Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza War (2008–2009). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Population density of Gaza

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as per WP:TALK: no value in discussion to add to article

I removed the false claim that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. This is a common misconception but a cursory glance at this List of cities by population shows that it is far from the truth. The Gaza Strip's population density (~4000/sq-km) is close to that of London or Bangkok. It covers an area only slightly larger than Delhi which has over 10 times the population. Even New York City is nearly 3 times denser than Gaza. Yokohama has 3 times the population in the same area as Gaza and these aren't even the most extreme examples. Wikipedia shouldn't be propagating this false axiom that Gaza is unusually densely populated. It simply isn't true. Dino246 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, factchecking. Good. Maybe the whole sentence should be moved down in text now as its not as dramatic. 'Following its victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and...' is a good start for that section. Brunte (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What! Now I feel like an idiot... Brunte (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

the sentence read, "The gaza strip is . . " but was incorrectly linked to a page that showed the palestinian territories density figures. it should remain, and be linked to the gaza strip page, which lists it as 6th - Population - July 2007 estimate 1,481,080 (149th1) - Density 4,118/km2 (6th1) 10,665/sq mi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Untwirl (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

now that i'm looking at that again it seems odd. maybe its because the gaza strip doesn't have "country status" that the numbers seem off? that must be why we used "densely populated area" Untwirl (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times, each time it was shown that numerous sources bring up the high pop. density as background information to this conflict. The sentence is both factually correct and sourced. It does not say that Gaza City is one of the most densely populated cities, it says the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated placed. New York and London's pop. density is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

according to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density 4,118/km2 would mean they are 4th. we should probably use region. Untwirl (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But the Gaza Strip isn't a country. If it were then it would be the 6th most densely populated country in the world but "if" Kolkata were a country then it would be 7 times more densely populated. Comparing the 360sqkm of the Gaza Strip with the countries of the world is completely arbitrary, especially as the entire Strip is smaller than many of the world's major metropolitan areas, including New York City, Tokyo, Mumbai, Delhi, Tehran, Jakarta, Singapore.. A comparison of Gaza City with the cities of the world would be more relevant but at 9000/sqkm it really doesn't make the list of densely populated cities either coming behind 14 of the cities in this non-comprehensive List of cities by population. The Gaza Strip is simply not one of the most densely populated places in the world, not by a long way. There are numerous other areas of comparable area with significantly greater populations. It's actually less densely populated than Sderot (4400/sqkm).Dino246 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a territory, this has been discussed many times, please do not unilaterally change what is long standing consensus. I am reverting again, please do not change unless you have consensus for it. This is not about Gaza City. This is about the Gaza Strip. Numerous sources have made this very point. Nableezy (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can describe the Gaza Strip as a territory if you like but it doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands of other territories in the world that are more densely populated than this one. Describing it as "one of the most densely populated" is simply not true. No matter what you try and compare it to, it does not have an extreme population density. Compared to any other similarly sized urban territory it is, at most, of average population density. The Southern Israeli towns of Sderot and Netivot are both more densely populated.Dino246 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even in the article? Is someone trying to make a point with this line and the following one regarding children?Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of sources have brought this up as it relates to the high number of casualties, civilians and children. HRW is one, there are quite a few more if you want to make me dig into the archives. I dont think anybody is trying to make a point but it does seem like what would be considered relevant background, especially as a number of sources have brought it up in direct relation to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You may not be but it certainly looks like someone is. Unless we are doing original research or interpreting the data this info is not necessary here. An appropriate background on Gaza could be 1000 different numbers related to population, GDP, climate, etc. I think it should be moved to a relevant section with this hypothesis well sourced or removed.Cptnono (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Once upon a time ago, in an article far far away it was sourced, I had put a HRW source about that. Looking for it now to add again. Nableezy (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a source as to how it is related with a simple line or 2 and then moving it to a more relevant place in the article are what I am suggesting.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, here is the line from the HRW article I cited: "The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world." I really do think that as the Gaza Strip was the location for the major combat operations that should be included in the background. I dont think we need GDP and all that, but the basics about the location of the fighting would be considered background, wouldnt it? Nableezy (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Horrific urban fighting occured when armies attacked other places like Sarajevo and Grozny. But we couldn't say the same thing in those articles because the territoies of Bosnia and Chechnya have very low population densities. The problem is really urban warfare which may or, more often, may not be demonstrated by a comparison like the one in the article.

I think we should just be direct in what we're trying to say. This sort of information is important because it prefaces the fighting that we explain in the "Campaign" section. Maybe we could have a paragraph on the risks and factors that had to be considered before the fighting started. But I would eliminate the "most dense" comparison itself. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant comparison is that between the population density of the Gaza Strip and that of the Israeli towns into which the rockets are being fired. They are broadly similar. Dino246 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Id like to ask Dino to stop removing the information and also removing the source. State your case and if it reasonable you will likely gain consensus, this is not the way to handle it. Nableezy (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I am stating my case quite reasonably. The numbers speak for themselves, the Gaza Strip is no more densely populated than any other urban territory. That there is a commonly held belief that Gaza is particularly densely populated and that this myth is repeated often in citable sources does not change the facts.Dino246 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have been reasonable on the talk page. But you shouldn't be edit warring in the article itself. And remember (everyone) to mind the 3RRs. On the edit itself, I think that whatever problems the old version has, the newer version is worse. We shouldn't be comparing Gaza and Sderot to see who's is bigger. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about edit warring and although I still profoundly disagree with the article falsely claiming Gaza as being one of the most densely populated places in the world, I will sleep on it for the night. I understand why the population density of Gaza is relevant to assess the impact on civilians of the IDF's actions there. However, it is no less relevant as background information to the conflict than the almost identical population density of Sderot is. The population densities are relevant but reasonable frames of reference must be found rather than propagating the myth that Gaza is unusually densely populated. It isn't any more densely populated than the average urban area. Urban conflict exacts a high toll on civilians. Gaza doesn't need to be one of the world's most densely populated areas for this to be true so there is no need for exaggeration or hyperbole.Dino246 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Finding all the instances of "dense" in the article does show there a couple of sourced sentences stating how the density affects casualities and other problems. However, this paragraph at the beginning of the background section seems out of place. And this sentence, which started this talk section, is inherently subjective in nature: "The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth." We should simply state facts in a manner such as: "The Gaza Strip is densely populated, with 1,500,202 people living in an area of 360 sq km (4,167 per sq km). Nearly half of the population is aged 14 and younger." Then follow these facts explaining how they are significant to this conflict and hopefully have sources to cite these explanations. This info can be incorporated somewhere but we might find a better place than the background section, but if the background section is decided as the best place it needs to be incorporated better into it, right now it's just a floating paragraph at the beginning with no context provided at all. And the tone needs to stay neutral and sources added whereever it goes. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point with the GDP comment. I agree we need to be direct with what we are saying and move this information with the explanation as to why it is notable to a related section. Casualties strikes me as the best choice. It belongs in background as much as GDP or climate does.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't really belong in the background section, that's more like a history section. I was thinking the casualities section might be a place for it to fit too. Whereever it goes though, it needs to be a bigger paragraph explaining the context, rather than how it is now, just a hanging paragraph out of place. And it's especially getting attention here since it's at the very top of the article after the lead, where it doesn't belong. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. This is central to the background. The whole strategy of the IDF is based, precisely, on the density of its population. Air attack predominated, and computerized firing via drone surveillance etc., because no ground army can move rapidly through its densely built up areas.

Dozens of RS say it is one of the most densely populated areas on earth (Shindler for example). This is not calculated just by land extent, but by density of habitation in the refugee camps where 70% of the population is confined. The population density, and the state of endemic confinement in poverty, is considered relevant to the history of its problems, by Israeli sources (Arnon Sofer made this pop.density, and the forseeable pressure on radical politics to break out of the territorial imprisonment, one of the main reasons for the 2005 unilateral withdrawal etc.) The CIA Factbook 2008 ed. p.236 writes that:.High population density, limited land access, and strict internal and external security controls have kept economic conditions in the Gaza Strip . . .even more degraded', and goes on to put much of the blame for the degradation since on Israeli closure and destruction of infrastructure policies.

‘The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The 2006 population stands at close to one and a half million,, giving the region a population density of 3,750 people per square kilometer (9,712 people per square miles). As of this writing, Israel continues to control the borders and the airspace of Gaza. Gaza is, in this sense, an immense open air prison. Unemployment in this region is over 40 percent. Almost 66 percent of the inhabitants have to live on less than two dollars a day. In this context, it can be predicted that organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad will continue to receive the support of many Palestinians.’ Didier Pollefeyt, ‘Between a Dangerous memory and a Memory in Danger: The Israeli-Palestinian Struggle from a Christian Post-Holocaustr Perspective’ in Leonard Grob, Anguished Hope: Holocaust Scholars Confront the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008 pp.135-153 p.150 This makes the obvious nexus between throttled prisoncamp existence, high demographic growth and support for radical politics, and this is almost a standard formula in sociology for trouble.

Ist year sociology will tell you that poor resources, confined conditions, imposed degradation (the CIA description of Israel's policies), increasingly scarce water resources, constant military threat and embargo, plus a demographic boom (7.7 babies per family) make a perfect formula for radicalization, as indeed sources like Soffer argue. It is perfectly appropriate that this should say in where it is.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It still sounds like we are trying to lead the reader to that conclusion. Even with all of the above information properly sourced and explained, it still does not belong at the beginning. I honestly don't see how any editor can say they are not pushing a POV or agenda with the information there. "...it's especially getting attention here since it's at the very top of the article after the lead, where it doesn't belong" summed it up perfectly. Go ahead and put ~~all~~ that info in somewhere but give it its own section. Edit: Israeli–Palestinian conflict might be a better place for that level of detail.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Nishidani) Unfortunately none of that explanation or context is in the article (and if some of it is then the population numbers could be moved to where it is). If some neutral information about why the population density of Gaza is important to the background of the conflict is added to the paragraph that would help a lot. You also touched on Cptnono's point, if population density is mentioned then why not other demographic information too, which begins to make all this information either not appropriate for this particular article or needing to be severely summarized. But no explanation/context at all is also not acceptable. I also think, sourced or not, stating "The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth, rather than simply stating "The Gaza Strip is densely populated", is unnecessary. It's clearly subjective in tone, as Dino246 has been arguing. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

From HRW: "The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world." I think that should answer why it says among the highest in the world. Nableezy (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good like that. I still recommend a more appropriate place such as Casualties.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just subjective, it's plain wrong. Take a look at the maps in this blog[1]. Yes, it's a blog, no it's not a valid source, but please, let's stop trying to claim that Gaza is the most densely populated place on Earth when the claim is so ridiculously untrue, and like LonelyMarble said, unnecessary. That Gaza is as densely populated as the urban areas in which most of us live makes it plenty dense enough for a missile strike there to be dangerous, just as it is in Sderot or Nahariya.Dino246 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of what Cptono and LonelyMarble are saying. It seems inappropriate that the population density of the Gaza Strip would be the first thing mentioned in the Background section, as if to say that that statistic is the most important piece of information for the naive reader to understand this conflict. The paragraph always struck me as odd, and I wondered whether it was put there by pro-Palestinian editors, to imply that a military operation there was unjustified as it would inevitably lead to many casualties, or put there by pro-Israeli editors, to imply that the civilian casualties that occurred were unavoidable. I guess now I know. :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should also add background infomation as to why there is such a huge population. Nishidani mentioned the demographic boom (7.7 babies per family). I recall seeing a BBC news item which interviewed a man who was married to 5 wives and had 10 children by each of them. This man had 50 children! Is this common? Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As you probably know, Ches, I am always disconcerted by hidden analogies, where I see something pushed from one side, and its corollary on the other side is ignored. Much is made of Hamas hiding weapons in mosques or fighting from civilian areas, there is, in every such comment, a seething sense of outrage. People who plunk this stuff in forget that Jews and Israelis used synagogues to stash arms (Russia 1905, Poland in WW2, Iraq 1949s-1951, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in 1948 (hell, the preliminary briefing on the King David Hotel incident was done in a synagogue by Begin and his Irgun). The exquisite Hurva synagogue in Jerusalem was used by the Haganah as a defensive salient in 1948, despite a two day warning by the Arab command that it be evacuated by them to avoid it being a target in the assault, etc.etc. So with the demographics. The Haredim/Hasidim have extremely high birth rates, and this is viewed favourably as countering secular demographic decline in the numbers game (though they have only one spouse). As to the rest, if you starve, are cold, have no prospects, and lack electricity for a TV, tumbling in the cot is perhaps the default method for scrounging what little joy is left to one). Since Israel has smashed the prospect of a Palestinian nation, they have no way of surviving as a people except this. Sorry for soaping.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I dont think that is a fair statement. The sentence to me makes no judgment as to whether or not this is unjustified because of the density or any judgment that civilian casualties are unavoidable because of the density. To me it is giving the most basic information about the location of the hostilities. To Dino246, I don't think the comparison you are making between the strip as a whole and individual cities is valid. A large amount of Hamas rockets land in the Negev desert with a very low population density. I think the valid comparison is between the density of the Gaza Strip and the density of the area of Israel within range of Hamas rockets. As a territory the Gaza Strip has a very high population density, the comparison you are making is between a territory and city within a territory. Obviously cities like London, Chicago, and Seattle have higher population density, but states like Illinois and Washington have much lower population densities then the large cities within them. Nableezy (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should get into that game, comparing densities. Incidentally, the density is even higher in the actual urban areas where fighting and bombings took place. Gaza (city) seems to have a density more like 9,000. Anyway, the reason it is there, as I think we both see it, is because of the problems of urban warfare -- Israel couldn't launch an operation in Gaza without killing lots of civilians, even with the best of intentions. If that's the point, we should say that. It sounds like Nishidani sees a different point. So I think this is vague and potentially misleading when we don't have to be to make the same point. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't, but I see the population density as one of the basic relevant facts of the location of most of the hostilities. It seems as though there is a need to include the density of the area Hamas has targeted, I don't see that need but others have raised it. I agree with Nishidani's analysis as to why that figure has contributed to such a political atmosphere within Gaza, but I think the relevance of the density is in the fact that the hostilities have largely occurred there and thus the casualties have largely occurred there. That is why I think it necessary to include that information. Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

C'mon, Nableezy, is this really the first and primary fact that the reader should encounter in the background section? Is it more important than saying where in the world Israel and Gaza are, or what exactly the Gaza Strip is (country, territory, etc.), or when Israel and Hamas first started fighting and why, or what Hamas is? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the most basic fact. Everything else you say is more important is in the lead already. How much more important could they be? Nableezy (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I wouldnt be opposed to the phrasing: The Gaza Stip is a coastal strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea bordered by Israel and Egypt. It has one of the worlds largest population densities (HRW cite), with (CIA Factbook numbers). Nableezy (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, none of those things are in the lead! Your suggestion would certainly be better than the current situation, as long as it talked about Israel too, e.g. "Israel and the neighboring Gaza Strip are on the eastern coast of the Mediterranian Sea..." Why should it only talk about Gaza, when this is the Israel-Gaza conflict? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, it should talk about Gaza because that is where the hostilities have occurred. I pretty much took that from the Gaza Strip article. There can certainly be talk about Israel, we do in fact talk about the background as it relates to rocket fire, saying which cities have been hit and so on. But as far as those things not being in the lead: why did Hamas and Israel first start fighting (I assume you mean why they started fighting in this conflict, please correct me if I am wrong), this paragraph in the lead:
A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[29][30][31] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[32][33][34][35][36] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[37][38] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.[39]
what Hamas is I think is best dealt with in the Hamas article which is wikilinked. Where in the world the Gaza Strip and Israel are located is in the infobox map. What Gaza is, I think the proposal above would remedy that. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed already, many reliable and prominent media sources report the Gaza Strip's high population density as germane to the fighting there. RomaC (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Even from the point of view of military history, the geography, the topography, and the demographics of an area of operations is an important component. This is a no brainer. It should be presented in an NPOV, RS manner tho, I will be the first to say that it has at times been written in a SYNTHy way.--Cerejota (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that the population density of Gaza is relevant. My disagreement is with the inclusion of The Big Lie that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth which has been repeated so often that it has become hard for people to accept that it is untrue even when faced with the figures. Nableezy, comparing Chicago to Gaza City and Illinois to the Gaza Strip would make sense if the whole Gaza Strip wasn't smaller than Chicago. The whole Gaza Strip is a sprawling urban area, and even its most dense quarters, Gaza City itself, doesn't even make the top ten of densely populated world cities, being 6 or 7 times less densely populated than the world's most densely populated places. The Strip is 41km long by 6-12 km wide and houses 1.5m people. Just up the coast you could draw an identical 41km strip from Tel-Aviv to Haifa and find just as many people living there but no one has ever tried to describe Israel's coastal plain as one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. Draw the Strip's contour around any one of 100s of urban areas around the world and it will contain more than 1.5m people. It is such an often repeated myth that you will find thousands of sources making the claim that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. If you can find one making the claim from a scientific geographic basis and backing it up with facts rather than simply using it as a form of rhetoric than I'm listening. Making arbitrary political distinctions about what constitutes a 'territory' and using them for comparison is not NPOV. Only two numbers are important, the Strip's 4000/km2 and Gaza City's 9000/km2. Neither of them are close to the top of the list of the world's most densely populated places. Define it any way you like, the claim is just not true.Dino246 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot compare Chicago, which I think merits mention as the center of the world, to the Gaza Strip. And if bombs were falling on Chicago, God forbid, I am sure it would warrant mention that it is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Monaco is listed as the most densely populated country or territory in the world with a total area of 1.95 km2. Would the wording 'one of the most densely populated territories in the world' be acceptable to you. Just based on the numbers the Gaza Strip, which is a self-governing territory at least for the time of this conflict, there are ~4167/km2. That currently ranks as 4th in the world per List of countries and dependencies by population density. I can perhaps see why you disagree with saying it is one of the most densely places in the world, i think lie is a little far but whatever, but if it were to be stated as one of the worlds most densely populated territories be sufficient? Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another pretend example would be Guam, listed as the 37th highest density in the world and is a territory of the US. If a military operation took place there I would think it would be fine to say Guam has the 37th highest population density in the world. Nableezy (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no choice but to agree with User:Dino246. Comparing Gaza's density with other countries violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. To the extent that Gaza is compared to countries, it cannot be counted alone, but with all the PA-controlled territory in the Westbank. After all, they share (officially) the same leadership and government. If we are going to discuss Gaza's density on it's own, it is only fair to compare it to other cites (there are lots that are larger then Gaza).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that can be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We have a direct quote from a RS: "The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world." How can this be called OR or SYNTH? Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch, the source given, isn't reliable. If we are going to add a statement that is clearly problematic and probably incorrect to the article we would need the support of atleast a few reliable sources. Right now, it has nada. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As to Brewcrewer, why would we compare the Gaza Strip to "other cities"? The Gaza Strip is not a city. RomaC (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more comparable to a city then to a country. After all, it's a part of the PA-administrated territory. It walks like a city and quacks like a city. The fact that it includes a "city" named Gaza City is as relevant to the fact that New York City includes an entity called Co-op City or City Island.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

HRW is a reliable source, if you want to raise that on the RS noticeboard go ahead, but I point you to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch where it has already been discussed. Nableezy (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The link provided shows that there was no consensus for its acceptance as a reliable source. To that end, there's no way it can be used as the sole source for something contentious and problematic as this issue. Moreover, their area of expertise is human rights, not city density statistics. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No it did not, it showed that a few editors were against but every non-involved person agreed that it is a RS. Nableezy (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And I think a 7 yr old is expert enough to divide population by area. Nableezy (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brew, if you are arguing that the Gaza Strip is a city, can you provide some reliable sources to back that up? RomaC (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it's more analogous to a city then to a country, but I don't really have to prove it with reliable sources because I'm not trying to add any of my arguments or "facts" resulting from my arguments into the article. One thing is forsure, comparing Gaza alone to a country is incorrect and calling it one the "most densely populated areas in the world" (in the article at this time) is not based on a scholarly book or newspaper article, but mentioned off-hand in a Human Rights group press release. This contentious claim, which has shown to be erroneous, must be supported by reliable sources before it is included into the article. Right now it has no support. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to prove that the Gaza Strip is a city, it's just that I wondered if you'd seen this in a source somewhere. Because I've never heard this argued before. I had a look on Google Earth and it looks to me like a one big city (Gaza) and a few smaller cities and several camps etc. So in my original research it looks like a territory. On what do you base your opinion that it's a city? RomaC (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another valid point is that Gaza strip population was not counted for some time now by statisticians. All numbers, like CIA fact book, are estimates, which could be right or wrong. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No that is not a valid point. If reliable sources say something we can accept it as fact. Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To the point we agreed not to include facts like Hamas considered terrorist group by some countries, since it's available in Hamas article. In similar way Wikipedia reader could click Gaza strip. Give Wikipedia reader some credit. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True but there is a credit crisis. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada I'm just going to write this here because I expect you'll see it. In the last hours you made four edits that significantly changed the article's tone, you have to know by now that these sort of edits are going to be reverted -- someone else got one, I got three. Also it is apparent that English is not your native language, so there is the matter of grammar in the edits, some of which frankly mangle the article. Can you please reach an agreement here then someone will edit the article, otherwise you are just making labor for other editors and you are not trying to do that, agreed? RomaC (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

He should, out of respect for the rest of us, limit himself to a few edits a day. This frenetic editing by Agadit, in poor English, causes hiuge confusions and one invariably has to come in with mop and slop bucket to clean up the mess. No side in the editing benefits from this kind of recklessness.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The passage stood there a long time, with, if I recall correctly, no serious objection. Then Dino 246 comes in and questions it, and suddenly it is problematical. Any simple Google, or Google Books search will throw up numerous RS's which repeat the point that Gaza (and note that we have an ambiguity here, since Gaza can refer to the Strip as a whoole or the city) is one of the most densely crowded places on earth. Dino insists that this a 'Big Lie'. The usual response is, we deal in wiki with RS and verifiability of statements from them, not with the truth. So the point insisted on is folly, irrespective of the merits of Dino's quest for truth.

Any article has a background section to contextualize the main subject in history. One of the defining things of Gaza after 200,000 refugees expelled from Lydda and Ashkelon ended up there in the aftermath of 48 (Sderot, the centre of rocket attacks, is so because that town was ethnically cleansed of its several hundred Arab inhabitants by the Haganah before Israel's declaration of independence: they all ended up in Gaza, the dumping ground for indigenous populations not wanted in the new state), is that huge numbers overwhelmed its natural growth: it was prosperous until then. All specialists, Israeli and foreign, note the important of the demographic build up against ever scarce-resources (the settlers down until 2005 got water at a third of the cost Gazans got it, pro-capita). It cannot, like Hong Kong opr Singapore, which support greater densities, ever aspire to that idiot Thomas Friedman's vision, because its burgeoning infrastructure of development, and its resources (offshore gas, the fishing industry) have been consistently destroyed in the long conflict by the IDF, which knows exactly what it is doing, i.e., pushing them to absolute despair, which means emigration (impossible) or accepting conditions unilaterally imposed by their regional overlord, Israel. The CIA Factbook notes itself that strategically Israel's policies keep it degraded, and degradation leads to conflict all over the world. Policy has consistently played the demographic card, the Palestinians in one way, (we'll outbreed you), the IDF strategists another (but your lives won't be worth living). I go back to Soffer's papers and books from ther 1990s to 2004. he was the architect of Sharon's disengagement plan, and he considered the demographic density absolutely central to Israeli planning for the Strip. If the disengagement plan, one of the central, most striking policies in recent times, was dictated by demographic calculations, so was support for Hamas, etc. I will dig up sources if one insists on this (but anyone can check this against the relevant literature independently). So, as I say, with Nableezy and others, demographic facts are crucial (they explain the way Israeli battle tactics developed, for instance, and why so many civilians will always be killed), and should be in the background.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(A)'The end result is a situation where one side can potentially be limited by international law where the other is not, and that effectively makes international law a potential weapon for the side that rejects and exploits it. It is also a situation that empowers and incentivizes extremists to use civilians as the equivalent of human shields by embedding their forces in civilian populations and areas, and using sensitive buildings like mosques and schools or collocating near them. There is nothing new about such tactics. They also affected much of the fighting in Iraq and now affect the fighting in Afghanistan. Their impact, however, is far more apparent in a densely populated area like Gaza. Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘THE “GAZA WAR”: A Strategic Analysis,’ Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 2009 p.2

Cordesman's analysis completely espouses the Israeli perspective, and therefore an excellent quality source for pro-Israeli editors, given the author's credentials.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(B)'The end result was that Hamas initiated the conflict as a weak non-state actor that could launch rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians and civil facilities over an extended period of time but had little other warfighting capability other that using its own densely populated urban areas as barriers. It did so in part because it had no other real means of combat. At the same time, it seems to have relied on the population density of Gaza to both deter Israeli attacks, and as a defense against Israeli land and air attacks.'Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘THE “GAZA WAR”: A Strategic Analysis,’ Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 2009 p.10 Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as more sources here you go:
From a report by the World Health Organization (a UN body): The Gaza Strip, on the eastern Mediterranean coast between Israel and Egypt has been the setting for a protracted humanitarian crisis. It has a population of 1.5 million with the sixth highest population density in the world, and a very young demographic with 18% of the population under 5 years of age (274 000 children). Recent events have resulted in a severe exacerbation of the chronic humanitarian crisis. available here (in the very first paragraph of the context section)
Is the WHO also not a RS? Nableezy (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to not lose site of one thing. Sure, density affects how warfare is conducted (relevant), and the effect of warfare on the civilian population (relevant), and because of those two facts, the population density of Gaza is relevant as well. But what is irrelevant is how that density compares to the rest of the world. Even if that is objective fact (disputed), it has no bearing on the first two relevant facts above. It only has bearing on the third fact, whose relevance is only in relation to the first two facts. If there were 10,000 places on earth more highly densely populated, Gaza's relatively dense population would still be relevant. So, either we state the actual population density and explain how those numbers affects our event, or we just leave it as a more general "Gaza has a very high population density. Because of that density blah blah blah by the residents of Gaza and blah blah blah by the Israeli armed forces."

Dovid (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Most sources, I've seen a dozen, but am sick and tired of typing stuff out that anyone can check themselves, use the 'world comparison' in talking of Gaza's human density. The place is isolated by military fiat. I see no reason to edit in such a way that even analogies or comparisons are suppressed, used by most Reliable Sources, to extirpate such comparisons with Gaza. What is it, a pariah sub-state even verbally, to be treated as autarkic, autistic, autonomous, anarchic, and self-referential, so no one can think comparatively? Objections so far to what is standard demographic comparative phrasing seem specious. Sources determine usage, not wiki wikilawyering. Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No? I'm sorry if you are sick and tired. But that doesn't make it relevant. You've just personalized it, that's all. We don't quote RS in full, we use RS to get relevant, factual details for articles. If the an article on Gaza discusses, in the same sentence, the tides coming in off the coasts, and the blockade against maritime commerce, do we mention both facts? No. The tides aren't relevant. The lack of maritime commerce due to the blockading is relevant. We skip the former and include the latter. The effects of population density are indeed relevant. We can show the relevance in the article; if we don't show it, then the density becomes meaningless. Throwing in "most dense" doesn't add meaning or relevance, and we won't be able to show the fit for the context. Does most dense it tell me that it is 10000/km2 or 50000/km2? No! Does it tell me that there's a difference between a mere "above average" density and a "highest in the world" density? No! This isn't lawyering, this is about good, pithy, editing, which seems to have been lost from this article. Dovid (talk)

dovd - your argument does not have merit. you want it to say "a very high population density." well, how do we define high? higher than average? the average what? you got it, the average population density in the world. its comparative, no? let's just use our source from the gaza strip article and say the 6th highest in the world. Untwirl (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"6th highest" is a comparative term, and the comparison is entirely arbitrary, comparing a small area of land, all of which is urban sprawl, to the countries of the world, most of which have vast areas of entirely unpopulated land bringing their average population density down. As 42km x 8km strips of urban land go, Gaza is not more densely populated than most having a population density of 4000/km2 which is comparable with the average small town. The truly densely populated places on this planet have population densities of over 20,000/km2. Draw a 42km x 8km rectangle around most urban areas anywhere in the world and you will find more than the 1.5m people you find in Gaza. Gaza does not have an unusually high population density but an entirely average population density for an urban area. The relevant fact that we are looking for is that Gaza is an almost entirely urban area in which the civilian population and the militant population are inextricably mixed. Claiming that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world is like claiming that Toni Basil is one of the top selling recording artists in the world. She's sold an awful lot more records than you or I have but she's far from being one of the top selling in the world. Gaza is as densely populated as the average urban area. This is important and relevant to the article. The erroneous claim of "most densely populated" that is based on an entirely arbitrary and misleading comparison with whole countries covering territory orders of magnitude larger than Gaza must be removed. It is factually incorrect, and its inclusion is politically motivated. Dino246 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A UN body, the WHO, says 6th highest. Another highly respected human right organization says among the highest in the world. If you want to make the argument that they are lying then fine, but for the purposes of this article it does not matter if they are lying. What matters is that they did indeed say that the population density is among the highest in the world. That you disagree with what they are comparing is also not a valid argument for inclusion/exclusion of material. We have reliable sources that say this is the case. That this has generated so much discussion when it is backed up by independent sources is beyond me. Yes most countries have large areas with few residents, not all like Monaco or some of the smaller territories such as Guam. Gaza is currently a self-governing entity, as a self-governing entity it does have one of the highest population densities in the world. That statement is backed up by reliable sources. Even if it were a bold-faced lie, which needless to say I don't think is true, reliable neutral observers have made that statement. The only possible argument that could be seen as valid is that it is not relevant, but I think it is clear that it is relevant and even those who do not want the wording see the relevance. Is there anything in policy that says we should not include this sourced, verifiable statistic? If not, can we please move on? Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this discussion has become long-winded for a relatively minor issue but I am against using it in any form in the current section. I think it would make a fine addition to the Casualties section.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties section? Then why not military section (where density defined much of the battle strategies), or why not . . .No consensus. Leave it where it is, and has been. There's a ton of work to do done without frigging around like this.Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been plenty of comments mixed in the argument over how to word it stating the same thing. SO there is not consensus for where it is now. Regardless of which section it goes, one of the lead off sentences in the background is a terrible place for it. actually really liked the HRW wording proposed by Nableezy.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think basic information on the area of the military operation is essential background. The WHO report I cited earlier in their report which focuses on the health risks in Gaza and discusses health repercussions from this 'emergency' has in its context section, the very first section of the report, the line about the population density of Gaza. The fact that Gaza is so densely populates is relevant background to nearly all aspects of this article. It is background to the type of operations performed, the way the operations were carried out, the claim that Hamas was using the high civilian population counts to shelter themselves, the high number of casualties, every single section of the article besides the reactions has as relevant background the population density of the Gaza Strip. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is out of place and not explained. There were 100 different ways to link urban warfare, casualties, etc to the demographics but it has not been done. Why is the youth population line in if not to make a point? So far, I think the majority of the handful of editors who have expressed an opinion on the placement aspect of the lines has agreed with me.Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am cool with moving that part to the casualties section. I dont think other demographics are as relevant to all of the article, they are relevant to part of it. But I do think population density specifically is relevant to all parts of the article. Nableezy (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't really understand all this. Why can't we just say that Gaza is very dense with several urban areas that would be the site of fighting. And we can explain why that was a great concern before the conflict began. Why do we have to include the 6th part? Does it say anything that we can't say another way? What does it bring to the party? In my mind the problem is that Gaza's population is urban, it is defended by urban guerillas and that an Israeli operation required urban warfare, especially air to surface and artillery attacks which would require heavy civilian casualties. The 6th part doesn't add anything unique and is potentially misleading. Beyond that a number of editors are opposed to it. So why should we keep it?

Can we not compromise and still raise the same points but in a way that everyone can live with? It seems that everyone automatically entrenches their positions without considering ways to compromise. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not arguing for the 6th part. Like Cptnono I am cool with the phrasing HRW used, among the highest in the world. Very is a subjective word and without any baseline doesn't actually say anything. Other editors seem to want to take out that part of it. That is what I am arguing against. Nableezy (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a comparison at all that the exclusionists have a problem with. Why do we need to say that all? Comparing it to other countries doesn't explain the problem as well as simply explaining the problem does. And I think it could be interpreted as saying that operations against Gaza are worse than in other areas which is true in a sense and an not true in another.

You know how in mediation you are supposed to separate positions from interests. My interest here is to say how dangerous an Israeli operation was going to have to be. But that's not my position. I think there are lots of ways we can say that. And hopefully one or two that might be acceptable to everyone. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why I like the HRW statement. It is a source that says something. There is no original research or interpretation on our part regarding urban warfare or military planning. It actually uses the data to make a valid and notable point. This source, however, is more relevant to the Casualties section than anywhere else currently in the article.Cptnono (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cpt I have a problem with that because putting the density information into Casualties does seem a synthesis. Background sets the stage so to speak, and a stage is location and players. RomaC (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

exactly. well put.Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think RomaC includes the population density in the location information. Nableezy (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per Nableezy. Here, density is a principal characteristic of location, and we see this reflected in numerous reliable primary and secondary sources. RomaC (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I probably should have explained my last comment. The background is the stage and players. I obviousley don't agree that putting it in casualties is synthesis since a fairly reliable source uses the data to make a valid point. Basicallly as it stands: It being in the background with the youth % is simply pushing an agenda. I know we are suppose to assume good faith but I don't. I think that whatever editor put it in is as bad as a liar for not admiting to it. There are several arguments for why it belongs in that section. I disagree with most of them but see how it feasibly could be done. It still would not be as appropriate since I don't think anyone will find a source really getting into the nitty griity of summarizing the density setting the stage for urban combat. Realistically, the tactics would be similar in the city/territory/country that is number 38 on the list but that is not why the line was added to where it was. It was added to push a view and would be better somewhere else in the article.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point on the youth percentage, if that were not included in the background would that solve any issues? Or do you think that the population density by itself does not belong in the background at all? Nableezy (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs (certainly as is) but have heard other editors provide some explanation on how they think it could be worked into the background. I think they deserve a shot at it before I completely discount it.Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For sources on how it touches on more than just the casualties section, which is why I think it best in the background section as it influences several sections, take a look at these: "Nevertheless, given the high population density in Gaza and the close proximity between homes, this has caused considerable panic and uncertainty among those receiving phone calls, as well as neighboring houses." talking about roof knocking, defined as an IDF military strategy, in a report from OCHA, or this, which is not a RS but think it may demonstrate relevance as an opinion piece from retired Israeli colonel Jonathan Fighel and "senior researcher at the International Institute for Counter Terrorism" where he says "The dense population concentrations in the Gaza Strip are an easy arena for the terrorist organizations to fight in and use its population to leverage its terrorist agenda" and "Hamas and the other terrorist organizations view the population density of the Gaza Strip, both in the cities and the refugee camps, as focal points in their operational capabilities to wage an urban guerilla style combat against conventional military armed forces. The tactic of deliberately enlisting civilians as human shields to protect the houses of terrorist operatives has proved itself effective, in the eyes of the Palestinian terrorist organizations, at least until Operation Cast Lead. That was because of their awareness that the IDF does not deliberately attack civilians, even though the target is permissible according to the laws of armed combat. The human shield tactic improves their freedom of action, provides a kind of immunity, blending within the population, creating an inherent difficulty to be identified (“Friend or Foe”), enabling terrorist operatives wearing civil clothes to act mostly unidentified until they act and attack the ground forces." here, which goes to multiple Israeli claims as to the violations of war crimes by Hamas in using 'human shields' and disguising themselves as civilians. Now I think you know me well enough to know I dont place these quotes here because I like reading that, just trying to demonstrate how this is relevant to almost all the issues. It goes to the type of operations conducted as being in an urban environment, the casualties, and the allegations of war crimes on both sides. Nableezy (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also this, (also not a reliable source just trying to demonstrate relevance): "Depth of penetration and operational tempo. The depth of the IDF's penetration will be a function of the operation's objective; the more expansive the goals, the deeper the IDF will need to penetrate. A deep incursion will likely require the IDF to use heavy (armor and mechanized infantry) and/or special forces in built-up, densely populated areas. Fighting in these arenas creates a whole range of problems, including the likelihood of increased IDF and Palestinian civilian casualties, as well as a slowing of operational tempo. The IDF has prepared for fighting in this environment, but urban operations are historically messy and slow." from an offshoot of AIPAC, Washington Institute for Near East Policy here. Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to tackle using the density data in the background please do. There has been plenty of discussion but it still has not been fixed so someone (you I hope) should go for it. It doesn't need to be a reasoning as to why it should stay just a few good lines on how it shaped the conflict. Currently, I really want to remove the % of kids but have a feeling there is not consensus. Any complaints to that line being removed or moved to a more appropriate section?Cptnono (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stock taking

Since there's no consensus for it's insertion, it's clearly problematic as explained above, and it's not really supported by reliable sources it should be removed pending support in reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

it is supported by RS, I gave you 2, the WHO and HRW. Nableezy (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the house of cards falls down because there's no consensus that these two are reliable sources.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with Nableezy, there has not been consensus and I still think it is a silly agenda pushing line for some editors anyways. I'm OK with removal.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hold up, there absolutely is consensus that HRW is a RS, if you want to take that up in the reliable sources notice board go ahead. You want to try to dispute the reliability of the World Health Organization good luck with that. Nableezy (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And there was a rough consensus (or at least the people objecting accepted the sources providing to stop objecting) for its original inclusion back in Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_26#Background Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not to say there is consensus now, only that there 'has been' consensus on its inclusion in the not so distant past. Nableezy (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The earlier consensus regarded its relevancy. I agree with that consensus, it is relevant. This issue was about its factual correctness. There is no consensus for the background to state a fact that is not supported by the statistics. Editorial decisions to remove something trumps its mention in a reliable source. Moreover, the one source, HRW, is of questionable reliability. To the extent it can be considered reliable, we can't use an off-hand tangential line concerning an area outside their area of expertise as the sole source in support of a apparently erroneous statement. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistence cannot trump policy. Do not remove this. RomaC (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Roma: We already have you on record in the earlier section supporting its inclusion. The issue at this point is how it can be included despite the clear lack of consensus, the clear lack of solid support in reliable sources, and the clear dubiousness of the statement.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is backed by 2 RSs, if you want to question the reliability of those sources gos ahead, but both the WHO and HRW are reliable sources. Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nab: You're just repeating yourself. Again, to the extent HRW is reliable (unclear), we can't extrapolate one off-hand tangential line that is outside their area of expertise to support the inclusion of an erroneous statement in the face of a lack of consensus. Btw, where is this WHO source that you mention?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating myself because I am faced with repeated assertions that I think are incorrect, namely that the statement is not backed by RSs. This isnt an off-hand tangential line, it is one that was repeated in countless articles, including CNN The San Fransisco Chronicle Reuters and Haaretz to name just a few. I just thought it would be better if I just quoted the original source from HRW, which, just for the fun of repeating myself, along with the WHO is a RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have a simple solution: We can put the fact that this comes from the HRW in the text of the article. This is the usual practice for contentious and weakly supported claims. I'm unsure if the other editors arguing against its inclusion will agree, but I'm on record in support of this compromise. Also, do you have a link to the WHO source?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WHO report discussing health issues in the Gaza Strip and how this 'crisis' has contributed to those health risks. It has a population of 1.5 million with the sixth highest population density in the world, and a very young demographic with 18% of the population under 5 years of age (274 000 children). Nableezy (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The WHO does not say that it's the "one of the most densely populated places on earth". Also, your silence in response to my compromise offer is deafening :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that I regard HRW as a RS so I thought it was clear I disagree that it weakly supported. I also did not say the WHO said it was one of the highest in the world, would you rather it say 6th highest? I could accept 'The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a high population density(cited to HRW and WHO) (with CIA numbers). Also, I can find a whole bunch of reports from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, another UN body, that make the same remark as background to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions are clear, but so are mine and I've agreed to a compromise. Even assuming HRW is a reliable source, you must admit that the statement is not strongly supported. At the end of the day, an organization whose sole agenda is giving the news is a better source then an organization whose sole agenda is not giving the news. Plus, we only have one source for the claim of "one of the most densely populated places on earth". There's been lots of news coverage about Gaza, yet no source outside of the HRW said this. And yes, I would prefer the WHO statement to the current format. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So what do you want it to say? Nableezy (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Imo, the order of preference according to WP:RS and WP:V is:

Nothing. The Background section should start with Gaza's population and its area.
The Gaza Strip is a densely populated area.
The Gaza Strip is the sixth most densely populated area in the world, according to the World Health Organization.
The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth, according to Human Rights Watch.

---brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the others have specifically objected to the 'sixth most' part, is there something wrong with
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a high population density(cited to HRW and WHO) (with CIA numbers).
or do you think both the WHO and HRW are unreliable or that the WHO statement that it is the 6th highest in the world is at odds with what is written above? Nableezy (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brew, please do not set up a discussion section that simply frames the issue in your perspective. Contrary to your premises above, Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization are reliable sources; prominent and reliable media sources do not consider this an "erroneous" or "dubious" statement, you do; and the "lack of consensus" is more accurately the tenacity of two editors who don't like it and are determined to push for a false compromise. RomaC (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly your requesting of me. Do you want me frame the issues according to your perspective? I might agree with that if you would in turn agree to frame your issues according to my perspective. But I don't think that's an ideal scheme; things can get complicated quickly. I think we should just do like everyone else - I'll frame issues according to my perspective and you'll frame your issues according to your perspective. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have explained it more clearly. Please do not start a new section, which is a place that we hope maybe some uninvolved editors might come, with a set of premises that are products of your own perspective, without identifying them as such. This section starts with "Since there's no consensus for it's insertion, it's clearly problematic as explained above, and it's not really supported by reliable sources..." That is a set of three premises that do not objectively reflect the previous discussions, which some uninvolved editors might not take the time to plow through. RomaC (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the confusion, but my format should not have been taken as an indication that I was suddenly not going opine according to my own perspective. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I am concerned that uninvolved editors will look at a new section that has been introduced in this manner, and say 'well, if there is no consensus, and the content is erroneous and there are no reliable sources then cut it'. In fact there was consensus very recently, and the information in question has very reliable primary and secondary sources. I think that's where the confusion lies. RomaC (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus for removal. the sources are reliable. brewcrewer, please stop making these ridiculous arguments. let's see, according to you: human rights watch, the world health organization, and including your previous comments, amnesty international and "the notoriously anti-israel independent" are all unreliable sources. i don't think many editors are going to agree with that. there is alot of genuinely valuable work that needs to be done to update and improve this article. i'm sure you have some good contibutions, but this isnt one of them.Untwirl (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WHO and HRW are reliable sources for health and rights issues but not for scientific questions of population density or geography. They are not an authority to reliably make claims that any given area is one of the most densely populated in the world. Having said that, I am quite comfortable with "The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a high population density(cited to HRW and WHO) (with CIA numbers)." but I do think that in the interests of fairness, and to ensure that it is not misleading, it should be pointed out that this high population density is common right the way up the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, including the Israeli coastal plain, and is not unique to Gaza.Dino246 (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, Dino, your distinctions regarding when and on what WHO and HRW are reliable primary sources represent your opinion. Reliable media including CNN The San Fransisco Chronicle Reuters and Haaretz disagree with you and do say among the highest population densities in the world. RomaC (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

All along the Israeli coastal plain is not relevant. This article is about this conflict which occurred in Gaza, not all along the Israeli coastal plain. As far as the sourcing, if anybody want to take this up in the RS noticeboard feel free. Nableezy (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No implications intended, but I notice the question of population density is also a point of focus for Camera RomaC (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What implications would there be? It has been an issue for CAMERA since at least 2005. [2] Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that we need to accept that there's a difference between a reliable source (which WHO and HRW undeniably are) and an infallible source (which doesn't exist). That they are RS does not make them right about everything. I think that I have objectively shown that the claim is false. Anyone with a calculator can see that. It is a very common misconception and we need to be careful about repeating it citing sources that don't back up their own repitition of the claim with evidence. The conflict did not occur only in Gaza. It started in Sderot, Netivot and other Israeli towns up the coastal plain with population densities at the same 4000/km2 level as Gaza. Find me a scientific first hand source claiming that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world and I'll shut up. Comparing the population density of this small urban strip with the average population density of entire countries is a meaningless and, in this context, an extremely misleading comparison. The towns into which Hamas have been randomly firing missiles for years are equally densely populated and this fact is at least as relevant to the background of the conflict as any other, if not more. The rocket fire from Gaza is the background of the conflict.Dino246 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is another issue, the background to the event and the reason or inciting incident(s) for the event are two different things. In this regard it would depend on which side you asked, sources show that Israel regards the 8,000 Hamas rockets since 2005 as the reason for Cast Lead, I think that information is well represented, it appears in the first paragraph of the article. (On the other hand, sources say Hamas was motivated by the Israeli blockade, military incursions, targeted killings and border incidents.) On the RS question, I can't imagine that nobody at The San Fransisco Chronicle, Reuters, or Haaretz has a calculator. RomaC (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem with accepting the "most densely populated" claim, since we know what Gaza is like, and has been for a very long time eg this guy in 1989 - Joe Cortina whtt@cox.net, "... retired Florida businessman who has done substantial world traveling - some purely as a 'tourist' and some in areas - shall I say- 'nothing to do with vacationing'." - he says: "... My 'specially authorized' trips included Gaza City ... a ride down the main street looked like a scene from some WWII movie. ... no building with any floor above the first. ALL buildings had any additional floors blasted into rubble - much of the jagged former construction black and charred. This was a city street no much different from any American small town. Shops, restaurants, services, apartment etc. blown to bits and vacant as a tomb. ... to reduce any cover for potential snipers who might threaten Israeli patrols." Recent reports have spoken of 20 people squeezed into one room - I think that's "most densely populated" enough for most people. PR^talk 13:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that most reporters have calculators but the "most densely populated" myth is so axiomatic that even I questioned my ability to divide population by area when I discovered that my own sleepy town shared the same 4000/km2 population density as Gaza. It is the most densely populated place on earth in the same way that my garden is the most densely wooded place on earth. With 2 trees in its 15mx15m area my garden is actually more densely wooded than Brazil, Austria or Canada. If it were a country, my back garden would be the most densely wooded country in the world. The "most densely populated" claim for Gaza would be equally absurd were it not so universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources. I think that we are surprisingly close to consensus if we'd just concentrate on formulating an acceptable paragraph rather than getting sidetracked into rhetoric. Does anyone object to: "The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. The entire coastal plain, both Palestinian and Israeli, is mostly urban and has a largely uniform population density of approximately 4000/km2, comparable to other urban areas around the world."Dino246 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you truly believe you are right, but on Wikipedia the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. As other editors have advised, you might take your arguments to the reliable sources noticeboard, thanks. RomaC (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit wrong ? http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/95caaf8cb4436686852575360063f3df!OpenDocument Sean.hoyland - talk 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to it for reasons stated above. Nableezy (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I once dated a ballet dancer who had special shoes and when en pointe occupied about a square centimeter, giving that area of my floor a population density of ten billion/km2, blows my mind. RomaC (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i object to the original research. we say what reliable sources say, not what we think, believe, calculate, etc. The point you make here, " The "most densely populated" claim for Gaza would be equally absurd were it not so universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources" shows that you concede that that fact is "universally and unquestionably accepted and so often repeated, even by reliable sources" but you believe it is wrong. this should show you the folly of your argument. the fact is supported by rs, your opinion is not. if you have reliable sources to back up your research and say that gaza's pop dens is "comparable to other urban areas around the world" you should provide them for balance, but not including reliably sourced information just because you disagree with it isn't justifiable. Untwirl (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that map Sean. Now take a look at this one [3] and explain to me in what way Gaza is unusually densely populated. Quite clearly the 22x8km strip surrounding Tel-Aviv is just as densely populated as the 22x8km strip around Gaza City. How about the 22x8km strip around Manhattan [4]? Or the one around London [5]?Dino246 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i am impressed by your diligence at looking for sources, please find some for other parts of the article. are you suggesting that we use these maps in the article? or are you wanting to use these maps as justification for your synth and OR? this whole discussion, based on your (admittedly superior) calculator skills, seems to be fairly simple. unless you are being WP:DENSE? c'mon lets move on. i believe we were about to reach a compromise to leave it alone and remove the children demographic. anyone? Untwirl (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino, you mean Tel Aviv ? But that's one of the most densely populated places on earth. Don't bite me, I just said your number was a bit wrong. Anyway, what Untwirl said above is the wiki way, it's all about the reliable sources even if they don't seem to make sense from your perspective. Arguments about densities are pointless or rather endless anyway because they're a function of spatial sampling, bin size (as RomaC's ballet example illustrated) and various other factors. A group of people can't really have a sensible argument about X unless they all agree to a common set of parameters that define the way X is calculated and we shouldn't be doing that. This has been an odd discussion because Macau is almost certainly the most densely populated place on this planet at ~17-18,000/km2 but if you go there, wander around a bit and have a look for yourself you'll see it feels pretty much like other places. If someone started dropping bombs and shelling it, it could be a bit of a problem. I suppose that's the salient point. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the salient point. Gaza doesn't need to be "one of the most densely populated" to understand the high danger and high civilian casualty count. It's an unnecessary (and inaccurate) claim that should be removed from the article. Here are a couple of sources backing me up. [6], [7]. The second one shows that the Gaza Strip is to all intents and purposes a city. In both area and population it is near identical to Leeds in the UK which is the 57th most densely populated city in the world. On the assumption that cities are the most densely populated places on Earth, the Gaza Strip is statistically the 57th most densely populated place on the planet. A bit lower down the list than anywhere that could be fairly described as "one of the most..". Even Gaza's most densely populated few acres, Gaza City itself, doesn't make the top 20. Sourced. Can we remove this clearly untrue statement from Wikipedia now please? Dino246 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I still agree with Dino's points. A larger problem though is I still think the paragraph is out of place anyway and should either be moved elsewhere in the article or at least have some contextual explanation as to why it is the first paragraph in the background section. I'm sure there are plenty of editors who have noticed this paragraph and were a bit puzzled; the fact that it stood so long in the article without a lengthy discussion means nothing. When I first saw the paragraph it didn't sit well with me either, but I didn't have the time to start a huge, lengthy discussion like this one. But since it's out there now, I just wanted to reiterate my opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, what is wrong with this:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a high population density(cited to HRW and WHO) (with CIA numbers).
I know you want to also include the Israeli density of the areas Hamas has targeted, but besides that what is wrong with the above line? Nableezy (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And nobody, I mean nobody, here has said it is the most densely populated, we have said one of the most. Bit of a difference. Nableezy (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have some new sources. It is particularly hard to find sources confirming that something isn't true because it's like looking for something that isn't there. The following sources regarding worldwide population densities are notable only in as much as they don't mention Gaza as being particularly high: [8], [9], [10], [11]. The following source that I found is the most useful though because it allows us to make a clear objective comparison between the sourced population density for the Gaza Strip of ~4000/km2 and the average urban population densities around the world, [12]. Gaza is actually of below average population density for the "middle and low income world" (pop-density = 9200), is almost identical to the average urban population density of the UK (4100), and is only marginally above the world average of 3500. Please take a look at the source. It proves that it is inaccurate to even describe Gaza's population density as "high". It is at most, slightly above average. Gaza City itself is absolutely average for the "middle and low income world". I suggest changing the opener to:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a population density of approximately 4000/km2, typical of urban areas around the world. (cited to [13]) (with CIA numbers)
. Dino246 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the sourcing for 'high' is adequate (HRW: among the highest in the world; and WHO: 6th highest), and since you have objected so strenuously to any comparison to the rest of the world (6th highest, among the highest) I find it curious you are now attempting to use a different comparison. I prefer the wording I used earlier as it is sourced to neutral observers, and in a concession to the rest of the people here it took out any comparison to other places in the world. Nableezy (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"typical of urban areas" is synth and OR Untwirl (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I objected to comparing a small urban area to entire countries, not to making a comparison that will give readers context for what is after all, a rather abstract statistic to most. I do accept the synth comment and potential OR with the use of the word "typical" though and am happy to separate it out into two unrelated sourced facts and allow intelligent readers to draw their own conclusions.
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It has a population density of approximately 4000/km2. (with CIA numbers) The world average for urban areas is 3500/km2. (cited to [14])
It is important to give a frame of reference when using a unit of measurement like "people/km2" and the world average is probably about as NPOV as you can get. Dino246 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But you are still making an arbitrary choice as to what to compare it to. Before, we were using RSs to make that comparison for us (WHO: 6th highest or HRW: among the highest in the world). I am not questioning the reliability of the demographia.com source, but on first look it does not seem to be a RS, though I think their numbers are accurate. I do think that 'high' (man I wish I was) accurately describes the density per the 2 neutral RSs that we have put forward, without adding any commentary or comparisons on our own. Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

brewcrewer informed me that i was being uncivil and that he had taken offense at my use of bold type, characterizing his argument as "ridiculous," and linking to WP:DENSE. first of all, running around accusing editors of incivility is disruptive. i would like to point out that he has made his own fair share of condescending remarks, including accusing editors of building houses made of playing cards which are not up to code and will be managed by slumlords taking advantage of impoverished communities. however, as a show of good faith, i will suggest alternate words that i can replace ridiculous with -"preposterous", "illogical", "irrational". as a further show of good faith, from now on i will only link to WP:ICS, if that is less offensive. Untwirl (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally hit the source jackpot! Demographia's raw data, urban areas listed in ranked charts: [15]. This reliable objective scientific source is already used on Wikipedia's List of urban areas by population. Table 4, "URBAN AREAS BY POPULATION DENSITY" starts on page 69. They only define 44km2 of Gaza's 350km2 as 'urban' but this part of the Strip is the 38th most densely populated urban area in the world. High, but not one of the highest. I think that now that we have objective data we should avoid comparative terms and just use the number:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. Its most concentrated urban area is the 38th most densely populated urban area in the world. (cited to [16])
Dino246 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See you are still saying that one comparison is valid and another is not. Gaza City is an urban area, the Gaza Strip is more than that. If you want comparisons I would be more comfortable with a UN body (like the WHO) which says 6th. You just said that it is 'high'. Why dont we just leave it at high instead of having this become a circular discussion with me rejecting your comparisons and you rejecting mine. I dont think we are going to get anywhere like this so I say follow JGGardiner's advice about leaving comparisons out of it. Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a comparison. I have changed the text. The "one of the most" statement was clearly incorrect and misleading. I have removed it and added that the Strip "contains an urban area that is the 38th most densely populated". This is factual, without commentary or arbitrary comparison, and is scientifically backed up by an expert source whose speciality is population density. Dino246 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are, 38th is a comparison. And it is a comparison to a bunch of cities, not territories. The UN says 6th in reference to the whole strip. I think that is more reliable than demographia.com. One of the most was accurately sourced. I changed it back until there is consensus for the change. I think we are getting somewhere and if you chill we will find something all of us can agree to. Nableezy (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun by making the edit, you are right about that and I apologise. For the record, and further discussion, it read like this:
The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. 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). It contains an urban area that is the 38th most densely populated in the world.[17] Almost half of the population are children aged 14 or younger (44.7% as of June 2007).
Demographia are not making the comparison to cities. They are quite specific about being blind to municipal and political boundaries. They define urban areas purely by population spread. The most densely populated 44km2 of Gaza is 38th in the world listed as 16000/km2. Until now we've been counting Gaza City as 9000/km2 which made it city number 57. The 4000/km2 density of the Strip as a whole is not unusually high by any standards. I've shown that repeatedly. It only makes a top-ten list when compared with whole countries but that is surely the most arbitrary comparison of them all as not even Hamas defines Gaza as a country. 38th from a list of 100s of urban areas worldwide is high. You won't find a way of doing the maths that places Gaza higher so let's defer to the scientific source and let the facts speak for themselves.Dino246 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we would be best off not including any rankings, just because there seems to be a pretty large range that various sources have put it. I think the term 'high' is both well sourced and sufficiently vague as to not upset too many people. (and no need for apologies) Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And I would be willing to have the percentage of children be in the casualties section as it seems that it is more relevant to a specific aspect of this article then it is to most of it. Nableezy (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino what you are doing is original research, you can't selectively define sample area in order to lower the density number. The Gaza Strip is not a city, it is a territory with an area larger than Bermuda or Liechtenstein. We are following Wiki policy and using verifiability based on reliable sources as the threshold for inclusion. I am certain other editors see your points, but enough is enough. RomaC (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still being discussed ? We should be thankful that there's no time constraint here. If this were a discussion in an oil company about fish/cetacean pop density and whether the number does or does not indicate a potential risk to spawning in an exploration area we would have all been fired by now because we would have missed the availability slot for the seismic vessel or drilling rig. I admire Dino's persistence here but it's the wrong approach even it it makes perfect sense for a particular set of calculation/comparison rules. Remember that there are other words and phrases used in this article that rely on unspecified/implicit definitions of local density fields. Some examples...

human shield (HS), is a Hamas guy standing next to a civilian a HS situation, within 10m, within 100m or is the whole Gaza Strip one big HS
targeting of civilians - whether someone is targeting civilains or taking appropriate measures to avoid civilians depends on the spatial bin size you use to compute the local civilian density etc

...and of course there are many, many more. Pop density in the strip is just one. We can't street fight over all of these terms by trying to apply our own pet methods. I'm okay with Nableezy's generic approach here the term 'high' is both well sourced and sufficiently vague but let's avoid specific figures. Whatever we do it clearly has to be based on multiple RS because this is getting challenged vigorously. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Link numbered 17 as one of Dino's link provides this http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-countries-by-population-density . It ranks Palestine at number 8. If its good enough for Dino, it should be good enough for Wiki. Cryptonio (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

His argument has been Gaza is not a country so it is not proper to compare its population density to other countries. Nableezy ([[User talk:|talk]]) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Say, how many cities in the world? would the top 200 or so make it to the list as one of the most densely populated? Gaza would make it in the top 100 if you ask me. Completely arbitrary. Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to break it down, to cities over 200K, 400K or 1M, Gaza would creep up and up the list. Know why? because it is a densely populated area(its size is the key here, its miniature). That is how the WHO and the CIA and whoever else who likes numbers reached the fact that its one of the most densely populated area in the world. The simple approach, would be to rank Gaza's density against the cities of the world, vis-a-vis. IF in fact those who are arguing against its ranking consider Gaza a city at all. Cryptonio (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a function of the size of the spatial bin that your throw your data points into. It also depends what you call a city, depends what the source means by 'the world' (i.e. rules for inclusion or exclusion of data based on...pick some random criteria that cause sampling errors e.g. census date, couldn't afford the dataset cost etc). Using this OR approach we could even deconstruct the implicit and unchallenged identity models in I-P articles based on discussions about population genetics, anthropological criteria, re-classification of the Abrahamic faiths based on our own category modelling and so on. It might be entertaining but we would be here forever. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to compromise on "high population density" as long as the following reference is included as I believe it is the only one with a truly agendaless scientific basis. It places Gaza 38th which is high by any standards. [18] It took me 3 days to find it, let's put it there so that others conducting their own research and making their own comparisons can find it more easily.. Simply stating that Gaza's population density is "high" is honest and supported and may contribute to breaking the myth that Gaza's population density is "the highest" or "one of the highest". A claim that journalists and politicians repeat so often that just last week I believed it unquestionably myself in the same way that I believe that the Cheetah is the fastest land mammal. I'm off to check that one now too.. Dino246 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dino Sorry but what you propose seems to me a false compromise. And, the source that took you three days to find deals with Gaza City. The many reliable primary and secondary sources reflected in the article presently all concern the Gaza Strip, which is where the event the article deals with takes place. Good luck in your research on the cheetah. RomaC (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And to think Gaza did not have this 'problem' before. To be pushed to the corner and be argued in favor because of her relatively small size. What a disgrace to bring this up as an argument. Two points can be added, among many to clarify the argument, but they are not coming out of me. Cryptonio (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record

This discussion is a microcosm of the general problem here at this talkpage. One editor has brought well-sourced strong arguments refuting the tangential claims of one barely reliable source and all he has gotten in return are scorn and insults by the swarm of editors who insist on keeping this article as a propaganda piece. User:Nableezy is the one exception. Kudos to him for atleast showing a willingness to listen and come to some neutral agreement. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

yo man, chill you're going to hurt my rep. Nableezy (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

and seeing as how you like watching me repeat myself, I have to object to the term 'barely reliable' in reference to HRW, but at least you are not saying 'not reliable' anymore so I guess we can let that pass. Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All non-media organizations are barely reliable. Organizations like the Human Rights Watch or the Anti Defamation League should never be used to support any contentious claim, especially one that has been proven to be factually problematic. These organizations have their agenda and are always interested in validating the importance of their organization. The more human rights violations the more we need the HRW. The more antisemitic attacks the more we need the ADL. Most media organizations are interested in one thing only - that people consider them to be good reporters, reliable, and neutral; that's why they are considered reliable. What's most damming about the article's claim is that with all the media coverage Gaza has received, not one media source has described Gaza the way this article does. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that editors who would be considered pro-Palestinian are more persistent with this article. It is a real shame that this article and subject are so polarizing it makes it hard to find neutral tone and wording.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I've learned myself that no matter how much I disagree with Nableezy he seems to be a stand up guy. Now on to why he is wrong...Cptnono (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I way to move forward might be to say things like what you just said more often: we need to really treat each other with such respect, even in disagreement, but in particular must try not to setup strawmen. Contrast with Brewcrewer decrying this article as a "propaganda piece", if this is a propaganda piece, then what are CAMERA and Electronic Intifada? I mean, brew, lets have a sense of proportion: this article needs work, but nothing egregious escapes the notice of either side, so if it is a propaganda piece it because you set the bar of what is propaganda to anythign with which you disagree... Which usually means that it is not propaganda in favor of your side. I got news: any NPOV article will leave both sides unhappy, because it takes two to tango. Calling "HRW" a barely reliable source is propaganda: the only people who said that are those who recieve negative reporting on the part of HRW. The New York Times, Washington Post, The Times, The BBC, all those other barely reliable sources are happy to cite HRW left and right as a reliable source of factual information and balanced opinion. For the record: trying to lump a general human rights organization (HRW) together with an active Zionist organization (ADL) is comparing apples and oranges in this case: it would be like comparing Likud to HAMAS, after all, both are political parties. What makes reliable sources reliable is what other reliable sources think of them, and HRW is well respected by other reliable sources. On a note on consitency, I would like to see you battling the inclusion of the JTA and INN with the same fervor as you battle HRW: but of course, this might be the whole point.--Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that HRW, Amnesty international, and several other sources are valid and reliable. However, sources like these do promote a certain agenda which is not necessarily anti-Israel but is anti-human suffering. This can lead to unbalancing the article by victimizing the Palestinians who are obviously the underdog with civilians suffering on a greater scale. The article should be about IDF v Hamas and the effects it has on both people, policies, armies, etc but it runs the risk of putting too much emphasis on civilians being victims in the strip .Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Before you rip into me, get your facts straight, Cerejota. I did not say a word in support of the JTA as a reliable source. I don't know what the "INN" is. Also, the ADL is not a Zionist organization; it's an organization that fights antisemitism.

A POV-riddled encyclopedia article is a greater propaganda piece then whatever CAMERA and Electronic Intifada spit out. Why? Because everyone knows not to take those sites seriously. This is an encyclopedia, and people assume that it is neutral. I guess if it gets bad enough people will stop taking WP seriously, as well.

The fact that HRW is cited by the other reliable news organizations means nothing. Reliable sources also continuously quote Hamas and IDF spokespeople. Is the IDF spokesperson a reliable source? Whenever they cite to anything the HRW says they always qualify their statements as "according to the HRW". The very fact that they always qualify the HRW, like the always qualify the IDF and Hamas spokespeople, is itself an indication that these reliable sources do not consider the HRW to be reliable. None of the reliable sources have ever said what this article says about Gaza on their own. Wikipedia is the first entity that claims to be neutral to cite to the HRW as if it's a reliable source.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get into this again (though I think news organizations cite to HRW to give it more prestige then the paper saying something but that doesnt matter) there are other sources like OCHA or WHO that say high (or 6th highest) or whatever. How about we just try to figure out what it is that most people would accept? Nableezy (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not my type so I won't rip into you: I tend to like girls. :D

You didn't say a word about JTA either, in particular when Doright accused people of being antisemitic for not considering it a reliable source: silence is not consent, but it can be inconsistent.

INN: Israel National News, TB's favorite "news" outlet.

This article is clearly tagged as having its neutrality under dispute, so any reader who ignores that does so at her peril.

There is difference between quoting, and accepting as a reliable source. In other words, the RS might quote Hamas, but question the veracity of their statements. They have not done such a thing with HRW, not in this conflict, not before. In fact, some reliable sources (the BBC and the NYT) routinely use HRW information in their reporting without qualification - contrary to what you state.

The ADL is a Zionist organization, as part of the B'nai B'rith, and while their work against antisemitism is laudable, as is thier lesser work on other forms of ethnic and racial discrimination (including against Arabs post-911), they have also come under criticism for their involvement with red squads, some elastic definitions of what constitutes antisemitism (for example, the controversial usage of New antisemitism concepts), and more recently their strong meddling in the internal affairs of Venezuela under the guise of fighting antisemitism (mainly cause Chavez and Almanidejahdjidad [sic] are BFF for nao). It is far from neutral in this case, and it is a Zionist organization, by any definition of the word.

That said, I do hear your point, and it is a valid one, but I do not like the comparisons you make, again, because they are apples and oranges comparisons. Just because they are fruits we do not have to treat them the same way. When I think you are making a good point (and you do make them) I will support them without reservation, I do think right now you are not making a good one.

One of the best ways to deal with verifable information from sources that can be controversial is to get other sources, rather than removing them in the meantime. If the statements verify, we keep them.

On this point A POV-riddled encyclopedia article is a greater propaganda piece then whatever CAMERA and Electronic Intifada spit out. Why? Because everyone knows not to take those sites seriously.

It is interesting, because the same way Babycue turned up to be cause celebre of the EI crowd, so does a number of the talk page discussions take on a distinct CAMERA flavoring (and I regularly read both): for example the population density crap (THIS THREAD!) is straight up marching orders from CAMERA. So of it is positive crap (ie Gaza is not the densest place on earth - d'oh!) but then the kids forget to hold their horses and want any discussion on density to be eliminated, something no RS has "corrected".

In fact, original research reveals the chatter on military history/strategy blogs (none of which are sympathetic to Hamas) is placing a lot of focus on this around the MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) engagement of the IDF, and the HAMAS counter-strategies, such as bobby trapped houses, "human shields", snipers, and tunnels. Demographic density of Gaza is a key factor in the military history and actual history of this war (as I already stated) and strangely enough, it actually works in favor of the IDF in the balance (ie international law clearly permits combat in urban areas - whith the implied understanding that this increases civilian casualties). CAMERA, as usual, shoots Israel on the foot with its histerics. The sad part is that the CAMERA Rangers decided to make wikipedia their battleground, so we have to deal with disruptive threads on what should be easy solutions fixed by rewrites and additional sourcing.--Cerejota (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, for starters, I sure wish you would stick to the facts and not characterise others' thinking. I don't recall claiming that Israel National News was my favorite news source. I'd appreciate it if you provided a diff when claiming to know another's thinking. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The remark about people here getting their "marching orders from CAMERA" and calling people here "CAMERA Rangers" violates WP:AGF. It certainly doesn't do anything at all to improve the atmosphere here. I am really surprised that you would do such a thing simply to make a WP:POINT. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, you are wrong: there was an ArbCOm, and this ArbCom proved two things: 1) CAMERA is meatpuppetering 2) Such behavior is against the spirit and the letter of our policies 3) It should be handled as par of our DR process 4)Pointing it out in the talk page is part of that process. Calling a spade, a spade is not failing WP:AGF. The double-teaming that you and Brewcrewer do on your vendetta against me is a failure of AGF: I didn't accuse either of you of being CAMERA, because I simply don't know. But I do read CAMERA and find it curious that whatever cause celebre they pick up all of the sudden shows up here, regardless of what the RS say. I simply pointed out this fact. And this thread is obviously disruptive, because contesting the simple inclusion (as opposed to due weight etc) of relevant, reliably sourced material is disruption. --Cerejota (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Marching orders from CAMERA?" Was that aimed at me? If so I resent and strenuously deny that. I don't even visit CAMERA, really I don't. I wasn't aware that anyone else was contesting the "most densely populated claim" I just did the maths and something smelled funny. I'm not going to get dragged into the RS argument because it is a sidetrack, suffice it so say that I trust HRW as a reliable sources - on matters pertaining to human rights. If they said that the Cheetah was the fastest land mammal I'd check elsewhere for verification though. (It is by the way..). On this question of the population density of Gaza their claim is misleading and not backed up by any scientific sources on population statistics. I believe we have consensus for the phrasing "high population density". Those in favour say "aye". Dino246 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No it was not aimed at you, as I had not had the pleasure of even speaking to you before. However, why would I have directed it at you?--Cerejota (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think anybody was accusing you personally, but keep in mind that some people still have a bad taste in their mouth from the CAMERA wiki-lobby fiasco. That said, I am fine with 'has a high population density (with CIA numbers)'. Was I supposed to say 'aye'? Why does this have to be so complicated, I think Ill just say 'I concur with the motion before the committee though I wish to attach a rider amendment' Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But if a number needs to be in it I think it has to be 6th based off of the WHO report. I think the UN can have the final say on what to compare Gaza's density to. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be my proposal in full: The sentence above somewhere up there in the background, the HRW quote on WP use risk being elevated because of the high population density in the WP part with an explicit cite, the WHO quote on the minor percentages in the casualties section with an explicit cite. That would satisfy some of Cptnono's concerns I think, Dino's I think, and brewcrewer I think. Let me know if I thought wrong or if they dont satisfy those concerns enough. Nableezy (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why it is needed in the background when you put it that way but it doesn't hurt my feelings too much. I also fully agree with your placement in the other sections listed.Cptnono (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I said some of your concerns ;), and truthfully I would want it to say more in the background. Nableezy (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying only "has a high population density" is as wrong as saying Canada "is a big country" because we would be using a general description instead of a specific one. How specific can we be here? WHO and HRW peg the Gaza Strip's rank at top ten, and most secondary sources -- and there are many reliable and prominent media doing this -- use something like "one of the highest population densities in the world." So we use what these sources say. This is not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, this is pro-Wikipedia. RomaC (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The atmosphere on this talk page is bad enough without editors poisoning it by accusing others of taking "marching orders" from any group. I am still choking on that one. Because editors here bring up an issue which CAMERA has addressed - which I noticed earlier in this 2005 article [19], they are somehow "taking orders?" It is possible that someone could go to EI or ISM and find that editors here are addressing the same issues and make that same accusation. But we haven't. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But you defend those who call me an antisemite? I dont really care about that, but do you have anything to say on the above proposal? Nableezy (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually dont even know why I am trying this, my first attempt at compromise failed miserably so I doubt this one will get much further than that. Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But Canada IS a big country. Kidding of course, I know that isn't the point. Seriously, Nableezy, you're on the right track. Go ahead and put it in. Worse comes to worse is we talk about it for another 10 hours, it goes through some edits, and maybe a revert or two. Overall, I think you have the right idea so go for it.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I cant bitch at users who change the current wording without consensus any more if I do the same, I think we can wait for a few more people to speak on it. Nableezy (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as saying high not being specific enough, I think that would be the one way of removing any objection based on what it is we are comparing Gaza to. If we compare it to the cities we get a different ranking compared to ranking it against sovereign entities, or other self-governing territories. It could turn into an endless debate about whose numbers are right which really is just an argument as to whose choice of comparison is right. I think by just having 'high' we could leave the direct quotes about density and what specific bodies have said the density is in relation to specific aspects of the article (HRW quote in WP section, WHO quote in casualties section) allows for everything to be accurate, well sourced, and without much cause for dispute. But lets just see what other people say, I very well may be wrong and most will object to it quite loudly. Nableezy (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Nableezy. We say that Gaza's population density is "high" and provide the multiple sources that have the facts, figures and various comparisons that put Gaza anywhere from 4th to 57th depending on how large a sample area you use and what you compare it to. That way the article is indisputably factual and sourced and gives people the tools they need to make their own decision about where Gaza is ranked as this is the least relevant piece of information. The article on water says it boils at 100oC. It doesn't say that it has the 432nd highest boiling point of all liquids and its talk page doesn't have a massive discussion about how it depends which liquids it is being compared to. Dino246 (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BAM! Good enough for you, Nableezy? I still might give you a hard time myself if it isn't perfect :) Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

not yet, just give it a bit, we can leave the article as a propaganda piece a while longer. of course, as long as it is 'my sides' propaganda :) Nableezy (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're funny, Nab. But at this time of the night, it's only us weirdos that are reading the article. So there's nothing to be gained :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you fine with my proposal? The line I wrote a while back and the direct quotes in the sections where they are most relevant? Nableezy (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

All I know is the first sentence of the background section, and I agree to that part. I have yet to make it past that point.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there an ETA on getting past that point or is it an irreconcilable difference? Nableezy (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just change it to something, anything that doesn't have most densely populated places on earth as one of the first things you see highlighted right there in the opening sentence! Dino246 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps more finely worded, what would your objections be? We would be moving the % of children to the casualties section with an explicit cite to the WHO in a direct quote, and we would be putting the HRW quote in a context where it fits nicely, in the section on white phosphorous, as a direct quote with an explicit cite. What part of that would you object to and why? Nableezy (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And Dino, there are people from all across the world, from what I am sure of as far from Vancouver to Thailand and pretty much everywhere in between, that are editing this article. I dont know what the hell it is I am doing awake right now as it is 2 in the morning where I am at. Lets just give everybody a chance to see it and comment on it before making a change that some people may object to. Nableezy (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - it's mid morning here.. Good night. :o) Dino246 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sun never sets on Wikipedia. But as the Vancouver guy I guess I can go first. I'm very happy with Nableezy's proposal. It seems fair and I think it goes far enough to satisfy everyone's concerns. What I like most about it is that it is an actual compromise. None of us are ever going to write the article exactly the way we'd like it. So there's no point digging our heels in when something else works and would be acceptable to other editors as well. The proposal is really beautiful in its adequacy. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

True to a certain extent, but wikipedia is slower when the US is asleep. From another PST editor, goodnight (well I had a weird day so "night" is relative) and I assume not much will be different when I wake up per the sloth pace of this article. One of my favorite editors made a quote about persistence once. I never realized how true it was until recently. I wish editors would be more bold in their changes so it wasn't such a concern. I've been off and on this page for the last 19 hours and not much has changed. I've noticed the best changes were not discussed on the talk page but were neutral enough to not raise too much of a concern.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Being bold is cool, but when others have already voiced their objections Id rather stay timid. Nableezy (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"...Gaza is ranked as this is the least relevant piece of information."Dino...this, in order to challenge other points about Israeli using 'collective punishment' and Hamas 'having indeed, land to operate on, not necessarily where civilians live...i see this coming and its not a wave or anything, you just have to open your eyes. IS anyone out there willing to research how the CIA and others come up with the fact "Gaza IS one of the most densely populated area in the world"...ANYBODY? its not that complicated, look "figures and various comparisons that put Gaza anywhere from 4th to 57th depending on how large a sample area you use and what you compare it to."Dino...there is hope for them to understand what that statement means, and not what is just saying(when repeated by media). Cryptonio (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's follow Wiki policies

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth based on reliable sources. And there are prominent media saying "...Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world" (my emphasis), for example: CNN, The San Fransisco Chronicle Reuters and Haaretz. Let's not do original research to determine our own relative density figures. Let's use reliable sources, let's follow Wiki policy.RomaC (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets get the article fixed. Wiki policies are relative to what fits the need at the time for some people. If Neb or another editor makes a monumental edit sometime soon we can use that as a base to nit pick at but as it stands we are arguing over small stuff when it comes to how to word density data.Cptnono (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree we should move on, and I hope some editors will stop wasting all our time and accept reliable sources clearly supporting the density qualification we have now: the World Health Organization and Human Rights Watch, the prominent media cited above, and these below, which took me 15 minutes to find:

"Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world" Radio Netherlands
"Gaza Strip ... a territory that has become one of the most densely populated in the world" Al Jazeera
"Gaza is one of the world’s most densely populated areas" Bloomberg
"Gaza, which is home to 1.5 million people packed into one of the world's most densely populated areas Thompson Reuters
"The fact that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world" The Australian
"the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world" Beaufort Gazette

Is that sufficient, because frankly I see the dogged opposition as something of a push for a false compromise. Let's be pro-Wikipedia, please. RomaC (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

When did the media become the ultimate infallible source for an encyclopedia? I don't see Reuters or Al Jazeera quoted too much in the article about fungus. There isn't a single scientific or academic source that backs up this "one of the most densely populated" claim that is so often repeated in the popular press. The population density of Gaza is high. The only academically researched source that I found places it 38th. There is no justification, political, scientific or otherwise, to separate Gaza from the rest of the Palestinian Territories and comparing its population density to existing countries. Indonesia's territorial islands are not individually listed in population density comparison tables and neither should Palestine's. It is a comparison that is not made by a single scientific source. Wikipedia's policy does in no way, shape, or form say that reliable sources are all-knowing on all issues. They should be used selectively according to their expertise and not one single source that has population density as its expertise describes Gaza's population density as anything other than "high". Wikipedia policy says that we should too. Dino246 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

the attack was not on the palestinian territories, it was on gaza. therefore we should say what reliable sources say about gaza, ie, "one of the most densely populated areas in the world." if its good enough for reliable sources, until its refuted by other reliable sources its good enough for us. Untwirl (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's refuted by thousands of reliable sources. National Geographic, nationsonline.org, the United Nations Statistics Division, the UN Population Fund [20], Demographia, (I could go on), none of which describe Gaza as one the world's most densely populated places. It's a claim made by journalists and well-meaning but misinformed charity-workers and backed up by not a single expert in geography, demographics, or population density. Are you expecting me to find sources that explicitly deny it? That's as unlikely as finding a source that says "Leeds is a city in the UK that doesn't have one of the world's highest population densities". It does however have 1.5m inhabitants spread over its 350km2.. Dino246 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dino, where does the UN Population Fund refute anything? I checked the link and found nothing. Demographia provides comparative data for Gaza City and other metropolitan areas, not the Gaza Strip. I have pointed this out to you before: "Gaza City" is a city or metropolitan area; the "Gaza Strip," is a self-governing territory. The event in this article takes place in the "Gaza Strip." Can you see the distinction? RomaC (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And Dino, media are the reliable sources that are used throughout this article. There are also primary sources such as the World Health Organization:

"(The Gaza Strip) has a population of 1.5 million with the sixth highest population density in the world" World Health Organization

I appreciate that you feel passionately about this but please, enough is enough. I hope you can apply your zeal to the general improvement of Wikipedia by following its policies. RomaC (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is not a self governing territory independently of the rest of the Palestinian Territories. It is at best a country subdivision. See this list for comparison to its equivalents around the world: List of the most densely populated country subdivisions. It doesn't even come close to making the list. Gaza's most densely populated urban areas when compared with their equivalents comes 38th. This is the highest positioning that a reasonable and scientific comparison places Gaza. It is "high". Dino246 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Dino, I dont think any of the comparisons you have brought are valid. Gaza is certainly a self-governing territory, or does Hamas have governmental control of anything outside of Gaza? That said, I have already said I am willing to remove the comparison aspect because I dont think it adds much to the discussion. Is the fact that Gaza is the 6th (or whatever) most densely populated place in the world affect all the aspects of the article differently if it had been the 12th most densely populated place? It certainly does affect the aspects of casualties as that shows why the casualties are high, and it affects the intl law section because people have brought it up in relation to heightened responsibilities on Israels part. But it does not affect the military operations any more than saying the IDF was operating in a high density area, or the other sections where high population density is relevant. But I do disagree with the comparisons you are bringing, and like I said earlier I think the UN can have the final say on what to compare Gaza's density to, which they do in the WHO report. Nableezy (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Density discussion: Another arbitrary break

Whew! This one keeps getting longer and longer. Let's summarize where things are now... which is really where they were a few days ago. Everyone agrees that Gaza is densely populated. There is contention over:

whether comparatives are relevant (6th highest per one source) or only absolutes
whether to consider the city population density separately or the strip as a whole
whether it belongs at top of background, in background at all, or only in a section where the effect of density in warfare/casualties makes it most relevant

My current position (please note, not the same as my original position):

Let it stay in background, but the same or an immediately adjacent sentence should explain why it is important.
The background would make more sense re-ordered so the reader sees some chronology to the background, and the facts build on each other. Perhaps everyone could consent to this for the text:

Hamas views Israel as an illegitimate state and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled, and not a legitimate government or political organization.

Hamas took control of Gaza after winning 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and a 2007 military victory over Fatah. Subsequently, Egypt closed the Rafah Border Crossing, while Israel closed off all remaining access to Gaza in July 2007. The blockade allowed Israel and Egypt to control the flow of goods going into Gaza, including power and water. Israel halted all exports and only allowed humanitarian aid shipments into Gaza. Palestinian groups have built tunnels to bypass the blockade. Israel alleges the tunnels are used for weapons smuggling.

Between 2005 and the start of the 2008/2009 conflict, Palestinian groups launched over 8,000 rocket and missile attacks into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens more. During this period Israeli air strikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations have killed more than 800 Palestinians. A ceasefire reduced the level of armed conflict for much of 2008.

Toward the end of the ceasefire, Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh stated that a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 border and would be acceptable, and could offer Israel a long-term truce, if Israel recognized Palestinian national rights. At about the same time, Hamas and Israel both elevated the armed conflict level, without breaking into full-on hostilities.

This intermediate period ended with Israel's Operation Cast Lead, against the Gaza Strip, whose dense population (by some measures, the 6th most dense in the world, population over 4000/km2) contributed to significant loss of life during the ensuing military conflict. Dovid (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that ordering, and some of the changes in text. But specifically to the point where the sentence should go I think it is important to determine what the sentence should be. Besides that, I think I have demonstrated, along with Nishidani a long while back linking to a Cordesman study, that the density impacts much more then just the casualty count. As to the placement, I think the very first paragraph should be the basic information about the location of the conflict, that strikes me as common sense in an article about a military conflict. I include population density in basic information about the location of the conflict. But to the rest of the proposed rewrite I would suggest taking it up one paragraph per thread to avoid a range of discussion that could end up being excessively hard to follow. I do have serious issues with some of the language changes in the other paragraphs, but I would rather discuss them in another thread if that is amenable to you. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree material about the location is important, and should precede the information above. What is wrong with the ordering? It is very linear, whereas the existing text is scattered; the linearity helps make it easy for a newbie to understand it! I really don't want t o take it up one by one until we can get a basic stucture down. That's writing 101 -- get the outline first, get the details afterward. That's how you avoid the current, as I said, scattered structure. Density language: If you have a proposal to reword the density sentence to include better information, please go ahead and post it here. W/O any other context, it fits well with the casualties factoid, but if your re-write has something significant to add, then it may make sense to rework it. Above all, I'd like us all to aim for better, not best, necause Sean is right, we'll never get consensus if each of us is looking to get his own best version.Dovid (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see consensus as unobtainable on this density issue for several reasons so I'm just going to repeat what I said what seems like ages ago "I'm okay with Nableezy's generic approach here the term 'high' is both well sourced and sufficiently vague but let's avoid specific figures. Whatever we do it clearly has to be based on multiple RS because this is getting challenged vigorously". If a term used in multiple RS is contentious it will always be challenged by someone because a full description of the method used to assertain the description is absent. There are a variety of different terms in the RS which, for all we know, have all been obtained using different methods or from different sources. The term 'high' seems fit for purpose if that is supported by multiple RS and it allows consensus to be reached. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're for taking out the CIA factoid. I'm not against. Would you prefer just: ...against the Gaza Strip, whose very dense population contributed to... Dovid (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposal above had the CIA fact book info, and I think the ordering as it is now is good. Do you also want to discuss individual problems with the language used here or just have the ordering? The reason I said to do it elsewhere is that you combined language changes with changes in ordering, I dont care which gets sorted out first but they shouldnt be together. It will get way to complicated trying to do an entire rewrite of a section like that. If you want to discuss ordering thats fine, but lets not do it at the same time as we are discussing language used. Nableezy (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On the density statement I'll accept anything that falls anywhere between a) >= 1 person lives in the Gaza Strip and b) the population density is so high that it violates the Pauli exclusion principle as long as we can support the statement with several RS that we can all agree on. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's get one out of the way. Any specific issue with the language? I don't mind changing it, I'm mainly going for flow, I didn't think I there was anything significant to the changes other than style. The one edit I recall making is the bit about Un observers, since I didn't think it was awkwardly phrased while I could not discern how it helped provide the recent conflict with background info, but I have no real beef with it. Dovid (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)This section currently reads as:
Hamas assumed administrative control of Gaza following the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and its 2007 military victory over Fatah, the secular Palestinian nationalist party. Subsequently, Egypt closed the Rafah Border Crossing when EU monitors left and Israel closed off all remaining access to Gaza in July 2007. [92] The blockade allowed Israel to control the flow of goods going into Gaza, including power and water. Israel halted all exports and only allowed shipments into Gaza to avert a humanitarian crisis. Palestinian groups were partially able to bypass the blockade through tunnels, some of which were used for weapons smuggling.
Yours reads as:
Hamas took control of Gaza after winning 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and a 2007 military victory over Fatah. Subsequently, Egypt closed the Rafah Border Crossing, while Israel closed off all remaining access to Gaza in July 2007. The blockade allowed Israel and Egypt to control the flow of goods going into Gaza, including power and water. Israel halted all exports and only allowed humanitarian aid shipments into Gaza. Palestinian groups have built tunnels to bypass the blockade. Israel alleges the tunnels are used for weapons smuggling.
I dont think the last sentence change is substance related, just stylistic but I think the original is better, though the one substance related change would be not including 'partially' in the phrase 'bypass the blockade'. I think the 'partially' is needed as no one can say they were able to bypass the blockade or even put much more than a dent in it. The biggest problem I have is including Egypt in sentence about controlling the flow of goods is that it is only partially accurate, and wholly inaccurate when adding 'including power and water' in the sentence. There might be a better way of phrasing it, but making an equivalence between Egypt and Israel in controlling the flow of goods into Gaza is one of my issues. The EU monitors part was insisted upon by another editor, so if you want it out I suggest you take it up with AgadaUrbanit as he was rather perturbed at its absence.
Moving on to other sections, this part:
Hamas views Israel as an illegitimate state and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled, and not a legitimate government or political organization.
while this is completely accurate I think the most basic background is information about Gaza as that is the location of the conflict. Also, I really don't think the 'and not a legitimate government or political organization' is necessary, I would think it follows that a terrorist group that must be dismantled is not a legitimate government or political organization. I think the current line, as it reads now:
Hamas views Israel as an illegitimate state and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel.[97] Meanwhile, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, stated that the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 border and to offer Israel a long-term truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights.[98] Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled.
reads fine and combines the line you separated from this, but it could use an additional comment to balance out the Hamas be willing to accept a long term truce with something about Israel willing to negotiate if Hamas recognizes Israel and accepts all past agreements with the PLO. Also the end of the part you have with Hamas willing to accept a long term truce you have 'At about the same time . . .' The one thing I dislike most is the phrase 'about the same time' just doesnt seem encyclopedic. Also, the real escalation in rocket fire came well after that comment, or at least well after the first time they have said that, so I do not think it is really accurate. The last paragraph, besides containing the density line which I think should be with the basics about Gaza at the beginning of the section, I do not think is necessary, and is slightly OR. And I have said earlier, somewhere way up there in this monstrosity of a section, that density is not just related to casualties, it is related to a host of issues, from roof knocking, to urban military strategies, to 'human shield' accusations, to casualties, so I do not think you can tie that to any one thing in the background. I may have missed something, if you see a change I did not comment on please bring it up. Nableezy (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep our points succinct. "Flow" is for writers, we are editing a Wikipedia article, whatever we do will in turn be edited piecemeal. Strongly believe a section called "Background" should set the stage, and so oppose burying the widely-cited population density information, but sure, it could be rephrased. Everything can be rephrased. RomaC (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should try to keep this discussion on topic. This section contains almost 40% of the words on this page. I think we should keep this on topic about the density line, if there is something else to bring up lets do it in another section (i think this edit will get it up to 40%). Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Process for getting a consensus about a new title

Step 1: Does anyone support the current title?

(Just comment if you do support it.)

Support (this is obviously a war, but not only a war). --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I vote to keep the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict title as nobody declared war on either side and another reason being is that this is part of something bigger. EDIT (2/8/09): Also the fact that Gaza is not a country.Knowledgekid87 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I also vote to retain the existing title, as I believe 'conflict' is the most approporiate word to describe the situation. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It is neutral enough.VR _talk 23:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support We can argue over this title endlessly, let's let it rest for a few weeks, please? Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 2: Does anyone think we need dates in the title?

(Just comment if you DO support)

Support (as it evidently deals with the subject in a determinate period of time, not in general). --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 3: Who supports calling this a war?

Support. As argued in previous discussion. That's what it is. Similar to 2006 Lebanon War (NB. At least, I support this over the current title. There are other titles I think would be more appropriate, but I know we could never get consensus).Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support (based on the google search argument)Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: Because of more google results for "Gaza war". --Wayiran (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support per Brewcrewer (and the dozens of times I have called for this pretty much since ground operations began, when the RS started to show a preference for "war" over "airstrikes"). That said, we should not move this article without a WP:Requested Moves process, so we can get uninvolved admin attention and keep things kosher/halal.--Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Partial support + comment While "Gaza War" gets many google results, "Gaza conflict" gets more. The advantage of "Gaza War" is that it can stand as a title without modifiers, whereas "Gaza conflict" would have to have "2008-2009" before it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Give it a few weeks As I said above, I'd rather not re-open the naming thing mere days after we closed the last one. Let's focus on substance, the name game can go on later. I'm sure whatever we decide, someone will object to later anyway, and we'll go through this again. Sigh. Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 4: Does anyone have any suggestions that do not include the words 'war' or 'conflict'?

*Yet another day the israelis forgot to draw knowledge from their modern jewish history. Brunte (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza Massacre Brunte (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brunte: Stop posturing. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

word, this isnt helping anything. Nableezy (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a valid name, the national public broadcaster in Australia (I am using this example because it is a credible and notable source in a disinterested country) calls it The Gaza massacre [21]. I have no problem calling a spade a spade. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no way somebody can try to say that 'The Gaza Massacre' is the common English name for this conflict. Anybody who does say such a thing should not be allowed to operate a computer much less contribute to an encyclopedia. Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it was the common English name. Many feel it is an accurate name nevertheless. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That does not make it a valid suggestion for the name of the article, read WP:NAME. Nableezy (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know there wont be concensus for that title, but that is what I think the history will call it. Nableezy interesting comment is... interesting. And for the cut out part, everything would be so much better if they did. Sorry for the 'posturing' then but tell me: How do one tell ppl that glowworms wont light up a fire without get killed? Brunte (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying whether or not I think this is a massacre because my personal feelings are irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is what is the common name in English that meets the rest of the content policies. Gaza Massacre clearly is not it. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Assault on Gaza because it is neutral while being more accurate. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
'Operation Cast Lead'?--84.190.25.248 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the common name is either 'Israeli offensive in Gaza' or 'Israeli assault on Gaza' but apparently these are not neutral(though neutral media use them. In fact the Telegraph a notoriously pro-Israel paper calls it Gaza assault: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4031143/Analysis-Israels-assault-on-Gaza-continues-but-the-goal-is-not-to-overthrow-Hamas.html.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Facts can work wonders in developing awareness. "Israeli offensive in Gaza" receives 26 allintitle google news hits and "Israeli assault on Gaza" receives 8 hits. Meanwhile, "Gaza war" receives 1,764 hits. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  - You beat me to this. Qualitative analysis of "allintitle" gnews ghits reveals "Gaza war" as the undisputed winner among all the alternatives explored, and this has been the case since the ground offensive began. I do not understand why there are people who still question this. --Cerejota (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    - Because it doesn't fit with the POV they're trying to push. Note, though, that "Gaza conflict" gets more hits even than "Gaza war". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      - Yeah, but we have alredy decided more or less that conflict is "bad" for many reasons. That is why I said "alternatives explored"... I mean, we can agree "conflict" cannot be an alternative to itself, can it? :P--Cerejota (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, the reason Gaza conflict gets more hits than Gaza war is that it is much less specific and a 'conflict' has been going on in Gaza for 50 years, 10 of which are probably archived on the internet and found by google news. It's much rarer that a war is fought there.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You raise an important point, but a browsing of the google hits indicates that there are more "Gaza conflict" hits pertaining to this conflict than there are "Gaza war" hits pertaining to this conflict. In any case, I'm not arguing for "conflict". I personally prefer "war" for the reason I mentioned above. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for The Big Event heh heh Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just drop it

In case anyone was still wondering about my position on this... why do we need to bother? We have so much trouble coming to consensus on anything. Nobody will be happy. Someone will declare consensus, someone else will say what consensus, a bunch of people will get eaten up, and pretty soon WP's servers will be carpet-bombed. I say let's cower in our foxholes, and let some new army (or the remains of this one) duke it out when teh theater's changed for a while. We'll all be no less happy, and have fought less. Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I thoroughly disagree with the reasoning I do agree with the conclusion. As the move discussion ended with the closing comment "It still appears that not enough time has passed for there to be a clear WP:COMMONNAME for this event. The first move request was made while the event was still occurring, or had just finished, if I remember correctly. It has still only been a few weeks since it ended. In my opinion, editors would do better to wait at least a few months before worrying about the name of the article again. Concentrate on ferreting out all the reliable sources for the event and adding the information to the article; once the article has been stable for a few months, it will probably be clear to most editors what the most appropriate neutral title would be."
I think we can wait a bit before changing the name for now instead of trying a few days later. Nableezy (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL -- Nableezy, we're EXACTLY in sync on this. I was being facetious. Read my comments in the main part of the current renaming section.Dovid (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)