Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Continued Removal of Pictures

Straw man. A common logical fallacy, which doesn't make it any more correct.

So Betacrusis removed the pictures of the dead palestinian girl that had been repeatedly, repeatedly discussed, and a consensus had been found to keep [1] along with the chart of casualties and the picture of the wounded Palestinian woman. Although I see that Betacrusis is new here, I'm of the opinion that this is bordering on a bad faith edit. Also, considering the number of times these pictures were sneakily removed, it also makes me immediately question whether Betacrusis could be a sockpuppet. I will be restoring the pictures and warning Betacrusis not to remove the pictures again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2

009 (UTC)

Do you question if any of the new editors that replaced the picture were sockpuppets?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I might. However, I'm thinking of one user in particular who repeatedly removed the pictures of Palestinian casualties against consensus in the past (who we are both familiar with) and was banned for editing this page for a month, Tundrabuggy. I'm not aware of times that the pictures of casualties were sneakily restored, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think we can agree that sockpuppetry is a real threat to this page given the history of contentious editing. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about the sockpuppet unless somebody has some evidence, but beta has shown that he will not respect the consensus that has been reached over the past month on a whole range of issues and just changes without discussion, this is starting to piss me off. Nableezy (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that Beta has come in, like a bull in a glass store. That some longtime editors who had previously been working towards consensus are backpedaling is particularly worrying, and specially point towards a disruptive editing. However, Beta can still prove to be a good editor, and it all might be noob stuff.

I remind Brewcrewer of the WP:DUCK test and WP:SOCK admonitions, so this is not really a far out suspicion, even if I am not convinced (meat puppet definitely, sockpuppet might be too much). However, his editing is straight up the same as Tundrabuggy, with the same civil POV pushing and edit warring, so what might result is the same one month article ban if the behavior continues. There is also grounds for a checkuser, if people want to pursue it (I have a history with TB, so I do not want to pile on).

On the specific topic of images, they are due weight, illustrate the article (a criteria for GA) and even exceed usual standards for images (ie they are from a reliable source, something a large percentage of the images in wikipedia are not). Furthermore, they are the result of a rough consensus that lead to the removal of "Babycue", the reduction of the quantity of images While consensus can change going down this road will lead to re-introduction of the gallery, the re-introduction of Babycue, and a whole lot of drama, and this will not be chicken and egg: Betacrucis, a pro-Israeli editor, started it.

Are people really so blind that they can't see the great strides we have made? I mean, when you have Nablezzy agreeing to not put Babycue back, you are making progress. Why blow it?

Opposition without discussion to their inclusion is disruptive editing, and result in needless disruption of the consensus process - even if this is not the intention. I ask editors who previously agreed with the rough consensus to not back pedal and go down this road. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not have a battle of wits. --Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Well, it could be a rabbit in disguise..." WP:DUCK.
In other words, being suspicious is not being uncivil. It is simply being suspicious. And yes Brewrewer, given the background suspicions and counter-suspicions are entirely within reasonable people. The thing is to be civil and upfront about them, and get them resolved, not use them as sticks to beat people with.--Cerejota (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been requested a number of times, but alas, editors can't show common courtesy and desist these types of accusations. Can a pro-Israel offer his or her opinion on this talkpage without being accused of working for CAMERA and without being accused of being a meatpuppet/sockpuppet? Cdogsimmons: Do you think so highly of your opinion that only one editor can disagree with you and whomever else disagrees is a sockpuppet of the first editor? There never was a consensus regarding the pictures and saying that there was doesn't change the facts. I'm in support of running a checkuser on every single editor at this talkpage. Maybe then common civility will commence. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus regarding the inclusion of pictures of casualties of this conflict, if those pictures became available. Please read the archives. A compromise that was hammered out about which pictures should be included had also been longstanding. I base my opinion that there is possible sockpuppetry on similar patterns of editing and the fact that Betacrusis very recently became a member of wikipedia (and also seem pretty adept at editing, and seems to focus of this and related articles), enough so that I made a comment that it made me think it was possible. If you want to run a check user, we can look into running a check user. I suppose "common civility" is in the eye of the beholder on this talk page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the eye of the beholder. So please tell us, has anyone been incivil towards you? Has anyone accused you or another editor of being a sockpuppet because of "similar editing patterns"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry against me? None that I'm aware of. Incivility towards me? I see incivility on this page everywhere. People seem to disregard each others' opinions and hard work without a second thought. For example, your attitude toward me at the moment seems openly confrontational (I could be wrong, but that is how I am reading it). When you pressed me above for who Betacrusis could be a sock of, I answered that I thought his edits looked similar to Tundrabuggy's who previously removed the pictures and was blocked. If you are serious about looking deeper into whether that is the case, I would support the action. But doing check-users on everyone who edits this page, just because they edit this page, is a bad idea. Check-users have better things to do. However, if you have suspicions that someone is a sockpuppet and have some evidence, I think we should hear it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm being confrontational because I'm requesting as nicely as possible that you stop accusing editors that disagree with you of being sockpuppets? Please tell me you're kidding. Would saying that an editor's opinion is not really theirs (i.e. they're a sockpuppet) be the type of behavior you're referring to when you say "disregard each others' opinions and hard work without a second thought"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not make accusations of sockpuppetry lightly. This is the first time in over 3 years of editing wikipedia I have brought a case to the check user. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually agreed pretty quickly not to use the image (though I personally would appreciate not referring to it as 'Babycue'), one valid argument (that it is not representative of the casualties unless you equate baby with minor) and I accepted that. Nableezy (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this, but it was as part of a discussion process. If the consensus is off, its off, sorry if I used the wrong editor to illustrate the point.

As to referring it to "Babycue", why not? Its pretty much descriptive and evocative, and people will instantly know what I mean... and its shorter than "picture of burned baby with tank tracks". --Cerejota (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's really offensive, more than it needs to be. Calling it that makes light of the reality that it is a picture of a dead child and will confuse any future debate about its inclusion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Chill. And there really doesn't need to be a future debate about its inclusion. Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we end the gangbang and judgment of other editors? He spent hours crafting talk discussions before even editing. It's been established that the article is far from acceptable, borderline blog-quality IMO, so any edit by him that comes with a summary should qualify under Ignore. He hasn't been categorized as either Pro-Pal or Pro-Israel like the vast majority of so-called objective editors, and all his propositions have been in the name of neutralization (and not just soap boxing yadda yadda yadda) Obviously there is some resistance because everybody secretly wants their opinion to shine in an article they spend so much time in, but enough with the roadblocks. Stop judging editors, using bizarre similes (bull in a store, wtf??) as a vehicle to promote criticism. I doubt I'm the best one to defend, but nothing can justify this level of bandwagoning. This article is in the ICU and needs help, stop preventing it. Ahhh I'm a hypocrite.  ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The removal of pictures that there is consensus for is not helping the article. And here you go, I am classifying Betacrucis as pro-Israel, as did Cerejota earlier, you happy? Nableezy (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, promoting a NPOV and fighting the politically-charged influence of the article administered by you-know-who....must be pro-Israel. How about anyone who disagrees with Nab is pro-Israel. Yeah, there we go. The article has largely been written without consensus, how else could it be this bad? Unless everyone in the consensus is in bed with each other.  ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy that removal of the pictures is not helping the article. But categorizing each other as being on one side or another of this political divide is going to distract from making this a better article. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I did not support this baby picture anyway, and I still do not support its inclusion. But for heavens sake, some people here have families and friends in Gaza. I bet you will never ever call that baby this ugly name if he/she was your child or your brother. This is really sensitive over here. Debates -- even hot or extremely uncivil ones -- is not that big deal anyway, but joking over dead and injured souls is not really respectful regardless of anyone's political or ideological views on the topic. --Darwish (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Darwish, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stop the victimization. I don't see how including these pictures could possible promote a NPOV. Obviously they are a vehicle for propaganda/attack against the IDF and in no way shape or form are the needed. How many dead babies are in WW1? WW2? Arab Israeli War? Six Day??? I'm not debating the merit of the pictures, only the motivations of its inclusion and why they are necessary. We're putting too much emphasis on the poor innocent Palestinians that's it turning the article into memorial site. If we're going to put pictures of dead babies, then we should naturally put in pictures of 80 Israeli preschoolers crying in bomb shelters for 7 hours without the sympathy of wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about the baby picture, that wasnt the picture that was removed. Actually read what it is you are commenting on. Nableezy (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, What are you talking about? I clearly said I did not support the inclusion of this baby picture. You didn't even read or understand my comment. --Darwish (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I ask God to forgive me for what I am about to write, but there is one point of truth in what Wikifan wrote. This doesnt need to be a prosecution against an editor, just a notice that such removal violates consensus and a polite request to not do that again without any type of discussion and gaining of consensus. That goes for removing large parts of text as well. I think we can leave it at that. Nableezy (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I urge Cdogsimmons and Cerejota to immediately report this malignant accusation to the sockpuppet noticeboard, so that we can be immediately blocked/banned or apologized to as the case may be. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The incident has been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacrusis.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacrucis and Tundrabuggy have been found not to be sockpuppets. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betacrusis/Archive) There was found to be some justification for the check. However, I would like to take this moment to express an apology publicly to both Betacrucic and Tundrabuggy that they were forced to undergo this difficult WP procedure.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The procedure was not difficult at all. The lack of good faith and the insulting nature of it was what was difficult. As for the "justification" -- they only "justification" that was noted was a similarity in our arguments and thinking. One sees plenty of similarity in others' arguments here but no one is rushing to checkuser. I did ask that cdog strike his comments, but I guess that is asking a bit much. signing off for awhile now Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that it wasn't that trying. Perhaps I should clarify that there was similarity of arguments and thinking as well as a clear motive, due to Tundrabuggy's recent block from editing this article in combination with the Betacrucis' recent appearance on the page (where he made the vast majority of his edits) which caused me to suspect a violation. I don't think my suspicion was unfounded. It was just wrong. The check user, User:Avraham agreed with me and so performed the check. Seeing that Tundrabuggy asked for the check user (see above) after I raised the possibility of suckpuppetry, I hope he will not hold it against me. I have already expressed to Betacrucis that I hope this doesn't sour his view of wikipedia.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at any page about a Palestinian suicide bombing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_civilian_casualties_in_the_Second_Intifada - no pictures of dead people.

Posting photos of dead people is an exercise in emotive propaganda. They do not belong on an encyclopaedia's pages.

Prove otherwise or they will continue to be removed. Betacrucis (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not your call to make, and an editor was banned for one month for going down the road you seem to be headed down, but here you go; My Lai Massacre, The Holocaust and a whole bunch more that are in the archives. I cannot help you if you are too lazy to look through the past discussion, but your argument was tried and failed. I would suggest you not make such ultimatums as they will have no effect. There are many more editors that are in favor of including these pictures, and like all things, this is a consensus based encyclopedia, nobody has to meet your demands. Nableezy (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the baby comment, a user mentioned it and I went off with that. Whether it's a baby or young adult is irrelevant, my point remains. And Nableezy, this is a war not a genocide/massacre. Comparing this to the Holocaust is insulting. Just because they are more editors in favor of the pictures does not mean they are needed. More does not = Right. A consensus requires equal voice, not 20 republicans and 3 democrats. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nab: Come on, you know better then to compare trying to kill civilians with trying not to kill civilians. In wars, people die. We don't pictures of dead people to remind ourselves of this elementary fact.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been 400+ children killed in this conflict, upwards of 30% of all casualties. But this has been discussed before, and I have made the same points over and over, as have many others, so right now I dont want to type everything out again. And I was not comparing the Holocaust with this, but My Lai was also in a war. But the point I raise by bringing those articles up is to refute a single point, that "Posting photos of dead people is an exercise in emotive propaganda. They do not belong on an encyclopaedia's pages." This is an appeal to censorship and as such should be summarily dismissed. Now there are other arguments that could conceivably be made for the exclusion of the pictures, but one that centers around censorship is not valid. And brew, who said I accepted they were not trying to kill civilians, some of these incidents, specifically the one pictured (Zeitoun) seem pretty shady. Nableezy (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nab: I don't understand. An editor says "Posting photos of dead people is an exercise in emotive propaganda. They do not belong on an encyclopaedia's pages." So you turn around and say that they are lying and there real reason is censorship. You think the article should have pictures because they're relevant. Would you like if another editor would accuse you of lying and really having another reason for wanting the picture?

Secondly, I have no problem if you think that the Israeli military wants to kill as many Arab babies as possible. However, you must admit that they understand that it's simply isn't worth it for their cause. You see, killing a few babies automatically creates a huge international outcry, whether it's the Israelis fault or not. The international backlash outweighs any sort of advantage the Israeli military thinks they're getting by purposefully killing a few Arab babies.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cmon man, I didnt say any of that. I didnt say Israel targets babies, I also didnt say he was lying. I said what he said is an attempt at censorship. Saying that pictures of dead people should not be allowed because they make some emotional is censorship, I didnt say he was lying about his purpose. And I said that they may target civilians, just as it is official US policy that bans the sort of event that occurred at My Lai, it still did happen. Do you think such a thing is impossible with the IDF? Take a look at Kafr Qasim massacre to see how individuals soldiers on occasion do not follow orders. Nableezy (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's really not that relevant at this point, but you did say that his stance is "an attempt at censorship". "Attempt" requires purpose or intent. If the guy is saying he thinks it should be removed because it is encyclopedic and you say there's "an attempt at censorship" you're strongly implying that the reason he gave, "encyclopedic", is untrue. But I apologize if I missassessed your comment.

Regarding "baby-killing": admittedly there are times where 18-year olds go nuts and kill civilians. This is the case in every war. However, you must admit that the IDF as a policy goes out of it's way to avoid civilian deaths. If not for the loss of innocent life then for the avoidance of the international backlash. That's why the dead-babies don't belong. This is like any war where unfortunately civilians die as well. Unless the IDF has a deliberate scheme to kill civilians this article should not have the pics of a massacre article but of a war article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Brew, off topic, but yes I admit the IDF, as every single state military in the world does, as a matter of policy takes precautions against civilian deaths. So did the Soviet army, as does every other army. My saying it is an attempt at censorship is the reason he gave. That the pictures are emotive and thus not encyclopedic. If you base the position that it is not encyclopedic because it is 'emotive propaganda' then you are basing your reason for exclusion on that. It seems plainly obvious that opposition because it is emotive is an attempt at censorship. I said that there are other arguments to be made as for exclusion, but that the picture is emotive is not a valid arguments. We do not need consensus for this here, this is consensus in wikipedia as a whole. If you can somehow show how they are not encyclopedic without basing it off of the idea that it cannot be because it may be emotive, then please do so, that is an argument I would be willing to have. But to say it is emotive propaganda and then conclude that it therefore is not encyclopedic is not an argument I am willing to have, that is an argument that has been decided already. I already said the dead baby pictures do not belong, the rest of the reason you gave, because it is not a deliberate scheme, to me rules out the use of these pictures in such a category as international law violations. But this war, rightly or wrongly, has widely been defined by the casualties and the rocket strikes in southern Israel. It seems perfectly encyclopedic to include pictures of each in their proper position. Nableezy (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacrusis, we have had this argument before and I have taken your position and still do, frankly. It got me a month off for "edit-warring" because I removed the pictures as unbalanced and WP:UNDUE & emotive. Some here even posted pictures of the Holocaust on this page to emphasise their position that these pictures belonged on this page as "illustration." Basically the other side put up a wall, but I suppose that we could take this to some kind of dispute resolution. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, that someone was not me, I really dont want any more accusations of antisemitism hurled at me. Nableezy (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And just so you know, it was not me, and I did not hurl any accusations of antisemitism at you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The you was for Betacrucis as he is not familiar with the background and I have been the one primarily responding, I apologize for not specifying and I did not mean to cause any offense, it was truly an innocent comment so that another editor will not come to any unsubstantiated conclusions. I know you havent tundra, and I apologize if it came off as if I were accusing you of such a thing. Nableezy (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the IDF, ~250 civilians were killed in the contact. I'll take their estimate over any that comes from Gaza, and ESPECIALLY when it comes from Hamas. They'll classify any dead person as a civilian, and if he's less than 5 ft he's a child. Plus, Hamas is notorious for using children as soldiers and women as suicide bombers, so at times it's rather unfair to automatically assume child is not a legal combatant. By legal, I mean target practice. ; ) We've been giving Hamas a larger voice because the media has, and Nableezy has obviously adopted the ques of the media rather than objectivity. Maybe we should reboot the picture discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is up to you. Nableezy (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here we go. :( Wikifan, all these things you mention, can you source them to reliable sources? Now, 250 civilians is still a shitload - even in proportion, specialy with roof knocking etc. Interestingly enough, the density argument is one the IDF used. Yet we do not mention this because it causes and edit war *roll eyes*. And yes, wikipedia's reliance on RS is unfair, and this has been raised all around - interestingly you name Media bias a "lame article" in your user page. But is is the the rules: we strive to change it, but we can't go against it by being WP:POINTy and liking them when they support our points and suddenly decriying them when they don't. --Cerejota (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to source every statement I make in this talk? Nab whipped out the ridiculous and now-being-investigated 1200+ civilians killed without question, but Wikifan...LOL. BTW, this is straight from the article: IDF stats. I know it's a shittone, and I'm not commending the IDF for such destruction. I was simply alluding to how the UN used Hamas' numbers while totally blowing off the IDF's, and then world media took off with what is most popular. Ask the average news junkie how many civilians died in this conflict and they'll say 1200+. That's the power of opinion. :D By "lame article", I mean content-lame, not actual writing. Like, media bias sucks. Get it? LOL. If you want to use user info for attacks, check out Nabs or Darwish' old "WE WILL NOT BE SILENT" or something to that nature before he reverted. Back on point again: Pictures are not necessary, I know they've been heavily promoted because the UN has given the Arab world a bigger voice and has thus led to the increasing and popular circulation of these photos, but that doesn't mean they should be included. However, while it would be extremely ignorant to not at least recognize the POV-pushing and as Beta said, "taste and agenda-driven", it would be rather foolish to totally dismiss them solely based on how they are used as communication and propaganda. Perhaps we could be use them in a different section that has nothing to do with casualties at all. Or maybe they're own article even, like Photographic Opinion of whatever or I don't know, I'm just giving ideas. I don't think we should just trash them as they are obviously valuable in merit, but they shouldn't be in the article at its current state. I question the motives of those who demand their inclusion to be perfectly honest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Second Intifada or Battle of Jenin pages; no such pictures are included. Posting these pictures is tasteless and agenda-driven and will not survive in the long run. Why don't you guys post something like these http://poetry.rotten.com/jenin/ in the Jenin article? (WARNING: horrific images.) I mean, do you have no scruples at all? Now I am being accused (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betacrusis) of something called "sock puppetry" for objecting to their inclusion. For removing them once? Wow. Talk about ignoring WP:NEWBIE. Betacrucis (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For removing them without discussion or concensus. That certain articles beside this one don't have any picture is a wacky argument. That someone is banned for removing them, and others do the same is a violation. That it should be reported as it, well it should. Do you see the picture of the girl by the wall with holes? that picture is called 'consensus'. Cryptonio (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's NOT a picture of a dead person. And the other pictures were NOT added by consensus. Betacrucis (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, WP:BRD. My edit was the B from BRD. You've been here much longer than I have, probably, and you should know this. Betacrucis (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And you got to the R part. And you saying that the pictures were not added by consensus you have not read up on the archives. Your assertion does not make it so. Nableezy (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, I apologize, I said what I said, fully knowing what's in the archives. The picture of the girl, was added after Pro-israelis editors objected to the use of pictures. they argued there should be pictures from Israel as well, and so they brought those pictures into the article. If you want or have pictures of Israel from this conflict, the only thing i should tell you is that there is a limit(which i presume) but other than that, perhaps you have pictures of the Israeli civilians who died from this conflict(2008-2009) and would like to add them. Cryptonio (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Infantile "sock puppetry" "investigation"

UN, EU, PLO, Hamas and Israel all say Sock puppet does have a right. International law experts tend to agree

I have been accused of being a "sock puppet". Or at least, my account has. By the user Cdogsimmons.

This is a spurious accusation. I am posting it here because the complaint specifically mentions the conflict whose page we are editing.

I've barely been editing this page a week and I am "under investigation". Unbelievable. I urge those of you who have any interest in WP:NEWBIE to comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betacrusis

Users of all political persuasions are encouraged. Betacrucis (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't require your comments; nobody else that I know of is using my IP. I would simply appreciate the support against someone making an accusation like that in bad faith. But using WP processes for political reasons - is this common? Betacrucis (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We all are human and its in our nature to err. Cdogsimmons offered his very striking opinion. There is such thing as WP:etiquette. Wikipedia expects us to argue facts, not personalities. My opinion is that Betacrucis should forgive and forget. Let's move on. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. There is no issue; this is my first and only account. Betacrucis (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. More experienced users advised me do be WP:CIVIL when I got way off-topic. I personally like Bernard Werber recipe for fighting ghosts: use humor as a Sword and love as a Shield. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacrucis, this is what I said: I think a checkuser is in order to dispel any lingering doubts, as per the talkpage of the article. As this is a WP:ARBPIA article, results should be logged. I think this is merely WP:DUCK suspicion, but the alternative to no checkuser, if not true, is that the users remain tainted by suspicion. So I say give it a go.. There is something you should know about me, which is that I think people should use the DR process, of which checkuser is part. These series of articles, as Avi pointed out, are under WP:ARBPIA - so if you merely comment even onece in their talk page you are subjected to sanctions and special care. Sometimes, suspicions are raised as a way to chill debate - I hate that - so the way to take care of it If someone accuses me of sockpuppetry and doesn't checkuser me, I will self-report. The lingering suspicion must be taken out.

As to the accusations being in bad faith - not so. Checkuser is actually not a discussion, as all it does is check: it is the one objective thing we have around here. It is actually better than all other DR processes. I know it sucks when people are suspicious, but in particular when you know that you are not a sock, there is nothing to worry about. So take it easy. --Cerejota (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"but in particular when you know that you are not a sock, there is nothing to worry about." Danger! ain't that UK's rationale for those CCTV cameras? That thought couldn't be more Orwellian. just a thought... Cryptonio (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I clearly have much to learn about WP procedures, especially if there are special procedures for Israeli/Palestinian articles. Betacrucis (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit to casualties section

EMERGENCY EDIT: the other sections are showing up as new talk topics! How do I combine them??? Betacrucis (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK so the same deal goes for this as for my background section. I have added some paragraphs and tried to bring in previous content. I am relatively happy with the first 3 paragraphs; I still think that the subsections require substantial editing and cleanup. The rewrite:

1. Gives both sides' accounts of the casualty figures
2. Explains how and why the two sides' accounts differ (although more should be added to this)
3. Begins the process of cleaning up the information overload on casualties. We need to begin standardizing this process - I know this is awful, but bear with me - into, say, combatant and non-combatant deaths. This is the way it is done in international law - happy to bring you the IHL documents, which are possibly one of the most reliable sources out there. As it was, you had the PCRC giving a combatant and non-combatant figure, while the PMH demurred and gave a combatant figure and a figure for children but not overall non-combatant figure, you had the Israelis giving their figure which is also, frankly, not sufficiently clear, and then you have all sorts of other organisations giving various figures. It is confusing and must be standardized.

I know I am raising a lot of issues so here goes, here's the proposal, and I'd like to hear what you think of it and how I can clean it up further:

===Casualties===

The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention. As of February 15 2009, no independent casualty count has yet been commissioned. Israel says that thirteen Israelis were killed during the fighting, including three civilians. However, Hamas has claimed that it killed 80 Israeli soldiers.

The Palestinian casualty figure is far more unsettled. As Bethany Bell writes at the BBC News website, "Numbers can be used for propaganda purposes by all sides and they can play a role in determining perceptions of whether the sides have kept within international law's rules of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum."

A report issued by the Israel Defence Force's Military Intelligence and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories listed 1,134 Palestinian deaths, of which 288 were non-combatant civilians and 673 were from Hamas and combatants from "other groups". The Gaza-based Palestinian Ministry of Health, on the other hand, has claimed that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,285 with 895 civilians deaths.

Journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi published an independent assessment of Gaza casualty figures in Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. Cremonesi, who based his report on tours of hospitals in the Gaza Strip and on interviews with families of casualties, claimed that Palestinians had distorted casualty claims, comparing the situation to the Battle of Jenin, in which initial claims of a massacre and high casualty rates were concluded to be false in a subsequent UN report. Cremonesi estimated the number of wounded to be "far lower than 5,300", the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza. He quoted a doctor at Gaza City's main Shifa Hospital who said no more than 500 or 600 people could have been killed in the IDF attacks, and that most were men between 17 and 23 recruited to Hamas's ranks.

Meanwhile, John Holmes, the Under-Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations, has stated in his statement to the Security Council that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have not been seriously challenged.

====Additional casualty information and disputes====

As of January 26, 2009 investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that between 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians were killed during the offensive and that only 250 of them were civilian. Israel puts the Hamas death toll above 700 and Ehud Barak claimed that "We know their names." Israel also reported that it had captured 120 Hamas gunmen. Discrepancies between the figures giving by Israel and those by the Palestinian Ministry of Health and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights are not clear. Israel disputes those figures giving by the Ministry of Health, saying "the numbers came from Hamas, which controls the Ministry of Health."

The World Health Organization reported that over the course of the offensive 16 health personnel were killed and 22 injured. UNRWA reported that five of its staff members, including one Job Creation Programme (JCP) beneficiary and three contractors, were killed, and that an additional eleven staff members, including two JCP beneficiaries and four contractors, were injured. The World Food Programme reported that one of its contractors had been killed and that two had been injured.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, it was reported by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that some Palestinian civilians accused Hamas of "forcing them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers." Haaretz and Ynet reported that Palestinians claim that civilians carrying white flags were shot and killed by the IDF.

Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert working in Gaza suspects the Israeli military used Dense Inert Metal Explosive in the Gaza strip. The IDF and Israeli weapons experts deny this claim.

====Internecine Palestinian casualties====

Main article: Reprisal attacks in Gaza during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75.

During the conflict, 400 Fatah supporters, members of the Fatah political party, and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel were executed by Hamas. Gaza residents say Hamas is using schools and other public buildings in Gaza City, and the towns of Khan Yunis and Rafah, as detention centers to interrogate members of Fatah. They said three men have been blinded during questioning and over 60 of them shot in the legs as punishment. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights has provided supporting evidence for these claims. According to a Hamas spokesperson, "The internal security service was instructed to track collaborators and hit them hard. They arrested dozens of collaborators who attempted to strike at Hamas by giving information to Israel about the fighters."

====Militant and police casualties====

Several prominent members of Hamas and its military wing were killed during the offensive, including Chief of Gaza Police Tawfiq Jabber, Interior Minister Said Seyam, top religious cleric Nizar Rayyan, and head of the General Security Service Salah Abu Shrakh. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad confirmed the death of its fighter Wajih Mushtahi, who had also been a member of Palestine's Olympic team. Fatah confirmed that their rocket cells commander, Ali Hijazi, had been killed.

In all, militant groups reported 158 of their fighters were killed, not counting the policemen. This was in contrast with PCHR's number of 223 non-police combatants killed and the IDF's overall number of 700 dead combatants. Of the 158, Hamas claimed to have lost 48 fighters, and the Islamic Jihad and Popular Resistance Committees claimed to losses of 38 and 34 fighters, respectively.

Islam Shahwan, the Hamas-rule Police forces spokesman told a news conference held in Gaza that "General Tawfiq Jabber and 230 police officers and police men were killed".

According to The New York Times, Palestinian residents and Israeli officials say that Hamas was tending its own wounded in separate medical centers, not in public hospitals, and that it was difficult to know the number of dead Hamas fighters, many of whom were not wearing uniforms.

====Israel====

Three Israeli civilians were killed by rocket and mortar attacks since the Gaza offensive began.182 civilians were wounded during the conflict. Among civilians: 4 critically wounded, 11 moderately wounded, and 167 lightly wounded.

One IDF soldier was killed by rocket and mortar attacks since the Gaza offensive began. Nine soldiers have been killed in fighting in Gaza itself, of which four were killed by friendly tank fire in two accidents. 336 soldiers were wounded during the conflict, 11 of them severely wounded.

====Other====

One Egyptian border guard was killed and one was wounded by Hamas gunmen on December 28. In addition, two border guards and two Egyptian children were wounded by shrapnel from an Israeli air strike targeting Hamas tunnels on the border on January 11.

Among the civilians killed in the Gaza Strip were also two foreigners, a Ukrainian woman and her child.

Your thoughts? Betacrucis (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are adding commentary where it is not needed, such as the line from an editorial in BBC. You are also giving way too much weight to an Italian journalists number. And finally, and this has been discussed earlier, why do you insist on using the IDF numbers before the PMOH or PCHR numbers, that is not proper weight as determined by the RSs. And for the last time, Jenin has nothing to do with this. Nableezy (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jenin is mentioned in a source, but its an analysis piece, so I am not sure we should include it. In general these edits are good edits, however there is too much use of quotes from opinion pieces instead of actual reporting: we are required by WP:RS to differentiate between the two.--Cerejota (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of these edits is that it generally tries to play up the idea that the MoH numbers cannot be reliable. That we say that is the opinion of Israel is fine, but nobody else has disputed the numbers and consistently qualifying all MoH numbers and placing IDF numbers that nobody else has used before MoH numbers near universally quoted is not showing proper weight. I agree some of these edits are good, some of the stuff removed would be fine to be removed, but as a whole this proposition gives way too much weight to the argument that the Palestinian numbers are incorrect and the IDF ones are correct. Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, this section is problematic:

The Palestinian casualty figure is far more unsettled. As Bethany Bell writes at the BBC News website, "Numbers can be used for propaganda purposes by all sides and they can play a role in determining perceptions of whether the sides have kept within international law's rules of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum."

A report issued by the Israel Defence Force's Military Intelligence and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories listed 1,134 Palestinian deaths, of which 288 were non-combatant civilians and 673 were from Hamas and combatants from "other groups". The Gaza-based Palestinian Ministry of Health, on the other hand, has claimed that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,285 with 895 civilians deaths.

Journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi published an independent assessment of Gaza casualty figures in Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. Cremonesi, who based his report on tours of hospitals in the Gaza Strip and on interviews with families of casualties, claimed that Palestinians had distorted casualty claims, comparing the situation to the Battle of Jenin, in which initial claims of a massacre and high casualty rates were concluded to be false in a subsequent UN report. Cremonesi estimated the number of wounded to be "far lower than 5,300", the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza. He quoted a doctor at Gaza City's main Shifa Hospital who said no more than 500 or 600 people could have been killed in the IDF attacks, and that most were men between 17 and 23 recruited to Hamas's ranks.

There is an entire paragraph dedicated to a single journalists approximation and a quote from one doctor, while this has certainly been reported on it has not had the type of weight given to the MoH and PCHR numbers by the world press as well as by the UN, ICRC, AI, HRW ... . Also, there is absolutely no reason at all to place the IDF numbers ahead of the MoH numbers or the PCHR numbers, they also have not been given the same weight by the world press and the organizations above. Nableezy (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And then when followed with:

As of January 26, 2009 investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that between 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians were killed during the offensive and that only 250 of them were civilian. Israel puts the Hamas death toll above 700 and Ehud Barak claimed that "We know their names." Israel also reported that it had captured 120 Hamas gunmen. Discrepancies between the figures giving by Israel and those by the Palestinian Ministry of Health and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights are not clear. Israel disputes those figures giving by the Ministry of Health, saying "the numbers came from Hamas, which controls the Ministry of Health."

it shows another attempt to give undue weight to the Israeli claims. Yes the numbers have been disputed, but it said at least 4 times that the numbers are disputed as if trying to ram home a point that the MoH cannot be trusted. An entire paragraph is devoted to each the IDF contentions and the estimation of one journalist, all to refute one line that combines both the MoH and PCHR figures. This seems to me to be undue weight. Nableezy (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have removed the pictures of the casualties. I'm afraid that I therefore cannot support this edit.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures can go back in. The first subsection did give too much weight to the third party disputes. If we move and shrink them down the information should be good.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

act 2

What is wrong with keeping it simple:

Casualties

• Disclaimer "...ongoing contention.[35]... no independent casualty count ..."
• Gaza numbers militants then civs
• Israel numbers militants then civs
• Disputes
• Other people killed (random people killed from the media and other countries)Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that structure would work nicely. Nableezy (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention.[35] As of February 15 2009, no independent casualty count has yet been commissioned.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Ministry of Health, has claimed that a total of 1,324 killed. MoH claim of gaza militants goes here. MoHGazan civilian claims here.(3-5 lines?).

IDF claimed total. IDF break down Will be shorter since there was less. Balance will not b perfect but there weren't s many deaths.

Bethany Bell writes at the BBC. Lorenzo Cremonesi Corriere della Sera. United Nations, has stated in his statement to the Security Council that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have not been seriously challenged.[44]

Eygyption deaths. UN deaths. Other foreigners.

I don't know how to work in the police figures but it doesn't need that much detail.Maybe a line clarifying the discrepancy in numbers in the "disputed" paragraph. I didn't want to write it all out just yet (I'm lazy and would like to see any feedback first)Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dont you ever again misspell Egypt! I take that as a personal attack on the greatest civilization in the history of time or at least 2nd after Chicago. Nableezy (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ah crap. that wasn't even a close spelling. I suckCptnono (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as how to work police, I think we can say MoH X number of militants and Y police, IDF says Z militants including police. Nableezy (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple and good. It gets rid of extra lines just to explain it. I forgot to mention that I have family in Chigago (heh... see what I did there) and it is a great town. Proper spelling is for saps.Cptnono (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if you are going to continue to engage in such mean attacks I think I am just going to leave. But the proper misspelling of Chicago would have to be Chicaaahhgo. And Chicago aint a city its a nation, I kind of want Mayor Daley to declare sovereignty and kick out all those feds trying to prove he is corrupt (a, like that needs to be proven, b, who cares, we dont) Nableezy (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Chicagoland will be the name of its own mighty republic someday in the distant future. Also, reprisal killings can go in the "Other" paragraph and Dense Inert Metal Explosive should be removed but should for sure be in another place of the article.Cptnono (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick proposal. If it is an OK start comment on what needs to be in. Didn't spend too much time on it so please do not take removal of anything the wrong way. It strays form my original outline but that was inevitable.Cptnono (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties Main Section

The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention.[35] As of February 15 2009, no independent casualty count has yet been commissioned.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Ministry of Health, on the other hand, has claimed that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians.[41] The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,285 with 895 civilians deaths. [42] A January 26, 2009 Israel Defence Force report listed 1,134 Palestinian deaths, of which 288 were non-combatant civilians and 673 were from Hamas and combatants from "other groups". MoH X number of militants and Y police, IDF says Z militants including police

Israel says that thirteen Israelis were killed during the fighting, including three civilians.[36] 82 civilians were wounded during the conflict.[69] Hamas has claimed that it killed 80 Israeli soldiers.[37]

Disputed numbers subsection (or something)

John Holmes, the Under-Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations, stated in his statement to the Security Council that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have not been seriously challenged. Journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi wrote in Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that Palestinians had distorted casualty claims estimating the number of wounded to be "far lower than 5,300", the number quoted by PMOH and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza. Israel accuses Hamas of significantly inflating the civilian death toll and of playing down the number of Hamas operatives casualties. "[255].

Other parties Subsection(or something)

The World Health Organization reported that over the course of the offensive 16 health personnel were killed and 22 injured.[47] UNRWA reported that five of its staff members, including one Job Creation Programme (JCP) beneficiary and three contractors, were killed, and that an additional eleven staff members, including two JCP beneficiaries and four contractors, were injured.[47] The World Food Programme reported that one of its contractors had been killed and that two had been injured.[47]

One Egyptian border guard was killed and one was wounded by Hamas gunmen on December 28.[76] In addition, two border guards and two Egyptian children were wounded by shrapnel from an Israeli air strike targeting Hamas tunnels.[77] Among the civilians killed in the Gaza Strip were also two foreigners, a Ukrainian woman and her child.[78]

(EDITED SINCE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL)Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel.[23#] Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75.

Yeah, that 400 number was removed by someone. it contrasted a different number at a different section of the article. do we even have a source for the 400 number? and why would we have two different numbers given for the same situation? i did not removed 400, and if 400 is what it is then so be it. anyone has the explanation? perhaps is in the wording somehow. Cryptonio (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what the number is. I saw that in an edit and copied and pasted the line. I'm sure we can find a source for whatever it is and put it in. How about this for now: "Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel.[23#] Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75.[240][241]" Also, I wanted to mention that it is unreadable as is. I hate to dumb down the casualties section too much but it needs to be shortened. Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My one problem at first glance is the line 'the numbers quoted by Hamas' I think should read the numbers quoted by the PMOH. Nableezy (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PMOH works.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also think this: John Holmes, the Under-Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations, has stated in his statement to the Security Council that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have not been seriously challenged. should be included in the disputed claims section, not as long tho, as it came after the italian report. Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also include that latest IDF report on exaggerating figures in that section; i think 1 sentence for each the italian, idf, and un should be fine. Nableezy (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

John Holmes statement has been important to editors and is a good line. Added it and the Hams inflation line. Really sums up the IDF allegation that Hamas runs the show and that they think the numbers are exaggeratedCptnono (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good now. Nableezy (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is much shorter and clearer. I'll let it sit here for a bit to see if there are any other thoughts. It can always be expanded but much of the current information just isn't needed.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, the casualty count must be detailed(as you omitted from your proposal). Because it 'alludes' as a precise count and done right(rather than just give a whole number). Much of the space you would have saved came from this point and the numbers on injured. All of that information give by the ministry, could very well be challenge at some point.

This para, As Bethany Bell writes at the BBC News website, "Numbers can be used for propaganda purposes by all sides and they can play a role in determining perceptions of whether the sides have kept within international law's rules of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum." should be afforded some space.

Other than that, this section has stood for quite some time and its easy to see why. Israel's claims are included and the rest. very strong claims i may add. as of now, Cptnono, Nableezy and myself have given their approval of the current state of casualties. If others objevt or have some concerns, voiced them of course. Cryptonio (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldnt want that bbc line, it is commentary where it is not needed. But I like Cptnono's proposal above. Nableezy (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

act 3

now with refernces, and a small number of changes:
The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention. As of February 15 2009, no independent casualty count has yet been commissioned.

The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health (PMoH), has stated that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) puts the death toll at 1,285 with 895 civilians deaths. An IDF report on February 17, 2009 stated that Israel has identified 1,200 of the Palestinian deaths, of which 300 were identified as noncombatants. 580 of the deaths were stated to be from Hamas and combatants from "other groups". The PCHR said that of the 390 non-civilian fatalities, 167 were members of Hamas' civil police and 223 were combatants. The IDF has said that 700 militants including police were killed.

The PMoH stated that 437 children under the age of 16, 110 women, 123 elderly men, 14 medics, and four journalists were among those killed. The wounded include 1,890 children and 200 people in serious condition. The IDF stated that they have identified 300 noncombatant women, children aged 15 and younger and men over the age of 65.

Israel has stated that 13 Israelis were killed during the fighting, including three civilians. 182 Israeli civilians were wounded during the conflict. Hamas has claimed that it killed at least 80 Israeli soldiers.

John Holmes, an Under-Secretary General of the UN and the Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations, said in his statement to the United Nations Security Council that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have not been seriously challenged. Journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi wrote in Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that the Palestinians had distorted casualty claims, estimating the number of wounded to be "far lower than 5,300", the number quoted by PMOH and repeated by the UN and the ICRC. Israel accuses Hamas of significantly inflating the civilian death toll and of playing down the number of Hamas operative casualties.

The World Health Organization reported that over the course of the offensive 16 health personnel were killed and 22 injured. The UNRWA reported that five of its staff members, including one Job Creation Programme (JCP) beneficiary and three contractors, were killed, and that an additional eleven staff members, including two JCP beneficiaries and four contractors, were injured. The World Food Programme reported that one of its contractors had been killed and that two had been injured.

One Egyptian border guard was killed and one was wounded by Hamas gunmen on December 28. Two border guards and two Egyptian children were wounded by shrapnel from an Israeli air strike targeting Hamas tunnels. Among the civilians killed in the Gaza Strip were also two foreigners, a Ukrainian woman and her child.

Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75.

Let me know if this works. Nableezy (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding me! I looked at my proposal for act 2 a few hours ago and decided adding all the references and formatting would have to wait until I had less wine. Very nice work. I was not looking forward to copying and pasting references in for an hour. My initial thoughts are it looks good but haven't combed through it for any possible flash points. I am also on the fence with the BBC reference mentioned earlier (it could look like just an editorial which might lead to POV and surplus info but might help the reader) but we can always deal with lines like that after the major fix. I say throw it in and we can go from there. All of the previous content will be in this discussion page or the article history so people can always go there if they want to grab a previous line.Cptnono (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I wanted to repeat again how much better it looks. Concise, relevant, and all the other good things this article needed. Great job.Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How would you want to sectionize look i made a word this? Nableezy (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And ill put it in when i wake up if nobody voices an objection. Nableezy (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties (main) Subsection @ "John Holmes" (Disputed figures) Subsection at "One Egyptian border guard" (Other casualties).Cptnono (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy - this is starting to sound better! I am not completely comfortable with it, but much better than before. Are you waiting to refine it before you put it up on the page? I urge you to put these edits up as soon as possible. Nice effort. Betacrucis (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just waiting to give everybody a chance to comment on it, will hold off for a few hours. But what are uncomfortable with? Nableezy (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually think the other casualties split should happen 'The World Health Organization'. Cool? Nableezy (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

er... missed a paragraph when responding. You are correct.Cptnono (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn. New info posted below: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull for the IDF claims. 580/1,200 combatants (my term not the story) 300 categorized as noncombatants 320 names yet to be classified. There is a whole lot of other info but keeping in the mode of cutting fluff it is not necessary to put in.Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated above with this: An IDF report on February 17, 2009 stated that Israel has identified 1,200 of the Palestinian deaths, of which 300 were noncombatant women, children aged 15 and younger and men over the age of 65. 580 of the deaths were stated to be from Hamas and combatants from "other groups". Nableezy (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should keep women/children numbers for all sources? From that article that seems to be how the IDF is separating non-combatants and combatants now. Nableezy (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always been against it since it can be used incorrectly. I also like lumping it together as civilians but the IDF report and news article state it so it may be best. I am a little concerned with too much data but this does seem notable and according to the source. We do need to watch it though. The story specifies that two of the women in the figure were combatants (or terrorists or something). I don't think we need that much detail. Your edit is perfectly inline with the source so it is good.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So should I add women and children to one of the Palestinian numbers, both, or neither? I would think 1 or both just for the sake of consistency throughout the section. Nableezy (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I doubt there will be consensus to remove the civilian breakdown and it is pretty well cited from both groups. Worst comes to worst, we can separate some of the numbers out into a second paragraph within the main section for readability purposes after the info is in.Cptnono (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If we add both MoH and PCHR it may be best to have one short paragraph of total deaths from the three sources and a separate one breaking it down. The the reader has the total right there without being surrounded by data and the next longer paragraph will break it down.Cptnono (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"At least 1,200 Gazan’s have been killed. The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health has stated a total of 1,324. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) states 1,285. Israel states 1,200. Paragraph break. Civilian break down."Cptnono (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the above change, edit conflict with you, if you like your language more I could deal with that. But I think the change above should be fine, leave civ/militant breakdown in top, type of civilians next para. Nableezy (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is good but cluttered. Do you think just having the totals in the opening paragraph would be easier: "At least 1,200 Gazan’s have been killed. The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health has stated a total of 1,324. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) states 1,285. Israel states 1,200. Israel has stated that 13 Israelis were killed during the fighting while Hamas claims they killed 80 soldiers. Paragraph break. Civilian break down" (Israeli deaths in this paragraph might be inline with the idea of total figures. Not sure though.) I am open to both but am concerned about the reader losing the totals in all the data.Cptnono (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think we should be asserting anything as fact even if both sides say at least 1200 until there is an independent number. And we do keep the totals as the first thing in each string of numbers. Nableezy (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And I would be fine moving the Israeli casualties in the first para as well, but the cluttering that you speak of made me think otherwise. Nableezy (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We could always put "... at least 1200 according to MoH, PCHR, and Israel" I don't think that number will change. Although we may change the edit over the next day or so, it can go in as you have proposed to get the ball rolling. We can propose a few different versions for the opening paragraph but that shouldn't hold back the main edit.(Tweaked slightly over last minute to avoid confusion)Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In there now, kept the images and chart. Though the section is so small now on a widescreen monitor the last image goes into the next section. Nableezy (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop your bitchin'. It looks fantastic!Cptnono (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also took out the internal violence section in campaign as those casualties are covered here. You should be happy, in the last 5 minutes we made the article ove 15kB shorter. Nableezy (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I know. I keep on refreshing the page just to bask in the glory. I looked at the kB difference and almost cried (exaggerating a tad but you get the point).Cptnono (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Best way to tie this into the lead (now outdated and too long)? Is the "...at least 1,200" acceptable there or is there a good way to summarize the section? Any thoughts would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say just a paraphrasing of the first para of this section should be fine, each set of numbers from the involved party with the disclaimer that no independent verification has yet taken place. Nableezy (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted most of it and edited the info box a little. If there are numbers people want in they should be added. I could not figure out a way to do it without making it too long but having no casualty numbers at all is probably bad. Also, I've been waiting to see what Darwish thinks. We might full-on agree (for the first time, I think) with the new casualty section.Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I was doing all this with you???? Must go revert casualty section on basic principle to be the least agreeable person here. Nableezy (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

Telephones were an important part of the psychological warfare

The following is a quote from the Israeli Propaganda/psychological warfare section:

"Israel’s propaganda operations have included the use of telephone calls to Gaza residents, leaflets being dropped in the war zone, text messages, and video postings on the popular website Youtube.[117][118][119]"

I have looked through these references, and have seen several of these mediums being described as having psychological consequences on the Palestinian population (making them psychological warfare), but I have not seen the use of these mediums by Israel described as propaganda operations, or as desseminating propaganda, especially the video postings on youtube. Isn't it then OR to label these operations/use of these mediums as propaganda operations and dissemination of propaganda?Kinetochore (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. As far as I know, these "tactics" were used to warn the civilian populous to basically leave their homes if they were hiding militants and/or weapons. I think propaganda operations is rather unnecessary pejorative term because the goal was not to deceive the population, but to save lives IMO. You think Hamas calls Sderot when it's about to launch a suicide attack? LOL. Don't expect a consensus, seriously just leave it alone for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It was already published here by other editors but somehow truth is censored from this article. Every Wikipedia editor should know basic facts: Israel Created Hamas to Split Palestine. Israel's False Flag Operations Know No Bounds LoL AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"I have looked through these references, and have seen several of these mediums being described as having psychological consequences on the Palestinian population (making them psychological warfare), but I have not seen the use of these mediums by Israel described as propaganda operations, or as desseminating propaganda, especially the video postings on youtube. "

Are you kidding me? in that para, it was avioded to label them as psy war(even if they indeed had that effect) but it was totally on purpose to label them as propaganda, because thats what the sources said. I'll copy and paste in a minute, and break it down claim by claim.

That you want to discuss the "calls" again, i'll say the entire article is open for discussion. Cryptonio (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

* Telephone calls - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28608585/

"That particular technique has reappeared in the current Gaza onslaught, with phone calls and leaflets telling Gazans that their problems were due to Hamas."

What do you want to label that? the truth? is it true that their problems are due to Hamas? say yes and guess what, that's your POV.

* Leaflets being dropped in the war zone - http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/RMOI-7MXMPD?OpenDocument

"As the bombing continued, it was discovered on January 2 that Israeli jets have been dropping flyers asking Gazans to inform Israeli military of the whereabouts of projectile launchers in return for aid and assistance. The papers were found all over Gaza and bear the signature of the Israeli military."

What do you want to label that? military tactics? to ask the people on the other side of the conflict to turn over personnel for aid? say yes and guess what, that's your POV.

* Text messages - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/03/israelandthepalestinians-middleeast

"[Israel is] sending text messages and interrupting Palestinian radio and trying to scare Palestinians with their messages"

"Israel and Hamas have mounted psychological warfare on each others' civilian populations. "

There is another source on text messages from Hareetz as well, if you want to add it as too.

* Youtube - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1230456531523

"The Israeli army announced yesterday the creation of its own YouTube channel, through which it will disseminate footage of precision bombing operations in the Gaza Strip, as well as aid distribution and other footage of interest to the international community."

To disseminate? =enough of that. Plus there was another link addressing this claim as well. i shall find it and add it as well if anyone questions this further.

Lets not get technical here about what constitute propaganda or not. that word is used by EVERYONE here left and right. that some want to start playing 'dumb' about israel's propaganda is another story. Cryptonio (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You're totally whipping our fallacies left and right and interpreting the news to fit YOUR POV. The belief that the Israeli's somehow wanted to "scare" the Palestinians is absolutely 100% true, I'd be fucking scarred if I knew a powerful military was about to launch war in my backyard. Now the question is, was this meant to scare the individual Palestinian and simply fuck with their mind or actually get them out of their homes to minimize casualties. These days anything can be considered propaganda, from commercials to news articles to cracker boxes, simply saying propaganda without clarifying according to evidence is extremely bad taste and I'm sure there is a rule against it somewhere. I haven't been involved in this convo so I'll read up on the sources you provided, but from the looks of it I doubt most will accept your rather extreme and bleak attitude towards the Israeli's. I'm not disputing your perspective, but to say this is NPOV...uhh...is stupid, IMHO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it as "warnings" but their was a story that equated it to "Israel and Hamas have mounted psychological warfare on each others' civilian populations" (NY Times I think). I guess we can look at the sources and see which ones are in higher quantities, more reputable, and balancedCptnono (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy to see why I ignore you Wikifan(and will continue to do so). Personally I am against Israel's rationale of 'self defense' done in the way they do. I have a few points to add, but will wait UNTIL you ACTUALLY read the SOURCES. Cryptonio (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, first of all the word disseminate means give out, i.e. I can disseminate candy to a child, so that argument goes out the window. Next, all of your examples (except the online videos, which it is my understanding are designed for Israeli PR purposes) perhaps constitute psychological warfare (but perhaps not, depends what sources are saying), but who are you to decide if it constitutes propaganda or not. Kinetochore (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Out the window, into your living room. This is all about sources. In my opinion all of that stuff is propaganda. My opinion don't matter, we know that. The tactics, as seen by these reporters, have been in used in other warzones, and thus have been labeled as propaganda/psy war. Now, i personally would loath to label 'dropping leaflets' as psy war, but if that's what you are arguing for, i will oppose and give out more examples and then (maybe) give in and call them psy war. Now, you are not giving me food for thought, i know very well you are arguing this in BAD FAITH. All of this, as supported by the sources are indeed propaganda psy war. If you give me as little as half an hour, i will have this section flooded with sources equating all of these practices as propaganda( as done above). Cryptonio (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dismissing my post and saying you'll "ignore me" while accusing others of not hearing your opinion is BAD faith. I'd like to hear more user's opinions if they have not already given. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith, give me a break! Try this on for size.

• Someone bombs your house and you are in it. You die. (You're unlucky)

  Someone sends you a message that they plan to bomb your house and suggests you leave. You ignore the message, believing it is "psychological warfare". You die. (You're dumb, and unlucky)

  Someone sends you a message that they plan to bomb your house and suggests you leave. You take the message at face value. You live. (You're smart, and lucky)

  Someone sends you a message that they plan to bomb your house and suggests you leave. You stay. They don't bomb your house. You live. (You're just lucky)

believing this to be psychological warfare is not "selected for." There are of course other issues that enter in, such as Israel not wanting to be seen as deliberately targeting civilians. It is of course jealous of its reputation, whatever you might think. As has been noted, Hamas doesn't bother to ring up first so civilians and others have no opportunity to make a choice that could save their lives. It is hard to estimate how many civilian lives (and even some combatants) might have had their lives saved by these little bits of "psychological warfare" and/or propaganda imposed on the people of Gaza! Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, somebody bombs your house and no matter what else happens you died and they killed you. This is irrelevant unless you have a source commenting on the lives saved. If the sources call this propaganda or psych warfare so must we. If they dont, we dont. It really is a simple equation. Nableezy (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To argue this, is to realize that some of you will argue just for the sake of arguing(and for the removal of material that you find offensive against Israel, no matter how far it removes you from the rest of society). Israel is not writing this article, notice that there are even some people who are not from Israel actively participating on this article. That Israel does not see these tactics as propaganda/psy war is not our concern. But, they are smarter than you guys and won't even bring up some of the arguments you guys bring in here. This section of the article, does not need Israel's response(and thus maybe you guys are a bit mad about it). This is what sources are reporting. And they have called these things something. It happened they've called it Propaganda and psy war. And so, because here in wiki we don't try to cover these things, we also called it propaganda and psy war. Even Jalapenos agreed this section was necessary. Read the archives. Yes, understandably Israel sees most of these things in one way, but this is an Encyclopedia, it is supposed to know how one group would like to call something and what IT SHOULD BE CALLED. If, you want, you could start a new section called "Humanitarianism advancement in warfare" and explain Israel's POV on these matters.

Tundra, Wikifan...whatever...anything that i would come up to tell you guys, is going to come out as an insult or belittling your abilities. Don't use this as an excuse to address me, I don't like to have conversations with you guys.

• Technology Delivers War Propaganda to Gaza, Israeli Citizens - http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Technology-Delivers-War-Propaganda-to-Gaza-Israeli-Citizens-65825.html?wlc=1234835531

• Propaganda war: trusting what we see? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm

• Israel intimidates Gazans via text messaging - http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/08/63828.html

Cryptonio (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It does need Israel's response. Nableezy (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. maybe wikifan and tundra can help me look for sources that address Israel's concerns in this matter.

I've added some other sources and included Psychological warfare in the second para as well. Cryptonio (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a recurring mistake in this area. Let me try to prevent it happening again by stating the facts. 1. Israel engaged in psychological warfare. This aspect is covered by reliable sources. If Hamas psychological warfare is in the article, then Israeli psychological warfare should be too. Terrific. 2. Israel also sent warning calls to civilians to keep them from getting hurt, called "roof knocking". Warning calls are not psychological warfare. Again. warning calls are not psychological warfare. A vigorous attempt was made to show that reliable sources consider them as such. They do not. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said that they are, and at the very most their opinion should be quoted, along with a response if there is one. (Now let's step out of wikipedia mode for a second and go into common sense mode: PCHR's claim is ludicrous, and was obviously made as an attempt to make Israel look bad. PCHR is about as neutral in this conflict as CAMERA. OK, back to wikipedia mode.) What is notable about the warning calls is that they are fairly novel. The practice is not often used in warfare (and Cerejota can point out if I'm wrong). Those of you who want to see everything Israel did as bad can easily deal with this: just assume Israel engaged in the practice to score PR points, and didn't intend for it to be effective. I don't care. The fact is that the novelty of warning civilians to evacuate targets, compounded with the extreme novelty of civilians climbing onto rooves to keep them from getting bombed, compounded with the even more extreme novelty of an army developing tactics to deal with this phenomenon, are what make the warning calls notable. And again, they are not psychological warfare. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I could very well agree with you in all of those points(and probably someday i will), but currently roof knocking is not mentioned under Propaganda/psy war. Even though we have yet to fully express the case for its inclusion as psy war. But, it was not reverted, it was given a response to balance that CLAIMS that roof knocking makes and that was the end of it. I will not make an attempt to move roof knocking into propaganda/psy war, but i think a discussion is brewing below whether it should stay in the current position.(telephone lines section) Cryptonio (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Civilian/combatent numbers should be updated to reflect numbers listed vy the IDF

The current numbers are those which were declared by Hamas. Israel has recently published its own list of fatality ratios with visual evidence. At least the article should cite what both sides claim.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Along with this Italian article which Interviews Gazans and saysmHamas inflated the numbers

http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_gennaio_21/denuncia_hamas_cremonesi_ac41c6f4-e802-11dd-833f-00144f02aabc.shtml

(english translation) http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corriere.it%2Festeri%2F09_gennaio_21%2Fdenuncia_hamas_cremonesi_ac41c6f4-e802-11dd-833f-00144f02aabc.shtml&sl=it&tl=en&history_state0= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is already a discussion on this however. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Army update regarding casualties

Here -> [2] . Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the updated info. Good looking out. It has been added to the pending casualties section discussed above.Cptnono (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed background edit - redux

I know I should RTFM; someone mentioned using my sandbox, while others suggested that I post my proposed edits here in the talk. Which is preferable? What is the standard process for significant edits? Kindly let me know.

Obviously these are draft edits and they will be refined. Here's my proposal for the newest draft of Background:

Main articles: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaza–Israel conflict, 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire, 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, and Blockade of the Gaza Strip

See also: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2001 through 2007, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008, 2009

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. Israel closed off all remaining access to Gaza in July 2007. 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. 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 time period Israeli air strikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations have killed more than 800 Palestinians.

Hamas is a militant Islamist organisation whose charter calls for the "obliteration" of Israel. While Hamas' leader in Gaza has stated that the Hamas government would agree to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna ("temporary truce"), if Israel "recognized the Palestinians' national rights", Hamas will not recognize Israel's right to exist and rejects the two-state solution. Israel sees this offer as a non-starter because it falls short of full recognition. Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled.

Rationale: This removes the redundant data about Gaza geography (which was previously cut and paste from the Gaza article); it changes the wording of Hamas' charter from "destruction" to "obliteration" (see the covenant at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp, one example: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"); and it basically cleans up the second paragraph.

Some have come to conclusions about my biases; I am Jewish and I am knowledgeable about the issues and I do have opinions. Don't we all? But all of my edits strive to be good faith edits. I really do want to see this article become as good as some of the articles about other aspects of the broader conflict.

Critique away. Or point me in the right direction about where this proposed edit should go.

I stress that I see no reason to get into a partisan conflict over this. The paramount question for me is always whether it follows the guidelines and is of encyclopaedia quality. This is a draft and isn't perfect but I think it is a step in the right direction. Betacrucis (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't hide any sock puppet behind Betacrucis account. I really hate those God forbidden creatures :) This is third Background discussion already. Let's finish this discussion first. It will be more effective way to move forward towards redux if you discuss your changes there. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeat from above: First, the geography was consensus, many people favored having it and density line was the result of some compromise. I would want to keep the first paragraph as is. You didnt change the next paragraph that I can see so no need to discuss that here unless I missed a change, if I did let me know please. Hudna does not mean 'temporary truce' and put next to long-term doesnt make a whole lot of sense, so I would take out 'temporary'. Also, the 2 state solution has nothing to do with this, I fail to see the relevance. Also, nowhere in the charter does it say 'obliteration' in fact it was raised that it doesn't even say 'destruction' so I oppose that change. Also, it was more than Gaza leaderhsip it was Hamas political leadership from Damascus to Gaza that said they would be willing to have the hudna in exchange for those concessions. I think the last paragraph is also better as is for those reasons. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree per Nableezy. Believe "Background" should set the stage, with an overview of the event's location and actors. Gaza Strip's density and the blockade are germane. Again, strongly oppose edits that would remove this information. RomaC (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, look at precedent. Find me other articles about this conflict that include geographic and demographic data in the background section.

This is a basic copy and paste job. This is not a battle, it is a simple question of redundancy. Speaking of which, I am eager to hear what Cerejota thinks about this! Betacrucis (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacrucis, please look at the archives about this issue, we have demonstrated that the location and population density are relevant to almost all aspects of this conflict. From the claims of using human shields by launching rockets in densely populated areas, to the concern about using depleted uranium or white phosphorous in such an area, to the casualties, to the actual military operation that needed to account for the high density and minimize risk to Israeli soldiers. The discussion can be found here. It was agreed by most that the location information is certainly relevant background as it was the location of the conflict, and a large portion also agreed to having the pop density line in there, though a number disputed that it is among the highest in the world. But please read up on the discussion and if you think there are points that are unaddressed feel free to bring them up. Nableezy (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words?

I don't personally think weasel words is a major problem with this article. There are sure to be some, but that's the least of our worries. I suggest removing the tag.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The tags should remain as is until the article enters a steady state. Right now it is very much in flux, and use of weasel words is a major concern. Kinetochore (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific examples so we can fix them?--Cerejota (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be any major consensus to keep that tag. I intend to remove in a day or so if there are no further objectionsJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious to see if there are any particular lines/words from Kinetochore with the keen eyes for them. I think that portion of the tag could be removed but would like to see any specific examples taken care of ASAP.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Internal Violence

Nableezy, you removed the internal violence section. Why? It is an integral component of this conflict. Kinetochore (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There was not meant to be any harm in it. It contained information already used in the casualties section.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we have the relevant casualties in the casualties section, it is not part of the military campaign on either side. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is important to include a section detailing Hamas violence against other Palestinians. This is a topic which was discussed at many points during the conflict, by many different RS. Even Amnesty wrote a report about this. In many instances it has been linked to the current conflict. It is not appropriate to simply remove it because the internal violence resulted in casualties, and there is already a casualty section. Kinetochore (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is included in the casualty section with this line: "Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel.[239] Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and wounded 75.[239]" What else needs to be said? I took out a lot of stuff that I would otherwise want to include to reach an acceptable compromise where all relevant information is retained and presented in a concise manner. What about the internal conflict is related to the military campaign? Why should it be at all included there? Nableezy (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Really tho, we have seen a whole lot of trimming of certain incidents and events, why do we need to go into such detail on this, especially when there is another article about this specifically? Nableezy (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I also would have initially had the wrong impression if I had not followed the Casualty section discussion, Kinetochore. Its own article (do we have a See Also link?) plus the casualties paragraph give it some good space. If the current stuff is not sufficient, I'm not completely against the inclusion of a very short subsection if it covers other notable info.Cptnono (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We already had this discussion before Nableezy. This has everything to do with the conflict, Hamas started offing Fatah and other Pal's who believed they collaborated with Israel. In fact, the witch hunt is still going on as far as I know. I'm readding it.

I would like to point out that Hamas has been accused by amnesty of employing a deliberate campaign of eliminating its Palestinian opponents: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1233304741040. A short paragraph in the Palestinian military activity section would be beneficial to the quality of this article.Kinetochore (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: Sorry, just re-read the article. Yes, it's covered in the "Other Casualty" section, but that was suspiciously created AFTER the internal violence section. I believe whoever created that did it to reduce the important of the uprising, "other casualties" is an extreme reduction and does not properly reflect the sources. We already had this discussion before and I'm trying to assume good faith here, seriously, but someone did this without even going to talk and swept in under the rug. I'm going to re-add the internal violence subject, but someone else can delete the other-casualties because I refuse to go into another The Trial Again Wikifan for removing sourced info (which was technically the info in the original subsection). Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you should knock it off wikifan. I am pro-Israeli and it looks like Nableezy is pro-Palestinian. Instead of squabbling we worked to fix a section. I understand that it might be a concern to see that removal so lets fix it without you accusing us of garbage.Cptnono (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And if you are going to do it, do it right. I appreciate the effort but the section looks like ass.Cptnono (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

wtf? I'm not squabbling, someone removed an entire section, retitled the event to "Other Casualties", and threw out 90% of the info along with their sources. This person was Nableezy, so stop making this a war when I'm just stating facts. We already had this discussion several times regarding the internal violence and I'm pretty sure we came to a consensus, I honestly didn't notice it till whoever made this section told me. Ok, I re-added and fixed some of the sentencing. Another person reduced the entire paragraph to 1 sentence with no sources while I was trying to edit, don't know who that is but these games are quite annoying. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who reduced it. Bad form I my part but the section before was a partial list of stuff that happened so I took the opening line from the main article (you're right, that article needs sources) as a base. Instead of edit waring I'll rework it and post it here first. The section will be altered significantly but it will fit in much better by the time it is done. To start, we can go off the opening line (the revert). Any thoughts on how to properly expand it are appreciated. Do we want the numbers on deaths and injuries during the reprisal attacks here or in the casualties section? Duplicate mentions are not acceptable for an article of this length.Cptnono (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to rework it but don't remove entire sections that have been revised over several weeks, retitled it to something totally weird like "Other Casualties", and include only the fewest facts as possible. Seriously, what was there was perfectly fine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to repeat yourself and no it was not fine. An article of this length is unacceptable so we need to drastically cut lists of what are essentially news headlines supporters of either side feel like putting in to make a point. This is especially true when they can be mentioned in their own article. Do you have a suggestion on where the casualty data should go or do you want to argue about previous edits more?Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, we already had this convo...TWICE. It's not simply casualty data, it's a separate event. Let me break it down for you: Hamas, in response to Israel's "defeat" in Gaza, starting killing Fatah/Palestinian members who they suspected of collaborating with the IDF during the war. They weren't casualties of war, they were lined up on a wall and shot in the back of the head. This is why the title is called "Internal violence" and not "Other casualties" and this is why it gets its own half paragraph sub-section. There is nothing to really argue, so leave it alone unless the source is total b.s or it has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict. Also, even in the event that the section was truly corrupted, the least you could have done was make a section here and voice your concerns before deleting info, along with their sources. Last time I did that there was a trial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a trial because you are consistently patronizing and rude. Frankly, if you were working on this twice and it still isn't fixed I don't have much faith in you being any value the third time. From what I can gather from your rant, it looks like you do not want the info in the casualties section.Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we had a discussion twice...not working on it. You think everyone here has good-intentioned? People want their POV in the article, and so anything that remotely puts down Hamas probably won't fit well. That's my opinion anyways, but the section is crafted well according to wiki policy. My point was is that every single one your complaints was addressed in those discussions, and the fact that you felt it was your duty to remove whole paragraphs without notice...well...should piss some people off. Whatever, I fixed it so when you're done calling me names I'll be in my room. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to feel bad for for having a crappy tone with you when you consistently are a dick to people. I was actually about to edit the talk page to mention that I didn't realize you had removed one of the events listed which was a primary concern. I would prefer to remove the hospital event if it is already listed in the main article relating the the killings so thought I would see what others thought before taking it out. The quote and the numbers are not bad as they are but if there is consensus to keep that format than that is done. I'll let other people comment on it because I honestly could care less about your opinion.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus is of me is no free pass for you to act the same. I'm glad you are able to justify your lack of civility. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel pretty good about it. Maybe people need to explain to you more that they think you are crossing the line so you don't do it so much. Your first comment in this section came across pretty harsh even though the section had started pretty nice. You set a negative tone that continued on both our parts and that is OK by me. Funny thing is I didn't do the original removal of the content just the revert of a revert that looked to be done improperly. You had some reason to be upset but a more concise less accusatory response would have done the trick perfectly well.Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with my original tone. Are you not the one who completely deleted a paragraph of information with sources that was already discussed in-depth several times, reduced it to one sentence, retitled the section "other casualties" and placed it at the near-bottom of the article? How else am I supposed to say this? this article has been crafted through weeks of wars so please dont be all naive and say wikifan12345 is the source of all our problems. I simply stated facts, I didn't make it personal and I certainly didn't try to convey a sense of meanness. There is some rule about this on wiki, Cerejota always brings it up I'm sure he can find it for you. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not only are we expected to behave according to the standard guidelines we are operating under sanctions. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum for example. Apparently we need to behave with dignity. Not sure what that means. I assume they don't mean we are expected attempt to dock a boat in Gaza and get repelled by the Israeli navy because that sounds quite time consuming. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

insert complaint here Sean, I'm simply calling Cptnono on what he said. I'm hoping Nableezy joins since he seems to be the one who removed the paragraph, retitled it "other casualties", forced it to the bottom of the article, with no trial or section demanding an explanation. It may be someone else, but that's what it says up there. What is your opinion Sean? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Youse guys drag me from creating articles to fix another one for Good Article status, which is what everyone of you should be doing to get into these circle jerks entretaining discussions. Oh well. I am said to say it, but Wikifan, for all his fanning (ha-ha) of the Oh Noes He Is Uncivil flames, has a very valid point. The issue of sectarian violence is an important one in the war: in fact there appears to be a correlation between the differences in the casualty figures for the PMoH and the IDF accounted for the sectarian attacks casualties. I disagree with Nableezy: offing Fatah people is very much part of the conflict, as is offing outright collaborators. This from the start of the conflict: NPR, or recently reported ABC Australia. It is trivial to find sources. But most importantly, Hamas themselves defend these actions as part of the resistance: AFP - "The government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law... if any collaborator is sentenced to death, we will not hesitate to carry it out.". In fact, this is casting doubt on you being any sort of Hamas collaborator: any true red-blooded (or shall we say, green-blooded) Hamas operative would be rather proud of snapping snitches necks. I know I would if were being snitched on. See, three sources not being used in the article. I am indeed a bit concerned with the over-usage of Israeli sources, when there is a plethora of alternatives in the world press, but this is an issue of editing, not deletion or notability.--Cerejota (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I don't have an opinion on this and I'm not complaining about anyone this time. It's just a reminder about the sanctions because it's easy to forget that they are in place, put the wrong coloured socks on or get caught smoking behind the bicycle sheds or pick your nose in class and get banned. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ok ... time to remember you are editing and not squabbling, and pay attention to Sean.hoyland because he ain't just akiddin'. As for Cerejota, I'm agreeing with him as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Deal. Everything honky dory now? I honestly haven't messed with the internal violence section as I didn't see anything particularly wrong with it. If I were to do any editing, I'd probably expand it, but that's up for consensus. Cerejota, the sources used came straight from the original article. I'd be happy to put the ones you proved in but not until we have a straight-forward universally accepted understanding that the section shouldn't be removed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not remove and retitle anything. Nab and I worked on the casualties section and he thought it was appropriate to remove the Internal Conflicts. I disagree with the complete removal after realizing there was a little more in regards to torture. He was very correct in reducing the section though and I will not slight him for attempting to fix the article. There is an article devoted to this particular situation already so a line or two summarizing the concerns should be sufficient. I liked Nab's line in the casualty section because it was concise. That plus a line with a little more info should make this a good section while assisting in tightening the article. Also, when I deleted the reinsertion and added in a line from the main article it was a little out of frustration. I should have kept that in the discussion page as Darwish and I have discussed before. I have no problem admitting that I was being a jerk. Per other editor's requests, I'll drop it and get back to the article. Appreciate the bluntness Tundrabuggy.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So back to the article. The following is Nab's edit. I changed the wording from injured to assaulted and added where I think a line should go:

Hamas gunmen publicly executed several Fatah members and Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Israeli and Fatah sources reported that Hamas executed between 40 and 60 Palestinians and assaulted 75. insert line here on rounding up/imprisonment This will be easier to read, requires less sources, and will cut down on the total kB of the already too long article. I know it seems like a small change but think it is better for the article. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I like the current more:

During the conflict Hamas executed Palestinians suspected of collaborating with the IDF. In one such incident, Hamas militants executed six Palestinians in Shifa Hospital.[204] Hamas had executed more than 35 Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel.[205] Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin on January 11 accused Hamas of killing 70 supporters of Fatah under the cover of war.[206] The Palestinian Center for Human Rights stated on January 31 that "it had credible reports that Hamas operatives killed six members of Fatah" and that "[another] 35 were shot in the knees or beaten."[207] According to a Hamas spokesperson, "The internal security service was instructed to track collaborators and hit them hard. They arrested dozens of collaborators who attempted to strike at Hamas by giving information to Israel about the fighters. [208][209]

It provides specific examples (short) leading up to the casualty tally, and then Hamas' POV on the reprisals. Anything less wouldn't make sense. KB is a non-issue, deleting notable info to save data is not a valid reason. At this point we could probably add more with the sources Cerejota gave. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So it wasn't fair to say I wouldn't care about your opinion so responding is in order. kB is a huge issue with this particular article and more importantly but related is readability. Too many individual events along with unnecessary sources and lines from newspapers interrupting the train of thought hurt the article as a whole. Admittedly it is less important with a short section but events that are notable can go in the specified article. We also tally up the totals in one line which is nice.03:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

You are aware there is an Amnesty International report on this here [3] right? I don't much like them but if they are sauce for the goose.... In fact, my understanding is that many Gazans complained about the way they were used as human shields and a number of other issues with Hamas during this "military campaign." Hamas' human rights abuses within Gaza deserves some bandwidth in the encyclopedia. After all, Israel could be abusing its Arab population on the same grounds, but it is not, to the best of my knowledge. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If complete sections have been 'reworked'(in the past week) and Nableezy have yet to say a 'peep', then we have to assume good faith(specially when i was pulling my hair waiting to find out why he didn't objected). I was a proponent that these casualties shouldn't have been placed in the casualties section in the first place, for they happened not by Israeli fire or had any Israeli support(obviously). That Cptnono has done great work here(specially when Wiki policies come to mind) without incurring major wrath from either side, is to also look at it as good faith. In my opinion he is taking and giving(and i applaud that). That said, I take Cerejota's objections and opinion seriously, and I hope we link to that. Other than that, I agree with Cptnono and Nableezy's estimation in this matter and accept the changes they are proposing. Seriously, this is not Fatah vs Hamas, we should bear that in mind, and if black clouds are to be vested upon Hamas, they make it very easily for them to be over their actions against Israel. I believe this is good judgment based on what Cptnono has tried to get accomplished here. Cryptonio (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Fatah vs Hamas puts it great. I think some others know I am not a fan of Hamas and would love to see more articles giving them a hard time but this particular subsection of the article isn't for it. I agree that Gazans complaining of being used as human shields should be used somewhere in the article if it is not already.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's under International Law. Cryptonio (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I got some kush Ive been passed out, so I havent really seen this. But can somebody explain to me how internal violence is related to the military campaign? Not the conflict, but specifically the "Israeli Offensive" or "Palestinian military activity". And before you start saying I am trying to cover up this information, try to actually think of how extreme I really am. Do you really think that I think that executing those guilty of treason is a bad thing or should be covered up? My only concern was hoping they were not wrong about any of these 'collaborators', that would be a bad thing to me, but not something I would feel the need to 'cover up' because it is 'that remotely puts down Hamas'. You need to understand that what actually goes on in this fucked up head of mine when I am sober is nothing like what you see me writing, except on my user page and perhaps this paragraph. I removed the section because it didnt feel like it fits with the military activity, this is internal security, it seemed to fit well in the casualty section. And if you didnt notice I also removed a significant amount of material that would be considered 'pro-palestinian' with the casualties section, so please do not accuse me of trying to push my POV into the article. If Israel had arrested somebody they thought guilty of treason during this conflict, would that belong in military activity. I dont think so. I am not saying it is not a part of this conflict, I never once said that. I said it wasnt a part of either sides military campaign. I dont really give a shit tho, so yall do whatever you want. Nableezy (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And now for some more kush so I can put this nonsense out of my mind. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And I just read Cerejota's comments about the true red(green)-bloods, truly made me smile. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well now that I've had more beer I am enraged. No not really but I do think I got to the heart of my primary concern. I would be happiest if we removed the Shifa Hospital incident from the section. We can throw it in the Incidents or Timeline section if we want but I am opposed to listing incidents and it although it sucks it is yet another item that doesn't belong. Grrr.. chug.Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It's a noted fact and is a critical point in the internal violence. Rationale behind deletion besides beer rage? : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! I'm not too hungover. I have put an emphasis on removing surplus sources and events through my edits/requests. I think that Hamas did some terrible things internally but hate mentioning just one particular event. I also hate mentioning multiple ones so the summary with the link to a new article meets my preferences. Without the event you removed yesterday it is 100x better (to me at least) but I would like to remove the line to make it an actual summary. I need a beverage. : ) Cptnono (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets move this along. Wikifan bring your votes to the table. The future 'stable' article is now!. Cryptonio (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I vote twice?Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is my preference (and opinion) that nothing be removed, I am willing to compromise and somewhat agree that the hospital incident isn't 100% necessary, but I really don't see the problem by including it. It's already an extremely small paragraph and one incident is more than enough to paint a general picture of what's going on. The entire article is chock full of imagery and details, most of which could probably fall under similar grading if they haven't already. Take out the hospital if you truly feel it is necessary, but I strongly believe everything else should remain in-tact...especially the title "Internal violence" and its position in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, bring your votes along with your recommendation. Do you need to see the other side's votes? let us know. Cryptonio (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes? Uh?? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary. You take stock by reading who has written stuff in the conversation and not necessary with what they said. All of this needed to start edit warring with you. Cptnono, Nableezy, Sean and Myself are in favor of these marginal changes. You, Kine and Cerejota are against them. Next time you do the math. I'm going to bypass your lame attempt at compromise and do these changes myself. Cryptonio (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when is this a vote? We're supposed to come to a consensus, not which group has more bodies. I know I've been rather unfriendly lately but is there something I'm doing wrong here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

the vote is official when wanting to know who's going to win an edit war. The compromise that has been performed, places these figures at the top section of Other Casualties. also gives a Palestinian source as well to add weight to it. No Hamas response is needed here, so it was omitted. how can you possibly be against that? if you think you are behaving friendly, i beg you, continue to do so. the POV pushing epoch of this article is over, what we want is to finish what needs to be taken care of(like Cptnono has been doing) and leave Cerejota by himself in here deciding with himself what the final casualty count should be. to do this, these changes are elemental, you can't hold on to the "internal violence" title as a bastion of pride. you gotta let it go. you can't just all of the sudden decide when to start editing and behaving like a human being when all of this time you have been so disruptive. no payback, just process. Cryptonio (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In reaching consensus it is nice to have a yes or a no from people. It is much easier than going through the complete discussion again. To clarify since it looks like a few other options are in the mix from the discussion: Vote wise Remove event (wikifan already did the other one), improve readability if possible, and subsection is OK.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hamas response should be there as well, specifically what Cerejota cited: AFP - "The government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law... if any collaborator is sentenced to death, we will not hesitate to carry it out." But I still cannot understand why it is in a section entitled military activity. This was not military activity, this was internal security. Nableezy (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

With something from this sentence, same source: The Hamas-run government in Gaza on Monday endorsed the killing of Israeli collaborators but denied allegations it had attacked members of the rival Fatah faction during last month's war. Nableezy (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Those Hamas responses are very graphic in nature. But per consensus i will add them myself. Cryptonio (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Took care of that, and the section was moved to Casualties as per straw vote and compromise by the two sides. Cryptonio (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is moving way too fast. The title has been "Internal violence" for quite some time and I thought that was the accepted title. We already went through this process so I'm confused as to why we're still doing this once more. Again, "Other casualties" is in my owns words a horrible under-representation of what was happening. It was internal violence, not "other casualties." The current title is WAY too vague and could imply many things (such as Israel being responsible, as the previous casualty section explains). 2 people who seem to share a similar view point is not a consensus, the original discussion was much larger and scope and I find this rapid pace suspicious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually chipper tonight but see this getting way out of hand again. Nableezy's addtions referenced above were actually neuteral since you could look at them in either a positive or negative light. I could see it going in its own standalone section since it is not just casualties and it is not just military campaign. It is an effect kind of but not really enough to put it there. Adding a new very small standalone section will meet everyone's criteria. There will be a link to the main article for it for expanded info. I believe most editors will be happy with the result. If we keep an eye on it to make sure it does not get over expanded with random info it might work.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You did not count the votes. Clearly was four votes in favor and three against with AMPLE discussion in this matter(take a look at the size of this discussion). Internal violence is already under a separate article title "2009 Hamas reprisal attacks". With the now source that Hamas even attacks the reports saying they didn't attack Fatah members at all. Now you of course wouldn't believe such a thing, but we are working with sources here and not opinions. To that effect, what's important here is the Israel-Palestine conflict and not these side confrontations that is bound to happen. You were entered, entrenched and very adamantly in opposing any compromise as if it all depended in you. Now, your proper response is to wait for word by Kine and Cerejota in this matter as you are already on record opposing compromise. Cryptonio (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

These were casualties, and since they were not brought upon Israeli fire they should go under Other Casualties. Now why would something that logical can't be comprehended by Wikifan? Cryptonio (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The process here is very simple. You shouldn't have reverted my edit. You reverted an edit that was discussed by Cptnono and Nableezy. That was fine. I reverted your edit. that also was fine. You should have waited for an edit or compromise solution from either Kine or Cerejota. You did not do that. Now think about what's going on. If we get blocked we will cancel each other out. Cerejota doesn't get involve in edit warring, who will pick up the slack for you while you are blocked? point given. Now be smart about this and wait for Cerejota or Kine to make another comment on this issue. Cryptonio (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Chill. I'm confused, what are the arguments here? My initial concerns were with Nableezy/Cry or co (you guys have similar names sorry lol) removing an entire paragraph along with their sources, and then retitling the section "Other casualties", without even going to talk. That was where I was arguing from, why that occurred and how we can prevent that from happening again. Not, initiate yet another partisan debate that is totally unnecessary. The internal violence was in response to the war, that justifies it's inclusion. Second, the title is perfectly fine and renaming it "other casualties" is totally stupid. I haven't been that blunt in this discussion but people seem to be ignoring what I'm saying so I'll say it loud and clear: Moving the info into a totally unrelated catagory (such as casualties), retitling it to something super non-controversial and unbearably disconnected, and then telling me I'm not compromising. Give me a break man. I was confused between people who wanted to completely remove the content altogether (which was Nableezy's original argument from previous "consensus" if i remember) to now this current play, I'm honestly confused. Can we map out the specific paragraph, with sources, with title, with location, so there is no more confusion? Can I draft other users into this discussion? It's only been on for less than 2 days, hardly enough time to justify a final "consensus", especially with only ~2-3 people activity involved. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You dont remember and dont put words in my mouth that I have not said. Nableezy (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We actually discussed the casualty seciton in depth for awhile. The add on of the internal conflict section there was pretty quick but it was brought up. I can't fault you for not reading all of the page but you do need to understand some of us discussed it and it was on the page for all to see. I m curious to see what others think since I could see it going into another section also. As it stands though, it is not bad. Let's give it some time and see what other thoughts come up.Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your BIAS did not allowed you to see that both Cptnono and Nableezy were on different sides on this issue and they were able to form a compromise. It is your ineptness that does not allow you to see through these things. Did Israel killed those people? no. Did Israel killed the border guard? yes. was the guard Palestinian? no. should it then go into Casualties? no. Did Fatah and Hamas started their struggle this year? no. Is it useful to even mention what happens between them? no. Can we afford them a couple of lines? yes. and so we did. You are trying to make this Fatah-Hamas battle as earth shattering, like as if capable of replacing everything else that goes on between Israel and Palestine. You are the least capable person that should make a judgment call on this issue. For you won't be able to see past the dump truck in your eyes. realize this, please. Cryptonio (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the casualties section was a few days that came out of nowhere. One editor put up an initial outline. It was discussed and the idea was expanded on. From there it got better and better. I'm not 100% satisfied but who the hell knows what this article would like like if it was just me screwing with it. If you want to put up an outline other editors might hop in. It may not get attention but it is worth a shot if it is important to you.Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to write that. Betacrucis came up with a casualties section that he preferred, that I did not, and that Cptnono worked on. I added some stuff to the casualties section that cptnono made from betacrucis' original edit, betacrucis approved, cptnono approved, nobody else said anything for about a day so I put it in. Almost all of that content, including the internal violence content, was from somebody besides me, somebody who is not a 'pro-Palestinian' and if anything is a 'pro-Israeli' then edited by somebody who, in his own words 'tilts to Pro-Israel' and then further edited by somebody who has been called at various times an antisemite, a hamas operative, and once a stand-up guy. All 3 editors were not completely happy with the result, but accepted it, and in the end we shaved off over 12kB off of the article, much of that what you would undoubtedly call 'pro-Palestinian POV pushing.' I perhaps acted in haste in removing the internal violence section as I felt the material was covered concisely and adequetely in the casualties section. I said I did it in the talk page, Cptnono said he was cool with it, and nobody said anything till Kinetochore brought it up. Cptnono responded, as did I, cordially and respectfully. This did not turn into a shit storm until you showed up. I, completely FUBARed off something special, was passed out as you started crying. When I awoke from my slumber, I responded to your baseless accusations of me wanting to cover something up out of some loyalty to Hamas. In the meantime, you argued against imaginary points that you thought I would raise, never once actually answering the only question I have put to you. How are internal security operations a part of the military operation? And if there was some Israeli found to be committing treason and conspiring with Hamas during a war, would that be in the military activity section? Could you answer those questions please? Nableezy (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok I'm definitely not going to enter an argument with that tone especially when it's importance within the article has been established several times and supported by others users who share the same "bias." I'm just gonna start a new section because the original agenda of this was not to create a consensus but to clarify who tampered with the original without going to talk. So whatever. I've already shared my viewpoint and it clearly was not even considered among your 3 person consensus, so yeah. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)