Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 28

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

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

DIME/DU

Folks, I moved the DIME/DU text from the legal section (where it doesn't belong) to the casualty section. Perhaps not ideal but better in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a section before that was cut down and merged with the leagal section. I look and see if we can restore it somehow. Brunte (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel had to withdraw from Gaza

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057962.html

From no less than the commander of Battalion 101 of the Paratrooper Brigade, Lt. Colonel Avi G.: Lt. Col. Avi also describes the Hamas fighting abilities as professional. "They prepared for defense and sabotage. We found groups of booby-trapped homes, with the explosives facing the direction from which they believed we would approach. They have people who understand sabotage a lot better than the average platoon commander in the IDF. In one mosque there were booby traps with sensors that would set the explosive off the minute we entered. In the northern Gaza Strip they retreated as we approached. But the further we moved to the center of the city, Hamas resistance became more serious."

In the area where his unit fought, rocket attacks against Israel ceased. "It is just like the marines say: 'Boots on the ground.' There are things that only a ground force can deal with. It may be that a few ranks above us they call this an operation, but at the battalion level, there is no doubt that this is war. We did not use terms like 'routine security operation.' We talked about 'occupying, assault, attack' - war terminology."

Avi is keen to stress that his soldiers did not consciously target civilians. "At Atatra, a neighborhood in northern Gaza, we saw a light in a house and heard screams, and we let the families walk out with a white flag. I was very concerned about harming civilians. When we went into the Strip I told the soldiers: 'We are not like the Russians in Chechnya.' I was glad to see that the guys knew how to hold their fire."

The only problem is Lt. Avi G. makes the admission in a comment posted on an article, not in an article itself. He wrote (in response to a reservist major arguing the IDF could have gone all the way): ""Up front, we were getting shot at. The IDF advance went well until we got into the heavily populated areas of Gaza. Our tanks couldn’t maneuver properly. The streets were too narrow and the anti-tank fire became so heavy that we were ordered to pull-back to prevent casualties. We could have destroyed Hamas, but not without losing hundreds of soldiers. Hamas of today is not the Hamas of ten-years ago. They are a well-trained force, second only to Hezbollah." 84.65.47.55 (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of material that might warrant inclusion on Cerejota's subpage, dealing with Milhistory aspec ts, even though it is anecdotal.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel said repeatedly that it left Gaza not in order to return. Arab World reporter compared this war with 2006-Lebanon and said: In some parts of the Middle East, victory, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. See http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/01/20/what_was_the_gaza_war_about/5055/print/ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A reminder: User:Cerejota/OpCastLead for MILHIST crap... remember to sauce because this will be organized for inclusion once the fog of war lifts some moar.--Cerejota (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

israel fires at diplomatic convoy

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129657

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050197099&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE50R3WW20090128

where should this go? international? ceasefire? incidents? Untwirl (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I beleive there is a section for incidents after the ceasefire. Such as the attacks yesteday with the truck that got blown up killing the Israeli soldier and wounding 3 others Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox footnotes

The Infobox isn't meant to be comprehensive and authoritative. There sould be no need to footnote. Just make sure the article clarifies or expands any thought expressed in the infobox.

That said, is there anything in the footnotes ("starred entries") that AREN'T clear fromthe main text? Dovid (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties chart

The chart only gives the highest (Hamas-based) estimates of Palestinian casualties, as indicated in the narrative others are lower. The cited sources (eg reuters and jpost) do not say these are definite casualty numbers. The chart thus gives undue weight to a fringe source. Please fix before reintroducing. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement on the graph that 'United Nations' figures were used is incorrect. It used Palestinian Ministry of Health figures, which should be correctly attributed. I disagree though in that I don't consider it to be a "fringe" source. It's as fringe as the IDF figures, which should be taken with the equal milligrams worth of salt. The Squicks (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

File_talk:Gaza-Israel_war_casualties.png#United_Nations.3F

It is not only incorrect to attribute the Hamas figures to "UN, reuters and jpost", (though they cited them, it should be indicated what they cited), but it is also incorrect to make a chart using only these figures. No range is indicated, the numbers are not attributed, it is misleading and pov. It is even questionable if a npov chart can be drawn at all at this time for the Palestinian casualties. Concerning WP:FRINGE: Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the European Union, US&Canada, Japan and others. That definetly makes them a fringe source, and the data must be treated that way - i.e. not to entirely exclude it of course, but neither to have this data in the most prominent position and make it look like an undisputed reliable estimate. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and repeat my opposition to charts like this in general until the fog of war lifts little more, and for citing hard numbers: we need ranges for now.--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is the government of Gaza, their numbers should be taken with that weight. Unless you are also saying that the numbers the Israeli government have provided should also be dealt this way. Nableezy (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hamas government also demonstrably has had its capacity to keep such a body count severely interrupted by the Palestinian Lovefest of Roof Knocking Special Non-Explosive Harmless Missile-tards [insert canned jon stewart-esqe explosion animation here]. This is what I mean by fog of war. The UN will publish good figures soon enough. That said, protestations that the defacto Goverment of Gaza is lying about these figures are as predictable as they are against long-standing wikipedia practice of defering to what government's say about themselves, clearly in an article were the Israeli MFA is used as a primary source (mostly correctly), we can with a clear conciense used that of the Gaza Government. Still, convince me why this chart is a good idea?--Cerejota (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

it's got pink and orange in it which are happy colours. that's why. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But pink isn't really an NPOV colour, is it? --JGGardiner (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont care about the chart, but this repeated insistence that Hamas cannot be treated as the government of Gaza needed a response. I personally think in numbers so when I see 1330 to 13 in the infobox I can imagine the chart anyway. Nableezy (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The chart did follow your advice before the rest of us and used the "war" term up from the start. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That figures are provisory until we get official neutral review based on hospital records, and full recovery after the rubble is cleared of all bodies, was obvious from the start. A revision down by Palestinianj sources is already taking place, witness these figures from today's Guardian, which should be checked with the official sources, and entered, provisorily, into the charts and relevant parts of the article. I think the chart important. The only issue is one of updating it daily in accordance with the best sources.

The Palestinian death toll after three weeks of Israel's war was 1,285, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, or 1,268, according to the al-Mezan Human Rights Centre. Among those dead were at least 280 children. McCarthy, 'Children of Gaza: stories of those who died and the trauma for those who survived,' The Independent, 24,01/2009 Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page long ago we agreed to the chart being in the article. Many supported it, few opposed it. I changed the source on the image to say "Palestinian Ministry of Health." See the instructions on the image page for purging your browser cache if necessary. I have been updating the chart every day or two. We can point out on the chart caption that the numbers are changing, and yet to be independently verified. Just like in the notes section of the infobox. The number of Palestinian wounded seems to be in flux. See [1]. The number of Palestinian dead from a couple Palestinian sources seems to be fairly stable around 1300. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The chart is still not good. Though "Pal MoH" is included as a source, it is cited only in line with random secondary sources, and the sources are not attributed to the numbers and/or primary sources they cite. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just clarified things better in the image summary at:

File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png --Timeshifter (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pal MoH which you,Skäpperöd , call 'fringe' still happens to be an official source, since it is issued by the resident administration of the area. Israel has an interest to shape figures its way,i.e. down, as Hamas has an interest the other way round. I support the chart. When figures closer to the truth emerge, we just substitute them for the ones given by the best available sources. There is no problem here I can see. Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Official source" is not "reliable source", just because Hamas are "officials" in a tiny area doesn't make the fact vanish that they are considered a terrorist organization by the European Union, US&Canada, Japan and others, and thus have to be treated with utmost care. The least we can do is properly attribute their claims and see that we are not solely relying on their claims. Both is currently not the case with the Palestinian casualty figures given in the chart. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

An official source that has been quoted by the UN, HRW, AI, ICRC, Btselem, BBC, Reuters, . . . It is not a fringe source, it is the official numbers given by the government and it should be treated with the same weight as the numbers given by the Israeli government. To argue against that is to argue against the very idea of NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that the case? Are Hamas' numbers even "treated with the same weight as the numbers given by the Israeli government" (your quote)? For now I would be happy to settle for this, but I don't see anything but the Hamas numbers on the Palestinian side, and I do not see them differenciated nor are they attributed. The chart does not illustrate the section, it illustrates Hamas' views. I am all for NPOV, that's why I opened this thread in the first place. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that a chart like this should ever be placed in the article. It gives undue wait to pure numbers and paints one side in the conflict as being less seriously injured than the other.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So numbers are POV-pushing? Interesting. So if I were to show a graph of the NBA championships per team, would I be giving undue weight to the Celtics and Lakers because they won more? Nableezy (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One side of the conflict is less seriously injured than the other. It's only a fact. The article needs to present facts. Readers can draw their own conclusions and those conclusions (military success or excessive force etc) are out of scope for us. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) User:Hapsala recently added this great archive search form:

We agreed for the most part to use this chart. Please see the Jan. 5, 2009 discussion concerning the chart:

- Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 8#Support or oppose chart inclusion and the previous talk sections. Since then Skäpperöd's requests for changes have been accommodated. What else can reasonably be done?

See this diff: [2]

Skäpperöd removed the chart again with this edit summary "again rm chart: numbers not attributed to sources, only Hamas figures shown for Pal deaths. fix first see talk."

The image caption explains that there are other estimates: "Casualty figures are disputed and changing. See the main text for other estimates. Click the chart for more info on the chart sources."

No chart can have all estimates, all civilian/combatant breakdowns, etc. and be of reasonable legibility at small sizes in the article. There are all kinds of charts we could use or combine with this chart. For example;

.

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What if we just didn't have a chart? To POV! We can list estimate ranges in the article but if we put it into graphical form we can't really show a range as such, just what certain sources say. Plus a chart just listing the figures could make it seem as if the Palestinian side was hurt to much, etc, without taking into account who started it and stuff. Think about the Russian war thing this summer and how it was handled. Russia invaded a country without just cause and murder tons of people while Israel has been suffering missile attacks for a long time now without that being taken into account. I mean why don't we put up a chart showing economic damages caused by this war and show how much Israel has had to spend on this war and showing how much Palestinians have had to spend on the war? That would make it look more costly to the Israel in economic terms. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you wrote: "why don't we put up a chart showing economic damages caused by this war and show how much Israel has had to spend on this war and showing how much Palestinians have had to spend on the war".

Sounds like a good idea. It is the USA that it is paying for much of Israel's military costs. See the aid charts at the end of this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf - Jan 2, 2008 Congressional Research Service report for Congress titled "U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel." That report is in the public domain since it is a federal government report.--Timeshifter (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"chart just listing the figures could make it seem as if the Palestinian side was hurt to much, etc, without taking into account who started it and stuff.".....it's just a chart of statistical data. It doesn't contain implicit information and so it can't implicitly advance any premise (if the RS are good). It's just empirical data. Actually I would quite like to see a chart of economic consequences but that's probably original research at the moment. Don't forget Israelis and Palestinians aren't really financing this directly. US tax payers pay for Israeli/Egyptian side and pretty much every other tax payer around the world will pay for fixing the damage done in Gaza. hmmm deja vu. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As a library researcher I ask that Wiki editors please always use & cite RS, and, most importantly, refrain from digesting info for me. Thank you kindly. Tell someone (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is placing the numbers we use in the infobox and putting them in a chart 'digesting info'? I cant see how, but would be interested in your explanation. Nableezy (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Um Sean.hoyland, I really hope you aren't trying to promote the antisemitic conspiracy theory that the US pays for Israel's defensive actions or has a special relationship with it. I am going to assume good faith that you aren't promoting the New Antisemitism, but be aware that what you posted above could be seen as such.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

um peter napkin, read the report before making defensive 'antisemite' accusations. while this was off topic, it was in response to your suggestion of 'ways to make israel look better'. we aren't here to make israel or hamas look better. we are here to report facts. it seems as if you think the facts themselves are antisemitic. (ie "a chart just listing the figures could make it seem as if the Palestinian side was hurt to much, etc" or charging that a congressional research service is an "antisemitic conspiracy theory") your opinion that, "Russia invaded a country without just cause and murder tons of people" does not make you an antirussian, and people who dont believe israel had just cause arent antisemites.

i think the chart is fine as is Untwirl (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...you know Peter, that's pretty funny. I'm going to be a nice guy, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are joking or feeling unwell. Of course, if I see you issuing these kind of "be aware" advice statements to anyone here again I might wonder whether you are actually being serious. I might then wonder whether it's really appropriate for you to be having a dance party here and think about doing something about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you might be interested to know that my edit above was precisely 666 bytes. Coincidence ? Perhaps all of my edits are precisely 666 bytes. You can draw your own conclusions. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

sean, i'm going to dance naked around a fire with you in the forest at night if youre serious.Untwirl (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, sorry about that. your washing hasn't dried yet. it's the humidity. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

dont forget my stoneproof vest. just bring it with you to the witches sabbath. oh yeah, bring a casserole, too. Untwirl (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of casualties

I suggest this horizontal gallery of small thumbnails as a way to show some casualty photos in the article (in the casualties section):

Girl
Child
Mother
Boy

Boy

Al-Jazeera. A variety of ages. We need some photos of adult men. I believe that ISM has some male casualties in their free images. need some Israeli casualty photos. We might be able to use some Fair Use images. This is a war article, and we use images from many sources, and all sides. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery for casualties inside Israel

Here are some possible Fair Use images:

I did an advanced search of Flickr for "israeli qassam rocket" and "israel rocket death" and found no completely free images that can be used on Wikipedia. Other search terms might be tried.

Here is a possible Fair Use image of an Israeli casualty during the time period of the war:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25451173@N08/3175691885/

I found some free images of rocket remains: http://www.flickr.com/photos/novecentino/sets/72157612460369023/ --Timeshifter (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of fair-use would be we cannot use non-free images in the same way that they were originally used, so using a picture from an article about this conflict could not be used under fair-use. Not sure though. Nableezy (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is true. But we may be able to clarify this by analyzing the Fair Use article, and the Wikipedia guidelines concerning Wikipedia's narrower view. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a better resource would be Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images_2, specifically "4. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." listed in unacceptable use. And "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." under Wikipedia:Fair_use#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. Based on that I think we cannot claim fair-use for any image with a copyright that was intended to illustrate the content, meaning we would be restricted to free-use images. Nableezy (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus to add additional photos

There is no consensus to add any additional photos, particularly in the nature of casualty photos --not of either side. The thinking and commentary on this has been enormous, with all sorts of rationale used -- eg unbalanced, undue, unsourced, improperly sourced, questionably sourced, non-neutral, family feelings, tabloid, sensationalist, non-neutral, non-informative etc etc. I know the other side has arguments in favor of putting them in, but as long as there is no consensus, please do not continue to post photos daily. While we know that consensus may change, give us a week or so for that changing. Furthermore, I believe that puts the burden on those who wish to insert material of a controversial nature. So give us a break and lets move on to the text of this article. Everyone knows that in war innocents die. Leave it alone and let's move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the casualty photos. There have been casualty photos most of the time. Most of the casualty photos are not too graphic. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor is there consensus to add them. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is that articles have photos. WP:BURDEN is for text. Photos are different, and have always been treated differently. A casualty photo is a casualty photo, and it would take a great conspiracy theory of bizarre proportions to believe that Al-Jazeera or ISM would take fake casualty photos when there is no doubt both have been in the Gaza Strip during this war. There are thousands of casualties, and there is no need to fake them. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get that? the policy clearly says "material" not text! Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have eliminated the galleries because they are ugly, eliminated redundant photos, added better and more descriptive captions, eliminated redundant photos (another wounded child and the guy in some other section), and provided sourcing for the captions.--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for so many casualty photos. I can see the encyclopedic value of one or two images to that effect, but more than that just becomes propaganda. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't either... but I am willing to bet that they will be continually be added in the interests of ~~Pro-Palestinian propaganda~~ ~~truth~~ Pravada. (Props if you get the Heinlein reference.) I PROPOSE a moratorium on additional casualty photos now that the conflict has (temporarily) ceased. Let us seek more reliable sources for photographs other than International Solidarity Movement. We now have time, at least until the next outbreak of violence. V. Joe (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These were all from Al-jazeera. Do you think we should remove all the photos that show any rocket damage in Israel as not a single one of them is from a RS. Nableezy (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but you can't unilaterally declare a "a moratorium on additional casualty photos." each photo and text addition to the article stand on their own merits and encyclopedic value. Untwirl (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl I can propose anything I like. I am not declaring a moratorium. I am suggesting one. As for removing photos from non-reliable sources, I don't think an explosion or a building with a bunch of holes in it are nearly as inflammatory as pictures of human remains. To use Untwirl's previous comment (let) "each photo and text addition to the article stand on their own merits and encyclopedic value" V. Joe (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

so, your reasoning is, as long as the photos don't show sympathy-inducing 'inflammatory' photos of dead palestinians then they dont have to be from a reliable source? how can you say that and then follow it by quoting me on having each addition evaluated individually on its own value? it seems that you contradict yourself. Untwirl (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning is more like this. Please show damaged buildings (in Gaza or Israel). This is certainly a merit. I am however tired of having to argue over each and EVERY photo added in order to show a Pro-Palestinian POV. We get it, many editors are sympathetic with ~~Hamas~~ I proposed this moratorium on adding more photos now that we have time (the dust has started to settle) until such time as the dust as settled. V. Joe (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely concur In favor of a moratorium on additional casualty photos. And I think we have all explained our reasoning sufficiently. Each picture evaluated separately? It would be endless. I am sure there are plenty more burned babies run over by Israeli tanks, more morgues, dead girls, dead boys, dead elderly people, bodies with white phosphorus burns, DIME victims of cancer, orphans, crying mothers, victims of Israeli brutality tearing their hair out. This is Hamas' victory. We would be arguing these photos for the rest of our natural lives. Thanks but no thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"This is Hamas' victory" ?....D'OH! We need to get past this issue at some point Tundrabuggy. The article isn't a battleground. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, you forgot to remove the "Holes in resident walls, after a missile attack" new image so I removed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugghh, so you are saying your mind is closed and it does not matter whether or not a source is reliable, you are going to oppose any additional photos? And you want people to assume good faith and treat you with respect? Good luck with that. Each picture should be judged on its merits. That you don't like the fact that there are more photos available of Palestinian causalities and they have received greater attention in the press, which is a result of there being 100x more Palestinian casualties, is wholly irrelevant to any of this. Simply put, tough shit. You don't get to make these decisions. Nableezy (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you summarily reverted. Get some other hobby, clearly illustrating an encyclopedia is not something either of you can do. Am sorry Sean, you can be witty, but this is pointy as point gets. And Tundra, stop screaming "no consensus", as you have done for the past two weeks. Its boring, unproductive, and pointy. This article should be illustrated, and illustrating the casualty section with one picture of the dead and another of the wounded is encyclopedic, necessary, and well beyond the needs of writting an encyclopedia. Your efforts at hiding information with constantly changing arguments, disruptive editing, and ultimately blackmail about ArbCom is trite, uncivil, and bullshit. Stop. --Cerejota (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

..but dad, he started it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My pops used to slap me just for saying that. Nableezy (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You sir, are a mid-west extremist, *zing*! :D--Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My dad used to blockade me in my den in the garden while I fashioned little rockets made out of Iranian lego (lekow) and fired them at him until it was time for tea. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, he let you have tea? Nableezy (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Its boring, unproductive, and pointy. This article should be illustrated, and illustrating the casualty section with one picture of the dead and another of the wounded is encyclopedic, necessary, and well beyond the needs of writting an encyclopedia. Your efforts at hiding information with constantly changing arguments, disruptive editing, and ultimately blackmail about ArbCom is trite, uncivil, and bullshit.

I find that a clear violation of WP: Civil as well as a personal attack on TB. I agree with him more than I disagree, but I would certain like something about evidence about blackmail. As for ever changing arguments, I do not feel that is "trite, uncivil or bullshit." It is rather necessary when dealing with unapologetic editors (and I do not include any specifics, and exclude you, Cerejota) who seek to endlessly push one POV irregardless of arguments, usually through ad hominem attacks and who make their unchangeable views clear and advocacy unitarian (they only advocate the Palestinian viewpoint) by their very wiki-names. Tundra-Buggy make sometimes go too far, but he is doing yeoman's work in attempting to keep this at least a semi-balanced article. I have, by attempting to make my own views on the article clear have been accused of a number of very not nice things, as well as had my ethnicity and national origin questioned.
As for you and I, we disagree about what images (if any) should be included, but I feel that the inclusion of many of these photos have not been made with good faith, they have not shown reliable sources and have been largely an effort to poison the well. This is why I proposed the moratorium. V. Joe (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I hear ya. 2) All photos from Israel are from "unreliable sources" - yet they add great value to the information presented, even if your novel interpretation of RS for images is to be accepted, we should WP:IAR 3) The discussions have been heated, and I can see your point of there being POV pushing with some of the images 4) But even under those environments, one must assume good faith 5) When this is done, surprising consensus emerges 6) There is no reliable sourcing requirement for images

On the matter of personal attacks, I can see why you feel that way - but I do not think they were, and I can't decide if your view is based on agreeing with tundra on this topic, or if you actually have a thinner skin for PAs than most editors. Shit, I have gone to WP:DRAMA with much more blatant stuff only to be told it isn't, so I know the bar is set pretty high.--Cerejota (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying this RS line, but you keep forgetting all of these pictures in question right now are from Al-jazeera. All of them. And if you want the standard yo be that a picture needs to come from a RS then you would have to remove all of the pictures that show any damage to Israel, because not a single one if from a RS. Al-jazeera is a RS, in fact the only one that I know of that has released any material for free-use. So I ask you, do you want the standard to be an image has to be from a RS? There was only 1 picture from a so-called non-RS that showed any damage to Gaza, the baby picture that if you havent noticed is not in the article. Every picture that shows rocket attacks at Israel is from a non-RS. Do you favor their exclusion? And since reliability is not an issue for Al-jazeera pictures, what new reason would you like to use for their exclusion? Nableezy (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

when backpedaling from the rs argument, v joe says this, "As for removing photos from non-reliable sources, I don't think an explosion or a building with a bunch of holes in it are nearly as inflammatory as pictures of human remains"

to which i replied, "as long as the photos don't show sympathy-inducing 'inflammatory' photos of dead palestinians then they dont have to be from a reliable source?"

it seems that this is a good assessment of his position. Untwirl (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

damaged buildings are prominent in gaza, yes. but damaged humans are a huge part of this and shouldn't be censored because you view them as inflammatory. Untwirl (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments based on estimates of the 'inflammatory' nature of images are pretty weak because

they're highly subjective
they're based on local/regional/cultural/religious rule sets i.e. one man's inflammatory imagery is another man's routine prime-time news depending on various fairly random factors
they're kind of blown out of the water by comparison with images in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article amongst many others Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Names at the top

Referencing [25, "Start of conflict], the last bit of discussion was as follows:

Every single conflict or war has the name of both parties in the first paragraph in all of the A/I articles. Many even have multiple names in a given language. So no, I don't think it would be appropriate to move the names further down. That is one of the most basic things about the article, and as such should stay in the first paragraph. Nableezy (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (quoted)

I'm not proposing to take out the names of the parties, just the LABELS that the parties gave to the conflict, since there is, er, some conflict among editors over what label to give it. I think it detracts from the summary. The names of the primary parties should definitely be in the first sentence, absolutely. But not a confusion of multiple names that don't advance understanding of the overall picture. In the summary, who cares if the IDF calls it Cast Lead or Molten Pillows, or if the Palestinians call it the Gaza Massacre or the Israeli Massacre or something else? Please, people, remember, a summary is meant to give a reader a quick overview. It does not need to include every type of fact, or even mention every section included in the full article. By wording it up, we are taking it out of the realm of summary. At this point in the game, I think we are almost obligated to redo the whole summary, of which the name of the conflict is only a small part.Dovid (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are the names of the primary parties. I do not really understand what you are saying. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre, the names given to the conflict by the parties, not the names of the parties themselves. Blackeagle (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All right then, the names given to the conflict by the parties are always shown in the first paragraph. Why exactly should this be different? Nableezy (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's for battles and wars. This is neither. Some say there is no war, just a larger "conflict," whatever that means. If there is a war, then even so I don't know what this event was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This was an armed conflict between 2 parties, whatever you want to call it. Why should the names that the two parties use when referring to this conflict not be in the first paragraph? Nableezy (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a bunch of contentious wikipedia editors can't agree what to call this article doesn't mean that it isn't a battle or a war, it just means that there's no consensus on the article name. Whatever the taxonomy, it's a military conflict and the standard on wikipedia is to put alternatate names in the lead. Blackeagle (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

~~I think we are talking about the inclusion of Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre rather than the title of the article. Nableezy (talk)~~Never mind, didnt read all what you said ;) Nableezy (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this.[3] It explains the Israeli thinking a little better. They think between 1100 and 1200 people were killed. They claim to have identified about 700 as militants and 250 of them as civilians. And the rest have not yet been identified. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you intend this comment to be in a different section JGGardiner? It seems a bit out of place here. Blackeagle (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it. I wonder how I did that. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A section on impact?

After reading this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/hamas-reprisal-attacks I think it might be an Idea to create a section on the impact the conflict has had on the political environment within the Gaza strip.

This article talks about reprisal attacks by Hamas against members of Fatah and even members of their own organisation who are believed to have provided the Israelis intelligence. Attack involve not only outright killings but also things like kneecaping mafia style and other acts of that nature (According to the article and their reported accounts)

I figured it was worth a mention Andrew's Concience (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Executions of alleged collaborators(a section already there). Add at will, or at you looking for a 'spin off'(a brand new article altogether)instead? Cryptonio (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a separate article is requred. I'll put it on now. I just wanted to avoid any friction if someone took exception to this. I'll assume that no one minds :)Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have verifiability on this, the scale ("dozens") and the actions certainly would warrant more than one RS. That said, it probably belongs at Fatah–Hamas conflict, not here - although if it verifies perhaps a one sentence here with a wikilink to F-H concflict - this is notable stuff. I think we should be careful not make the latest article on the latest major event in the Israel-Palestinian conflict be the repository of all news until the next major event.--Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At first I agreed, but in that article it also mentions Hamas members who gave Israeli's information being punishedAndrew's Concience (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing this article[4] on the subject last week. This line really jumped out at me: "Some Fatah members said in interviews that some of those being sought for reprisals had been singled out for having handed out sweets in celebration of Israel's war on Hamas." I'm not asking for anything to be included. I'm just saying it was kind of surprising. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Curious Case of Mahmud az-Zahar

File:DarthArafat.png

Dance! Dance! Dance! Dance!

Since his videotape was aired during the middle of the conflict, I haven't heared nor seen a single sign of life from az-Zahar. This is very unusual for a man in his situation, unlike Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah who rush to the cameras to declare "victory" az-Zahar's voice is silent. I've heared many Rumors concerning him, that he was severly injured and taken to a hospital in Egypt and that he was killed and his body was taken by the Israelis. Do you know why he vanished from the face of the earth? and is it worth mentioning here? 87.69.41.159 (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's preparing for the upcoming season of So You Think You Can Dance. I read it in Hamas' Dance Nation fanzine. It said he was being introduced to mitigate excessive campness and broaden the appeal of the show into untapped demographic market segments and such like.
We don't know anything. We just say what the reliable sources say. You'll need to go and find some if you want to add something to the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

latest edit about unrwa school

this edit by ip http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&curid=20855562&diff=267459716&oldid=267434041#Incidents doesn't seem to be covered by more than one source.

when newsgoogling "unrwa school" that source is the only one i can find that says this and another one talks about a humanitarian report and an "investigation into the attack on the main compound of the world body in the Gaza Strip during Israel's three-week pummeling of the Palestinian enclave" recently announced by the un sec gen.

maybe we should say school compound or something (i personally think "school" includes the grounds) but regardless this story does not seem to be reported anywhere else. Untwirl (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Outcome" in main Infobox should be noted as 'Israeli victory', given that it is already noted in "Status" that 'Hamas rocket attacks largely halted' was achieved per the sole stated objective of Israel in entering the conflict

See Falklands War, Six Day War, and Battle of Salamis as precedent for the acknowledgement of victories for what they plainly are.Havvic (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some victory. Many dead and injured with Hamas still in power and control, and the tunnels still in place. The reputation of israel also seems to have taken a beating, and no doubt the new US administration will have seen the unacceptable Israeli practice of waging war against a civilian population using white phosphorus etc. Peterlewis (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source claiming this is an Israeli victory? Or is this the opinion of some random user? Nableezy (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't do original research. Next.--Cerejota (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. Acknowledged as Israeli victory here. How can it be otherwise, noting that they've achieved their stated objective of causing Hamas to surrender the objective of exercising a prerogative to continue rocket attacks against their country, people, and territory? Think about it.Havvic (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The other side (Hamas and Gaza in general) claimed victory too. So both sides have to be put, if necessary. A lot says neither side won anything anyway, including several sources from JPost. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the objective of Hamas other than to assert its prerogative to continue rocket attacks against Israel? .. an objective that it surrendered as a result of military defeat inflicted by Israel. Perhaps you can state ONE military objective announced by Hamas that it did in fact achieve. I can't. ps. "not being completely annihilated" does not count as a plausible military objective.Havvic (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this wasn't fast enough, NEXT. Nableezy (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that a conflict where the first side ceases fire because it has achieved its announced military objectives, and the second side opposes but fails to defend against the achievement of those objectives should be acknowledged as anything other than a victory for the first side? Wow, did I miss something about Hamas being punished into submission, losing ground and material and infrastructure and personnel, and finally even committing to halt rocket attacks into Israel as a consequence of all that. If that's not the victory of Israel, then what on Earth would be in this particular case?Havvic (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The stated objective was not just 'stopping rocket fire' it was crippling the ability to stop rocket fire. I would think the 20 rockets fired between the time Israel announced its ceasefire and the time Hamas announced its ceasefire would be proof enough for you that no such crippling took place. That you disagree with this is utterly irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And Hamas has not committed to stop rocket fire, they said they would give Israel a week to withdraw and then negotiate a longer ceasefire, just like it was before this started. A return to the status quo is not a win for Israel, or at least not until some historians call it an Israeli win. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Havvic actually has a point. I think that people living on both sides of the border would not agree that situation on the ground is the same as before this war/operation. The rockets clearly stopped. There are signs that Gilad Shalit case suddenly started progressing. Israel clearly achieved it's military goals with little loss on its side. From other hand, Hamas did not achieve any legitimation, was not even invited to cease fire ceremony with Egypt and European leaders in Sharm Al Shaikh and even Egypt continues to refuse recognize Hamas as legitimate Gaza government and open Rafah crossing. So objectively speaking, Hamas casus belli blockade was not resolved in no way. You could also see Just war article for Ending a war: jus post bellum. It all matches. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The term you are looking for is status quo antebellum. The classic example would be the War of Jenkin's Ear. Hu Jintao was once asked "what were the consequences of the French Revolution" His answer was "Its too early to tell yet?" Let us wait until the consequences of this campaign runs its course before declaring this a victory or a defeat for Israel (or Hamas) V. Joe (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. I did not know that. Nableezy (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a single serious objective person has called this an Israeli victory, nor shall we unless they do. This is all personal opinion that doesn't belong here. Nableezy (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All we need to acknowledge is whether the war objectives of Israel were achieved resulting from the prosecution of the conflict, or not. Referring to the article again, those objectives were, um, "stopping Hamas rocket attacks and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas" - both very evidently achieved now that the smoke has cleared and we've had an opportunity for considered assessment. And as for whether smallscale activity from the remnants one belligerent after the other has accomplished its mission and taken mercy upon it, hey, d'you think I could claim that World War 2 wasn't a victory by Russia because I still had enough people in Germany to let off a dozen or two rockets at the Russians? Be serious now.Havvic (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is an indefinitaly blocked, and confirmed, sockpuppet of the massivly abusive, and community banned user, DavidYork71.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't do original research. Next. (rudely stolen from Cerejota) Nableezy (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That the war objective was ending rocket attacks, and that the attacks ceased consequently are not opinions originating from me, but are both backed up by citations - all too numerous to mention here - found in the article itself. Your haste to gloss over the same therefore becomes quite telling. Sourced from The Jerusalem Post, no less, a claim has been made that the outcome was an Israeli victory (rather than something lesser - like a qualified victory, a stalemate, or some other party's victory). We therefore may look to the antecedents such as the event outcomes (rocket attacks ceased, military debilitation of Hamas) and announced objectives of each side (ceasing rocket attacks vs continuing them, targeting of Hamas military capabilities vs destruction of Israel), to determine whether that claim has credibility and moreover ought to be admitted into the content of the article. Yes and Yes to both, it seems, although you would say that a final volley of 20 rockets coming over in the time that hundreds used to has some countervailing significance. The rest of us still issue the challenge 'Really? How so?'67.205.48.127 (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that say Hamas has taken a big step up as a result of this conflict. That you think Israel won is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And your source doesnt even say what you think it says. It says Olmert thinks they won, what is wrong with you? Nableezy (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas has launched a probe which is expected to be extremely critical of the failures of its military wing during the recent Gaza offensive, the respected Jane's Defence Weekly magazine said Monday. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090126/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgazaeuaidhamasjanes

Israel's war in Gaza is a military victory. But with 1,300 dead and thousands wounded, it is also moral defeat. The painful lesson: Israel can only defeat itself. Hamas leader Ismail Haniya only had to hide to emerge as the winner. See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,602424,00.html

Bottom line: Israel has scored an impressive tactical victory. But it has missed the strategic opportunity to rid itself of the menace on its doorstep. In the Middle East, opportunities don't always knock twice. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123241373428396239.html

After three weeks of relentless bombing of Gaza, Hamas, which has lost an undisclosed number of fighters as well as numerous high-ranking officials, finds it can still declare victory. In some parts of the Middle East, victory, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. See http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/01/20/what_was_the_gaza_war_about/5055/print/

Hamas held a hollow “victory” parade this week (see article), but Israel’s rampage through Gaza’s streets and skies may have reduced the allure of “armed struggle” in the eyes of both the movement’s leaders and its followers. See http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12972669

Most see the outcome as Israel victory, including Arab World commentators and Hamas itself. Everybody worried about Palestinian casualties and ask at what cost this military victory was archived. Though I have to say Iran and Syria declared that Hamas won and congratulated Hamas PM. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice set of notes and links, Agada. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since both sides have claimed victory, shouldn't we say that it's kind of unknown, and have a section explaining of how it can be considered an Israeli victory to some and how it can be considered a Hamas victory to others? Deavenger (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just say each side declares unilateral ceasefire, which is what happened and what we say, and wait until this has actually been relegated to the pages of history to see what people who can actually speak on who won say something. Nableezy (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In some parts of the Middle East, victory, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. See http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/01/20/what_was_the_gaza_war_about/5055/print/ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy's comment. Wiki editors aren't in the business of deciphering information for its readers. Stick to the info & its RS, please. Tell someone (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy's comment. However, to Tell Someone, if there are people talking about hey, Israel won, heres why ______, or hey, Gaza won, here's why _____. I think that's good enough to put into an encyclopedia article sayin, "______ believes it was an Israel victory due to ____, ____, ____ while _______ takes the oppostie view ______, etc." Deavenger (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That could find a place in the text, but this was about what goes in the infobox, what we say are facts. There is no way we should be debating who won here, it is not our place. Such discussions, where they take place in RS, can be included in the article, but not the infobox. At least not 2 weeks after the fact. Nableezy (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is rediculous. There is no way in hell that this could be called an "Israeli Victory". The facts are that Israel stated objectives. Some include (1) Stopping Hamas' attacks into Israeli territories. There have been multiple attacks since the ceasefire reported by this very article! (2) To destroy or disable the tunnel network that Hamas uses to smuggle materiel into the Gaza strip. Now I don't know the exact number that are still in opperation, but we sure as hell know they exist because yesterday Israel reported destroying some of them in retalliation to the attack that killed the Israeli soldier and wounded three others. Seriously this is a no brainer. The fact that Israel kicked the crap out of Hamas for a few weeks is irrelevant to this issue because it didn't resolve anything! The fact that Israel kille Gazans at a rate of 100:1 is also irrelevant. This wasn't a footbal game where the scores are tallied at the end of 90 minutes Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

edit summary

Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (142,259 bytes) (→Gaza strip: No consensus. POV and unbalanced. Time to take this to arbitration I think)

Then do it.--Cerejota (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let the chips fall: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Tundrabuggy_and_edit_warring_over_images_at_2008.E2.80.932009_Israel.E2.80.93Gaza_conflict. My money is I get blocked first by some "uninvolved" admin, but hey, I am assuming good faith that will not happen.--Cerejota (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How disturbing. The fact that comments along the line of holocaust denial not being so bad come to nothing whereas buggy's comments matters is so weird.

Personally, I am taking a long break from this article and then coming back when the fog lifts. (I sincerely hope that this is not interpreted by Nableezy and others as an attack on them. It's not.) The Squicks (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What am I, the most sensitive little boy at the dance? I didn't say anything about Holocaust denial, so I don't take anything by that. But did the users who did say stuff like that actually stand in the way of consensus at all times and demand their way or no way? If it was just the annoyance of having to ignore ones comments on the talk it would be one thing, but when it consistently makes editing the article much harder than it would otherwise be it is another issue entirely. Nableezy (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of you managed to get me banned over "edit-warring", rather than take the main issue to arbitration. Afraid you might lose that one on the merits? Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, your editing ban doesn't prevent you from doing that does it ? I assumed it specifically related to editing the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I know the lede is a powder keg, but for the benefit of readers who actually want to read the article to know what happened, I made two small additions.

Added "in the Gaza Strip" to specify where Israel's military campaign was.
Added "on its southern communities" to specify where Hamas rocket attacks were.

I also wikilinked the first mention of Hamas in the lede instead of the second mention. I have a grain of hope that these changes won't lead to endless partisan bickering, but...they probably will. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Stylistically 'in the Gaza Strip' goes better after Operation Cast Lead. Have presumed to adjust.

Only problem with adding 'in the southern communities' is checking that the sources quoted use precisely that wording, as attribbuted to Israeli spokesmen. Do they?Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources I've seen usually use "towns and communities", "towns" or "communities". There was already a discussion about the phrase "towns and communities", with Nableezy arguing that this was weasel wordage and Cerojota and I arguing that it wasn't. The way I remember it is that Nableezy eventually accepted our position, but I can't speak for him. In any case, these are the phrases used by RS's; I chose a one-word phrase instead of a three-word phrase so as not to provoke arguments that I was giving the rocket attacks too much air time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and though Cerejota doesn't believe me, I argued that 'communities' is the default word for anywhere where Israelis live, and is never used to Palestinians, in most I/P articles. Here Gazans don't ever live in 'communities', though all their refugee camps and town-units are clan-structured communities. Hamas fires all over the Negev, mostly into the desert, even if it aims at settlements or towns.One argument for communities is that the many kibbutzim in the Sha'ar haNegev are not towns. On the other hand, most places hit are townships. In any case, technically, one should have this sort of phrasing sourced. We are dealing with 'stated' claims, and stated claims should follow the official Government statements to the word.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::It's interesting to me that you have that gripe, because one of my pet peeves is that "villages" is used in the media only for Palestinians and not for Israelis. Since "village" has no particular administrative meaning, but does conjure images of a bucolic, peaceful New-England-type setting, I consider it to be borderline weasel-wordage in the I-P context. But since it's a problem in the RS's themselves, I would never argue against its use in Wikipedia, as long as it was adequately reflected in the cited sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I use neither. It is interesting also that Israeli village gets 77,400,000 hits on Google. 'Village', when not upmarket nouveau-bucolic, has a touristy tone, whereas 'community' is schmalzy. I refer not to general usage, but to I/P usage. Israel's stated aims, are of course those announced in the press by government and IDF spokesmen. These naturally have absolutely nothing to do with its real aims, given that Hamas had accepted to reaffirm the truce. The real aims are already coming out in strategic reports all over the place, and have nothing to so with 'protecting southern communities', which is quite simple: accept a truce, one that allows people in Gaza to eat regularly. But this is soapboxing of course.

The problem remains. The links I checked that are supposed to underwrite 'southern communities', are old links, and do not mention this as the stated aim. The stated aim was generic, to stop rockets being fired.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

::::"Israeli village" has 13,600 google hits, most referring to Arab-Israeli villages or reconstructed villages. "Palestinian village" gets 84,200 google hits. I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of never getting into rambling talk page discussions not related to the article. I can control myself when seeing opinions I disagree with, but when people get facts messed up, I get sucked in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert, both 'Israeli village' gives me 24,800,000 now, and 'Palestinian village' over 1,200,000. It doesn't matter either way to me. My point was (a) Wiki I/P usage and (2) the fact that nowhere in the three sources does it state Israel's intent was other than to halt rocket fire. No mention of 'southern communities' which appears to be your construction. Note 31 by Amos Harel however has this.

The Israeli objective is clear: deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter. Ostensibly, it will not prevent heavy rocket fire on the Negev towns, but it will likely make it more difficult for Hamas to carry out more damaging attacks against Israel.

This is not of course Israel's stated view, but that of an opinionist- The notes 32,33,34 all refer simply to an aim of hitting 'Hamas-linked' infrastructure and stopping rocket fire, as in the original had it before you changed it. I'll restore the old version, which was more succinct, until evidence is forthcoming that the stated view was that of stopping firing into just one part of Israel, (the known military objective was to destroy Hamas's capacity to strike Israel, and stop it from achieving an upgraded capacity to strike anywhere in the country). I hardly need add that rather than arbitrary sourc es from newspapers we need a specific declaration by the government on the 27th. referring to the purpose of the assault. If this exists, and uses language that justifies your proposal, or a different formulation, by all means bring it up. If we get the official gov. or IDF (same difference)declaration, we can get rid of the three newspaper refs, which are arbitrary, and as such improper.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, Nishidani, here are three sources explicitly stating that Israel's aim was to stop Hamas rocket fire on its "southern communities" (as opposed to, say, its northern communities). For simplicity's sake I'm limiting myself only to Associated Press articles. I agree that since the RS's - and not just the Israeli government - state as fact that this was Israel's aim, saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you. In fact, since the reliable sources use the phrasing "years of rocket fire", I see no reason not to follow them on that, too; but we can leave these issues for later.

This should sate your desire for "forthcoming evidence". Now please restore the more informative, if somewhat less succinct version, and please never waste my time again by demanding that I prove trivialities. Also, please please please don't ever again make me sit through your extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing. As a symbolic admission of my partial guilt in this case, I'm striking through my earlier comments that were not directly related to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My two changes to the lede were proposed together, since one adds info on Israeli violence (and thus vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Israeli editors) and one adds info on Palestinian violence (and vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Palestinian editors), while both add necessary information for the naive reader. Nishidani was the only one who objected, predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence. Since he has not responded to me, and more importantly, since no one else has objected to my (in all honesty, ridiculously cautious) change, I am restoring it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so rude. Your time is no more valuable than my own. Were I as ill-mannered as you seem to be above, I should reply that you wasted my time by inserting a phrase unsupported by the old references. It is standard wiki practice to anchor one's edits and wording in references. My drawing your attention to this was neither rude, nor time-wasting, but a matter of editorial scruple. If you demand precision from others, expect it from those who examine your own edits. You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective. It remains for me your edit proposal, now with proper references. I don't know about wikipedia, but that's how historians work. And I do not understand, in closing, your remarks about my 'predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence'. If I have unilaterally removed info on Palestinian violence, while agreeing to that on Israeli violence, I'd appreciate a link to show where. The only edit change a made to your lead suggestion was repositioning words for stylistic smoothness. Otherwise, unlike yourself, I left an edit I didn't agree with intact, as courtesy obliges when one's fellow-editor takes the trouble to engage in dialogue. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

'saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you.'

I didn't insert 'stated aim'. It's been there for some time, unchallenged. I agree with it. 'Stated aim' is perfectly correct, since several articles I've been reading by military and political analysts, not all with my POV by any means, assert that these two 'stated aims' often bruited about in newspapers, do not reflect far more complex considerations behind Israel's decision to go to war. To replace 'stated aim' with 'aim' is to presume we here know exactly what those real intentions were. We aren't at this state, in a position to know anymore than this. There is a very serious distinction to be preserved here.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, Nishidani, could you both stop with the personal attacks please? Blackeagle (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? I won't push it, but I haven't attacked anyone, and will not engage further if this is raised again. Take it to my page if you think I have. Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the content of either of your changes, but now we've got quite a run on sentence. It's made even worse by all the (parenthetical) statements. How about splitting it into two sentences, something like:

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה), the campaign's stated intention was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and target the members and infrastructure of Hamas."

Blackeagle (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

where has nishi made a personal attack??? i see him being exceedingly patient while being accused of "extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing"

if jalapenos were serious about regretting disruption he should strike that statement and apologize. Untwirl (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The person who made the remark should not be allowed to light a fuse that isn't there. I checked. I mistook a newbie for an administrator and took the crack as an instance of administrative nodding, to be countered. This has blown over. Jalapenos and I are, essentially, discussing technical problems in the lead. We disagree. We argue. No harm done.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blackeagle, I don't think either Nishidani or I engaged in a personal attack, but I did fail to keep cool. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adopting Blackeagle's suggestion above about splitting one sentence into two. It is a stylistic necessity and does not change the content at all. If anyone objects to it for some reason, they can say so here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A point, as I see my name up there; I was never involved in this discussion, though I favor a word other than communities. I think there are any number of words that fit better, and the one I would think fits the best is 'southern Israel'. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And I also think it should say with the 'stated aim'. It is Israel's stated aim, there are a number of sources that question these were the actual aims, questioning whether or not it was motivated by upcoming elections, or by the knowledge that support for Israel in the White House could not be assumed to be as strong upon the inauguration of Obama, or any other number of reasons. The easiest way to sidestep that is to explicitly say this is the stated aim of the Israeli government, which can be both well-sourced and verifiable. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article uses "stated intention", rather than "stated aim". Does anyone have a preference for one over the other? Blackeagle (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would favor 'aim'. I think intent would apply to wider vision, a military campaign has aims and goals, it is a tool of intent. Just me though. Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "aim" until being shown a good reason for "intention", at least because its used in one of the sources I quoted above. Nableezy, can you give an example of a high-level RS, say a news item from a major news organization, that assumes the alternate aims you mentioned or casts doubt on the "stated aims"? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still researching the issue of "stated aim" vs. "aim", but I thought I'd post this tidbit. Iranian Press TV, which is, to put it mildly, biased against Israel, cites the aim of ending rocket attacks against Israeli towns as fact:
"Tel Aviv launched Operation Cast Lead on December 27 to put an end to rocket attacks against southern Israeli towns."
Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To be clear up there I meant I would go with 'stated aim'. There are no sources that report as fact anything that I said above questioning the stated aims, there are certainly editorials by notable authors about that, but I wouldnt think of including them in the article. The reason why I would favor stated aim is this. I don't think anybody can accurately report what any government in this world is actually trying to do. What we get is what they say they are trying to do. I would be wary of saying anything that a government says about its aims or intentions without first qualifying it as what it is, the aim that is given to the public. It goes both ways, Hamas saying their only intention is lifting the siege is only that, what they say. Nableezy (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason many of the RS's cite the stated aims as fact in this case is because there are some stated aims that are inherently plausible. If a gov't builds a bridge over a river, the stated aim of "enabling people to get from one side to the other" is inherently plausible. I agree that in war we need to be exceptionally careful, becuase gov'ts are prone to conceal things in war, but I don't see why we need to be more careful than a large portion, possibly the majority, of the reliable sources. By the way, if we do go with "stated aim", we have the added responsibility of citing the stated aim fully and accurately, as it was stated, which means pretty much quoting from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The government may also be making strategic landing strips for fighter airplanes with that bridge (from a conspiracy as to why the US has the Eisenhower Interstate System). Governments consistently hide their true motivations from the public, I just don't think we can take any at its word. Nableezy (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not addressed: "You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective." -Nishidani

Because if we DO go back to the beginning of this conflict(and we should when addressing the lead), we'll find the following:

Dec 30 - Israel attacks Gaza for the fourth day - http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=54699 (from the BBC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a really hard time with complaints that "community" should not be used in the lead but "Massacre" is A-OK. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, thanks for the input. Wikipedia is not calling it a Massacre, we just say who is. Here, wikipedia is using the term 'communities', not just saying who is. There is a little bit of a difference there in case you were wondering. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New section re lead

Jalapenos do exist and other committed editors. I'm extremely wary of touching leads until agreement is established via discussion. It used to be fairly balanced. What we have now, on checking it this morning, is gross reduplication, which the text didn't have earlier. It reads:-

(a) with the stated intention of stopping Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[32][33][34]. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[35][36][37][38][39]

(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.)

(c) On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire and the smuggling of weapons through underground tunnels from Egypt. [50] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade.[51]

In my view (b) relatively untouched since the beginning, is fairly balanced. However (a) and (c) repeat the same phrasing, and this should never occur in leads.

The Ist para describes the Operation, Israeli's objectives. The second gives background and reciprocal blame or claims. The third repeats the already explained 'intentions' of para one, simply changing 'stated intention' with 'stated objective', while adding a further one (tunnel smuggling), and repeats the claim made by Hamas in para 2. Israel in (c) which is all repetitition, gets 24 words, Hamas 15.

Para (c) is therefore repetitive, reduplicates parts of para (a) and para (b), in violation of WP:LEDE. Since it says nothing new, but hammers away, I suggest it be removed, with an eye however to conserving in some form the 'tunnel smuggling' bit. However retain that, with a RS showing it was the explicit view of the IDF/Gov, and you then have a balancing problem. For Hamas, those tunnels mainly serve as corridors for food and goods to get round the blockade.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that (c) is mostly repetitive. What about moving the smuggling allegation to paragraph (b). Have it read something like:

(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel claimed cross-border tunnels were used for smuggling weapons while Hamas insisted the tunnels were necessary to supply Gaza with goods and food. [insert reliable source here] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel using the smuggled weapons.[50]

Blackeagle (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does that paragraph purport to explain? Why the truce was not renewed? You have Hamas claiming that Israel was not lifting the blockade as justification, though it is not clear whether that was agreed upon as part of the truce agreement. You have Hamas holding one cross-border tunnel raid as a reason, and give Hamas' rationale for the tunnels. You say "Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks using smuggled weapons." Nowhere does it acknowledge that Hamas fired weapons and mortar into Israel the entire time of the truce, really ratcheting it up in November & December. It does not state that Israel considered this to be a "serious breach of the truce". The fact that the weapons were smuggled was not Israel's reason for this counter-offensive. It was in fact the constant, almost daily fire throughout most of the truce that was the main reason -- and Israel did in fact hold the constant firing on the "southern communities" to be a "serious breach of the truce". Israel's view isn't really reflected in this paragraph except perhaps as an afterthought. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is intended as a readability edit rather than a content edit. The content itself is pretty much identical with what is currently in the article, it's just arranged a bit less redundantly. Do you prefer the current version to what I proposed above? Blackeagle (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was meant as the "universal 'you'" as opposed to the "personal" you. If it were clear that we were talking about the reasons that the "truce" was not renewed, as opposed to the first paragraph which supposedly is talking about the reasons for "Operation Cast Lead" itself,' it would not then be redundant, though it might be similar. Hamas and Israel could not come to terms to extend the truce. Then Hamas' stated reasons & Israel's stated reasons, fairly. If you are not going to explain why there was no extension of the truce you could leave it all out or put it in later in the background section. ie "A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47]" End of story. Just a thought. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RM preparation

Having in mind that the current title is disputed and the settlement was to wait until a "favourite" name is established after the conflict is over, I performeda web search with various of the previously proposed titles. I used the qualification "2009" for accuracy and excluded "arafats zionists ass fuck motherfucker bitch piss" to avoid counting hate blogs and the like.

Results (28 Jan 2009, highest to lowest number of hits):

10,100,000 English pages for "gaza war" [5]
2,830,000 English pages for "gaza conflict" (+2009) [6]
2,490,000 English pages for "gaza crisis" [7]
844,000 English pages for "operation cast lead" [8]
587,000 English pages for "invasion of gaza" [9]
245,000 English pages for "gaza massacre" [10]
202,000 English pages for "gaza campaign" [11]

2,021 for gaza-conflict (+2009) google news
1,454 for gaza-crisis (+2009) google news
1,294 for gaza-war (+2009) google news
1,233 for operation-cast-lead (+2009) google news
830 for invasion-of-gaza (+2009) google news
118 for gaza-massacre (+2009) google news

Replacement of "Gaza" with "Gaza strip" resulted in a significantly lower number of hits (not shown).

Thoughts on the search parameters, additional names to search for, and comments on whether to wait some more or start a new RM are appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great work, Skaepperoed, thanks. Comment: I'd be interested in the results when doing a google news search. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the google news searches to the above list, and the results differ from the google "proper" search. When searching google news, we have conflict on 1st, crisis on 2nd and war on 3rd position. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Skäpperöd! If I can build on this a bit, Google News doesn't really require the "2009", since it only holds articles from the past month. Without 2009, the numbers are:

6,731 for gaza-war [12]
9,077 for gaza-conflict [13]
6,759 for gaza-crisis [14]
9,213 for operation-cast-lead [15]
4,541 for invasion-of-gaza [16]
226 for gaza-massacre [17]

In this case, Operation Cast Lead takes the lead (due to articles from the 27-31 December being more likely to use the Israeli codename, perhaps?) Other than that, the numbers are pretty similar to Skäpperöd's searches.

Google news also allows you to confine searches to the titles, which may do a better job of representing what newspapers are calling the conflict, versus just mentioning the phrase somewhere in the story.

2,005 for allintitle: gaza-war [18]
1,899 for allintitle: gaza-conflict [19]
475 for allintitle: gaza-crisis [20]
60 for allintitle: operation-cast-lead [21]
83 for allintitle: invasion-of-gaza [22]
54 for allintitle: gaza-massacre [23]

Confining the search to the titles, Gaza War and Gaza Conflict emerge as the clear leaders. Operation Cast Lead and Invasion of Gaza drop out almost entirely.

Blackeagle (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is "Gaza Campaign"

1,420 for gaza-campaign [24]

120 for allintitle: gaza-campaign [25]

Blackeagle (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually "Gaza campaign" was one of my favorite titles, because it is more war-like than "conflict" but not as outright as "gaza war" (putting this skirmish in a line with eg the Thirty Years' War and WWII). Yet google search turned out only a few results so I struck it out my list, but I added a line on the campaign search in the first list of this section now for illustration.

I think the searches have shown well what titles must be dropped, and we now may consider the consistency in naming the I-P / I-Gaza conflicts. Many articles are named after the corresponding Israeli operation codename, and "conflict" seems to be rather used for coverage of a longer period:

We have only 3 articles titled with "war": 1948, 6day and Yom Kippur. "Gaza War" seems not to be in line with that. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My favorite is actually "Battle of Gaza", but that gets almost no results in Google news. 1982 Lebanon War also has war in the title. I agree that those are quantitatively different from the current conflict (including an order of magnitude more deaths). Conflict gets used for both longer term stuff (Israeli-Palestinian conflict), stuff that's about the same scale as the current round of fighting (1978 South Lebanon conflict) and stuff that's considerably smaller scale (2006 Israel–Gaza conflict). I don't know if consistency is possible (at least without a wholesale renaming of a bunch of other articles). Blackeagle (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the Israeli-Palestinian infobox, but the 2006 Lebanon War has war in the title as well. It was a conflict on approximately the same scale as the current fighting (similar numbers of Lebanese casualties, but many more Israeli ones). Blackeagle (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I used allintitle on the very first title discussion. I am glad to see you use it, although the google test is not qualitative - so it should be handled with care. I do think that reading the sources is better, and I get the dinstinct impression, from reading dozens of sources a day, including the hundreds here, that "Gaza war" is a verifiable moniker. I think we should follow. I am neutral to variations like the Years in Front or "Israel-Gaza war", capitalization etc, my important point is that "war" is how this is being described by RS. I agree on 2006 Lebanon War. --Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be handled with care. I think Google News, including the allintitle search, are more useful for telling us which titles we shouldn't be considering. I'd say that Operation Cast Lead, Gaza Massacre, Invasion of Gaza, and Gaza Campaign probably shouldn't be considered. Gaza Crisis is a possibility, but it seems to be less common. I really don't think the results can help us decide between Gaza Conflict and Gaza War. Blackeagle (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

An advantage of "Gaza war" is that we might be able to ditch the "2008-2009" qualification with its annoying hyphen. Conversely, I don't think it would make sense for this article to be titled just "Gaza conflict" - too general. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: "Gaza Massacre is obviously out, just like "Gaza Holocaust", "Gaza Slaughterhouse", etc. Not too fond of "campaign", it sounds like someone's running for office. "Crisis" does not really represent what's going on; same with "conflict". I'm most supportive of "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza war". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You and I, fully agreed on something? Now, I wake up and fall from my bed.--Cerejota (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind Gaza conflict, since it hasn't officially been termed a "war" yet. Did one side declare "war" on another? Possibly, otherwise what's the reason/meaning of a truce? By the same token, the 33-day conflict with Hezbollah is termed the "2006 Lebanon War." The date in this case is to distinguish it from the earlier one. By the wiki definition of War, this is one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

International Law/Palestinian

I propose following addition as first paragraph:

Democratically elected Hamas Governance of the Gaza Strip is considered terrorist organization by many countries. In such countries Hamas officials are "not welcome"^[1] and expected to be prosecuted by law. Egypt authorities closed Rafah crossing in June 2007 ^[2] after Hamas took control of Gaza Strip, de-facto imposing a blockade.

Please no edit wars. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussing this here is good, just loading it into the article is not good. I reverted. RomaC (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

no problem. let's discuss. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Be fair. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You want to say that ~~Hamas~~Egypt (because of Hamas) imposed a blockade of Gaza? Uhh, no. Nableezy (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And the many countries part is weasely, many many more do not call them a terrorist organization. The source says in 1 such country Hamas is not welcome. Nableezy (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rafah crossing is closed since June 2007, according to Egypt due to international law problems. See Blockade of the Gaza Strip. There were number of players involved.

Please see: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/01/2008525125823983496.html

Please see: http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/01/30/egypt_mediates_but_palestinians_far_apart/4705/

Please see: http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6503169.html

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest to call countries who consider Hamas terrorist organization? All those countries do not issue Visa to Hamas officials AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the only country that matters in this article among any that call Hamas terrorist is Israel, and we make abundantly clear that Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization. As far as the blockade, you cannot say Egypt imposed a blockade on Gaza. Egypt closed its border, it did not blockade Gaza's coast. Israel is the only state that has blockaded Gaza's coast, they are the only ones 'imposing a blockade'. Nableezy (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I see that you prefer just to remove and edit war without discussion or reaching consensus. I'm sorry. Peace man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, It is addition to International Law section, so I do not agree with you that only Israel position is important. Do you disagree with facts? Any suggestions? Be fair. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

International law does not distinguish between governments that the West accepts and governments that the West does not accept. It is irrelevant that the Swedes do not want Hamas to travel to Sweden, it has absolutely nothing to do with this conflict. If somebody want more information on Hamas and what the West thinks of them, they can easily click the Hamas wikilink. Nableezy (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweden is only an example. Would Hamas official get Visa into US? Do you suggest change wording many countries to western countries? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it does not matter where Hamas can get a visa, it is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw Possible prosecution abroad sub-section, and assumed it is relevant. Do you disagree also with other facts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say anything about 'prosecution abroad' it only says that Sweden will not issue a visa for Hamas representatives. The rest of your statements are not facts. Yes, Egypt has closed the Rafah crossing. That does not equal Egypt has 'de facto imposing a blockade'. And this is completely irrelevant. This section is about violations of international law related to this conflict. Not about who consider what group being a terrorist organization. Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hear your objections, Nableezy:

I'll look for sources describing Hamas prosecution abroad. Still, Hamas considered terrorist organization by western countries as you put it is relevant to context of this conflict, in International Law section.
Egypt closing the border with Hamas, described by Wikipedia as blockade, but I agree to closing the border

Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing a border is not a blockade. For example, if Germany closes its border with France, that is not a blockade. Do you agree? Agada, please carefully read what other editors write. RomaC (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And no, I do not agree that Western countries (not all by the way) consider Hamas a terrorist organization is at all relevant to this article in any section. Nableezy (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The views of various countries domestic laws about Hamas are irrelevant to any discussion of international law. You have to understand that, this section deals with violations of international law, not the domestic laws of various countries (such as the ones that label hamas a terrorist organization). Nableezy (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, Already agreed to it. Egypt authorities closed Rafah crossing in June 2007 ^[2] after Hamas took control of Gaza Strip. It just an example of International law problem during this conflict. Fair enough? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, let's strike many and replace it with neutral some. It is notable fact about this conflict. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you wrote "let's strike many and replace it with neutral some." Again, this is a false dilemma because there is no issue whether to qualify with "some" or "many" when the content itself is not germane. You wrote "It is notable fact about this conflict." sorry but saying something doesn't make it so. This Talk page is swamped with sophomoric wikilawyering. Enough is enough. RomaC (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The tone here is getting a bit pointy; I would suggest that editors tone it down a bit. Thanks. As for the substantive issue, I basically agree with AgadaUrbanit. I can't imagine there's any sort of neutral and npov rational for censoring basic information about Hamas. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While it doesn't surprise me what your position is, I would like to ask you why you think that the US considers Hamas a terrorist group is relevant to this article. I would very much be interested in reading that answer. Nableezy (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're so interested I'll tell you. You know I'm only here to please you :-) Hamas is the main belligerent here, besides for Israel. It would be most prudent that we include the very basic information on each of the belligerents. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So would you also want to list the states that do not recognize Israel? Or the status as to whether or not Gaza is occupied? Or the amount of support provided to Israel by the US? Or any other of 'very basic information on each of the belligerents'? Nableezy (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise is in order? Why not find out what the U.N's position is on Hamas' legitamacy and use that. Remember that the U.S was one of the countries involved in awarding displaced jews the land that we now call Israel after WWII. Sureley Nableezy would agree to this as the UN are certainly a more neutral view. Listing individual countries only states said country's POV biased or otherwise.Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN does not maintain any list of so-called 'terrorist entities'. Nableezy (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not saying they do. The question I thought was, is Hamas a legitimate government (democratically elected I'll remind you)? or does the U.N not recognise those elections and therefore does not recognise Hamas as a government. If the U.N recognises then whatever they were before, Terrorists, clown colledge doesn't represent what they are now within GazaAndrew's Concience (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN recognizes the Palestinian National Authority. That is currently made up of the executive (Fatah), and the legislative (Hamas). They have not recognized any entity such as Gaza as a part of the Palestinian territories that is governed independently. So no, the UN has not recognized the government of Hamas in Gaza. But they do not distinguish between Gaza and the West Bank, they are both a part of the 'Palestinian territories'. But then again, what does it matter what the position of the UN is, any information about that goes in the Hamas article. This article is about this conflict. We do not need to go into detail about each of the involved parties. That information is always just a click away. Nableezy (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you really want to get into including what third parties have to say, I think we would have to include a deeper discussion on the positions of the UN regarding that Gaza is still occupied territory. If either is put into the article all that will do is invite more and more information on either side of the issue that is not directly relevant to the article (though I do think the occupied information should be given greater prominence but ill let that slide). Nableezy (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple articles to which we can wikilink for further information on a whole range of topics, which is why the background section has so many "see also", and hence could be shorter. We do not have to mention in every article about the I-P conflict that Israel was founded in 1948, for example. The issue is not that the information is not relevant - it is relevant. The issue is that this article is not about the bellingerents and it is not a standalone journalistic article - it is an article in a wikilinked encyclopedia, the whole purpose of wikilinking is to subdivide information into discrete articles that are then linked for context.

Try to imagine, for example, if in every wikipedia article on Mammals, such as say Dog or Platypus, mentioned what a mammal is, instead of wikilinking to Mammal? It would make for an ugly, repetitive, and in fact boring encyclopedia.

This is a total n00b error (please, I am lamely attempting being humorous), which is assuming each article must include all information relevant to it, without consideration to other articles, and to the fact that encyclopedias - including paper encyclopedias - are never written as stand-alone essays, but as part of a compendium of information, interlinked and cross-referenced.

I agree that we should not edit war, but the best way to not edit war is to carefully evaluate, in the context of a given article, if a piece of information actually belongs in a given article, if it adds to its encyclopedic value, and if it meets our content policies and stylistic guidelines.

Certainly in controversial article one should also use common sense, and try to concentrate on what are the main pieces of information, the ones were consensus can be reached without controversy - and measure the impact a given edit or opposition to a given edit will give to the editing environment - suggesting changes that will stir crap up without resulting in increased encyclopedic value (such as bringing previously unknown information or highligthing specific threads the reliable sources are exploring) is in my opinion a lack of judgement. For example, we would have to shoot down anyone who suggested we call Israel, the Zionist Entity on grounds of NPOV, because that is what Israel is verifiably called by many involved in this conflict - not only is a suggestion bound to irritate a number of editors, but it borders on WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:BATTLE - even if at face value it is a civil request to discuss a possible edit. Both sides of the POV divide have done this: some very salient ones are "Babycue" on the part of the pro-Palestinians (when it became obvious that other casualty picture were available, and that the ISM was iffy for this), and with "Gaza massacre" on the pro-Israelis (when the verifiability was 25% of the sourcing in the lede).

We should also assume intelligent readers, who if given a wikilink to Hamas, and not knowing anythign about Hamas, would seek to learn by reading about it in that article.

Long story short, I do not support inclussion of an WP:SYNTH discussion on why the blockade on the part of egypt happened, which what I feel AgadaUrbanit is unwittingly doing - but I do support saying, in the background, that Egypt is part of the blockade, and any RS material with the reasons why. The blockade is a significant part of Hamas' argument for the rockets, and any key facts around it deserve a sentence or two in the background. At least until a better background consensus develops, because as I have stated before, the background section has a disproportionate weight in this article, and should be shorter, cover only the events between the Operation Hot Winter (which should be renamed as per WP:MILMOS) and the end of the ceasefire, and material moved to the corresponding articles. --Cerejota (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Due respect Cerejota, but we already say that. This line is already there: with Israel and Egypt sealing their border crossings with Gaza and imposed a blockade on the territory. I dont even object to that line, I think it should even go into slightly more detail ('with Israel closing its border crossings and Gaza's coast and Egypt closing the Rafah border crossing' would be my ideal wording). I cant see why that Sweden does not want to issue a visa to Hamas representatives should be included in international law, or why the views of the various Western governments on Hamas be included in the international law section. Nableezy (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. I agree that the other information belongs in Hamas, although the views of governments on possible violations of international law on the part of Hamas should be included, if any. Its about what the topic of this article is - and being careful not to WP:SYNTH.

In other words, views related to the conflict are in, views related to Hamas in general, go in Hamas (were even some views related to this conflict might go). Its simple, really. --Cerejota (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I sit corrected. Nableezy (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I hear you guys. Thank you for making it clear. How about such addition:

Former Canadian justice minister and McGill University law professor Irwin Cotler, a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, wrote that there is “almost no comparable example” anywhere in the world today of a group that so systematically violates international agreements regulating armed conflict as Hamas. “In general when you’re talking about international law enforcement, measures are weak and uneven,” said Executive Director of B'Tselem.^[3]

Is it relevant? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, thank you for being balanced. What do you think is relevant section in this article for "UN has not recognized the government of Hamas in Gaza."? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No I do not, I don't think that is relevant at all. This section is about violations of international law alleged to have been committed by each side. It is not about what the world thinks of each side in general. It could perhaps be of some relevance in the Hamas article, here I do not think it is relevant at all. Nableezy (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I see your point, how about Irwin Cotler and B'Tselem quote? Do you have problem with inclusion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are all quotes about things in general, not about this conflict. We should be focusing on what happened here, not everything that everybody has every said about Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, it looks I rushed it, sorry.I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267478739&oldid=267459716 I tried to make it balanced. Let me know if you agree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

edited for English: "Human rights experts say that one of the main pitfalls of international law is that enforcement is nearly impossible, even when the law is clear." I did not put this in the article as I am not permitted to edit the article. It is sourced and certainly neutral. The second part is not neutral but belongs in a discussion of international law in regard to the parties. Sourced from an excellent "balanced" and interesting article, well worth reading. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree!--Cerejota (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Nableezy (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

10x AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote craze

This article has 349 footnotes as of now, double of what the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has! Some of the statements in the (too long) intro are backed up by up to 9 notes. Is this necessary? A shorter article with a single reliable source per statement would look much nicer.--84.190.37.235 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors seem to continuously forget that Wikipedia is not news. As soon as it is reported this page is updated. Things like the doctor on the news having his kid killed is not encyclopedic. It is sad, interesting, and worthy of a news piece. Things like this do not necessarily belong here. Unfortunately, any editor that decides to be bold and delete all the fluff is instantly reprimanded while having the edit reverted.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: LOL. Point made.Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does the intro need sources at all actually? Aren't all the statements repeated and sourced later on in the article?--84.190.9.187 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD and WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

resolved

~~This edit had no consensus and removed large amounts of information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267618629&oldid=267617910~~

~~Can the page be protected again?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)~~

This was my edit, done in good faith. It did not remove 'large amounts of information'. The few words removed are duplicated further down in the article; so they are not lost. I deleted them because the intro is too long and this information they contained was way too detailed for a general introduction.

If you disagree with the edit, why don't you change it or discuss the reasons why you disagree with it here? It's not vandalism and surely not a reason to protect the article.--84.190.9.187 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK sorry, I was mistaken and retract my earlier statement. I do however disagree with one bit of removed info and have reinstated.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

jta

i don't think, the "global news service for jewish people" meets the demands of WP:RS. excerpts from their self concept (http://jta.org/about):

JTA is driven by the belief that knowledge is power, and that only by being better informed can the Jewish community be better connected.

Over the years, the Jewish community has come to rely on JTA as the single most credible source of news and analysis available about events and issues of Jewish interest anywhere in the world.

--Severino (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends, I would agree that for controversial subjects they are biased, but they are a reliable source in the sense that they are not a blog. For some articles in wikipedia it is a reliable source. In this one, I think there are better sources for the information it conveys, in particular with more reporting reach and more rigorous fact checking etc.--Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To make that suggestion reflects one's own editorial bias. JTA is WP:RS in the same sense as every other news organization on the planet. That JTA's target audience are Jews is irrelevant. By analogy, suppose there was a CanadianTA that said it is driven by the belief that knowledge is power, and that only by being better informed can the Canadian community be better connected? How does that deny it's WP:RS or suggest any bias, unless you think their mission is to misinform the Canadian people? There is nothing about this which even suggests bias, although one might expect that topics of interest to the Jewish Community would receive more coverage. This seems like a double standard. By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism. Doright (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context". if, for example, serbia is at war with croatia and a serbian news agency/news platform says something analogous about itself (to deal with THIS parameter), that would raise doubts about their reliability/impartiality as a source in this war, yes. btw, does your recitation have the purpose to impress somebody?--Severino (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Severino, I'm reading what you wrote but I can't make sense out of it. You wrote, " serbia is at war with croatia and a serbian news agency/news platform says something analogous about itself (to deal with THIS parameter)? What are you trying to say? Doright (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop calling people anti-semites, its a dick move. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, calm down. No one called anyone an antisemite so please stop your incivility. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, dont imply people are anti-semites, it is a dick move. Nableezy (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, it is especially rude, impolite and uncivil to again engage in the same name calling that I already objected to. It is a personal attack and is not helpful to anyone. Also, I did not imply anyone was an antisemite. It might be helpful if you reread what I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doright (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, let us look at what you wrote. First, 'This seems like a double standard'. That implies a double standard is being used. Next. 'By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism'. Here you equate said double-standard with antisemitism. Since you implied that a double standard existed, and then equated this supposed double standard with antisemitism, you did in fact imply some of being antisemitic. It might be helpful if you actually know what it is you are writing before you click 'Save page'. Nableezy (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, the statement, "This seems like a double standard," does not imply that a double standard is being used. "Seems" does not equal "is." As you say, "It might be helpful if you actually know what it is you are writing before you click 'Save page'," it seems that you are unable to converse in a civil manner. Notice, that does not mean that you can not converse in a civil manner. It means it seems that you can't. I am not saying you can't. Maybe you can. It's really not that complicated. In any case, I think we are done here. Doright (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be one is equivalent to implying one, you dont quite go out and say it but you put it out there. But yes, it appears we are done here. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I glad you now understand that I did not say what you claimed. Doright (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You did say what I 'claimed' but are apparently unwilling to withdraw those comments and apologize, thats why we are done. Feel free to have the last word, but dont think you understand what I am writing because it is clear you cannot even understand what you are writing. Nableezy (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had told the editor that I was sorry on their user talk page. And they told me they were not offended. So it would seem your histrionics are just that. Doright (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

You may like to know that Godwin's law can be easily understood as a case of The Livingston Formulation that is often used by antisemites. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it a dick move, it is cheapening the very real suffering of those who have faced true antisemitism. When everything is antisemitism, nothing is antisemitism. How Doright arrived to the conclusion that JTA is to be treated differently because it is a Jewish source is beyond me - so are Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, and we like them. There is no double standard, quite the contrary, we apply to this partisan source the same criteria Doright applies to the ISM and PNN - and even, unbelivably to Al Jazeera.

—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

Cerejota, show me the diff where I applied your criteria to ISM and PNN Al Jazeera. Your claim is false. Even so, one must conclude that you would not agree with such an application of such a criteria to Al Jazeera. Yet, you say, "we ['we' of course include you] apply to this partisan source the same criteria." This appears a contradiction that can only be explained by yet another double-standard. Cerejota, you repeatedly refer to "we" in your above statements. Who are the "we" that you are refereeing to other than yourself? Also, the only "conclusion" that i "arrived to" was. "JTA is WP:RS in the same sense as every other news organization on the planet."Doright (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, it is true that the target audience of a given source is irrelevant. What we use to measure reliability are basically two things: how other sources verify the information give, and how a given sources view the given source. To lesser extent we also use common sense... This is why the ISM is not really a reliable source around here, and why the ISM isn't either. As I already said: there are better sources for the information it conveys, in particular with more reporting reach and more rigorous fact checking etc being Jewish is irrelevant. If you even imply that an editor is antisemitic again - unless of course that editor says something like "death to the jews" - you could be blocked. Read WP:ARBPIA. --Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, with misleading (see above) and uncivil ("not only is it a dick move")and threatening edits here, I suspect it is far more likely that you will be blocked. Again, false claims and contradictory arguments do not help the project. Doright (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also a dick move is putting comments in the middle of somebody elses post. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We includes me too. I don't beleive it's an RS either. I think you guys should both chill. Doright your allusion to anti-semitism was innapropriate. Disagreeing with a Jewis source doesn't make anyone a racist and to imply so is rediculous. Nableezy you assertation that Doright has been making "Dick moves" is plain rude and an uncivilised way of making a point. If someone dissagrees with you, no matter what is said, devolving the discussion to petty name calling doesn't help anyoneAndrew's Concience (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"I call a spade a spade it just is what it is." (5 pretend dollars to who can name that artist) Nableezy (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Andrew's Concience, can you show how and why JTA is not a WP RS along with the specific elements of the RS guideline that support your belief? If not, I think this entire discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. Also, no one here said or implied anyone here was "a racist." Furthermore, I did not make an "allusion to anti-semitism." Respectfully, Doright (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doright but to say "To make that suggestion reflects one's own editorial bias." followed by "By the way double-standards are a form of discrimination and discrimination against Jews is called Antisemitism." is an unambiguous accusation of antisemitism against Severino. Since that wasn't your intention then you just need to be a bit more careful with your language so that calmness prevails. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, Thanks for the suggestion and it is a point well taken. You are correct that it wasn't my intension. At the same time, I must say I don't agree with your analysis that it is "an unambiguous accusation." In fact what I wrote is not an accusation. But, I'm not sure how much additional effort we want to put into beating this dead horse. Doright (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, no problem. I always enjoy a good dead horse flogging session myself. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuck that, in this very thread you have twice accused somebody of antisemitism. The quote above where you implied a double standard and equated that with antisemitism, and when another editor wrote See Also: Goodwins Law, you interrupted their comment with this: "You may like to know that Godwin's law can be easily understood as a case of The Livingston Formulation that is often used by antisemites." I request you strike both accusations, stop denying and apologize, and that you cease in implying such motivations by other editors. Nableezy (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

...apparently the horse was just napping. Similar thing happened at a Buddhist cremation ceremony I attended recently. Of course the guy can laugh about it now that most of the facial burns have healed. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Me thinks thou doth protest too much. To say that a particular and well documented rhetorical formation is often used by antisemites is a far cry from actually having "accused somebody of antisemitism." It does seem, along with your use of of expletives, that you are either unable to or refuse to reflect obvious distinction in your edits. Doright (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, saying you don't beleive this conversation will be fruitfull is not true. What you should have said is, "I'm not going to get my way." and as for the anti semitism shot. You can't just say anything you like and then make it ok by saying you didn't mean it. You couldn't jump off a building and halfway down say it was a joke and you take it back. So keep it off the talk page. As for the source, it's clearly a biased organisation. The website practically says. Come here to learn the Jewish version of Jew stuff for Jews. You wan't to pick apart WP:RS and make your interpretations of every line I can't stop you. But I'll point you to WP:CONSENSUS which you clearly don't have.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrews Concience, Firstly, I didn't say that. Secondly, even with your miscomprehension, it would be absurd for you to claim that you know what I believe better than I do so much so that you are in a position to be saying my statement about what my belief is "is not true." I said, "can you show how and why JTA is not a WP RS along with the specific elements of the RS guideline that support your belief? If not, I think this entire discussion is unlikely to be fruitful." Notice, the conditional "if." Unfortunately, there seems to be a widespread reading comprehension problem on this page. And, it would appear that I was correct about the fruitlessness. You could not identify how the JTA violates any element of WP:RS. That makes the conversation not fruitful and merely an endless restatement of your premise in the form of a conclusion. A bit circular. And, yes, if you can't show how the JTA fails to meet the criteria of WP:RS then there is no basis for your claim. Just typing "WP:RS" is meaningless. It appears that failing an actual argument for your position, you claim a consensus. By the way, are you claiming that a consensus exists for your position that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is not a WP:RS? Doright (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You got a problem, seek dispute resolution. Focus on the content, not the editors: JTA is iffy as a source for the same reason ISM is.

And crying "personal attacks", "incivility" and then doing nothing only to get other editors to actually become uncivil and launch personal attacks about it is the oldest trolling move in the book. The oldest. As in I think Jimbo did it in the begining or something.

Sorry, I am out of troll food. But I might be able to buy some with the 5 pretend dollars Nableezy is owing me for identing Jay-Z as the author of the line.--Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Jay-Z stole that line, still waiting. Nableezy (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, second the request that you strike your highly offensive accusations of "antisemitism" if you want to continue discussion with other editors here. RomaC (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

please don't split user comments, doright. new comments on the bottom.--Severino (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a recent discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard in regard to the JTA. [26] The way I interpret the discussion was it is considered reliable. The only difference between it and any other RS is that it "collect(s)and disseminat(es) news among and affecting the Jewish communities of the diaspora as well as Israel." It does not skew it, it collects and disseminates news of interest to Jews worldwide, and has for 90 years. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there is another major difference, straight from WP:RS: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. JTA is not that. Haaretz and Jerusalem POst are both sources targetted to a Jewish audience and published in a language mostly spoken by Jews, yet we consider them mostly reliable. JTA is different because it is less prestigious, is less well-known, less subjected to scrutiny by other realiable sources, and with a lesser amount of journalistic resources. This includes the fact that it is narrowly targetted - but to whom it is targetted is irrelevant, except in cases were the target audience is the subject. For example, JTA is definitely a reliable source when dealing with news from religious debates, obituaries, and Jewish history, as any specialized news source would be. However, as a simple perusal of the JTA funding page shows, it is a commited Zionist publication, in other words, it is a partisan publication, funded by a veritable who's who of Zionist organizations and foundations. It is its partisanship that is problematic, not its Jewishness, as you seem to imply, and Doright has stated (in spite of the denials using disingenious language). Using the JTA is similar to using the Palestine News Network. In fact, it is the flip side of the coin.

When faced with partisan groups that would otherwise be reliable sources, we must be careful to provide verifiability. I have no opposition of including JTA sourced material around here, I do have opposition to having it be used as a sole source in controversial claims, or used in lieu of more reliable sources, such as more general reliable sources.--Cerejota (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in knowing what is the edit that Severino objects to which references the JTA? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ISRAELI SOLDIER KILLED JAN 27 2009 WAR NOT OVER..CASUALTIES

Ceasefire is not official end. Casualties must be changed to 15 one soldier and another will b taken from life support! Total 12 soldiers! ALWAYS ADD IF SOLDIER GETS KILLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego (talk • contribs) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't freak out it's already being discussed in the talk page, might be archived by now. Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact I beleive you'll find discusion on the talk topic "Israeli army said they shot the farmer" - removal request" Andrew's Concience (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, one soldier was killed, so total is 14, 13 right now is wrong! There is another soldier in critical condition (at least one) I expect him to day by March, so watch out for that~!

13 was before the ceasefire 1 was after. Not to say it shouldn't be mentioned, it's a question of how to mention it. Something that I believe is being discussed. As for the poor bugger in critical condition, he's already counted as wounded I would imagine. If he does die he can be represented in fatalities. The fact that you think he might die by march is neither here nor thereAndrew's Concience (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The soldier, God rest his soul, was a muslim beduin. I think it's worth mentioning in the article that muslims killed more muslims than any other ethnic group in the world. And btw I think there's no danger to the other soldier life so you can take your foot out of your ass. 87.69.41.159 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just be thankful that you haven't been blocked for repeated vandalism yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* you try to be helpfull.........Andrew's Concience (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

^ "Sweden: Hamas not welcome". Ynet. 2006-03-05.
^ ^a ^b "Egyptian authorities close Rafah crossing terminal abruptly". IMEMC & Agencies. 2008-09-21.
^ http://washingtonindependent.com/26663/the-pitfalls-of-international-law

[Hamas_not_welcome-1] "Sweden: Hamas not welcome". Ynet. 2006-03-05.

[Egypt_blockade-2] "Egyptian authorities close Rafah crossing terminal abruptly". IMEMC & Agencies. 2008-09-21.

[the-pitfalls-of-international-law-3] ttp://washingtonindependent.com/26663/the-pitfalls-of-international-law

[1]

[2]

[3]