...and who was Israel attacking in the process to archive it;s security concerns?... Yes, Gaza imports weapons(from who? Iran of course) but, those weapons aren't used against Iran...Umm, yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah 1984...forgive the common media...But, today...who are at war against? Cryptonio (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(sidetracking) Cryptonio, love you as always. Big Brother Is Watching - hope you have your Apple MacBook with you, to chase those bad ghosts away ;) Just finished reading Cryptonomicon - those governments should stop taxing our thoughts, there is a way! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Created a section under international law 'The Goldstone Report'

And cut down it in the lead. Done.

Hello Mr. Unsigned Anon, it would not be bad, in the case of controversy-steeped articles which are under Misplaced Pages general sanctions, to offer some sort of discussion before creating new sections and editing the lead. Also you're meant to sign your comments here on Talk by typing four tildes (~~~~). I assume you have the best intentions in making these edits, but I'm reverting them now as someone else most likely will anyway. I hope you will participate here on Talk. If this is your first time on Misplaced Pages, welcome! if not perhaps you could sign-in? Sincères salutations, RomaC (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problemas. Just did a bold edit to what I think will be the result of discussions. See it as a suggestion. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see everything as a suggestion. Yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

for use elsewhere

A report published in September 2009 by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) stated that both Israeli and Palestinian forces committed war crimes during the war and recommended bringing those responsible to justice. The report condemned Palestinian rocket attacks as a "deliberate attack against the civilian population", but singled out Israeli actions for the most serious condemnation, labeling them a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population." The report or the resolution mandating it were criticized as flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated by Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the United States State Department and Congress, UN Watch, The Economist and others. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch encouraged the implementation of the report's recommendations.

Lead looks not good with alot of this report in it, remember it is a report and not a part of the war. Make a section under international law as I tried befor it was reverted or even better, start a new article about it. The summary that both is acused of warcrimes is enough here.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"War against Hamas" and "Gaza massacre"

1

Each of the sources cited are using that phrase as a description, none of them are using it as a name of the conflict. If sources can be found using it as a name it can go in, but these sources dont. nableezy - 06:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I re-added it as a description, not a name, at the end of the paragraph with another commonly used name "assault on Gaza". nableezy - 06:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Explain please how it differs from the use of Gaza "massacre" being used as a description and not a name? Where are the sources given for that? There are over a million ghits on "Israel's war against Hamas. I think it would be appropriate to describe it as Israel does as Operation Cast Lead, one operation by Israel in Hamas' war against Israel , or Hamas' terror war against Israel,. Operation Cast Lead is the name of an operation and is only part of the actual Gaza war. It is a subset of the larger war against Hamas. I would appreciate the answers but particularly to the one about the sources given for "massacre" being a distinctive name and not a mere description/opinion. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC) ps. "Gaza Massacre" (in quotes) only gets some 88,000 ghits, as opposed to over a million for "Israel's war against Hamas." In English it is apparently not the most common name by far, so why should it be emboldened and enshrined in the lede in the English Misplaced Pages? Stellarkid (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For interest can you post a url for the 'over a million ghits on "Israel's war against Hamas"' result ? I can't replicate it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) How is it different than "the Gaza massacre"? For one there are numerous statements by Hamas officials calling it, as the name of the conflict, "the Gaza massacre". This had many more sources that were removed as it was argued they were not needed. There are also numerous Arabic language media using the Arabic words "مجزرة غزة", again, as the name of the conflict. Some of the sources for this that are not in the article are this, this and this. In each of those sources it used as the name, not simply a description. nableezy - 15:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And as far as "Cast Lead" being only a part of the "Gaza war", sources call the "Gaza war", in its entirety, what the Israeli government calls "Operation Cast Lead". nableezy - 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And also regarding your google hit argument, the news search for "Israel's war against Hamas" over 2009 results in 39 hits, with "gaza massacre" over the same period having 285, with the Arabic words (which is what we are looking for) resulting in another 643 hits over 2009. A general search of the Arabic words gets another 203,000 hits. And it is not "enshrined" in the lead, it is placed in bold because that is the name one of the belligerents used, the same reason Operation Cast Lead is placed in bold text. nableezy - 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For Sean.hoyland, for "Israel's war against Hamas" see:  : and for "Gaza Massacre" see: Stellarkid (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He is correct. I would modify it, though. "Israel's War Against Hamas" yields 42 hits in a Google NEWS search between 12/27/08 to present. "The Gaza Massacre" has 75. Interestingly, Israel's war against Hamas is most often used to describe the events and is not used a proper noun (capped). Removing "The" from "Gazza massacre" causes the hits to increase to 4,800 showing that it also is used to describe the conflict and not as a title. I think both need to go and expansion on "massacre" can take place in the prose. 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, by some "Gaza massacre" is used as a description. By Hamas, and the other sources in Arabic I listed above, however it is used as the name. nableezy - 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>For Nableezy - your ghits in news (not counting regular google) for 2009 alone: For "Israel's war against Hamas" yields 39 (basic) hits including such a blue ribbon cast as Canada.com, Time, Spiegel Online, Montreal Gazette, Los Angeles Times, Times of India, International Herald Tribune, ABS CBN News, NY Times, NPR, Kansas City Star, USA Today, Toronto Star, National Post, Times of India, Tehran Times, and of course Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Haaretz. pardon my spelling.

"Gaza massacre" using the same perimeters (2009 news stories only) yields 129 hits. . I would remind you that google news stories are not the only ones to determine what something is commonly called, we can also use regular ghits. Be that as it may, the 129 includes BBC, Pacific Free Press, Islam Online, several Arab presses, WorldBulletin.net. CBS uses the expression in quotes to quote Ahmadinjad, and then includes some 30 more hits in their comments page. Other sites like BBC and Guardian use "Gaza massacre" either in quoting or in opinion pieces. Subtracting quotes and opinion pieces, I say that under your perimeters, "Israel's war against Hamas" has the edge for well-respected news reports, as well as for general usage as I pointed out in the above regular ghit to Sean.hoyland. Stellarkid (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to be easily verifiable according to wikipedia. Arab language sources are appropriate for Arab wiki but not easily verifiable for the English reader. Stellarkid (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. Arabic sources are perfectly acceptable, and Hebrew sources are commonly used. And the idea we should exclude Arabic sources when looking for the name. And the fact that it is in quotes is part of the point. This is not presented as another English name of the conflict, it is presented as the Arabic name for the conflict as. Take a look at other articles like Yom Kippur War, you will see names used by each of the belligerents. This is an English language encyclopedia but that does not mean we ignore what the rest of the world says. nableezy - 00:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding why the names are there. We give the common English name of the event, the "Gaza War". Then we give the name each of the belligerents used, "Operation Cast Lead" and "Gaza massacre". We are not saying these are alternative English names or descriptions of the event. We say these are the names each "side" used to refer to what we call the "Gaza War". If you are trying to convince me that "Israel's War against Hamas" is more common than "Gaza massacre" as an English description of what we on Misplaced Pages call the "Gaza War" then consider the goal accomplished. But "Gaza massacre" is not there as an English name of the event. It is there as the common Arabic name of the event used by many Arab news agencies, and most importantly, by the government of Gaza. The only relevance the most common English name has to this page is the title of the page. And the most common English name for the event is the Gaza War. Other than that I really dont see why you would compare an English name with an Arabic name as if that means something. nableezy - 00:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to common names by the belligerents, I don't believe Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre. It may have been referred to as such in a few PR events/releases but they also labeled it a victory in others. I don't read Arabic and I don't have any publications from Hamas so it I am relying on what I would consider common sense. It looks like the massacre term was cherry picked. I see nothing wrong with using a foreign source but it is frustrating that I cannot verify it personally to get a better picture. Not using foreign language soures all together woult be terrible, though.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The victory label, in every single original Arabic quote I have seen, was called the "victory in Gaza". That is not the case with the "Gaza massacre". But at least that is the correct argument to make, not that another phrase is more common in English. nableezy - 02:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And there are still new sources with Hamas using this as the name: (hope yall trust me on the translations)

وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية".
translation: Abu Zuhri (Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman) said that "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries." (speaking about Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly)

nableezy - 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Absolutely not true?" Please see this policy.

English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Misplaced Pages editors.

If it is true what you say

"But 'Gaza massacre' is not there as an English name of the event. It is there as the common Arabic name of the event used by many Arab news agencies, and most importantly, by the government of Gaza."

why would it not be equally important to include what the government of Israel calls it and the newspapers of Israel as well as the presses of several other non-middle eastern countries (ie NPR, Time, NYTimes, India Times etc)? I have provided a link that demonstrates that the Israel refers to this as "war against Hamas." See also this. Further, the "Israel's war against Hamas" does not include a value judgment by one side, nor does the use of the (highly loaded, highlighted, value judgment, opinionated, one-sided, arguable) term "massacre." I cannot see how you can justify including such a term in the lede on the basis that the "government of Gaza" refers to it as such (source, please), but at the same time have no problem relegating (the benign) "Israel's war against Hamas" (what Israel calls it) to the bottom of the page. Stellarkid (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Read that line again. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. What sources do you expect to publish the Arabic speeches of Arab politicians and spokespersons? Sources have been provided showing that the government of Gaza used this as the name. I just provided another one. And your sources on "war against Hamas" are not naming the conflict that, they are using it as a description. It is absolutely not true that we should not use Arabic sources. When you say Sources are supposed to be easily verifiable according to wikipedia. Arab language sources are appropriate for Arab wiki but not easily verifiable for the English reader you are saying something that is false and the policy you quoted proves that. And the phrasing "Israel's war against Hamas" does in fact "include a value judgment by one side", the judgment that this was a war against Hamas, not against the Palestinians. We put the name each side used, that is inherently NPOV. To disregard the name one side used is inherently non-NPOV. And since you seem to miss the point, we do include what the government of Israel calls it, Operation Cast Lead. And the link to the MFA you provided shows that the name used is "Operation Cast Lead and it is described as "a military operation against Hamas" or "22 days of war against Hamas" nableezy - 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you say: "And the fact that it is in quotes is part of the point. This is not presented as another English name of the conflict, it is presented as the Arabic name for the conflict as." You are mistaken here. The reason that it is presented in quotes is because it is "quoting another speaker", in particular Amadinejad. You can see the particular story from CBS which generated at least 3o news ghits for "Gaza massacre" here. Take a look: . It quotes someone's opinion, does not offer it up as a name. Is English your first language? Stellarkid (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the sources quoting Hamas spokespeople, such as this or the one provided above from al-Jazeera. And excuse me, but what kind of moronic question is that? You are here saying that people describing it as a "war on Hamas" are naming it as such and you question my English comprehension? nableezy - 05:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not drunk this evening but I am trying to quit smoking so if I come across bitchy just say so!

I have disagreed with you for months now about massacre going in the lead since it is almost never used as a proper noun in English sources. It gives it weight that I fell isn't needed. Maybe it would pop out less to me if the other titles were used. It looks like War on Hamas is kind of used (I wouldn't think it would warrant inclusion if I wasn't considering expanding the names) and I know a similar situation is the War in the South moniker. Maybe it needs to say "was called x,y,z,etc". I hate bloat but it would be factually accurate, add relitvley important information on the topic, make it easier to search, and give less weight to the massacre term/name.

Also, the thought of not using foreign language sources is just terrible.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They describe it as "Israel's war against Hamas," similar to the "Sino-Japanese war" sometimes capitalized, sometimes not . I do question your English competence (not "comprehension") when your own link above says :

"We cannot blame any Palestinian faction and we don't know who fired the rockets," Hamas spokesman in Lebanon, Raafat Morra, told AFP. ..... Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."

Misplaced Pages policy says clearly "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Misplaced Pages editors." Since the translation made by the reliable source does not capitalize "massacre", thus indicating to English readers that they are translating it as a description, not a name. Not clearly understanding of the use of quotations marks and capitalization in English may indicate that English is not his first language, that's all. Stellarkid (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono. I agree that there is nothing wrong with using foreign language sources. No one is banning all usage of this. The argument is that a reliable source should be doing the translating, and editors with strong English competence should be making the interpretation. That is what the policy WP:NONENG clearly says. A sentence like this "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Israel Thursday of committing "massacre and aggression " in the Gaza Strip, and blasted the United Nations Security Council as beholden to U.S. and British influence" cannot be interpreted as: Ahmadinejad says, as a representative of Muslims? Arabs?, that they say the name of the Gaza war to those Arabs and/or Muslims is "The Gaza Massacre." It defies comprehension. And then to use the argument that we must call it that because the "government of Gaza" calls it that, but not to permit the "government of Israel" to have what it calls it, equally highlighted in the lede, instead to relegate Israel's name for it to the back of the bus just blows me away! Isn't that the very essence of POV and POV-pushing? Stellarkid (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you say: "And the phrasing "Israel's war against Hamas" does in fact "include a value judgment by one side", the judgment that this was a war against Hamas, not against the Palestinians." But in fact it isn't. Israel did not declare war against the Palestinians. That is simply not a fact. It has however acknowledged that it is at war with Hamas and all terror groups. Hamas is the government of Gaza. To that effect Israel is at war with Gaza. However, Israel is not at war with her Palestinian (Arab) citizens or the Palestinians of the "West Bank." This "Gaza War" was not a war against Palestinians. Not a value judgment, a fact. If you are still unconvinced, I urge you to find support for your position in RSs. Your argument is not holding water though your POV is clearer. Nothing wrong with a clear POV as long as it does not get in the way of your reason. Stellarkid (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We have had this argument before, and there is no requirement that a proper noun be capitalized. You really are not bringing any new arguments here, this exact point has been argued at least three times and probably more. But a few things. "Israel did not declare war on the Palestinians", (my bold) waging war does not require declaring war. And you may want to read this, and as you wish, the description implies it is a war against Hamas and not a war against Gaza. But I am not making this about my position on the usage of "War against Hamas", it is still in the article, after removing it as the name almost immediately I put it in as a description. What is it that you want to argue, that either the Gaza massacre should not be in the lead even if it is the name used by Hamas, or that the Gaza massacre is not the name used by Hamas, or that the Gaza massacre is not a name period, or that the War against Hamas was used as a name and not a description and should be listed bolded as a name early in the lead? I can answer any of those arguments (and have multiple times for most of those arguments) but I'd rather not have to do it all in one response. nableezy - 06:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And Cptnono, the "war against Hamas" is in the article currently as a description, are you arguing that those sources use it as a name? The MFA link that Stellarkid posted above is a good example, it is named "Operation Cast Lead" and described as a war against Hamas. Is there really an argument for saying that it is used as a name? nableezy - 06:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And Stellarkid, I suggest you look up what is a proper noun, as long as you are trying to give grammar lessons. nableezy - 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually did bring a new one this time if you reread up above: the prominence of making it a title (or appear as one). In regards to war with Hamas: So why isn't it bolded and used as a title (but not necessarily a proper noun for whatever reason) as massacre is?

Further more, we don't need to balance the operation name with another term if we are forcing it in this manner. It is barely used as a title. "War in the South", "War with Hamas", and oh shit they are bombing us could all go in its place. It leads the reader to draw a conclusion just like putting in the Gaza victory would. I understand balance is necessary but it can be achieved without this "title".Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Let's take a look at the sources. Starting with this. It uses the phrase as "22 days of war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip" under the heading of "Operation Cast Lead - Israel Defends its Citizens" on a page that is titled Operation Cast Lead - Gaza, Hamas and Israel. This was provided which contains the phrase "The Hamas terror war against Israel", but Stellarkid apparently did not notice that the line is referring to Hamas attacks in all of 2008. That link does fortunately give us an answer to the question what is used as the name, it contains a link to a page titled Operation Cast Lead: Israel strikes back against Hamas terror in Gaza. I think it is fair to say that these sources don't use "war against Hamas" as a name but rather as a description. Now the sources that were used in the article. This Times piece contains the phrase "war against Hamas" in the headline, but the full headline is telling. It reads "Israel set to begin ground war against Hamas in Gaza". That is the only place the words "war against Hamas" appear on that page. In fact I cannot see how this was even used as a source to begin with. This source does not even describe the conflict "Israel's war against Hamas" much less name it that. It does describe it as a war against Hamas so it could be used to cite that, but not much else. Next is this Telegraph piece which contains the headline "Israel takes war against Hamas to the city streets of Gaza". The words appear nowhere else. Again, there can be no doubt that this source does not use as a name of the conflict "Israel's war against Hamas". It is again describing it as a war against Hamas but does not support what it was, and even what it still is, used to cite. Next is the Time piece. Now this one actually contains the phrase "Israel's war against Hamas" in an article titled "Can Israel Survive Its Assault on Gaza". This phrasing is linked to another article which contains the phrasing "Israel says its military offensive in Gaza" in an article titled Despite Gaza Attacks, Hamas Thinks It Has the Upper Hand. But lets take a look at more of the context in the cited source. The source also contains the wording "The offensive in Gaza", "Israel's deadly assault on Gaza", "the Gaza offensive" (a few times), "the Gaza war". The most common set of words that could conceivably used to form a proper noun is "the Gaza offensive" with "assault on Gaza" coming in a close second. But this is the one source that actually supports quoting those words, but there is no way an off-hand mention in a 3 page report that is not repeated a single time can be considered a name, much less commonly used to merit consideration. Most of the sources don't support that it is named "war on Hamas", though they do support that it has been described as such. What we have with the statements from Hamas are them referencing the event both during, and now even 8 months later, using the same name to refer to it specifically. This is not a singular mention and if need be many more sources can be provided of Hamas referring to the attacks specifically as "the Gaza massacre".

(after ec) You are saying that the Gaza massacre is not needed for "balance"? You serious? This is not about "balance". Why on earth would we not include what one side calls a war? nableezy - 09:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And for all this arguing not a single source cited actually supported the sentence. It is almost as if Stellarkid googled "war against Hamas" and took 5 random results without reading them, or at least one would hope that it was not an intentional misrepresentation of the sources. nableezy - 09:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they didn't. They called it a victory at one time even. It was described as a massacre by the media and on a few occasions (few when comparing its use as a description or or the operational name). I get why we should attempt balance but cherry picking isn't the way to do it. Why not use terms like "the Gaza offensive" which it was used 2000 more times according to Google news? Your argument of them calling it is poor unless you have sources where Hamas (not newspapers) are shown to consistently use it as their title for the conflict. Pushing this for what appears to be the sole purpose of balancing out an operational name is not right and degrades the article.Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it is not about what the media called it, much less what the English language media called it, it is about what Hamas called it. And they called it a victory like Bush called it a victory in Iraq. An offhand mention does not come close to the number of times the words مجزرة غزة are used by Hamas, it does not even compare. This article cannot be allowed to only represent what one side says, from the name to the casualties to the war crimes. This article cannot be a repeat of one sides claims and justifications without any type of response. NPOV is explicit, representing all relevant and notable POVs. There cannot be serious argument that a name that used consistently by Hamas should not be in the article, that only the name used by one of the belligerents should be included. You cannot be serious. nableezy - 09:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The English sources typically use it as a description. Your statements have not disputed that. Al Jazeera doesn't title it as the Gaza Massacre. The title at their website's special coverage section devoted to the conflict call it War on Gaza. Replace it with War on Gaza if you want. I've yet to see an official document from Hamas where it is titled Gaza Massacre. It has been described as the Gaza massacre. It has also been described as "sad" but we don't bold that in the lead to balance the operational name.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up Al Arabiya and Al Alalam are both showing plenty more instances of "Gaza war" over "Gaza massacre". Sensationalist blogs, a relativity low percentage of RS, and lack of the continuous application of the title by Hamas means it shouldn't be in. If the term is used, it certainly should not be a bolded title to counter a documented operational name. Let the casualties in the info box and prose speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, are we doing this again? Lemme go get some Tylenol, or maybe smack. Israel's name for the event was "A" Gaza's name was "B". We note both, no POV, no problem? RomaC (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not about what the media has used, I dont care what Al-Arabiyya called it (though there are plenty of instances where they called it the "Gaza massacre"), and the English quote of the Hamas spokesman is not using it as a description. And wtf is an official document from Hamas? Can you say how the quotes cited from Hamas are using it as a description? And how would you like me to demonstrate "continuous application" by Hamas? nableezy - 17:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more from Hamas:

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."
Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre"
Mussa Abu Marzuk: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"

nableezy - 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Currently it is being referred to as the Gaza War and will probably regrettably go down in history as such," Norman Finkelstein said at University of Texas at Austin. "What happened in the Gaza Strip doesn’t meet the minimum conditions of war." He defined the conflict as a massacre, citing greater Palestinian than Israeli losses. WTF? massacre is neither neutral nor a name. It is a description of Israel's actions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "neutral" have to do with it? The name Hamas used does not need to be "neutral" and for us to comply with WP:NPOV we have to represent all notable viewpoints, and the Hamas viewpoint is certainly notable. It has indeed been described as a massacre, but by Hamas the words "Gaza massacre" have been used as the name of the conflict. Those quotes above from Hamas are all using it as the name of the conflict. And the sentence that is in the article is neutral. Us saying "Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre" is a neutrally worded statement. We do not say it is a massacre, we are not naming it the Gaza massacre, we are saying that Hamas did. That is neutral. nableezy - 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"been described as" is more exact phrasing. Both Gaza PM and Hamas head of politburo called the event Gaza War in their victory speeches. massacare being a name is disputed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed without cause. There are a number of sources where they use this as the name, not as a description and no rational reading of those sentences above can dispute that it was used as a name. nableezy - 21:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it being described as isn't a title. How many over descriptions could have been chosen? It has been called and described many things and Gaza M/massacre W/war on Hamas are not at the bottom of the list. It reads like POV pushing by leading the reader. You are attempting to force balance when it can be achieved through other methods. I said months ago that I disagreed but was curious to see what time would tell and the reasoning behind its inclusion has not improved. It has also been modified since then to read "called" (which implies it is a title) instead of "described".Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How are you going to argue the sources cited in the article and above are not statements Hamas calling it the Gaza massacre? Pick any of the ones I put up and argue that they are not calling it the gaza massacre. nableezy - 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is difference between being described and belligerent name. So far there is no secondary sources supporting such claim. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Cptnono is correct. Nableezy claims that I don't know what a proper noun is. This from the gold standard, Strunck & White

proper noun The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized. Common nouns name classes of people (singers), places (cities), or things (books) and are not capitalized.

Israel refers to OCL as an operation/response in the wider Hamas War against Israel . If we consider it important to put the name of one of the parties involved we should put the name of the other. Only, since RS do not capitalize "massacre" it cannot be considered a name of a particular thing but only a general class and description but not a "naming" ie "proper" noun. Stellarkid (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a common noun used in a proper noun, which is often capitalized, but not always. Any number of definitions of "proper noun" contains "often capitalized". And any number of the sources for "Gaza War", in fact most, also do not capitalize "war". The requirement of a proper noun is that it is a noun that refers to a specific thing, and there is no requirement that each word within a proper noun, including common nouns, be capitalized. nableezy - 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And one of your sentences betrays your point. This article is not about the wider "Hamas war against Israel" that Israel says OCL is a part of, this article is about what Israel calls OCL itself. nableezy - 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of that, it is not the most common description. It is a description. We are giving it prominence as if it were the most often used description. It also isn't an official description which means balance between the two terms (in all reality trivial when compared to use of such an extreme term) may not be possible.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Cptnono. So will someone remove this and put it somewhere out of the lede where it doesn't have such prominence, at the very least? Stellarkid (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper nouns are always properly capitalized. "They always start with a capital letter." This is doubtless one reason why WP says that translations (and interpretations) of non-English sources should come from reliable sources and NOT from Misplaced Pages editors. Stellarkid (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I hate it and think our reasoning is water tight, it is appropriate in this case to give others the opportunity to chime in since it has been a longstanding edit with several many back and forths.Cptnono (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Always caps is actually not the rule, the first word yes but common nouns following do not have to be capitalized. And Cptnon, you keep saying this wasnt the name used by Hamas, but no other name comes anywhere close to the usage of this one. nableezy - 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And you are both completely ignoring the Arabic sources. Countless Arabic sources use this as the name of the event and you are trying to remove it because you find it personally objectionable. WP:NPOV requires the representation of all notable POVs and the idea we should ignore what Hamas used as a name, and if you have any evidence to suggest otherwise please present it because many sources have been provided, is beyond ridiculous. Even the Hebrew Misplaced Pages does not have a problem with including what is a common Arabic name for the conflict in the lead. For some reason they apparently think it is important to reflect the opinions of both sides and not only highlight what one side says. nableezy - 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources out there that say Hamas calls it the "Gaza Massacre" or are we using snippets from the Hamas spokesperson to come to this conslusion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Laughing my ass off at Roma's comment! I have been double and triple checking. No: massacre is from snippets not documented as the primary title for the conflict by Hamas representatives. A previous argument was that Hamas did not have official documentation of this which is fine. Consistent use over other terms (Gaza war, war on Gaza, etc) would be sufficient but this is not the case.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Define "consistent use" as they have used this name consistently over others. nableezy - 02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We have been over the google thing dozens of times. Start googling and looking for terminology used by Hamas representatives. Since there is not consistent use of a title and descriptions vary widely, google Arabic news agencies. Massacre is not the most often used term. It is certainly a "balance" to the operational name but it is forced and given too much prominence because it is not the consistently or most used term by that belligerent or commentary.02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is not the terminology used most often by Hamas? Here is a search of the Arabic words, in quotes as given here in English, for "spokesman" Hamas "Gaza massacre": 11,700. There have been like 2 quotes of a Hamas spokesperson saying "Gaza victory" or "victory in Gaza", there are a ton with them saying the "Gaza massacre" and from the beginning of the conflict up to last week they have called it the "Gaza massacre". They have used the name consistently. nableezy - 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I could argue reversed burden of proof (essay) and that the burden of evidence for inclusion is upon you (WP:VERIFY). You haven't shown that it is used enough or more than other descriptions through either secondary or primary sources. I'll just mention that and also do better. Google searches clearly show Gaza massacre (in several different forms) is used less than Gaza war (again in several different forms). Furthermore, three of the largest Arabic news agencies use the term much less. You can go through the archives and up above or do the searches for evidence. I'll provide further sometime this evening (going to store real quick and a few other things).Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to revers the burden, I am asking you what it is that you want me to show you to satisfy that burden. You say "consistent use", how would you like me to demonstrate that? How many times over how long a period would you like sources for? nableezy - 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For it to balance the operational name it would have to be used by Hamas as the primary term or description for the conflict. Not "the Israeli attack", "Gaza war" or anything else. If you prefer to use it as not balance but as what it is alternatively titled or described as it needs to be shown that it is primarily used over War on Gaza, Gaza war, and the others that are used by RS.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Google News 12/27/2008 - 09/26/2009 searches show that it is not used often. Primary subjects don't seem to mention it hardly at all. I also recommend common sense and reviewing many sources. Gaza Massacre is simply not a common term for this conflict or at least not as common as others. If Hamas did not assign an operational name then they did not assign an operational name. Try some other searches: Gaza victory, War in the South, ect.

• gaza "is sad" 68

• "the gaza massacre" (trying to get more title hits with "the" but many are still descriptive and not titles) 75

• "hamas "Gaza tragedy" 80

• "gaza massacre" 151

• "gaza war" 2,760

• "war on gaza" (Al Jazeera's label) 1,450

• "war in gaza"2,170

• hamas gaza massacre (no quotes) 4,150

• hamas gaza war (no quotes) 24,200

• "Khaled Meshaal"(and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 1

• "Khaled Meshaal" "gaza victory" 5

• "Ismail Haniyah"( and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 2

• "Mahmoud Zahar"( and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 2

• allintitle: (in the last year) مجزرة غزة (gaza massacre translated? not necessarily appearing next to each other) 1,250

• allintitle: (in the last year) حرب غزة (gaza war translated? not necessarily appearing next to each other) 23,900

• Al Jazeera does not have a search function but their project page is "War on Gaza". I also recommend poking around Al Alam, Al Araybia, http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx, and other sources that cover the region.

Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue for me is not what is commonly used in the press, but what Hamas used. Could you spell out what I would need to show to demonstrate that this is "the primary term or description for the conflict". Spell it out for me, what would I need to show to demonstrate that this is the case? nableezy - 06:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And they didn't use it often as shown above (the 3 names were the few I tried). You would need to show that it is used as common venacular and not in a couple speeches. They say "attack" and "war" more. The fact that "victory" was used by officials makes it even worse.Cptnono (talk)

But that is not the case, you are restricting your searches on the names for English sources. Here is the search for "Khaled Meshal" "gaza massacre" in Arabic. here it is for "Ismail Haniyeh" "Gaza massacre". nableezy - 06:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source for Meshal:

واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة".

Translation:He (Meshal) stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier Shalit."

nableezy - 06:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

True. You are also cherry picking, though. There are obviously some sources but there are others that say tragedy, war, victory, attack, and so on.Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you want me to demonstrate the usage other than going through the sources. Here is a partial list, some of these are already listed above:

• Sami Abu Zuhri: "وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية.
  Translation: Abu Zuhri said "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries." (speaking about Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly)
• Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."
• Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre"
• Raafat Morra: "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."
• Khaled Meshal: "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة.
  Translation: He stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the (soldier) Shalit."
• Khaled Meshal: "وأضاف مشعل خلال برنامج "لقاء مفتوح" بثته فضائية الجزيرة الإخبارية مساء السبت أن "الرد على مجزرة غزة هو ما سيرى الكيان الصهيوني لا ما سيسمع
  His remarks came during the "Open Meeting" broadcast on the al-Jazeera Saturday night news that "the response to the Gaza massacre is not what the Zionist entity will hear but what it will see."
• Mousa Abu-Marzouk: "إن موجة الأمل التي قابلت انتخابك تضاءلت بشكل كبير بسبب صمتك على مجزرة غزة"
  Translation: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"

I'll continue tomorrow. nableezy - 07:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioning a handful. How many of the sources from the officials say the "war", "attack", or "fight". Also, "massacre of Gaza" "massacre in Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" are different. Please make sure that the direct translation (I have no way of confirming besides a few online tools which I don't completely trust) says it is a title. If it is a description, the prose will have to be ammended to "described it as a massacre". That will also open the door to adding the dozen other descriptions. Make sure it is a title if it is to balance out the operational name.Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound of air-raid siren

Nab I suggest you stockpile (and classify and cross reference) a formidable library of unshakable sources supporting the usage of "Gaza massacre" by the Gazan government and in the Arab and Muslim world. Then get provisions, dig in and hold your fire. I hate it but seems you have been drawn into (another) war of attrition. Conserve your energy and resources. One can find numerous similar concerted assaults on other I-P articles, for example see Deir Yassin massacre -- which has a title that is irksome for some but undeniably qualifies as the best choice under Wiki policy. Regardless, replacement titles like "Battle of Deir Yassin" or "Deir Yassin Incident" (or maybe "Unfortunate affair" haha) have been fervently advanced again and again.

Expect to encounter every imaginable argument. And when one of them fails it is never buried but rather assigned to the archives for possible later resuscitation (you know, according to his son Omri, Ariel Sharon is now "marginally responsive"!) Then an entirely different argument is deployed. Expect herculean persistence and head-spinningly sophisticated wikilawyering. Do not attempt to counter with reason, logic or policy, as your adversaries will be immune to these. Just stand by your sources and know that a few disinterested and pro-Misplaced Pages editors will eventually weigh in. When the assault is finally beaten back, expect kind and conciliatory "compromise" suggestions. (*sound of a march, played on snare drum with bugle*) We got your back, buddy! RomaC (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You should probably remove that as it may be taken as a not so subtle call for a WP:BATTLE. nableezy - 02:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly hope not. You bring up a point with battle, though. You have been the main proponent for massacre and it has been kept because other editors against it gave up, didn't know the guidelines or all of the issue, or wanted to wait and see what continued coverage would say. Some also wanted it out for the wrong reasons. Take a quick second and check yourself on WP:WIN. I've done it and can say I am adamantly against it because is not appropriate. If you think it is then that is OK I just want you to make sure it is to better the article.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, and I dont appreciate the insinuations. There have been countless times where it has been admitted that some of the loudest voices against using the term is because they feel it is "defamatory" or "emotive" or "propaganda". That feeling, while understandable, has no place here. Some of the people here take great offense at the words being in bold in the lead as it apparently seems that we are "enshrining" the words. The real problem here is that these people who say these things seem to think that NPOV means we treat the two governments involved differently. There are an abundance of primary sources for Israeli views in this article, go count how many Israeli MFA citations you see here, or how many ITIC citations. This is a bullshit issue only because the sensitivities of some editors makes it so we need to censor information they find personally objectionable. nableezy - 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I guess some might consider RomaC's comments to be humorous, but it sure sounds like unproductive soapboxing to me. This article is about a specific point - it's not about Deir Yassin or the Lavon affair or the physical or mental state of Ariel Sharon. This serves to advance your POV, while at the same time belittling/ridiculing other editors who do not share the POV that your post demonstrates. The issue here is whether the (English) sources support the terminology as written, (with WP:NONENG as relevant policy) or whether the point at issue is in fact an example of WP:OR and/or of advancing an agenda. Please try to stay on-topic. Stellarkid (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not going to apologize for ensuring diligence, Nableezy, and the intent wasn't to insult you. I hope you would do the same. Like I said, some of the reasons mentioned for removal were the wrong ones. Thanks for saying it twice :) In regards, to RomaC's comment, it was inappropriate but no one here is a little girl so we should all be able to take the humor in it. The discussion on the subject is up above and we can continue it there. (would you mind copy pasting your last comment in the above section so we don't get too sidetracked?)Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My air raid post is meant to satirize what has happened and tends to happen here. Not going to remove it because it took awhile to craft. And per Cptnono yeah thanks, we're adults. I would however say actually Nab has not been a proponent so much as an opponent of removal of massacre, a cause which the archives suggest has been mostly pushed by pro-Israeli editors. Actually I very much hope Nab would not be drawn into a war of attrition, as the question of removal of this name has been thoroughly discussed and decided already. And I would hope editors would point that out when young guns ride into town making good faith edits, instead of taking their edits as an opportunity to reopen old (and divisive) discussions.

In one way it boils down to respect. Israel calls it "Operation Cast Lead" and Gaza calls it the "Gaza Massacre". So Misplaced Pages has come to use a relatively neutral term for the article title, then notes and attributes the two aforementioned terms to Israel and Gaza. It doesn't matter that one side's name quotes from a children's song and the other's includes an inflammatory word, as both are attributed to the respective sides. What matters is a reader benefits from information on how the event was named, ergo viewed, by both of the involved parties. I sincerely wish editors could stop trying to fuck with that. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, however cleverly written, I for one find it offensive. But no mind. It does not merely boil down to 'respect' for what Israel and what Gaza calls it. It comes down to knowing exactly what it is that both parties call it. For one thing, Israel calls it a "war against Hamas", or "Hamas' terror war against Israel". OCL is the name of one operation within the wider war, which for all I can see continues to this very day. The Gazans and others describe it as a massacre within the set of massacres but one that occurred in Gaza. It is not a matter of respect to accurately reflect what RS's say. And RS do not seem to say "Gaza Massacre" but rather something describing the situation (that is, opining) as a "massacre" and belonging in the class of massacres. Sorry if you feel that someone is trying to "fuck" with your firmly held position, or that young guns are opening old wounds. Perhaps those wounds were septic and required special wound care. Stellarkid (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about what Israel calls "Operation Cast Lead" not the "wider war" that Israel says this is a part of. The sources treat this as its own topic and so do we. So Israel calls the topic of this article "Operation Cast Lead". nableezy - 06:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, my point still holds. Stellarkid (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesnt because it doesnt address why the name is there. It is there not as the name used by the press but by the name used by Hamas. You really want to say that statements from Hamas are not reliable for sourcing what Hamas said? nableezy - 08:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stellar! Do you have some RS that back up your assertion that Israel specifically terms the event that took place December 2008 to January 2009 as "war against Hamas" or "Hamas' terror war against Israel", if so can you please provide them here for other editors' benefit? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, RomaC. Provided it earlier but here it is again from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel: "The Hamas terror war against Israel" "Hamas War against Israel": Stellarkid (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are fine using primary sources from the MFA but not Hamas for a name? And the removal of long standing text require consensus, please dont continue removing it unitl there is consensus for that. nableezy - 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

New infobox

There is a new infobox in the Palestinian paramilitary activity section, and discussion on the box in general here, but perhaps we could also address its appropriateness in this article. Because it runs the gamut of all Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from 2001-2009 as well as types of rockets not used in the Gaza War, doesn't it introduce too much of one kind of information? There is already a rocket statistics chart in the article which more closely corresponds to the Gaza War and lead-up timeframe. Also don't like infoboxes in general, see them as Trojan Horses. Maybe I'm wrong, would a "List of Israeli air, land and sea bombardments of Gaza" infobox improve the article? RomaC (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Like the info and makes browsing easy but the prominence gives it weight that we should avoid. I would expect any "List of Israeli air, land and sea bombardments of Gaza" box to cause all sorts of concerns so might as well just get rid of it. Not sure what it says in the guidelines but it looks like text goes where text goes, infoboxes go at the top, and templates go at the bottom is standard enough that the deviation looks a little silly.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ "POC_Monthly_Tables_October_2008" (PDF). OCHA-oPt. October 2008. Retrieved 2009-02-25.
2. ”The Goldstone’s ‘fact Finding’ Mission and the Role of Political NGO’s,” NGO Monitor, 7 September 2009
3. Flintoff, Corey, ”Rights Analyst Suspended over Nazi-Era Collection,” www.npr.org, 16 September 2009
4. "UN condemns 'war crimes' in Gaza". BBC. 2009-09-15. Retrieved 2009-09-15.
5. "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" (PDF). United Nations Human Rights Council. Retrieved 2009-09-15.
6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/15/un-gaza-war-israel-hamas "Inquiry into Gaza conflict singles out Israeli policy towards Palestinians for most serious condemnation"
7. Irwin Cotler, The Goldstone Mission - Tainted to the core (part I), Jerusalem Post 16-08-2009
8. Haviv Rettig Gur, Lawyers, watchdog allege Goldstone bias, Jerusalem Post 14-09-2009
9. Opportunity missed, The Economist 19-09-2009
10. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/16/israelgaza-implement-goldstone-recommendations-gaza
11. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israel-gaza-implementation-un-fact-finding-mission-recommendations-crucial-justi
12. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/controversial-speaker-calls-gaza-massacre-1.1738317

• 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
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-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