Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66→Archive 70

Are [1] and [2] appropriate and/or needed external links? If they are RS then maybe use them in inline citations instead. Wikipedia:External links. Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

They're more pertinent to the 'Media and the Gaza War' article. If those links meet WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE in this article then there's potentially hundreds of other links that would too. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I also removed United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Occupied Palestinian Territory since it is not conflict specific.Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentiles

"A soldier involved in Israel's recent military offensive in the Gaza Strip said in published reports Friday that the military's rabbinical staff distributed material characterizing the operation as a religious mission to "get rid of the gentiles who disturb us from conquering the holy land." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032003463.html

Might be useful. Kasaalan (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Kasaalan (talk), I suggest you park your racist shit at the door before joining this discussion--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not a member of any side of the warring parties, you possibly are via your religious/racial beliefs. I respect peace promoting Jewish/Arab parties, and I do not respect Jewish/Arab civilian murderers/racist or religiously fanatical parties. Try not to swear if you like to be respected or violate the rules. Tough it is known that I have never taken any administrative action against any wiki editor for swearing me yet. Kasaalan (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, that seems like an odd response. Is there a reason you would say that ? Are you referring to the editor or the material or both ? I'm not familiar with Kasaalan but User:Kasaalan#Views suggests that he's not a fan of racist shit. As for the material, the IDF soldiers testimonies from Breaking the silence covered this rabbinical staff issue in some depth so the material has been out there for ages and doesn't seem like something to get excited about. Perhaps using the section heading 'Gentiles' was ambiguous in that it can look like he was only addressing editors willing to allow themselves to be labeled as a Gentile (not me), rather than picking a term out of the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
To smear the good name of an entire army because of the alleged rantings of some obscure "rabbi" is racist and I stand by what I said 100% and yes, the heading was indeed provocative--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all you hypothetically assume entire IDF army has a good name. Second you assume the rabbi and his mentioned words are obscure. Third you call a factual statement by an IDF soldier as a smear campaign and direct that claim to me. Forth you assume the word cbscure military rabbi used (gentile=non jewish) as provocative and direct that claim to me.
Therefore if someone smears the "good reputation" of entire IDF, you may try to find the rabbi for insulting him directly. You are %100 on your POV ground which supports what you said. Kasaalan (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Soap boxing anti defamation league views is not POV somehow? The obvious disregard for Palestinian lives is somehow NOT racist??? What is this place??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing anything is no good here. And this is a place where yes: Some of us don't think it is racist.
My problem with this is that it appears to be an individual soldier that made the quote and not the actual rabbi. Also, he makes it clear that the rabbis did it but as a commander he did not. Am I reading it wrong? Dropping the quote would reduce its in your faciness. "A commander was critical of the military's rabbinical staff for distributing material characterizing the operation as a religious mission. He attempted to explain to those under his command that the war was not based on religion but on stopping the rocket attacks" would be something I could see working.Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
What Kasaalan quoted is irrelevant and has no place in the article. The case described there was not a common phenomena or official policy (as was written above IDF and commanders disagree with the thing said). A single case when some soldier\rabbi said things on his mind only, and not authorized by any official IDF body, doesn't tell us anything of what happened. Suppose there is a report that one soldier said "we gonna kick them in the ass", so we need to insert it to the article and write (bullshit) stuff such as "Military Rabbinate and high command defined the mission's objective as 'kick them in the ass'"? The answer is clear. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 14:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Racist or supremacist practices by "religious" officials in any army is something notable. It is the same when Bush claims crusade against "nuclear weapons" that doesn't exist.
Also they did not just tell, "military's rabbinical staff distributed material characterizing the operation as a religious mission to 'get rid of the gentiles who disturb us from conquering the holy land.' so it appears an organized action by more than one officials. And it is supported by higher command levels in IDF.
Of course the same goes for Hamas, but I support including same events for Hamas too. Kasaalan (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

<- My take is that it was a notable issue=covered by RS that resulted in the IDF changing/clarifying policy and issuing a document limiting the military rabbinate's involvement in future. The issue was covered by Haaretz, here & here & here along with several other RS and of course by several testimonies in Soldiers’ Testimonies from Operation Cast Lead, Gaza 2009 from Breaking the Silence. Setting aside the funny/disturbing notion that it's racist to publish material or say things about national armies that could impact negatively on their reputation, it was covered by multiple RS, it's directly related to this conlict, it produced a change in IDF rules so it's probably worth a sentence or two at most i.e. this happened=>this policy change. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy suggest you strike your "park your racist shit at the door" comments and apologize to Kasaalan for incivility. Editors are free and welcome to join this discussion, the link was to a Washington Post article, and you are not a moderator. RomaC (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have much free time for the article for a while, I made a research for previously deleted IDF T-Shirt controversy which I consider DRV, the article appeared in the search, I quoted the claim to share and ask opinion. In my approach wikipedia should document both Hamas and IDF side human rights violations with a neutral tone. And I do not care personal swears much especially if the swearing party has POV views or a direct side of the conflict. Kasaalan (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar practices

Some critics claim that Judaism's religious leaders have interpreted religious laws to support killing of innocent civilians during wartime in some circumstances, and that this interpretation was asserted several times: in 1974 following the Yom Kippur war,

[1] in 2004, during conflicts in West Bank and Gaza,[2] and in the 2006 Lebanon War.[3] Critics cite a booklet published by an IDF military chaplain which stated "... insofar as the killing of civilians is performed against the background of war, one should not, according to religious law, trust a Gentile 'The best of the Gentiles you should kill'...".[4] The booklet was withdrawn by the military after criticism, but the military never repudiated the guidance.[5] However, the other religious leaders have condemned this interpretation, and the Israeli military subscribes to the Purity of arms doctrine, which seeks to minimize injuries to non-combatants; furthermore, the advice was only applicable to combat operations in wartime.


Similar practices, mainly published by independent and peace supporting Jewish organizations or newspapers that opposes these practices. So both sides has extremist views that result in war. We should include both Hamas and IDF extremism. Kasaalan (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way a similar collection for Hamas would balance these IDF side actions. Kasaalan (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
References

Chief of Police listed as a "military commander"

Listing Tawfik Jaber the Gaza chief of Police as somehow a military "commander" is real honest too. The term K.I.A. sounds even better when what you're actually doing is just bombing civilian settlements from afar. What's that song Pink Floyd's Roger Waters wrote called? The bravery of being out of range"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amused_to_Death#Track_listing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawfik_Jaber

I've removed him. The infobox is for military commanders as you say and an RS would be required describing him as such. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hamas "Police" took part in the hostilities, and many of its "cops" were also active terrorists in the Izz-A-Din al-Qassam Brigades. MathKnight 08:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
So we are voicing our opinions ? Okay, here's mine. The Hamas police force is to a large extent a paramilitary force indistinguishable from other 'military' components in Gaza. So what ? We aren't RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm stating facts. A research by Jonathan Dahuah-Halevi found that about 88% of Hamas policemen killed during the operation where Izz-A-Din al-Qassam Brigade activists (al-Qassam Brigades are the terrorist arm of Hamas, they are responsible to suicide bombings and rocket shelling on Israeli towns). Link to the report: [6] (in Hebrew, use Google translation). MathKnight 11:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
But did Jaber lead the police force or a paramilitary group in combat? Many police did moonlight as more than police but that doesn't mean he commanded anything. RS should say he specifically played a leadership role during the fighting.Cptnono (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, an RS needs to explicitly make the statement of fact that he was a military commander, not us. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Throwing about descriptive terms that varying US or Israeli departments "information" wing is attached to, like calling anyone and everyone who opposes their policies and opposes occupation and oppression of their countrymen, "terrorists" , is also not considered academic honesty in any known serious academic institution with any honest attachment to academic accuracy and intellectual honesty. Or do we pretend we will start referring to the French resistance during WW2 as "the French terrorists" and similar movements, for their violent opposition to occupation and oppression on their own soil? Or perhaps the Jewish terrorists in the Warsaw ghetto? What does it take to get basic decency an accepted form of making Historic references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the note on you talk page.Cptnono (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

<- Note: this issue has been resolved by Agada with this edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it resolved? I checked out Agada's source and it does say that Jaber was a Hamas commander but I think that's not the same as saying he was a commander during the Gaza War per se. I think the point of that section of the infobox is to tell readers who was running their operations during the war. While he may have done that had he lived, the guy was killed in the first second or so of the war and probably never issued any commands. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest changing the article title.

Just Some Quick Questions, wont take long. I seriously suggest changing the title of the article on the basis of credibility and keeping a minimum of academic honesty. Or Do you admins here think the 2009 bombings and military operations in Gaza qualifies as a "war"? Do you think any serious academics, scholars, historians or journalists in Europe considers the 2009 bombings and military operations inside Gaza consider it or think it qualifies as a "war"? In honesty? Does not wikipedia strive to avoid weasel wording in all its forms? Is the discrepancy here at all visible? to any of the admin here at wikipedia.. at all? Or is it complete Humpty Dumpty free for all here? The old "I can make a word mean anything I want it to"--Humpty Dumpty, from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland (somewhat paraphrased after memory). I'm sorry to invoke Lewis Carroll here if it offends anyone, but lest I fail to alert people to the problem, I think honesty and basic decency and respect for the dead and their relatives warrants it whatever nationality or ethnicity they hold. I know that no US or UK citizen would be treated with similar verbal disrespect or insult had any of their major civilian urban centers been equally subjected to 21 days of bombings and ground level military operations by a sophisticated modern army, no matter how many automatic weapons say a local police force urban "militia"/ last line civil defense could muster. It would in any event never be referred to as a "war". Let that be absolutely crystal clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion seems to disregard sources that call it a "War". That being said, I am not totally against the idea but we need an alternative proposed.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of all the garbage you have posted recently, the one thing you apologize about being offensive is a reference to Lewis Carroll? That says it all. Please stop violating WP:SOAP with all these rants. Breein1007 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As if one independent statement _whatever_ it's content can make another valid and logically coherent, untrue by default. You need to acquire another approach to logic and debate. You dont share the moral outrage, fine. Thats _your_ POV. Okay? No? Well, do not expect me to care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you continue with this disruptive editing, you will be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead

The war against the people of Gaza needed started nor stopped with this operation so using the official name would be best. Hcobb (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The war against the people of Gaza never started period. However, I agree that Operation Cast Lead is a suitable name for the article. Breein1007 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not against it. However, is it prominent enough to receive the title under WP:MILMOS#CODENAME? "Military conflict in the Gaza Strip during the winter of 2008–2009" seems to wordy. "Gaza War" has sources but it could also be confused with other events and may not be the best known title. "Gaza War (winter 2008–2009)" may be OK according to WP:MILMOS#NAME Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Google!

"Gaza War" About 318,000 results

"Operation Cast Lead" About 418,000 results

"Gaza Massacre" About 61,500 results

I think we've got a clear winner. Hcobb (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Raw ghits are informationless. Only RS hits count. I don't think the name matters much. As long as the title complies with WP:NAME (which I think it does) and people can find it via all of these redirects (which don't have to comply with NAME/NPOV etc) it's good enough isn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Results swap for OCL and Gaza War (Gaza War more) in a Google News search. Like usual, Gaza Massacre is thousands behind at least 4 other phrases. It looks like the Hebrew Wikipedia goes with "War in Gaza" while arabic goes with "War on the Gaza Strip (December 2008)" (Google translate) Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Hebrew Wikipedia uses Operation Cast Lead (Mivtza Oferet Yetzuka). Breein1007 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see, you used Google Translate. Don't trust it, especially for proper nouns and colloquialisms. Breein1007 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting. So, Google is translating מבצע עופרת יצוקה as War in Gaza. I'm curious how it does that and why. Good to know though. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That does seem like a big jump. I don't speak it personally so have no idea. When you hover over the title in the translate screen it has a link to contribute a better translation so maybe it is user submitted? Here is the link to the GTranslate page (toggle to original in the upper left)[7] Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it's all done by user contributions, so I guess someone decided it was better to call it that than give the literal translation, although that seems contrary to what a translator should do IMO. Anyway, I digress. Breein1007 (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
D'oh. Hovering was left toggle was right. Whatever though.
So this was touchy before. I would suspect any change would get tons of attention. Any more thoughts? The only hang up for m is that Gaza War has more google news hits as a phrase. I still don't think it is perfect though.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not perfect but I'm with staying with Gaza War. My options would be Gaza Conflict (Winter 2008-2009) or Gaza Invasion (Winter 2008-2009). Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm partial to Operation Cast Lead. As far as the term "massacre," I favor its removal from the article. Claims of "massacre" have grown threadbare with overuse by the usual suspects.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That the term "Gaza massacre" is not heavily used in English language RSs only means that it is not an acceptable article name for this article. That the term "Gaza massacre" is explicitly referenced by RSs as the name used in the Arab world means that it should be included per WP:NPOV. Whether or not you, or any of us, thinks what happened here is a massacre or if it a "threadbare" "claim" without any substance is not relevant to the discussion. Take a look at /Archive_47#Requested_move for the previous move. If someone wants to actually show that English RSs use OCL or some other name as the name of the conflict more often than Gaza War they should do that. Just arguing what does or does not constitute a war is not going to determine what the article is titled. We go with the sources here, not the opinions of a collection of random people on the internets. nableezy - 08:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, 33 dead US citizens is of course a massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre but a thousand Palestinians don't qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If this title bothers you that much, do yourself a favour and skip the monkey gland article. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. I still believe that publisher in South Africa is contradicted in at least a couple ways. I am less worried with its prominence reduced. Also, this is a discussion for the title so if we switch gears to massacre then it will more than likely bog down.Cptnono (talk)
I came cross an interesting AlJazeeraEnglish Riz Khan - Impact of the Gaza war on Israel. Basically it contains very comprehensive step-by-step guide to for criticizing/blaming Israel for Gaza War by Norm Finkelstein. Riz Khan was Israel ;). Disputing AlJazeeraEnglish Gaza War naming was the main Norm Finkelstein point, he said that IDF soldiers felt as if they were burning ants with lupe, quoting IDF sources. Maybe generally, aiming for utopia, we could gather Israel's criticism into Gaza War#Israel's criticism: currently the criticism is scattered along all over the article, not always in its logical place. I second Bjmullan, "what it was called" in the 1st para is inappropriate. There is a lot of gathered data and it requires appropriate and serious approach. Let's aim for GA/FA utopia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting, thanks for that. What it has done for me is re-focus the issue of the Nov 4 incident. People should have a look at the graphs @ 2008 rocket attacks and make up their own mind. Again I will say that the intro is rubbish and we need to get back to the basics of writing a summary (beginning - middle - end). Bjmullan (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Bjmullan, I'm holding this title opinion for some time now, but till May 1st could not articulate it as nice ;) In no way I'm saying Norm Finkelstein opinions should be excluded from this article, on the contrary usually there is a serious Criticism chapter in GA/FA articles. We don't need to present respectable parties opinions as a matter of fact. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Speaks so slow. His main point wasn't the title of it as a "war" but a point among several.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from Princeton University. I guess promotion of the 2010 book, might be also a point: This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion - OR Books. The title is strange though, who are We? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the prevailing tendencies on I-P articles, I see almost zero chance that the article title could be changed to more accurately reflect/represent the event, which was a major military assault on the Gaza Strip causing a tremendous amount of casualties and damage. But if it were to be changed, "assault" would seem more accurate term. RomaC (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to comment on prevailing tendencies. Anyway, the operation name is defined in Campaign->Air strikes and referenced in Ground invasion & Post War Military Assessment. So no worries there. Gaza Massacre is not referenced at all outside the Lede, maybe we're missing something in summarizing. Definitely more info should be added to the body, referencing this, critics note several points: provocation, blockade, casualties proportion, type of a ammunition used etc... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


"Academic standards, please." is a frequent requests I see at wikipedia discussions. But academic honesty doesnt seem all that important. It _is_ part of a _discussion_ ON TOPIC to _point_ out _academic_ discussion, so _please, STOP the inane litany of accusations of "POV" and "soapboxing" when people try to conduct a debate. "The Gaza "War" is just as intellectually dishoinest as talking about a "The Sabra & Shatila War". Now if you are too far right wing to actually _see_ this, you have no business being a wikipedia admin. If you want to scream bloody murder because you cannot tolerate an adult view of politics... I guess it just explains why Chomsky and Finkelstein _seem_ to be "alone", but still are considered the great intellectuals they are. It just is not comprehended by the mainstream regimented mind. Now let your cannons loose. I will not be bothered to read any responses, but I do hope adults at wikipedia admins with any working decency and working moral compass will start getting together some time soon and stop basing reality and history on google hits. unless we want the near future to look at us like less competent and less intelligent persons of mediocre and limited mental capacity. It's time to start adhering to some very basic and blatantly obvious basic standards. Let's hope you manage that much / little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You ignore the facts the most of the Palestinians killed were armed terrorists (mainly Hamas activists). As such, it is a battle or a fight, not a massacre. MathKnight 20:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
B'tselem's numbers say that less than 30% of the deaths were combatants, the PCHR numbers say less than 20%. The only group that says that "most" of the Palestinians killed were combatants, armed terrorists, or any other collection of words you want to use, is the IDF. Now you may take their numbers as gospel truth, most sources do not. nableezy - 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, a research done by Yehonatahan Dahuh-HaLevi on B'tselem and PCHR statistics found that many armed militants and Hamas activists were classified as civilians by them, so I don't consider their numbers as reliable. MathKnight 09:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats nice, but being a member of Hamas does not make somebody a combatant. nableezy - 16:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hamas, with all of its arms and branches, is designated as a terrorist organization by many countries, including Israel and the United States of America. Being a member of terrorist group makes you a terrorist, and hence a legitimate target, even if you don't engage in direct combat. Classifying a member of a terrorist group as an innocent civilian is misleading and make abuse of this status. MathKnight 16:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
There are 4 countries in the world that designate Hamas as a terrorist organization (2 more classify the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades as such), not "many". And combatant/non-combatant have specific definitions in international law. Whether or not Israel thinks that person is a "terrorist" does not enter into the discussion. nableezy - 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Either way, hundreds of innocent men, women and children were killed, thousands injured, places where people lived, worked and studied were flattened and it was a gigantic horrible blood and shit soaked mess that will cost billions for taxpayers around the world to fix and generations to get over for the people affected as per usual in a military conflict. So, now that we've established the bleeding obvious how about we cut all the 'decency' and 'moral compass' stuff and advocacy on behalf of the State of Israel and get back to article content issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
In any event, it doesn't matter for the title what the casualty rates were or even if there were any casualties at all. There were none in the Pig War for example. The title is not supposed to describe the subject but use the most common identifier so that readers are able to find it. So while we don't have a "Sabra and Shatila War" article, we do have a War of the Camps article about some similar events during the same conflict. And I should say that if you actually read Chomsky's writing you'll see that he's not afraid to use the "war" term. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Damage value

When we were talking about the cursed infobox the other day, I noticed that for the damage value, we still use a figure which came from a very preliminary estimate, a guess really, from right after the war. So it has been a while and I was thinking we should update that with a more accurate figure. I did a quick search a week or two ago and I couldn't find anything great. But the current source is really inadequate so if anybody knows a better one, I think it would really help. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this one, 'international donors earlier this year pledged more than $4.5 billion to repair war damages' from Dec. 28, 2009. It has a number, it's an RS, it's long after the ceasefire and it says 'to repair war damages'. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
While the $4.5 billion figure represents money pledged to "repair war damages", it isn't really an estimate of the total amount of damage, which could be higher or lower we can't know. But we used to have a long list in the lead detailing damage to schools, hospitals and so on, which was dropped when the lead was trimmed. Perhaps this should be put into the body, it might provide more accuracy re damage than speculative dollar value figures? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess if you take the sentence to mean exactly what it says then it can't be lower. I don't suggest taking it to mean exactly what it says though. Anyway, for interest, the HRW report published yesterday, “I Lost Everything” Israel's Unlawful Destruction of Property during Operation Cast Lead, covers the issue of civilian property damage and has details with some costs. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Sean. That's quite a bit different from the source we've been using all this time. And it may even be a low figure. That should serve as a reminder that we have to make sure all of our sources are up to date. I think Roma may be right that it would be better to explain in the article text rather than the infobox. But that might just be my anti-infobox bias speaking. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead edits and sources

Two recent edits have removed Nov 4 as the first timelined date, and added "civilian" to the targets for the Hamas attacks only. On the first edit, propose we cut right to the airstrikes to avoid a causal narrative in the lead. On the second edit, both sides hit civilians, suggest the editor make an adjustment to neutrally reflect this.

On another point, the two sources for the Dec 27 airstrikes (J-Post and Haaratz) seem to be dead links. RomaC (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to both of your offers.
  1. The operation was begun as a counter-measure to the massive rocket barrage that hit Israeli towns on November and December, including 60 Qassam rockets and Grad in a single day (December 24th, 2008) [8]. If we omit that reason we are misleading the reader that might think that Israel opened a massive attack like on a sunny day without any reason, which is not true. It is like omitting from Operation Defensive Shield that the operation was launched as a repsonse to a wave of suicide bombings reached culminated at the Passover massacre (Park Hotel, Netanya, 30 dead).
  2. Hamas deliberately attacked civilian targets, the IDF attacked terrorist targets (HQs, bomb labs, weapon caches, underground tunnels etc) which where located in the heart of civilian area. There is a difference.
MathKnight 11:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
MathKnight, thanks for your reasoning.
  1. If you believe the article should relate the Dec 27 Israeli airstrikes on Gaza to Hamas rocket attacks over the previous weeks, then why do you not believe the article should also relate those Hamas rockets to Israel's Nov. 4 incursion, airstrikes and killings in Gaza? Then we note both sides' stated reasons for their actions. But I see it could be argued that then we should note that the Nov. 4 attack was in response to a suspected tunnel. And so on, that is why I think the lead should not be written according to either side's narrative.
  2. Do I understand your position is that instead of the article saying what was hit on either side, you prefer having the article say what either side claim they intended to hit on the other side? This seems to veer away from a neutral presentation of verifiable facts. If the article is to note that Israel said they didn't intend to hit civilians, why shouldn't it note that Hamas said the same thing? Please explain further how you think presenting only one belligerent's narrative complies with Wiki policies.
RomaC (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The article should note BOTH. What each side claimed, and what each side did. And I'm interested to see your source of Hamas saying that they didn't intend to hit civilians. This is wildly incorrect. Breein1007 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not "my source", it was widely reported that Hamas said they did not target civilians[9]. I don't agree, but what we editors think/believe does not matter because per Wiki policy we include belligerents' comments as reported in reliable secondary sources, do we not? And I agree the article should include BOTH sides' positions.RomaC (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hamas cite the tunnel incident as a reason to break the truce, however, according to the IDF the tunnel that was destroyed was dug in order to infiltrate Israel (i.e. beyond the Gaza Strip) and perform terrorist attack on Israeli settlements and IDF outposts near the border. If we mention the tunnel incident, we should mention that. Nevertheless, the reason for the operation was a barrage of rockets over Israel, and this article should definitely mention it. MathKnight 13:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Please check the nuance here -- Hamas did not say the Nov. 4 Israeli ground incursion and airstrikes and killings were a "reason to break the truce", but rather that the incursion and airstrikes and killings themselves are what broke the truce[10]. RomaC (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hamas cited the tunnel incident as the reason for increased rocket attacks in the couple of weeks following. Then, over a month later, they launched "Operation Oil Stain" and announced they would not renew the truce. Israel responded to that with OCL. These are simple and documented facts. There are plenty of sources here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Where to start and how to chart a narrative is not our decision as Wiki editors here. When did the Gaza War begin, according to RS? RomaC (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not "where to start and how to chart". It's called chronological order. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
CNN cite 19.12.2008 (Hamas ended the truce) and 24.12.2008 (barrage of rockets) as the background for the operation. It doesn't mention Novembers' tunnel incident. MathKnight 13:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
That CNN link is not a timeline specific to the assault on Gaza. Looking at the assault on Gaza, different sources chart things differently. see below. RomaC (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple question: There is an event we call "Gaza War." When did this event begin? 04:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (signing) RomaC (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"On 27 December Israel began a wave of airstrikes." There was planning going on well before that but the operation kicked off with that stage.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. December 27. Plenty went on before that but that is the date when the event we are writing about in this article began. So what's the problem with saying that in the lead? RomaC (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe we do need to rename this article to Operation Cast Lead, Hamas' announcing a one-week ceasefire might be also out of scope. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
With Math Knight's position that the pre-Dec 27 events are "background" and Cptnono and Agada agreeing that the Article's event started Dec 27, I am removing the background narrative from the lead (details in the body), retaining the Israeli reasoning for the airstrikes per other concerns here. RomaC (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, maybe you misunderstand the discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As I understand two editors said Dec 27 is the start, one wrote events previous to that are "background." You seem to agree that the timeframe of the article corresponds with OCL. If there are sources that peg the start of this event at earlier than Dec 27 please provide them. If there are sources that say Hamas attacked Israel and that was the start of the event, please provide them. It may be controversial that I retained the Israeli reasoning for their Dec 27 barrage, but this reasoning does appear in RS. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I like it. Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hope no objections about 3 chapters lede approach. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in including one sentence explaining why the IDF attacked. The way it reads now, it seems as though one day some general woke up and decided to unleash hell cuz he was bored. Also, the term civilian in the context employed is not "emotive," it's fact and belongs in there. There's a world of differene between deliberate attacks on civilians and attacks against military targets in which civilians are hurt. It's very misleading and I encourage the editor who changed the lede to change it back.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Is On 27 December Israel began a wave of airstrikes on the Gaza Strip with the stated aim of stopping rocket fire from and arms smuggling into the territory in the opening paragraph right now sufficient?Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah its fine. I guess my other concerns can be addressed in the body text.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead is now improved but we have a long way to go. I think that the sentence An Israeli ground invasion began on January 3, 2009. should be the end of the first para and The war ended on January 18, when Israel first declared a unilateral ceasefire, followed by Hamas' announcing a one-week ceasefire twelve hours later. Israel completed its withdrawal on January 21. Between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed. should be the end of the second para with some information about what happened between 27 Dec and Jan 18 in-between. Bjmullan (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Support sandwiching a summary of the event's characteristics (hardware/strikes/damage) between "began" and "ended", can someone else do this? RomaC (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Alternate names

The names cited as used by each "side" are not names used by the media. It makes no sense at all to have those names in the Media section. Also, WP:NAME#Treatment of alternative names says that the usual practice is to include any alternate names in the lead paragraph. If you look at any number of other articles multiple alternate names are used and displayed in the first sentence. The only reason this was changed here was because certain people do not like including the name used in the Arab world. This is bogus. The alternate names should be restored to the lead section. The names used by the media, such as "War in Gaza", "War in the South", "War on Gaza" are fine to include in the media section, but Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre should be in the first sentences. nableezy - 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the change. The name given to the conflict by the Israeli government is clear - 'Operation Cast Lead' - but the name given to the conflict by the other side of the conflict, the government of Gaza, is not clear - several names have been used, and it is OR to decide which name is the actual name given to the conflict by that side. Yes, 'Gaza massacre' has been used in the Arab world, and by some Hamas officials, but its not the only name that has been used, nor can we say it is the official name given to the conflict by the opposing side (also, is the Arab world even considered the opposing side here? Wouldn't the name given to the conflict by much of the Arab world belong in the reactions section?) I agree that both names belong in the article, but, due to this lack of naming equivalency between Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre, the alternate names should remain in the media section (or perhaps the massacre should be moved to the reactions section). Especially in the context of recent efforts to shorten the lead, to make it more succinct, it is useful to move out descriptions of nonequivalent alternate names to a more specialized area of the article. Kinetochore (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The source explicitly says that "OCL" was called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world. It is decidedly not OR to say that the name used in the Arab world is the Gaza massacre. And I have no idea what you mean by "nonequivalent alternate names". The source actually says that "Operation Cast Lead, known in the Arab world as the Gaza massacre". The source shows that these are "equivalent" names. nableezy - 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As previously discussed, that one publisher in South Africa appears to be wrong or it could be a circular reference. WP:RELIABLE states: ...it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. I don't know if the source is "at the high-quality end of the market" but it is contradicted by Al Jazeera (doubt it being RS is challenged) who is actually located in the region. I don't doubt that it was used some. All of my searching for RS on it brought me to many blogs. However, it was used less than other titles. If it is reintroduced than several other titles will also have to be reintroduced to not give it prominence. Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree that "several other titles will also have to be reintroduced to not give it prominence", loading up the lead only to bury a term is not constructive, the lead should be concise and present the terms both sides used below the title that Wiki editors have come up with. The headline terms used in South-I newspapers and Al-J and so on can be put in the media section as the recent edit did. RomaC (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
How is it "contradicted" by al-Jazeera? And every uninvolved editor agreed at the RS/N that this piece was reliable to source that statement. nableezy - 23:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, as I said above, I am not arguing that much of the Arab world called this conflict the Gaza massacre. However, the Arab world is not a 'side' in this conflict anymore than Al Jazeera, the Israeli media, Japan, or Iceland is a 'side' in this conflict. There are no sources to support that the Government of Gaza officially called the conflict 'Gaza massacre'. So there is no equivalency between 'Operation Cast Lead' and 'Gaza massacre' - yes they are both names for the conflict, but one is a name according to Israel, a party of the conflict, and one is a name by a separate, not directly involved party. Thus, if we include the name 'Gaza massacre' in the lead, we must include all other prominent names used by groups who gave it a different name, and state which parties used those names. But since we are focusing on removing as much non-essential information from the lead as possible, we should have these alternate names according to various parties and groups moved out of the lead, and into appropriate, specialized sections (i.e. media, reactions).Kinetochore (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This "equivalency" argument seems odd because elsewhere in the article there is no fundamental "equivalency" existent between characterization of the Government of Gaza and the Government of Israel, if there were then we would use these terms, or the terms "Israel" and "Gaza" throughout. Thusfar, we have edited the article not from the position that "equivalency" meant for example using the terms "Hamas" and "Kadima", but that "neutrality" meant doing our best to present both sides' positions. Unlike Gaza, Israel held hundreds of press briefings and interviews and coined and presented an official term for what they were doing. Reliable Sources support this and the term belongs in the article lead. And so does the RS-supported term that Palestinians and Arabs used for the event, even if their term was not presented in an equivalent manner. Anyway the lead had both terms for what, about a year? Last time editors tried this, edit-warring resulted in a long lock on the article, finally lifted and a warning for editors not proceed unilaterally. So for now, suggest reversion of the new contentious removal of terms from the lead, and maybe the concerned editors can pursue dispute resolution. RomaC (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus has been shifting for awhile now and now that it has besides maybe two editors you want to add more to the lead? Massacre, war, assault, invasion, victory... maybe it is time we stop arguing about it. Countless editors over more than a year have argued against it. Time for it to go stay out maybe. Of course, we can add all names back in if you want. Romac: YOU pushed for a more concise lead. Now you have it/Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Had answered this above but will do the same here. If adding "all" the names means loading up the lead in order to bury one term that is not constructive, the lead should be concise and present the terms both sides used below the title that Wiki editors have come up with. The headline terms used in South-I newspapers and Al-J and so on can be put in the media section as the recent edit did. RomaC (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
"the lead should present terms both sides used" -- but the name 'Gaza massacre' is not the position of a 'side', or a term that a 'side' used, since 'much of the Arab world' or 'a few Hamas officials' do not represent a 'side'. This name best belongs in the reactions section, which details international response to the war (this name being primarily an Arab world response to the war). Kinetochore (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It wasnt a reaction, it was a name. And earlier I provided many sources of Hamas leaders and spokespeople using this as the name. That wasnt good enough for some, so I provided a source that flat out says this was the name used in the Arab world. And the Gaza Strip is a part of the Arab world. nableezy - 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hamas called it "A great victory". Does that belong in the lead? No. Massacre was not the common term by Hamas, the Arab media, and from what it looks like (OR on my part) the Arab public. Arab is also not "Gaza strip resident" so Kinetochore makes a point. Massacre can go in if the terms used more often are included in my opinion. Many editors have argued against it. Maybe instead of edit warring it in, editors should except that there are multiple problems with including massacre. Alternatives included adding it in the body (which wasn't done ever for some reason), wording it so it wasn;t a title, and including other terms. Maybe not having it in will make this a better article.Cptnono (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
And Nableezy cannot right now, but another editor is more than welcome to expand on the massacre thing in the body. That has been lacking for some time now.Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
They said it was a great victory, the didnt "call" it a great victory. You have tried that silly argument before, you know there are a ton of sources of Hamas officials using the gaza massacre as the name of the conflict. nableezy - 13:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

After the edit-warring earlier this year to remove the Arab term for the event resulted in the article being locked for a long time, an Admin unlocked it with the following provision:

I have removed my protection, without prejudice to a full or partial re-protection in the event of a resumption of disruptive editing. Those who proceed to force their changes into this article, instead of pursuing a consensus through discussion and DR, are reminded that their conduct is disruptive and that they will probably find themselves blocked. AGK 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made a partial revert in this spirit, the media terms for the event can stay in the media section but terms that were applied by "either side" are back in the lead to provide NPOV balance and perspective for the reader. I hope this reversion to include what was a stable version of the lead will not be countered by editors who proceed to force their changes into this article, instead of pursuing a consensus through discussion. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody want to change the word "dubbed" to "codenamed" to make the article sound slightly less stupid? nableezy - 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Will change "dubbed", maybe the original editor saw Zion as home to Rastafari?, anyway the terms' removal with no discussion and an edit summary "(mv: 3 lede chapters approach, move what's it's called to Media.)" does fly in the face of the unlocking conditions, I have taken this to the Talk page of the concerned Admin. RomaC (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
We're jamming, jamming. I'n'I will see you through. It looks to me RomaC is going against editors opinions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You justify forcing it back in the lead with that? No. Consensus has clearly shifted on this. Yes, some form of dispute resolution might be needed. Those of us against inclusion like that have discussed if for months and months and offered alternatives so feel free to start a secondary process if you do not agree.Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
And since "massacre" was not the official Hamas stance or title that reasoning makes no sense. Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Numerous examples of Hamas officials and spokesmen using the name as the title of the conflict have been provided to you. Numerous people have objected to the removal of this phrase, both now and in the past. How has consensus "shifted" on this? Because you and a couple of other editors say so? nableezy - 22:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
They used plenty of other "titles" such as great victory. And while you were gone, multiple editors brought up the names in above sections. It is a lot to read through but it is safe to say that it no longer has great support. They used it some but it was not the official stance like OCL was for the IDF. Also, since "title" and "description" have been disputed you might want to provide a source that clearly says "Hamas codenamed the conflict the Gaza Massacre" or else there will continue to be charges of SYNTH. If they did not have an official name then that is just the way it is. And if Massacre is forced in again, the guidelines are clear that the other titles need to accompany it. I again recommend that editors focus on expanding massacre stuff in the body over continuing to apply the label in the lead in what has continued to be a neutrality concern.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Provide a link where they use "great victory" as the name of the conflict. And only random people on the internet dispute that it is a title, the source cited is absolutely clear on this point. Which "guideline" is clear on this. Sorry, but I just dont trust your assertions. I provided links to the sources, multiple quotations, and relevant WP policies and guidelines. So far, you have just said that consensus has "shifted" without having any evidence for that. You and two others have magically "shifted" consensus, a consensus that had multiple uninvolved editors agreeing that the line was properly sourced and belonged in the lead sentence. nableezy - 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well all I can say is start reading this talk page and the archive from while you were away. It is clear that massacre does not have the support required to keep it in. Maybe dispute resolution will change that but some of us have tried not to edit war over it and bent over backwards to accommodate it in a less inflammatory manner. Then provide a source where Hamas says that their official name for the conflict was "massacre". Then you should also propose a draft for the actual body sine this label thing has distracted editors from the actual prose. Since Hamas said it was a great victory and a remarkable victory, they contradict that it was a "massacre" even though they also did describe it as such at other times.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You think the quote "God granted us a great victory" means that they used "great victory as a name"? Try again. nableezy - 02:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Cptnono. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. nableezy - 02:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Should make it easier for you to gauge consensus. Seems pretty obvious you're in the minority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"Majority" is not equivalent to "consensus". nableezy - 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is a more concrete example of the name 'Gaza victory' being applied to the conflict by Hamas: '"The Gaza victory has paved the way to Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, the Negev, and the West Bank," said senior Hamas official Ismail Radhwan at a rally in Qatar to mark the "Gaza victory.”' - http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5910.4274.0.0 Kinetochore (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Gaza victory here is a name referring to the conflict in the same way that Gaza massacre was a name referring to the conflict according to the sources that used it. Kinetochore (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That one is closer, but we also have a source that says flat out the name used was "the Gaza massacre". And there were many more than a single quote from Hamas officials using "the gaza massacre" as the name. nableezy - 02:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case reverting Agada's removal of content from the lead, please don't try to push this edit that would violate the conditions of the unlock per above suggest editors pursue dispute resolution rather than edit-warring. RomaC (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In typical fashion for this page, we have yet another edit war starting. If you want to claim BRD you really need to do the whole edit and not force massacre in against consensus... again. It is now tagged as a POV statement. I am considering also adding the dubious tag. If "the Arab world's Al Jazeera called it the war on Gaza"[11] is also included I don't mind it as much. Or it can be removed as many editors want. Some o us would prefer not to force it in over and over and over again.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus the name is being "forced" against. And al-Jazeera is not "the Arab world's". nableezy - 02:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree it is not accurate to say the Arab term is being "forced in" when in fact it has been in the article for one year and was only removed yesterday. Would be more accurate to say there's an attempt to force it out. That's why it's important we don't edit-war, better to use dispute resolution procedures. RomaC (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The source says "flagship TV station" for Arab coverage. Regardless if it is the Arab world's or not, Gaza Massacre was not the official title by Hamas. And it is forced. RomaC could have reinstated the complete edit but instead chose to only add back the thing that has been a hot spot with numerous editors saying "no". Reinstating the complete edit, add in "massacre" without it being a title, or letting it die finally are all options.Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. If you kids can't work this out, I swear I'm going to add it to the Lame Edit Wars list. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I may be imagining this but I vaguely remember someone, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades maybe, calling it Operation Harvest (against the zionist holocaust or something hyperbolic like that)....in Arabic...on an Arabic site. I remember thinking that they might have named it after the IRA's border attacks in Northern Ireland. I might be able to find a source. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the source I was thinking of from an AI report and Google translate says this. Since it's more complicated than 'Hello Khadija, this door is big' I have no idea whether it's accurate or useful or what they mean by harvest. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree we may be missing the forest for the trees, there are for example only 47 words between the "(war) began" and "(war) ended" sentences in the lead. It was suggested in the Talk section above to make a better summary of what happened between 27 Dec and Jan 18, I think a sentence or two on that would serve the reader. RomaC (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That is a fine idea but you still need to address that you have given prominence to a quasititle that is disputed and used much less than others. This is lame but it is about time it got fixed. Edit warring it in over several alternatives is silliness.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"what it was called" in the 1st para is inappropriate AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A Wikipedia editor disputing the name is meaningless, bring a source that does so. A reliable source says flat out it was the name used. Next, these edits are ridiculous. First, Arab world is well-defined. Second, the Sunday Times is a reliable source and needs no attribution, and last there is also this article that says the same thing. This is not just Laura Cohen reporting for the Sunday Times. nableezy - 13:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Do you want Massacre in since it is the Hamas position or the Arab position? It was called "War in the South" by Israelis so that should be in too if you are now not basing it off of the belligerents official title. If you say it is the Hamas position then that is not supported by the reference. And I would trust Al Jazeera's titling since they are based in the region over one publisher in South Africa. RomaC wanted a concise lead and we almost had it. You wanted Massacre and we had a way to do that instead. For whatever reason you won't be happy unless massacre is in and only massacre. I don't understand why especially since it has been shown to you that the sources use it much much less.Cptnono (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you should have stopped at "Huh?". al-Jazeera's title is al-Jazeera's title. And you didnt respond to anything I wrote. You want to put "War in the South" then put it in. But the edits Agada made are terrible. There was a consensus at the RS/N that this is a RS for the statement, it does not need to be attributed, and there are two separate reports making the same statement, it is not just "Laura Cohen reporting for the Sunday Times". Also, try not to say silly things. I havent argued that sources use the gaza massacre, I have argued that both Hamas used it and that was a common name in the Arab world as a whole. And you have yet to prove a thing; your one attempt to back up your statement that Hamas used "great victory" as the title was a quote of a Hamas spokesperson saying "God has granted us a great victory in Gaza". nableezy - 23:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The quote I provided demonstrated that a Hamas official used 'Gaza victory' as a title (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5910.4274.0.0). Some Hamas officials used 'Gaza massacre', but other Hamas officials used other names (i.e. Gaza victory). Hence, the name is not appropriate for the lead, unless we decide to include all prominent names used.Kinetochore (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The recent edits are problematic, a red link to Cohen, the wrong name for the paper, unclosed quotes on the term, a "who" tag rather than a wikilink on "Arab World", POV tag on a sourced term... RomaC (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Prominence/Appropriateness issues were not addressed. Current wording is WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV challenged. Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information, and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed. Many editors brought various sources claiming different things, many disagree with suggested change. Probably we need to stick to previously discussed, agreed and reasonable compromise to extend "what it is called" dispute outside of lede. RomaC took part in the discussion and compromise. OCL defined in Campaign->Air Strikes so no worries there, it will not be added to Media. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's respect the talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Agada, can you address the issues just above with your recent edits to the article lead -- 1)a red link to Cohen, 2) the wrong name for the newspaper, 3) unclosed quotes on the term, 4) a "who" tag rather than a wikilink on "Arab World", 5) POV tag on a sourced term.
On the question of removing the Arab term I repeat dispute resolution might be the way forward. We title the event a "war", there has been discussion on whether that term accurately reflects what happened. Gazans may not like Israel's "Cast Lead", a line from a children's story. And the Arab "massacre" term is not liked by some editors here. But maybe the unholy trinity pretty well covers the involved actors' viewpoints on the event. Anyway for a year this has been our best answer to the alternative names challenge. If editors want to remove some of the terms they don't like, please remember that is what got the article locked for months. Otherwise, as pointed out, there are many many other areas of the article that need attention, and the lead needs a bit on Dec 27-Jan 18, which could prove a challenge as well. But if all an editor wants to address is removal of some alternative names, please it really might be best if the arguments went to the Wiki dispute resolution process where uninvolved editors can help. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There has been plenty of discussion. It appears that AgadaUrbanit believed so too and made the change. Do not revert. You will be edit warring. If you think outside opinion is needed then by all means start the process. It looks like you and Nableezy are in favor of inclusion that is not supported by the guidelines or other editors so that process may show other wise.Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
So the people editing to retain something that is backed by multiple sources flat out and by numerous quotations from Hamas officials are edit-warring and the people removing it are fighting the good fight. I see now. And I quoted a "guideline" that supports this being in the first paragraph. You have yet to make any attempt to actually show that the statement is not "NPOV" or that it should not be in the lead. This has been in the article for well over a year, and the only people forcing anything are the ones forcing it out. nableezy - 05:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You are setting up a straw man, Nableezy. The issue is whether the name should be in the lead or not, not whether the name should be included at all. Much of the lead was recently cut, in an effort to make it more concise. This 'cut' portion of the article was also there over a year. The alternate name 'Gaza massacre' belongs in the article, but not in the lead, as there is insufficient support in the sources to conclude that the name is the position of a side. Sources support that this name was used, but sources also support that a host of other names were used by various groups, including alternate names used by Hamas. These alternate names are not an appropriate component of a succinct summary of the conflict.Kinetochore (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Uhh no. The guideline quoted at the top says alternate names go in the first few sentences. And a lead of an article this size should actually be pretty long, see WP:LEAD. And there is "sufficient" support in the sources, I compiled a list of sources that support this a few months back. This is not one report by one paper. At one point gaza massacre had something like 10 refs. nableezy - 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Alternate names are included in the lead not to represent sides but to let readers know that this article is about the subject that they've come looking for under another name. That's why they're in the first sentence. So the zucchini article lets British readers know that they've found the article about courgettes and the hoodie article lets Saskatchewanians know that the article is about bunnyhugs. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
or possibly bunny hugs.[12]. edit war time. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I will continue to think that adding all common titles is a good thing as is inline with WP:LEAD. However, onlymassacre is wrong. And I have never heard of bunny hugs. I do enjoy gear from Ride on crummy days. Cptnono (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Nobody added only "massacre". If there was something missing you could have added it. nableezy - 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep edit warring -- plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Can someone take this to Admin? RomaC (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An assume good faith suggestion has been made several times to editors who want to remove long-standing content from the lead to pursue WP:DR. Please desist from tossing accusations of "edit warring" at editors who oppose the removal of content, and instead proceed to argue the case for removal in a manner compliant with Wiki policies. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Roma but you are edit-warring. So are they. This is textbook edit-warring. There's no good reason, barring vandalism, to simply revert a change that another editor made and especially not repeatedly. As I write, "masscare" is in the article. If someone takes it out, they're edit-warring. If someone were to put it back in after that, they would also be edit-warring. That's what got the article locked up, not removal of long-standing content or content that had consensus.

I support inclusion. But I also read WP:LEAD to say that the onus is then on me to find consensus to include, not the other way around. It isn't as though "Gaza Massacre" were the ordinary Arabic name for the conflict like "the Gulf War" or "the War of 1812"; it isn't even the title of the ar.wikipedia article. On the other hand, clearly a lot of editors, including the two of us, support inclusion. There's no real consensus either way so in the interim there is no particular state that the article is supposed to be in. You guys all have to understand that and just leave the article alone while we deal with it. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be reasonable for RomaC to self-revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD it would be policy-compliant for the editor making an edit that was reverted to then discuss on Talk rather than push the edit back into the article proper. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I kind of agree with JGGardiner, we discuss how to find consensus to include, not the other way around. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
So how do you read the WP:BRD now? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
There was consensus to include, yall the ones trying to change that. nableezy - 01:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not accurate, we discuss how to find consensus to include, not the other way around. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Agada. Your removal was reverted, let's discuss. The tag you put on the term remains in the article. Please stop removing the content. Can you (or someone) please dig up the old sources and put them here? RomaC (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
We all discussed the change you mention there. Number of other editors noted you have not reverted. Let's not sidetrack. It would be interesting to know what do you think about JGGardiner comment? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. I'm discussing your removal of the alternative names. At the very least I think "Operation Cast Lead" and "Gaza Massacre" belong in this part of the lead as reflections of the two belligerents. (the relative "officialness" of the terms seems a product of the conditions of the conflict itself) If editors want to also include other names that were used, that could be good -- as there really was no overall "official" name for the event -- but could we agree on, say, a maximum of four alternative names in the lead, with a link to the body where the many different terms used by the media could be discussed? RomaC (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am opposed to including the alternate names "Cast Lead" and "Gaza Massacre" in the lead of this article.

A good reason to include alternate names in the lead of an article is to make sure that readers know what you are talking about. I imagine that not a few readers read the article on Gdańsk and are surprised to learn they are reading about Danzig. But no one will be confused when reading this article about what war we are talking about.

A bad reason for including alternate names is to shoehorn into the lead of the story imflammatory rhetoric. Because the word "massacre" is imflammatory in whatever context it appears (excepting, perhaps, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Massacre means bad guys armed to the teeth killing good guys who are helpless. Can anyone else provide me with a better definition?

There is a contest among us editors to see who can get the most atrocities into the Wikipedia. The proPals have the Deir Yassin massacre and the Lydda Death March. ProIsrs have the Passover Massacre, and, what is perhaps the trump card in this idiotic contest, Blood Libel at Deir Yassin (book), an article about a totally non-notable book that gets blood libel and Deir Yassin into the article title in a way that is unassailable - it is the name of the book.

These words - massacre, death march, blood libel - need to be expunged from the Wikipedia lexicon. Why can't we editors compete about who can create the most non-imflammatory, well-considered, objective, even, yes, boring, articles, without resorting to cheap epithets, even when they appear in our vaunted reliable sources? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you if we were talking about the title of the article (not for all articles, Deir Yassin Massacre is widely called a massacre, but for this one), but not for recording what the names used were. We, Wikipedia, make no judgment as to whether or not it was actually a massacre, we simply say that people involved in the conflict called it a massacre. Is there any reason that is objectionable? Why should we make a point of saying we dont like what a set of people said so we will ignore it? Is it not important that people involved and affected by this "event" viewed it as a massacre? Ive read your essay and I agree with much of it, but I dont see how it applies here. We are not attempting to say, in Wikipedia's narrative voice, that this was a massacre, we are just saying that a set of people called it a massacre. nableezy - 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Here for instance Ma'an News Agency, referring to event as Gaza war. Arab world is well defined, however it is hard to assess how people there viewed this event. There is clear and neutral name for people who hold an opinion that event was not a war but massacre, those are critics. You could be a Princeton graduate and proud critic at the same time. We, in Wikipedia, can not label Arab World with such weaselly phrasing. International opinions were diverse however Arab World is not a side in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The source says "known in the Arab world as". There is absolutely no "weasel" words in that sentence. nableezy - 03:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
And the Arab World was not a belligerent. Why is it given prominence? Enough editors have expressed concerns over neutrality and even factual accuracy (it was obviously used some from what I can see) that it is time for it to go. There might be a way to reintegrate it into the lead. A quote from a guy with Hamas describing it as a "massacre" without bolding as a title is one. Another is adding in all the names used more. RomaC mentioned four but that seems like a arbitrary number and from what has been shown on this talk page over the last year or so, "massacre" may not even be in the top four. And another is removing the alternative names. I really can see justification for different solutions but right now it is broken. Right now it should be removed.Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The reasoning has been that "Operation Cast Lead" belongs in the lead because it was a term used by one side, then for neutrality we added a term used by the other side, and finally titled the article with a "neutral" name that was basically negotiated among editors. Again, agree this unholy trinity is subject to criticism, but one problem with looking for "equivalence" is that this was an asymmetrical war/conflict/assault/event. Gaza is part of the Arab World, the article clearly notes this was part of the "Arab-Israeli conflict". Yes, "massacre" is a word some editors don't like, but RS say that's what the event was called by one side so Wiki itself is not saying it was a massacre but rather noting that some said it was. Agreed four seems arbitrary but it would allow us to include alternative names from, say, two belligerents' perspectives and from two (opposing) media perspectives, which is in my opinion useful when there is not yet a universally-acceptable term for the event. If editors' positions are inflexible repeat my suggestion that the question of removal of alternative names be put in front of uninvolved editors, via Wiki's dispute resolution precess.Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
And I'll repeat that you edit warred it in after sufficient discussion has taken place. If you don't like the outcome, revert yourself then open up the other process.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
@RomaC - the name 'Gaza massacre' is not 'the' name given to the conflict by a 'side', nor is there support in the RS to say that the name is the perspective of a belligerent (Hamas). The name was instead one of many names used by subsets of individuals on that side. Kinetochore (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review policy per Bold, Revert Discuss, here's a summary:

  1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change.
  2. Wait until someone reverts your edit.
  3. Discuss the changes you would like to make, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

...* Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.

An editor made a Bold edit, it was reverted, then we discuss. I don't know how else to try and explain this: Edit-warring is wrong and will not happen if editors follow the above. I have suggested including a number of alternative names, or else having just the two from Israel-Gaza sides, please discuss those options or else, please introduce another option that does not involve simply reverting again. Discussion and dispute resolution are more constructive than finger-pointing and edit-warring. RomaC (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing it. There was an edit made. You partially reverted to a version that had less consensus. Then it was discussed even more. If you truly do not like AUs edit you should take this opportunity to go back and revert to the full previous version. Since there has been discussion, dispute resolution is probably not necessary but feel free to open it up after you have fixed the lead.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I will revert back to the lead graph 1 version before AU's edit. Do you have any objection to changing "dubbed" to "codenamed" on first reference to "OCL"? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC that, if we include Cast Lead in the lead paragraph, we have to include the Arab moniker as well. But why do we need Cast Lead in the lead paragraph? It is hardly the most important thing about this war, of such importance that it deserves to be in the lead.

In fact, the lead paragraph captures none of the drama and controversy surrounding this war. It focuses on the marginal or irrelevant, and leaves out the germaine: the huge imbalance in casualties, the claims of human rights violations (by both sides), and the justification by Israel that the war was necessary to end the rocket attacks.

There is plenty of room later to mention codenames and nicknames. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The alternative names are included in the lead per WP:NAME#Treatment of alternative names and all are redirects. Very much agree that the events between Dec 27 (airstrikes) and Jan 18 (ceasefires) are underrepresented in the lead, this is where it might be good to see some editors working to improve the article. The Israeli justification/rationalization is included, the casualties imbalance is as well and there is something on Goldstone. What we could maybe use is a summary of strikes and damage? Maybe touch on other key points from the body of the article, but it's the lead, so brief and dispassionate would be best in my opinion. RomaC (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The guideline WP:NAME#Treatment of alternative names deals with those cases where readers would have difficulty identifying the subject without the inclusion of the alternate name. Readers might well not know that Myanmar is Burma or that Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí is Bahá'u'lláh. In this case, there is no confusion about what war we are talking about, so adding the codename and the nickname clarify nothing. To slavishly apply the guideline in this case serves only one purpose - to get the word "massacre" into the lead. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Ravpapa, all the war articles have multiple names in the lead section. See Yom Kippur War where we have Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War, October War, 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. Six-Day War we have 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), or the June War. 1948 Arab–Israeli War we have War of Independence, War of Liberation, and the Catastrophe. And if a different name had been used I would say that name, and not massacre, should be used in the lead. But the only reason people are trying to remove all the names is because the want to remove massacre (see how that boomerangs). nableezy - 14:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia MilMos guideline, discourages usage of codenames for naming, since it represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). Definitely no worries about lack of lede prominence of the operation name, it is defined in Campaign -> Air Strikes and referenced in other Campaign sub-chapters. Hope there is no objections on discussion of codenames outside the lede. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
That is talking about article titles. The article is not titled after the codename. And obviously there are objections. nableezy - 14:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we always get bogged down with both sides claiming that policy demands we include or exclude something. What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that policy and even guidelines don't really demand anything of us. We can include foreign names but we're not compelled to. Ultimately it is up to us to work it out. We've established that we disagree so let's move on. Try to find a compromise. I think some third opinions might help. Especially from non-I/P editors. I suppose we could try mediation after that but personally I think everyone should just agree to be bound by the third opinions if we get that far. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of the WP:IGNORE (which I tend to ignore), I really don't care if we have all of the names or none of the names. The prominence given to massacre was my concern so if it is removed along with OCL I'm not going be too worried. If it is in with all of the other names then it makes sense too. Dispute resolution is still an option of course but now that we have it down to those two options it might be worth looking into here if anyone else has any firm stances on it. I know several editors were in favor of making the lead much more concise so I can assume where they lean. The guidelines to allow for multiple names though. I reserve the right to flip flop but right now I don;t feel strongly.Cptnono (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Just for the record

I don't think anyone will take this suggestion seriously, but here is how I think the lead should be rewritten:

The Gaza War was a three-week military conflict that took place in the Gaza Strip during the winter of 2008–2009. After 25 days of intensive bombardment of Gaza by Israeli air force and artillery, and ground actions by thousands of Israeli troops, more than 1100 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.
Israel said the military action was necessary to end months of rocket attacks out of Gaza on Israeli towns in southern Israel, that left 28 Israelis dead, caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage and disrupted normal life in cities and towns near the Gaza border. But the disproportion of casualties, and the Israeli use of some tactics and weapons, led to charges that the Israelis violated human rights and committed war crimes, and many Arab commentators have called the war "the Gaza massacre." A United Nations commission, led by South African jurist Robert Goldstone, has demanded that both Israel and the provisional Hamas government of Gaza mount investigations into possible human rights violations.

Yours in controversy, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Newweapons Committee study published

Ongoing medicial studies => New weapons experimented in Gaza: population risks genetic mutations PRESS RELEASE - 2010 may 11th. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I read what they wrote and this pages (see also the prev pages by clicking the numbers in the bottom) and the "about us" page, and I can say it is NOT a reliable source. It is highly partisan, it was founded as a repsonse to the Second Lebanon War between Israel and Hizbullah, its information is based on Palestinian and Lebanese doctors of low reliability (that even lie outright in order to demonize Israel) and contradicts reality. Moreover, it has a political agenda of disarming Israel [13] as they hosted an article by Ilan Pappe, a known anti-Zionist who advocates the destruction of Israel. As for weapons: most of the bombs used by Israel are made in the USA, depleted uranium shells are mostly anti-tank Kinetic energy penetrator which Israel does not use (Israeli Kinetic energy penetrators are made from another metal) and AFAIK only the US Army used depleted-aluminium shell, moreover, Israel didn't use Kinetic energy penetrator because there were no tanks in the Gaza Strip to destroy. It seems they first write the conclusion and then make up the facts. MathKnight 12:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Everything you touch and breathe will kill you and that is why California puts warning signs in parking garages. I wish the press release went into detail. Experimental weapons is mentioned but there is no actual body to their press release. Arsenic is bad for you?!?! It is a shame since we know new stuff was used but nothing that is surprising or not meant to be seen. Hopefully their next release will have some meat. Unfortunately, their "about us" page shows a different intent than what would be expected from their graphics and name. This press release says nothing but the Newweapons Committee "born in the third quarter of 2006 after Israel-Lebanon conflict" is something to keep an eye on. We should expect good stuff if they are serious about presenting data. Not sure if they are though.Cptnono (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There are links to the findings at the bottom of the press release. Notice how I'm ignoring MathKnight's distrust of lesbian Bengali left handed medical staff, I forget the details. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
My distrust in Palestinian medicals is that they were caught lying several times (see for example the case of "Jenin Hospital 'Shelling'" in 2002 as was documented in Pierre Rehov's filem The Road to Jenin or other incidents where they (including doctors) staged injuries and even deaths). MathKnight 13:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Pappe is a history professor that has been published by respected presses, Rehov is some random person who doesnt want to use his real name. nableezy - 13:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If you read Ilan Pappe#Critical assessment you'll see that most historions consider his research and publicatons full of falsehoods and unreliable. He claimed (together with Teddy Kayz) that Alexandroni Brigade commited a massacre in al-Tantura, a claim that was refuted by court and by examining testimonies, and eventaully this thesis was disqualified by the university. On the other end, Rehov documented on film clear cases of Palestinians lying, and no one has refuted that. MathKnight 13:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. There are several historians that dispute his publications, but it is not true, by any stretch of the imagination, that most do. And not a whole lot of people pay attention to Mr "Rehov", well some do, but they are mostly on Wikipedia. nableezy - 13:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is newweapons.org supposed to be a RS? On what basis? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been through RSN so it would default to no until it has if this source were to be used directly. Well, that and the fact that the report was written by these people who are unreliable because their African American or something. I'm all for excluding the Italians on the basis that their probably Catholics. I think the Italians have had articles published in medical journals though which could be problematic unreliability-wise.
  • Sobhi Skaik - Head Surgeon, Surgery Depts, Shifa Hospital, Gaza, Palestine,
  • Nafiz Abu-Shaban - Head Plastic Surgeon, Plastic surgery Dept. and Burn Unit, Shifa Hospital, Gaza, Palestine,
  • Nasser Abu-Shaban - Consultant Surgeon, FRCSI, Gaza, Palestine,
  • Mario Barbieri - Professor of Geochemistry, Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, C.N.R., Rome, Italy,
  • Maurizio Barbieri - Associate Professor of Environmental Geochemistry, Dept. Scienze della Terra,University of Rome, Italy ,
  • Umberto Giani - Associate Professor of Medical Statistic, Dept. of Preventive Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University Federico II, Naples, Italy,
  • Paola Manduca - Associate Professor of Genetics Genetics, Dept Biology, University of Genoa, Italy
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
So anything a doctor publishes no matter where it's published is reliable. Gotcha. Peer reviewed medical journals are just for fun I gather? For people who like to go the extra mile? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't know whether this material qualifies as reliable via attribution or under what circumstances information from a source like this requires an independent peer review for inclusion. I am sure though that it doesn't depend on the nationality of the doctors or the victims or the extent to which it modifies perceptions of Israelis or Palestinians. I'll post it on RSN when I've got time. They did at least get a mention in the Huffington Post here during the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess the source that springs to mind as analogous is Physicians for Human Rights-Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, since I never said it depends on the nationality of the doctors, there's no need to belabor that point any longer. Believe me, we get it.
Let us know what RSN comes up with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't even notice the links until Sean mentioned them. Well if these academics don't like heavy metal then I don't like them :) . I did not read the whole study. Is there anything in particularly important in there? Of course metal piercing the skin at high temperatures is going to leave some stuff behind.Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of just a sentence or two based on the conclusions and maybe just in the effects article if it passes RSN. I don't want to post it to RSN until I have the proposed text or else it's not fair on the people commenting as they won't really know what their commenting on. I'll try to put something together about their presence in secondary sources too as a) experts and b) blood libelists (not a word) for RSN. Also, I saw Korn some years ago and I can confirm that they are quite loud. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem with academia is there are too many academics! Realistically, these guys are just as biased as some of the NGOs used already but they at least have the credentials right there for us to see. And Wikipedia smiles upon scholarly sources. I don't see it being as big of a concern as a few other editors but we still need to find the meat since it just looks like "metals hurt human flesh" right now. Throw up a couple lines here when you have the chance.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Note all that academics say is true. Academics have been doing mistakes, and even caught falsifying facts. Need to bear this in mind. MathKnight 12:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Reactions Map

Sucks. And it should go. The information that it graphically represents is a serious of several dozen RS violations. For example, it says that Nicaragua "condemned Israeli action only". There isn't an RS that says that but some editor decided that they hadn't seen any Nicaraguan press releases that said otherwise. But editors have no right to make such an exhaustive statement on their own. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support - removal. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Support - removal, some reactions were far more nuanced than this map suggests, and yes it is a patchwork of often-questionable sources. RomaC (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Support - Something to maybe work on but if it is questioned to this extent then kill it.Cptnono (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Object - Map is useful. If there is an issue about accuracy, improve that part. And mark uncertain countries until an agreement for disputable content. Kasaalan (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is the idea of a map but its accuracy. I'm not familiar enough with it to make the changes but I would full on support inclusion if someone knows how to update it.Cptnono (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A non-accurate map is not great. So first list inaccuracies so that what we find references for them. If the original updater not handles it, I will handle coloring part after we correct the inaccuracies. Kasaalan (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If someone is willing to fix it right now then sweet. If it is removed for a day while this happens then there should be no problem. Any errors should be brought up now since someone is willing to put the effort in.Cptnono (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you've missed my point. I'm saying that making that map accurate, without a WP:NOR problem is probably impossible. So to stick with my Nicaraguan example, it seems to be based on the International Reactions article where it is sourced with a line from this Xinhua article. So Ortega issued a statement. But we haven't read the statement, maybe it also criticized Hamas' actions but maybe Xinhua felt that wasn't relevant for the story. Or maybe Ortega released another statement which did. Or maybe he gave a speech. Or an interview. Or passed some order. Or maybe his foreign minister said something. That was enough to count for other counrties. Or the UN ambassador. Or a Presidential aide. Ditto for both of those. Or maybe the legislature had something to say. All we have is a source that says Nicaragua did X but our map goes much further and says that Nicaragua did 'only' X and most assuredly did not do Y. But we don't have a source to back that up. Such a source probably doesn't exist. And we'd need one for each country to make that map workable. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The regular practice is to reflect the "official written country/government statements." And we may mark uncertain countries as uncertain. Kasaalan (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the map doesn't accurately reflect what the source says. That is always an OR problem. Nicaragua is pink, which the legend describes as "States that condemned Israeli action only." We do have a primary source in which the country's president does condemn Israeli action. But not Israeli action only. Our information thus exceeds what our source says, an OR problem. What right do we have to say that Nicaragua didn't condemn Hamas? Imagine if we wrote that as a sentence "Nicaragua did not condemn Hamas." We don't have a source that says anything like that but our map suggests we do. And that's just Nicaragua which I picked out of a hat. If you want me to go through the rest, I can.

You also say that we mark uncertain countries somehow. I don't see that on the map. Some countries are grey but the legend says that those are "States that made no official statement on the conflict." I wonder how we know that? I suppose we sent a research team that went through the government offices in Mongolia to make sure they'd said nothing. And when they got home they probably checked through the archives of all the newspapers in the world also just to make sure that no government official had made a statement anywhere. I'd love to see the barnstar one gets for all that. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

impressive

not really relevant, but, wow... this article is impressive. why is not it featured?

i doubt anyone else on world can do a similar job. --187.40.255.249 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

New Source

A new edit adds "four Hamas fighters were killed in an Israeli airstrike on November 16 as they fired mortars at Israel". The report calls the Gazan government "Hamas dictators", and the dead "Palestinian terrorists". The source is a YouTube video from infolive.tv, which is run by a former IDF communications officer. The infolive.tv office address is a P.O. Box. Is this a reliable source? RomaC (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, All Israeli news sources, even prominent newspapers, refer to Hamas as terrorists and dictators. Secondly, Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Japan, and Australia.--RM (Be my friend) 04:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In any event, here's a better source for that from an RS, the Evening Herald in Ireland.[14] --JGGardiner (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
These are the most bigoted responses I have read yet. I hope they are not used as any basis for any sort of edits by and serious admin. A people who are completely locked in both by sea and land and even blockaded in their _own_ nation being called "terrorists" for not starving to death without protest in an open sewer and their representatives even called "dictators" for maximum propaganda effect after having won an election among their own people. I hope none of these are ever considered administrators. Although as this article now stands I don't see that it matters much or makes any difference. Human dignity, decency and intellectual honesty is clearly not abundant yet. Nunamiut (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

“The fundamentalist right wing mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those who reject them” -- Henry Louis Mencken


"Academic standards, please." is a relatively (in)frequent request I see at wikipedia discussions depending on ones view. But academic honesty doesn't seem all that important anymore. It _is_ part of a _discussion_ ON TOPIC to _point_ out _academic_ discussion, so _please, just STOP and try to refrain from the inane childish litany of accusations of "POV" and "soapboxing" when people try to conduct a debate before you start. "The Gaza "War" is just as intellectually dishonest as talking about a "The Sabra & Shatila War". Now if you are too far right wing to actually _see_ this, you have no business being a wikipedia admin. If you want to scream bloody murder because you cannot tolerate an adult view of politics... I guess it just explains why Chomsky and Finkelstein _seem_ to be "alone", but still are considered the great intellectuals they are. It just is not comprehended by the mainstream regimented mind. Now let your cannons loose. I will not be bothered to read any responses, but I do hope adults at wikipedia admins with any working decency and working moral compass will start getting together some time soon and stop basing reality and history on google hits. unless we want the near future to look at us like less competent and less intelligent persons of mediocre and limited mental capacity. It's time to start adhering to some very basic and blatantly obvious basic standards. Let's hope you manage that much / little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.58.231 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think many, if any, of the editors attached to the Israeli-Palestinian articles are Admins. The only time Admins wade in here is to try and clean up messes. Anyway, please feel free to participate on topic! RomaC (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On the Norwegian Wikipedia page the air and ground attacks on Gaza 2008-2009 are called "the Israel-Gaza conflict 2008-2009". But I guess intellectual honesty gets beaten by the "google hits argument" in wiki-admin world. Just a reflection. And just quit the criticizing of comments here just because you dont share the views. This is on topic even if you can't figure out how, so I wont bother to answer any rants on "POV" and other asinine attempts at disqualifying the point. Just grow up. Nunamiut (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim, if you want to say that the Navy shelled the port please find an RS that says that. The BBC source doesn't verify that statement as Cptnono says. It should be easy to find a source if it's true. There's probably already one being used in this article somewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed the source meant that Israel targeted naval vessels at the port. There should be a source somewhere.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I think what they did is move in towards the port and shelled targets along the coastal strip from there (which may have included the port itself). I don't have a source that says that though... The Goldstone report just says "329. The navy was used in part to shell the Gaza coast during the military operations." Apart from failing WP:V I don't think the statement "On 28 December, Navy vessels shelled the Port of Gaza" adds anything useful to that section. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Hamas bolted a gun to a Zodiac or modified something else in the last couple years.Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the port was shelled. Ma'an says so[15] and Reuters said that a Hamas official told them also.[16] --JGGardiner (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Works for me.Cptnono (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ma'an's chief editor complained that 'the bread of the poor should be the same quality as that of their fellow citizens.' and got the PA to force the contractor to improve the quality of bread distributed to the poor. Clearly left wing extremists. I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe a PR genius....09:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Publicus edits

Is it just me or has this guy come from nowhere and done a lot of big edits without any discussion or consensus? I have already revert one of his many edits but I think there are more that need to be done. Bjmullan (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or do you need to chill out. The article is unreadable, and prior to my batch of edits it was close to 250 in size. If you'll check all my edits they are all in good faith with the goal of making this article a much easier read and moving items to appropriate sub-articles. Publicus 14:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that you are moving contentious item out of the article without proper consensus. Your WP edit read like a IDF press statement. Please take your edits here for discussion or you will be revert. Bjmullan (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The WP edit you're referring was not an IDF press release, it was merely a copy of the exiting text on the main WP page--if you took some time to read the main WP page this part I copied appeared to be the best summary of the WP issue. Most of the other content in the WP section was a covered by a wikilink to that page. Publicus 15:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"my batch of edits" already sends up a red flag, does this editor not know the editing sanctions pertaining to this article? advised them on making such batch interventions RomaC (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All my edits have been in good faith and very little has been deleted, I have not added really any content--in fact most of the content was actually moved to sub-articles per the tag on the article main page. I have tried to avoid controversy and have stuck with trying to pare down the article to a more helpful state. As I said earlier, this article was completely a mess. It was difficult to read, the timeline of events were mixed up with various controversies about tactics, unnecessary quotes and actions were mingled in with significant events. All in all, it appeared to need significant help from a fresh pair of eyes.Publicus 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
However, to respect your concerns I will hold off on any further editing of the article to give you guys time to review the edits I have made. Again, I was only trying to help clean up the article per the tag on the main article page. Publicus 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to put you off editing this article but you have to realise that many of the things here have been discussed at length before a consensus has been reached and you just cannot delete or move bits without first discussing it. So if you have further suggestions bring them here first. Bjmullan (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. With that in mind, is there a particular section of the article that looks like it could be shortened or moved to sub-articles? It looks like the "casualties" section is pretty long and I was thinking of taking a stab at that, but obviously that's pretty controversial (which is why I completely stayed away from it on my first go-round). Again, I'm really here to help--I like shortening these articles down to help people get a better understanding of these conflicts and to make these articles more informative. Publicus 16:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions about "Use of Medical facilities and uniforms by Hamas Combatants"

I must say that having read a variety of sources discussing the Gaza operation, and comparing these sources to the Wikipedia article, I'm impressed by the extent to which this article downplays the findings of mainstream investigations by third parties, and flags up claims from the IDF spokesman's office with a selection of cherry-picked individual media reports. This applies to the whole article but I'm going to start with the particular subsection I've cited in the subject.

"Several testimonies from local Gazan population and from IDF soldiers stated that Hamas operatives donned medic uniforms and commandeered ambulances for fighters transportation.213317318319"

213 is a report quoting a report by journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi, who cites unnamed Palestinian witnesses to the effect that Hamas men abused Red Crescent protection. However, Mr. Cremonesi's report, though widely touted by IDF spokesmen, Israeli bloggers, and the like, was an extreme outlier. "Cremonesi's report on the Gaza dead was ridiculed by Jaber Wishah, the deputy director of the PCHR, during a telephone interview from Gaza on Thursday with The Jerusalem Post. "It is completely incorrect," Wishah said.[17]"

317 is simply a recounting of what "the IDF revealed." That's fine, but it should not be cited as "testimony." It is a self-serving public statement by an involved party.

318 cites testimony by a Palestinian medic who says that Hamas fighters tried to commandeer ambulances, but were not successful. It says nothing about medic uniforms being abused.

319 is a long article that cites, somewhere in the middle, "Maj. Peter Lerner, spokesman for the [Israeli] Defense Ministry’s coordination office for Gaza" who accuses Hamas men of abusing ambulances. Same as 317.

So: of the four sources underlying this section, one is a third-hand report, widely criticized, and clearly out of step with the vast majority of other reports. One is a credible report, but it does not actually say what it is being cited to support. And two are simply IDF statements relayed by the press. Somehow this one relevant Palestinian testimony, plus press statements from the IDF spokesman's office, get turned into "Several testimonies from local Gazan population and from IDF soldiers."

By contrast, the small paragraph at the end of this section cites the major reports on the Gaza War by Amnesty (actually, for some reason it cites a newspaper report about Israel rejecting the Amnesty report) and Judge Goldstone. Amnesty found that Israel "provide[d] no evidence for even one such case [of misuse of medical facilities.] Amnesty International does not exclude the possibility that such cases may have occurred, but found no evidence during its on-the-ground investigation that such practices, if they did occur, were widespread." Goldstone "did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities and that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes." (For some reason, Goldstone's central findings aren't cited, but rather one piece of supporting evidence for those findings, a statement from the Magen David Adom, is cited.)

So, the section is headlining IDF press claims, (presented as "testimony from soldiers,") cherry-picking, then exaggerating and distorting media reports that can be used to support the IDF claims. It is then downplaying and marginalizing authoritative reports from mainstream sources which refute the IDF claims.

What's more serious, there is no section in the article for attacks on medical personnel. It's not disputed that several Palestinian medical personnel were killed and wounded by the IDF, ambulances were destroyed, Israeli fire struck Alwafa Hospital. The same mainstream reports that refuted the IDF claims of Palestinian abuse of medical privilege also validated the claim that medical personnel may have been deliberately targeted by the IDF, and were certainly fired on in circumstances that indicate indiscriminate use of force at the very least. But that information has been disappeared from the article entirely.

The section should be replaced and completely rewritten; it should discuss the accepted fact of Israeli attacks on medical personnel and facilities, and cite various explanations for the attacks -- including alleged Hamas misuse of medical facilities and emblems -- in proportion to their significance. EvanHarper (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Necessary for lead?

The lead first says that Israel's attacks resulted in significant collateral damage. Then, most of that damage is listed (see quote below). This info should be in the effects section, for sure, but the mention of 'collateral damage' should be sufficient for the lead. In any case, if much of this info remains in the lead, we will need to make the lead even longer by adding a list of the damage/effects on the Israeli side.

"There was also significant collateral damage"

"damaged or destroyed tens of thousands of homes,[47] 15 of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 43 of its 110 primary health care facilities,[48] 800 water wells,[49] 186 greenhouses,[50] and nearly all of its 10,000 family farms;[51] leaving 50,000 homeless,[52] 400,000-500,000 without running water,[52][53] damage or destruction of tens of thousands of homes,[47] 15 of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 43 of its 110 primary health care facilities,[48] 800 water wells,[49] 186 greenhouses,[50] and nearly all of its 10,000 family farms;[51] leaving 50,000 homeless,[52] 400,000-500,000 without running water,[52][53] one million without electricity,[53] and resulting in acute food shortages.[54]"

Kinetochore (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've gotten rid of the "collateral damage" redundancy. The "collateral damage" redundancy is also POV, since it denotes that damage was unintended (whether damage was intended or unintended is not for our speculation). The few figures listed are vital to the lead because they give a sense of the human toll suffered. I wish to underscore that this "list" is a single sentence and heavily sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.8.85 (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with you. Details such as the destruction of greenhouses or farms do not belong in the lead. Also, collateral damage implies that the damage was done incidental to Israel's stated intended outcome (destruction of Hamas, stopping rockets). That you feel otherwise is irrelevant. Finally, what you see as giving a sense of the human toll of the conflict, I see as unbalanced and very highly POV.Kinetochore (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kinetochore, I've checked the relevant editing history, please understand that the "collateral damage" is itself a POV claim, since, as you yourself point out, Israel's "stated intended outcome" (my emphasis) on the "destruction of Hamas, stopping rockets" is a claim. The fact that, for instance, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations documents that nearly every single of Gaza's 10,000 family farms was damaged or destroyed by the Israeli invasion is a fact that is relevant to this claim. This fact is relevant and documented by an internationally-reputable source--no POV issue here.

Disagree. The destruction of family farms, though tragic, is not relevant in the lead. Neither does it support your claim that the term collateral damage is inappropriate. Warm regards, Kinetochore (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I think the previous comment underscoring the fact that "details" take up a single sentence in the lead, and are not undue, is important. You've ignored that comment in addition to these other issues that others have apparently raised repeatedly in the editing history.99.132.106.62 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your 'single sentence' would be the longest in the lead. Really, it is a list, rather than a sentence, and it contains a paragraph of content. And it contains details which are inappropriate for the lead (see above). Kinetochore (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Reading this section as well as the relevant history, I'm appalled how these vital facts are left out of the lede. They indeed constitute a sentence. Moreover, they are vital for the context and background of the Israeli invasion. Labeling them as "inappropriate for the lead" is baseless. The term "collateral damage" is military PR--it embodies the claim that damage and death to civilian structures and civilians, respectively, are unintentional. We lack evidence from third-party sources that such damage was indeed unintentional and incidental. Indeed, damage/destruction to nearly every one of Gaza's 10,000 family farms, for example, indicates that such damage was not incidental. The Additional Protocol I notes that damage to civilians and civilian structures is NEVER incidental if extensive. So these details are vital for the uninformed reader to understand the context of the invasion. Thankfully, several ppl have documented these details over the past several months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razorback216 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A theory must be proven, not proven wrong - lack of evidence supporting/disproving your theorydoes not merit the inclusion of irrelevant detail in the lead. And yes, the destruction of Gaza family farms, while tragic, is fully irrelevant to a succinct summary of the conflict. If you still remain unconvinced that this list of damages does not belong in the lead, simply look at other WP article documenting wars or conflicts. The darfur conflict, the iraq war, the holocaust... the list goes on. How many family farms do you think were destroyed in these conflicts? None of these articles list irrelevant damages to one side in the lead. In fact, none of these articles list any damages in the lead, aside from casualty lists. Kinetochore (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the details (numbers etc) probably aren't necessary for the lead but I also object to the use of the word 'collateral' for the reasons that have already been outlined. Blindly accepting a belligerent's narrative of intent and expressing it in Wikipedia's voice as fact is inconsistent with policy (and dumb). Simply saying something like 'significant damage to..' is more neutral. Also, not that it matters but regarding 'A theory must be proven, not proven wrong' see Popper. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Kinetochore has said nothing to substantiate that a single sentence in the lead describing the civilian toll is irrelevant or out of place. Simply yelling repeatedly that something is irrelevant does not make it so. The civilian toll was perhaps inconsequential for military planners of the invasion, it is not to any non-partisan source. I am inserting a sentence in there according to the amply documented wishes of the many who have weighed in above, taking into account countervailing considerations .Razorback216 (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Minute details of any kind aren't useful in an overall summary of a conflict. Also, listing the civilian tolls of just one side in a complex war/conflict is highly POV. I wish you the best of luck writing an addition to the lead which is neither POV nor highly detailed. Warm regards, Kinetochore (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fluctuating IP accounts

There's been a surge of fluctuating IP user edits to this article. I suspect that it's all coming from one user or perhaps multiple users with a shared plan and purpose. I ask that editors from "both sides" be vigilant against such editing especially in light of these Diffs [18] [19]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They're probably here to compliment the sysops for protecting your fine NPOV editting from being undermined by people who mis-read the sources. It's important that the article implies that Hamas broke the ceasefire. Before you ask, no, I'm not been vandalising your userpage nor have I been making edits to the article, much as I'd like to contribute. 86.179.183.60 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alsuara, 12 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Documentary of the CAST LEAD operation: To shoot an elephant (2009) Alsuara (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done What is it that you're requesting? Note the template says to list a specific change. CTJF83 pride 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Title of this article

I feel the title "Gaza War" needs changing - this is about a 3-4 week period in 2009/9, but the war goes on. (Israel said as much in justifying their blockade - that they are 'at war' with Hamas)

We need an overall timeline for the Israel-Gaza conflict - maybe going back to 1945? - and then this sad episode will appear as just one amongst many.

Aa42john (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is just about this one aspect of the conflict. If you want to look at the bigger picture, there are articles that do. The Gaza–Israel conflict,Israeli–Palestinian conflict and maybe Arab–Israeli conflict are the most relevant. For more of a timeline you might want to see Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I am still cool with adding a date or a season to clarify it.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Why not rename it 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict? Similar to 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict and 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict. The Gaza War more or less had the same military objectives as the previous conflict - reducing or ending the threaten of rockets, as well as securing Shalits release. The only thing the separates the 2008-2009 conflict from previous operations is the sheer number of casualties and destruction that followed. Gaza War is way too ambigious. How many hundreds of conflicts have been fought in Gaza? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I was originally all against that until I realized it was primarily due to it being too wordy and I thought the operational name could eventually be an option. And if they would have waited a few days we could have just used "2009". Stellarkid mentioned some time ago that sources have used the term "Gaza war" in other conflicts (unrelated discussion). And it makes some sense if other articles are worded that way. Is anyone against returning to something like 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict? I would modify it to read "Winter 2008..." so that people don;t start adding in boder incursions that are not really in the scope of this article. Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm with keeping the name as is. A quick search shows two RS that use the term. [20][21]

From Israel and abroad: urban legends or not

THese stories reflect a contemporaneous reaction to the saga of war.

(I) A baby is miraculously named after the first Israeli casualty Dvir Aminalov [sic], and miraculously meets his mother as she tries to make sense of his death.

Here is as close to a source one can find in English: Talk:Gaza War/Archive 6 Israeli casualties : Dvir Emanuelof (22);

Here are links to the email circulating, dating from May 2010. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=dvir+aminalov

Here is an example: http://jewishmoms.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/a-hug-from-dvir/

(II) This story received attention just after the war itself. A woman dressed in black "guided" Israeli soldiers away from buildings that they later found were dangerous, so must have been an incarnation of the Biblical Rachel, also known as Rachel Imeinu. Some printed media maintain that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef declares the reported miracle to be true.

This search locates printed instances: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Rachel+Imeinu%22+Ovadia+Gaza&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Jan 25, 2009 in http://www.vosizneias.com/26290/2009/01/25/jerusalem-rabbi-ovadia-yosef-rachel-imenu-indeed-helped-idf-troops-in-gaza/ Newspaper Vos Iz Neias (Yiddish for What is News?)

Jan 25, 2009 Here is a report of the putative declaration: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=29313

At http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/05/eyewitness-confirmation-of-rachel.html , Rabbi Josh Waxman reports this blog entry, dated SUNDAY, 11 JANUARY 2009, as possibly the source for the story: http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/2009/01/the-land-of-miracles.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

From Israel and abroad: urban legends or not MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC) MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies regarding tactics

The 'Controversies regarding tactics' section contains a subsection called 'Improvised Explosive Device counter measures'. What is the controversy ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is none, it can come out. You shouldn't have to ask. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

New section

Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations and government buildings. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Southern Israel,

This POV doesn't seem neutral to me, as it left me feeling that the Isr. forces attacked without trying to justify doing so. If you're open to it, I'll find a reference. Maybe I missed it, but it's odd not to mention Sderot, especially since the city has invited foreign visitors and dignitaries to it with the express purpose of witnessing the conflict. "Intensified" is not neutral if what you mean is that there are more or the range is extended. "Intensified" means a stronger intensity, that is, more explosive power. At any rate, a citation would be useful to clarify which meaning applies, and whether the greater range, power, or rate is/was a point of disagreement in Gaza itself and between Gaza and Israel. I'm also unclear as to whether Hamas "intensified" the bombardment, or members of a Hamas faction did so, or whether the government of Gaza did so. If the actor was/is controversial, then I would hope that a neutral POV would state (for example) There is an on-going/was controversy as to whether the bombardments came from etc.

Why not something like the following?

Israeli forces targeted sites that their intelligence units pin-pointed as the source of rockets used to send missiles across the Israeli-Gaza border. These sites are/were military targets (i'm not sure what that means), police stations, and (all?) (many?) government buildings. Hamas had recently extended its rocket and mortar bombardment (more neutral than attack?) from the Israeli southern city of Sderot to points north.

I just happened into this entry when I wrote the urban legend section, so I am reading it afresh. I don't have time to follow-up just now. Please consider my comments as you re-edit. Thanks. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Cryptonio (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Razorback216

Razorback216 made a revert despite WP:BRD and the previous discussions calling for the trimming of that section of the lead.[22] So continued discusion is of course OK but the edit needs to go until a version is agreed to, Razorback216 needs to stop reverting and, it would be appreciated if an admin would give him a heads up on the sanctions.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Razorbacks version "On 19 December 2008 a fragile six-month Israel-Hamas ceasefire was set to expire. Following Israel's violation of the ceasefire on November 4, there were sporadic violent clashes along the Israeli-Gaza border for the following two months" looks like a NPOV account (leaning towards being very pro-Israel version) of what happened. The alternative that's been edit-warred into place "Responding to a surge of border incidents, on 27 December Israel launched a wave of airstrikes" sounds like a thoroughly propaganda version of which editors should be ashamed. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, IP! We at WP welcome new contributors! Please refer to WP:NPOV to better understand how to recognize bias. Warm regards, Kinetochore (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to condescend to unregistered contributors. Warm regards, 67.252.127.81 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The lead and this so called, implicit and contradicting "Hamas breaking of the truce" should be 'reworded' yes i agree. and yes i will do it if no one else does Cryptonio (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between rewording and adding large amounts of text thrown out based on consensus.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed this bit of nonesense. That we are still here discussing nonesense should be a testament as to no one knows who carries the torch of burden. Not even Israel has said Hamas broke the truce, Israel's position has been that Hamas did not renewed it, and there are, oh i dont know, 10 sections on why they did not renew that lovely and wonderfully respected truce.

After Hamas ended the six month lull, analysts in Israel believed a durable peace agreement between Hamas and Israel is unlikely, as it would go against Hamas' ideology and undermine Israel's long-term security objectives.[1]

Cryptonio (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And lets not talk about consensus and the lead, please...let's rather fix it. Cryptonio (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks fixed now. the lead that is. Cryptonio (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Created sub articles

The article is tagged as too long to read comfortably since March, and this is definitely still true, policy tells us that readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, to resolve this I created several new sub-articles and attempted to keep a good summary in the article to make it more readable. Still work in progress. Comments are welcome. Marokwitz (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You completely blanked the section on casualties, though that was already chopped down in size per consensus on this page. You want to make sub-articles great, but forcing your mass blanking of over 40 kB is not acceotable. WP:SIZE refers to the readable prose of an article, not the total size of it. nableezy - 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't blank it. I created a new sub article with ALL the contents, and was in the middle of summarizing things per WP:SUMMARY when you disrupted my work. If you looked at the latest version you would see that I was in the middle of bringing back summaries. The guideline says that 30 to 50KB is too long for comfortably reading, and the article is tagged as too long since March 2010. I am making the article more readable. Please undo your revert and let me proceed with my work. Marokwitz (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Disrupted [your] work"? Please. In this article, you blanked it. That disrupted my watchlist. That specific section was put together following a long discussion on how to organize it and what should be included, down to the order of the pictures. When making such drastic changes you should come to the talk page first, not try and push your changes through by reverting. nableezy - 14:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You are being uncivil. I was in the middle of improving the article in a bold way, in conformance with a request that was posted in the page since May 2010 (not by myself) and wasn't removed by you, you didn't even give me the courtesy of finishing my work. I'm very disappointed by your battlefield attitude. The result of your revert is that we have 2 forked articles that will need to be deleted. I will now stop wasting my time, and call other editors - review my edits (whatever I managed to do before being reverted twice by nableezy) and see how much they improved the readability and quality of this page. My version is [23] together with the 2 new sub articles Casualties of the Gaza War and Propaganda and psychological warfare in the Gaza War. Marokwitz (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not being "uncivil" (and accusing somebody of being uncivil without basis is, you guessed it, uncivil). You made a "bold" edit. It was reverted. The next step is for you to come here, not to re-revert. There is no "battlefield attitude" demonstrated in my comments. I object to you blanking, without any discussion at all, over 40 kb of material. I especially object to the removal of the casualties section, as that was crafted on this talk page and gained consensus (and had been more than 3 times the size of the current section prior to being rewritten). Prior to making such drastic changes it is wise to come here, and it is especially unwise to try and force those changes in after being reverted. nableezy - 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, I do not have a problem with splitting off some of the sections and giving them a proper summary (in fact, I did that with the international law section a long time ago). The casualties section does not need to be split, though it could use some tightening. And a proper summary needs to be in place, not just a link to a main article. If you would like to work on actually summarizing whatever sections you feel need to be split, great, but just bulldozing ahead is not how you should go about it. nableezy - 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was in the progress of doing! And I didn't remove the casualties section, I left the whole table which is, itself, an excellent summary of this topic. Instead of reverting my entire work, you could have, and still can, offer to help me with the summaries process. Marokwitz (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My point is do it prior to removing these sections. And the table is a terrible summary, it neglects so much about why the casualties were such a large part of the story. It completely disregards the reasons why everybody except for the IDF classified the police as non-combatants and why the IDF classified them as combatants, it completely disregards how the casualties were counted and how they were classified by each group that provided figures. In fact, if it were up to me the one thing that should be removed is that table, it is far too simplistic and neglects the major parts of the story. The information in that table should be relayed in prose. And I am willing to help with summarizing some of the sections, but prior to removing sections that should be done. nableezy - 15:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My only mistake was not putting Template:In use while working on the article. I prefer working in stages. If you think something crucial is missing from the summary, then you can go ahead and fetch it back from the sub-article. Not a single word was deleted. Marokwitz (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Nearly the whole of the casualties section (prose and images) should be in here. The section on the background to the conflict is larger than the section on the casualties, and we already have a ton of articles on the background. nableezy - 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)
Marokwitz (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for offering assistance! The article is tagged as too long, and is indeed very difficult to follow, that's why I propose splitting the article using summary style according to WP:SUMMARY as follows: The main article - [24] together with the 2 new sub articles which were created: Casualties of the Gaza War and Propaganda and psychological warfare in the Gaza War. In addition I was interrupted in the middle of summarizing a few more details from Casualties of the Gaza War back into the main article. I request the article reverted to the version 372214128, and to continue my work from there to ensure that the most important points are summarized in the main article (hopefully with assistance and cooperation from other editors). Marokwitz (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

[25] at the time of this post the user seems to be offline for the last two hours. I am gonna leave a talkback temp on his page; if he doesnt pop-up by this time tommorow I'll give you the revert. I'll be off and on around till 2am UTC Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Viewpoint by Nableezy

I am fine with splitting off some sections into new articles and summarizing them here. What I am not fine is the mass blanking without any type of discussion. Focusing on the casualties section specifically, that section was crafted on this talk page (here). That method should provide a template as to how to chop down the size of the article, create a summary and post it here on the talk page and see what issues there may be. Currently the casualties section is shorter than the background section, yet the text and images were completely removed, leaving only the chart. That section needs to have an adequate summary on this article, and what Marokwitz made was not that. Now to the propaganda/psych warfare section. That section is relatively tiny. It certainly does not merit it's own article. There are certainly places where the material in that section can be cut down, but the summary Marokwitz made ignores many of the main points in the section. It presents what the sources call Israel's "psychological warfare" as simply providing warnings to the residents to flee, where the sources report on the fear and panic caused by calls that claimed their homes would be destroyed in minutes. This article could, and probably should, be shorter, but the way to go about that is to propose what should be removed, what should be split, and seek a consensus. That is what was down in the casualties section in the past, and the International law section (see here. I cant find where the actual split was done, too long ago). nableezy - 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by Weaponbb7
....
  • User:Marokwitz made a Bold edit and naturally was Reverted and discuion ensued as expected. I recomend both of you to review WP:CALM.
  • User:Marokwitz next time say something on the talk-page prior to such a bold edit, and Try inviting people to a WP:SUBPAGE where the main article will not be affected. Especially on high traffic and contentious article such as this.
  • on the Casualties issue it sounds like User talk:Nableezy interrupted User:Marokwitz summary being inputed back into the main article so this may be mute. I do agree it needs an adequate summary and that it will proably take much hashing out as i doubt any first draft will achieve consensus.
  • I have to agree that as it stands now Propaganda and psychological warfare in the Gaza War is way to small "as is." does user:Marokwitz think that more

reliable sources be found to beef it up? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Also is there not a workgroup covering this topic that can get a wider consensus here on summaries?

Keywords in the section "Propaganda and psychological warfare" have been removed in the Israeli compartment but are still present in the Hamas'. Yes, i agree, it needs fixing. Cryptonio (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Result

It needs to be kept uptodate in my opinion...

1) Israel not ending the blockade 2) Israel allowing certain goods in 3) Tunnels still up and running

I'll get to it if no one else does, but I am a very busy man. Cryptonio (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

SYNTH

Whoever added this should fix it.

Shortly after Israel completed its troop pullout, Hamas declared "remarkable victory." Khaled Mashaal, speaking from his exiled Headquarters in Damascus said that, "the resistance won the battle in Gaza and the enemy failed in the field as it failed in politics. The enemy had to withdraw from the Strip without being able to impose any condition."[2] The brigade commander of the Israeli paratroopers told reporters:

"I know that in the end Hamas will say they won. It doesn’t matter what will be the end of this war. We know they know today that they have a problem. Will they put down their weapons forever? For sure, no, but I think they have learned a lesson from this war."[3]

Cryptonio (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For Sean

funny that the CSM is used in the lead ah?

lol Cryptonio (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Casualty Chart

I'm pretty sure that the casualty chart is what's keeping this article from being 'futured'...that thing looks horrible...of course, clearly from an aesthetic point of view. Cryptonio (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to be mean but the graph is messy and cluttered. I could design a more comprehensive chart with mainstream parameters. Let me know if anyone wants to collaborate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a more simple graph:

Palestinian casualties Combatant Non-combatant Police Total casualties
B'tselem[4][5] 351 764 248 1,385
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights[6] 236 926 255 1,417
Israeli Defense Forces[7][8] 709 295 1,166
Palestinian Ministry of Health, Gaza[6] 1,400
Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades[9][10] 48 1,252 1,300

This is strictly an example. The current graph is very confusing and messy. If you guys want to divide stats by gender-ratios, we could make a separate chart for that, or any other parameters reliable sources have published. Comments? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Several

Several witnesses told an Italian reporter that on many roofs of the tall buildings that were hit by Israeli bombs, including UN building, there were rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs.[11][12]


Sources

The number of Palestinians killed in Operation Cast Lead did not exceed five or six hundred, Lorenzo Cremonesi, a correspondent for Italy's Corriere della sera reported on Thursday.


A Palestinian salvages belongings from the rubble of a house in the Zeitoun neighborhood in Gaza City [illustrative]. Photo: AP SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World Cremonesi based his report on tours of hospitals in the Gaza Strip and on interviews with families of casualties. He also assessed the number of wounded to be far lower than 5,000, the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza.

"It is sufficient to visit several hospitals [in the Gaza Strip] to understand that the numbers don't add up," he wrote.

In the European hospital in Rafah, one of the facilities which would presumably be filled with wounded from the "war of the tunnels," many beds were empty, according to Cremonesi. A similar situation was noted in the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, and in the privately-run Amal Hospital Cremonesi reported that only five out 150 beds were occupied.

Cremonesi interviewed Gazans who echoed Israel's insistence of how Hamas gunmen used civilians as human shields. One Gazan recalled civilians in Gaza shouting at Hamas and Islamic Jihad men, "Go away, go away from here! Do you want the Israelis to kill us all? Do you want our children to die under their bombs? Take your guns and missiles with you."

"Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you. And in any case you will all die, like us. Fighting the Zionist Jews we are all destined for paradise. Do you not wish to die with us?" the religious fanatics of Hamas reportedly responded.



Other Palestinians told Cremonesi of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances. A woman identified as Um Abdullah, 48, spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets.

Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas.




A doctor at Gaza's Shifa Hospital told the Gaza correspondent of the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead might have been 500 or 600, mostly young men between the ages of 17 and 23, "drafted by Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter."

The doctor, who refused to identify himself out of fear for his life, also told the correspondent, Lorenzo Cremonesi: "It might have been like in Jenin in 2002. First they talked about 1,500 dead, and in the end it turned out to be only 54, among them 45 fighters."


The doctor said he was surprised that aid groups, including Western ones, reported the numbers without confirming them.

According to Cremonesi, the impression was that the number of wounded was also much lower than the 5,000 reported. "It is enough to visit a few hospitals to understand that the numbers don't jive. The European Hospital in Rafah and Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis have many empty beds. In the Al-Amal private hospital only five out of 150 beds are occupied."

Cremonesi also quoted civilians who said Hamas used ambulances to flee from Israeli snipers, and that civilians were forced to stay in their homes, from which Israel Defense Force soldiers were being fired on. According to one man, identified as Abu Issa, 42, of Tel Awwa, "They tried to goad the Israelis on. Sometimes they were only 16 or 17, armed with machine-guns ... They knew they were much weaker, but they wanted the Israelis to fire on our homes so they would be accused of war crimes."

His cousin, Um Abdallah, 48, said: "On almost all the roofs of the tall buildings that were hit by Israeli bombs there were rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs. They placed them by the U.N. storehouse that burned down."



BTW, removed per UNDUE and blatant LIE err, misconstruction i meant. Cryptonio (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Hamas

Is the Flag of Hamas acceptable? From my understanding it is a flag often used but not official. I'm not sure and don't really care.

Assuming it is acceptable, does anyone know enough about licensing to help out here? It appears to me that it is improperly licensed since the current license only covers the creation of the file, not the flag's graphical design itself. I believe {{PD-textlogo}} would be fine but am not sure. {{insignia}} may also apply but I do not know if it is an official flag.Cptnono (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? This just isn't contentious enough for any thoughts? How about I remove the flag altogether since there is a question. Anyone mind?Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Israel began the offensive" from lead

The sentence is weasel words (Which offensive? Their military operation? the war?) and is POV. Sources disagree over which party started this conflict, and when. Attributing the war to being started by Israel is POV. Israel began their operation on December 27, but this event was arguably not the start of the conflict(according to sources). Kinetochore (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the "operation" began on December 27. Sources make an explicit distinction between what happened before that date and what happened after that date. The very first sentences of this article says that the "Gaza War" was the same thing as "Operation Cast Lead". Do you really dispute that "Operation Cast Lead" was initiated by Israel on December 27? The start date has been discussed a number of times in the archives, which each discussion showing that the sources treat this attack as its own topic. nableezy - 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, you misunderstood my concern. What is currently written (that Israel 'started its military offensive') is acceptable. Cheers, Kinetochore (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
aight, thats fine with me as well. nableezy - 01:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ranty

Nevermind this right?

"Israel began planning for a military operation as early as six months before the conflict by collecting intelligence on potential targets."

Cryptonio (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here don't try to hard...question is when did Israel started planning for the operation? Cryptonio (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


More conflict here...

The second sentence includes the 'strike' action but as reffering to the general objective3 and something else that is making even less sense by the minute, but the initial 'surprise' attack was simply directed to policemen...remember?

Israel started its military offensive with a surprise opening air strike on Dec. 27,[43] following Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks when a six-month truce ran out on Dec. 19.[44] The strike was directed against targets within the Gaza Strip with the stated aim of stopping rocket fire[45] from and arms import into the territory.[46][47]

Cryptonio (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Or are we saying that, after attacking the policemen, the Pales still didn't know who was attacking them, and so the rest of the 'inituial' attacks, say, the tunnels, still came as a surprise to them? Cryptonio (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Were the 'air strikes' that came on the second and third day, considered part of the 'surprise' nature? Cryptonio (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What was the aim of the ground invasion then? Cryptonio (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To include then, what was attacked by the initial air strikes, we must mention that it was a police academy or whatever...if not, then the initial attack was just that, a surprise initial attack on Gaza. Cryptonio (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


After so much time, i think, we can finnaly understand this, a blast from the past...



This was not addressed: "You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective." -Nishidani Because if we DO go back to the beginning of this conflict(and we should when addressing the lead), we'll find the following: Dec 30 - Israel attacks Gaza for the fourth day - http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=54699 (from the BBC)

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Defining - Stating Started - Began???

Cryptonio (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Wake up and smell the coffee...remember Lebanon? Open field battle between IDF and Hez...and the IDF couldn't muster crap against Hez...I was spewing this 'hatred' years ago on stumbleupon...clearly remember screaming 'SOMETHING MUST BE GOING ON WITH THE ISRAELI COMMAND"

You so called Jews are just being confused and not because you are stubborn, you are stubborn because you do not know YOU ARE being confused...badly...

And so you want to Wikilaw yourself out of this one...

good luck


Cryptonio (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, this article is subject to a 1RR/24h restriction for the next fortnight, per a report at AN3. Any future attempts to edit war will be looked upon very dimly and will likely result in a lengthy break from this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained revert by Unomi

Unomi reverted my addition here with the edit summary "Doesn't belong in lead". Sure it does. We need to make the lead more netural than itis now. Besides, if it does not belong to the lead why Unomi just reverted it versus adding this piece to other place. According to the above, I will add the piece back --Mbz1 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be better in the body. It was given too much prominence. A paraphrased line might work in the lead but assume people will reject that. Try a draft out here that is shortened and we can go from there. Cptnono (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The thing is that before I added the discussed piece the lead had only that "In September 2009, a UN special mission, headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, produced a controversial report accusing both Palestinian militants and Israeli Defense Forces of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended bringing those responsible to justice.[53] The UN Human Rights Council later passed a resolution[54] endorsing the report. In January 2010, the Israeli government released a response criticizing the Goldstone Report and disputing its findings.[55]". So, it looked like Israel was the only one, who disagreed with the so called "fact-finding" commission. It is a strong POV that should be argued with another opinion.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A Kemp speech is as notable as the Goldstone report? No way that belongs in the lead, but I've used up my revert for the day. RomaC TALK 04:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is more notabale because Kemp is a specialist, who knows what he's talking about.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if you do revert me tomorrow, at least do not forget to put the piece I added somewhere else in the article. After all it is a well sourced info by a well known and respectabale military authority. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
A new user??? [26] just moved the piece I added last night down below, and now once again we have a very strong POV lead. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a source that says Kemp's quotes are equally or more notable, due his specialist status, than the UN's Goldstone Report RomaC TALK 15:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A question

I would like to ask a very simple yes/no question, and I'd like to hear a short explanation why "yes" or why "no". So here's my question: Did Israel need the war in Gaza to achieve something different rather than stopping hamas rockets into her towns? --Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not a question that can be answered without misusing the talk page. nableezy - 04:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, then forget it. I am still learning. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I am doing the exact opposite of what you asked. There are other reasons people have brought up. I am actually surprised more people have not presented more sources discussing this stuff since there is some emotional editing and some of that stuff probably does have at least some valid sources.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Some sources have claimed that Israel believes it is entitled to the land of Gaza and would have ethnically cleanse it long ago, prevented only because Egypt will not take the refugees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.42.200 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Massacre narrative

It looks like someone finally added some references and information about the term "massacre" to the body. About time. Was that AU who did it? Well applause from me since until recently the term was only used once in the body. However, I do feel that the individual lines need to be moved into already existing sections. This will improve the layout while being an improvement to the readers chronological understanding of the subject. There are also a host of POV concerns having it in its own section. For the most part, I think most of the info can stay but should be moved. Anythoughts on if anything needs to be expanded or trimmed down? Also, would there be any concerns to moving those paragraphs around? I wouldn;t mind waiting a week until AU gets off his block but we don't need to.Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre"

Would the users who object to including the term "Gaza Massacre" in the lead please say exactly why? Please say which policy or guideline backs such a position. nableezy - 23:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "Gaza Massacre" is already included. So this discussion could be archived. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I am asking you why you want to remove it from the lead and what policy backs you up and how. If you have no response to that then what are you arguing about? nableezy - 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a tendency of you doing that: There is a discussion where reasons are amply set forth, and you just start anew asking everyone to "give reasons." Look right above and at the links therein.

Also, I would like to point out that the silly op-eds written by two nobodys that are now being used a source were written after the article already said "known in the Arab world" or "called in the Arab world." The two writers simply used the Wikipedia term due to the stubbornness of certain editors who refused to part with the overly contentious and prejudicial term. I guess we now understand why this term was continuously edit-warred into the article. They want random oped writers to use the term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those are op-eds, and here as there yall continually say that "reasons are amply set forth" yet not one time are able to tell me what those reasons are and what policies back you up and, most importantly, how that policy backs you up. The SA Times source was discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard here where every uninvolved editor agreed the source is reliable for the statement that the this event was known as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world. If you wish to take the journal article the RS/N be my guest. Now do you have any policy based reasons for wanting to remove it from the lead? nableezy - 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article is using three sources to support the "Gaza Massacre" claim: 1) some offline science paper (bullshit) 2) some oped written by a nobody and 3) some oped written by a nobody. One oped was written July 26 2009 and the other September 1 2009. Thus, one would imagine that before July 26, the claim would not appear in this article. However, believe it or not, that's not the case. The July 25 version has the same "Gaza Massacre" claim. The July 25 version is sourced to this one article, wherein it quotes some Hamas spokesman in Lebanon, who uses the term "Gaza massacre." It clearly does not support any claim that the was is known as the "Gaza massacre in the Arab world." Nevertheless, the term was continuously ediwarred into the article on spurious grounds until lo and behold a couple of oped writers apparently did a wee bit of plagiarizing from wikipedia. Viola! We now have third party sources in support of the claim. If you ever want to see a classic case of pov editors using the power of Wikipedia to disseminate propoganda to the mainstream media, here is example 1.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit you say? A peer reviewed journal article published by Routeldge is bullshit? Take that line to the RS/N and see what happens. Neither of the Sunday Times sources is an op-ed and the people who wrote them are certainly "somebody". Besides that, the SA Times piece was already taken to the RS/N where every uninvolved editor said it was a reliable source. Besides bullshit, do you have anything to add? And you are well aware that at one point there were 12 sources in the article for the statement, only one was in that version as another editor said there was no need for any sources at all for that statement. nableezy - 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
All the sources you had that it's called the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world were articles quoting the same Hamas propaganda Minister calling it the "Arab massacre." The term was edit-warred into the article baselessly due to these quotes. Now that they have been copied by third party op-eds. That's the point that's being made here. Further off-topic responses will most likely be ignored.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Brew, it really is hard to get upset with you, you have this wonderful sense of humor. As far as I know there is no Department of Propaganda, but there were a few different government ministers and spokesmen using that name. But the oddest thing is you keep calling these pieces "op-eds". None of them are "op-eds". One is an interview with Goldstone, the other is a story about an SA Jewish human rights organization supporting the Palestinians. The last is a journal article. nableezy - 21:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agada, I agree with your general point that we probably aren't compelled to include the "massacre" term in the lead. But I don't understand why you think that we shouldn't. It might be helpful to have all the main points gathered in one place. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this but just to get my !vote in while still being too lazy to go through the archives:
  • Massacre is an emotive term and needs some exceptional sourcing or else it stinks of POV.
  • There are some sources. However, is it the term used in the Middle East? So far, it doesn't look like it is. Al Jazeera doesn't say it is and even named all of their coverage something else. Hell, if we had multiple editors from over there say "dude, that is totally what we call it and I see it as the term on the nightly news all the time" then this argument could go away. Even the Arabic Wikipedia had a tiff over it but one editor pushed and pushed and it stayed.
  • People do call it a massacre. It is mainly blogs and writings from people who do not even try to be neutral. We have higher neutrality standards than they do. I wish we had a source that said "blogs and emotive sources called it a massacre" so we could just say that.
  • It is used as a descriptive term. However, so is "victory". And see above. Are we using descriptions as titles now? And like always: Victory is the exact opposite of massacre. Hamas obviously doesn't care since they called it both.
  • Many of the sources using the term use it as a description and not a title. And even then there is all sorts of questions on translation and it it is capped or Arabic not being capped or blah blah blah.
  • "Massacre" receives so many less hits while doing a Google News search compared to other terms. Although hits alone don't mean much, it is easy to tell that it is nowhere near as prominent in the media as we make it out to be in the lead with bold facce. Other "titles" and even descriptions are used tons more.
  • The source that finally (after months of searching) said it was from South Africa. Nothing wrong with that but c'mon. Sout Africa vs Al Jazeera? And even then it might have just been a circular reference because the story was written at a time when their line in the lead said the exact same thing. Then it was changed. Then it was changed back.
  • It was not Hamas' main title since their PR department (or whatever they have) dropped the ball. If they didn't have an official title then tough. They don't get an official title in the lead.
Ways to handle it differently?
  • Don't bold it as a title. Keep it in the lead but say "It was described as a massacre." Offered as a solution months ago but rejected by Nableezy.
  • List every single other title used more often. We do something like this now and I am fine with it.
  • Kill all the titles and handle this stuff in the body. Why label it when it is so contentious and so many conversations have had to go over the same ground on something that isn't nearly as important as the meat of what went on. Describe why it was a massacre and other editors can describe the tactics behind the operation. Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In order:
  • Whether or not it is an "emotive" term has no bearing on anything. See WP:NOTCENSORED. And it has a peer reviewed journal article as a source now and two newspaper articles that the RS/N found to be reliable sources
  • See WP:OR. We have sources saying it is the name used, your beliefs that because a news agency does not use that name that it really is not the name used is OR.
  • The cited sources say "in the Arab world" and none of the cited sources is a blog or "emotive sources".
  • WP:OR, The cited sources do not say that it was "described" as a massacre, they say it was called the "Gaza Massacre"
  • Again, WP:OR. The cited sources are clear on this with 2 of the sources specifically capitalizing the M.
  • WP:OR, The cited sources do not say that it was "described" as a massacre, they say it was called the "Gaza Massacre"
  • What you think google tells you does not mean anything next to three reliable sources that specifically say this was called the "Gaza Massacre"
  • The reliable sources noticeboard found no issue. One of the SA pieces was from an interview with Goldstone, who is from SA. If al-Jazeera or any other reliable source actually disputes what this report said you may have a point. But they dont and you dont. Your "circular reference" argument was rejected at the RS/N
  • That really is not up for you to decide. Reliable sources say that this was the name used in the Arab world. Three separate sources specifically saying that this was the name used in the Arab world have been provided.
That a few users do not like having the word "massacre" be included in an article that Israel has something to do with does not matter. That they make this "contentious" does not matter. What matters is the source. If you want to argue that the name used in the Arab world does not belong in the lead, in bold, as an alternate title, you should make that argument. But you, just like nearly everybody else who has argued to remove this title, are doing so only because you think it is "emotive" or "contentious". We go by sources here. If you have a source that contradicts this one then we actually have something to discuss. But you dont. You have personal feelings on what is appropriate and how this is not. That does not carry any weight. nableezy - 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Your filibustering hasn't convinced me so since both of us claim to be doing the right thing we are again stuck. Also, you know full well that that was a very whiddled down version of the argument for the sake of brevity. You also have twisted a few things which I'm not really interested in arguing about. Maybe you should have commented on ways to move forward or is that not something you are interested in?Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I realize that you saw me use "filibustering" recently and that you have taken a liking to it. However, refuting your "argument" is not "filibustering". I have not "twisted" anything and such a falsehood should either be backed up or struck out. If you refuse to do either I can only assume it was an intentional lie. nableezy - 01:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Huh? It has nothing to do with you using it. I actually was reading the "stonewalling" but a month or so ago on another page and it reminded me of how many edits we have on this one word. I didn't even know you had but if you want to assume that to disregard what is clear on this one dispute on this talk page over more than a year then go ahead. I disagree but kno you have your heels dug in like usual. And yes you did twist it. You did not respond to some of the primary reasoning while focusing heavily on another aspect and you asserted that it is my personal dislike for the term that is my reasoning for not accepting it without other terms. And again, do you want to argue about something that you will obviously not change your ind on and I a unlikely to until you provide some better reasoning or do you want to address the options for moving forward? That really is more important.
I responded to every single point you made, a five year old who can count on their fingers can see that. Better reasoning? You want better reasoning besides three reliable sources flat out saying that this is the name in the Arab world because the mighty Cptnono doesnt think those three reliable sources are right? Sources are the only reasons that count, mmkay? nableezy - 01:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it is now claimed that five highly partisan users can determine a consensus on this matter I have taken the issue to the NPOV/N to get wider input. nableezy - 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The number of like-minded users who don't like sourced content doesn't matter. Editors deal dispassionately with Wiki policy, especially given that the repeated and concerted pushs to purge "massacre" from anything Israel has done is well recorded (see every archive page of Deir Yassin massacre). The patterns (wikilawyer on phrasing, weight, demand the sources jump through hoops and if they can then criticize/dismiss the publication/authors etc.), plow ("move forward") toward a false compromise -- so yes sometimes it is helpful to get uninvolved editors to take a look from a Wiki perspective. RomaC TALK 03:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has tremendous potential, but it is discouraging to see how much effort we have to spend to deal with mindless vandalism, puerile boosterism and nationalism, and crank POV-pushing. User:Macrakis AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to repeat it in the lead, if a whole section dedicated to it. The lead bears lots of POV already. I am going to revert it.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
And I reverted you. The only POV not represented in the edit you made was the POV of those who were bombed for 3 weeks. Funny how that is. nableezy - 02:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If you mean Israelis towns that have been bombed, they were bombed for a few years not three weeks, and if there are not so many victims, it is not from lack of trying.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not who I meant. nableezy - 03:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Getting a little off topic there. I don't think removing just massacre will get any consensus (although I don't mind really) but I am confused now. The Arab world was bombed for three weeks? Good thing we have ongoing discussions. Edit warring isn't going to accomplish anything. Doing 1 revert a day for the next week or whatever would still be edit warring folks. It does sound like fun though.Cptnono (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The Arab Palestinians of Gaza are a part of the Arab world. I think you know that. nableezy - 03:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Durable peace deal between Israel, Hamas unlikely_English_Xinhua". News.xinhuanet.com. 2008-12-22. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  2. ^ ""Hamas Leader Claims Remarkable Victory"". CBS News. 2009-01-22.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference NY Times 2009-01-16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "B'Tselem's investigation of fatalities in Operation Cast Lead". B'Tselem. September 9, 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 21, 2010. Retrieved February 21, 2010.
  5. ^ Operation Cast Lead, 27 Dec. '08 to 18 Jan. '09, B'Tselem, December 27, 2009. Retrieved March 2, 2010.
  6. ^ a b "FIELD UPDATE ON GAZA FROM THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR: 3–5 February 2009, 1700 hours". United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). February 5, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-02.
  7. ^ http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ipc_e021.htm
  8. ^ "IDF releases Cast Lead casualty numbers". Jerusalem Post. March 28, 2009. Archived from the original on February 22, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  9. ^ http://www.ict.org.il/Portals/0/Articles/ICT-Hamas_Casualties_Operation_Cast_Lead.pdf Hamas Casualties from "Operation Cast Lead” Initial Findings and Conclusions
  10. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7855070.stm
  11. ^ "Maximum 600 Palestinians died in Gaza". Jerusalem Post. 2009-01-22.
  12. ^ "Gaza doctor refutes casualties reported in Cast Lead op". Haaretz. 2009-01-25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_64&oldid=1192096914"