Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Aftermath

Most criticism after the war was leveled at Israel, with charges of misappropriate force and the destruction of Gaza. Several months after the war ended, Hamas has suspended its use of rockets and shifted focus to winning support at home and abroad through cultural initiatives and public relations, with the aim to build a "cultural resistance". Hamas official stated that "The current situation required a stoppage of rockets. After the war, the fighters needed a break and the people needed a break". Hamas also claimed that "rockets fired from Gaza were meant to hit military targets, but because they are unguided, they hit civilians by mistake." Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center notes that Hamas's policy of restraint has come under severe criticism from local radical Islamic organizations, which accused Hamas of abandoning the principle of jihad in order to strengthen its control over the Gaza Strip. Israeli officials say that Hamas military commanders have recognized that their decision to take off their fatigues and don civilian clothing a few days into the fighting was a mistake that might had damaged morale and was perceived by Gazans as indicative that they had lost control of the territory; Hamas militants are now under orders to stay in uniform even if this makes them more easily targeted in Israeli air strikes.

I don't think that people would disagree with Jpost's assertion. Whether warranted or not, even the US had reservation about the amount of force Israel used during the operation. Cryptonio (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Post War

Added the following para on tunnels...

Although Israel claimed that it destroyed more than 80 percent of tunnels that it charged Hamas of using to smuggle weapons, soon after the ceasefire Gaza residents discovered that many were still intact.[246]

Stopping weapon smuggling was one of the reason Israel gave for the operation. A mention on the subject is more than warranted. Cryptonio (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid. "Although" casts doubt on the "claim". Bloomberg's wording was much more neutral and does not lead the reader. The story also does not give a number for those left intact. "The Israeli army says it destroyed about 80 percent of the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt because they were being used to bring in weapons and rocket components. Residents of Rafah said they started clearing away debris and discovered that many of the tunnels were intact."Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Militants and "Policemen" in Infobox

I object to the usage of the term "policemen" in the casualty section of the infobox. Usage of the term violates Wikipedia neutrality because it goes to the very core of the issue. Israel denies they were "policemen" in the traditional sense and has provided credible photographic and other documentary evidence proving that they were in fact an integral part of the Hamas security establishment. As a compromrise, I propose using the term "Internal Security Forces" in lieu of "policemen."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest we change the term 'soldiers' to for the IDF side to incorporate the Palestinian narrative ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up guys, changing the term from "policemen" to "police officers" to reflect the source, also this is the term used in the B'Tselem report cited elsewhere in the article. RomaC (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ceasefire

For a long time the lead reflected the fact that both sides wanted more in renewed negotiations in order to extend the ceasefire, including Israel's confabulation that a halt of 98 percent of rockets wasn't enough. In short, for a long time the lead included both sides new demands and accusations. We could easily revert back to that version instead of this one sided affair that leaves EVERYTHING to the imagination. Cryptonio (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't revert sourced information? what do you think that happened to the text before? To the sourced paragraph which I mentioned above? Cryptonio (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert your source, just added two of mine. Your source is still there.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So, a ceasefire expires by refusing to renew it? Cryptonio (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is Cptnono anyways? Can you please sir take a look at this? Cryptonio (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your misreading the source. The ceasefire (actually "calm" or "lull") was set to expire and Hamas stated that it would not agree to it's renewal. Pretty simple stuff.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-RS images removed

An editor Reenem has been inserting images that are not from a RS. There is therefore no way to know whether they are accurate - are they really pictures of people injured in the Gaza war, or are they pictures from five years ago from some other place or some other conflict or even of someone after a heart attack. I have removed them, and they should stay out, unless someone can justify this somehow. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA

Information from CAMERA is not "sourced information". It does not comply with WP:V, a core policy. Find an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

→The next sentence in the lead troubles me. "Israel responded by closing all border crossings". Israel responded to dozens of rockets and to "oil stain", as elaborated further in the article, not to some formal declaration. Either sentence is removed, or we'll expand it by mentioning the intensity of the rockets (and there will be no problem to find source). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean, even before the 24th Dec (rocket attacks on Israel intensified), there were lots of rockets and it is unclear from the text. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Go for it Sceptic--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

<- The lead currently says

On December 18, 2008 a fragile six-month Israel-Hamas ceasefire was set to expire and Hamas stated it's decision not to renew it.[19] Israel responded by closing all border crossings into Gaza.[20] On 24 December Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel intensified[21],

Isn't the problem with this that it misrepresents what happened and suggests that Hamas did something and Israel responded ? Shouldn't this be rewritten to neutrally reflect what actually happened rather than promote a cause and effect interpretation that only reflects the perspective of one side ? We aren't propagandists. The ceasefire broke down because neither side complied with it to the satisfaction of the other party, people were killed, rockets were fired and neither side got what they said they wanted. We ought to reflect that neutrally....somehow. The lead doesn't seem to summarise the body of the article. It doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of sources that we use like 'Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer In December', or Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen. It simply reflects the narrative of Defence Minister Ehud Barak as described in the Telegraph. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In truth, I don't like the lead either (I think this is the first time that you and I agree on something) and I share some of Sceptic's concerns as well. I think the old version of the lead (the way it was before protection) was better. It summarized the article in a more concise manner.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, we probably agree about almost everything in the known universe and disagree about a tiny subset e.g. you think I should do your washing up and I don't. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one option would be to simply say that the ceasefire broke down, have no details in the lead and leave it at that. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I made an attempt to fix it. It's not perfect and I won't be offended if you revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have such a big problem if it wasn't for the 'lull' section which actually goes into greater detail etc. But I do not like the fact that Camera seems to be the only ones with the narrative per "Hamas expired the ceasefire". Other than that, I can see where Sean may have a problem with the current wording, which I may add, it was not what I was looking for but my next block may be for a week or so...so, pardon my selfishness, but at the same time it seems as we, the lucky "last", might have ample discretion here and I intend to work something out that looks better than the 'fixer upper' in plain view at this time. Good night mates. Cryptonio (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, thank you, I used your version and added a couple new RS citations and fixed the text to reflect those new sources. I actually agree with Sean, that it was fine when it simply said that negotiations broke down when the sides couldn't agree. But if you insist on going into detail, I've added the AlJazeera citation. Sources are:

• Al Jazeera: "Hamas officials told Al Jazeera that earlier reports on Sunday quoting Meshaal as saying there would definitely be no renewal of the truce were inaccurate. Sources stress that while an extension of the truce is unlikely, a final decision is yet to be taken. The ceasefire is due to expire on December 19. Osama al-Muzaini, a Hamas spokesman based in Gaza, said: 'It will not be renewed as long as there is no real Israeli commitment to all of its conditions.'"
• Al Jazeera (also used this): "There have been sporadic violent clashes along the Israeli-Gaza border in the past two months, with both sides accusing each other of violating the truce. Israel has since stepped up its blockade of Gaza"
• Guardian (same source as used before - note the following in this source): (published Dec. 27) "Israel yesterday reopened crossings into the Gaza Strip, allowing in humanitarian aid after an eight-day closure, in what has been seen as an attempt to pre-empt international criticism ahead of today's attacks.". In other words, Israel closed its borders to all humanitarian aid on Dec. 18 NOT after Dec. 24 (as someone changed the text to read). Please read this in context in the source if you have any questions
• Carter (in the Nation) Changed to reflect that he didn't say this to "observes" (whatever those are); he wrote it in an editorial in the Washington Post.
• Carter (in the Nation) Also removed: "and that the information could not be confirmed in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas." I don't mind it, but it seems to be unnecessary and verbose and I do not see what it adds. I am not opposed to it being reinserted, but I would like to know who thinks this is necessary and why? Jgui (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jgui, rather than engage you in an edit war, I am asking you to self-revert this edit or at least modify it so that it conforms with the source. Nowhere in that source does it say that Israel closed border crossings when the cease-fire expired. I also encourage others including Sean and Nableezy to have a look at the edit and see if it correctly reflects the source. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, sorry if you missed this. Please see this in the cited Guardian article. Published Dec. 27: "Israel yesterday reopened crossings into the Gaza Strip, allowing in humanitarian aid after an eight-day closure, in what has been seen as an attempt to pre-empt international criticism ahead of today's attacks.". In other words, Israel closed its borders to all humanitarian aid eight days before the 26th, which is Dec. 18 NOT after Dec. 24 as you changed it to read. Please read this in context in the source if you have any questions. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

→crossings closure may be correct, but one sided. Let's see: 16 Dec - 4 Qassams, 17 Dec - 23 Qassams, 18 Dec - 4 Qassams, 19 Dec - 3 Qs, 20 Dec - 15 Qs, 21 Dec - 16Q, 22 Dec - 2 Qs, 23 Dec - 6 Qs, 24 Dec - 40 Qs, 25 Dec - 6 Qs.
Either we clarify that days before lulls end and between lull's end and IDF operation there was a non-stop rocket barrage or remove crossings from the lead. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the connection between the rocket frequency and stopping humanitarian aid ? Don't we need to say what the connection is between those 2 pieces of information according to the MFA or else it doesn't clarify anything ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be no connection. But the current phrasing of the para. in lead is vague, emphasizing one event (crossings closure) and neglecting the other (non-stop rocketing). Either we simply state those facts in chronological order or we delete both from the lead. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, OK I modified the sentence to clarify that as part of lull expiring Israel closed borders AND rocket attacks resumed. I didn't mention that the rockets were not from Hamas but from other groups, but we could add that if you wish.

While I was at it I broke up this overly long paragraph and made some other changes to a couple sentences there. I added back a sentence (after substantially reworking it to add more detail) that Jiujitsuguy had deleted claiming it was "redundant" - how could it be redundant when it was nowhere else - a UN compound is NOT a simple civilian building. I added copious RS citations and removed one that is no longer needed which is a broken link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1231167272256 - anyone who can find this should feel free to add it back. Please note that I was very careful to balance wording for NPOV: Israel and Hamas both "attacked" and "hit" targets. Thank you Jgui (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Although, I am not looking for escalation or 'tit-for-tat' alas, oh i dont know, Pales-Isras conflict, I wanted to clarify the sources that are cited in the following para of the lead.

When the truce expired Israel closed all border crossings into Gaza blocking all humanitarian supplies[22] and Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel resumed and intensified, in midst of a surge of cross-border fighting. [23][24]

From here, I am sure we either decide to do nothing, escalate the finger pointing, or follow Sean's recommendation to leave it as simple as almost not existing from the lead. Not a close-ended 'false advertisement' but those who have been here since the beginning know what is up with the lead. Cryptonio (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

UN report member Travers did an interview with the Middle East Monitor and stated, “It should be borne in mind that the number of rockets that had been fired into Israel in the month preceding their operations was something like two. The Hamas rockets had ceased being fired into Israel, and not only that, but Hamas sought a continuation of the cease-fire.” I only discovered this because Oren calls him anti-semitic for it but the theme that Israel broke the cease-fire would seem to be the major narrative. Quertzel (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

I don't know why the editor of this edit did not brought this point to the discussion because is something that although minor and we could perhaps avoid getting into it, is actually a good point that could prove useful for historians to come.

20,000 - 30,000

I suppose that I support this edit, using the personnel used instead of Total in the infobox. yet, do not know of a figure for the Pales. will look though. Cryptonio (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

found very little on this matter, in fact, "virtually nothing", so little, that it gives me not a hope of finding anything if continue to search. Cryptonio (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lull & Escalation - a fresh start

Escalation (lead)

While recent Jgui's edit is better, we're still not there. Saying that "When the truce expired ...[rockets] resumed and intensified" is simply dishonest (even if done in good faith). Actually, since the November incident, they never stopped. In the previous section I placed some (not all and not including mortars) links to attacks on days preceding Dec. 18. Would you like me to bring more links to show that the barraging was on almost daily basis before truce expired? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The November Israeli incursion into Gaza should be given due weight in this section, I think, it is widely seen as a turning point after which the rocket attacks from Gaza intensified, according to sources. Suggest we take it from there in the background section. RomaC (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem with backgroun section, actually it is already there as the 1st sentence in the section "Conflict escalates". I was talking about continuously changing lead. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK my bad, RomaC (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

<- Note my edit to the '2008 lull' section in the article body. The info sourced to HRW didn't really faithfully represent their statements about the lull. Also I put a fact tag in there because I wasn't sure where the Hamas denial came from. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you reached a conclusion that info sourced to HRW didn't really faithfully represent their statements. As I see it, the following is close enough to ITIC. "We recognize that until last week Hamas took efforts to halt rocket attacks by other groups as part of the June 19 ceasefire. However, throughout the ceasefire period other armed groups have continued to intermittently fire rockets from Gaza". But all in all, I'm generally fine with the current version. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I reached that conclusion because...

• It's not what HRW said. It was a quote from ITIC....in quotes....using their words.
• HRW used the words 'virtually stopped' to describe the change in the rocket fire rate. It's not about an 'effort'. It's a statement about change in a numerical value.
• HRW used measured neutral language rather than "summarily released without explanation".

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

→A word about the sentence below. It's not that I have problem with info per se. In my opinion though it might fit into article about lull and not here - the sentence covers just a 6-day period from the 6 months and it looks ridiculous. "The UN recorded seven IDF violations of the ceasefire between June 20 and June 26, and three violations by Palestinian groups not affiliated with Hamas between June 23 and 26".--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Crossings (lead)

Not the best (in wiki terms) source, but Israeli MFA site clearly says that "The opening of the crossings and the amounts of goods allowed to pass through them is conditional on Palestinian adherence to the calm agreement". And later "Since November 6 [the incident occured on Nov. 4], the commercial crossings have been mostly closed, due to the barrage of rockets and mortar bombs (approximately 230) that Hamas and other terrorist organizations have launched at Israel. However, Erez crossing has continued to be open to international and medical traffic.", It is interesting to note that "On Dec. 15 and 16, the crossings were open (see below) until rocket fire began, resulting in closing all of the crossings except for Erez. Rocket fire continued and the crossings were still closed on Dec. 17." and that between Dec. 21-26 there was no total closure. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
also, "Erez crossing has continued to be open to international and medical traffic". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Truce resumption (lead)

What is the reason to quote the Hamas side, i.e. "unless Israel would commit to all of its conditions including opening the Gaza border crossings", and not to present the Israeli side that is already in the article, i.e. "[Israel supports the continuation of the ceasefire in Gaza – if Hamas adheres to the conditions". More info in the same link: "Officials within Hamas said the Islamist group believes the lull should be extended, however there will likely be new conditions stipulated in the renewal of the agreement – namely that Israel must vow to keep the border crossings permanently open. Israel has frequently shut down the crossings in response to rocket attacks on its towns, in the past month alone more than 200 Qassam rockets and mortar shells have landed in the western Negev region.

Truce terms

If we quoted Carter, there's no reason not to quote Amos Gilad who was directly involved: Gilad described the conditions according to which the terror organizations were to be judged during the ceasefire. "We need a total ceasefire – all included. If tomorrow morning one single rocket is fired, it will be a violation of the agreement. There is no room for interpretation, and no mediating body is needed. We will not accept the firing of even one Qassam. Egypt, on its side, is committed to preventing the smuggling activity from Gaza. It's simple; Egypt has a border with Gaza, through which weapons and terrorists are smuggled. Smuggling is a serious violation of the terms. Any such infraction will lead to a change in Israel's stance from the way in which it was presented to the Egyptians," he said. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I too have gained the right to ignore discussions dealing with this part of the lead(like Cptnono, Sean, Nab and RomaC are doing). But, just as a reminder there are a couple of keywords already included in the lead, that should let us know why to stay away from this point. "Fragile" and "Sporadic violence etc". Anything else is to come up with a definitive answer that justify certain points in a dramatic and contentious subject. It is no wonder then, we are still arguing about this. Either way, I recommend Sceptic to look at some board here in Wiki(there are many of those) for dispute resolution and for him to let us know where we could "advice the advisers". Cryptonio (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Infrastructure on the lead.

I will remind fellow editors, that Israel's rationale for ATTACKING these civilians buildings etc, was that ANYTHING affiliated with Hamas was considered a valid TARGET. So, it was Israe's intention to attack said buildings, so it is no longer considered collateral damage( alas UN building etc). Pretty simple stuff. Cryptonio (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I don't really understand why it says "Israeli forces attacked Hamas military targets and other government buildings" as if the two would normally be linked. IP86.158.184.185 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest the article should say what Israel hit instead of what they said they were targeting. Facts rather than intent seems a good way to make the information objective and verifiable. RomaC (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A fine line would have to be walked for this RomaC, after all the Israeli air force boasted of a 99 percent "strike-killed" of targets. Cryptonio (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually 95 and 99 so it says in the section, with zero misses...go figure... Cryptonio (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean, these numbers are a little interesting(whether they are true or not, i don't care). Take this 95 percent 'success rate'. I'm terrible at math so i'll just wing it on this one. Say that there were 10 targets and 1 of them was not 'successful', oka so that's cool, most likely the OBJECTIVE was the complete destruction of the actual target and not just knocking down the front door. Or perhaps even the other way around, it destroyed the whole thing while the objective was to only knock down the door(see 'roof knocking'). So you get your 90 percent rate, which appears to be just totally awesome, but how do you get your zero misses?

Well, then obviously, the strike hit the target but it was not successful(the bomb did not explode, heck) and then perhaps the 99 percent number prove us right on this one(because all of the strikes hit their intended target). The beauty of such high 'success rate' is, that it throws away the overstated and sanguine "collateral damage" 'defence' because there is no way in hell(or a place just as cold in the summer) that these destroyed buildings were destroyed because it was adjacent to another target, because if that was the case, the 'success rate' wouldn't have been so delicious and appetizing. I mean, push this further and get into the realm of 'hyperbole'.

What could be stupefied as collateral damage would be the civilian killed in these buildings, but this is not the case here, because the lead does not dwell on it. Yae... Cryptonio (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much about these ruminations. In an answer to Roma, we have to do best to make sure that all the facts are presented, and not only those that were selectively chosen. E.g. if I broke your jaw, that fact should be stated. If however you threatened me with a knife before, that fact should be stated too. The same with a hit target. If IDF hits school full of students - that's one thing. If IDF hits school that was used as a command center of the fighters - that's another thing. If IDF hits mortar launchers 80 m near school and school insiders suffer from ricochet - that's third thing. If some NGO/UN researchers claim IDF hit school and IDF claims it didn't - that's yet another thing because we do not know the absolute truth. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A general question but are we treating the intended targets of both belligerents in the same way ? I haven't checked. In other words, Hamas no doubt make statements along the lines of "we fired our completely inaccurate and uncontrollable rockets at military targets...no really...we did...honest...it's not our fault if the blockade means we can't get quality gear." I'm paraphrasing obviously. Are we treating their stated targeting intentions the same way that we treat the IDF's because I guess we should (as ridiculous as it seems, at least to me). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't care about ruminations, but then you went ahead and ruminated till sunlight escaped at night, should I care about your ruminations? The only thing I found usable here was "because we do not know the absolute truth.", that i will remember... Cryptonio (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I truly hope you will, because I intend to check out some source - I suspect several things stated as facts are not pure facts as it may seem. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for Sceptic to get to the lead and do his fact-finding work when it comes to dual user-ship of civilian target. Apparently, it should scream out to him. Cryptonio (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A three-week conflict between ...

I changed the intro to read that this was a three-week conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people. My rationale for his change is that the two parties involved in this conflict were Israel and the Palestinian people. If the sentence said "Israeli army" instead of "Israel", I would change Hamas to read "Palestinian militants", because as the sources cited in the article demonstrate, it was not simply Hamas's armed wing hat was involved in the defense of the Gaza Strip. All the armed wings of the different Palestinian factions were involved. It is therefore misleading to write "Hamas" when they represent only one faction of the Palestinian people who were involved and affected by this war.

Breein1007 has reverted my change so that it is back to Hamas. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&curid=20855562&diff=344084449&oldid=344060337] Note that his rationale states "wars are officially fought between 2 parties, and israel declared war against hamas, not the palestinian people. it is POV to suggest otherwise." His rationale exemplifies he main problem for me which is that we uncritically adopt the Israeli POV here, which describes the assault on Gaza as an attack on Hamas.

I am open to considering other formulations here. However I reject the idea that we state, in Wikipedia's neutral voice, the Israeli rationale for their war on Gaza. I also reject that we misrepresent what is stated in the article body with such a simplistic formulation in the lead. Every single political party representing the Palestinian people had an armed wing that fought in this war. Tiamut^talk 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, the reason I only supplied Israel's position in my edit summary is that there wasn't enough room to expand. Also, I assumed it's pretty self evident who Hamas was fighting a war against. Did Hamas declare war against the "Israeli army"? Or "Israel"? Has Hamas been calling for the destruction of the "Israeli army" for years? Or of "Israel"? Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against Hamas, not against the Palestinian people. And Israel did not fight the Palestinian people in the war. They fought Hamas (and other militant groups who got involved). If you can think of a better way to phrase that, I'd be happy to discuss it and help come up with something. At this point, I'm having trouble coming up with anything. Breein1007 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please BReein1007, the source you provided was from the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Its clear as day that this is the ISraeli POV. To try to state otherwise, is ignoring reality.

I suggest we change the intro to read "was a three-week military conflict that took place in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel during the winter of 2008–2009. The Israeli government defined it as a military operation against Hamas. Palestinians saw it as a "war on the Palestinian people."

That's probably the most NPOV formulation as it provides the perspectives of both major parties. Tiamut^talk 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your refs are hidden FYI. What you have sourced here are individuals stating their opinion that Israel is massacring the Palestinian people, Israel is waging all out war on the Palestinians, blah blah blah. Rudeness aside, this is not an official stance that defines the participants of the war. These are individual people being quoted on their opinion. If you want, we could add their opinions to the article and attribute them accordingly. (ie: Mustafa Barghouti said that "..."). However, I don't think that would be something to include in the lead. Breein1007 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is now a ref section below, so you can see them. As you will note, three articles are referenced, all using the phrase "war on the Palestinian people". One is by a rep of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one is by a member of the Palestinian parliament (Barghouti) and one is from a Palestinian civilian whose daughter was a casualty of the war. There are more refs that can attest to how widely spread this viewpoint is among Palestinians. And in the section on Palestinian paramilitary activity, a political rep says there that the war is an attempt to dissolve the Palestinian cause. Basically the same idea, different phrasing. As such, this info is appropriate for the lead. Tiamut^talk 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual reliable sources (as opposed to partisans quoted in the reliable sources) tend to state "between Israel and Hamas" and do not say "between Israel and the Palestinian people". Tiamut's attempted change has no merit and is slightly disturbing, since the above should be obvious. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your two cents Jalapenos. But I don't think you are up to date on which change it is that is being discussed. Tiamut^talk 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"A three-week conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip"? Isn't that what we had and how it appears in the infobox? RomaC (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we had "between Israel and Hamas" following a discussion, in which you participated, where I demonstrated that that is how the reliable sources characterize it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Even Fatah fired their "two cents" in this world. We should discuss this further, I think. Cryptonio (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an abundant of arguments being made(backed by primary, secondary, reliable, not reliable sources etc.) Let's please take a second and go over them, if in the end we can't agree I'm sure we can work out on a compromise and such. Let's stop wasting people's time by ignoring what it is they have to say, this is a TALK page and not just a place to come in and disagree without any VALID reason. Cryptonio (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Political interaction, correlation and 'content dispute' between PALESTINIAN factions in GAZA.

"Well-informed Palestinian sources in Gaza, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Xinhua that during the recent Israeli military escalation on Gaza, Hamas leaders held a series of meetings and talks with leaders of different groups in Gaza and urged them for restraint." [2] Cryptonio (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

...a three-week conflict between Israel and Gazan paramilitias, most prominently [the armed wing of] Hamas. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

External link

I am usually against bloating the EL section. [3] was brought up above and it is awesome from the little bit I have had a chance to go over. The ultimate goal should be to integrate it into the body but that is a project. Any thoughts on sticking it in (gigidy) in the external links section for now? Another thought on it: The ability of the writer to present some of the contentious info in such a neutral manner is awesome. I wish this article was written so well.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of RS cited text and RS citations without discussion AGAIN

Certain editors (especially JDE) are continuing to remove RS cited text in violation of WP policies. It is impossible to edit collaboratively when an editor thinks that he has the right to remove RS cited text, apparently because he simply DOES NOT LIKE IT. This is highly disruptive. Several editors are attempting to make good faith edits, and have spent a great deal of time finding sources that satisfy all WP:RS guidelines including WP:Verifiability. This material is being attributed to reliable, published source using inline citations; it is being cited clearly and precisely, and it clearly supports the material as presented in the article. Revert-warring to block this material without justification and without explanation must stop. PLEASE explain why you are deleting all of this relevant cited material. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of troops/fighters

We had for a long time displayed in the infobox the total verifiable IDF and Hamas fighters/troops figures; a week or so back editor Noung changed this to severely lower the Israeli number, based on a news story estimating many IDF soldiers participated in the ground offensive alone. I reverted. Soon thereafter Jujistuguy restored Noung's edit with the summary "Noung edit is a more accurate reflection of disposition of forces". I am now reverting again can we discuss this here instead of edit-warring? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jiujitsuguy has reverted once again rather than discuss the contentious edit here. The source Noung gave was only for number of Israeli ground troops entering Gaza. That's one part of the war. Remember we have no way of knowing the number of fighters in Gaza who directly participated but we use a source for Hamas' total strength. Discuss the suggested edits instead of edit-warring please. RomaC (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is beyond silly to assume that all of Israel's active duty personnel participated in the conflict. That would mean that Israel removed all forces stationed on the Golan, Lebanon border and Judea/Samaria and that's just plain silly. You have no source that supports this view. At least Noung's edit was sourced an yours is not.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review how WP:BRD works. Noung made a Bold edit, it was Reverted. Now we Discuss. You do not start edit-warring again. Please self-revert. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please justify your version with an RS. Noung's edit makes sense and more importantly, is sourced and yours is not.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I remind you that the total Hamas and IDF strength (marked "(total)" figures were in the article for many many months. There is a source provided, by the way, for IDF strength. I will revert the change you are trying to make, please get consensus here first. RomaC (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict is for units involved not total available. So it was not in correctly for a long time (like plenty of other info). Over one hundred thousand did not participate.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If editors believe the data was incorrect, they have to present their suggestions here. The new edit's source for IDF strength mentions only ground troops sent into Gaza. There were others involved (ie., naval, air, and artillery and their support). Also, the Hamas strength source is a dead link. Want to improve the article? Don't declare content "incorrect" only to replace it with other incorrect content. Mind the sanctions. RomaC (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, as some editors now seem to prefer the infobox show a 20,000 vs 20,000 fight between IDF and Gaza, can we begin by someone please providing a reliable source for the 20,000 Hamas fighters figure, which says they were all "involved" in the conflict. GlobalSecurity.org puts Hamas' al-Qassam Brigades strength at "several hundred fighters." [4].

Also thanks for the useful link to the Template:Infobox military conflict, which illustrates the inclusion of not only personnel but also fighting equipment. Agree we should use this example to improve the infobox, and so add the following, used in the Gaza war, per columbia international affairs online:

IDF

• 300 F-16 warplanes
• AH-64 Apache attack helicopters
• AH-1F Cobra helicopter gunships
• 300 Merkava II, III, and IV battle tanks
• 100 M113 Nagmash armored personnel carriers (APC)
• 100 armored CAT D9 bulldozers
• Armed Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)
• Naval vessels including Super Dvora-class fast patrol boats
• Artillery including Soltam M-71 towed howitzer, M109 self-propelled howitzer, Sholef 155 mm self-propelled howitzer, and M270 MLRS multiple rocket launcher

Hamas and other paramilitary forces

• Steel artillery rockets

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This academic source may help too. Military Dimensions: The Israeli Arsenal Deployed against Gaza, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 38, no. 3, p. 175. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good find. There is some interesting stuff that we only brush on or don't have at all in there. Sentry Tech Remote-Operated Weapons Stations, robots (another first use with the Vipers), APCs, bulldozers, and so on and so on and so on. Our little naval section is better (just saying). Probably enough to comment on that new sections will be here with expansion in the article. I only skimmed it but didn't see a number higher than 10,000 which is contradicted. Did I miss something? I also see no problem with listing equipment except for bloating the box. Now that we have such a detailed source that is a possibility. But overall, two guys in a plane can do plenty of damage so the infantry shouldn't get all of the credit. Cptnono (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerned about the recent edits here. The article infobox had total strength figures for both sides on the conflict. With no discussion here on Talk, and in spite of clear instructions not to make contentious edits without consensus in the wake of the locking of this article, this perhaps-not-perfect-but-nonetheless-balanced-in-its-treatment infobox information was removed and replaced with, on one side, a vastly-reduced Israeli strength figure sourced to a report covering just one aspect of the conflict (ergo patently incomplete); and on the other side, supposed total Hamas strength, sourced with a dead link. When I reverted Cptnono accused me of edit-warring. I won't revert again at this time, maybe another editor will. Cptnono if there is no source for 20,000 Hamas fighters do you support the "several hundred" per Global Security? Either that or removal of the ground forces only figure for Israel, to once again show total forces for both sides? We can't have one side tallied one way and the other a different way. RomaC (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, I would support putting the number of Hamas combatants as 100 with a qualification that the remaining 19,900 Hamas "fighters" either dressed as women (or hid behind them) or simply ran away.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thing RomaC, you’re overlooking one central fact. Hamas, having murdered or imprisoned its Fatah rivals, faces only one enemy on one front. Therefore, it musters all its resources against this one foe. By contrast, Israel faces a multiplicity of enemies on many fronts and stations troops along those borders at all times. So while 10,000 to 20,000 Israeli troops were engaged in Gaza, other IDF troops were stationed on the Lebanon border, the Golan Heights and Judea/Samaria. You're not seriously arguing that Israel emptied these fronts of soldiers and re-directed them to Gaza, are you? And if you are, where is your proof? Incidentally, Sean's source lists a figure of 10,000 IDF soldiers partaking in the battle. I would agree that it would be nice to have a breakdown of how many Hamas “militants” hid underneath Shiffa Hospital, or ran from battle or dressed as women in the face of the IDF advance. Unfortunately, Hamas will not release those figures. It's classified ;)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We can use "10,000" or ">10,000" or whatever until more sources are found.Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's classified ;)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If the discussion is going to be about one side's murderous treachery, then it is no discussion at all. Reverting to the last stable version, with total strength for both sides, until the will to create a consensus for change develops. RomaC (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to an inaccurate version is just as bad as edit warring especially with that rationale. Stop it.

Hamas/Gaza/Whatever: "Unknown" Israel: ">10,000".Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are currently at least three editors who support the change. More importantly, the edit is now sourced with two references. As for your gratuitous comment about "murderous treachery," I knew you would eventually crack and show your true colors. Keep on talking and let it all flow out--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go again -- about who introduced murder and treachery into this discussion, it was you, not me. What is more important is the article content. I do not see two sources as you claim, the ABC link on Hamas strength is dead, the SMH's figures ("more than 20,000") reflect but one aspect of the war. Address these issues please, instead of presenting your opinions on other editors' "true colors" (do you really want to go there?) And Cptnono, I waited to revert to the stable version in case another editor wanted to fix the new, problematic edit. That hasn't happened. I repeat, the long-standing infobox figures for total strength were not incorrect, but I appreciate your argument that total strength figures may not be appropriate. Unfortunately, that suggestion was not discussed here first, and that is the issue I have in the wake of the problems this article has had with gung-ho editing and protection and locking. I suggest we use the figures from Sean's academic source for hardware, and use the same source and the Global Security source for fighters on the ground, specifying that the Israeli figure is the "ground invasion force". This seems the most accurate way to present properly sourced information here. RomaC (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Invasion force is essentially what the parameter is. We can easily add in the hardware you mentioned if the overwhelming strength is not shown.Cptnono (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If we set the parameter as respective ground invasion forces, then the figure for the Gaza side would be zero... RomaC (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Quit dancing. Israel's invasion force is the units involved. I assume you are clever enough to figure that is what I meant. Gaza would be those actively defending, launching rockets, and making border incursions. If that number is unknown or estimated then that is the way that is.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What you say would be true if this article was about a "war on Gaza", and I'd be fine with that. But some editors' dancing last year edited that out and insisted the article lead describe this as a war "in Gaza and Southern Israel". So the article says Israel was a war zone, too; ergo IDF troops in Israel are in a war zone. Anyway I left a message on your talk page, let's fix this up it's just a little ridiculous to have an infobox that makes a ragtag bunch of cross-dressers appear to be equal in military strength to the, what is it, 4th best armed forces in the world? RomaC (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. Israel of course had a good number of well equipped forces against an opponent with weaker resources. I think the infobox should show that. I don't know about considering Israel proper the war zone but rockets did get fired into it and there was some minor stuff at the border. I think that adjusting the wording in the lead could be an option. Dudes sitting on base far away from active fighting shouldn't be included as participating though.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

→One Roma's remark is particularly amusing. During 1st Gulf War, when SCAD missiles were falling on our heads, all the Israel was a war zone. Is total IDF strength listed in the infobox there next to coalition forces? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sceptic -- I appreciate this Israeli POV, but don't see Israel listed as a party to 1st Gulf War, perhaps you could advocate for that, anyway any editing you might want to do on that position is irrelevant to the discussion here, respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

RomaC. Responding to your comment on my talk page. I have provided two sources for Hamas combat strength. Concerning IDF figures, as I explained to you before, it is beyond silly to include total IDF combat strength because only a portion of the IDF, approximately 10,000-20,000 soldiers, were engaged in combat operations. By contrast, Hamas committed all its resources to the fight (well, except for those brave souls hiding under Shifa Hospital). What is the difficulty here? There are three editors who support Noung's edit and if you include Noung, we have four. More importantly. Noung's edit is sourced and Sean's source states that only 10,000 soldiers entered Gaza. Yes, I concur that there were ancillary units (such as airforce and naval personnel) supporting the war effort. So lets add another 5,000 or so personnel to the mix. That would add up to between 15,000 to 25,000 IDF personnel.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we really shouldn't just slap random numbers on. Since this is on the verge of being fixed and not being a frustrating edit, we should probably take it easy on the rhetoric on the talk page. I've done my fair share of shit talking on this page but lets at least tone it down per Romac's request since we almost have consensus .Cptnono (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, we can't just make guesstimates to add a few thousand more to the mix. The lead says this was a war fought in Gaza and Israel. Some editors are saying that some of the Israeli armed forces were not involved. How do we define "involved"? Arming a howitzer? Cooking falafel in a mess tent? Refueling an F-16? Joysticking a UAV? Intelligence? How? Also, I see no source that says all Hamas personnel were involved, firing Qassams or whatever. Actually the argument has recently been presented here that Hamas fighters variously hid or avoided fighting by dressing as women.

Just because three editors are supporting an edit does not mean it belongs in the article, sorry. The infobox can't tally the two sides' strength using totally different standards, ie. only IDF infantry who put on their boots and crossed the border listed on one side vs the total number of Hamas personnel listed on the other. This is why we had provided both sides' total strength as the comparative metric, if editors have a better one please suggest it here. I could live with IDF ground invasion force listed first, as 10,000-20,000; then totals for both sides qualified as such. And list the hardware of course. RomaC (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Support personnel of course were included in the operation. However, there were not 150,000 cooks. Go with the numbers in sources, range it and estimate it if need be. Maybe we should put more effort into finding the Hamas numbers involved. This is even more important since some refused to fight. This means their total number available before the fight is also incorrect. This does not need to be this complicated.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Making the edit, IDF total and Hamas/Gaza paramilitary totals come out. On troops, counting only IDF sourced as "involved" in the ground invasion. If someone can find a RS with a corresponding "involved" figure for Hamas/Gaza paramilitary please present it here. The logical problem of having a war in Israel in which the Israeli armed forces are "not involved" is fixed by adjusting the lead as suggested by Cptnono (there was no fighting in Israel apart from the rumored border invasion which is minor, like the current mention of a skirmishes on Lebanon and Syrian borders.) Also, adding the hardware, this could be trimmed down, suggestions? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is a little much on the eyes. Part of me wants to shorten it up by removing some of the info (simply "tanks") but the extended in depth description (ie Merkava II, III, and IV) are good navigational and info wise. Undecided aesthetically but I like the idea overall.
• I am under the impression that their were other types of bulldozers as well. Bulldozers were also a tool to counter IEDs as opposed to being offensive (see rumors of the first Gulf War). May not be needed but again I don't feel strongly about it.Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edited some of the descriptions down to reduce a few lines, added "other" class to bulldozers, and I think there were missile boats but can't find an accurate source. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume that using an "involved" term might be causing a minor confusion. Better lingo would be troops/weaponry deployed. I'm pretty happy with description of IDF troops/weaponry and I suppose that for instance, IDF artillery troops on Gaza border did not utilize their boots in order to cross into Gaza Strip, while being deployed. We could definitely do better on Hamas arsenal and troops though, without paying a visit to a wonderful absurd land. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

The Goldstone report may be a primary source for the conclusions made about what is a violation of international law, but for reporting on facts it is not a primary source. When citing the report for, let's say the number of schools hit, the report is a secondary source. The UN, and Goldstone himself, was not involved in the conflict, so I am confused as to how it can be called a primary source for that type of information. nableezy - 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

According to that logic, it would also be fine to make statements by the Anti-Defamation League in the voice of the article, but thankfully people don't do this. The UNHRC report is a primary source because the UNHRC is politically involved in Middle Eastern affairs. It is also a low quality and problematic source, because it contains mistakes and notable observers, including the staffs of reliable source publications, have severely criticized it on factual and methodological grounds. It will save everyone a huge amount of time and heartache if we reserve the voice of the article for uncontroversial sources such as mainstream news organizations and peer-reviewed academic papers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For the conclusions made in the report, such as X action is a violation of international law, the report is a primary source. For citing facts it is a secondary source. It is reporting on the actions of another party. The conclusions it makes are its own, but for the facts it documents it is a secondary source. nableezy - 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the mainstream newspapers used as sources in this article are politically involved in Middle Eastern affairs. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I clearly miss something. Goldstone report is not a RS per se, each time someone refers to it it should be attributed properly. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For something like how many hospitals were hit, it is a RS. nableezy - 09:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, for things like that it is. I don't see any harm in attributing though. I think there should be more of it. As a reader I'd like to see who is making a statement so that I can make my own mind up about whether it's likely to be reliable information. For me that includes information reported by mainstream media sources that could reasonably be considered to be not entirely independent or neutral on the issues. That's just about all of them. I do see harm in the view that the reliability of reports into war crimes, human rights abuses etc can be measured by the extent to which supporters of parties being accused of war crimes, human rights abuses complain about it. Any organization or person no matter how respected, independent, professional and neutral they are will be subjected to coordinated and extensive criticism and attacks if they say anything critical about certain countries. At least attribution removes the influence of an editor's inability to consistently recognise the nature and purpose of information and the limits of its reliability and worth. Editors don't seem to have trouble handling partisan information from places like Iran and China sensibly but sources closer to home...not so much. Iran, China = questionable, maybe propaganda. Data from a right wing student org => rant by journalist in an Israeli tabloid (RS) => story emailed to friendly journalists around the world by the GPO of Israel => inaccurate data and accusations republished in mainstream RS media => respected charity director sacked from Jerusalem Post (RS) and villified = no problem, all reliable sources, attribution not required. Seems problematic to me. Attribution makes everything clearer for the reader so that they can deploy their own bias when they read it rather than us imposing our biased and inconsistent assessments of reliability on them. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, disagree. Convince me. Or concur to use Cordesman's reported info as RS.
Sean, fine as long as one standard applied to all and everybody concurs. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For facts like that I do think it is a secondary source. For judgments, like the Goldstone Report, it is a primary source reflecting his conclusions. nableezy - 21:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

→A "fact" in the lead that Israeli forces "hit" hospitals is in fact an article about PHR-Israel charges. Nothing more nothing less. I can also put in the lead the charge brought by the Government in Ramallah that many hospitals were used by Hamas operatives as command and detention centers.
A claim that Israel hit hundreds of schools is taken from the Goldstone report. With all the respect to Goldstone et. al., a report published under the auspices of UNHRC could not be treated as RS per se and requires attribution. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, the purpose in the lead is to describe the damage caused by the war in a NPOV way. It is very straight-forward: these are the effects of the war on people and property. Period. The justifications and reasoning behind these attacks are more complex and are in the body of the article - that is a much more contentious issue with both sides finding justifications for the damage they've done. One of the UN's jobs is to clean up messes after they occur. So if we are reporting on the earthquake in Haiti we would go to the UN for an assessment of how many buildings and what type were damaged - not the media since they are reporting only on the "spectacular" or "interesting" ones (e.g. media saturation coverage of the one hotel that had some Americans in it when it collapsed vs. the thousands of buildings around it). The same is true here - the UN is tasked with cleaning up the messes created by Nature or Man, so they are one of the ones we go to for lists of how big a mess was created.

Sceptic, are you questioning that these buildings were really destroyed or damaged - what do you think missiles and bombs do if they don't blow stuff up? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither the UNHRC nor the specific UNHRC mission have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The UNHRC has a reputation of being politicized, and this mission, if it has any reputation at all, has a reputation of being sloppy, inaccurate and biased. That is what The Economist, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Times and others say. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It really depends who you ask. The reliable organizations with people of the ground looking at things regarded the data in the report as consistent with theirs. The sources you list aren't really concerned about data and it's the data that Nableezy is talking about. The Washington Times piece has nothing to say about the factual findings of the report other than claiming that the mission was "pretending it did not know" about various things. It addresses the mission's judgment of the factual findings expressed in the report. Reading this piece you would hardly know that the report actually contains factual data about casualties and infrastructure damage etc. The Wall Street Journal is actually the The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal and the unattributed opinion expressed is so amazingly biased that it could have been written by the MFA or NGO Monitor. Again it doesn't address the factual findings of the report about the actual consequences of the conflict on people and infrastructure, the factual data in the report (that describes things so obvious that they are visible from space). The material referred to as being The Times is an opinion piece by David Aaronovitch which we present as if it represents the view of The Times. I can't access The Economist pieces because they are behind a paywall but the cynic in me expects that it ignored the kind of information Nableezy is talking about, hospitals hit, the actual data representing things like flattened buildings witnessed by people on the ground with their own eyes that make up a substantial part of the findings. I find the over emphasis on opinion pieces in Wikipedia very troubling. Opinions in mainstream media sources aren't statements of fact. An opinion that 'the report is biased' has no connection to hard data about things like piles of rubble on the ground that were buildings. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

→Give me an example, Nableezy. Jgui, I won't discuss neither the virtues of the UN and its different branches like UNRWA and UNHRC, nor what do I think about missiles and bombs. Do you have a solid undisputable RS that backs the claim that Israel "hit" hospitals? kindergartens? schools? Do you have a solid undisputable RS that backs the claim that when they were "hit", they were indeed civilian and not served as a command center or rockets warehouse? E.g., nobody's suggesting that when a rocket hit synagouge in Israel it was indeed synagouge. On the contrary, there are indications that when Israel "hit" mosques, they were used for other purposes too. Those indications do not come merely from Israel. Maybe you have to reread the info that is already in the article, e.g. this one:

Several witnesses told an Italian reporter that on many roofs of the tall buildings that were hit by Israeli bombs, including UN building, there were rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs.[217][218] ...[219] Following the visit of the British Army veteran Colonel Tim Collins to the ruins of one of the mosques targeted by the IDF in Rafah, he said that in his view the evidencies of the secondary explosion, that could have indicated weapon's storage in the mosque, are present.[220]

--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of difficult to know what to pick out of the 2,692 destroyed and severely damaged buildings, 220 impact craters on roads and bridges, 714 impact craters on open ground or cultivated land, 187 greenhouses completely destroyed or severely damaged, and 22.32 km2 of demolished zones targeted by IDF bulldozers, tanks and phosphorus shelling that are visible from space and identified by disinterested UNOSAT remote sensing interpreters. It's easy to distract readers by filling articles with inconsequential details and opinions. It obscures the actual data that describes the conflict, the data that enables readers to understand what actually happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Presenting readers with some selected facts and conceal other facts - that what really obscures the reader's understanding of what actually happened. Tell the reader that there were rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs on the roofs of UN buildings - and there would be no objection to say that IDF hit them. Tell the reader that weapons were stored in mosques - and there would be no objection to say that IDF hit them. Tell the reader that Hamas seniors hid in the hospitals - and there would be no objection to say that IDF hit them. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

→Maybe it's time to refresh your memory, Sean, and I can help you with that. Goldstone report was dubbed (or implied) "controversial" by Washington Post, Times, WSJ, NYDaily. No Aharonovitch. When this bulk of sources implies controversy, you can't quote anything from it without attribution. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC) →One more thing. Somebody here was talking about numbers. I got one more figure. "Mr. Amr Hamad indicated that 324 factories had been destroyed during the Israeli military operations at a cost of 40,000 jobs. In its detailed written report on the impact of the Israeli military activities, the Palestinian Federation of Industries points out that...", says Goldstone report (para. 1009). But wait a second. a report from The Palestinian Federation of Industries (p.13): "The 324 factories surveyed employed about 4000 workers just before the war". So you know, it's easy to distract a reader with the figures, especially when there's a difference of a magnitude in statistics. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if you are seeing malicious intent there, but I see a typo; a typo that if pointed out would, I think, be quickly corrected in our text. nableezy - 03:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sean, I'm not disputing that there are some sources that say the UNHRC report was accurate overall. Specifically, there are two - AI and HRW - and Goldstone was a senior member of the latter. It is not correct at all to say that the many reliable sources which criticize the report are not talking about the factual aspects. It seems that the clear majority of notable commentators who addressed the factual accuracy of the report said that it contains numerous errors. But even if it were only a minority, it would still be clear that this is a problematic source. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliability is separate from whether or not the source is a secondary or primary source. I would argue it is also a reliable secondary source for the facts it documents, but we can argue that at the RS/N. But I dont think it is possible to call it a "primary source" for info like X was bombed Y:ZZ. nableezy - 02:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, technically reliability simply means that if the source says "so-and-so says x", then we know that so-and-so really says x. In this sense, the UNHRC website is obviously a reliable source regarding what its own mission said, so we know that this godawfully long report is the actual report of the mission. The issue is that NPOV requires us to attribute each POV to its holder. We don't do this with, say, CNN, because except in rare cases there is no serious dispute that what it says is true, so it would be a waste of time and space. Here there is serious dispute, so we have to attribute every statement. NPOV also requires us to give each POV its due weight. Since most informed and notable commentators who've analyzed the UNHRC report say that it's fairly crap, its due weight is correspondingly low. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your view, I obviously disagree but we can deal with that in a bit. Do you agree that for information relating the the facts of what occurred, as in the generic example above, that the report is a secondary source? nableezy - 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't. All the info in Goldstone report comes from "credible and reliable witnesses" or from submissions. Where you see typo, I see shoddy work. The figure of 40,000 comes from Mr. Amr Hamad himself (I can find you his testimony) and wasn't verified. You can see Abd Rabbo family incident for another example of "facts of what occurred" that were not verified even with HRW's report. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, you are talking about its reliability, not whether or not it is a primary or secondary source. See WP:SECONDARY. Goldstone, nor the commission, nor the UNHRC, were involved in what they reported. It is not possible to call the report a primary source for that information. nableezy - 04:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I also don't agree. According to WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. The UNHRC report is thus a model primary source, since it was written by people involved in the events, stating their own conclusions. Quoting from the UNHRC report to say "(The UNHRC mission reached the conclusion that) John bombed the house" is at best like using a scientific article to say "(Morgenstern et al reached the conclusion that) height is correlated to IQ"; namely, using a primary source. That said, I personally think that primary sources are often better than secondary sources. The reason WP discourages their use is to avoid OR and disputes regarding what was actually said; I doubt that will be a big problem here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

They were not involved in the events, it is not possible to say that they were. nableezy - 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While I fully agree with Nableezy and Sean.hoyland here and reject Jalapenos do exist and Sceptic Ashdod's concerns regarding reliability or the suitability of the sources being cited, perhaps a solution to this dispute would be to do as is done in this report by The Times. We can simply write, as they do, "The UN has estimated that more than 50,000 homes, 200 schools and 39 mosques were damaged or destroyed during the war, in addition to a number of UN facilities, including two schools, offices and dozens of vehicles." For the other details, we can attribute them to their respective reports. Tiamut^talk 12:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For the intro itself, we might consider leaving the figures out altogether, citing them instead in the body, and write instead: In its land, sea and air offensive, Israel targeted hospitals, schools, mosques and government buildings and destroyed the infrastructure system in Gaza, leaving Palestinians without electricity, gas and power. Tiamut^talk 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest changing "targeted" to "hit" as we cannot say for certain what either side was "targeting" (and both sides have said they didn't target civilians etc.), but we can be sure of what they "hit" as this is substantiated by many RS. Also how about listing what was hit in descending order, ie. starting with "government buildings/police stations" and proceeding from there. Also I don't know that "the infrastructure system" was "destroyed" per se, meaning in its entirety, suggest this would need qualification. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

→Rejecting without even trying to bring counterarguments, Tiamut? Nevermind. A sentence from Times as it is looks fine to me, source from Turkey (that doesn't look like a major news outlet) doesn't. Language to be used is "passive". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Major news outlet? Why isn't the AP used more often in this article? Major from which point of view? DO we write this article only of Westerners? Arab or Eastern media aren't 'mainstream? again, from what point of view? Is the Western POV the acceptable platform for Wiki? Is Western media the best quality RS? again, according to Wiki's platform? heck, let us see where this platform stands, please. Crap, more than half(i'm willing to put money in it) of all cited sources in this article come from Israeli media. uninvolved? reliable? Then why can't we use Turkey's media outlet(the point here is not to support the inclusion of the text, per se). We are under no obligation to only use 'RS"(as prescribed or taken from certain point of view) to let the readers know that Arab's POV is misleading or untrustworthy in this conflict while the other side's narrative must be "true" since is 'sourced' by reliable or 'mainstream' sources. and notice i'm not advocating for a greater space given to blogs or bloggers. What is it to us that what is said in Arab news media is biased, if they too use the same 'facts'(derived from i don't know where) as Western media? As long as we keep pretending that Wiki is only of the elite Westerners, we will continue to ignore reality. The fact is, that all 'regions' of this world want for the opportunity for their point of view to be represented, and Google makes sure of that, for every once in a while even the AP gets right. We cannot, and will not approve(re "Palestinians saw it as a war on Palestinians) of the silencing of one side on grounds that because Western media does not 'rationalize' or report their side, it clearly must be, not only biased(which is a given) but a lie. No word from the AP on why the Honduran president was ousted, simply "he was trying to govern for ever". No word from the AP TO THIS DAY, why Hamas refused to renew the ceasefire(just as a sample). nothing from the AP on anything that the BBC reports and Al Jaz has been 'dead on arrival' for quite some time now. darn i gotta gotta be at work in five minutes. Cryptonio (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, Cryptonio. Being familiar with basic wiki provisions, I know for sure that BBC or YNET or CNN or NY Times are RSs and we kind of take this for granted. This Turkish cite cannot be taken for granted as RS, its reliability should be established first. Hope you wasn't late for work because of me.
Btw, about using Israeli sources - Haaretz, YNET, JPost, these are those whose reliability as news outlets is established and acknowledged. On the contrary, being aware of the controversy of Arutz 7 as RS, it is only used once, adjacent to Haaretz, in a manner that would not compromise the contents of the material. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was ten minutes late. I don't think you got my point, I too, don't have a prob with haa, YNE or JP. Maybe Sean can explain what i'm trying to get a cross. I don't even know what Turkish site it was really. Cryptonio (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Well, maybe I missed the point, but I'll repeat - I think when it comes to LEAD, only established RSs should be used. I don't care whether it is of Eastern or Western origin, it could even be Al-Jazeera. But, replying to Tiamut suggestion, I want to stress that her 1st sentece based on Times is good; 2nd is not because it is based on unknown/unestablished as RS site. Make sense? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of RS cited text and RS citations without discussion

Editors have been removing RS cited text in violation of WP policies. Please do not remove any cited text or citations without first discussing it here. If you think there is some cited text that does not belong, then please bring it here first for discussion. I have restored all the recent deletions I found - please add back others if there are any I missed. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, Jgui, that before you turn to other editors, reread this NYT article and tell me where it explicitly says that "neither side fully respected the terms of the cease-fire". Take your time and bear in mind that "the agreement had no mutually agreed [written] text". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, I didn't write that text in the article originally, but I do think it accurately conveys the meaning of the cited article. This is the text from the article: "Israel and Hamas accuse each other of bad faith and of violations of the Egyptian-mediated accord, and each side has a point. Rockets from Gaza never stopped entirely during the truce, and Israel never allowed a major renewed flow of goods into Gaza, crippling its economy." I will replace what you took out with this quoted directly, if you prefer. Thank you Jgui (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice, but I already put the sentence "Israel and Hamas accused each other of bad faith and of violations of the ceasefire" there. The second part of the quote stems directly from the rest of the section. Leaving it is problematic - it gives impression that the lull was about ending rockets vs. renewing flow of goods into Gaza. Read the entire section. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, what I noticed is that you are leaving one full sentence from a NYTimes article in, but deleting the preceding full sentence that explains the sentence you are leaving in. You claim this is "problematic" - are you being serious? Please explain how this is possible, and please explain why you decided to not only remove that sentence, but to then rearrange the whole section without discussion. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jgui, it was you who inserted additional info ("each side has a point", "crippling effect") without consensus/discussion. Have a look btw at WP:DRNC.
I didn't delete "full sentence". What I left is "Israel and Hamas accused each other of bad faith and of violations of the Egyptian-mediated truce, pointing respectively that rockets from Gaza never stopped entirely and a major renewal of goods' flow into Gaza was never allowed".
rearrangement was to put things in chronological order. first to present all the data on the terms of the truce (much more than just rockets vs goods) and then to say who and how violated it. in your version it is a conclusion first and explanation later.
"effect on the economy" is fine but one-sided. if you insist I'll find reciprocal statement about effect of rockets on people in Israel, but both effects don't belong in this section. There are other places throughout the article and its sub-articles dealing with effects of blockade and rockets. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, I added the full quote from the NYTimes article as a compromise since you were not happy with the paraphrase that was there previously. If you prefer the previous version please restore it. I will be happy with either an accurate paraphrase like the one that was there, or a direct quote, but I do not accept your approach of completely rearranging the content which obfuscates the issues. The structure of the section was much better before you changed it and is the structure that any well-written article should have (and it is not MY structure - I did not write this section): with a summary paragraph giving the essential facts, and then the details and back and forth of the two sides in the following paragraphs. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, since your idea of "collaboration" seems to be that you will make changes without waiting to see whether I agree with them (and then do it repeatedly until you get your way), I have decided to accept your reorganization and completed your changes for chronological order, including putting related material into distinct paragraphs. We can leave the discussion of the NYTimes quote for later after we get the framework agreed upon. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That is called normal editorial process. When done in good faith the mutual control will result in better encyclopedical section. One important note. UNISPAL (as well as Jimmy Carter for e.g.) is not a RS per se. Quoting from it requires attribution, it cannot be presented as fact. Similarly, when I will insert reciprocal data from Israeli MFA site, it will be attributed. What was the point in its August dispatch? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, your attempt at organization is not working. Chronological ordering is not feasible - you have completely reorganized twice, neither time achieving anything that helps the reader make sense of the material. The issue is that this whole article, and sections like this one in the article, are simply too large to present without organizational aides. I took all the text in your most recent version - I DID NOT DELETE OR ADD ANYTHING. And I reorganized it by adding section subheadings. Feel free to change the section names if you want. Once there is a framework of organization other changes can be addressed. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you say it is not working. What I see is that you took my idea, reorganized it yet slightly differently and the result is not bad after all. You will see my edits there, so I'll save time to explain them. Couldn't decide whether to integrate this story there. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs for image captions and caption neutrality

• Refs. I regard information in image captions as being independent of information in the article itself. Information in the article body can't be relied on to provide WP:V compliance for image captions because the two pieces of information can and will change independently of eachother. In my view image captions must be verifiable via a ref.
• Caption neutrality - captions should comply with NPOV like everything else. They shouldn't just present one narrative e.g. mosque destroyed because there were weapons there. Presenting facts without narratives isn't 'leading the reader', it is presenting facts. Showing what happened without unbalanced commentary is what we should be doing. For example, the image 'Kindergarten classroom in Beersheba hit by Grad rocket from Gaza' is not leading the reader. It's an image of a kindergarten classroom in Beersheba hit by Grad rocket from Gaza, an actual event...or at least it would be if it had a reference to support the caption. For the images removed, leading the reader is a non-issue in my view. It's not our business what goes on in the minds of readers. Making decisions on the basis of models of other people's minds is a non-starter. We shouldn't even attempt to do that. We just need to present the image data, have absolutely neutral, factual captions and make sure that everything complies with mandatory policies. For the images removed I'm much more concerned about the verifiability of the captions.

That's my view anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Leading or misleading the reader to believe that Israel indiscriminately attacked schools and mosques is just as big of a concern. They have been accused of overuse of force but the two images removed actually had reasoning according to the sources. If spelling out the reasoning is too much for the caption than we need to err on the side of caution and not include the controversial images. Easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But what readers believe is of no concern whatsoever. It's unknowable and out of scope. It can't be used in any decision procedures because it's information we don't have access to and have no way of controlling. Whether a reader wants to believe that Israel indiscriminately attacked schools and mosques and Hamas indiscriminately targeted civilian areas (remember they said they didn't...hmmm) is up to them. They'll do it it anyway. Basically I'm saying that we shouldn't work on the basis that people are weak minded fuckwits. We present the facts. It's an undisputed fact that the IDF hit those targets and (for the sake of argument assuming the photo is fine) it's an undisputed fact that a rocket fired by Palestinian militants hit the kindergarten classroom. The data represented by the images isn't in dispute. It's neutral. Those things really happened. Obviously we can't include one sourced narrative (the IDF's) and exclude the opposing one (the UN investigation results). It's the narratives that are the problem which is why I think we shouldn't include them. Removing the images seems like overkill (..note my use of subliminal leading there..) especially given that you didn't remove the kindergarten image. We won't have any images left if we worry about stuff like this. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Presenting images with captions that only tell half the story is misleading. The reader will easily jump to the wrong conclusion if certain aspects of the story are given prominence over others or others are completely disregarded. There is a whole category of articles that need to be fixed. Misleading is bad.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. We aren't telling stories with images, we aren't cartoonists. That's why I removed the disputed narratives, the stories. An image of a thing that no one disputes with a factual caption containing information that no one disputes isn't a story, it isn't an aspect of a story and it doesn't lead so it can't mislead. It's just image data and it's exactly what should be prominent because it's undisputed, factual, neutral data that describes the conflict. The UNOSAT image showing damage isn't a story. The picture of the injured Israeli isn't a story. The picture of the plane isn't a story. Showing a picture of an injured Israeli or Palestinian isn't telling half a story because it isn't a story. It doesn't become us telling a story until we add a narrator and it only misleads when we add an unreliable or biased narrator. A caption that says 'this shows object X hit by belligerent Y' is an undisputed statement of fact (if it has a ref). What is being disregarded is the disputed narratives and story telling associated with the factual data. 'the wrong conclusion' would be that the mosque/kindergarten weren't hit by missiles, that UNOSAT's satellite malfunctioned, that it's not a picture of a plane, that the Israeli or the Palestinian weren't really injured etc etc. Another wrong conclusion would be that a caption like 'this shows object X hit by belligerent Y' contains information about why X was hit by Y or that it implies anything about intentions or that it leads a reader to conclude anything other than that X was hit by Y. Readers will conclude whatever they want based on their own reasoning e.g. 'they hit a mosque/kindergarten, great! i hate palestinian muslims/israeli kids' or 'oh no, that seems bad' or 'i wonder why, maybe i should read the article' or 'these wiki editors are trying to manipulate me into feeling sorry for palestinian muslims/israeli kids'. It's true that we need to keep an eye on the balance of image sourcing but it's irrational and counterproductive to make image inclusion/exclusion decisions based the idea that someone might reach 'the wrong conclusion'. That's what censors and propagandists do. The focus should be on making sure they reach the right conclusion e.g. that when when we present an image showing a mosque/kindergarten hit by a missile it means that the mosque/kindergarten was hit by a missile. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, images can lead the reader to make certain assumptions. Those are made even worse when the caption is incorrect (as in the school). So a break down of my images so you understand if I am agreeing or not:

• The school might actually might be a viable option but the text cannot say the school was targeted since it wasn't. Also, "damage at a school" would be ambiguous. This is magnified since it is a touchy subject. Rewording it to say that it was damage from a nearby strike is something I would not be against.
• The mosque image has other problems besides the caption including a questionable FAR, quality, and its overall need to improve the article. The caption was ambiguous and disregarded why the image was posted by Israel in the first place.
• I didn't remove the other two with the buildings since I don't know anything about it and the captions didn't jump out as a problem after you tagged it.
• The jet image has metadata for Dec 28 and its description seems to mathch. Simly saying "hey look an airplane" is good enough for me.Cptnono (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think our approach/objective is probably the same, avoiding unstated implications. We just see the implications and ambiguity differently. Captions shouldn't suggest anything. They should just state undisputed unambiguous sourced facts e.g. Israeli/Palestinian school hit by X. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Who hit what and/or why?

In the lead we now have: "On 27 December Israel began a wave of airstrikes on the Gaza Strip with the stated aim of stopping the rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the territory. Hamas' armed wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, and the armed wings of other Palestinian factions, intensified rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, reaching major Israeli cities Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time, and hitting civilian targets including a schoolhouse, a kindergarten and private homes."

The structure -- Israel attacked Gaza for these reasons; Gaza attacked Israel and hit these things -- is not uniform. Seems this is being discussed in several different places, anyway it's wrong let's fix it. RomaC (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Both hit civilian targets. I have typically been against listing them in the lead like that. One side and not the other is just lame. Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the deletion without justification that I am referring to above, hoping that Jalapenos will stop or at least explain his behavior. Here is one of the many instances of his deleting this material: HERE. Jalapenos has refused to allow this balanced discussion to exist in the article, deleting it within minutes of its insertion. He removes only the damage caused by Israel, with his only argument (a controversial one to be sure) that UNHCR cannot be used as a source in this article. This is bizarre enough, but then he goes on to delete all description of damage caused by Israel no matter where it is cited to: Al Jazeera, Guardian, Haaretz, ABC, BBC, McClatchy, Oxfam, fao.org, ohcrc.org, ochaopt.org, unep.org, un.org and of course the UNHCR. If he really took issue with one particular source, then he could remove only that one source.

I refuse to take part in an escalating edit war with Jalapenos on this issue. He is now starting to revert this text multiple times per hour, and this can only lead to him causing the page to be locked again. If anyone has any ideas to improve this situation I would love to hear them. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that what will improve the situation is a mutual agreement to cite in the lead only info that comes from bulk of best quality RS sources. UN-affiliated ones, Israeli MFA and primary-NGOs excluded. Also, strict adherence to wiki regulations and conservative language. No deduction (e.g. if Guardian reports that the crossings were closed Dec. 18-26, it doesn't necessarily mean Israel closed them as a reaction to the lull end on that day) pls. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 20:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, the sources being deleted are enumerated above - for any article but this one (apparently) these ARE the best quality RS sources available - NGOs and major international news organizations. NGOs are the best quality sources for ANY conflict and you know it. To claim that the writings of NGOs should be blocked from an article on any war is really quite amusing. Or do you think this was actually a war between Israel and the worlds' NGOs? Strict adherence to wiki regulations starts with NOT deleting relevant RS cited text. It is impossible to AGF when text that would be welcomed on any other WP page is deleted here with abuse and a sneer. Finally, please read what I write and don't pretend I've written things that I've never written - it is unfair and unproductive. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

RfArb? Actually any uninvolved Admin can stop this is a moment, per the sanctions in place on the I-P topic area, and the recent history of this particular article. RomaC (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

→"NGOs are the best quality sources for ANY conflict and you know it" - no I don't. NGOs are usually work within a defined (political) agenda, their publications usually biased and one-sided. That doesn't mean of course that a specific NGO can't produce valuable objective piece of info, but it always depends on who when why what.
You asked for suggestions, I gave you one - to use only best-quality RSs in the lead. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, are you saying that the 'best quality RS sources' excludes UN-affiliated ones, Israeli MFA and primary-NGOs ? That doesn't make any sense. Did I misunderstand you ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Y not? I'll repeat, all the recent discussions are about the contents of the LEAD. I said I am ready to endorse the Tiamut's suggested sentence from Times (a known RS). Using UN-affiliated ones, Israeli MFA and primary-NGOs in the lead will continue to inflate the lead. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I don't regard the presence of factual data that quantifies the effects of the conflict in the lead as inflation. It seems like the kind of information we should be presenting there, number of people killed/hosptals hit/rockets fired/houses destroyed etc and it isn't available by just using the Times source. They're the key metrics that describe the effects of the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A British intelligence officer POV in the White phosphorus section

I removed what I believed was a clear POV in the White phosphorus section but this was replace (by User:Sceptic Ashdod and a note added that it was written in accordance with WP:POV. Having read the policy it states that the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. Can someone please explain what reliable sources this person has produced on the issue? Being a solider or an Intelligent Officer and seeing combat doesn't make you an expert. This may already have been discussed in the extensive archive and I apologise if consensus has already been reach on this subject. Bjmullan (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Bjmullan. There are more than 60 archived talk pages, but rest assured this subject (I mean WP in general) never reached any conscious consensus.
Firstly, I will clarify that what I actually meant was that this para. doesn't violate the provisions of WP:NPOV. And personally I endorse the provision that "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"". That said, it can be edited (shortened) for e.g.
As for your question, I think you take it too literally. A man who completed numerous combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to be experienced enough to produce a qualified opinion. Besides, you won't find many "main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue" of using WP during Gaza War. Similarly, I would contest that "HRW's military expert" is expert enough - HRW's main specialization is human rights; how would you know this man is truly a specialist in the field? Is he an acknowledged scholar? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could tell me about this guys (Daniel Yates) experience? For all we know he could have worked in the canteen or in IT? So how many tours did he complete? What rank was he? etc.... Thanks in advance. Bjmullan (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't and frankly I don't care. The basic assumption is that a respectable British magazine did a good journalistic job for us and printed an opinion of truly experienced and competent combat soldier. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just re-read the article again by the unknown soldier and I'm unable to find where he stated "that the Israeli Army would have been negligent". This may be implied in the article but it was'nt stated. I suggest that this sentence is changed and also maybe the introduction of the word opinion as his words are not fact just his opinion. Bjmullan (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

→about DIME, I hope you did not intentionally omit that the reason for possible use of it was to spare lives (col Lane said to "reduce the effect on the ground"). If you wish though to keep the last sentence, pls find a source that works. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope the references and additional materials meet with your approval. Bjmullan (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Superb. I'll edit slightly, though - it is an entry on a warfare, not medical issue. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Illegal weapons

I guess this diff and the previous one violate WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH or both. No UN convention explicitely forbids use of DIME and Israel is signatory to protocols I (non-detectable fragments), II (mines, booby traps, etc.) and IV (blinding laser). Just because DIME, via detectable tungsten remnants, might cause malignant tumors the way similar to what depleted uranim does, doesn't mean it is illegal. Nice try, Bjmullan, but this won't work. You'll have to find source that explicitely says DIME is illegal. For my best knowledge, you won't find one, but I'm not an expert. If you do - welcome back. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because Q63 Sir John Stanley said that DIME is violating Protocol I, doesn't make it so. It was not even explicitly confirmed by Professor Scobbie - he merely confirmed that Israel is signatory to Protocol I. On the contrary, Italian TV report in 2006 says that the weapon is not banned by international law, especially since it has not been officially tested. Since the implication is very severe, I'm removing it until there's a consensus. It can't be stated as fact and requires attribution. Attributing to Q63 Sir John Stanley who is hardly an expert is not encyclopedic enough. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The same could be said for your British Intelligent officer above. Shall we remove that as well? Bjmullan (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this article about the conflict or Intl Law allegations again? There is a whole article for that.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Words of 'my' British Intelligent officer above are (1) well-attributed to him and not presented as fact; (2) published in a respected British magazine, implying that they have encyclopedic value.
Do you think the allegation by one British Parlamentarian that this is an illegal weapon has any encyclopedic value? I don't. All your recent edits border on violation of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:V. My don't. That's the difference. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to find out more about Sir John Stanley you can look here on WP or a lots of other sources (unlike your source above). He served as Minister of State for the Armed Forces for 8 years so he's not just a British Parliamentarian but someone with experience in military matters. Can you define "border on violation" for me?. My edits either meet the standard or don't. Please do not try and rubbish my edits with your POV. Bjmullan (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't. Either attribute to him or be gone. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

→Goldstone report can be helpful. Para. 49: "While the Mission is not in a position to state with certainty that so-called dense inert metal explosive (DIME) munitions were used by the Israeli armed forces, it did receive reports from Palestinian and foreign doctors who had operated in Gaza during the military operations of a high percentage of patients with injuries compatible with their impact. DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law as it currently stands, but do raise specific health concerns". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

→FYI, placed an inquiry WP:POVN#Dense Inert Metal Explosive - due weight concerning the legality issue. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

casualties

1. B'Tselsem figures mispresented. the original statistics was updated: 1,385 Palestinians were killed, 762 of whom did not take part in the hostilities. Of these, 318 were minors under age 18. Besides, B'tselem never said there were 1021 non-combatants. It said "773 did not take part in hostilities", and separately "248 Police officers killed at police stations" - it didn't categorize them as non-combatants but rather said that "police officers that Israel killed in an attack aimed at police or police stations were listed in a separate category"! --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

and of course a "non-combatant" is not the same with "did not take part in hostilities", which is in turn does not equal to PCHR definition of "civilian". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I've got with including the new B'Tselem figures is that they don't separate police officers; they simply count them as combatants. Although I would agree that, in Gaza, the security forces are effectively a militia, I'd feel more comfortable sticking to the figures that distinguish between the two. Thoughts?

Can anyone find new B'Tselem figures that include members of the Hamas security forces?

A few hours ago, I tried distinguishing between security forces and civilians, on the grounds that the sources make the distinction between the two. I was reverted by Nableezy, on the grounds that "100 sources dont for a reason." So I'd like to defend my edit by saying this: we're quoting these sources, not 100 other sources, and these sources distinguish between the two for a reason. Members of the Hamas security forces are neither 100% combatant, nor 100% civilian. It is fortunate that these organizations put forth the effort to distinguish these people from the general civilian casualties. It would make little sense for us to deliberately ignore this information. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2. IDF statistics is here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. I will add it to the list. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The cop/combatant/civilian thing aside, otherwise the updated B'Tselem figures really shouldn't spark big edits, they apply to the total Palestinians killed, which changes from 1,387 --> 1,385; there is also an adjustment in the "did not take part in hostilities" figures, from 773 --> 762; and in the "Minors under 18" category, a change from 320 --> 318. B'Tselem do not at this time update their other figures, so dunno how to proceed believe it is OR if we "calculate" the rest of the figures ourselves based on our own assumptions e.g., we have a RS that says Mr. A. has a dozen apples; we hear Mr. A. eats an apple a day; but we can't edit the "Mr. A." article's "Apples" section each day to remove one apple from the total, because for instance Mr. A. might have otherwise gained/lost some apples, or maybe realized some of what he thought were apples are actually pears. The changes are slight, the new figures' average shift is less than 1%. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

→ I think the case with B'Tselem figures is pretty simple (but it would be good to check B'Tselem site again). We know from the update that Palestinian TOTAL - 1385 and that Palestinian non-combatants - 762 who did not took part in the hostilities (Women - 107; Minors - 318); we know that Palestinian police officers - 248. That leaves us with Palestinian combatants - 375 who took part in the hostilities.

great stuff from B'Tselem report

There's one sentence in the B'Tselem report that I think is of great value, especially for the average reader - "The fact that a person is listed among the fatalities, or noting that a person was a civilian or that he or she was not taking part in hostilities at the time of death, does not indicate that a breach of law was committed, or that the person killed was innocent. The data does not, in and of itself, lead to legal or moral conclusions". Of course it could be added in the "disputed figures" section that B'Tselem "sent Israel's Attorney General and the military's Judge Advocate General some 20 cases that raise suspicion of breaches of law" but did not receive satisfactory answers.
IDF figure 709 includes the policemen, there should be a note
a note "Those who died due to a lack of access to regular health care because of the blockade of Gaza were not included in these figures" is unsupported OR and should be removed. otherwise we could cite the number of civilians saved by Israelis by allowing access to extraordinary health care. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

More of great stuff based on B'Tselem: B'Tselem wrote that its classification was based on "a new approach" of the International Committee of the Red Cross which declares that anyone who fulfills a "continuous combat function" should be considered a combatant even if he is not taking a direct part in hostilities at the moment he is killed. A person who does not fulfill a continuous combat function, but is killed when directly participating in hostilities is also considered a combatant. On the other hand, "persons who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group but whose function does not involve direct participation in hostilities maintain their status as civilians and are not legitimate objects of attack." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

on the other hand, A dozen international experts on the law of armed conflict have withdrawn their support from a June 1 final report by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) after five years of providing advice. The experts opposed the ICRC's failure to define the treaty phrase "direct participation in hostilities," as applying to people who voluntarily become human shields during a conflict or hostilities; and "the Interpretive Guidance is not legally binding". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The view of the Red Cross remains that "civilians attempting to shield a military objective by their presence" are persons entitled to protection against direct attack. It further states that the conduct of voluntary human shields "does not amount to direct participation in hostilities."

It would be very surprising indeed if it ever decided anything different. Quertzel (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The ICRC's jurisdiction falls only over those conflicts which are governed by the Geneva conventions. These are only applicable in "cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties [...] ." Hamas is not a contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, and neither is the PLO. Accordingly, the Geneva conventions do not apply, and the ICRC has no jurisdiction. Therefore, its opinion on the matter is of relatively low importance. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about application of Geneva conventions (see e.g. opinion of prof. Newman who testified in front of Goldstone and talked extensively about Protocol 1 implementation). Anyway, your or mine opinion is irrelevant. The point is: B'Tselem used ICRC's June guidelines in their classification - some argue that the ICRC guidelines were imperfect and thus might have affected classification. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What to call police officers...

B'Tselem and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights generally agree about the number of Palestinian police killed in the operation. What they don't agree about is how to classify them. B'Tselem calls them "Palestinian police officers killed at police stations," whereas the PCHR calls them "Members of Hamas security forces." Both titles are correct, but carry different connotations.

I think the first title is very clumsy, but it seems that there's at least one editor who wants to avoid the second. So I'm going to try a compromise version: "Hamas policemen." I'd like input from other editors on this choice of words. With thanks, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to invent anything when dealing with casualties table. Taking a second look at the table, I suggest to use the term 'Police', add respective notes and maybe go into further details in subsequent subsection. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose this change. Not only B'tselem makes this distinction, but other sources do as well. The Goldstone report calls them the "Gaza police", AI calls them (as far as I can tell, from the this report) once "Hamas police" and once "civil police", HRW calls them "Gaza's police"^[5]. I think the best way to refer to them is as "Gaza police officers". nableezy - 08:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Btw, PCHR calls 255 policemen "non-combatant/civil police officers", see here. Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it simply to 'Police' and adding notes.

Sounds good. I'm going to add "officers," just because I think that adds clarity. Feel free to revert and discuss if you object. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I wish every dispute on this talk page is resolved that easily. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Names (not just massacre)

I attempted to include the other names for the conflict but it was removed. I did not remove Gaza massacre since it is contentious. It looked like this. My reasoning is as follows

• The names were used more often than Gaza massacre as shown in the Google News hit searches. If massacre receives prominence than these should receive equal weight and validity.
• The names were well sourced. The South African piece used for massacre is still questionable in my opinion. If that source is OK than these should be.
• It is more than just titles. The coverage from different sources show how this was viewed differently by many people. An example:

Arab coverage of the war tilts heavily toward the Palestinian suffering, with the flagship TV station, Al-Jazeera... calling the offensive a "war on Gaza" -- suggesting it's a campaign against civilians

While international networks tagged the conflict "War in Gaza" and led with images of Palestinian casualties, Israeli channels called it "War in the South" and despatched their anchors to towns which have been hit by Hamas rockets.

• One of the above lines shows that it was called something by the primary Arab TV station yet we continue to only use a lesser used title.
• Not providing what Israeli's called it (not the IDF) is also inappropriate. It also was used more than massacre.

So basically, I think we are all sick of dealing with the massacre thing. If we are going to provide the information we need to do it in its entirety.Cptnono (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"In its entirety"? Islam online calls it the "Gaza Holocaust" do we want every name every source has ever applied? We had a general consensus to use a "neutral" term for the article name, then add notable terms used by either side. I'd hope we don't want to revisit this. RomaC (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Entirety might be too much. The names I wanted to are used more than massacre. The flagship TV station in the Arab world had a name for it and it wasn't massacre. There is no reason not to add these well sourced names if we are going to continue to use massacre.Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. I see no reason not to add this back in after having a conversation open for a couple of days. I can't tell why it was removed from the edit summaries provided but the last thing I want is to kick off another edit war by including it again. I assume we are all burnt out on it and just want it to go away. We have well sourced common titles for the conflict from media throughout the world including Israel and Arabic nations. The sources I provided spell this out clearly.[6][7] I can understand removing "War in Gaza" since it is so close to the article's title and too many names is obnoxious to a point (I would be interested in a conversation of adjusting the article name if anyone wants). However, "War in the South" and "War on Gaza" are significantly different as mentioned in the sources. This would be in compliance with use of titles per WP:LEAD, style requirements seen at WP:MOSBOLD, and would finally put to rest the concerns several editors have repeatedly brought up regarding WP:PROMINENCE. So why not? Lets do this and be done with it. A mention that it was also called "War in the South" by Israelis who are not the IDF and "War on Gaza" buy the flagship news source in the Arab World would fix it.

If this is not OK, we can continue to discuss it here, the neutrality noticeboard, or mediation, but I really doubt anyone wants to spend that much time. This is compounded by reliable sources making inclusion of these two or three names makes it the right thing to do.Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DIME

Have reverted an edit adding this to the DIME section: An investigative report of Italian television reporters on alleged used of DIME by Israeli forces in Gaza Strip in 2006 said that "the weapon is not banned by international law, especially since it has not been officially tested". First, this is an Italian reporter, not an expert. But anyway if a weapon is not banned, why even put this into the article? This seems an edit that serves only to soften the image of the weapon. Shall we start adding "F-16s are not banned by international law" or "Artillery is not banned by international law", or "Qassam rockets are not banned by international law"? Where do we go with this? RomaC (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You better ask Bjmullan. He tries hard to state 'the fact' that DIME is illegal. Which is of course unsupported by multiple other sources and military commentators. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing this as I was also going to remove it mainly because it's a factual incorrect statement as the weapons have been tested at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division in 2003. [8]. Bjmullan (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

removing one factual incorrect statement just to substitute it with another? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

→FYI, placed an inquiry WP:POVN#Dense Inert Metal Explosive - due weight concerning the legality issue. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Link maintenance

I have started to look at the status of the many links in this article (over 400) and I have already come across many broken or incorrect links and I'm only at 10! My question is what is the consensus on non English links? I feel reluctant to remove these as this is a subject about the middle east and also because I have used them myself in the past when others are not available (but then German is easier to understand (for me) than Hebrew - double Dutch....it should have been double Hebrew or Arabic :) ) Comments are welcome. Bjmullan (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this exercise is to produce a precis of the known facts from accessible sources. Any foreign language is problematical, but a non-Latin language from one of the involved parties is an open door for bias and even falsification. If it's not available in English, it must be very questionable it belongs. Quertzel (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we would all agree that, if an RS exists in English, that should be what we use. If none exists, I would certainly say that using the Hebrew, Arabic, German, etc. source is better than not having a source at all. I can imagine a good deal of circumstances in which we would really want a side's articulation of its position, even if there is no such articulation in English. But, then again, I'm not sure of which sources you're talking about... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's currently ref #10 [9] and it states it's in Hebrew. That's the first I came across but there maybe more. Bjmullan (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

this change

I'm restoring this change. It reflects the Hamas traditional position. Warm regards, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agada's "paraphrase" distorts what Zahar said. It is not just in the "context of Israeli attacks" that he said the rockets are justified, it is as a result of the type of attacks, that they "shelled children and hospitals and mosque" is why he said the rockets are justified. It is better to just let the man's words speak for themselves, we dont need Agada's spin on them in their place. nableezy - 02:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nab, 10x for discussion. I don't have any strong feeling about this change, still I'm sorry you feel a need to quote paraphrase or to use spin word. I think we're all encouraged to paraphrase RS in NPOV fashion - this is the WP way. So I clearly propose Co-founder of Hamas said during the war that rockets attacks on civilians are legitimate and justified this in the context of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.. I've learned from you we should be careful about what one side said about the other. From other hand "they shelled every one in Gaza" sounds like unfiltered Hamas propaganda that we could live without. Not that I feel that current wording is unacceptable, and it's clearly attributed., still I believe proposed change improves the quality of the article. Warm regards. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me know if anyone has strong feelings to the proposed wording, which in my eyes would improve the article, 10x. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The RS gave a direct quote from a person, we can use that direct, attributed, quote. Please stop continually reverting. nableezy - 18:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nab, the source provides the direct quote, and we clearly attribute it. Current phrasing is OK and I can live with it. I explained why the proposed phrasing (IMHO) is better, that is the reason for me changing the article. I kind of struck by It is not just in the "context of Israeli attacks". What do you mean? This is the core of the Hamas justification for rocket fire legitimacy, they gave us legitimacy this is the exact quote. Do you read it differently? Warm regards, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Agada, dude, I reverted. It's important when political figures make some sort of policy/position declaration that we convey it accurately and in totality and usually directly is best but yes there usually has to be editing as political figures tent to be long-winded. But your edit sort of put Zahar's comments through a filter or a processor and they came out the other side different or missing a nuance compared to how they went in. Context and qualification can't be removed. Not gonna stand, sorry, would say the same for any such comments. Cheers, RomaC (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@RomaC, you're right we don't bring the whole quote, some ... remain. My concern is clear: to bring the Hamas policy in NPOV way, while filtering out the PR. We do rephrase here, WP land. There is nothing wrong with it. I read the minister quote as justification for legitimacy of indiscriminate rocket attacks policy, let me know if I miss something here. Bottom line, I'm open for suggestions and comments to improve this edit. I'm puzzled by a missing a nuance, let me know the processor's output - this is called collaboration, ;). Stay cool AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We dont rephrase the change the meaning of a quote. I already wrote above the difference between what you wrote and what he said, I dont feel the need to repeat myself. nableezy - 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@Nab. Do you accuse me of changing the meaning intentionally? What exactly was the change of meaning? I asked repeatedly but so far did not get an answer. Warm regards, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You have gotten an answer, you have just chosen to ignore it. My first post in this section answers your question. nableezy - 22:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad, you're right, I missed it and see it now. Maybe indiscriminate attacks word should have been used. You could try to assume good faith though. And you know, maybe you and RomaC are right ( according to my account such a miracle does not happen really often ;) ). Let's the minister's words talk for itself. Cheers. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say you did it on purpose. nableezy - 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with AG, here. We're an encyclopedia, not a quote farm. As long as there is no issue with how it is paraphrased, we paraphrase instead of quoting. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia would not distort a persons words. And we paraphrase what sources say, but not what sources say a person said. nableezy - 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

Dr. Ahmad Tibi said during the Gaza War that Ishmael Khaldi is Lost in the blur of slogans ZOMG ;)

Are there any other reports about the Israeli Ministry of Justice exceptional statement? My concern is WP:V. Maybe direct quote might be appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A verifiable source (this one) is cited, explain how WP:V supports the removal of that footnote. nableezy - 15:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Nab. The source is reliable, no doubt, still even good sources have bad material from time to time. Basically, the footnote is about Israeli Ministry of Justice exceptional statement that The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people. Well, this is a WP:V red flag. Probably there are other media reports of the same statement, or some documentation under http://justice.gov.il Let us know if you dig something. Please note, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Stay cool, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are asking for a primary source to confirm what a secondary source says. Sorry, but it does not work that way. And once reverted, please do not just re-revert. WP:V in no way supports the removal of this verifiable information. nableezy - 17:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with AU that this requires exceptional sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And what pray tell is the exceptional claim here? That the Israeli Ministry of Justice said in a legal brief that statement? That is not an exceptional claim, and the push to remove this is, simply put, a result of users demanding that anything that does not show Israel in the best of lights be removed. nableezy - 18:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy. I've restored the quote and added all refs pertaining the Palestinian POV that this was a war on the people to it. This is a significant POV that should be represented in the article per NPOV. Tiamut^talk 22:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This is yet another WP:PROMINENCEissue that also has style concerns. Similar issues have had the tendency to get creep POV into the article over and over again (not attacking anyone). So we have sources that say it has been considered a war on the Palestinian people and civilians. There is no arguing about it. Does it need to be in the lead? I personally don't mind it. Does it need a footnote? No. A footnote, as discu ssed on similar articles, gives the impression of prominence and is unduly eye catching. Why does it have a footnote instead of the refs? So include the info somewhere but get rid of the eyesore footnote.

So it is now tagged. Find a source. One of the sources I presented sometime ago flat out says that some considered it a war on civilians. We have the sources available so find on ethat fits and consider moving it if there is a prominence issue.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have removed the fact tag and the quotes and simply laid it out as it is. IDF says hamas, others have said no. Used one of the sources but we can add at least half a dozen more. The lead is suppose dto be clear of sources anyways (no way that is possible at this point) so an understanding that people believed the Palestinian populace was under attack and not the military infrastructure of Hamas needs to be clear in the body. I think we have far surpassed that already so any worries?Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, your change [10] deleted five references (leaving one, improperly formatted and lacking the info required for WP:V, but its okay now, since I've corrected it). It also turned a specific, qualified statement into a more generalized one, which kind of ignores the concerns raised by Skapperod in his edit summaries, and leaves the sentence open to further challenges or deletion.

I would prefer specifying who has called it a "war on the Palestinian people" (and not, a war against the Palestinian people per your paraphrase). If your issue is with the footnote format, this can be done using regular references that quote the relevnt text within them but are embedded with the rest of the references, rather than in their own footnote section. Tiamut^talk 12:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no worries (in my mind at least) saying the civilians were impacted (killed, loss homes, infrastructure decimated) and that some people conversely countered the IDF objective by saying it was against civilians. It needs to be done in a way that does not soak up the lead or is not completely counter intuitive ("IT WAS AGAINST PALESTINE ARGHHH"). I don't care if the line is in the lead but overall it needs reworking. The lead in this article is not good overall so sticking in a handful of references to use a quote is better than a footnote that would make it even worse. I would prefer a whole new lead but don't see that happening. There is no doubt that civilians felt the impact, and there is of course even less of a doubt that some people made a production out of their plight. We'll figure it out when editors feel comfy doing so. Until then, 1 decent ref is fine. Adding a couple more is OK if it prevents an ugly point making footnote.Cptnono (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Population density

The HRW source that was removed specifically says The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world. Agada, could you please explain why you removed that cite from that line and are only using the WHO when others have made the point about Gaza's extremely high population density? nableezy - 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, population density is beaten into the head of the reader in an almost embarrassing way. Although I can't say that Agada or anyone else should full-on remove it, some adjustment is needed.Cptnono (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? How so? The one mention in the background, then again with the white phosphorous, where the sources place particular emphasis on the population density of Gaza, then once again saying that Hamas purposely channels fighting into these densely populated places, then finally quoting David Eschel saying that the war showed how successful an army could be in a densely populated area. Which of these mentions would you like to remove so that it is not "beaten into the head of the reader"? I can think of one, but I dont think it is the one you would be looking to remove. nableezy - 06:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly mentioned at all. Rockets are mentioned over 100 times. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked it was in at least three sections. I'll go double check right now to see if it was changed and I screwed up.Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well f me. It looks like someone else got it. The crybaby tone (not directed towards any editor in particular just how it read) is now gone with that whole thing. I still think the CIA ref is not needed since we have wikilinks but one mention of it being really populated in the Background section then two others being quotes in the the WP and assessment sections works well. Hats off to whoever grabbed that and my bad for the false accusation. Oh, and the no place to flee thing but we have already established that it is cited. So nice work Agada.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that rockets are beaten into the head of the reader in an almost embarrassing way or that they are evidence of a crybaby tone in the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you just want to talk about my assertions that certain aspects of this article are crybaby or do did you just want to make a point? I'm OK with doing both but want to make sure we are on the same field before playing ball.Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither. It's a question written using your terms, which I also have no problem using, about the 100+ instances of 'rocket' in the article. This seems like a more obvious and larger problem than population density and ability to flee. It seems to me that this is probably disproportionate and that we are beating it into the head of the reader in an almost embarrassing way. It could also be evidence of a crybaby tone in the article by editors wishing to justify the military action and it's consequences. I haven't looked at all instances in the article but it seems excessive (as would mentioning drone attacks or the blockade 100+ times). I want to know whether you see it as a problem that should be addressed. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I assumed you were trying to make a point or why else mention it like that? I think you are a funny guy who has a knack of bringing up some amazingly insightful, brilliant, and well thought out (can't stress the last part because you are more than just witty) observations but admit it if you are making a dig in the future.

I think certain aspects of this article get way too much play. One of those was the population density when presented in the tone of Israel spanking civilians but in a way that was not objective. It is well addressed and now well cemented in the lead. Population density as a charge against the IDF was part of it. In my opinion, the article states clearly that the IDF did some calculations on the density but the article disregards the attempt to save the lives of Israeli boys while focusing on dead Gazans. I think at least one more mention of the attempt to safeguard those kids at the expense of the Palestinians would highlight both a military objective and the tragedy of too many civilians getting killed. It is a crappy balance we have to find but a balance is necessary.

Drones and rockets are all things I would rather address somewhere else because the hardware is something I am personally more interested in. Start the conversation and lets do it.Cptnono (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I was having a dig at what looks like continued use of this article for partisan battles, not at you specifically, and not at your language. I'm a fan of plain speaking, trying to treat articles like this as if they are about non-emotive subjects and just dealing with it as if it's a collection of data about something nobody cares about to simplify things. I need to have read through the whole article again because my impression is that it's filling up with things because people care about them again. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I knew if anyone you would be the one to say it. Have a read. I actually spoke up at the top of this subsection (like a dummy) because I had not. Maybe we all need to to over it again with fresh eyes.Cptnono (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The population density of Sderot is 4316/km^2. The population density of the Gaza strip is 4118/km^2. The population density of Gaza is reasonably high for a country (if it were..) but as urban connobations go it's pretty average and as places targeted by rocket fire go it's actually slightly less densely populated than the places that Hamas' unguided missiles are fired at. Dino246 (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are interesting points. However, the article read for some time that the IDF was extra bad because Gaza is a dense area. The urban warfare was less of a concern while the plight of civilians was a focus. I believe that presents POV. I don't know and can't comment if that was the intent but it is certainly how it read.Cptnono (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you want to present the data and what point you want to convey. If the intention is to provide a metric for risk of injury within a given location then it's the bin size you pick, the pop density within that bin, the number and nature of the ordnance that hits that bin that matters, something like the UN sat damage assessment overlaid on a pop density map. Someone may have done that I suppose. What we don't have is info about the number of rockets that actually hit populated vs unpopulated areas. As for pop density in Israel, I remember HRW did specifically use the phrase densely populated to describe the areas being targeted by Palestinian rockets although I can't remember which source that was, the letter or the report. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dino246 brought up something for another subsection. How are we doing on this point?Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dino see your argument but you can't compare disparate samples: A ballerina standing en pointe defines a population density of 2,500,000,000/km^2. The Gaza Strip is not an elevator or an urban neighborhood it is classified by the UN alongside other countries and territories etc., anyway despite a CAMERA campaign on this very point last year, most sources still present the density as such see Wiki policies on verifiability not truth WP:V. Cheers, RomaC (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono's point is well taken that the article implied(s) that "the IDF was extra bad because Gaza is a dense area" and consequently is POV. Sure you can find RS that Gaza is dense, and that therefore there would of course be more casualties than if they were shooting out in left field. But to juxtapose those things without a thorough discussion of the moral implications and justifications (in appropriate context and therefore an essay not an encyclopedic entry) is pushing a point home. It is WP:UNDUE weight, and WP:POV. There is very much in this article that is POV. For one small example, it is generally accepted that Gilad Shalit's kidnapping was an notable part of this war as well, but (last I looked) one would not know this upon reading this WP article. However, the greater number of editors on one side who are owning this article act as a human shield, making it impossible to contribute to the neutrality of the article by giving a voice to the view of the other side. I understand that one side feels itself the victim and and feels passionately wronged, but in fact, I think that is the position of both sides, if in different ways. But in writing about this situation, we cannot re-fight the war this way. WP is not a battlefield. But in fact this article is a mini-battle with the pro-Palestinian side using every wikilawyering tactic they can to be certain that their voice is virtually the only one heard. They would have the reader believe that it is all very cut-and-dried. The verdict is in, or at least they will help define the verdict here. Bad war=Bad Israel. All massacre and no jihad. (I mean this in a figurative way, please try to understand & not get righteous) We are not writing history here. We are not judging it. We are only attempting to reflect what is out there. Trying to imply that users are on a CAMERA campaign is another subtle way of denigrating the opposition. All of which is why I mostly don't edit this article anymore. The constant denigrations, the warnings, the wikilawyering, the teaming up, the bullying, and even the intimidations. This isn't collaborating. It is war by another name. Stellarkid (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rockets

Speaking of rockets, I removed Template:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel a few months ago after Romac and a couple other editors objected to it. I don't recall who added it. After thinking about further, I believe it might have been incorrect to not include it. It is a common template in the topic area and its use was not against MoS like I assumed. Does anyone have any qualms with reintegrating it?Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The template creator added it, I believe. If we had a corresponding template with stats and pics covering Israeli attacks on Gaza, I could consider support but otherwise believe it trojan horses a package of totally one-sided content into the article. Has to get consensus to be replaced, I can't support it without balance as outlined above. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am considering removing it with your thoughts alone but part of me likes it. It can appear as "HEY LOOK" but it also is not uncommon, offers one of the images used, and is a great navigational tool to understanding the history of the conflict. I redadded it on a whim so if it needs to be discussed more before including I am fine with that.Cptnono (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Would prefer leaving it out while we discuss, that seems to be the protocol for this type of situation. So if you could revert that would be appreciated. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to keep it in because a) I am to lazy to remove it plus the other things in the edit spacing and all that (weak argument) and b) I personally already removed it once c) I want to spur more conversation.

If it stalls I might reconsider. Maybe keeping it in will get it ripped out (no edit warring on my part) or at least a little talky talk. And I can't see an edit warring vio if you remove now.Cptnono (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd hoped you were better than that. Sigh. RomaC (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So did you even read my complete comment? It is all straight now. *mockingsigh* Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's straight no problems, sorry I got personal relates to another article and another editor. RomaC (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the apology but no real worries at all on my part before or after on this one. Sorry for the sarcastic sigh!Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

<- I've put a navbox together as a potential replacement or alternative to the existing template. See Template_talk:Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Navbox Sean.hoyland - talk 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rockets mentioned 100 times

Concern was raised that the article may be beating some points into the head of the reader in an almost embarrassing way that evidences a crybaby tone. It was suggested we open a section to discuss this re: "rockets". There are 109 mentions of rockets in the article (not including the refs). Thoughts on this? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rockets were one of the stated reasons for going in. Rockets were a primary weapon. They will obviously get more weight than other ordinance. Feel free to bring up some specifics if there are lines that seem undue or incorrect.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rockets is what this war was about, of course they are mentioned often - they are integral to the subject of the article. To complain that there are too many references to rockets here is like complaining that balls are mentioned too often in the soccer article. Dino246 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually "rockets" are mentioned here more than twice as much as "ball" is mentioned in the soccer article. And, rockets comprise but a tiny fraction of the total ordnance used during the war. And "rockets" are what Israel says the conflict was about. Gazans might identify something different, maybe "blockade". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have known that someone would take my analogy literally and actually count to counter the point.. The rockets came first. Ignoring the basic chronology of cause and effect is not NPOV. Dino246 (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dino246, your approach isn't neutral. The scope of the basic chronology, the actions by either belligerent that form the basic chronology and causality chain is narrative dependent and not a matter of fact. You say the rockets came first. That suggests that the rockets had no perceived cause. The people firing the rockets have stated the perceived cause. There are always perceived causes or else it wouldn't be a conflict. For one side it's about rockets. For the other it's about the blockade, cross border raids etc. From a neutral perspective it's a chain of violence where both parties act in response to the actions (or inaction) of the other party and claim to be justified in their actions. This article shouldn't take sides in the narrative wars and neither should it's editors via their edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course the rockets have a perceived cause, and the Gaza War was part of a very long series of cause and effect that one could argue started with the Big Bang. But to say that the rockets are a result of the blockade, which started after the rocket fire started, is absurd. Dino246 (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think something is absurd. It's not about what you think. It's about what reliable sources have said about each side's justifications for their actions. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't voicing an opinion. This isn't about what I think. The blockade began in mid-2007, Hamas has been regularly firing rockets into Israel from Gaza since 2001. Any source that says the rocket fire is a result of the blockade is, by definition, not a reliable source. Dino246 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. I see that I'm wasting my time. Conversation over. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You think that chronology is a matter of opinion and I am wasting your time? Dino246 (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Have you read this article ? If not I suggest you do before you make anymore comments. It's quite informative. Are you aware of the stated reasons for the rocket attacks re-starting after the ceasefire (shown rather graphically in the article) ? Are you aware that for example the head of Israel's internal security agency confirmed that lifting the blockade was a Hamas condition for continuing the ceasefire i.e. not re-starting the rocket attacks ? You seem to imagine that this has something to do with what I think and that I said 'chronology is a matter of opinion'. It doesn't and I didn't. I don't think anything about it and it wouldn't matter if I did. I'm not a reliable source. It's about what the reliable sources say and they are very clear about both belligerents justifications for their actions. Your opinion of those justifications is irrelevant and you should keep your opinions off the talk page. I also suggest that you read the discretionary sanctions because it seems that you haven't. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the article I would agree with RomaC. The war was not just about rockets, but tanks (mentioned 6 times in the main sections), gunships (twice) and airstrikes (4 times) among others. We seem to know the exact number of rockets fired each day but not much about the others. Bjmullan (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, removing the blow by blow accounts of rockets would help. We don't need those. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Put up some examples. Something like "4 fell on Tuesday" would be absurd. And I agree, more tanks and jets! On second thought, APCs aren't getting enough play. I was also considering adding the armaments on the choppers but never got around to it. I think we have plenty of hardware mentioned in several of the sections (the ones actually about fighting) but more wouldn;t hurt my feelings. And an interesting excercise would be to add up all of the hardware mentioned in the infobox and put that number up against the rockets. Rockets still might come out on top but 6 is short changing the efforts into adding the military info. Of course, if we add every mention related to the supposed flouting of intl law by Israel (WP, DIME, and so on) we might be nearing that 100plus number.Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of information I was thinking of.

Three Qassam rockets landed in Israel on June 24[77], a Qassam rocket was fired towards Israel on June 26[78], two mortar shells were fired into Israel on June 28[78], number of mortars were fired toward the Karni crossing on June 29[79] and two Qassam rockets landed in the western Negev on June 30.[80]

I see this kind of thing as being a consequence of over reliance on Israeli media sources by editors here. Naturally sources like Ynet report individual rocket attacks but it's too detailed for this article (and the international media most of the time). Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Support cutting the blow-by-blow rocket reports as above, did so, question is how to handle the source refs as each one is a report on one rocket or mortar attack. RomaC (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

War on Palestinian people

Was this sensationalist reporting that deserves less prominence in the lead? Would civilians being victimized be better paraphrased in another way? I haven't gone through all of the sources but did just revert someone reworking the line based on good faith (which there isn't much of between us Tiamut). So here is a good place for discussion after everyone has brushed up on the subject.Cptnono (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't start "good faith" account with me ;) I'd HATE this to be in context of credit/debit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I hated the footnote so trusted all the sources Tiamut provided were cool while using just one and not checking the others in detail. I'm completely fine with seeing if changes are needed for the info but didn't want my previous removal of the sources to be the reason it got yanked. Cptnono (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The previous footnoted version was here: [11]

• IMO, this one was used out of context.[12]
• This one was a quote from a "senior Islamic Jihad figure" so I would prefer to not give it much weight at all[13]
• This one kind of works. An obviously upset guy spouting maybe ad appears to be a little cherry picked.[14]
• This guy is completely removed and I don't think his opinion deserves much space at all[15]
• Someone who is also removed (an academic though)[16]

So overall, it disregards the Israels continued assertions (as discussed in one or two of them) that Israel says it was against militants and not civilians but some wording could work. Maybe put it in a line discussing the civilian casualties and damage plus another line on overwhelming force in the lead? We could also keep it as is (with the one ref clearly spelled out). I don;t hate the line as it was but it is a little shocking/in your face/screams "NO ISRAEL LIES!" (overly?) to the reader and I think the footnote compounded that.Cptnono (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no input on other sources, but I tried to dig for Israeli Justice Ministry exceptional statement, the response to quote is attributed to Uri Avneri by UAE online corespondent. So far no other refs in RS but blogs have surfaced that put it in context of Israel’s controversial Marriage Law. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the mutliple ref version attributed to Palestinian representative and individuals, among other. As I suspected, some editors have difficulty respecting NPOV without the many refs attached, and attempt to downplay the prevalence of this opinion. Please note that the Israeli POV is presented before it and this is required for balance. To address Cptnono's concern regrding the undue prominence accorded by footnote formatting, I've formatted each entry as an individual ref. [17] The relevant sentences from each source are quoted so tht the reader can see who the Plestinian reps, inidividuals and others are who are saying the same thing. Tiamut^talk 19:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason for Israeli POV to precede a Palestinian one. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Also removed online correspondent link, reliable source - bad material. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"despite concern for Gaza's civilian population" - This sentence in the lede urgently needs to be sourced. Factsontheground (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

it's been called the "minority opinion" in the source. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

English?

Julius Levinson said during the Independence War : Well, nobody's perfect... ;)

It's too late at night (and it's St Patrick's tomorrow) for me to look at changing it but has anyone actual read the introduction? The structure of the sentences is awful, with mistakes which make it read like an essay from a 15 year old. If you read this then before you comment read the opening and maybe change it. Happy Saint Patrick's to you all.... "May the road rise to meet you, may the wind be always at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face. And the rains fall soft upon your fields...And until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of his hand." Bjmullan (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fucking awful darn poor throughout but I'm not Agada's anyone's editor and I'm disinclined to put my time into cleaning up his shit their poo. This is what happens when non-native-speaker POV-warriors partisans believe it their duty to make a "how does my side look?" analysis of an article then plow through (without discussion) to "fix" any phrase that doesn't come across the way they'd like ("IDF works hard to spear civilians" indeed). These "fixes" are often simply awful not as good as they can be, can people remember that Wiki articles are written for the readers not the editors? Pretty please with a cherry on top? I would revert back to this version, maybe some good edits are lost but yeah it appears 90% of what's been done since there either doesn't belong or should be written better. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have half a mind to take you to the etiquette board for that nasty comment. Of course as a native speaker of English your fixes are always perfect, you have never made an error or made a POV change without discussing it first, and of course you are not a POV- warrior, ever. You should strike that and apologize. Stellarkid (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was the one who usually has cuss filled rants. Yeah dude. Your comments kind of sucked. Tone it down a bit in the future and try to figure out a way to fix those concerns instead of talk so much smack (soe is bound to happen here right?). A huge revert is probably a bad thing so any other options? BTW, notice the errors and I am a native English speaker. LOL.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, don't want to offend delicate sensitivities. Is everything alright now? No, the article, that's not alright, so I'm reverting to the last coherent version. Agada's twenty or so edits over the last several days have brought numerous policy and style problems, strongly suggest he get consensus for additions one by one, this given the I/P general sanctions and this particular article's history. It is not the community's job to patrol this article on a daily basis, it is the responsibility of a SPA editor to get consensus for potentially contentious edits, and, if required, to have their English grammar and style checked here before editing directly into the article. If people want to edit in this topic area and on this article -- which was recently unlocked after a long protection period caused by similar problems with relentless SPAs -- kindly bring a neutral approach and a grammar guide. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice Try RomaC, -- please see my rant above. No I don't think your not-so-subtle sarcasm is any substitute for an honest attempt at collaboration. I encourage you to re-read WP:CIVIL and while you are at it, reread the Five Pillars With Respect Stellarkid (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the stuff removed was pretty good. I also saw one of my edits in there so don't see how you can say it was all one editor. I am juggling the idea of reverting or simply piecing in the bits I like (similar to a rash revert without consensus). It appears the bulk of the problem was the lead. You being rash was a big part of it getting locked before. The massacre discussion was part of it but everything went down hill after a series of edits you made that were contentious. Nothing wrong with being bold but don't edit war over it if things are pieced back in.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I hardly make edits to the article proper. Mainly I stay on Talk, and go in to the article to revert shit crap stuff that does not appear to be policy-compliant. I am not sure what you mean pointing a finger at me for the lock, please back that up (the article was locked Nov 7, of the last 100 edits before lock, I made 3, and I made none in the five days before the lock. Maybe you could strike that accusation? Maybe you're thinking of Sean.Hoyland, or Jiujitsuguy?). Better still, address the issue here. One edit I saw from you in the series of Agada edits was a revert of Agada's edit. The whole series was mostly Agada and reactions to him, yes the lead has suffered most. Prefer we make edits carefully not 20 at a time. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted that edit of RomaC's. If he doesn't like them let him bring them here for discussion. Sorry about the third person, RomaC but your good faith here is suspect. This was your edit summary:Agada's 20 or so edits of the last several days have introduced numerous policy and style problems strongly suggest he get consensus one by one given the I/P sanctions and this article's history. I say I am not so comfortable with the "policy and style problems" that you,RomaC, introduced here above. I was about to put a note to that effect on your talk page, but got sidetracked by your discussion with user:IronDuke and user:Tiamut. Stellarkid (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You hardly edit the article proper yourself, but when someone else does and spends his time and energy to do so, you feel justified in reverting 20 changes at once, just like that?! Stellarkid (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will revert your revert. Because there are numerous grammar and style and policy problems with the content. These are new edits. These are contentious edits. If Agada wants them in the article let him bring them here for consideration. That's how it works. That's BRD. He made 20 bold edits, I reverted them, now we discuss them here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No. You are edit warring. Stop.Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agada edited, you reverted, I reverted your revert on grounds that you don't make wholesale reverts based on ambiguous "style and policy problems." You should have started with a single edit and worked it and given your justification. What edit warring is according to WP: "Typically a user who edit wars is ignoring editorial norms, reverting rather than taking due consideration of the points made by others." You did not follow that guideline (or is it policy? whatever? You blew it off as unimportant, and instead, came to the talkpage and denigrated the editor. When you were called on it you answered with sarcasm. Now your answer is to editwar. I hope you take consideration and revert yourself. Stellarkid (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The "style" issues are nothing. You could have fixed them without consensus. The policy ones? How many were policy? which policies? I would remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The edits looked fine to me and apparently to Cptnono, some of whose work was apparently taken out with your overreaching; they seemed properly sourced. Your objections are ambiguous and gratuitous. I urge you to reconsider and revert yourself. You are quick to wipe someone else's work, but appear unwilling to even discuss anything, demanding instead that the original author defend every "stylistic" edit. You call this collaboration? I call it petulance. Stellarkid (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Settle down now. Did the edits to the lead comply with WP:LEAD ? If not then they shouldn't be put back and I don't really see what the fuss is about them being removed pending discussion. Nobody died. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

He has every right to bring up thee concerns. I don't blame him. If they were in compliance or not is something that can be discussed. Therefore, I am restoring everything but the lead bits.Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with RomaC. The lede of a flagship article like "Gaza War" shouldn't be significantly altered without obtaining consensus first. This goes for my edits that I inserted to balance Agada's as well. Factsontheground (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This typo fix in particular should have been discussed at length before being made. That was a missed opportunity to bring everyone together to find joy in unscripted comedy. It may never happen again and I congratulate Agada for that multi-barnstar worthy typo. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It was so, so tempting to just leave that in there. Factsontheground (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FFS. I typed "reply" instead of "apply" a couple days ago and no one said a thing. You should all be ashamed for continuing to dog him about this. Yes it was funny and yes it was a mistake but enough already. And we can still talk about the other edits Sean. I got $5 that says someone will be noticeboarded in the next 24hrs but lets at least try.Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes especially when a language pointlessly forces you to write the vowels out. Agada brought some comedy into the world and made it a little bit better for a while. Can you confirm that the 'other edits' are the ones in this diff ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It was funny. Hopefully he can laugh with us now as opposed to getting too hard of of a time about it. And I am being preachy :(. That diff was an attempt to keep everything else before the mass revert but the lead. I didn't make any other adjustments. So from there it should be easy enough to go off the stuff in red.Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

After the lead was more or less restored, Agada added again: Hamas leader said that the struggle with Israel is "the final battle" with "an offense against God"."

POV/drama, grammar and style problems, not policy compliant re WP:lead as it is not a summary of article content. Can someone revert this? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Image

Any thoughts on the infobox image? It was changed from one map to another. I personally dig it. We could also go with an explosion or something.[this diff] Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The new image is ok, but shows less detail in Gaza. RomaC (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit on Hamas poster

It's been uploaded before and deleted before. It was deleted on the basis of it being a derivative work infringing copyright. As an enormous fan of propaganda posters with a basic knowledge of the current mess that is current Palestinian copyright law I would like to dispute that a bit but don't get your hopes up on this image surviving. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The picture of a copyrighted picture crossed my mind. I wasn't sure who would own the right to it and what local laws are. I think a FUR would be simple enough but am not sure if I want to waste the time if the image is not good enough (On second thought it is perfect at the other article and might be acceptable here). Quick question: Is it a Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas poster? Also, this needs to be off Commons and on Wikipedia since Commons does not allow nonfree images, right? Cptnono (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what happened last time. [18]. It includes a link to some info about current (well, sort of, it's basically Ottoman) copyright law. Yes, I guess commons is out. A fair use case could be made for the Shalit article but I personally wouldn't buy it for this article. It's a Hamas poster from the West Bank as far as I know....assuming it's the same pic. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)..fixed link. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was actually wondering who's laws we would be following with this one (looks like that came up at the discussion). We have to remove it for now based on legalities and if you are saying it is not related it isn't terribly important. If someone can verify it is related then say so and a FUR might be an option. I contacted the uploader since it would be good at the other article so there might be discussion over there. I really doubt the creator or publisher of the work would not want it disseminated for more to see but images are tricky here.Cptnono (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I added something for MBz1 too. The copyright laws are relevant. At face value from what I remember the only option is fair use because the copyright restrictions for art work that have remained largely unchanged for ages restrict usage. They are Ottoman civil codes and they still apply in the main. I think the plan is to comply with WTO standards eventually but that doesn't help us. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, so the fact that Wikimedia Commons says this file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license is basically useless? If we talk about the original poster IANAL, but I'd expect it to be a public domain as product of the government, but who knows? Basically we don't want to spoil commercial success of the "Kerem Shalom - Strike from Underground 17" sequel production of Hamas? Do you believe the crowds of fans would leave Hamas and turn to WP? Basically given the copy low quality and considering educational value FUR is trivial. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I see what you mean, Sean. The deletion debate was closed, was not it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, CC attribution is presumably false, it was closed as a 'delete' but the file is there...puzzling. I assume someone screwed up. Anyway, if it will be used it's clearly better to not use the commons version and go for fair use. And to be fair, it is the work of an artist. That's about as much as we know. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Two reversions per WP:BRD

I am reverting the following two recent additions per WP:BRD.

• Al-Qassam Brigades released a statement in response to an Israeli attack that targeted a group of fighters. The group had carried out a rocket attack against Sderot and said it would continue attacking Sderot "until its residents flee in horror. We will turn Sderot into a ghost town.". According to HRW, this and other statements of Hamas indicate an intent to target civilian areas. Same month,

This al-Qassam statement, made three years before the Gaza War, was cited in the HRW source to question this paragraph, which precedes it: "According to an October 1 interview with the Ma'an news agency, Ahmad Yusuf, an advisory with your foreign ministry, said: "Hamas has said all the time that they were targeting military bases. Maybe because these are primitive weapons -- the rockets, because they're homemade -- maybe some of these rockets missed their targets, some of them fell short." According to The Media Line news service, Yusuf made similar comments on September 21: "In Hamas, we have said that we never intended to target civilians during the war. These are home-made rockets and they were targeting military bases, but some of them may have missed the targets causing three Israeli [deaths] and a few injured."

So we have a source that basically says "Hamas says they did not target civilians, but al-Qassam earlier said they would target cities" We can't ignore the first half of the HRW letter, then take the second half out of context like that. Especially considering the same source also says:

"Human Rights Watch recognizes that IDF military operations caused far greater total harm to civilian lives and property than operations by Palestinian armed groups during the December-January conflict...Human Rights Watch has documented serious violations of the laws of war by Israeli forces, including the unlawful use of white phosphorus, the killing of civilians with drone-fired missiles, and the killing of civilians waving white flags."

The edit looks like someone went through the source and picked out the quote that would support a "bad Palestinian" narrative. If we are going to do this, and go back years in the process, does Matan Vilnai's 2008 threat to bring a holocaust down on Gaza in response to Qassams also belong in the article?

• The Shin Bet and the IAF were responsible for most "lethal part" of fighting. During last month of year 2007 only, "at least 40 armed terrorists" were reported killed in IDF air attacks. The Israeli army said it came "a long way since the dark days of 2002-2003", when half the casualties in air assaults on the Gaza Strip were "innocent bystanders", and summarized year 2007 statistics of what it coined as "pinpointed thwarting" euphemism and reported that rate of civilians hurt was 2-3 percent (1:30 rate).

This edit adds content to a section on Gazan and Israeli deaths from rocket/mortar fire in the period 2005-2007, a section which says most casualties were civilians. It is however, not about rocket/mortar fire, but rather about about the IDF's targeted killings/assassinations, with the IDF claiming the misleading 1:30 civilian:terrorist ratio. Comparing apples and oranges, it does not belong in this section, if it belongs in the article at all. Plus it weasels the word "terrorist" into the article, so far we had avoided having "terrorist" in the article per WP:terrorist.

These two reversions mean there are editors who object to the bold addition of the new content. The procedure, now, is to discuss the content. That's bold, revert, discuss. But, you know, BRD is primarily prescribed for articles where there is not so much Talk page activity, which is not the case here. So, in the future, editors who want to make potentially contentious edits could propose them here first. That would be respectful both of other editors' time, and of the spirit of collaboration. RomaC (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Both additions are clearly sourced, relevant and bring new information to this article. It does not matter how either side looks like or which language does it use. We clearly attribute and quote. Please stop edit warring. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agada, if your additions are as good as you believe they are, you will be able to get a consensus for them here. But you have to do that. You are advised that this article is under Wiki sanctions (Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.). Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not dare to carry weight of the whole consensus on my shoulders if I were you. "I don't like it" is not a good enough reason in my eyes. Considering your silly behavior lately, I'd prefer if you voice your opinion carefully. Other editors already reviewed the changes and found nothing wrong with sourcing and style, they also voiced a clear concern about your editing tactics and strategy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Agada, I'm not saying I carry the whole weight of consensus on my shoulders. I'm saying you made an edit that has met with opposition, spelled out above. Now you have been reverted, and let's discuss the edit you want to make. Also, let's have other editors get involved. Please stop resisting this and address my comments. Edit #1: Let me ask, if you want the al-Qassam "Sderot residents flee in horror" quote in the background section (presumably for dramatic effect), would you also support adding the Matan Vilnai "Gaza holocaust" quote? See, I'm asking here, before I put the Vilnai quote into the article, that is how consensus-building discussions work. RomaC (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, those kind of editing patterns were already discussed here and in the past caused to the article protection. Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. In my eyes you and nableezy misread the Letter to Prime Minister Haniya. Human Rights Watch, OCTOBER 20, 2009. To the point of this discussion, those two changes/revisions are not coupled in any way and were submitted over a period of number of days, slowly while welcoming the community involvement. You are welcome to oppose those addition, or propose yours, though I'd prefer it to be done one by one and not in "wholesale" matter. Another suggestion, which is probably too late now is to be WP:CIVIL, follow the etiquette and assume good faith of other editors. Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with AU here. Quite disappointing that editors here consider "flee in horror" on par with the dramatic effect of the terminology used to describe the deliberate murder of six million people. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree Vilnai's quote was disappointing, but understand this individual does not represent modern Jewry. If this quote (or Lieberman's) offends, blame the men who made the comments, don't blame the messenger here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)