Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 9 January 2009

On 7 January 2009, this talk page was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Discussions related to the proposed page move are happening at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009

Discussions related to the introduction/lead are happening at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

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

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

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

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

[REDACTED]

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

PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY DONE BY A BOT!

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

Archives

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

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

Pro-Israel bias in images of destruction/protests

This is biased. Now the images only represent Israeli deaths. with a death rate of 80-1 the majority of images are about 'Israelis taking cover' or 'Israelis in a bomb shelter'. this is a total travesty.

Hey... Re-read the article, ther are tons of things that talk about the rates of death on the Side of Gaza, and I didn't read anything whatsoever that is positive (as in unfair) to Israel. In my opinion, if no press is let into Gaza (another topic...), and the only pictures coming out of the area are the pictures of Israel's side, you should claim no bias. If no pictures are "capable of being shot", then there are none to be posted to make it non-biased. Additionaly, pictures of either side are barely displayed, so it appears that this comment should be marked for deletion.
Does anyone agree to delete it?Pokoleo (talk)

I agree and was about to upload a better protest photo. Other Wikicommons options here. Also two photos about tiny , when mega bombs are killing hundreds is POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly describes Palestinian suffering (which I have no doubt is very grave). Once pictures become available we will for sure post them. Yet the thing I find biased is calling rockets "tiny", as if they are not deadly weapons aimed specifically (and admittedly by their users) at civilians. Then, to use the "tiny" argument as an excuse to remove pictures showing the "tiny" damage they cause. You may point to Osher Twito that the're tiny, so there is nothing he should be worried about.--Omrim (talk) 02:27, 9 January009 (UTC)

A problem we've had is the lack of copyleft pictures available from Gaza. Because we have none, the pictures of damage in Israel create an impression that is unbalanced and certainly does not reflect the disproportionate casualties and damage figures. Suggest the pics be removed. RomaC (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a much better argument. I support as long as they are back once we have pictures available from Gaza.--Omrim (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. One side is "loading the deck" by not allowing press into Gaza, resulting in an unequal opportunity for visual reports from that area. I agree that the pictures ought to be removed. Tell someone (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason that they are not letting the press into Gaza, is the fact that they know that all press that goes into Gaza will suddenly become pro-Gazan. I do not condemn their descision to do this, because it is strategically the most feasable option. In war, the idea is to obliterate the other side, or to pummel them into submission. It is harder for one side to do that to the other side, while the entire world is turned against them. Gazans have used this weapon before, the conflict, and Israelis are doing it now. But this is another topic we are talking about the pictures. -Pokoleo (talk)

I haven't figured out who gave what excuse for taking out photos of protesters with Palestinian flags at Obama's HQ, but most protests do emphasize Palestinian rights and harm against Palestine. Therefore it's POV to put in a photo saying "Stop Israel" - again to use images to make POV point that Israel is the much more greatly aggrieved party. More such photos are at wikicommons Gaza protest search.

And feel free to delete WP:Soapbox material directly above about killing people. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

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

Please discuss the Lead/Lede/Intro at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

Needs to be re-written. Nothing wrong with the content, but the grammer is quite poor to the opint of being unsuitable for wikipedia. I would re-write it myself, but admittedly, by english ain't that great either ;) and the article desrves something a little more polished. Just my 2 cents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.61.95 (talk • contribs)

Arabic Interwiki

I can say it a thousand times - the Arabic article "the Massacre of Gaza" cannot be regarded as an equivalent to this article. There was a short period of time when the Arab Misplaced Pages had indeed a relatively fair article about the events in Gaza, but they moved it again to this provocative title, and made that article once again into an anti-Israeli propaganda. They also created "a series of articles about Israeli massacres" which includes that "massacre" article with "The Gaza Holocaust" and other despicable materials like this. The fact that the Arabic Misplaced Pages users breached any possible Wikipedian rule is one thing, the fact that the English Misplaced Pages cooperate with this approach by considering this article equivalent to that "massacre" article is another. They are not equivalent, and shouldn't be regarded as such. DrorK (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide. if Gaza Massacre is the common name of the attack in arabic, that's the name they should use. If anything this only sounds like a pro-Israel move for removal of the view of the arabic world. — chandler — 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't really understand the concept of conveying knowledge. Calling someone "a murderer" is not okay just because many people say so, whether it is in Arabic or in English. The Arabic Misplaced Pages users are trying to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for propaganda counting on the fact that there aren't too many foreigners who speak their language. In any case, such a propaganda cannot be said to be equivalent to this article. DrorK (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can restate your position a million times DrorK. It won't make it any more valid. Arabic sources use "Gaza massacre", "War on Gaza" and "Gaza Under Fire" to describe the events we are describing here. It's up to editors of the Arabic article to debate their name choices based on an assessment of reliable sources, much as we are here. (And you should take your debate there, since as you said earlier, you are fluent in Arabic). I'm quite sure they are as offended by our title, which creates a false parity where there is none, as you are by theirs. Should they refuse to link to en-wiki citing our bias? Tiamut 13:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesnt mean it shouldn't be included. The Hebrew wp probably is just as biased, and from what I can see it links to the arabic one, therefore we have to remove the hebrew one and all other languages who link and think themself the equivalent to the arabic article. And again, it has already been discussed to leave it in. The article is covering the same thing. And why wouldn't it be ok to call someone a murderer, there are murderers you know. — chandler — 13:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the Hebrew Misplaced Pages article is not biased and you are invited to check it. Actually, the Arabic Misplaced Pages article is the only one among the different Wikipedias which manipulates facts and terminology. The debate in the Arabic Misplaced Pages is full of slandars towards those who try to change this state of affairs. This is a disturbing issue for itself, but it is not relevant here. What is relevant is that we cannot link this article to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". Sorry, we are not here to make anti-Israeli propaganda, even if it is only through an interwiki. DrorK (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the common name in the arab world. It is not about pro/anti-Israel. And again, just because you dont like what the common name in, doesn't mean it should be removed. — chandler — 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, the arab point of view should be shown as interwiki or something. Hide a link to simply state "provocative" it's your opinion and POV measurement. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, who cares Arabic wiki? ;).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.22.58 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me assure you that I would ask to remove the he-wp interwiki as well had it been linking to an article titled "The Glorious Victory over Hamas", or even "The Israeli War against Terrorism". All articles in all Wikipedias describing these events titled their articles either with the meaningless code-name given by the Israeli army, with a fairly neutral title such as "The Attack on Gaza", "The Israeli-Gazan Conflict" etc. All but the Arabic Misplaced Pages in which some users are trying to push propaganda, and by linking to their article we bring this propaganda here through the back door. Sorry, this is not why we're here. DrorK (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arab Misplaced Pages bias is not our point. Interwiki is to link and integrate all other Wikipedias with the same content, biased or not, well worked or not. You're disrupting an Misplaced Pages feature. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So what you are basically saying is that, an Arabic article can be biased even though Misplaced Pages consensus is that articles should be NPOV, just because it is in Arabic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.112.97 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave it DrorK, or you could participate in the editing of the arabic wiki if you like. RomaC (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedians actually prevent people from editing this articles, by putting all kind of pressure on people who wish to balance the article. The interwiki should go immediately because "Gaza massacre" cannot be a title for an article which describes these events. DrorK (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DrorK that's not for you to decide, you've been warned for vandalism there is no consensus for your repeated deletions of the interwiki link to the arabic article. RomaC (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DrorK: I agree the Arabic[REDACTED] is mistaken in naming their article "massacre", but their mistake is their mistake: this is EnWiki... don't inter-wiki forum shop :D.

Your argument on "murdering" is compelling, but ultimately falicious in this context: no one (serious) here is saying that we call these events "massacre". In an article about someone charged with murder, we ar enot allowed to call the person a "murderer" that is true. But we are allowed to say that the prosecutor called the subject a "murderer". It doesn't make it true or biased, it simply describes accurately the views of the prosecutor.

Likewise, this article describes these events as "Operation Cast Lead", a description not accepted by one side of the events, but significant nevertheless and we must mention it in the lead/lede/intro because it is the the description given by one side. We must give due weight consideration to the "massacre" name, provided it is well sourced and verifiably an official claim - we had some issue with false sourcing - and will accept sources in any language provided they verify (it is trivial to find verification in other languages, even rough online translations are enough). Nuetrality requires that we do, as it would be like the prosecutor's description of a person accused of murder, but whose guilt has not been proven.--Cerejota (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic Misplaced Pages, as any Misplaced Pages, is not a source - it relies on sources. It doesn't suppose to have an opinion or express an opinion of its own. By calling the events in Gaza "massacre" they breach the basic rules of Misplaced Pages in any language. The fact that many Arab sources use this terminology doesn't make it okay to call the Arabic article "the Gaza Massacre". By having an interwiki to this Arabic article we (indirectly) acknowledge the Arabic Misplaced Pages improper judgment. While I don't expect English speaking Wikipedians to get involved in the Arabic Misplaced Pages, I do expect them to say: we will not link the article "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". We cannot suggest that these two articles are equivalent. We could mention in the body of the English article that there are Arab source that use this terminology, but our message to our Arabic speaking colleagues is: write a real equivalent article, and then we will interlink. You are part of the Misplaced Pages project and not another Arab source. DrorK (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to DroK,I note that linking to all Misplaced Pages articles is vital to indicate various approaches to covering an issue. The best that the English Misplaced Pages can do is indicate the questions arising in relation to the Arabic version. Not to link would be to close a door on an information source .Any item that provides information, whatever the origin of that information,is a source, even if only a source at a third or fourth remove.

My entry is definitely not part of this article work, but I feel that some background is needed. I am really sorry for the way this matter was badly presented. Dorok forgot to mention here a few minor facts. Such as the fact that almost all major Arabic news agencies address the event as "Massacre of Gaza", and by almost all I mean a really considerable amount of ALMOST ALL. Simply put, this is the name widely used in Arab world to refer to this event. Whether the name is not appealing to someone is not, and will not be an issue back in Arabic wikipedia. Such naming conflict is similar in nature to the Arabian-Persian gulf naming conflict. The article name might be changed in the future if the majorty of local media shift the use of the naming criteria. Such criteria was applied to the the 2006 war on Lebanon article as the article was finally named "حرب لبنان 2006" arabic for "2006 Lebanon War". That did not seem to bother Dorok at the time, as calls from lots to name it "Lebanon Massacre" were ignored

Drork contributions within this article on ar.wiki, were really few. The main highlights were: a couple of non-whatever discussed, extremely argumental article renaming attempts. Followed, when failed, by an 'you people should leave wikipedia' kind of argument. Then another undiscussed move followed, when failed, by an "You hate me cause I am an Israeli" kind of argument. Then another long "You are all nothing but a bunch of liars" argument. Sadly no real discussion was even attempted by Dorok. Similar argument were used by Dorok in the past in ar.wiki, arguments such as the 'if you do not agree with me then that means you are HAMAS' argument , and the famous 'you are nothing but a terrorist, your arguments are meaningless to me'. once Dorok pasted his two bits, he requested his userpage erased, and came here to ..... I don't know really. I find him capable of opening a discussion here.

Dorok might has been offended by the article title, I am willing to understand that. Every body here is offended by something. Yet, being offended is not relative to the work we handle. Lots of Arabic wkipedia users had there share of bad feelings cause of the use of the images within Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, yet, when a fast vote (here on en.wiki) took place most of Arabic[REDACTED] users, including my self, voted to keep the images within en.wikipedia. People crying to remove the en.interwiki from the arabic article where handled gently, as we explained to them the fact that en.wikipedia is another project, and communities on any project have the right to add any basic information or file they find appropriate to an article, the extent of the word appropriate is left to the community of the project in talk.

Personally I find the discussion that toke place above about Arabic wikipedia, extremely inappropriate, and certainly irrelevant to the article. Neither the larger size of English[REDACTED] , nore Arabic[REDACTED] refusal of disruptive actions is a good reason to smear Arabic[REDACTED] project within this talk-page.

Again I know my entry was irrelevant to this article. and I do apologize. I do not feel good when I am pushed to discuss gray with a black and white person, I know most of you feel the same. A single side of a story, is really nothing more than that. It does not matter if the story was part of an article or a compliant. --Tarawneh (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification - all of my edits were reverted, and I was called "a Zionist racist" and "a soldier in the occupation army" on the talk page of the Arabic article. For the record - I'm not a soldier, not even a civil servant. The fact that the majority (certainly not all) of Arab sources call the even "a massacre" is irrelevant. They might as well call Olmert "the murderer" it would NOT make this terminology valid for Misplaced Pages. These rules are applicable for all Wikipedias, and indeed despite certain problems with the he-wp article, no one there would even dream to call such an article "The War on Terror" or something similar to that, backing it with Hebrew sources. The Iranian sources certainly use the term "massacre" due to their anti-Israeli approach, and yet the Persian Misplaced Pages keep the article about the recent events in Gaza very neutral and informative. Despite the seemingly irrelevance of this discussion to en-wp, I am glad it is held here, because it might bring to people's attention the fact that there are rules which are applicable to all Wikipedias, and that Wikipedias in certain languages should not be left as an island or a closed community. DrorK (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork was given a short wikibreak on commons because of his insults there. Rules apply also to Drork. And one important rule is that[REDACTED] is not censored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, why won't you go and browse some of Latuff's albums, or paint some swastikas on your room walls? I think it will calm you down a bit. DrorK (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, give it a rest. Iranians and Olmert? what does that have to to do with the Arabic wipkedia article? And why are we even discussing this here? Plus rules? What rules? You do not mean the hidden unwritten secret rules like the ones you claimed exist in your argument in an attempt to speedy delete the Holocaust denial stub back on Arabic, cause the "concept of Holocaust denial" is illegal in some countries, and that time must not be waisted in such articles. Or the secret hidden rules you based your "I will make sure this project is closed down for good" big speech last year. Don't you find your claim to improve the article back there strange , when the only contributions you did had in its talkpage were nothing but insults to other users. Correct me if I was wrong, but the only sincere effort from your side to that article was to request its interwiki removed here by providing false claims.

Is this really about the article? Somebody insulted you! Man, I opened a special page for people to insult me. You had your share of actually insulting a lot of Arabic[REDACTED] editors, insulting them as editors. Still, you as a user was never blocked, dispite your behaviour (other than your 3rr blocks). A lots of Arabic[REDACTED] users including my self belive that regardless of your behaviour, the Israeli articles in Arabic[REDACTED] needs your contributions to provided the needed balance. Please give it a rest. If this is about the Arabic page, then there is a talk-page for that in Arabic wikipedia, and if this is about you, then this is not the page to discuss it. --Tarawneh (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarawneh, don't make it a personal issue. You know perfectly well that ar-wp has deteriorated into anti-Israeli propaganda. You know perfectly well that it also includes propaganda against Druze and other groups. I did my best to help improving it, but honestly I have had enough. It is a pity that we have this discussion here in English. Had it been on ar-wp I would have been called "Zionist racist" and blocked. DrorK (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The ArWiki editors are working on the article, DrorK. Kindly keep in mind that due to its nature as a work in progress, it is very much possible to have not-very-much-neatly-written paragraphs and/or bias-wise shady wordings. The common goal is, of course, to have everything fixed as soon as possible. Come along and join the work, and remember the golden rule: Do not think of discussion pages as forums or bulletin boards :) --Almasvault (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with DrorK, it is an unfair to name the article such but at the same time theres no harm to EnWiki linking to the Arabic page on the Gaza situation. Its useful to see how neutrality, differs from region to region, from language to language Superpie (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So neutrality is a matter of geography? DrorK (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just like conceptions of human rights, democracy, fashion, culture and every other thing that we humans know and do is a matter of geography, our concepts of neutrality differ too depending on our environment. Yes. I would have thought that clear? Superpie (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all this discussion has gone actually too long and should not be discussed here but in Arabic Misplaced Pages or something, because this is a matter of the Arabic Misplaced Pages and not the English Misplaced Pages. There is a discussion on the Arabic Misplaced Pages on why to change the article to the war on Gaza. Feel free to comment there and put these opinions there. Second of all the whole Arabic region sees the attacks as inhuman and as a total massacre because the attacks were air raids by the IAF where Gaza has no air defense and no military that could even defend the public. Half of the deaths were women and children, which makes the collateral damage too big. So, please don't say it's biased and so on the arabic article has all the info that make it unbiased mentioning the rocket attacks by Hamas that started the whole war, but also mentioning the total punishing of the palestinians through the closing of all Gazan borders, which resulted in no supplies including medical, petrol and food supplies. The punishing of all the Gazans is regarded as a massacre. The definition of a massacre is: "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people" Israel knew that there were civilians there and the casualities were too many to be regarded as a normal attack. The Arabs are very sensitive now about the subject. They know that it was a result of Hamas's attacks but still the civilian casualities were too much to be left without protest.

• What to do? Wait until this calms down and it may be called the war on gaza.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How come no other Misplaced Pages called the events in Gaza "a massacre"? How come the only Misplaced Pages that has an article called "The Gaza Holocaust" is the Arabic one (about a clash between Israel and Hamas in Feb 2008)? How come it is the only Misplaced Pages which has a category about "Zionist massacres" against Palestinians? How come it is the only one that has an article about Israel's plans to demolish Al-Aqsa Mosque? How come it is the only Misplaced Pages which refuses to acknowledge the fact that Hebrew is one of the main languages spoken in the region of Palestine? How come it is the only Misplaced Pages that describes the Western Wall as a holy Muslim shrine rather than a religious Jewish praying site? How come a person who protest this propaganda offered under the name Misplaced Pages is called "Zionist racist" (which is one of the reasons why this discussion is held here and not there)? DrorK (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a 💕 that anyone can edit. If you find something to be wrong change it and add a reliable citation. Help improve the Arabs' view by improving Misplaced Pages Arabic. Wish you luck and success :). The questions you asked can't be answered because each one can be debated for months and years. Each question leads to another question which in the end will lead to who has the right on Palestine and where the borders should be. Is it really your legal right to have the promised land? Is it your right to divide a land (after the UN of course) when only one side accepted the proposal while the other didn't? Is it your right to move an entire population forcibly again and again and again ? Is it your right to have (at first of course) half of a land where only 30% of a Jewish population existed and than gaining more? This is a big discussion and debate. It isn't in my league to debate these things but these are the question that you want to answer or actually here is my question: What do you want? What do u want to prove? Do u want to show the Arabs as a biased population? What is it you want to say, I mean what's your point? The Arabic Misplaced Pages is biased and there is no way it could be neutral again, is that your statement? Just tell me in one sentence please what do u want the English Misplaced Pages to do about the Arabic Misplaced Pages? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I started this discussion by saying that an article called "The Gaza Massacre" cannot be regarded as equivalent to this article. The discussion developed into a wider scope - which is a good thing actually, because the different Wikipedias must not be "islands", and mutual influence should not be limited to placing interwikis. As this discussion developed, the Arabic article about the events in Gaza improved significantly. Has this discussion in English motivated Arab Wikipedians to improve the Arabic article? I can't tell. I know that as long as the discussion was confined to the Arabic talk page, it didn't make the article much better. I know Misplaced Pages (in any language) is here to convey knowledge and facts, and having NPOV is necessary for this purpose. I gave some examples above to how the Arabic Misplaced Pages is used to express opinions and views rather than convey knowledge and facts. I know other Wikipedias have this problem too, but it seems to me that ar-wp has this problem more than others, especially in what concerns the Israeli-Arab conflict, but also in some other subjects. I wouldn't like to offer any explanation to that, but I do think this problem should be known and confronted. Many people here hide behind the idea that knowledge is relative, and different point of views should be respected, while they should demand that every article in any language would be written with the purpose of conveying facts and knowledge. DrorK (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) The other wikipedias dont call it a massacre because their sources do not call it a massacre. Arabic sources overwhelmingly do call it a massacre, and thus, the wiki being a product of its sources, the article is called the gaza massacre. This whole time you have been arguing that arabs shouldnt be calling it a massacre, that the facts dont support such a claim. That opinion, whether valid or not, is not what determines the name of an article, it is what the common name in the language for the event that determines the name. You cannot argue that the 2 wikis are discussing the same event, so to then argue that because of the common name for said event is in your mind, and understandably so, non-neutral that we should then censor that undermines core principles of the wikis. Yes the wiki should serve to convey facts and hopefully transfer knowledge, but what we think are facts are almost always perceptions of facts. It boggles my mind that something that should be as trivial as asking what is the common term associated with an event in a given language needs to be so difficult. If arabs are calling this event the gaza massacre, then surprise! the name of the article will be the gaza massacre. Nableezy (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that most (not all) Arabic resources call these events "a massacre" merely indicates that most Arabic resources have a certain opinion about these events. It does not mean that these events are actually a massacre nor that it should be called "a massacre" on any Misplaced Pages (save when presenting different opinions about the events). In fact, considering that the word "massacre" is judgmental (very close to the word "murder"), and that most non-Arabic resources don't use it, no Misplaced Pages, including the Arabic one, should use this word as a title for its articles about this subject. Claiming otherwise is claiming that knowledge is relative, and that knowledge changes according to language and culture. Arabs can use any terminology they want - the Arabic Misplaced Pages, as any Misplaced Pages, should adhere to NPOV. When an article in a certain language describes certain events in a one-sided way while trying to push extremist opinions (and note that the original version of the ar-wp article used terms like "occupation army" and other problematic terms which were removed eventually), the English Misplaced Pages cannot regarded as an equivalent article, simply because it talks about the same events. This has nothing to do with censorship. The English article includes all kind of references, but interwikis are not reference links, they are links to equivalent Wikipedian articles. DrorK (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NAME. The name of an event is the common name in the language of the wiki. It is not for you to say that some things are always in violation of NPOV, we have many articles with the name massacre in english, such as My Lai Massacre or Sabra and Shatila Massacre, and many many others. They do not have to be 'equivalent' articles to be interwikid, they need to discuss the same events. You are not arguing any of the points presented to you, you are just repeating the argument that the name the ar-wi is using is in violation of NPOV. That may well be, but the name is sourceable and verifiable, and it is the common name in that language. If you feel that the name is inappropriate take it up there, but if the consensus there says the name is Gaza Massacre then i guess you're SOL, but consensus here certainly seems to be in favor of maintaining the inter-wiki link, regardless of what some editors feel about the appropriateness of the name give on ar-wi. If you could at least respond to some of the arguments it would help in moving this discussion along. Is 'The Gaza Massacre' the common name in the arab world? Can it be sourced to RS? If it is then you are only trying to censor the wiki because you think they shouldnt be using the name in the arab world, not that because they are not using the phrase. And claiming that the arabic wiki should be 'allowed' to use the name is not claiming that knowledge changes from language and region, it is claiming that perceptions of the same reality changes from language and region. Not many besides you have suggested that we censor this article because of the language used in the arabic article, and no matter how big this thread gets I doubt many others will join. Nableezy (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me summarize my points:

1. The discussion on ar-wp is not free, or at least wasn't free when I tried to participate (I hope things have improved in the past few days).
2. You put too much emphasis on sources and consensus. Considering that "massacre" is an accusation rather than fact, you may not use this word when describing facts or when naming an article just because there is a consensus about this accusation, or many sources supporting it.
3. The Sabra and Shatila Massacre is called that way by all sides involved, and it had been condemned as a massacre by official Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli sources. It is not a consensus among Wikipedians or among certain kind of sources. ALL reliable sources in ALL languages acknowledge it as a massacre.
4. An interwiki is not merely a link to some article in another language which seems to be about the same subject. While it is not always possible, it should be checked whether the linked article is actually equivalent.
5. Neutral point of view, a principle applicable to all Wikipedias, means that an article should present knowledge from different angle without supporting a certain view. Calling the events in Gaza "massacre" is clearly a support in a certain view. The fact that many Arab resources use that term does not make it less POV. DrorK (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider this, none of that matters, the common name in arabic is 'The Gaza Massacre.' There is no other point to discuss unless you can refute this. And it is merely your opinion that this event is not a massacre, countless others will disagree with you. The Armenian Genocide page uses a term that Turks will say is non-neutral and shouldnt be allowed. Doesnt matter, it is called The Armenian Genocide in RS and is the common name of the incident, thus the title of the article. That some think it a POV violation is not enough to overcome these other issues. Nableezy (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying in fact is that there is no knowledge, only points of view, which are language and culture dependent. If this is the case, then Misplaced Pages is quite useless. DrorK (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying. Even those who agree with you that the term shouldnt be used still say the interwiki link should stay. Nableezy (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Your second point is an exaggeration, if not without some truth at times. Your first point is simply wrong, and not what I believe Nableezy is saying. We can have knowledge about facts - eg "XX people were killed at YY yesterday". Whether we then call that event a "massacre" an "incident" an "accident" or whatever does indeed depend - not so much on language and culture directly - as on perspective and interpretation. Those will inevitably differ depending on where the viewer is. The word massacre, despite of course having a dictionary definition, is a wholly subjective word, used in all sorts of different scenarios; and often used, yes, as a propaganda term in order to make a point. None of this detracts from the fact that is it is commonly used, even on WP, as this (incomplete) page attests. --Nickhh (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There certainly are facts, but names that people give to something is always a result of their perception. If the most common name for 'XX killng YY' was 'The murder of YY by XX' that would be a result of perception, or the other way 'The self-defense of XX from YY attacks' that would again be a perception. Either way, it is a fact that arab sources use the term and that it is a common name in arabic for the conflict. Nableezy (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DrorK, surely you aren't expecting each side to agree on this as disagreement is the heart of any conflict. It would be foolish for Wiki to not to give equal time for cited input only because both sides disagree. I believe we should document a diversity of cited info and, as usual, allow our dear readers to draw their own conclusions. Tell someone (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided not to involve myself with any argument where Drork is part of, but I've been reading the threads here, under Arabic Interwiki, during the past period and I found it compulsory to state the following facts to the readers and writers:

1. I wish that you can read Drork's contributions at Ar-Wp, even if they are not biased (which is very rare), then they are not supported with any type of sources, he's been requested trillion times, by myself and other users, to cite his resources and he has never done that.
2. Most, if not all, of his controversial contributions are in the area of removing any pro-Palestinians or anti-israeli facts.
3. And, most importantly, when he wants to make any edits, then he would do that without even discussing that in the talk page of the article, which is an integral part of adding your edits on all Wikis.
4. For this particular article "Gaza Massacre" he changed the name of the article, deleted parts of it, and added other parts, without even adding any single resource or discussing what he did on the talk page, at least, not before we started warning him of any non-supported edits.
5. On the top of all of that, he wants us to react as the following: YES SIR. Well Drork, no, this isn't the attitude u will receive from us as a response to your attitude.

Guys believe me, for Drork, the title of this article is aside of the point, what he is doing is propagandizing against Ar-Wp. Don’t feed him please. Yamanam (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling

What is wrong with you people? Omrim's horribly typed statement has been in the article for hours and I thought someone was going to fix it, I come back and it is still there? FIX IT!! Again, I cannot edit the article because my account is not auto confirmed yet. Please fix "Acoording to their statemets, About..." in the section entitled Samouni family. --Learsi si natas (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

done and chill Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typos. Sorry about that. And, Learsi si natas, you really shouldn't take it personally. You can at the least be tolerant to people (such as myself) for whom English is not mother tongue. Lucky for us, this is wiki, so I can assume your good faith. Otherwise I would have suspected that you have a problem with me, rather than with my typos.--Omrim (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

dont think we'll get a response, user has been blocked for username (read it backwards) Nableezy (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Originality is usually a virtue. Not in this case though...--Omrim (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good thing he was blocked. a username like that should never be allowed and thank g-d he can't edit this article or else we would be reading a gigantic piece of antisemitic propaganda.(Raphmam (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Oh GOD you people and you're constant whining about antisemitism this and antisemitism that no wonder American media doesn't report the warcrimes that Israelis do. Maybe we should do a piece about this in the article? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been blocked for one day you (insert profanity here) not for eternity. :) Nablezu 3yenuk - 68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Raphmam, Nablezu you aren't helping with comments like these. Everyone is frustrated. We're supposed to focus on the article not on the editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just letting him know we were not going to get a response, I dont really give a shit if this kid doesnt like me, it isnt going to affect me at all. Not like I am going to go racing to report him. Whatever tho, you right, but actually look at what I wrote and see if there is any kind of put down or offense I could have possibly sent, I didnt even say the name was bad (I thought it was funny that he tried to use the name) Nableezy (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should have kept your mouth shut instead of acting like a messenger of news. And you got your information wrong, I was banned for a day for my name, not a big crime here, doesn't mean I am not going to reply ever. It is so funny I became the subject of a discussion here. I thought you were supposed to discuss the article and not the editors. Thank you!!! -- 68.123.141.153 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, fine, whatever you say now leave me the fuck alone. Nableezy (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ginni kesir fumuk. I like you enough not to leave you alone. :) ---68.123.141.153 (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If we really need to resort to transliteration, ma takhrus ba', ana arab ya mish ayouz ashtimmik, bas xalas ba. Nableezy (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted --68.123.141.153 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Nableezy, I was addressing Raphmam and 68.123.141.153 (Nablezu 3yenuk ...which may mean something I'm not aware of, yeah I'm an idiot, it's not my fault, I blame the media). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He was trying to insult me, all good tho, I blame the vast military complex that controls the media Nableezy (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Note From Commentor

I am trying not to address in this comment the question of whether certain arguments are correct or incorrect. There are many paces where i believe statement are wrong but i am not addressing those. I am addressing the lack of balance in the article and explaining what other information should be included and how certain changes should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

UN attacked by Israel, end of humanitarian aid

Should probably be added to the notable events; Israelis attacked a UN humanitarian relief truck, killing the drivers, and causing the UN to completely end their humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza, citing this incident as well as the school bombings.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asduk0rLKzEWc5nTjkq.Dd.s0NUE

AndarielHalo (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For now, I added a brief note at the Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, which we seem to have forgotten about developing since it was farmed out of this article to its own page. I encourage editors to continue working on that article too, after which we can move parts of it back here. For new editors, that might be a good place to edit since this article is protected from editing by them. Odd. Tiamut 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its worth more than a brief note, the UN stopping and the Red cross perhaps stopping because of Israel shooting at them. — _CHANDLER — 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've created a section on "Attacks on United Nations' installations and workers", since there is this, the three attacks on UNRWA schools, etc. Here's hoping that the section won't get any longer (due to the facts on the ground) in the days to come. Tiamut 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The section I created has been deleted twice now, and without discussion. I don't feel like wasting my time putting it back in again when no one is bothering to discuss it. If others think it's worth pursuing, by all means go ahead. The information is basically covered in bits and pieces in the article anyway. Tiamut 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, is there a way you can "park" the section here or somewhere so that others can replace it when it's removed? (So we don't have to hunt for it in the history page) RomaC (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

We should get rid of the infoboxes in the "Notable Incidents" section. Clearly the article itself and Major parts of it deserves infoboxes but those parts are minor parts. It will just make the article blurry and double the information, the Samouni family infobox is as high as the actual information without contributing with anything. Unneccessary. If we keep them we should add an infobox to every minor part of the article where it is possible, like to the the "Rockets from Lebanon" section for example, so we can illustrate all attacks with infoboxes. Not just those where Israel is perpetrators, that is POV.--Fipplet (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the infoboxes highlighting major attacks are worth including. (The ones in this diff ) Is there is a major attack against Israelis by Palestinian militants that you would to include that is not currently represented?

Tomtom9041 has deleted them again it seems, without discussion. I for one would like to see them restored. Other editors, any thoughts? Tiamut 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Clearly the article itself and Major parts of it deserves infoboxes but those parts are minor parts. It will just make the article blurry and double the information, the Samouni family infobox is as high as the actual information without contributing with anything. Unneccessary. If we keep them we should add an infobox to every minor part of the article where it is possible, like to the the "Rockets from Lebanon" section for example." Also rockets that has killed Israelis are at least as worth having an infobox as the dignity infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fipplet (talk • contribs) 18:57, 8 January 2009

I see alll the aforementioned infoboxes have been removed.--98.111.139.133 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the info boxes looked good. Unfortunately, they oversimplified the issues and presented disputed circumstances as fact. They should be kept out for that reason alone. --Andi Hofer (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding structure

I have been following the development of this article, along with the issues raised on the talk page, for some days now, and I have to say that the article is extremely informative and reasonably neutral, the latter being especially impressive in light of the sensitivity of the topic and the fact that - let's be honest - several of the active editors seem to be motivated primarily by the desire to defend one or the other of the sides. Bottom line, this article increases my optimism regarding the Misplaced Pages process. I want to contribute to the page, and am waiting to be autoconfirmed. In the meantime, I would like to make some suggestions regarding the structure of the article, in the hopes one of you will be convinced by them and adopt them.

1. The article does not contain a section dealing with the negative effects of the conflict on the Israeli population. (I doubt anyone would deny that these are less severe than the effects on the Gaza population, but they are significant, and should be included. If the section gets anywhere near the length of the equivalent section on Gaza, then we can start arguing about undue weight.) They include shutting down of schools and workplaces, psychological trauma and large numbers of effective refugees as a result of Hamas rocket attacks.
2. The section "Alleged violations of international law" should be further subdivided into the specific crimes being alleged. "By the Israel Defence Forces" can be subdivided into "collective punishment", "targetting of enemy civilians" and "disproportionate response". While "By Palestinian militants" can be subdivided into "targetting of enemy civilians" and "use of own civilians as human shields". Further, I believe that Hamas is accused of additional violations of IL, such as executing its own civilians and rival Gazan militants as well as taking supplies intended for civilian aid. The recently added subsection "International Committee of the Red Cross" is superfluous, as its content already appears elsewhere in the section, and its title is misleading, implying that the ICRC is alleged to have violated IL. The intro to the whole section should probably note that Hamas is regarded by many countries to be a terrorist group and that, according to these countries, (I presume) any significant action by that group would be a violation of IL, per int'l conventions on terrorism.
3. The "External links" section is being overlooked, and is somewhat sloppy; it has links to sources that are not necessarily of primary significance, and also seems to point to a greater number of blatantly pro-Palestinian sources than blatantly pro-Israel sources.
4. The content in the recently added section "Expatriate community" is not significant enough to deserve its own section, unless -maybe - renamed to something less confusing such as "Foreigners in the conflict" and changed to include the conflict's effects on foreigners in Israel.
5. The last two paragraphs in the section "Israeli media campaign" have nothing to do with a media campaign. The last paragraph, which deals with alleged Israeli psychological warfare, can be combined with the paragraph in the "Casualties" section dealing with alleged Hamas psychological warfare and given its own section "Psychological warfare", possibly with "Alleged".
6. In the section "Reactions", the paragraph about crimes alleged to have been committed as a reaction to the conflict is significant enough to have its own subsection, while being expanded to include some level of detail.

I have many more suggestions, but I'll wait to see if any of these are adopted. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your suggestion to split out the "Psychological warfare" information. I did that, though I named it "Psychological tactics" (which I will probably change to your suggestion. It's much better.) I created a new section on the "Ban of foreign media to Gaza" out of part of the media material.

About your other points ... it's much easier if you just jump in and make a WP:BRD edit when you can. If the material is relevant and reliably sourced, people will usually work with it and find a place for it somewhere. And if your organization is an improvement, it'll usually stick. I'll try to integrate some of your suggestions myself though, until you can get into editing directly. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Tiamut 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice (and for your welcome), but the problem is that I can't make any edits to this article until I'm autoconfirmed, which will take 4 days. Regarding the psychological warfare section, I think the part about Hamas claiming to have abducted Israeli soldiers, and Israel's allegation that that claim is PsyWar, should be included. Also, I didn't think about it before you brought the issue up, but since the entire article is labelled using "conflict", the psy. aspect probably shouldn't use "warfare", a stronger term, and thus I agree with your original title, "tactics". Regarding the section on banning journalists, I think that the issue receiving an entire section and 4 paragraphs is seriously undue weight. There are many conflicts where a party refuses to allow entry from its territory into the other party's, and I haven't seen any other case where that fact receives an entire section in the WP article on the conflict. That being said, I admit that I don't have a good idea on where in the article the info should be placed. Thanks again for the welcome. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockets and mortar fire decreased 98%?

Really, is that a joke? I am having trouble to assume good faith here. It seems as if statistics are being used here not to describe facts but rather to promote someone's POV. Was a Linear Regression performed? What is the R square of this finding, and was the correlation found to have Statistical significance? Why not presenting the percentage differences between October and November (both presumably months in which the truce was still in effect)? It shows an increase of 200% in the rocket fire. Why four months of average? why not 6? why not a year? why not 10? Statistics is a very dangerous tool and should be used cautiously and only with expertise. What other Independent variables were used? Have you considered weather? what about the same time previous year? is it proven not to be cyclical? Statistical intrepretation is, after all, original research. Hence, please remove it. The fact the fire from Gaza has decreased is already there, and there is no need to add it with statistical interpretations, and we shouldn't do so. Come on people. At least TRY to be impartial.--Omrim (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You would do better to take the data, and, given your mathematical background, analyse it independently to show why, in your view, it breaks down or misconstrues the data. As it stands, your argument is generic and abstract, a rejection of principle, rather than a demonstration of the inadequacy of the statistical model given. Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My argument is everything but abstract. It is right to the point: to make a statistical conclusion one must have expertise in statistics. To say that a Dependent variable (rocket fire in our case) "decreased 98%", and to conclude that some Independent variable (a truce, in our case) was the cause for such a decrease is very hard to prove statistcally. Statistical proof = scientific proof, and hence demands rigorous and complicated procedure in which, among others, a researcher must explain his Statistical assumptions, his choice of variables, his choice of coefficients, and so on and so on. To do what you're asking me to do would take months, to say the least (I am serious here, really), and I have not interntion to embark in such a mission. Really, just take a look at the wikilinks I provided. The same way, do not pose statistics to be a fact. This is an original research, which given the time in which it was performed, has no merits what so ever. I think I made my ponit very clear when asking why doesn't the text demonstrates the ~200% increase from October to November? Is that a statistical fact showing that Hamas ended the truce in November? No! exactly just as that the 98% decrease doesn't show (statisticlly) nothing, and for this reason it should be out!--Omrim (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay how about: "immediately after the cease fire entered into affect, the fire from gaza decreased 98%, only to be increased 50% the next month. In the next following 3 months the fire decreased again 10%, 60% and 50% respectively, but increased 1000% in November, a month during which the truce was still in affect." Does that makes sense? no, but it is all true. Yet it has no statistical significance and shouldn't be there. Again: the statistical anlisys is all about original research and should be removed.--Omrim (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Omrim, The edit you refer to is mine and I would be happy to discuss it. The 98% reduction is a descriptive statement of the data presented by the Israeli government. As I stated in the edit (and several times before I made this edit) Rocket fire went from ~1900 to 37 in consecutive 4.5 mo periods. That is a 98% drop. None of the data is my own.

If you would like to argue that this didnt happen because of the ceasefire you may propose a way to rephrase the statement. Your contention however about statistics is not relevant in my opinion. Hamas agreed to stop launching rockets as part of the ceasefire. Hamas therefore would attribute the reduction in rocket launching to the ceasefire. Do you have any source suggesting a different reason for the reduction in rockets?

If you would like to say rockets increased ~200% from oct to nov you can do so. That would be a description of data as well in my opinion. Of course it would be most accurate if you provided context and referenced that Hamas said it launched retaliatory rockets due to the events of Nov 4. These are stated reasons and have nothing to do with statistical correlation. Thrylos000 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! got you there! context? why? why should we mention that Hamas argues that Israel breached the truce on Nov 4th? Is the rise in rocket fire statistically correlated to it? What we have here is a simple misunderstanding of what statistics is. IT IS NOT A DESCRIPTOR OF FACT, IT IS AN INTERPRETATION! Ask any first year statistics student. If you insist to include the 1000% rise as a DESCRIPTOR (not interpretation) than the Nov, 4th incident is not relevant. After all the incidentExplains why (maybe) it happend, it doesn't describe what had happened. What I am saying basically, is that 98% is not a fact. Average is also not a fact. Both are explaining facts. In order to make it a statistical fact you have to explain why you took only 4 month average (why not 8 years average); That you tested to see that the decrease is not statistically corellated with other events (for example, I can easily assume that Israeli raids also decreased substantially, maybe this explains the decrease in the rocket fire, I am sure we can find correlation here), and so on. I didn't invent it. look at the wikilinks I provided. Saying that Hamas has 98% adhered to the truce, is like saying that Hamas 96.5% (or whatever) is in violation of International Law. Finally please note I am not trying to bring forward at any stage what is Israel's stance here since it is unimportant statistically as well. This should be removed. You can call my point abstract as loud as you want. It is not. It is backed by hundreds of years of statistcal research. I'll add an analogy which may better explain my point: A man has a hobby of fire-engines spotting. He follows them and take notes. Few years into his hobby he says to his friend (based on his factual data he collected): 98% of the time I watched fire-trucks they were in the vicinity of fires. I can't help but conclude that fire-fighters cause fires.--Omrim (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A percentage is an arithmetic operation that summarizes data. Its not a statistical statement. Statistics deal with probability, uncertainty, correlation and associations. A percentage is not a statistical object. Thrylos000 (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is simply absolutely not true once the data is preceded by statements such as "following the truce...)". It is not even true on its own (without preceding statements) if the choice of data is not explained (again: why only 4 month average and not 8 years?)--Omrim (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When saying "98% decrease as a result of the truce, this is a statistical statement. It has all: variables, correlation, significance, coefficiencies. This is, simply stated, a statistical lie. (may well be true, but you can't tell since you didn't test it). it is certainly not "arithmetic".--Omrim (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrim, I have removed the ambiguous causal language in my statements. I do not fully agree with your criticism becuase causality can be attributed to certain events by actors such as Hamas (reduction in rockets after Jun 18, increase after Nov 4) without needing stastical confirmation, which is hardly relevant in this case. I agree that the wording can be improved however and made less ambiguous. Please check my edits and comment. Thank you. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I truly appreciate it. Really. If actors say something like: "because of the truce we didn't fire", by all means - include it. Include numbers. That's also Okay as they are factual. However, it is a long way before you could say that the truce is what brought about a 98% decrease. I was about to make a point with this statement:

"However, between Israel’s evacuation of Gaza and the election of Hamas (Aug. 15, 2005 – Jan. 25, 2006), there was an average of about 15 rocket and mortar attacks a month. Hence the average number of rockets fired during the truce represent a true decrease of ~20% in rockets and mortar attacks."

Of course it is not relevant any more. Just goes to show I wasn't lazy, and that I was trying to bring concerete example that shows why it is bad idea to include statistics. Thanks again. --Omrim (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrim, I appreciate what I view as your sincere effort to assure all statements are written with the necessary rigor, especially given the nature of this article. I am glad we were able to resolve this contention in good spirits. I welcome any criticism of my edits. Thanks. Thrylos000 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I still resent the 98% inclusion (due to the choice of periods), I think we should include the entire period (8 years) in which rockets are fired, or at least the period since Hamas took power (which then I suspect the results to be far less dramatic). But we all have to make compromises, right? well, this is mine.--Omrim (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

About statistical analyses, A recent statistical analysis by three academics (one at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one at Harvard and one from Tel Aviv University) found that an overwhelming majority of lulls in violence since 2000 (when the second intifada began) ended when Israelis killed Palestinians, sparking renewed tit-for-tat violence. According to Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki, "79 percent of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8 percent were interrupted by Palestinian attacks." The pattern was "more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. ... Of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96 percent." Tiamut 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this may indeed be the case. Yet, as a master's degree graduate you surely understand my statistical point: statistical causality claims must be rigorously supported. And this one wasn't. The articles you mentioned have no room in this article. However, we should definitely consider including them in Israeli–Palestinian conflict.--Omrim (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, out of my own interest in the subject: where was this study published? the source doesn't say. --Omrim (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the star tribune doesn't source this article. I wonder if it exists. Sounds like the kind of article that would (should) be all over the news. I would also be very interested in seeing it, and I agree it should be included in the more general article. Thrylos000 (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html. Not exactly peer review. Interesting nonetheless but Tiamut's post made it sound like a major, refereed study. Thrylos000 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say it is not the best statistical anlysis I have ever read and that is a hugh understatement."We defined "conflict pauses" as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side, and we asked which side killed first after conflict pauses of different durations". i.e., if there was a "pause" in the conflict, and rockets were fired into Israel, it wouldn't have been considered as if the "pause" ended as long as no one was killed as a result of the rockets. If Israel was able to hit the rocket launchers and kill the people who operated them, then Israel would be considered to "end the pause". Ridiculous. --Omrim (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It is an interesting report, but only in the sense of providing an extreme example of the farcical lengths that some “academics” will go to in order to push a POV. It starts with the fudging of data points. The number of attacks by Hamas on Israel is allegedly based on data from The Israeli consulate in NYC. The given source does indeed have a similar graph showing the number of rockets fired by Hamas into Israel, broken down by month. But is also has another graph, showing the number of mortar shells fired by Hamas into Israel, broken down by month. The number of those shells is nearly 50% higher than the number of rockets, but for some unexplained reason, they have not found their way into the “study”, thereby basing the result on less than 45% of the incidents. Stranger still is the unusual definition used by these “academics” for the ”end of the cease-fire” or “end of conflict pause”. You might think that a cease-fire ends when one side fires (a rocket, or a mortar shell) at the other side, but no. For these academics, a cease-fire ends only when someone is killed. So, Hamas can fire a shell or a rocket every 4-5 days (as they did - 26 shells/rockets in a 4 month period) – but that does not end the cease fire. It somehow magically ends only when Israel kills a Palestinian. Note that according to this weird definition, Hamas could have continued to fire at the same rate as it did before the cease fire – of 100+ rockets per months – but so long as no Israeli was actually killed, these ridiculous “academics” would consider the conflict “paused”. Israelis could be wounded by the hundreds by these rockets and mortars, but so long as the good doctors of Barzilai or Soroka hospitals managed to save their lives, these “academics” would pronounced the cease-fire in place, and the conflict “paused’. Ridiculous indeed. Had they tried to pawn this off on a peer-reviewed journal, they would have been laughed out of the place. NoCal100 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about statistics, but I do understand the notion that they can be used misleadingly to make a point. A mere tally of rockets fired over the period immediately preceding the ceasefire and up to the resumption of hostilities may be a skewed way of looking at the conflict as a whole, because the rocketfire spiked immediately beforehand.

As regards the politics of this offensive however, it is in fact a piece of obfuscation to present this one dimensional number in analysis anyway. I'm not saying it shouldn't be presented -- just that without detailed breakdown its only relevant to the conditions in southern israel and nothing more. The political significance of the rockets fired during the ceasefire was completely different than those fired before - those fired during the ceasefire were fired without Hamas' support, but Israel might claim, proved Hamas' were not competent at maintaining order. That's because they weren't fired by Hamas. No choice of statistical timescale could make one variable (quantity of rockets) faithfully present the behaviour of many political actors with complicated relationships —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.203.142 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Academics in inverted commas. Haushofer has a double PhD degree in Economics and Neuroscience, from Zurich and Harvard, Nancy Kanwisher is a brain scientist, and Anat Biletzki is an analytical philosopher of Wittgensteinian persuasion. The first two do research that requires considerable statistical expertise. What are our respective qualifications? We should be very careful in dismissing this.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote, or are you blindly impressed by titles? He may be a quadruple PhD for all I care, but this is such a shoddy piece of work that he'd be laughed out of any respectable academic publication had he tried to pawn this off as a serious study - and it's no wonder that it is published in a far-left blog rather than an academic magazine. NoCal100 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ipse dixit, NoCal100, instant whip-up master statistician. I'd reread what you wrote if I had even a skerrick of evidence from hundreds of edits that suggested you had anything more than the average boob's contact with higher learning. The contrary shows, as in putting the word academic in inverted commas, without knowing the background of those you editorialized on Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks or you will find yourself blocked again. This is your final warning. These academics did not write their ridiculous blog post as part of their research activity, which is in areas unrelated to the subject matter, but as political activists. Biletzki is a B'Tselem activist, Kanwisher is a an anti-war activist. Their blog post was ripped to shreds even by the fans of the Huffington post, for its obvious POV-pushing and data fudging, which you have not been able to refute. NoCal100 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the pot calling the kettle black, as when you called me 'half-assed', without provocation, yesterday at the Siege of Jerusalem (1948). I did not warn you, I'm an adult, and do not play wiki games. I reply according to the civility of my interlocutor, especially when his or her remarks speak of respectable academics being laughing stocks, ridiculous, shoddy, farcial and fudging. You used intemperate language of academics, and sneered at them with a piece of WP:SOAP. I Simply defended their integrity, in language your intemperance invited. Take a leaf from Omrim's impeccable manners. He said it all, and is responsive to queries with detailed technical reasoning. No one has problems with that.

p.s. I have never been blocked for anything like a WP:NPA violation. Only twice, two years ago, for 2 3RR violations. So that 'again' should be erased as a misrepresentation, like much of your incessant warnings to I/P editors all over the place. So let's drop it.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

These are valid points Nishidani, mind you. These sorts of concerns are all over Misplaced Pages, as you may expect. And thus, as spoken by Cerejota "We are readers not statistical analysis machines. Decontextualization is common of POV pushing. I can understand lack of balance in the article, there is indeed lack of balance. But this is not the way to go around fixing it."

My point is, Israel sees ceasefires and truces differently than their common definition. Israel itself has said in the past that it reserves the right to BREAK those ceasefires when it sees fit. Their reasoning being that if Hamas makes a move they need to respond, but even when Hamas does not make a move, Israel can because the country is involved in an ongoing conflict and its security is above the ceasefires and truces.

Hamas sees it the same way, but its options in answering to Israel attacks are limited. In fact, the s in options should be in parenthesis. It is then why, Israel is condemned when it makes these moves, because its options are greater and of multiple capacity.

Israel counts and plays with the number of rockets that fall in Israel. Hamas plays with the number of civilian deaths.

I am of the opinion, that unless you are personally involved in this conflict, we shouldn't take sides or defend one and/or attack the other. Defending people(specially when violence is concern) will get you off guard with your pants down. Cryptonio (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

infobox- moh casualty number

It should be a lot more clear in the infobox that this number comes from the Palestinian government, such as ".. killed according to the Palestinian ministry", and we should include an independent figure too. Otherwise it can be misleading, this figure doesn't have to be factual. 64.91.118.41 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hard, nearly impossible to get an independent figure since no foreign journalists are allowed in the Gaza Strip yet. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but we can go by estimates from some human rights groups or the UN. Has Israel given a figure yet on civillian casualties? If we include the Palestinian figure, we should include Israels as well, (both aren't independent). I would have complained about the same thing if right now only Israels figure was included, and not the one from the Palestinian authorities. 64.91.118.41 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Israel figures are completely from the Israeli side too, and there's even a debate about the number of people who are really injured (not shocked). --Darwish07 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Commented out Qatar statement returned

I've added Yesterday to the International Law, in the "By Palestinian militants" section:

• "Qatar Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that "The pretext of Israel concerning Palestinian rockets cannot deceive people", stressing that the occupation of Palestinian territories was the cause of the rockets. He also stated that ending the Israeli occupation is necessary to restore calm. "

but it was commented out, suggesting that this statement belong to the "By IDF forces" section. I'll return it back to the "By Palestinians" section cause I think it belongs there. If someone have problems about this, please discuss below. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The by idf is meaning that the allegation is directed at the idf so if it goes it goes there i think. But I think this should just go in the international reactions part, he is not really qualified to give this opinion, not when we have multiple UN quotes and HRW and things like that. Nableezy (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy that this statement does not belong in the Violations of International Law section, but not because of reliability, rather simply because of content. The statement does not deal with VOIL: it makes no allegation of that sort, nor does it refute such an allegation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for total number of Israeli dead and wounded

I found a page that lists all 4 Israelis killed by rocket and mortar fire:

• http://www.israelemb.org/Operation%20Cast%20Lead/Website4.htm

They are listed in the middle of the page. One is a soldier. Here is the list:

Since December 27: Four Israelis have been killed by rocket and mortar fire from Gaza.

Dec 27, 2008 - Beber Vaknin, 58, of Netivot was killed when a rocket fired from Gaza hit an apartment building in Netivot.

Dec 29, 2008 - Hani al-Mahdi, 27, of Aroar, a Beduin settlement in the Negev was killed when a Grad-type missile fired from Gaza exploded at a construction site in Ashkelon. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 29, 2008 - Irit Sheetrit, 39, of Ashdod was killed and several wounded when a Grad rocket exploded in the center of Ashdod. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 29, 2008 - Warrant Officer Lutfi Nasraladin, 38, of the Druze town of Daliat el-Carmel was killed by a mortar attack on a military base near Nahal Oz.

This explains the confusion between the number of civilians and soldiers killed. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation from Hebrew needed

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/HP_487.html#1/837/770

I have been told on my talk page that this article has some kind of total. Can someone translate? We really need a reference for the infobox. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I should introduce to my dear friend of many years, this friend got me through college, google :)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FHP_487.html%231%2F837%2F770&sl=iw&tl=en&history_state0= Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see any totals on the translated page though. Maybe there are articles on that site that total the number of Israeli physically injured/wounded. That is the reference we need most.

I found an updated total of Israeli dead in this BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818577.stm --Timeshifter (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New source for total Israeli wounded found

OCHA oPt (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory).

• http://www.ochaopt.org
• Protection of Civilians Weekly Report. 1-8 January 2009. "more than 80 Israeli soldiers have been injured since the ground operation began." --Timeshifter (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians, women and children

Anyone else think that the box should say the civilians dead are only women and children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiserkar (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, cause we are sure that there are definitely male civilian casualties, despite what what's his name from the UN thinks.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are they? On the Israeli side, civilians include anyone not in uniform.VR _talk 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooh. I just saw the ref:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#cite_note-un2009jan8-16. SO it appears we have exact numbers for the women and children. I suppose we could add them in brackets. What do the others think?VR _talk 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are charts and many details in the just-released weekly report:

http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_protection_of_civilians_weekly_2009_01_08_english.pdf

I think it merits inclusion in the infobox. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been arguing this point for several days now. I think its a significant point that none of the civilian counts include men. This is a distinction that ought to be made. I thought that the MoH was counting men too which is why I stepped back a bit but the newest UN report makes it clear that they don't. I strongly support a note stating that civilians only include women and men. Thrylos000 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before, with the same result. Are there no male civilians?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are male civilians, which is why it is important that we note that the counts do not include any possible male civilians, that they are only counting women and children. If you dont want to use the MoH report, which by itself is bs, then you have to include the fact the UN is not counting any possible male civilians in their counts. Nableezy (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Last time someone pointed out that there also may be female combatants. This is the only counter-factual to not making clear that A) the casualty count is in essence a count of women and children, and B) therefore it is a likely minimum. Someone with more knowledge of Hamas might like to say if they ever use female combatants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.203.142 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And it is bs that you dont have the MoH numbers because you are questioning their reliability only because they are Palestinian, yet you do not impose any such restriction on whatever the Israeli government report. The Israeli governments word is taken to be gospel while a Palestinians is shit. Why exactly can't we just cite the MoH number and with a note that they cannot be independently verified? Is it not enough that they cant be independently verified because the Israeli government, in contravention to an Israeli Supreme Court ruling is refusing to allow foreign press into Gaza? Nableezy (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You know I added this link a week ago, hoping it might help with our discussion, not for the article itself. But I don't think anybody saw it. Unfortunately it was archived within about two hours of my posting because the section mirrored an already open discussion about casualties. But men were partially included, it was just that UN did a very rough estimate and, for the most part, excluded them. So we can't really say men are completely excluded. Well we can say it but it probably isn't true. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot the actual link. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so by that perhaps we could say women and minors, but it is still not counting any adult men. The possibility remains for men who are civilians that are not counted and women or older children who are militants and are counted, either way the ambiguity is cleared up by accurately representing the sources and not just calling the count the civilian count. Nableezy (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article that I included says it did count some men: "North of the city, the agency attempted to get a more complete count by including adult men who were not wearing dark-blue police uniforms and whom community members identified as noncombatants." So men are obviously grossly undercounted but not excluded completely, at least by the UN.

"North of the city, the agency attempted to get a more complete count by including adult men who were not wearing dark-blue police uniforms and whom community members identified as noncombatants." I've not seen a UN estimate from their situation reports state civilian casualties. The most recent one, as nearly all the rest only cites women and children (Totaling 303). Thrylos000 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidence of key words is unbalanced

Israeli says ongoing rocket fire from Gaza is its reason for launching the offensive. The words "Qassam" and "(Palestinian) rocket(s)" appear a total of 58 times in the article. Meanwhile, Hamas says the ongoing blockade by Israel is its reason for launching the rockets. The word "blockade" appears only 12 times throughout. Is this a neutral article? RomaC (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The mention of the Palestinian rocket attacks is frequent because they are not just limited to the time before the conflict. Hamas and other Palestinian militias fire rockets everyday in retaliation to daily air/artillery strikes by Israel or vice versa. Maybe the mention of Qassam attacks could be slightly decreased in the Background section (haven't even read that section myself yet), but nonetheless counting how many times it's mentioned compared to the word "blockade" is not a way to judge the neutrality of the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, I should have focused more, excuse me. It's exactly the "background" section where this presents a problem, as that section is where readers will hope to find out what precipitated the conflict. There, "rocket" is mentioned 25 times and "blockade" is mentioned 4 times. Suggest edits tor neutrality in this section. RomaC (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see now. I apologize for my ignorant reply then. I just read it and the background section seems fairly neutral, but perhaps the bottom paragraphs of the "Extension" sub-section could be slightly reworded in order to achieve full NPOV. We should work on that part specifically. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By this logic, the article is also unbalanced because the word "Israel" occues much more frequently then "Hamas". Usage of words, not mere frequency, should be the criteria of determining objectivity. 208.100.138.69 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What about "tank" or "jet"? shouldn't you count those in?--Omrim (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I strongly oppose any edits on the basis of "word counting". Please bring examples for biased phrases before editing. We're not counting words, we're reporting facts, and each word appears in a factual context. For example, the word "rocket" is mentioned several times in the context of Hamas so called abiding by the truce by not firing "rockets". I wouldn't assume it is this phrase you want to see deleted. Hence, bring concrete examples and let's discuss.--Omrim (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As a general point though I do think there is merit in RomaC trying to be deterministic here in an attempt to assess neutrality. We can argue about details, methods and so forth (and probably get nowhere) but I for one support this kind of approach because it can identify potential problems to be discussed. In fact for interest there is a research project that attempts to do this kind of thing going on right now at a university in Israel. It's quite interesting. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We are readers not statistical analysis machines. Decontextualization is common of POV pushing. I can understand lack of balance in the article, there is indeed lack of balance. But this is not the way to go around fixing it.--Cerejota (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You can, others may not judging from the numerous decontextualized statements editors make on both sides. But your point is true and fair comment. My point really was just that it doesn't hurt for someone to highlight apparent disparities in language usage using simple methods from time to time as a sort of reality check. Let's be honest, there's a demographic problem in en-wiki and the number of devoted editors is quite small so you can end up with a POV version of genetic drift. Anyway, I'll leave it there. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Psychological Warfare"

The Psychological Warfare section is a bit questionable. I wouldn't call roof knocking 'psychological warfare'. It's a technique designed to limit civilian casualties. See: , . I've changed it, but I'd definitely be willing to have a discussion if there was a consensus against it. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

UNSC resolution 1860: immediate cease fire

Well, hopefuly this is the end to it. Is it custom to put it in the infobox as "result"?--Omrim (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do both parties respect it?VR _talk 03:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been a result until the hostilities have ended, though this definitely deserves its own section. Nableezy (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I divided up the international reactions into a UN reactions section and briefly talked about UN Security Council Resolution 1860. Israel has yet to respond to the ceasefire and I assume that the UN's passage of this resolution is only a step towards a future resolution. Israeli officials are currently working with Egyptian officials. Let me know what you think about the section. I would not put anything in the info box. Israel is a sovereign nation and does not answer to the United Nations and has not accepted the resolution to a ceasefire.

Not exactly immediate; Nableezy (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, both sides rejected it officially now. --Omrim (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Date by date

The section 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Humanitarian_aid_deliveries resembles the date by date entries we had in the "Development" section, until they were rightfully moved out to Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The section should have a similar fate, with its contents summarized here.

However, I'm wondering if we should create a new article for the Gaza humanitarian crisis (and move a lot of the humanitarian stuff there), or just move this date by date content to the timeline article?VR _talk 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Topic of the article (pointy as pointy gets)

A very worrying edit to the lead was introduced, which clains this conflict was "accelarated" rather than begun on 27 December 2008. This would be a major re-purposing of this article, and given the attempts to WP:POVFORK "Operation Cast Lead", very worrying. To be clear, this article is about the specifics

We agree that the current title might not be the best, but it is the best neutral alternative a rough consensus has allowed. Ambiguities regarding its title should be fixed early in the lead, and hence the specification of the conflict "starting on". Context that this conflict is part of a wider conflict is given by wikilinking to the Parent of All Parents of articles in this topic: Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A discussion of title alternative is ongoing, and discussion should be had there. We have no deadline.

I personally see that continuing beating of this dead horse into a mushy pulp as evidence of some editors insisting on establishing a point of view. Under advisory of this article being under sanctions precisely because of large scale flounting of the editing process by means of disruption, please stop. To show your unhappiness with the consensus by unproductive editing is pointy as pointy gets. Thank you for your time. --Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are just wrong about this. The article is named 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict. It is you who are trying to WP:POVFORK the article to Operation Cast Lead. I want to the article to reflect its title. If it were indeed about Operation Cast Lead then you can say it began on 27 December 2008, but since it is NOT about that it is inappropriate (ie WRONG) to claim the 2008 conflict began then. This is an issue of reality simply. Once your title is changed then change the wording. In the meantime it is simply ridiculous to have it read the way you would have it. Sorry. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All comments regarding the lead belong at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, please move them there. Cheers, VR _talk 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

humanitarian crisis

i just noticed this line

"U.N. spokesman Chris Gunness said We've been coordinating with them (Israeli forces) and yet our staff continue to be hit and killed."

and the quote is in italics and not in quotes. this should probably be changed, no? Untwirl (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

done. Untwirl (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of international law misrepresentation

It makes no sense whatsoever that the violations for the IDF is around double the size of the hamas violations. It's common sense that a terrorist organization violates much more laws than a democratic state(israel). Everyone knows that Hamas has been the source of much critisism for their many human rights violations.these include:

-Targeting civilians
-launching rockets towards civilian areas
-killing their own people (caused by misfiring of mortars)
-using it's civilian population as human shields
-not allowing media coverage for certain events they don't approve of (such as killing their own people)
-stealing aid
-stealing doctors from civilians
-attempting to capture IDF soldiers
-stashing weapons in civilian houses
-telling people to go to targeted houses and using civilians because they know Israel is too humane to kill them
-......
the list goes on. I suggest that either the IDF subsection is shortened or peple try to lengthen the hamas section of human rights violation so thzat the article is more truthful. I alraedy started doing this but i don't have the time to do it all on my own. Thank you. (Raphmam (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

• Totally agree. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• All of this is the extreme POV of the Israeli side. A lot of such stuff is denied by Hamas. And the truth is that both sides (IDF and Hamas) are bastards anyway and causing a humanitarian crisis to innocent people. Duh, the IDF is accused of using civilians as human shields too as lately said by Amnesty international. Do not give the impression that the IDF is a saint in such a crisis of all aspects of respectful life in Gaza and all those evidences and reports by more than 6 humanitarian organizations. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What you refer to as "common sense" is, in fact, a POV. Moreover, when you say "everyone knows", you are again referring to a particular point of view. The point here is to cover what has already been reported by mainstream sources. Without adopting any particular position on this issue and without attempting to delve into the reasons for this, it must be conceded that mainstream sources have focused on Palestinian casualties and violations of international law by Israeli forces. That is why the section on violations by the IDF needs to be larger.Jacob2718 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, as I explained above it is common knowledge. I even listed examples. All the mainstream media sources I have been reading have been mentioning mostly hamas human rights violations. It seems like the "mainstream media you are referring to may have there own POVs and are not really that mainstream. Misplaced Pages should definitely not adopt a position on this situation like you said. That is the exact reason the idf part needs to be shortened and the hams part lengthened. It demonstrates a clear POV to have have the israeli side's violations double that of a terrorist organization. All you need to do is open your eyes and see all the media sources that allege human rights violations on the israeli side.(Raphmam (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Hi, there was (is?) a debate about this but the archive bot seems to suffer from some sort of obsessive compulsive cleaning disorder or else it's using the time system of a rapidly rotating planet rather than earth. Have a look in archive...er...hang on...yes it's 7 here. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• "I suggest that either the IDF subsection is shortened or peple try to lengthen the hamas section of human rights violation." I think that many would see that as a violation of WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 05:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree VR. If the Palestinian section isn't lengthened than it is definitely a violation of WP:UNDUE. (Raphmam (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I made some efforts to reduce the size of the Israeli section, without removing too much content. This is obviously a better thing to do in an article that is already too long.VR _talk 06:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to throw a quick comment out there about WP:UNDUE. There appears to be an implicit assumption that accusations against the IDF and Hamas should be given equal weight. That seems to be inconsistent with the pronouncements of international bodies such as the UN and many more, various human right groups and very remarkably indeed, even the ICRC. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a wrong interpretation of WP:UNDUE. If 10 different official people blamed X, and 4 blamed Y, Do you want Misplaced Pages to give the impression that 5 blamed X and 5 blamed Y? Ofcourse not, cause this will be skewing data to make a POV. And the POV will be forcing our opinion of WP:UNDUE against the events themselves. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

White Phosphorus Again

Some editors have been particular concerned with the possibility the WP is being used in Gaza in an anti-personnel capacity. I have not been following this conversation too closely so I'll refrain from commenting for the time being but perhaps this article] from the Times (London) deserves attention: Gaza victims' burns increase concern over phosphorus

Excerpt: "There were indications last night that Palestinian civilians have been injured by the bombs, which burn intensely. Hassan Khalass, a doctor at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, told The Times that he had been dealing with patients who he suspected had been burnt by white phosphorus. Muhammad Azayzeh, 28, an emergency medical technician in the city, said: “The burns are very unusual. They don't look like burns we have normally seen. They are third-level burns that we can't seem to control.”...Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian war surgery specialist working in Gaza, told The Times that he had seen injuries believed to have resulted from Israel's use of a new “dense inert metal explosive” that caused “extreme explosions”. He said: “Those inside the perimeter of this weapon's power zone will be torn completely apart. We have seen numerous amputations that we suspect have been caused by this.”"

but also: "Human Rights Watch had no evidence that Israel was using incendiaries as weapons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

White phosphorous is not a “dense inert metal explosive”. Bombs (conventional bombs) can have various explosives in them. Some of them cause intense heat and burns. I don't know what's used in Gaza, but the quote doesn't match WP. okedem (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this Dense Inert Metal Explosive. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Gaza Massacre"

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

There was a huge bloody debate about the term in Archive 9. Please read it completely before discussing the topic any further. And if you completely absolutely think your concerns wasn't debated there (I doubt), you should discuss it on the Lead anyway. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead.VR _talk 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been debated to death in ]. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Word, some people refuse on acknowledging simple basic facts with plain sources when presented to them, to remove a phrase is simple censorship on the basis the some dont think the arabs should be calling it this, the argument that arabs are calling it this has been presented and proven, but still some feel the must disrupt. Nableezy (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really I thought you took pride when Arabs are silenced especially Arabs who go against the majority. Interesting. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make any further comments here. Make the comments at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead, just so all the discussion is happening at one place.VR _talk 05:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you want this somewhere else but I have to respond to ol boy up there. I am one of the most pro-Arab people you will ever think of meeting, so dont be talking shit when you dont know what your saying. The fact that I don't let (or at least try to not let) my pride in my people influence what I write here on[REDACTED] I think is a virtue. You really have no right to question my loyalty to my people or my pride in them, so please knock it off. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nabz -- Please don't let a sniping anon editor get under your skin. RomaC (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

youtube as a source?

i had started a section for this but it got archived rather quickly

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_10#youtube_as_a_source.3F

i noticed that vr made an edit with regard to youtube not being a good source and wondered if you could also look at this one. Untwirl (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, youtube is generally not a good source for several reasons. Many times videos are open to interpretation. Also, anyone can post things there. Also, not everything on youtube is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.

Finally, I have not seen any argument/fact on youtube that is also not published in major newspapers or other reliable sources. So let's use these papers, and not youtube.VR _talk 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks - do you have an opinion on whether we should strike the edit i referred to in the above post? i'm new and trying to step lightly after treading on some toes in the recent past. Untwirl (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree, VR, I think a YouTube post would be OK if it was in English, and a video of a well known political or other figure. For example, if during the 08 Presidential Campaign, if any of the candidate had posted a speech on YouTube, it would be OK by me... V. Joe (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Name change Proposal: Israel's Assault on Gaza 2008-2009

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

Please move discussion to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Requested_Move_4_January_2009

Time Magazine calls the so-called conflict "Israeli's Deadly Assault on Gaza" and also "Israel's Gaza Assault"

I think this is a suitable name for this event because the term conflict is broad and when has it never been conflict between Gaza and the Israelis? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine referred to a specific attack on Gaza City, not to the entire conflict which takes place in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel. If you want my general opinion about adopting names and titles from the press, you can see what I've just written under "Arabic Interwiki" on this page (at the bottom of that long paragraph). DrorK (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To which specific attack are you referring to? It appears that the "Israel's Gaza Assault" refers to Israeli Airstrikes on Dec 27 and onward to the date of the article which is Dec 29. They labeled the conflict as "Israel's Gaza Assault" and not a certain attack. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You were referring to to the title of the image. The title describes the image, not the entire conflict. DrorK (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not the image I am only referring to, btw it is a slideshow of images. Please refer to the article that I am referring to (the second link). Here it is again --68.123.141.153 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I'm actually more inclined towards "Gaza's rocket barrages on Israeli towns 2008-2009". Do you seriously claim this proposition to be NPOV? Rabend (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Women and Children in Info Box?

This edit, again by BobaFett, who I've twice before mentioned has carried out questionable edits without discussion removes women and children casualty numbers from the infobox. He says "BobaFett85 (Talk | contribs) (This is already all mentioned downstairs in the casualties section,the infobox is here to cite numb. of combatant KIA from both sides and the numb. of civilians killed,everything else goes downstairs)"

I would like to open this for discussion. I for one support the format where women and children casualties are stated in the infobox. Please discuss your opinions below. I encourage Bobafett to reconsider his unilateral approach to editing this page. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the call for Bobafett to join the talk page while editing, so as to address the concerns of users. He should also look at the section below.VR _talk 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support since adult male civilians are not included. Damn, I though we already discussed this like three times. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please state from where you are going to take reliable sources about the women and children who were killed. I know Israel publish this kind of data, but Hamas don't publish his casualties, so we don't know for sure how many of the dead are combatants and how many are civilians. Furthermore, why women and children and not civilians in general? DrorK (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly get what you're saying in the first two sentences, so I won't comment until a clarification. However, as for the last sentence: It would be misleading to the reader when he reads the civilian casualty number and then thinks those are all the civilians killed. These are just the stats for women and children, why the men lack mention, I don't know. It must be clarified or the reader might think the rest of the 760+ killed were militiamen. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree that it must be made clear when the counts reference women and children. The UN publishes this data daily, recently it has been citing the PMoH. Sources are not the problem. I was specifically referring to the inclusion of this data in the infobox as Bobafett's edit removed it. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the UN doesn't have a delegation or a peacekeeping force in Gaza that can collect data about this conflict directly. They rely on some kind of reports. Who supply this report and what are the criteria? Is it based upon the Shifa hospital records? Is it data collected by UNRWA? Is a child anyone below 18? Are these numbers final or estimations? DrorK (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are coming from, at least cited to, Palestinian health agencies. We do not know how they define children and we have been putting approx signs in front of any estimates. But we do properly attribute the source and further we state that the Palestinian numbers cannot be independently verified, I would think that is qualification enough until final internationally and independently verified numbers are given. Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox inclusions

There are a couple of issues.

• 4 UN envoys have been killed since the start of the conflict. Are they Palestinians, or included in the Palestinian casualties? If yes, that's ok, if not then they need to be mentioned separately.
• This edit keeps repeating itself. The source for these deaths, according to JP, is Hamas. It was agreed that Hamas isn't a reliable source: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_6#Is_Hamas_a_reliable_source.3F. If the consensus has changed, someone should remind me. Even if it is, than these 35 deaths are likely counted as civilians (or unknown) on the Palestinian side. We don't differentiate between Israeli soldiers killed by Hamas, and Israeli soldiers killed by Israeli tanks, I don't see why it should be any different for Palestinians.
• Should Palestinian women and children be mentioned as reported by UN?

That's it for now.VR _talk 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

actually  jp doesn't even say 'hamas' is says 'sources close to Hamas"

i think we should report what rs say, what hamas says and what israel says as just that - what they say - and leave it at that. 
leave the interpretation to the reader.   we shouldn't state what unnamed sources close to hamas or israel say. Untwirl (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes for the third point and as for the second, those allegedly killed by Hamas were killed purposely unlike the Israelis who were killed by accident. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the PDF file a UN official report or an UNRWA report? UNRWA reports usually reflect the Palestinian view. I'm not saying the Palestinian view is incorrect, but it should be checked and compared to other resources. DrorK (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So you think that we should single them out, but not single the Israelis killed in friendly fire out? I'm assuming that those 35 deaths (if happened) are already included in the death toll, and there's no evidence to say the contrary (or maybe I'm missing something). Finally quoting the Hamas killing of Fatah members, using Hamas sources, gives legitimacy to Hamas as a reliable source. Is this what we want?VR _talk: 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas, like the IDF should not be relied on exclusively, I agree. I now also change my stance on your second point. I didn't take into account that the allegedly killed are highly likely to have already been included in the total Palestinian casualty count, if they were indeed killed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, I'm assuming you haven't been following casualty reporting very closely, or the media situation in Gaza. There are no foreign journalists there and there thus no "independent" verification of sources. As can be expected official figures of casualties will be reported by the respective institutions of each side, in the Palestinian case, the PMoH is the most cited source. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights also publishes casualty figures which are not straight from the PMoH, but they are just as "Palestinian." The UN report is a UN OCHA report.

I would not take any figures given by Hamas (or sources "close to") and report them in WP. Please refer to Hezbollywood for some reasons why. I would be more inclined towards using info from independent humanitarian Palestinian organizations. Rabend (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If I said the same about the Israeli govt I would be called an anti-semite. We clearly reference where the numbers come from and explain that the cannot be independently verified. That should be enough. Nableezy (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the infobox inclusion of women and children casualties. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not support the inclusion of women and children in the infobox. How many war articles have we had on Misplaced Pages, name me several, or even one that states in the infobox how many women and children there are among the dead civilians. State the number of killed women and children, but not in the infobox, in the infobox we put only the numbers of combatants killed from both sides and the number of civilians killed from both sides. The casualties section covers enough of the issue of the numbers of women and children killed. No need to say it in the infobox. Also, the number of civilians killed by Hamas who have been accused by Hamas of being Israeli or Fatah collaborators, these are not counted in the total count of Palestinian deaths so they should me mentioned in the part of the infobox that also mentiones the Egyptian border guard killed. MoH and the UN have stated that all of the deaths of Palestinians by this point have been the result of the fighting and of the bombings, as a result of the Israeli offensive, this is an internal matter among the Palestinians. Also, the four UN relief workers are Palestinians, thus they are counted in the total number of dead Palestinians so stop mentioning them separately in the infobox. I have already mentioned them along with 21 medical workers killed in the casualties section. BobaFett85 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to include a figure of "35" palestinians killed in internecine conflict, you need a better source than a single JP article (or its reprints in other newspapers). Jacob2718 (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't put the source, second, the incident was given little attention for obvious reasons and so I doubt there will be any more sources then this one but if the incident occured the figure should be put in the infobox, third it is stated in an Israeli newspaper by Palestinian officials, that would make an acknowledgment by both sides of the incident. BOTH SIDES ACKNOWLEDGE IT.BobaFett85 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The palestinian un workers warrant separate mention because of their un association, the women and children go in because the sources explicitly say women and children, so to avoid any ambiguity as to whether or not men are civilians or women are militants we report it as the sources do. Nableezy (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK here's a compromise solution, we put in the infobox the number of UN and medical workers killed and women and children, BUT we put it beside the ** at the bottom, where already I have put the mention of the Ukranian woman and here child. So? What do you say? Is it a deal?BobaFett85 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be opposite the Israeli killed and wounded, the Israelis and Palestinians are the two principle groups suffering casualties so they should be put in the main section of casualties. I think it would be dishonest for us to say civilians when all our sources explicitly say women and children. Or at least we say civilian in the main section of the infobox with a *note at the bottom stating that Palestinian casualty figures are only counting women and children. Does that sound reasonable? Nableezy (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Check other war articles, there are dozens of them that state just the bare main number of dead combatants in the main part of the infobox but put *note at the bottom stating additional things about the casualties. Check the Iraq war article for example. Listen, I have agreed to this solution, the numbers will be in the infobox but I don't accept the women and children be mentioned in the uper part of the box because that would look like propaganda against the Israelis, any reader of Misplaced Pages who comes to read the article and checks the infobox will first see the number of dead women and children and think Those killers!. This way it is more neutral, just what Misplaced Pages is all about. In any case the infobox is there to state the bare numbers of dead combatants from both sides and the numbers of civilians killed from both sides, as for how many are children and women, well, that's why we have *.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While it may look like propaganda it is only accurately reflecting the source. No matter tho, I agreed to this, if others do as well id say feel free to modify. Nableezy (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Three unaddressed problems with the term "Gaza Massacre"

There are three problems with the term "Gaza Massacre" which have yet be addressed.

• Firstly, the term violates WP:NPOV. It is incorrect to answer "well we have the Israeli name so we should have the Arab name". The Israeli is just a random name given to a military operation. The name is not a per se POV. On the other hand, the Arab name is controversial and contentious. It is a direct false attack on the IDF. The definition of Massacre is

(International Humanitarian Law term from the Martens Clause). Nobody reasonable will argue that Israel's actions fit under this accepted definition. WP:NPOV does not require that each side gets "their name." In this case, if each side gets their name the result is a greater WP:NPOV violation then if the attack name is excluded from the lede.

• Secondly, there is no reliable sources supporting the claim that the Arab World calPls it the "Gaza Massacre". Ghits are irrelevant when they consist of of screaming-attention-grabbing headlines of sources whose reliability is unknown. We need significant reliable sources which state that "the Arab world calls this the Gaza Massacre". Not one has yet to be found.

• The third problem is sort of collateral of the second. Apparently this term massacre in relation to Israeli actions has been around for a while and has been applied to a number of other incidents. A look at Google News archives reveals that this is not the only incident that the Arab world has called a massacre. The term "massacre" is not unique to this particular action. Thus it would be wrong to call this a "massacre". They are not calling it a specific name. Every Israeli action that kills multiple people gets a "massacre reaction". The Arab world is not giving the action a proper noun. They are merely describing the action. Look at this way: instead of calling each Israel action a "killing", they are calling it a "massacre". That being said, there is no intention of giving a specific name to the Israeli operation. The action taken by editors in naming this conflict is original research, at best.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Rabend (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As to your claim that Nobody reasonable will argue that Israel's actions fit under this accepted definition., what do you make of this? If the Daily Telegraph is not in error, then what is that other than a massacre? JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume the Israelis really want to kill Arab civilians. Why would they? It's just not worth it due to the loss of public international support.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if the name given to the conflict is true, it only matters that is the name they use. WE are not using the name, we are only saying that the Arab world calls is 'The Gaza Massacre' Nableezy (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is bullshit, you have been given too many to count Arab sources that clearly refer to the conflict as 'The Gaza Massacre.' You refuse to acknowledge this point, it is not POV to say that Arabs are calling this 'The Gaza Massacre' it is a statement of fact backed up by a number of sources. All of these points have been addressed, you just refuse to acknowledge them. Archive 9 contains the entire discussion, and it blatantly dishonest for you to come back here and claim that these points have not been addressed. Nableezy (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling another editors comments "bullshit" isn't conducive to a civil discussion. You also misinterpreted my stance. I have acknowledged the reference to "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab media. However, ghits do not overcome the lack of WP:RS and the use of WP:SYNTH, two important Misplaced Pages policies. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Making bullshit arguments is not conducive to actually moving this article forward. You said not a single RS has been used to show that the name used is Gaza Massacre, so no I did not misinterpret your words, if your words dont match you your stance not much I can do about it. And WP:SYNTH doen not apply, arab sources can be quoted using the term 'The Gaza Massacre', so there is no synthesis of sources. Surely arab media is at least reliable enough to report what the name of a conflict in arabic is. Nableezy (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, please stop referring to another editor's comments as "bullshit". WP:CIVIL is WP policy that must be abided by even if when you disagree with another's opinion. As for "moving the article forward", I'm not trying to move anything forward. I'm trying to make it neutral and verifiable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Playing dumb is included in that policy. We have given you numerous sources yet you keep asking for 'only one.' Nableezy (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take this discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Lead where this point has already been discussed. The point here is to report notable events. We cannot judge whether or not Israeli actions should be called a massacre; we can only report notable names and nouns that are used by third parties to describe these actions. In this context, a google news search for "gaza massacre" (note the quotes) http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&nolr=1&q=gaza+massacre&btnG=Search yields almost 40,000 results. This is about the same number of results that "Operation Cast Lead" results in. I think it cannot be disputed that the term "Gaza Massacre" is in wide use. Hence, it is notable and deserves a mention. Now, individual[REDACTED] editors may or may not feel that this name is justified, but that is their personal opinion which is not relevant here. Jacob2718 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the viewpoint that it is very POV-ish to say "Gaza Massacre". Israel's view of this is defense in response to Hamas's 144 rockets and 86 mortars fired from Gaza at Israeli 'civilian' targets. Two extremely differing viewpoints from that of the "Arab world". "Gaza Massacre" suggests that Israel has cruelly and hastefully killed a huge number of innocent people intentionally and violated international law. This is very much more POV than "Operation Cast Lead" could ever be. Operation Cast Lead has no accusations, no bias or hateful connotation. Nothing. Its just random words as said above.Coreywalters06 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One last point on this page. It doesnt matter if you think it is POV of arabs to call it 'The Gaza Massacre,' that they do call it that is what matters. The name given by the Israelis is 'Operation Cast Lead' if they wanted to call it 'Operation to drive out thos god hating muslims' then I wouldnt object to having that as the Israeli name for the event. It is not a POV violation to accurately report what Arabs are calling it, the argument here, again, is that arabs should not be using the term, not that they are not using the term, That they are using the term is enough for inclusion. Nableezy (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, again, it does not matter if we think the name is POV, it matters that RS tell us it is the name being used in the Arab world for the IDF campaign in Gaza. Actually I think we need to change that bit in the lead, from "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre..." to "the campaign/offensive has been called the Gaza Massacre..." as the sources apply the name to the IDF military campaign and not the "conflict" in general. RomaC (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Below "Reply to claim 1" and "Reply to claim 3" paragraphs answers your concerns. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to claim 1:First I'd suggest seeing Archive 9 cause all of this is debated. Second, If the Arabs called the operation The "Most horrible, Sickening, Disgusting, Revolting, Baby-killing, Maggot-infested, sorry, Rotten" operation, we'll put it. If the Israeli called it "Kill all those fucking bastard Arabs" we'll put it so. There's no point in debating about the logical and psychological dimensions of the names. If anyone have a problem with the damn names, discuss it with the callers, not in here. This issue has been debated to death. The same arguments go over and over again, I'm sick of it. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Claim 2: which is also false. From Archive 9: After debating your yesterday false wrong al-* argument:...War in Darfur is bold without a reference saying "The war is called war in Darfur". In Iraq War, it's told that it's also known as "Occupation of Iraq" without a reference saying "The Iraq war is also called Occupation of Iraq", It was mentioned as so because cited references directly called it "Occupation of Iraq", as in exactly our case in the Arabic links we have given. Brewcrewer, you're just making a new complicated-looking argument every day. I'm sorry --Darwish07 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Further Reply 2: By your claim, if we have references from sources A to Z calling an event "lambda", then we can not add to Wikipidea "People A-Z call the event lambda"! unless some folk on the Internet say "People A-Z call the event lambda"? Doing so, you require a previous Misplaced Pages to cite Misplaced Pages itself, which is false logic. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with this. Battle of the Bulge lists the Allied and German ("Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein") names, because they are both notable names for the conflict. It doesn't matter which side is right or whether the names are accurate (we could argue about whether the front was actually "bulging" or not, but that is just what it's called). dbw (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• And all the names on all given examples (as in "Ocuupation of Iraq") was bolded too dbw. --Darwish07 (talk)

• Reply to Claim 3: Not our business to criticize how rightly it's called. Not our call. We're only the messenger. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not following the discussion closely so prepared if what I say is random why include the Arabic text if it is just meant to translate the English name that you decided was proper for it? The reason why we include the Arabic text is because it is an event that happen to Arab people, so the term they use to refer to it goes. Otherwise the Arabic text in the way you want to use it is worthless. Now here is a source with the usage of the phrase : --68.123.141.153 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration?

This is hopelessly circular; no consensus can apparently be reached. The next step should be Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. However, until the arbitration can be resolved the term should be removed from the lede pending the discovery of atleast one reliable source that states the Arab media refers to the conflict as the Gaza Massacre. Only one. Only one. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?????? You are going to remove verifiable and properly sourced text on the basis that until the arbitration rules it shouldnt be there. NOPE, until the arbitration it stays. Nableezy (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually no need for ArbCom (and editing doesn't stop while in arbcom). As per the dispute resolution process I have raised the OR point that has been answered and belabored to Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/noticeboard#2008.E2.80.932009_Israel.E2.80.93Gaza_conflict_and_.22Gaza_massacre.22 (I swear I started it before you posted here). Of course, you can feel free to raise it to ArbCom. It will be sad when they ban you from editing this article for trying to chill discussion and contentious editing. --Cerejota (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, On Archive 9 several users (with different biases) told you you're wrong. In that case, until the arbitration, it should stay. This is very powerfully sourced and a lot of people (RomaC, Cerejota, Sean, ..) said so. You seem to personally dislike the term cause:

• First (Yesterday) you gave wrong theories about Arabic Grammar, and I proved you false
• Second (Yesterday and Today) you debated whether the Arabs are right or wrong for using this name. We told you it is not our business.

My guess is that you're trying to give birth to weird arguments every day to avoid this hot term being in the Lead listening to your own internal systematic bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this qualifies for OR, unless somebody is saying that translating the names from the headlines of all the sources cited in archive 9 is OR. And they do explicitly say 'The Gaza Massacre' when translated from arabic to english in all the sources we cited. The debate then went to should massacre be capitalized, and we calmly explained how case is handled in arabic (it isnt) and as a proper noun referring to this conflict it would be capitalized. The argument being consistently made is that having 'The Gaza Massacre' as the name given by arabs is NPOV and BIAS. I would think it should go there. Nableezy (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we go with مذبحة غزة? If it is more popular. Can someone with fluent Arabic verify these sources if have the phrase? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre is the translation. Nableezy (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And depending on the context 'The' would be added. Nableezy (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And congratulations anon! We now have BBC using the phrase in their arabic website. Is that a reliable source? Nableezy (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well not entirely. I found some very strange errors on the BBC Arabic Website which didn't appear on the English version. Apparently the chief British editors don't really know what happens in their Arabic department. BTW, I sent a letter to the BBC asking about these discrepancies and received no reply. Anyway, something written on BBC Arabic which is not backed by the BBC English edition is not reliable. DrorK (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! This is the greatest argument ever. Can you point us to reliable sources that back you on the lack of knowledge of the BBC's arabic edition on the part of the BBC at large, or do we take your word for it? The goalpost keeps on moving farther and farther...--Cerejota (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont even know how to respond to that a source of the quality of the BBC cannot even be trusted to give the name of an event. Wow. Nableezy (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can. Their account about Sabra and Shatila in Arabic is totally false. The English version is reliable. DrorK (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do they at least call it Sabra and Shatila? Nableezy (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So only British approval is needed to make this Arab source reliable? I thought this was about what Arabs refer to the event. Not what western based new sources in Arabic have to say. You got Aljazeera saying it is a massacre. that suffices. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

British approval might get those who object to stop, we tried giving them a ton of arab sources and they continue, see archive 9. Nableezy (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but noticing that the "antis" are using a similar argument to the one that was used about the Arabic interwiki link - if the Arabic source/WP is not a direct facsimile (in translation) of an English-language source/WP, or is not backed up by one, it is by definition not reliable. Does anyone really need to explain or discuss the simple arrogance and false thinking behind that view, let alone the odd consequences that would follow were it to be taken seriously? Or the irrelevance of the claim that because DrorK saw something that he disagreed with in the coverage of one story there, therefore BBC Arabic cannot be used as a WP:RS? In any event a Google news search (as was highlighted somewhere above) even in the English language reveals plenty of Arabic and Asian media, as well as international bodies, using the phrase "Gaza Massacre". If you want these excluded, you're going to have to say not only that foreign language media are unreliable and/or cannot be used, but that any foreign media sources are suspect. Feel free to take that view if you wish, it will at least clarify the nature of this debate. --Nickhh (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it clearly - BBC Arabic is written mostly by Arabs. It is not a translation of the BBC news in English, and it is not written by British journalists who happen to speak Arabic. The BBC is supposed to guarantee the validity of the facts and terminology used there, but it is often not the case. I personally found discrepancies between the Arabic and English versions of the BBC websites. Sometimes they are brought to the chief editors attention and corrected, but not always. BTW, many of Al-Jazeera reporters used to work for BBC Arabic in the past. If you want to cite BBC Arabic, please verify that the BBC website doesn't say something else in English. I'm suggesting that from my experience. DrorK (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing - calling and event "a massacre" is an accusation. It is not merely a different choice of terminology, it is a straightforward accusation. Therefore, if you say the Arab world call the events "a massacre", you are saying "all Arabs accuse Israel of deliberately and intentionally killing civilians". If this is the case - fine, but think well what you are writing here. The fact that many media resources use terminology in an irresponsible way doesn't mean that we should do the same. DrorK (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not about what they say in English, it is about what they say in Arabic that we are discussing. We are giving the Arabic name for the conflict, how can you possibly argue against using arabic sources for that? Nableezy (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

although this discussion is quite entertaining let's just change it to "the benevolent raining down of the righteous pixie-star-dust of self-defence on the terrorist so-called palestinians in the unoccupied gaza strip, israel.". it will calm things down. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if we rename the article 2008-2009 Palestinian Lovefest.--Cerejota (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

But that would just mean having to find an english source that says, exactly, that 'Palestinians are capable of love' Nableezy (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the first sentence of DrorK's comment above succinctly proves the point I was hinting at. Thank you for being honest about your objections to BBC Arabic as a source. --Nickhh (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

its entertaining when you sit back and look at it, but right now i dont think im high enough to laugh :( Nableezy (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They rejected Aljazeera even though it is the most well known and most popular Arab news sources. It seems that the only Arabic sources deemed legitimate for their standards is if it told from a Western perspective and perhaps with a sympathetic-to-Israelis slant. If this is a question about bias and a lack of neutrality, Arab news is biased, so are Israeli and Western sources. The question is why do we legitimize the requests of these people if they think that Arab sources are not legitimate unless white people control/regulate them? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't spoken about this yet because I don't have a position in this debate. But it does seem to be dragging on and on. It is also becoming less civil. So I thought I should.

I think this sort of selection is really an arbitrary process. A few sources don't prove anything one way or the other. So I was asking my self what I would expect for inclusion. And I think we need to expect that the term is the name generally used in the other language. Which means that I would want to know that it is used in that language with some consistently and frequency. If it were not, it couldn't be said to be the usual name, right?

I don't speak Arabic but maybe someone who does can look into this? For example, I can find lots of instances of the same terms being found even in English (5427 hits for Gaza AND massacre on google news) but I know it isn't the usual English term for it. But I can see those five thousand are a small part of the many stories (220,000 that include Gaza AND Israel). Or I could see that "Gaza Massacre" gets fewer hits than, say, "Gaza AND fighting" (40,000) or "Gaza AND crisis" (38,000) or "Gaza AND offensive (79,000). So, in English, I'd know it isn't even the most common.

I wouldn't suggest a minimum threshold of course but maybe seeing this kind of information would help to satisfy the concerns some of the exclusionists are having. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make things clear. A source that has a screaming headline titled "Gaza Massacre" is insufficient. To move beyond OR we need reliable sources that state exactly (or in other words) what the article now claims - that the Arab media refers to the entire conflict as the "Gaza Massacre". Again, attention grabbing headlines of the sources themselves churned up at Google do nothing. We need a reliable source to state explicitly what the article claims.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See my "Reply to claim 2" above. It specifically replies to this bogus claim by two concrete examples. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I can see that I was quick to dissatisfy someone. But I thought I'd take my own advice anyway.

I had noticed someone mention google translation above so I thought I might as well give it a try. So I searched for stories that had both "Gaza" and "Israel" in the last month, just to get an idea of how many stories there are in total. That gave me 47,633. Then if I added "massacre" to those two (making sure it was the same as the word used in Arabic above) I get 3,937. I didn't want to mess around in a foreign language and search for exact terms or compare it to other phrases. Please excuse any mistakes I made on that. Questo per me è arabo. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. This is WP. This shouldn't be a place for people to subtly push forward a belligerent propaganda. Can we stick to objective facts, and not to agendas of biased media sources representing only one side? Including such an extremely biased, subjective pharse as "Gaza Massacre" strips away what (very) little objectivity was still left in WP. Rabend (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that Arabs are calling this conflict "The Gaza Massacre." I dont see why there is even an argument on this point, it is indisputable. The article is not advocating that it is a massacre, it is not advocating that it be called a massacre, it is only reporting that Arabs are calling it "The Gaza Massacre". And an interesting tidbit from the Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Roof_knocking; Nableezy (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Israelis also call the 7-year-long qassam attacks a "massacre" or "atrocities" or what have you. I still wouldn't think it's part of the objective description of the situation. Particularly if it was made by Jewish-only media sources from around the world. Rabend (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can make a case for the common name of these attacks being called the 'Massacre of innocent Israelis' or whatever it is, then by all means add that as the common name in Israel for the List of Qassam rocket attacks. But here the case has clearly been made that Arabs are calling this conflict 'The Gaza Massacre' and as such that should be included. Like I said earlier, we are not endorsing the view that what is happening is a massacre, that would be a POV issue, but here we are simply reporting what Arabs are calling this conflict. That some might find that title objectionable is understandable, but to want to censor it from wiki is not, in my mind at least, reasonable. Nableezy (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since in this particular case consensus is far from being reached on the merits of including this phrase, particularly since its relevance is not clear (and also in my view since it incites hatred), maybe we should just leave it out for the time being, and concentrate on other aspects of the article. Rabend (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, the issue is not whether it "incites hatred". The point that several editors above have tried to make is that the issue is one of whether this term is in common use. I think overwhelming evidence has been presented through translations and google news results that this is the case. I understand you are uncomfortable with the phrase .. but please try and understand that[REDACTED] is not endorsing or rejecting the phrase. It is merely reporting that this is the term being commonly used in the Arab world. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob is correct this is a simple matter of including not only the name given to the event by Israeli but also the name given to the event by the Arab World. RomaC (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe we should vote for consensus? it seems there are only 1 or 2 users fighting against this. Untwirl (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, when I first posted on this yesterday, I didn't really have an opinion, other than wanting to end this debate. I did my searching cause I was hoping it would go some way to satisfy the exclusionists. I'm still not really interested in how this is resolved either way. But I'm not sure any more that it is fair to say this is the usual name for these events in Arabic.

If I did not make an error in my searching, then the term "massacre exsists in just eight percent of the articles. That's very few when compared to the English words that have been proposed for the title. In the English articles those would be: offensive (36%) war (23%) conflict (18) operation (18) crisis (18) assault (13) invasion (11). And I don't think any of those words would be considered the standard English name. So I think that while "Gaza Massacre" and its variations are certainly said, adding them might be like going to a non-English WP and saying "Gaza crisis" or "Gaza war" is the standard name in English.

I'm still not expressing support for one side or the other. But I'm a little surprised. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Roof knocking" AfD

I have started Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Roof_knocking, please participate. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties in the Lead

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

Please move discussion to the appropiate subpages, which you just listed. Theya re clearly desdcribed at the top, so the discussion is there, don't forum shop

In my opinion, the lead should contain at least one sentence summarizing the casualty count. To many readers, that is the most important consequence of a war --- the consequence in terms of human lives. As things stand, the reader has to scroll down several screens before coming to the section on casualties. I propose a single sentence in the lead with details in the appropriate section.

Previous discussions on this issue here and at the special page created for the Lead here have been somewhat inconclusive. So, I'm moving this discussion here to solicit opinions. Jacob2718 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft deployed

Not a single aircraft deployed. In Israel you don't need to deploy any aircraft close to the battle line, but every single strike fighter or helicopter gunship can be used. Each aircraft may used only one, or once a day, or whatever. Flayer (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but deployed can be used in the sense of "put in battle" rather than in the sense of "put in theater" that I think you are using. I don;'t feel strongly about this, but just a thought.--Cerejota (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been times when IDF aircrafts have been used more than once or once a day, and since they are old it led to accidents. I think the second Lebanon war that was recently fought showed that. Aircrafts were heavily used multiple times. --89.0.160.247 (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, lets say 60 aircraft could be "put in battle" on Monday, 40 of it and 10 other aircraft on Tuesday, 35 completely other aircraft and 50 of the aircraft of Monday and Tuesday could be "put in battle" on Wednesday, another 30 - on Thursday... So how many aircraft deployed? Any amount of the 700-800 combat aircraft that IAF has in service could have been deployed. IAF not necessarily puts in battle the same aircraft every day. It is meaningless. Flayer (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We use the maximum amount of aircraft put into battle at any one point. This is true for how many soldiers Israel has deployed. If Israel sent 80 soldiers to a particular location we don't look at that, but look at the total number of soldiers Israel sent into Gaza.VR _talk 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos in civilian reactions section

I notice someone has removed the picture of the anti-Israel protest in Dar es salaam and replaced it with a large picture of a pro-Israel protest in Tel Aviv. I think this has clearly been done for POV reasons and it is unrepresentative as the vast majority of protests have been against Israel. There is also a picture of an anti-ISrael protest in Washington DC but it's much smaller and less eye catching.

I suggest removing the DC picture and replacing Tel Aviv with the Dar es salaam picture again.. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

agree. More so, because (a) I was unable to discover the date for this picture, so its not clear if its a 'reaction' to current events or a protest that preceded the attack (b) there is no publicly available description of the protest this describes or how many people attended. In the absence of such information it is impossible to judge if the protest this picture captures was 'notable'. I didn't see the earlier picture but, in for the reasons mentioned above, I do not feel that the current picture deserves inclusion. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cash?

under the humanitarian crisis section it refers to money as cash under the cash header, isn't this an incorrect and unencyclopedic term to use in refrence to money? i believe the term should be changed to money or currency or the name of the money used in the gaza strip. (216.164.151.206 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

What's about "Banknotes" ? --Darwish07 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Monetary situation? Cryptonio (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Planning

The article is currently organized chronologically. Hence, it includes a large "Planning" section. As a result other (in my opinion) more important issues like the humanitarian aspects of the war have been pushed down. I think the section on "planning" should either be moved down, or significantly shortened. In any case, we don't have reliable sources for this section. A mishmash of articles is cited, some of which merely repeat rumors, like this one from Haaretz which dates back to June and reports that in June, Barak was planning a strike within weeks. I don't know if we should give prominence to stories like this, which float about all the time anyway.

The section does raise an important point that the IDF and Hamas took advantage of the ceasefire to rearm and regroup, but offers little else. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree the section should be shortened and/or moved lower. RomaC (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, make it a subsection of the of the background, but in general articles have a chronological sequence. I disagree with giving undue prominence to the humanitarian aspects: as callous as it sounds, this article is about the conflict, not just one aspect of it, but all of it. If a section on planning gets long, and "bumps" the humanitarian aspects, readers can use the ToC to jump. We are not responsible if people have short attention spans. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I am asking for a neutrality check due to the controversies that have flared up. I am all for getting uninvolved eyes in here. --Cerejota (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to help, but the article is too long (and same with this talke page) to figure out where the article needs it the most. Could you please point at paragraphs which should be looked at? I can't read through it all. --Eivind (t) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Before you start could you confirm that

• a) you haven't working for Israeli Intelligence
• and b) you haven't contributed any money to the free gaza movement ?

I'm just asking because we're struggling a bit here. We've reached the point where BBC Arabic was rejected as a reliable source because of it's poor coverage of woman's lingerie or something, I forget the details. Good luck. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that. I haven't worked for Israeli Intelligence and I haven't contributed money to any Free Gaza movement (: --Eivind (t) 13:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing process...to assume it needs 'progress' is to look at it not from a neutral point of view. Simply speak up! Cryptonio (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean: your gallows humor is really, really cool ;). Nao, moar seriously: Currently the first two paragraphs of the lead would seem to me to be a good start.--Cerejota (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish activity in Europe

There has been a rise in the number of Anti-Jewish attacks (of Jews and synagogues) by European Muslims since the opeartion began. Should we include this, as this is a direct effect of the conflict? Rabend (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, if one can write it from a neutral point of view. Some of this Anti-Israel attacks are quite massive, like yesterday, when a number of people was injured in Norway's capital Oslo, and there was damages for millions of NOK on Oslo's main street. It's all a direct effect of this conflict, but I'm not sure how relevant it is, though. --Eivind (t) 12:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I would think this could go in international reaction, or if you have a better spot for it, but the source is clearly making a correlation between the hostilities in gaza and the hostilities in europe between muslims/jews. Nableezy (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They are already included in a neutral manner "There were global isolated attacks against Jews, Israelis and Jewish targets". In fact, the civilian protest section has been one of the more stable section, that came about from various reverts and discussion. I encourage you to add the anti-Jewish attacks to the International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.VR _talk 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Internecine Conflict

User:BobaFett85 wishes to include the line "More than 35 Palestinians executed and 75 wounded by Hamas, suspected for collaborating with Israel." in the infobox. This claim is based on a single Jersualem Post article. The article gives no details merely claiming that "sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations." In my opinion, this violates WP:RS. Strong claims require multiple neutral and verifiable sources. The source above clearly does not meet this criterion. I was unable to find other sources for this claim, except for reprints of this article on websites that one would hardly call neutral.

Parenthetically, I should add that there have been other reports of internecine conflict and these are already dealt with in the text. There are also other reports that claim the opposite.

In any case, I've reverted this edit twice, since it is definitely not well-sourced enough to mention an Infobox inclusion, but User:BobaFett85 has put it back each time. I would like to ask for other opinions here. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition: I notice that this line has now appeared a third time with no comment or justification here. Someone else needs to look into this. I've reached my 3 revert limit. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree this shouldnt be there, reverting. Nableezy (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And i am not saying that the info doesnt belong in the article at all, or even perhaps in the infobox, but if you want it in there at least come to the talk when there clearly us a dispute about it Nableezy (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would need to be added into a new section along if Abbas reactions and other Palestinians'(IN Palestine) reactions. Something along the lines of "Palestine Politics in the Conflict" Cryptonio (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, keeping in mind that, though deplorable, this is normal in conditions of war: it happened all over Europe in WW2 in the closing stage of WW2 by the victors, and was not unexceptional when Israel was fighting for nationhood, as Nachman Ben-Yehuda's, Political Assassinations by Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice,(1993) noted in great detail. Of course, in our memory-less times, the Hamas instance is cited by sources to underline their 'exceptional' contempt for the Geneva conventions (akin to the secret killings and torture of suspects under Yoo and Alderman's rules in the Bush rendition programme) Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i think it belongs in the article if there are verifiable sources. nameless "sources close to hamas" saying something is not good enough. Untwirl (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

'Nameless sources close to Hamas' are just as good as nameless sources close to the IDF, or the Israeli government. You cannot treat what Israel says as bond and what the Palestinians say as shit, sorry but that is the very definition of POV. Nableezy (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So I think the answer is accept them both and reference them in line and with solid references. That should clear any NPOV issues Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry nableezy, i think you misunderstand me. i think we should report what hamas and what israel (or sources close to them) say as just that - what they say and who said it. leave the interpretation to the reader. we shouldn't state what unnamed sources close to hamas or israel say as fact without stating "sources close to x say"

i definitely do not want to exclude palestinian sources. i apologize again if what i say was taken that way. Untwirl (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt directed at you really at nobody in particular, and I completely agree with what you are saying. Just starting to get a lil pissed at how people are claiming that because a source is arab or palestinian it is inherently unreliable, while the idf and the rest of the israeli govt word is taken as gospel. Sorry for the rant. Nableezy (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That BBC Arabic discussion up in still has me a lil heated I guess, time to take a break from this. I swear[REDACTED] is worse than crack, all the addiction and none of the glowy feelings Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

hey no problem. i'm having my own issues on another page, too. if only i could afford crack maybe i could drop this new wiki monkey of mine. :) Untwirl (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

References

I'm just amazed that the 1st and 2nd references within this article are from Ynet news and Jerusalem Post which are both Israeli news outlets, why such choice If I may ask and is it valid? I mean, there's always another side to the story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 January 2009

Do you have something specific you believe to be misrepresented? Or are you here just to bash Israeli media? We don't rule out source just for being Israeli. In fact, due to the stupidity (if I may) of the IDF, all reports coming out of Gaza are from Palestinian sources. Do you sugget we ignore them only because they are reported by Palestinians? Didn't think so. Now, if you have something concrete, please, by all means, let's discuss.--Omrim (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not there to bash Israeli media, neither asking for singling it out - as I said specifically that a mention of other sources that might be more neutral could possibly be done. I was just trying to raise a question and seek the validity of using these sources, I'm not here to bash or create racist personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is good to know, and sorry for being a little aggressive in my response. Yet, I still think the point you're making is abstract.--Omrim (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i believe the user is trying to say there are more neutral sources that could be used for these very same facts to avoid the appearance of impropriety. i for one, agree wholeheartedly that both israeli and palestinian sources should be used, and identified as such, but i also see his point about trying to use the most neutral sources for this controversial of a topic. if you have more neutral sources to use for the info you ae referring to, by all means please suggest them here. Untwirl (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC) by 'you' i meant the ip user suggest more neutral source, not putting the onus on you omrim Untwirl (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Carter

I again removed the Jimmy Carter editorial citation, which is merely Carter's opinion that the Hamas tunnel of the November 2008 incident was a "defensive tunnel." I don't think even Hamas has asserted this, but I would welcome a news source that makes this point to replace Carter's opinion. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of an ex-President of the USA, who has had a long and active role in the region, and is briefed on it far more deeply than anything we get in the press we are citing, is an informed opinion by an active participant in decades of negotiations. It is not equivalent to some editorial take by some journo in your average mainstream paper.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets be honest, Jimmy Carter is going to blame Israel for anything Israel does. He will also blame the United States for anything the United States does. Jimmy Carter is still bitter because he lost that second election, and all of his post-election posturing is about that. He would've been remembered as a great humanitarian for Habitat for Humanity, now he will remembered by many as a border-line anti-Semite and a saboteur of U.S. Foreign Policy. It is really terribly sad. V. Joe (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike anyone else here or in the area or the world, Jimmy Carter actually brokered the only stable peace agreement in the region. He knows all of the political actors, has a profound personal knowledge of the politics and history of the area. Please don't abuse the word 'antisemite' in a way that confuses a deeply rooted, religious and ethical position with paranoid hatred. That's very ambitious of you, shooting out of the anonymous world of a shady left-corner, to dismiss that record. Let's face it, what you wrote is a smear attack on someone with a life of achievement as a peace-broker.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He and his opinion are notable, after all beyond being the ex-President he has been involved in this conflict for the last 30 years or slightly under that. That some consider him 'a border line anti-Semite' is irrelevant unless you have a source and wish to use it to contrast his statements. But the Nobel-prize winning, Camp David negotiating, ex-President of the United States, is notable and so is his opinion on the matter. That people in Israel currently dont like him or his views are not the subject of this article. Nableezy (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While he is an ex-president and a former peace-broker and probably a good golfer, he is in no way whatsoever an authority on current tactics of guerilla warfare in the Gaza strip. His personal opinion of whether this tunnel was made for kidnapping people or actually for delivering yummy chocolates to the western world is 100% irrelevant here, and I don't care how many security briefings he received as president between 1977 and 1981. Rabend (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the journalists we have cited here are authorities on tactics of guerilla warfare in the Gaza Strip. The IDF is not in itself a reliable source, either for that matter. It represents views and interpretations that favour its policies. You should update your knowledge of what former Presidents are entitled to. Daily briefings from the CIA are one of those entitlements. Carter uses them, and can access and check information to higher levels in that capacity than most journalists.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that he is entitled to CIA briefings. Do not dare to patronize me. Carter is a diplomat first and foremost, and that is what he is notable for. His military knowledge may exceed that of the average man, but I do not know that, and he is definitely not notbale for it. If you want to use this personal opinion of his, provide first some citation qualifiying him as an expert on current guerilla warfare. And on a personal note, it seems that even if the tooth fairy said that she found the super-secret Israeli plans to conquer the world, you would twist common sense into making it look like she's a notable reference. Rabend (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how many security briefings he received as president between 1977 and 1981.Rabend16:00

You should update your knowledge of what former Presidents are entitled to. Daily briefings from the CIA are one of those entitlements..Nishidani16:18

I am well aware that he is entitled to CIA briefings. Do not dare to patronize me. Rabend 17:18

It's not patronizing to inform you of what your first post indicates you did not know. You are correct that you are 'well aware' of the fact now. Yes, you've had an hour to digest what I told you about former Presidents' entitlements to daily security briefings, which means they do not draw on outdated knowledge from their watches 30 years ago, as implied. Nothing patronizing there. It's our job to fill the gaps in each other's knowledge. I'll ignore the innuendo in the tooth fairy tale that I subscribe to a belief in that notorious fabrication, the Protocol of the Elders of Zion. Such charges are a serious breach of propriety, and reportable. I don't report these things. I do take note of them, however. Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitherto, you have honestly not filled any gaps in my knowledge, despite your bizarre attempt to prove that. Anyone who watched that Michael Moore movie knows that ex-presidents get daily CIA reports. Additionally, you completely misunderstood my personal note. I am not suggesting you believe in the tooth fairy. I take the liberty to assume that you don't. I am saying that editing alongside you in the last few days gives me the feeling you are experiencing a conflict of interests that is affecting the objective quality of this article. That is my opinion. Feel free to report me if this makes you feel like a victim, or maybe take a minute to think about what other people have to say. Your call. Rabend (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether Carter's opinion is notable. As a former president of the US, with a Nobel Peace Prize writing in a major American newspaper, it definitely is. It is entirely fair to attribute his opinion to him i.e say that Carter thinks so and so. However, I think his opinion is notable and should be included. In addition, a quick google search will suffice to show that Carter's statement that the tunnel was defensive has already attracted much attention. I myself have my own views on Carter as, I'm sure do most other people here, but those views are a matter of personal opinion. From the strict point of view of verifiability and notability, this statement merits an inclusion. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Computer game

I removed the section on the computer game, but added it to International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. I think users need to refrain from adding such trivial content to this article.VR _talk 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli official stance on UNRWA school

Why people keep "forcing" the sources to argue that Israel officially admitted that no mortars were fired from the school? Gunnes says that Israeli diplomats privately admitted to it, and that all the article should say, i.e. something like "offical at the UN says that Israeli diplomats privetly admitted that no mortars were fired from the school". "Privetly" is exactly NOT "officialy", and as far as I am aware the official IDF amd MFA statements still stand. I'll wait a little to see what you boys and girls think, and unless you convince me to the contrary, I'll change it back --Omrim (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, one can't keep track of everything at this speed. I made the original edit, which clarified that the wording about Israel's official position was to be followed by the most recent UN source that said in briefings (always private) to diplomats Israelis had admitted this had been an error. But it doesn't give confidence that the video used as evidence by Israel dates to 2007, something which misled UN diplomats and infuriated them when they discovered they were being talked around. We've had several months in here arguing about the falsification by Palestinians of evidence, with huge partisan imput suggesting anything they provide is fabricated (Pallywood, Muhammad al-Durrah), as opposed to Israel's invariable 'reliable sources'. Still, you are right to correct the revisions, if they have smudged my original distinction Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This video is probably the worst PR mistake done by the IDF in this conflict. Yet, Israel never said I think (correct me if I'm wrong here) that they responded to the shooting IN the video. The video was only to show that mortars were previously fired from the school. The current Israeli shooting at the school was presumably in response to a fresh incident of shooting from the school. If I am right, the article aslo shouldn't prescribe the incident as a response to the video shooting.--Omrim (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but the video was produced to justify the shooting, and such videos are dated by archivalists. They knew it was from 2007. The UN gave the IDF satellite coordinates for all 23 schools under their supervision, and explained their function as refuges before these attacks.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We agree, then (I believe). The fact that The UN gave the IDF satellite coordinates should be included (it is already, I think), and the IDF shouldn't be attributed with a claim that the shooting was in response to the video shooting.--Omrim (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing but what reliable sources say.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lead and other topics

are also being discussed here: - Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead. Note that the lead is not the only subject being talked about there and that discussion from this page is also being moved to that page. I would appreciate leaving new discussion regarding the lead on this page. I notice that the lead keeps being reverted back to a version that has not been accepted as consensus and is in fact highly POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

F-16

Israel has (or at one point had) deployed 60 F-16 aircraft for attack purposes. Source: "Israeli jets kill 'at least 225' in strikes on Gaza".. Yet this fact keeps getting removed from the infobox. Why? The airstrikes campaign was a major part of the conflict.VR _talk 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be replaced ~ "Qassam" is mentioned frequently with figures, we should specify "F-16" RomaC (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arab League reaction

On the International REaction page, it still lists the Arab league's response as calling a summit for 2nd of January. Does anyone know what happened at this summit (I've checked google and found nothing) or whether it even took place. Has the Arab League released an official statement?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm... I don't know. But if they had a summit, I bet I know what they decided... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to International Law

I can't find the discussion that we previously had about the "International law" section, either in the discussion page or the archives (maybe I just haven't looked far enough back). At any rate, if it is in the archives, let us restart, because we still have a lot of work ahead of us.

The section as it now stands is pretty awful. Let's tackle it issue by issue:

1. Length - At this rate, we'll need to start a separate article for this section. That's fine if that's the way people want to go, except that nobody ever reads articles that are that specific.
2. Gaza as occupied territory - This debate deviates severely from the discussion we ought to be having. But, if other editors want to go there, the Israeli position must be represented adequately. The sources used to rebut it fundamentally violate WP:Synthesis, because they don't respond to the Israeli position; instead, the editor must synthesize them to clarify that Gaza is occupied territory in spite of the disengagement. It's also synthesis to say "the UN and other international organizations," when the only other organization quoted is the Human Rights Council. Let's examine the sources used to establish Gaza's position as occupied territory:
   1. An International Court of Justice decision from one year prior to Israeli disengagement (i.e. irrelevant).
   2. The fact that there is an "Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs office on Occupied Palestinian Territory." Consider the fact that the argument has to be made in the citation, because it's not actually made in the source. To draw such a conclusion violates WP:Synthesis.
   3. Gunness refers to Israel as an "Occupying Power." That he does, but in an interview, not some sort of official publication. As mentioned above, this also does not touch upon the disengagement, and so is synthesis.
   4. HRC - Again, there's no consideration of the disengagement.
3. Ad-hominem attacks against Falk - I don't see the reason why the whole "Falk is a controversial figure…" part is included. It adds very little to the article, and is quite long.
4. Gary Grant - Again, I think it generally best to avoid quoting interviews in lieu of actual published works. Also, why are we quoting Gary Grant? On what grounds is the value of his legal opinion asserted? If we have to quote him, let's at least cut down on the paragraph, because it can be summarized in one sentence.
5. UN speeches - The snippets from Egypt and Jordan are, again, not actual publications. UN speeches are better than interviews, but still. If these government have published amicus currae briefs, or something like that, it would be better to quote them than a speech--a speech is just a summary of the country's position, and not an actual WP:RS in itself. Even if they were actual publications, I don't see what they add to the article. Everything they say has already been said, and they don't give any reason why Israel violates international law; they simply state that it does. Of notable irrelevance is the Egyptian statement, which pertains to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, not to the conflict (which is, after all, the subject of the article).
6. Specific incidents - Are we all ABSOLUTELY sure that we want to start listing specific incidents. By the middle of next week, the "International law" section will be bursting at the seams with incidents in which Israel and Hamas violated international law. I vote we stick to the bigger picture, because all these incidents fall under its wing. But, if I have failed to persuade you, let's consider some specifics about the UN school incident: Investigation is ongoing, not to mention the fact that it has its own section. Besides, in what legal capacity is the OIC brought into the picture? They don't even elaborate on anything.
7. Petition to the court - This section needs to be seriously cut down; it's way too long. Also, are they arguing on the grounds of international law or Israeli law?
8. Hamas ideology - Why is this in the article? Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters.

Well, this marks the end of my super-mumbo-jumbo-giant-long-edit. For the sake of the sanity of all of us, I respectfully respect that editors number their responses, so that we can all see who is responding to what point. Seeing as how things get archived mighty fast here, let's try to keep the discussion alive (though I'm sure we'll have no problem). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed references 2.1 and 2.2 (numbering scheme follows list above). Maybe I assumed to much, but I figured that WP policy was so clear on the subject, that their removal would not prove too controversial. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks against Falk should be removed. By all means feel free to do so. He has a page for that crap doesn't he? 'Controversial' in wiki I/P articles is code language for unreliable, by the way, and is found as the standard epithet for any wiki page covering a critic of Israel. One could say the same of Dershowitz, that he is 'controversial', and this would be improper, since a link will take anyone to those pages where his status is discussed. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you're on board with the discussion, Nishidani. What's your opinion on the other points?

Meantime, I've looked back at the source for the Supreme Court petition (point no. 7 above), and found that there was no discussion there whatsoever of international law. Can anyone find a source that says the petition is founded in international law? If not, I will go ahead and remove it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy, and just glanced through, and haven't had the time to check anything, so I responded on the first point I knew about off-hand. I agree with you also that 'Hamas ideology' has to be excerpted from the article. Hamas has its own page, and its ideology is discussed there. It is totally inappropriate here, and as you quote it, evidently an attempt to prejudice the reader by hitting the 'barbarian' button, aside from its irrelevance to what should be a strict factual accountancy of the conflict. I'll certainly look through the rest, as time allows.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Look up the talk page a bit and you'll see the 'Alleged violations of international law misrepresentation' section. I put a link to the archives in there. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I just saw the section on Hamas's ideology! The source cited is Palestinian Media Watch by no means a neutral source. Leaving this aside, the text in the article misrepresents the source.

The source says, that the Hamas representative said "Accordingly created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life.". The text says that the representative "explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."(emphasis mine) In the source, the Hamas person was using a metaphor; this has been turned into an explanation!

Second, the text says "Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters." These two lines are lifted verbatim from a report written by Palestinian Media Watch. Now, while PMW may have this opinion about Hamas's motivations, this is an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, PMW, by itself is neither notable nor neutral, so its opinion, especially such a strong one, does not deserve inclusion here.

I'm going to remove this paragraph. The rest of the discussion you initiated is very useful and please continue with that. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

someone beat me to it! Anyway, I completely endorse the removal of this paragraph. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Hamas stuff and also the Gary Grant stuff. He does not appear to judge by his brief history here, to have any particular competence in international law, and the statements are just generic opinions by an otherwise nondescript barrister. This section should quote opinions only by recognized authorities. Dershowitz by the way is not a recognized authority on international law. I won't touch it. But if he stays, he should be balanced by Franklin Lamb's withering critique of his opinions in this case. No hurry. Ideas? Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I further indented your line. I hope you don't mind.

Yeah, I also think that Dershowitz needs to be removed. Everything he says is already said by Israel in the following paragraph, and of the two sources, he is less reliable.

I'll go ahead and remove him. If I get reverted, then we'll discuss. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've returned the indent compliment! I've had a first go at cutting back the petition. In any case, this will have to be rewritten as news comes in of the Court's decision. It's sitting today, I believe. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Egypt-Jordanian stuff is sourced, and needn't be a brief. It should of course be brief. The following remark in the text, 'This comes as a surprise since Egypt imposed (the) Gaza Strip blockade in full cooperation with Israel following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip,' is unsourced, and looks like an editorial comment, apart from being poorly written (= 'though Egypt collaborated fully with Israel in imposing a blockade on the Gaza Strip, after Hamas took over its administration'. I happen to agree with it. Unless someone can come up with a source for it, it will have to be removed. I will post a citation needed tag for the moment.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put the 'citation required' flag after 'it comes as a surprise'. Some source has to say both (it was a surprise) and (b) that in making the declaration, Egypt was being hypocritical, since it supports the very blockade it denounces as a violation of international law. Otherwise we haqve WP:SYNTH probs.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something that needs to be borne in mind is that there is no single, accepted definition of what international law is in relation to any particular issue, due to there being no international government. An ICJ or International Criminal Court decision is pretty clear evidence, but we don't have any in relation to this specific conflict or any of the alleged incidents during it. Therefore all Misplaced Pages can do is to state "Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group X says this, Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group Y says that" and leave the reader to make up his/her own mind. We aren't an arbitrator of "the truth", we simply collate facts and opinions established by others. Cynical (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. So all of those doctorates in international law, and the history of rulings, are invalid. You've just downsized a notable constituency of the legal world. For the record, 'international law' since Grotius's time, refers to the law of nations, between nations, and does not require the existence of an international government. One used to learn this in high schools in the old world. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article severely unbalanced

I want to offer 2 writing approaches:

1. If any event, action and explanation that is published in the press chooses to be started writing with "which --- claimed to be" "which ---- identifies as" "says it" and claims, stated as,... I suggest both sides should be addressed in the same way, because if there are no universal facts for one side, so shouldn't the other have.

example: Israel claims / hamas claims .. . On all written events that share this article.

2. Just facts for both sides, no claims.

Example: Hamas suffered 40 civilian casualties, most are women and children, from Israeli bombings. / Israel bombed civilian buildings used for hiding of militants, tunnels and ammunition.

Ether believe both sides, or don't believe any of them.

• The first option will make the article much more longer, heavy and irritating to read. But it will be fair-sided and would not point a certain agenda or sympathy towards on side. The second will shorten it and will be more challenging, perhaps difficult to edit. But it will look very organized and not messy, and also fair-sided.

One more thing

Article to be called "Operation Cast Lead" like "Operation Defensive shield" and "Second Intifada". The initiator and leading body of this particular event is Israel. Naming it "conflict" devalues the general conflict between Hamas government and the state of Israel which began after the party won the election. Conflict inside a conflict, and sub-conflict defocuses the main overview and perspective of one. The Palestinian Civil Conflict divided the society into 2 separate entities, which is also related to the Israeli conflict. Very complex and can be confusing.--Bob1969 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You can call it "Mineral Oil spot" just like Hamas used to call it.

Awesome neutrality there!

More pro-israeli pictures? What the hell? For a moment there, I thought I stumbled upon Zionpedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.176.241 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i support israel/hamas/un/jiminy cricket state/claim/say/holla as a format. "just facts" leads to endless questioning of reliability on talk pages, and i prefer leaving statements open to interpretation of the reader. for example, if the un says something, some editors believe they are biased so there really is no agreed upon source of 'fact' or 'truth' Untwirl (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro: POV clause

Is it POV to mention the Israeli casus belli, rocket attacks "which had dramatically increased in November and early December 2008." given that Hamas' grievances are also stated? I think not, User:Trachys, do you disagree? Kaisershatner (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not wait for responses to your comment here at all before reinserting your edit. The increase in rocket attacks is discussed in detail in the background section. As things stand, both positions have been given equal prominence; Hamas's viewpoint is discussed with no embellishments and the Israeli viewpoint needs to be stated plainly as well. Adding in a further justification about the increase in rocket attacks in November will then bring in the question of why the rocket attacks increased etc. etc. This is better left to the background section. We are working on tightening the lead anyway. Also, please take further discussion of this topic to the special page on the Lead. best. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors severely unbalanced...just kidding

Out of curiosity I searched for Iran and found the following in the Background -> Extension section.

Rockets have in subsequent stages of the conflict reached as far as the cities of Gan Yavne and Gedera, 40 km inside Israel, validating the IDF "Color Red" warning system. Israel and outside observers allege that Iran appears to be using Hamas militants in Gaza as proxies to terrorise Israel. They claim that Iran supplied Hamas with components to allow it to upgrade the range and accuracy of its rockets that it was firing into Israel.

Does this need to be balanced by presumably equally valid views from the NPOV perspective that make similar allegations when it comes to US military aid to Israel ? The UNHRC highlighted this in their recent statement i.e.

"The Israeli airstrikes today, and the catastrophic human toll that they caused, challenge those countries that have been and remain complicit, either directly or indirectly, in Israel's violations of international law. That complicity includes those countries knowingly providing the military equipment including warplanes and missiles used in these illegal attacks, as well as those countries who have supported and participated in the siege of Gaza that itself has caused a humanitarian catastrophe"

Thoughts ? Perhaps it's covered elsewhere and I've missed it. I assume the article mentions who's supplying IDF weapons somewhere....maybe. If not, I guess the article falls into a "We are right" trap by default i.e. weapons from Iran = terror, weapons from the US = cute puppies. Please don't infer anything about my own views on this matter. They're irrelevant.

Anyone willing to tackle that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I nominate you! RomaC (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think I will refer to the matters and affairs of this War in GOOD vs. BAD, Terrorists ( spreads 'Terror and 'Mayhem'), Evil doers and 'Cute Puppies' you are mistaken. You can legitimize whatever you want, as long as you do everything else.. So yes, you will strip the news coverage you read from it's politic siding and filter the facts, because this website is not a news dump. --Bob1969 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm supportive of this type of review of the article and I second RomaC's nomination! You could always talk about the US support of Fatah as well. This Vanity Fair article compares their manipulation of Fatah and their material and military support of the party after the 2006 elections to the Iran-Contra affair. I'm not sure if this belongs in the current article, but it is an interesting article nonetheless and pertinent to the over all situation. This treacherous maneuvering of the US probably shouldnt surprise anyone with knowledge of our history in South and Central America, the US etc, esp during the cold war. Thrylos000 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a link in to the Vanity Fair article (note 111, for the moment) yesterday or the day before. It does belong to the article's background, esp. given the fact that so many loose and irresponsible mainstream reports conflate and generalize the issues, and blur the known facts, which are that Hamas was elected in free elections, and then the object of a coup d'état by Fatah, which it then repressed. This is not to espouse the justice of Hamas's cause. It is simply to note crucial details of Hamas's legal status as the elected administrative power in the Strip, not as a terrorist usurper of some pre-existing PNA democracy, as many sources insinuate.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a good article but pulls some punches. VF describes a US forced and Back Fatah lead coup attempt the entire article yet calls the events that lead to Hamas consolidating power in Gaza a coup itself instead of say Fatah was ejected from Gaza after their failed coup attempt. Very strange indeed. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers wounded. Need second translation from Hebrew

This is copied from my talk page in reference to my request to Flayer for more info on his sources for the total number of Israeli wounded in the infobox:

Accidently, I found one, but in Hebrew: . Flayer (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It says: 10 soldiers killed, 7 soldiers severely wounded, 10 soldier moderately and 76 soldiers lightly wounded. Flayer (talk) During the night 2 more soldiers lightly wounded . Flayer (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2 links are the ones currently in the infobox to verify (WP:V) the total number of Israeli soldiers wounded. Can someone else besides Flayer verify that the sources say what he says they say?

I think the numbers are probably fairly accurate since we also have this:

OCHA oPt (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory).

• http://www.ochaopt.org

• Protection of Civilians Weekly Report. 1-8 January 2009. "more than 80 Israeli soldiers have been injured since the ground operation began."

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Both links became unavailable. Flayer (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun house shelling

The first sentence of this section currently reads,

Based on Palestinian survivors eyewitness reports, The United Nations has alleged Israeli troops of having evacuated some 110 Palestinians – including children – into a single resident house at the Zeitoun district in Gaza and then shelling the property 24 hours later, killing some 30 people.

I am concerned about well-poisoning, whitewashing and original research in this sentence. First of all, the mainstream media are reporting this as fact, not as something "the United Nations has alleged." Secondly, "Palestinian survivors eyewitness reports" is redundant; the extraneous modifier "Palestinian" is not being used by most of the sources and serves here as well-poisoning. Thirdly, our saying this is all based on Palestinian eyewitness reports is original research, and dubious original research at that; the sources are also basing this on reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

A final, more general point. Israel is currently still barring journalists from getting into Gaza. Virtually all of the reporting in the mainstream media right now is synthesized from the reports of eyewitnesses, international observers like the Red Cross and the U.N., and official statements from the Israeli military. Where there is significant doubt, the media report conflicting allegations. Where the media report something as fact, we should do so also. When we say hmmmm, let's find out who's telling the media this, and make a note of it and report it as so-and-so's "allegations", we are engaging in original research as well as well-poisoning.--G-Dett (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? What is too 'well-poisoning' 'whitewashing' for you to read, don't read it. There are allot of other sources that are more 'friendly' for the common reader.--Bob1969 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i believe g-dett stated explicitly what he believes the problem is: see above:

"First of all", "secondly," and "thirdly"

alleged seems to me what i've seen referred to as a weasel word, and if the modifier 'palestinian' isn't used in the source, it shouldn't be here.

to tell someone, "if you don't like it dont read it" isn't conducive to collaborative editing and seems uncivil as well. Untwirl (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Truck with Oxygen Cylinders

An earlier version of the article had a reference to an event where the IDF uploaded a Youtube video ostensibly showing a missile killing a group of Hamas militants loading a truck with missiles; Human rights groups now allege that these were civilians loading oxygen cylinders on a truck. See here for a mainstream media description. This has now been replaced with a grammatically jumbled version which reads: " ...been challenged by Palestinians and Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem. It is being disputed that the missile had landed on a civilian target and what appeared to be rockets were, in fact, oxygen cylinders. "We don't know exactly what happened, but we think this needs to be the subject of an independent investigation," said Sarit Michaeli, a B'Tselem spokeswoman. Various militant Palestinian groups built in Gaza melding workshops domestically produced weapons for use against the Israel, including rockets to launch into Israel.

This misrepresents the source. (1) As the BBC article above (and indeed the sources linked to here) show, this has been challenged far more broadly and widely reported on by mainstream media throughout the world and in Israel. (2) the B'Tselem statement is taken out of context. It is true that they don't know "exactly" what happened but they seem to be fairly confident that it was civilians and oxygen cylinders that were involved here. In fact, the Herald article linked to above starts with "Human-rights groups say, however, that one attack that Israel claims killed eight "terror operatives" loading a truck with Grad rockets instead killed Palestinian workers who were salvaging oxygen tanks from a welding shop." (3) The final statement about "various palestinian groups" is unsourced and quite irrelevant here. I would like to revert this to a version as close to the original as possible. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/03/rocket-statistics-3-jan-2009/
2. Cite error: The named reference UN_council_6061 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. "Hamas declares Israel truce over". BBC News.

• Articles linked from high traffic sites
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press