Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 37

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 30

←

Archive 35

3RR

There is editor how consistently reverts much more then 3 edits per day on this article. Usually contributions from editors holding opposite POV. Looks like edit waring to me. I read WP:3RR, but I'm not sure if this rule talks about:

more than 3 reverts in different parts of the same article
reverting the same part again and again.

Does first case constitute 3RR ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yes. but multiple reverts in a row count as one. Nableezy (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you quote and ref relevant rule? 10x. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." WP:3RR. Nableezy (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But there is more to edit warring then 3RR, consistently having 2 reverts every day about the same thing where consensus is against you could be edit warring. Ask a more experienced user and they could probably explain it better than I could. Nableezy (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ynet: 1,000 "army" of bloggers to "flood" blogs with pro-Israel opininons

Since I'm sure someone will just debate this topic for the sake of WP:ITBOTHERSME, I'll be first and open a discussion topic for it. Yedioth Ahronoth has reported that the Israeli ministries have created a 1,000 (yes, one thousand) "army of bloggers" to "flood blogs with pro-Israel opinions". I just took the statement as-is and added it to the Media section. Please post any concerns below. Thanks. --Darwish (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad Wikipedia is not a blog, the Israeli POV could use some better representation to even things out over here. I am happy to see, however, that Ynet is now a legit reliable source.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the attribution "According to Ynet" before reporting their statements. --Darwish (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting phenomenon, but it's not directly related to the conflict. My guess is that it's Israel "learning lessons" from the pre-January-18th fighting, but that's not said in the source, and even if it were, it wouldn't be sufficiently relevant to warrant being in the main article. Looks like possible material for the media article though. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's said in the article that this "army" was created directly "following Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip". I think it belongs to one of two places; either the "Media" or the to-be-created "Aftermath" section. I guess it's good to have it in the main article cause 1,000 person is not really a small number at all. Imagine if only 30 from the 1,000 was directed to a single newspaper website, they can "flood" the whole website commenting system down turning it to a sharp pro-Israel place. --Darwish (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, they're not saying it's connected to Cast Lead. "Following" is the kind of language newspapers use when they suspect a connection but don't want to risk asserting it. I really don't think this scheme will affect anything at all (if the Absorption Ministry was competent in this regard it wouldn't have told the media about it - duh), but if other reliable sources think otherwise they will no doubt print it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference says the "campaign" was launched "last week", i.e., on 21 January. This is just 3 days after the fragile unilateral Israeli ceasefire. All the January incidents is reported here. The campaign is related since at the end, the reference reported the responsible ministry of the campaign saying:"We are in the process of thinking how to utilize these volunteers not only during conflict, but also during regular times as well." It's clear that this campaign is directly related to the Cast Lead conflict. --Darwish (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I once pointed out, according to an article I read there are more Arabs online now than there are Jews world-wide. Considering that the Arab world is virtually unanimous in their opinion on this conflict and are not afraid to say so, an "army" of 1000 pro-Israel bloggers will make very little dent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple math will tell that with upwards of 400 million Arabs in the world, and 14 million Jews that if just 4% of Arabs have access to the internet then there will be more Arabs on the internet than the total number of Jews. I dont see what your point is though unless there is a source saying all these Arabs are flooding blogs with anti-Israeli propaganda? Nableezy (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, those 4% of Arabs speak many foreign languages and also (no doubt) "flood" blogs and websites with anti-Israel opinions. Wikipedia is not a blog, however, and everything here is supposed to sourced to reliable secondary sources. And the article called it "opinions" not "propaganda". 1000 more people with pro-Israeli opinions on the WWW would certainly be nice, but hardly an "army" or a "flood." Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

All of this is not-related. We're talking about a government ~~sponsored~~ managed activity where "Each time the [Israeli] ministry identifies an anti-Israel trend on a foreign-language blog, news site, or other website, it will immediately put out a message to the volunteers to flood the site with pro-Israel opinions. We're speaking about organized and government ~~sponsored~~ managed, "identify and attack/flood" efforts. --Darwish (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he was responding to Darwish's comment that 1,000 pro-Israeli bloggers could have a great effect. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it relevant that Israel wants to ensure that its point of view is heard. I assure you that all sides of any conflict in history would want their point of view heard. As such, this is neither notable nor relevant.Kinetochore (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats what FOX News is here for, but seriously it is about an organized effort to influence media, that would seem to be fitting with the section it is in. Nableezy (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No. It's not a simple "ensuring point of view is heard". When they say "flooding" blogs with pro-Israel opinions, this means a huge attack on articles. It's something like say "we don't like article X, Y, and Z", then a huge group of organized editors will post comments attacking the article from every side. This is mis-use of the democratic commentary system of websites and is equivalent to meat and socket puppetry on Wikipedia. --Darwish (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, let not your heart be troubled. Wikipedia is not a blog -- we do not push our "opinions" here but rather support the facts with reliable sources. Those 1000 volunteers with pro-Israel opinions are marching off to blogs and personal websites, not coming here. Besides, even if they did, you don't have to worry. With you and your pals, they are assured never to be able to achieve WP:CONSENSUS and remain forever at loggerheads. Cheers, Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say they came here to Wikipedia, I said/meant it has a similar effect of puppetry on other websites.
Your claims of me not trying to reach consensus is 100% wrong. On this page alone, I've reached 3 consensuses with other editors who own sharply different views.
"you and your pals": hey, adhere to WP:CIVIL. I have been involved in serious efforts to reach consensus here, with several ones being reached. Meanwhile, you're just attacking. --Darwish (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, 1000 editors posting on the same nonconstructive or hateful message on the same blog would in fact be notable. Please prove that this has occured, or that this is the strategy or point of this 'army'. The commentary system is not supposed to be democratic, it gives a voice to those who want to post. It is very much not an equal representation of internet users, nor will it ever be. Frankly, I do not see a problem with pro Israeli bloggers being hired to offer an alternative points of view in comment sections, but you seem to find this concept offensive.Kinetochore (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, 1,000 editors on the same blog can never happen anyway. but it seems you forgot an important key word; "flooding". Hear what they are saying:

Each time the [Israeli] ministry identifies an anti-Israel trend on a foreign-language blog, news site, or other website, it will immediately put out a message to the volunteers to flood the site with pro-Israel opinions.

No one can claim that this is a normal activity. --Darwish (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it should go in the propaganda section.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all- it is only your opinion that this is an Israeli propaganda tactic. I must insist that you find an RS that says this is propaganda if you are going to label it as such.Kinetochore (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kinetochore. No, we don't have references calling this action "propaganda". --Darwish (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

SPAM SPaM Spam spam. God, I hate those communists! SPAM SPaM Spam spam AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world is an army of Israeli flooders needed when there is USians around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamenco111 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to discuss the merits of the action here. --Darwish (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr F.G. Superman has a hidden identity! He's really Bicycle Repair Man!!!. To the point of your argument, Do you really think the flood will be notable in a week or two? Does it add encyclopedic value to this article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse it adds encyclopedic value Agada; it's one of the techniques used to "improve [Israeli] public relations". This is a government ~~sponsored~~ managed activity where they "identify" specific sources like news websites, and then "flood" it with other opinions. We're talking about a very organized behaviour, check the "Each time the Ministry ..." paragraph. --Darwish (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit. The edit just removed material clearly cited in the reference which said:

Some 1,000 new immigrants and foreign-language-speaking Jews volunteer to army of bloggers set up by Absorption Ministry and Foreign Ministry with the stated objective of flooding blogs with pro-Israel opinions

and also said:

Each time the ministry identifies an anti-Israel trend on a foreign-language blog, news site, or other website, it will immediately put out a message to the volunteers to flood the site with pro-Israel opinions

. Please do not remove material clearly cited in the reference. --Darwish (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add the already well-cited "improve Israeli public relations", it's of course absolutely fine. --Darwish (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, my edit took info which was directly from the article as well. It is not notable that some Ynet editor has coined these volunteers as an army either. Darwish's POV (that he does not like that Israel is doing this) shines through in his version.

“…has set up about 1,000 "army of bloggers" with the stated objective of "flooding" blogs with pro-Israel opinions. “ Darwish's version
“…have recruited 1000 volunteers to improve Israeli public relations on the internet” - My version. Note this is directly from the article as well.

Please comment on which version you prefer, if any, so we can settle this.Kinetochore (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My own views are irrelevant in here. I didn't claim that my version is the one; just please don't blame the messenger when my version is also a clear cut from the article itself. Both "versions" are true and should be reported. For consensus purposes, I propose this:

In an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the stated objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.

As you see, the word "army" is removed, the language is softened, improving Israel's PR (basically your version) is emphasized first, and approximately the whole article is summarized in this new sentence. Thoughts?

This third version is acceptable, except I would remove the word 'stated' as it implies that this is not the real objective, that there is some hidden motive. Kinetochore (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I don't have strong feelings about the "stated" word. Although journalistically speaking, it's often said as "x is formed with the stated objective of y", this isn't really that critical. Anyway, I've modified the statement to match the form we exactly agreed upon. Nice discussion. --Darwish (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, agree PR is the aim here. No need what so ever in encyclopedic value. Consider for instance: BBC reports that Israel has a large IT industry and one of the world's most technologically-literate populations. Around 3.7 million people had internet access by 2006 (via Internet World Stats). I'd stay Internet statistic looks very outdated, Yet even those numbers make 1000 bloggers army like drop in the sea. Do you think BBC quote could be a valuable asset to this article? Which section does it belong to? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The internet will be massacred! Not too make light of the conflict but the thought of an "army of bloggers" is a little funny. Right now it looks like simple PR and propaganda seems a little strong. I'm not against its inclusion we just need to establish notability and not demonize it. I need to go report to my superiors at the ministry about these shenanigans.Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, You're calling a team of 1,000 bloggers where the ministry "identify" for them the "problematic" articles and news so they "flood" it with pro-Israel opinions after that a "simple PR"? --Darwish (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, as said, it's clear that Israel has suffered a major PR backlash after the Gaza offense. It's also clear that this is one of the methods to improve the situation, as said by the reference itself. It adds encyclopedic value cause I doubt we have reports of another armies doing similar targeted "identify"-then-"flood" campaigns on the Internet newspapers and blogs. It also shows one of the ways of how Israel is currently approaching its PR problems. --Darwish (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Unfortunately "propaganda" has too much weight. I think it can be used in the article but don't want to see it overspun. The word resonates very negatively with he reader and sometimes we need to watch out for perceived definitions than literal.Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the 2nd option. As long as it from the source and not an attempt to whitewash it we are good. Much more neutral. Don't mind it going in the Propaganda subsection, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is an OR term since the campaign has not been described as one in the source. --Darwish (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it should not be in a "Propaganda" section.Cptnono (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at two different articles :)? The statement has always been under the "Media" section, never under the "propaganda" one. --Darwish (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a little miscommunication :) I originally thought it made some sense to put it to the propaganda section but if it is agreed that it is OR then we don't need to worry about it.Cptnono (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is being reached above. --Darwish (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how you say that Darwish. How exactly WP:Consensus is reached? There were number of editors who opposed. While single supporter used propaganda argument. I think this kind of argument represents very well weasel word concept. You mislead when you quote government sponsored. There is clearly no WP:consensus for inclusion into this article which many editors claimed is too much bloated to answer WP:SUMMARY quality requirement. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, yes, there was consensus reached above between me and Kinetochore where several compromises was made and we found a common ground between our two versions. I also replied to every disagreement above, and no one disagreed with my replies. I also said "is being reached above", i.e., it's in the making above cause this reply was before reaching the common ground. --Darwish (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your claims of me are false. The government sponsored statement wasn't used in the article, but in the talk page. And I did not even quote the statement as you falsely claim, I put it under italics. You've accused me of using weasel words; You owe me an apology for that, cause I didn't -- not even in a single instance -- quote that statement as you claim. --Darwish (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, semantically speaking, it is a government ~~sponsored~~ managed activity. It seems you missed this part in the article:

The Absorption Ministry is recruiting new immigrants and Jews living abroad

and most importantly this:

While the Absorption Ministry is tasked with recruitment, the Foreign Ministry will be responsible for directing the volunteers online.

Yes, it's an activity between two Israeli governmental organizations (two ministries), not even one. You see, it's (government ~~sponsored~~ managed) * 2 ;) --Darwish (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, man. If you going to continue this kind of arguing, I'm going have to return you back my barnstar. Average Israeli family have home network with couple of computers connected via broadband connection to the Internet. Many know some English. I still don't know how you quoted government sponsored talking about army, when source clearly talked about volunteers. And I agree that government bureaucrats, generally, need to justify with PR their next year funds. I know it's custom on Wikipedia to strike errors. There is no consensus for inclusion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I don't mean they are paid by the government; it's said clearly that they are volunteers. When writing in the talkpages, I just mean they are managed and guided by the government, which what cited reference quotes above completely prove. The army word isn't mine, and it is not used in the Wikipedia article anyway. Here's what's written in the Wikipedia article and what was mutually agreed upon between me and kinetchore:

In an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.

Now what's your objections to the paragraph above? Several concessions has been made to make it appear in such neutral way. --Darwish (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And please stop using this silly picture saying I'm using weasel words, cause I'm not. I didn't have the intention to say they are paid by the government, I just meant they are managed by them. I striked the statement from sponsored to "managed", to match what I really meant and what the source clearly implies. --Darwish (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And how can you claim in your revert that the statement is OR? Where is the OR for heavens sake? Enough Agada, read the cited source and the statement you removed before doing such weirdo judgments. --Darwish (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Army and flooding are weasel words. Quoting goverment sponsored should be striked. No consensonsous for inclusion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? The words army and flooding aren't mine, they are the source -- which seems you didn't read yet -- ones. Now for the 10th time, I ask you what's actually wrong with the sentence used in the Wikipedia article:

In an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.

What's the problem in above sentence? --Darwish (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are OK.

Quoting government sponsored is a mistake - it should be striked, was not present in article as quote.
The proposed addition is not notable in any way, except for the fact that government bureaucrats, generally, need to justify with PR their next year funds.
No consensous for inclusion. The parrot is dead

See what I mean? Or still want to argue the parrot is resting or whatever? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this source might help to calm things down as it actually contains the language used by Absorption Minister Eli Aflalo and director-general Erez Halfon. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

For literally the third time I ask you not to misrepresent my actions. I never quoted the statement, I put it under italics.
You've been here for a while, you know that we just report. Your WP:OR theories and explanations debating a WP:RS reported campaign are irrelevant to the discussion. It's notable, it's reported in three Israeli newspapers. Yedioth Ahronoth, The Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz
No, The parrot is alive ;-). You can't just say "no consensus for inclusion" while I asked you -- literally -- three times to voice your concerns about the statement used in the Wikipedia article, and you just reply with the same statement: "no consensus". Now, for the 4th time, I ask you what's wrong with the statement:
In an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.
--Darwish (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Flooded" is a POV word and if you are going to use it it must be in quotes and properly sourced. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"a pool of Israeli commentators in languages that can bolster Israel's public relations in the virtual world" are the actual words he used in the JPOST piece (above). Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

but in the Ynet piece: "it will immediately put out a message to the volunteers to flood the site with pro-Israel opinions.". I don't mind having the word under quotes though. --Darwish (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence you have quoted is POV from the article itself and shouldn't be included in that fashion. Even if it is a quote from a RS, it is a subjective word and ie an "opinion." Unless you can find another source that shows that those were the FM's actual words, there should be a more neutral word used. This one fellow did indeed say "army of bloggers" so that could be quoted but it too needs quotes around it like the JP article. "Flooding" is not demonstrated to have been actually used by anyone except the newspaper. Talk about mixed metaphors.Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "army of bloggers" sentence isn't used in the Wikipedia article at all. That was one of the compromises made in my discussion with kinetchore above. Although it isn't journalists opinions as you imply, it's quoted in the Ynet, Haaretz, and JPost articles themselves. --Darwish (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, Darwish. I'm sure the time will filter it out. :) Enjoy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know what's wrong with you today. I've tried to be as civil as possible in the discussion. You first said there was no consensus, I asked very politely 4 times to voice your concerns about the language used, and you just replied again with "no consensus". You then said the campaign is non-notable while it's mentioned in 3 reputable Israeli newspapers. Several times you repeated the claims that I quoted the "government sponsored" statement while I told you I never did so. Even after I found that "sponsored" isn't the right word, I striked and substituted the word to "managed". You even threatened you're going to return back the barnstar, which is a very impolite action in any social dictionary. You've complained about my "kind of arguing" while I just civilly replied asking you to participate using logic. And at the end you speak sarcastically by "whatever" and "time will filter it out, Enjoy" (emphasis's mine). You may have had a bad day today or something; I'll forget this weird discussion cause you have had a much brighter history in constructive debates so far. Best. --Darwish (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK, thank you for worrying/warring. You clarified in the past that "shekel" opinions do not impress you. This discussion got way off topic. Why the hell should I bother? You could insert here a last word, if you want. Nice Baby Koala picture, agree nice addition to this talk page. Enjoy :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Israeli newspaper Ynet has reported that in an effort to improve Israeli public relations, the Foreign Ministry have recruited 1,000 volunteers with the objective of flooding news websites and blogs that the ministry term as anti-Israeli with pro-Israeli opinions.[294]"

Guys, there is an aricle about Media and the conflict, this information should be moved there. It is not important enough to be in the main article - it is simply one of the ways Israel is working to improve its PR, unless anyone else can prove otherwise.Kinetochore (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Damaged telephone service in roof knocking section

The following excerpt is from the Roof knocking section of the article.

Both cellular and land line telephone services were severely damaged at the onset of the Israeli campaign. It was estimated that 90 percent of both services were nonoperational, because of "frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites." Gaza telecommunications officials stated the territory "was close to losing contact with the rest of the world."^[1] ^[2]

Since Roof knocking uses both cellular and land line telephone services, I can see how an editor might have thought that this was relevant, but on closer inspection it is misleading. It seems that the predominant interpretation would be that the Israelis most likely didn't warn residents in advance of an attack, because 90% of the phones were down. This doesn't seem to be the case and thus the statement is a false implication.

I would suggest moving this statement out of the Roof knocking section and into another part of the article where it isn't a false implication. Any thoughts on where to move it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just read source from the AZ and no where does it verify the above paragraph. Surprised no one saw that. Both articles reiterate the fact that they were "losing contact" after the conflict, not before. Hard to believe considering the amount of propaganda they've been able to ship to the UN and the world. Also, this is from both articles: "Palestinians said the Israeli military broke into broadcasts on the Hamas TV channel, Al Aqsa, appealing to Palestinians not to agree to serve as human shields for the militants. The message read, “Israel is acting only against Hamas and has no interest in harming you.” Urging Palestinians to not agree to be human shields for Hamas? ZOMG PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!!!! : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here's the relevant excerpt from the Jan 4, 2009 AZ article.

Severe damage to Gaza's phone network was pushing the territory closer to complete isolation. The Palestinian phone company Paltel Group said 90 percent of Gaza's cellular service was down, as well as many landlines, because of frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites.

And here's the one from the other source, Sun of Jan 5, 2009.

Last night 90 per cent of the mobile phone network in Gaza was down — along with landlines.

Telecoms officials said Gaza was close to losing contact with the rest of the world.

However, please note that the point in my first message wasn't dependent on the issue raised by Wikifan12345. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken.

On the 'roof knocking' section, some claims were made, while leaving obvious questions unanswered. For example, is the practice common military protocol before ALL bombings? does the practice works while you stop supplying power to the city? does it work?

Now, we felt as if the actual 'roof knocking' section was out of place, but it was kept where it was. Consequently, it needed a response addressing those questions above. I may also add, that it was also argued where the section should had belong, so perhaps the answer giving to address the Palestinian's concerns about this practice may seem out of place. The thing is, that there was many concerns, and often mentioned when this practice came as the subject. To bring up the phone lines is to further address those STRONG concerns that the Palestinians were addressing, most of who totally and categorically labeled the practice as propaganda/psy war. Needless to say, that if you read any of the sources giving as a response to 'roof knocking' the Palestinians made their objections known. There is more on this on the archives. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_33#Roof_knocking Cryptonio (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, it was proved that it was not common practice, per the case with the Palestinian doctor who lost his daughters. In the report of the incident, it does not say 'dummy missiles' were used before 'live' ones were. See? many questions on this practice.

Also, the source said 90 percent, which could mean that 10 percent of the population could have still received these calls(as they did), it doesn't mean Israel did not performed these calls at all(as per your claim). Cryptonio (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob please quote exactly what is stated in the source and link the reference as well because I've reviewed both of them and nowhere does it verify what you quoted. Point is, Palestinians are claiming this "roof knocking" is a vehicle to attack Palestinian civilians psychologically, which the IDF denies. Here is an excerpt from Haarretz: "roof knocking, in which the army informs the residents of s suspected building that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike." From the little that I know, the IDF uses roof knocking to warn civilians of impending airstrikes/attacks and to basically get out or face the likelihood of death. Naturally this pisses off Palestinians and Hamas, and it should. But we're mixing neutrality with POV. For example, this statement by the woefully dysfunction Palestinians Centre for Human Rights: "the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces constituted psychological warfare since sometimes the homes were attacked and sometimes they were not" is rather misleading because according to the IDF, many airstrikes are called off when Palestinians go on the roof of their homes to show civilians are still inside and won't leave. Not saying we should remove this attitude towards roof-knocking, but the section screams opinion and POV and does not give a voice to the "offender" aside from the general definition. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What's POV? roof knocking or the adequate response to counter-balance what it claims? Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I just said it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"many airstrikes are called off when Palestinians go on the roof of their homes to show civilians are still inside and won't leave"

At the same time, civilians who climb to the roof are "sometimes" 'thought' to be spotters directing Hamas fire towards israelis and warnings are not giving nor airstrikes called off. see the doctor's incident here http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/04/gaza.idf/ Cryptonio (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't draw an inference from the doctor incident. It was a totally different thing. Roof knocking seems to be used only as part of a planned airstrike on a structure. In the doctor incident, Israeli ground forces were taking fire from a position and returned fire on the doctor's house next door which they mistakenly believed was involved. Most sources say they used a tank. They obviously wouldn't "roof knock" against forces they were actively taking fire from. You have to understand that there are various kinds of military operations. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct when differentiating between roof knocking and the doctor's incident. At the same time you bring up the point that perhaps the Israeli military, in this case, did not made the necessary attempt to avoid civilian casualty in this incident. The doctor's family had reasons to climb to the roof, in an attempt to avoid being fired upon. The Israeli army(from the 'roof knocking' tactic') should had been very aware of this scenario. Still, the decision was made to fire at the doctor's house, with the Israeli military saying it was a mistake. Now if in this case(the doctor's) the military was not informed on who was a target or not, who's to say they are when they use 'roof knocking'? That 'roof knocking' is only used on air strikes is a valid point, but that it only should be used with air strikes is open for debate and we are not going there. Then, do we only discuss some 'incidents' where partial information is available, and subsequently make judgment when we don't know the full scope of action? my point is, that you said "seems to only be used" and then again "you wouldn't 'roof knock' against..." None of this information is useful for us to make these assertions, whether attacking these methods or defending them. But that to have avoided these civilians casualties, perhaps this tactic, 'roof knocking' could have been used but it wasn't. After all, that 'is' the purpose of the tactic itself. We could speculate on these circumstances(yet, only remaining on base with speculation) and I believe I should have clarified it in that way when bringing the doctor's incident. Cryptonio (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikifan12345. Re your remark, "Bob please quote exactly what is stated in the source and link the reference as well because I've reviewed both of them and nowhere does it verify what you quoted." -

Those quotes were exact. I copied them from the sources using my browser's copy command. Here are the links you requested: AZ SUN . The quote from the AZ source is the 6th paragraph from the bottom. The quote from the SUN source is from the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from the bottom. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Although all of the above remarks from various editors are interesting, I didn't see anything that specifically addressed the validity of my point regarding the false implication, much less refuting it. Perhaps I missed it, and anyone is welcome to clarify how they showed that the subject item is not a false implication with respect to roof knocking. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I would still like some input re my original question, "Any thoughts on where to move it?" Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Regarding where to move it, I just found a good place in the other part of the Air strikes section that mentions damage to infrastructure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that the predominant interpretation would be that the Israelis most likely didn't warn residents in advance of an attack, because 90% of the phones were down." -Bob

"Also, the source said 90 percent, which could mean that 10 percent of the population could have still received these calls(as they did), it doesn't mean Israel did not performed these calls at all(as per your claim). -Cryptonio

This claim has stood for some time now, just like the position that 'roof knocking' is in the wrong place, as it is a military tactic and not a phase in Israel's campaign. I would address these concerns first and then it would be worthwhile to address the adequate response that it's now included(the status of phone lines).

I may also add, that the only sources that implicates this tactic "roof knocking" in this conflict comes from Palestinian sources. I've yet to read an 'independent' source where it's clear that Israel is using this tactic in this conflict. Cryptonio (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "implication" = "original research". We would need a RS for that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Regarding your remark, "Also, the source said 90 percent, which could mean that 10 percent of the population could have still received these calls(as they did), it doesn't mean Israel did not performed these calls at all(as per your claim)." -

Re "it doesn't mean Israel did not performed these calls at all(as per your claim)." I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't claim that. My point was that in the mind of the typical reader, the statement in the roof knocking section re 90% of phones being down, would dispute the statements that Israelis were calling and warning residents. This is the false implication that I was referring to. I'm not disputing the statements that Israelis warned residents before bombing, that have appeared in numerous, if not all, reports on the subject of roof knocking. From all the reports that I read, it appears that Israelis were calling and warning residents of homes before they were bombed.

On the other hand, maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? I think we can work this out. Looking forward to your response. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your concern is the typical reader(where is he from? the US? Canada? Europe? Africa?) this will 'implied' the user's educational background, customs, upbringing, father-son relation, political orientation . We can't control these things, and indeed, we are trying to balance the article. In any case, the point that you are making doesn't seem to get support from the article itself. It's clear, by Palestinian sources(who don't like these calls for various reasons) that calls did went through, even with the majority of the network being down. Besides this, whatever else we might discuss would certainly make for a good conversation, but i'm afraid of infinitesimal importance to this article. Cryptonio (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Cryptonio, There still appears to be some misunderstanding. So let's try another approach to communicating.

Do you agree with me, that reports indicate that Israelis were calling residents of homes in Gaza, to warn them before the homes were bombed? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That the tactic exists, is unquestionable. That it has been use in this theater according to sources, yes. That in those sources Palestinians have let their objections known is also very clear. That you don't seem to understand that one claim cannot survive without the other is also clear. I will revert your edit. This situation must be tackle together and we will do that. We know where you stand but until other issues are raised(hopefully today) that section stands on his two feet. Cryptonio (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, we'll both tackle this right now. Cryptonio (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re your remark, "That the tactic exists, is unquestionable. That it has been use in this theater according to sources, yes." -

Good. Apparently your answer to my last question is yes, that you agree with me that Israelis were calling and warning residents.

Re your remark, "That you don't seem to understand that one claim cannot survive without the other is also clear." -

I didn't understand this remark. When you wrote "one claim", what claim were you referring to? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That since you haven't brought any sources on roof knocking that does not address Palestinian concerns, we can't therefore have a claim without the other. I will move roof knocking into Air strikes since it is a military tactic and was not a phase in the campaign. This is best for the article as a whole. Cryptonio (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1)Re your remark, "That since you haven't brought any sources on roof knocking that does not address Palestinian concerns, we can't therefore have a claim without the other. "-

This remark is very unclear. Please clarify.

2) Re your remark, "I will move roof knocking into Air strikes since it is a military tactic and was not a phase in the campaign. This is best for the article as a whole." -

There hasn't been any prior discussion of this edit of yours and your reasons for making it aren't clear. You'll need to explain this some more before it can be considered an acceptable edit. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Necessary changes that you prematurely brought about with your unilateral edit by editing the roof knocking. As it stands now(and by the 'chopping' that the roof knocking section went through by other hands a few days ago) three sentences does not warrant its own subsection. Not even such novelty as roof knocking. It still has prime real state(versus at the end of military operations) and still does not miss a beat on being out of place(altogether in this article). I doubt even Jalapenos would object to this. Cryptonio (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re your remark, "three sentences does not warrant its own subsection." -

I agree it was getting pretty small, so your edit is reasonable in that respect. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob, the complete quote is "Hamdi Shakura, a human rights lawyer at the Palestinian Human Rights Centre in Gaza says despite the hundreds of phone calls to families warning their house is about to be blown up, only 37 have been destroyed."

Have you read it? do you want to imply that only 37 houses were destroyed by air strikes? 37 houses were destroyed of HUNDREDS that were warned. not 37 houses total were destroyed. and where else is this mentioned? Cryptonio (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I gotcha Bob, i removed the whole section. Pardon, didn't see it was covered in another section. It shouldn't be a problem anymore. peace Cryptonio (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the image as I found it offensive. Please do not put it back on the talk page without looking for consensus first. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

...and I found it offensive that you deleted it so I replaced it with another one that I sincerely hope you don't find offensive. Also I've banned you for another month...in my mind...so the bans run concurrently. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

bomb shelters not relevant to roof knocking

The following sentence is out of place in the paragraph on roof knocking and its relation to roof knocking is not supported by the source.

No safe haven or bomb shelters exist, making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians had no place to flee.^[3]

When the inhabitants of a house are given ten minutes warning to leave, just getting away from the house is the place to go. Bomb shelters are relevant when you don't know where the bomb is going to be dropped. So I moved the sentence to the last paragraph of the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You can get pretty far from the building in ten minutes. Unless a source says the lack of bomb shelters is related to roof knocking it is commentary on our part and has no place there. Also, militants did have bomb shelters in the north. The cited report then goes on to contradict itself: "UNRWA shelters are marked and their GPS locations are provided to the IDF, but they are not constructed to withstand bombardments as they are mostly schools and office buildings." There are obviously places to flee and it looks like the IDF knows not to drop bombs there. Although they are reputable I am beginning to question this whole line. They are saying it is really really dangerous with some colorful writing.Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, It looks like you agree with my edit. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob, you are probably right. However, rather than removal, proper attribution should be done: a notable organization very much competent and expected to opine on these things is saying something. Its sourced etc. Unless you have an argument other than your opinion, I would be hard pressed to agree with you.--Cerejota (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I think you might be confused on a few things, but I'll still try to respond to your message. I think my response will satisfy your concerns, but if it doesn't, we can continue the discussion.

The sentence is still in the article. I didn't remove it. I moved it to the end of the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sentence in new position at end of Air strikes section

(I took the liberty of adding this section title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) )

Unless the move is in dispute still, does anyone have any thoughts on me wanting to remove it or at least address it differently? As mentioned above it looks like this particular line in the report is overly dramatic.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I may disagree. It's reported in several UN reports as-is. If the situation is dramatic, let's not blame the messenger for being dramatic. First report:

The entire civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains vulnerable. There are no public warning systems or shelters. Homes are located next to potential targets.

and most importantly this:

There is no safe space in the Gaza Strip- no safe haven, no bomb shelters, and the borders are closed making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians have no place to flee. UNRWA shelters are marked and their GPS locations are provided to the IDF, but they are not constructed to withstand bombardments as they are mostly schools and office buildings.

The statement is very relevant and well cited. --Darwish (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I could care less who we blame. As it looks with contradicting lines withing the source and other secondary sources I don't know how much weight we should give it. I don't see how anyone can read the paragraph in the report and not see bias. When you couple it with other sources saying something different it means we have to rejudge how much weight it is given in the article. In all seriousness and not to prove any points or try to win an argument, reread the paragraph in the PDF and then reread the sources and let us know what your conclusion is.Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest a change in wording? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards deleting it. To keep it in would take too much explaining. Maybe something like "There is a lack of bomb shelters in Gaza" or "Most shelters in Gaza cannot withstand heavy bombardment" would be acceptable. The report was in regards to the crisis civilians were facing so its paraphrasing seems like commentary in the airstrikes or roof knocking sections.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Cptnono, For reference, here's the sentence from the wiki:

No safe haven or bomb shelters existed, making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians had no place to flee.^[117]

117. "Situation Report From The Humanitarian Coordinator - January 7, 2009, 1700 hours". UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2009-1-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)

And here's the excerpt from reference 117:

"There is no safe space in the Gaza Strip- no safe haven, no bomb shelters, and the borders are closed making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians have no place to flee."

Now why would you want to change or delete the sentence in the wiki? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the next sentence in the report and other sources are somewhat contradictory. The report is already written in a dramatic tone. Also, "no place to flee": So refugees cannot run to a camp on he other side of the boarder is true but it could be easily assumed by the reader that Israel carpet-bombed the every acre of land based on the wording.Cptnono (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the situation was labeled by the UN as a "critical protection crisis", so they're not dramatizing, and the sentences were not contradictory. You can provide a counter-argument to the UN report statement but you can't just debate against its validity. It's not our job to do so --Darwish (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, For reference, here's the whole section from the report, with the "next sentence" that you mentioned highlighted in bold:

"A critical protection crisis:

There is no safe space in the Gaza Strip- no safe haven, no bomb shelters, and the borders are closed making this one of the rare conflicts where civilians have no place to flee. UNRWA shelters are marked and their GPS locations are provided to the IDF, but they are not constructed to withstand bombardments as they are mostly schools and office buildings. Of particular concern are the growing numbers of children killed and injured. Every other person in Gaza is a child (56 percent of the population), and they remain dangerously exposed to the fighting around them. At least 101 children have been killed, almost one thousand injured and tens of thousands traumatized."

1) The next sentence indicated that those places are not bomb shelters, which is consistent with the previous sentence.

2) The next sentence indicated that the GPS coordinates were provided to Israel. It's not clear how safe that makes those places. For example, a mobile rocket launcher could park in front of one of those unfortified shelters and result in a bombing.

3) Re "carpet bombing" - In my opinion, it is unlikely that anyone reading this wiki would think there was carpet bombing.

4) Re "dramatic" - Something like that was my first impression too. But on second thought, I realized that I don't have any source that contradicts that portrayal. However, it would be helpful if you could find a source that contains some info that indicates in some way that the UN report's portrayal was exaggerated. Perhaps such a source may turn up after a time when the situation is analyzed more.

5) The "no place to flee" remark in the UN report may be exaggerated, but then again, it may not. For example, it depends on what is defined as safe. As far as I know, Gaza is a relatively small place with 1 1/2 million people, and it's not clear that there are any places, or enough places, for all those people to go where they have both the necessities of life and are safe. By necessities, I don't mean just comfortable, but necessities to support life for possibly weeks.

The bottom line is that the sentence is OK for now, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate each of your points since that would be me just trying to "win" on my part. I do understand what you are saying. That line alone can be taken completely out of context though which is my primary concern. It would be very easy for a reader to take it out of context. Bomb shelters were left behind and are in use in northern Gaza, residents have make shift shelters, people have basements, and although it is a densely populated area there is open land in certain places. People also took refuge in UN refugee camps locations. Yes there was some bombing but it was not the norm at each camp. Saying that people had no place to flee is commentary in the report that is easily be disputed. I have no problem with mentioning that it is super dangerous and that there is a lack of proper bomb shelters for civilians but the current line is biased and an exaggeration.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a number of reasons for your opinion that the "nowhere to flee remark" is misleading. Could you get a source or sources that we can use to support your point, i.e. that suggests the statement is misleading? That would be very helpful and I would try to work with you to show that the "flee" statement is not reasonable, if you can supply the sources. If you can, I think there are various ways to improve the info in the wiki regarding this issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny you mention it. I took a step back to figure out what as really bugging me and came to the same conclusionCptnono (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So I google newsed "gazans flee" and several other things. Most of the hits were in regards to them fleeing to UN schools, hospitals, Egypt, and "fled the city/fled to the south/etc". I found a fantastic article that put it pretty well. Basically, Gazans don't know where to turn, are finding random places to hide, and are always under threat. I'm not a fan of the wording in the line and even question its placement (Humanitarian Crisis seems more relevant) but after reading: "http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1230456545284" I can't honestly argue against that there is no place to flee. Apologies for the debate on nothing and check out the article if you haven't seen it.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I haven't studied it yet but I will. I wanted to get back to you fast on the idea of moving the sentence. I quickly looked at the Humanitarian crisis section and I couldn't find a place where it would fit in. Maybe you might have better luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you find a place. Let's discuss it first before moving it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure myself but it looks like all of the tools available to Israel were used to cause this panic among the populous so the line in the "Air strike" section is a little off. It doesn't fit too well there so it doesn't need to fit particularly well in another section but is still notable enough for mention.Cptnono (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you feel that it's OK there for now. If you have any more ideas about it later, let me know. Thanks for the discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a solution

Its very simple... Look over and decide what references are the best, and REWRITE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. A number of editors can work on each section and have it assigned to them. Its time the conflict here ended.(Knowledgekid87) 22:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

lol. You have a point. But let's just make the sentences make sense for starters, like this one:

"Israel has been accused of collective punishment by United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)'s Richard Falk;[259] of targeting of civilians by Falk,[259] Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[260] and Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)'s Raji Sourani;[261] of disproportionate military response by Falk[259] and EU Aid Commissioner Louis Michel;[262] of failure "to care for and evacuate the wounded" by the Red Cross;[263] and of the use of human shields when fighting in residential areas by Amnesty International[264][265] - all of which would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions "in regard to the obligations of an occupying power and in the requirements of the laws of war".[259]"

This one makes more sense and would be less POV.

United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)'s Richard Falk has accused Israel of "collective punishment", "targeting civilians", and "disproportionate military response". [259] Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has also accused her of "targeting civilians",[260] as has PCHR's Raji Sourani [261]. EU Aid Commissioner Louis Michel has accused Israel of "disproportionate military response". The ICRC has accused Israel of "failure to care for and avacuate the wounded" [263][264] and Amnesty International has claimed that Israel used human shields when fighting in residential areas. Collective punishment, targeting civilians, and disporportionate military response all constitute violations of international law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, according to a statement by Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. [265]

This rewrite makes more sense, and the last part needs to be attributed as one man's opinion, even if the man does have standing. The way the last sentence currently reads it sounds as if wiki is explaining the WP:TRUTH to us about the Geneva Conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, for interest, I'm not opposed to your rewrite....mostly. It's clearer however I don't quite follow what you mean by "less POV" or why Tundra refers to WP:TRUTH. The last part "according to a statement by Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. [265]" is unnecessary because collective punishment, targeting civilians, and disporportionate military response do all constitute violations of international law as defined in the Geneva Conventions. It's not a POV. X saying that Y did Z is the POV of X whereas 1+2+3=6 is not a POV and has nothing to do with X. See what I mean ? This is why the international law section used to start with an explanatory section something like
"Under international humanitarian law, warring parties are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians, ensure that attacks on legitimate military targets are proportional, and guarantee that the military advantage of such attacks outweigh the possible harm done to civilians. Violations of these laws are considered war crimes".
..whereas now it starts with "Also".
I've linked the terms in the opening sentence of the Israelis section to the appropriate legal articles which provide the necessary background info and verifiability. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing. I want to clarify for you about the last part, and why it is necessary to add that Falk says it. It is a position. While collective punishment, targeting civilians and disproportionate military response may indeed constitute violations of Geneva Conventions, following as it does the accusations, The article that it refers to is specifically refering to Israel doing these things as against the Geneva Conventions, and they way it is worded it sounds like a fait accompli-- ie "all these people accuse Israel of these things, so it must be true that Israel has violated Geneva Conventions and is judged guilty." However, it has not gone to court, and there are specific experts that say differently. Thus it is not for wiki-voice to imply that we are international law experts. It must be for RS to do so. Thus it must be attributed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I haven't edited that specific section, but from what I understand that is Falk's statement. The Geneva conventions has been debated left and right, with both sides blaming each other. Falk's credibility is extremely low, considering his support for 9/11 conspiracy theories and the ayatollah. Then again, that's wikipedia so it could very well be totally bullshit lol. Even under the assumption that his opinion is "objective", we cannot blur the line between expert opinion and fact. If you truly think it is unnecessary, then it is a blatant slap in the face to the dozens of "experts", such as Cotler, who disagree. We can cherry pick any statement from the Geneva Convention, but it his opinion that Israel violated x according to the Geneva Conventions. This isn't a universally accepted truth and is highly contested by many people (including lawyers), most of whom aren't even half as weird as Falk. But that's my opinion anyway..LOL. Also understand that the Geneva Convention isn't the defining rules of law here, there are several legal aspects, especially Rome Statute. Hamas has been accused of using human shields, employing children as soldiers, training soldiers from mosques/schools, building weapons/smuggling militants through homes, and most importantly, launching campaigns from densely populated civilian areas, which some say inflates more civilian casualties when Israel responds. this is just a bare-bones response you'll get from any other user, so be prepared for more in-depth argument, which I really don't want to do since I'm super biased here.

So yeah, probably not the best idea to remove it. If this truly bothers you and you have sufficient evidence and are willing to put in the hours, make a section I guess. I don't know. It's so late I can barely type so I'll probably regret posting this lol. Again, make a section because posting in between users is kind of rude I think. Especially if I don't see it and end up looking like an idiot...: ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Wikifan, your missing my point. I wasn't clear perhaps.
X saying that Y did Z is the POV of X. e.g. UNHRC (X) accusing Israel (Y) of war crimes (Z) is the POV of the UNHRC (X) and obviously has to be attributed to the UNHRC.
Whereas 1+2+3=6 is not a POV and has nothing to do with X e.g. saying that collective punishment, failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians etc violate the Geneva Conventions is not a POV. It's just a statement of fact, it's not controversial and it has nothing to do with Falk because it's in the conventions themselves. In other words, if Falk accused someone of murdering someone you wouldn't need to add "which Falk says is illegal". Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no go here. If something is particularly wrong with x section, post it here and we can comment/collaborate/wikipedia it. But ordering a rewrite of an entire article, including parts that are obviously well-revised and sourced, is IMO overkill. I do agree with your inference that more care needs to be taken with POV and the article clearly suffers from constant POV-pushing (both in talk and article), but this idea, in plain terms, is pretty retarded. Sorry man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is beginning to come together but most of the Campaign section is frustrating to read. Things being repeated is probably the most obnoxious thing. I don't even know where to start.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the campaign section needs a total overhaul. And now that this is over and we know what has gotten the most coverage I think we can briefly cover the incidents that got the most attention in here if we can cut some other stuff down. Nableezy (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're taking this out of context. Falk is accusing the IDF of violating the Geneva Convention according to "targeting civilians, collective punishment, and disproportionate military response." These are Falk's opinions, and while they might co-inside with the Convention in some way, his wording is totally off and clearly evoking a strong sense of emotion. Even further, it remains to be the case if any of these things have occurred. The only info we get is from Hamas and Israel, neither are objective or reliable sources. And again, this is Falk's opinion. He isn't holding a legal document, highlighting x sources and impartially and objectively comparing the circumstances given. He is shooting absolutes and powerful words to persuade. Whether you see that or not I don't actually care, but it seems you don't understand the realities of this. And from what I know, it isn't certain Hamas or Israel are even signatures to to rules Falk is pulling out. If that is the case, then the argument itself wouldn't hold up in court solely based on technicality, and thus the inclusion of the GC in the article wouldn't make sense unless there was a strong denotation that these rules do not apply. Again, this is from what I've heard. I know Israel signed the GA 50 years ago, but not sure about now. these are secondary though and shouldn't be considered, point is...I don't personally see any merit in the argument. I'm clearly a strawman (unintentionally I presume) because you seem more committed than I do so PLEASE make a section so everyone can have a voice instead of making me look bad. ; ) You don't need to use analogies to convey your opinion, but I prefer literal terms to avoid confusion. I suggest you read the Geneva Conventions, and especially [The Laws of War]. This is simply one piece of the pie and Falk has picked what is easiest to scream, not prove. You've been motivated based off Falk's analysis, so to prevent further confusion I urge you to do a little googling and find some experts. And AGAIN, make a new friggin section. Whatever ends here it is not a consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. You object to a direct mapping between Falk's terminology and the language in the articles of the conventions without attribution. That's fair enough I suppose given that they are somewhat different. That is the advantage of having a sentence that explains the terms Falk uses (like we used to have) Nevertheless, Falk's soundbite terms do directly map to various articles in the conventions and we need to make that clear for readers. I'm familiar with the conventions, I'm not confused, I understand the legal realities and I'm not motivated by Falk's analysis. My motivation is to make sure this section is encyclopedic, brief and easy to understand precisely because it's a bit technical. I'm also keen to ensure due weight in this section because without it NPOV is fucked and NPOV is my main motivation in all I-P related things. If you find that surprising that tells you more about you than it does about me. :) This is the one part of the article I try to keep my eye on mainly because it's grows like a tumour. I'm not trying to make you look bad. I didn't realise you needed help with that. :) Anyway, yes we need sort out this section. Reducing it to about 4 sentences would be good. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some clear grammar issues with first paragraph IMO so I encourage editing in that respect. But I am strongly opposed to any statement by Falk that is not proceeded/succeeded with a phrase clarifying it is his opinion, accusation, allegation etc. In the end, we all know this, the GC has been used both both sides to scream at each other. I'm not disputing collective, disproportionate, or whatever according to humanitarian law, but this Falk's opinion on what has occurred. It is an allegation, not truth (not necessarily false). Maybe in 5 months when investigation looms and there is a verdict "punishing" Israel, I won't object. As a UN appointee, he obviously deserves a certain place in the article no doubt, but manipulating his words and saying, "Israel's actions violate GC...x..x..and x", won't stick. It's an allegation. The source says it's an allegation I'm sure, everyone who's reported on Falk explicit say "Falk accuses..yaddayaddayadda." Not, "According to the GC, Israel violated yaddayaddayyaddaa." You see where I'm going with this? This seems important to you so make a section, I'm sure other users have an opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation further up. According to Dore Gold, who has to be at least as unbiased as Mahmoud Abbas who is quoted above "According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it. " Dore Gold was Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is current president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
Also from the article this paragraph in relation to "disproportionate force"

"Alternatively, disproportionality would occur if the military sought to attack even if the value of a target selected was minimal in comparison with the enormous risk of civilian collateral damage. This point was made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks [emphasis added] against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does) or when "the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage."[12] In fact, Israeli legal experts right up the chain of command within the IDF make this calculation before all military operations of this sort."

So perhaps you can begin to see why we cannot accuse and then add that these accusations constitute violations of the Geneva Conventions without trashing the NPOV. We can only use RS to make these accusations and tell us what the law is. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And Dore Gold is only one example. Could we incorperate his opinion somewhere in the article?

This constant objection towards what the UN says or do, is totally acceptable. But it cannot stand as the last word. I know of someone who constantly tries to remind us that the UN is well informed in these matters and that they are not censored. Whether or ANY of the involved parties are guilty of something is up for debate, but that they are being accused of something is not. Now, of course there could be opinions about the merits of the cases, but the UN and other parties cannot be attacked due to the information it provides(since it has little or no power among the 'powerful'). There is a rule in American Football, in a scuffle by opposing players, the referee will not 'flag' or penalize the player who started the quarrel or threw the first punch, but rather the one who retaliated. Fair? who cares, that's the rule, it would be better to learn and study why the rule is in effect rather than dismiss it on grounds that is "anti-rationale". Cryptonio (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, currently there are rebuttals by both sides against accusations by the UN and other parties, and even a counter-rebuttal by HRW on Hamas rationale(as there is also a counter-rebuttal on Israel's section). Lets leave the accusations made by the organizations alone and perhaps expand the rebuffs by the sides involve in this conflict, since we all can agree that the UN's and other organizations findings and points are not final. But lets not clear ANY sides of any wrongdoing. Cryptonio (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the UN? We're talking about lead in the internal law section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Lets leave the accusations made by the organizations alone and perhaps expand the rebuffs by the sides involve in this conflict, since we all can agree that the UN's and other organizations findings and points are not final. But lets not clear ANY sides of any wrongdoing." Cryptonio

"Now, of course there could be opinions about the merits of the cases, but the UN and other parties cannot be attacked due to the information it provides(since it has little or no power among the 'powerful')" Cryptonio

You wouldn't know, of course, cause Israel has done nothing wrong. Cryptonio (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol what? We're talking about Falk here. We can't conduct an OR investigation, all we can do is go by what the RS tell us. Period. I'm really getting tired of your Incivility, so I am going to ask you kindly: Please stop. There is no consensus that Israel violated X rule in the GC, only experts, analysts, whatever accuse Israel of doing so. You need a formal investigation and a trial to include such a statement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To accuse someone you need a trial? I thought you were going to stop this man. Cryptonio (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Now, of course there could be opinions about the merits of the cases," Cryptonio

I'm thinking what you are thinking and what i think when i'm not thinking at all. Your thoughts come to me as a by-product of my sleepiness and boredom. Seriously, I barely get any sleep. Every night i'm in this half-wake half-asleep state. I dream every single night, and plus 90 percent of what I encounter in my life is a chasm in my soul when it tries to leave my body. You should try and avoid me. I would have done a much better job arguing for Israel than you do. Cryptonio (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't even know what you're arguing for. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda and psychological warfare

I'm removing this section. Looks like consistent WP:POV supported by Propaganda, to be more convincing. Israel warned number of times that if rocket fire from Governance of the Gaza Strip on civilian target in southern Israel will not stop ground offensive is on the way. I'm not sure what "lull" IDF broadcast mean, while militants continue to fire rockets. Only 37 have been destroyed, really ???. Maybe indeed Israel wanted to save civilian lives with leaflets.

On December 25, 2008, After Israel had "wrapped up preparations for a broad offensive", Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered a 'Last Minute' Warning in an interview with the Arabic language satellite channel al-Arabiya. "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it. We are stronger," he said.^[4]

On December 26, 2008, Israel reopened five crossings between Israel and Gaza for humanitarian supplies. At the same time, militants fired about a dozen rockets and mortar shells from Gaza at Israel that Friday.^[5]

Welcome into discussion AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The section is well sourced, you cant just remove it without consensus. Nableezy (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm discussing. Do you want to add anything on topic? Removal is a part of WP:BRD process. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And it was reverted, as have each of your attempts to remove sections at a time by other users. My on topic point is that it is not POV to say X has said something, no matter how POV what X said is. The section is well sourced and without OR, you cant just remove it because you dont like it. Nableezy (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Only 37 have been destroyed... 37 houses out of the HUNDREDS that were "warned" were destroyed.

The 'lull' is what Israel called the tactic they performed before the conflict, which involved radio address spreading 'false' information(false as we know it know, of course) and the source quotes an Israeli officer saying that was a psychological warfare tactic. Husbands and wives use these things. Cryptonio (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Still see consistent WP:POV supported by Propaganda. Please bring relevant quotes from sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No. because I'm not defending its inclusion, I am respecting it. Cryptonio (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article change is being reverted without proper discussion. Is this WP:BRD process?

This section is consistent WP:POV supported by Propaganda.
What the hell does "lull" IDF broadcast mean?

Please bring relevant quotes from sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the sources you deleted, here are some quotes:
The day before a massive Israeli airstrike, Israeli military radio channels broadcast talk of a "lull" and pulled troops back from the border. Israeli defense officials now say it was a psychological warfare tactic or a "con" to lure Hamas fighters out of hiding.
from [1]
or this one:
The Israeli propaganda effort is being directed to achieve two main aims. The first is to justify the air attacks. The second is to show that there is no humanitarian calamity in Gaza. Both these aims are intended to place Israel in a strong position internationally and to enable its diplomacy to act as an umbrella to fend off calls for a ceasefire while the military operation unfolds.
from [2]
or this one:
Israel and Hamas have mounted psychological warfare on each others' civilian populations. Hamas says it is firing threatening text messages at Israeli mobile phones and jamming radio stations while Israel is bombarding Palestinians with menacing phone calls and leaflets.
from [3]
or this one:
Both sides in the Gaza war have employed cell phones as a form of psychological warfare, among other purposes -- part of a trend toward using new media in a century-old conflict.
from [4]
or this one:
The Israeli military is engaging in very aggresive psychological warfare. They have been dropping leaflets warning Palestinians that they have to flee their homes and warning that anyone who lives in area that could be a possible target that their home will be targeted as well.
from [5]
Could you please stop removing stuff that is well sourced and relevant because you dont like it? Nableezy (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda is a weasel word and should be removed. Current wording does not stand Wikipedia quality standards:

#1 Before Israel launched its military air strikes on December 27, the Israeli military used its radio channels, to broadcast talk of a "lull" and pulled troops back from the border. This tactic enabled Israeli bombers to attack “hundreds of Hamas security men inside their compounds.” Israeli defense officials have since then acknowledged “it was a psychological warfare tactic or a "con" to lure Hamas fighters out of hiding The day before already described in this article, in more neutral manner. We don't need WP:POV forks and redundancy.
#2 Israel’s propaganda and psychological warfare operations included the use of telephone calls to Gaza residents, leaflets being dropped in the war zone, text messages, and video postings on the popular website Youtube - WP:SYNTH
#3 Israeli military were recorded messages or live. They were used against Gaza residents telling them that “their problems were due to Hamas." used against Gaza residents is WP:POV
#4 Other calls warned people “they have just minutes to evacuate before they bomb the house.” - Maybe Israel did not want to bomb civilians? WP:POV
#5 PCHR expert opinion, which considers Nizar Rayan as civilian casualty of this conflict? Wikipedia and reliable sources disagree. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224
#6 leaflets again - discussed earlier.
#7 Youtube already discussed. Redundancy of Media section.

Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpret 'weasel word', that refers to phrases like 'some people say' or 'others disagree', see Wikipedia:WEASEL, here this is a description given by the sources, it is not a weasel word. You are throwing about policy violations were none exist. There is no POV fork in #1, there is no synth in #2, it is in the sources, there is no POV vio in #3 it is also reported as a fact in the sources, #4 is based on your opinion and is also reported as a fact in the source, #5 is also your opinion and i dont even see what you are saying other than you dont think we should say what the PCHR said, sorry but we do as long as we say that the PCHR said it, #6, not redundant, it is an expansion on the first sentence which serves as a summary, #7 has been described both as media relations and propaganda so it is in both. This is all based on you dont like the information and dont want it here. Those are not valid reasons, and putting up a bunch of policies like your claims are somehow bolstered by their display does nothing to prove any of your claims. Please do not remove this information again. Nableezy (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained why current wording is problematic. Any thoughts about #1 till # 7? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave you answers to 1-7 in the last post. Nableezy (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not it's not is not an argument. An argument is not the same as contradiction. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reported by sources is also not an argument :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, that is what we do here. What is not an argument is these assertions that something violates some policy without showing that it does. They do not violate policy, and this is changing from an annoyance to disruption. Nableezy (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia rely on number of sources and cross reference information in order to satisfy verifiability. Single source does not provide encyclopedic value. Other sources might disagree. Please bring arguments and not just contradictions on #1 - #7. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am done with this, you are not going to get me to argue anymore on this topic. You have to show how something is a violation of the policy. Just saying it is a violation is meaningless. Do not remove well sourced and verifiable and relevant information because you do not like it. Nableezy (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit has made a strong detailed argument for its removal. The whole section is a POV mess. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Show me where there is a POV problem. Please do, because I am tired of hearing it with these assertions without cause. I think you know the rules, so please show me what is not properly balanced, well sourced, and relevant. Nableezy (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, what in this:

Before Israel launched its military air strikes on December 27, the Israeli military used its radio channels, to broadcast talk of a "lull" and pulled troops back from the border. This tactic enabled Israeli bombers to attack “hundreds of Hamas security men inside their compounds.” Israeli defense officials have since then acknowledged “it was a psychological warfare tactic or a "con" to lure Hamas fighters out of hiding.”^[6]

Israel’s propaganda and psychological warfare operations included the use of telephone calls to Gaza residents, leaflets being dropped in the war zone, text messages, and video postings on the popular website Youtube.^[7]^[8]^[6]^[9] ^[10] ^[11] Calls from the Israeli military were recorded messages or live. They were used against Gaza residents telling them that “their problems were due to Hamas.” Other calls warned people “they have just minutes to evacuate before they bomb the house.” A human rights lawyer at the Palestinian Human Rights Centre said that “despite the hundreds of phone calls to families warning their house is about to be blown up, only 37 have been destroyed.” ^[8]^[12] Leaflets contained similar messages and a phone number and e-mail address to call in tips about the whereabouts of militant leaders and weapons caches.^[6] The IDF Spokesperson's Unit opened a Youtube channel “through which it will disseminate footage of precision bombing operations in the Gaza Strip, as well as aid distribution and other footage of interest to the international community.” ^[13]

is a POV problem. Tell me and we can try to fix it. But just removing it is unacceptable. And would also want to remove the Palestinian section as well? I notice Agada hasn't been too insistent on that. Nableezy (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is wording from one of the sources. It is balanced and does not use potentially inflammatory language:

Israel and Hamas have opened a new front in the two-week old war in Gaza, using text messages, phone calls and leaflets to intimidate and influence the other side.

Palestinians say they have been receiving daily phone calls and text messages from the Israeli army warning them against supporting Hamas and asking for information about the whereabouts of its members.

Hamas, in turn, said it has sent menacing text messages to Israeli mobile phones and jammed radio stations, according to a report over the weekend in the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm actually says propaganda but the point of the article is that Israel is trying to sway international opinion and media. It looks like we are using the source out of context slightly. Would not mind a line in the Media section.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edited for readability for other editors if they choose to work on new section)Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be cool with combining both sections into a small section and dealing with it all at once, both to be concise, and also to avoid any NPOV concerns. Nableezy (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

BUT, if the sources describe it as propaganda or psych warfare, so should we. Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not neccasarily. We should be able to paraphrase. We also should not rule out using those terms if it is appropriate. Also, It can't be named "Trickery" Would we want to start it as Psychological Warfare and go from there? ~~We could also just add a few lines in Media and move the "lull" line into Airstrikes. Either works for me.~~Cptnono (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Don't see how it would work.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of sources have explicitly said propaganda and psychological warfare on both sides. I think both of them should be in its own section entitle 'Propaganda and Psychological Warfare'. Nableezy (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what lines should go in before we go back and forth on the exact terms. I'm sure others will hop in if it doesn't meet their approval and we can always give up and keep it as is if it doesn't work.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets first identify what is wrong with how it currently looks like. Perhaps you explain to the rest of us, what Agada is trying to prove. Yes, an objection has been raised, but no one seems to know what that objection is. Cryptonio (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[ec]yeah, I was struck with the HUNDREDS were warned and only 37 houses bombed. LOL. I can't get over people being indignant over this, calling it "psychological warfare" (ie a bad thing). I guess the hundreds that didn't have their houses bombed were pissed off about having had to waste their time by getting the hell out. They could have gambled and stayed home, and maybe got to be one of the unlucky ones who lost house along with lives. Would have been nice if the 911 victims had been given 10 minutes. Imagine that each of those houses were home to 6 people. They decide to take the warning, a potential 222 lives saved. The downside? People were inconvenienced and evacuated their homes. You can rebuild a house, but a life is precious, especially an innocent one. I am perplexed by all this righteous indignation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind sparing us your personal feelings on this? That you think a house is home to 6 people shows you have a pretty narrow world view. That you think that you are qualified to comment on what people who have gone through untold trauma from what they have seen and what they have been through shows a lack of empathy. I dont dare to speak of what it must feel like for Israelis in Sderot because I do not know the experience or the fear, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to minimize what other people have had to deal with. </endrant> Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically some of the actual warnings are tied into propaganda according to this article. Some of the propaganda is Israel simply trying to influence international and media opinion which is currently slanted against it. It is one of the first things you read in the campaign section which could come across overly critical. Most sources mention both sides tactics so it will be easy to merge them. You can argue all you want but a new section is at least worth looking into.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no rationale in war. War is in placed when all reasonable avenues have been exhausted. Let's stick to the issue at hand. Most of those sources have email addresses where you could explain your rationale to them. Cryptonio (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for all the bullets tonight. Here is what I think are the highlights. What else is needed or not needed?

Both sides used text messages and phone calls to intimidate and influence the other side.
Israel's "lull" (admitted by them as being "psychological warfare")
Israel's use of Youtube (could this go in media instead?)
Hamas and the Gilad Shalit stuff

Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaftlets

I was of the idea to merge both sections together(both Palestinian and Israeli pro & psy war) so there won't be no argument there(on my part). That it could be burried at the bottom of the article, no problemo. But Cptnono, you are going to have to run it very slowly for me on what and how you want to view the content of both scetions. I could probably even look for more Hamas stuff(a cat in the attic) for 'due weight' requisite. That we could discuss it, sure. Cryptonio (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas hasn't been as done as much when it comes to psychological warfare from the sources available in this article. I have looked at a few others but I am sure there are a couple other resourceful editors working in this article who might be able to find more. We can keep the Israeli Propaganda section at the top of the campaign if you prefer but at least a few of us aren't happy with the section as is so slow is OK but it should be looked at.Cptnono (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, for now I'm removing this section, since it of unacceptable to Wikipedia quality. I'm open for new title and wording. Volunteers are welcome. Wikipedia should be neutral bringing positions of both sides of the conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NO, you do not get to decide that. Stop doing this. Nableezy (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Current situation is far from consensus. Propose new wording and title. This is part of WP:BRD process. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And you were reverted. Stop doing the same change over and over. Nableezy (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey AgadaUrbanit, we just got a good base for discussion on this last night. It might take a day or three. Throw in a rough draft or thoughts here first just to make sure everyone is on the same page and noone's toes feel stepped on. Obviously screwing with the page with only approval from some at this point of the discussion will piss people off.Cptnono (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no rough draft, he just completely removed the section (and again only the Israeli section which is thoroughly sourced). I am cool with a rewrite, I in fact think it is a good idea, along the lines of what we did with the casualties, but if you remember nobody removed the entire casualties section while we were working on that. This everyday removing of information has to stop. Nableezy (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw, Nableezy. That wass not OK. We should be able to reach agreement here first. This is really important since opinion is so divided, AgadaUrbanitCptnono (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way Cryptonio, my comment a few up in response to yours is the exact reason I should stay off the discussion page before having coffee. A simpler reply would have been: "I agree"Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Current situation is far from consensus. This section is redundant in bloated article and extremely unbalanced POV. For me this section wording and title are red flag which does not answer Wikipedia quality standards. There is such thing as sandbox for drafts. No information was lost - we have history feature. Just reverting the change is edit warring. Volunteers should reword it before re-adding. Is not it a WP:BRD process recommendation? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were reverted after making the edit than you are not following protocol. You are also risking botching the opportunity to come to consensus which is worse. The section is poor but not so bad it can't stay for another day.Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. However changes are needed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kick ass. Throw in some ideas here. I have a list of a handful of things I thought were important but know others will want to expand on it. Put in some notes or a draft and we can get to reworking the section.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Weaponry

Came by to see if this content: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7905320.stm was included and I couldn't see it. Did I miss it? --BozMo talk 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Information about illegal weapons should be collected here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Israelis

I don't think details of all weapons used should be included, but where weapons are regarded as illegal or are frowned upon, they should be in the article. Please add such examples from your article to the relevant sectionJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I notice here, not related to the subject at hand, but there are names and details on the victims of Israeli fire in this source. As noted above so far I think the only gender/ages and so on cited for individual casualties (info that serves to 'humanize' them) concerns three victims of Palestinian fire. There was info on the popular Palestinian 'television' doctor's three daughters being killed, but that seems to have been removed? RomaC (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Roma, what i believe was a small section in the article, mentioning a few notable incidents from this conflict, was removed per reasons that i must say wasn't about consensus. The doctor's incident is now included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_in_the_2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict. If you feel as if that action was unnecessary, speak up. Cryptonio (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And the link to information in question is now buried under the "Reactions" section title. Are these particular "incidents" superfluous, or do they not, according to the sources, largely define the event? RomaC (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, try my page at User:Cerejota/OpCastLead because I am collecting milhist sauce there.--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Systematic removal of information - comparing article over time

It is interesting to take a look at versions of the article over time. For example, from looking at this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&action=edit&section=new demonstrates that the entire section on Israeli possible prosecution abroad has been removed. I don't remember any discussion to justify removing an entire paragraph. I'm reinstating, but I fear there are many such examples. We need to be vigilant and make sure large chunks of information are not removed.

Equally, I don't think we always need to have a discussion about making tweaks to paragraphs. People will continuously review anyway. But it is easy for something to be deleted unnoticed.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned in commit log that this section is as notable as fact Hamas considered terrorist organization in some countries. Hamas officials "not welcome" in Sweden. Please see See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246634,00.html . Many think that this article is bloated and does not stand WP:SUMMARY quality standards requirements. Thank you for talking. What are your thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually agree with removing whole paragraphs without a heads up but it looks like the editor had a point. The possible prosecution is against select officials and officers. Although the source mentions "soldiers" it is obvious that the standard soldier is not the concern. Even though that sentence is OK, it it does blow it out of proportion a bit. Also, it would have taken 30 seconds of googling to find out that the radical from Hungry is just a radical and a lawsuit (which will get tossed more than likely) is not that notable.Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There should be a "systematic removal of information over time". The article is way too long. We should be spinning off articles and removing small details that have no long term importance. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There perhaps should be a systematic reducing of information over time, but not outright removal, and some of these systematic removals have been quite drastic in tilting the article in one side or the other. Such major removals while says per talk where the talk shows no such consensus should not be happening. Where there are issues they should be discussed. That is the only way we will get this article to be an encyclopedic account of what happened. Just look at the state of the casualties section and the discussion that led up to that edit, and tell me as a hardcore pro-Israeli editor are you not happier with that section than how it was a week ago? Simple, to the point and accurately reflecting the sources. Is that not what we should be striving for in all of these articles? This type of removal undermines any such work, it instills a spirit of combativeness where, at least in the context of writing an encyclopedia article, is not needed, and is in fact counterproductive. But it needs to go both ways, we cannot just be removing or reducing everything on 'side' of the spectrum, we cannot be trying to highlight every Hamas wrong and downplay every Israeli wrong. We should actually try to show what happened according to the sources. That should be what we are all trying to do, and obviously our individual biases will play a role in the discussion, but we need to at least try to step away from them when looking at the actual content of the article. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing for brevity is a good thing, removing everything is not good, especially when it is done by a single purpose account. RomaC (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats crappy dude, WP:ARBPIA is full of SPAs. Don't like it, but I don't find it specially ominous. What I dislike is parachuting, !vote stuffing, and beating dead horses into a jelly. SPAs, unless vandals, are the least of my worries. In fact, some SPAs are GREAT contributors both to talk and the article.--Cerejota (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Daamn straight. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

People removing information, then demanding a consensus to reinstate it

Surely it should be the other way round? ie. If you want to remove several paragraphs of information, you should get a consensus first. Can we establish that?

I noticed on the histoire page that a bit of a disagreement was going on because Agada had removed the section on Propaganda. A removal like that should be agreed first, we shouldn't have to agree to reinstate it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed more than the Propaganda section (the Israeli part only), also completely removed international law section (again only the Israeli part) and changes quite a bit in the casualties section and the infobox info. Nableezy (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re "==People removing information, then demanding a consensus to reinstate it ===

Surely it should be the other way round? ie. If you want to remove several paragraphs of information, you should get a consensus first. Can we establish that?"

I don't know the specific cases in this wiki, but I can make some statements on what I think about this in general, which is probably the best way to look at it.

1) In my opinion, if an editor has recently added a contribution, then it can be removed with cause, and the editor should discuss it on the Talk page, before it is reinstated. This is somewhat like WP:BRD.

2) However, if the item has been in the article for awhile and it is removed, then it can be reinstated with cause, and it is up to the removing editor to discuss it on the Talk page before removing again. The length of time meant by "awhile" would depend on the activity of the article. Since the activity on this wiki is so high, I would say "awhile" meant a couple of days.

3) And if the item was edited by two or more editors, irrespective of the time it has been in the wiki, and it is removed, then it can be reinstated with cause, and it is up to the removing editor to discuss it on the Talk page before removing again. My reasoning here is that the 2 or more editors that have worked on it, out number the single editor that removed it, and the consensus at the time is thus in favor of keeping it. Of course this consensus can change when it is discussed on the talk page.

I should add that what I meant by "with cause" was that the editor would have to have a reason in mind to discuss on the talk page, if a discussion is opened up by the other editor.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the being bold policy an editor is entitled to make a radical change. If it is reverted then it goes to discussion. Obviousley, we need to be a little more careful with the amount of division on this subject. I think the editor mentioned above is now on onboard with reworking the psych-war sections on the discussion page so we should have no further worries about that particular section going through countless reverts for the time being.Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start editing Cerejota's talk page, just to be on the safe side. :) Cryptonio (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

Hamas military broadcast on the Internet claims that target of Israeli offensive is civilians of Gaza Strip. Israel claims that political and military leadership of Governance of the Gaza Strip was the target. I'm changing Palestinian side to what Wikipedia neutrally calls Governance of the Gaza Strip, looks more consistent with commanders flag and the rest of the article. The fact is there were Palestinians among combatants and civilian casualties also on Israeli side of the conflict. We should mention political and military entities which took part in fighting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we put Gaza as belligerent, the flag of Hamas is not the flag of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Compile error. Gaza is ambiguous:

Gaza

Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian National Authority secular nationalist flag is also wrong. Gaza leadership claims PNA/Fatah took part of fighting on Israel side. Some Fatah people were publicly killed by Hamas. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The belligerent is listed as 'Gaza'. The flag of Gaza is not the flag of Hamas. The flag of Gaza is the flag of Palestine. Nableezy (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am confused Nab: How is fighting Gaza different than fighting Hamas? Israel IS at war with Hamas, an organization which happens to be in Gaza. The title makes sense because it's natural to say Israel-Gaza conflict because those are "independent" states/territories. Similar to how the United States is "at war" with Iraq. However, I do not understand your reasoning why we put Gaza as a belligerent in the info box. Hamas is the belligerent, it seems fair to put their flag/symbol than the flag of the Palestinian Territories. I've looking through the past articles, 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict , 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, in addition to the various operations and none of the articles show Gaza as the belligerent. None. The question of truth: What separates those wars/conflicts/freedom fighting/whatever from this article? Why the difference? This may have already been discussed in a prior consensus but I can't find it in search. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the IDF being the belligerent in one of the sides. Although Hamas is the largest fighting force in Gaza, there are other groups of fighters as well fighting against the IDF. We must wait till Palestine is recognized by Israel in order for the territory' to have an official standing Army. Cryptonio (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is assumed. Israel fights wars with the IDF. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The line 'Israel IS at war with Hamas' is purely the Israeli POV, we do not present it as fact just because they, or you, say so. Your past articles are slightly off in that most of them did not occur when Hamas was the government of Gaza and none of them contained what many of the sources call a 'war'. I did not change it to Gaza, a pro-Israeli user did in a compromise to reduce the size of the infobox from listing each militant group who says they are fighting with Hamas, including Fatah. And it has been there since. Nableezy (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do present this as fact because this conflict is obviously about Israel's campaign against Hamas infrastructure, not "other other groups of fighters." The references used in the article explicitly make it clear that Israel's aim is Hamas, not Fatah, not any other group unless they happen to be with Hamas. Can you find me a notable source in this article that mentions another militant group that is not part of Hamas being attacked by Israel? The fact that Hamas is now the de-facto majority ruler over the Gaza is even more of a reason for inclusion. It makes sense to include "Hamas" as the belligerent, not Gaza, and certainly not Fatah. From what I understand according to the references. Hamas and Fatah have dozens, if not more, of various cells and organizations, but almost all connect up with their dominant party. As far as I know there aren't a whole lot of notable independent militant groups within Gaza, as most of them have been brutally suppressed for refusing to assimilate with Hamas.

I really don't understand why you must insist this is a POV issue, I provided similar articles and logical reasoning, not opinionated POV-pushing. Let me make it clear: this has nothing to do with POV. I simply want the infobox to reflect what is actually going on (according to RS), not the opinion of editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And according to the RSs Gaza's infrastructure has been destroyed, not Hamas infrastructure. And because Hamas is the government of Gaza, and attack on Hamas is by definition an attack on Gaza, when governments are at war their countries/territories are at war. It was not the Republican/Ba'ath War (either time). It might be what Israel's aim is, but that doesn't really matter, we say what Israel's stated aim is in the article. But it is not a fact that they attacked Hamas, it is however a fact that they attacked Gaza. And yes, it has a great deal to do with your POV. And every single militia in Gaza, from Fatah to the PFLP to a few more said they fought with Hamas. And that was also supported by the sources, not somebody's need to see the Israeli governments line be used as fact in an encyclopedia. Nableezy (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The section on military activity by the side other than Israel is called "Palestinian military activity". There is no civil war in Palestine. If you called what happened a few years ago as a war, that can be discussed. Since Hamas is a militia, it is not responsible for the defense of Gaza. But since Gaza does not have a standing army, Hamas assumes ALL of the responsibilities that constitute making war with an enemy. That said, is not wrong in the sense that is inappropriate to call Hamas a belligerent, but it sure will blur the thin line between encyclopedia value and a simple dossier. If we bring up examples of other articles, a clear one would be The Lebanon war. Israel was not at war "with" Lebanon, but rather Hezbollah(who clearly only takes up a small part of the country, while Hamas is everywhere in Gaza). To call Hezbollah a belligerent in this case, would be correct(specially since Lebanon has a standing army) as encyclopedic reference as well as simple objection. This of course would correlate Nableezy's argument, that as the de facto ruler of Gaza, that Hamas militia add legitimacy to the defense of Gaza, both domestic and foreign. While in the past, Gaza had no defense against enemies. Cryptonio (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Forget the term war, call it conflict/civil disobedience/whatever that wasn't my point. Hamas is in Gaza, of course they attacked Gaza, because there is where Hamas is. "Gaza" is not a belligerent, it's not even a country. Gaza infrastructure is Hamas' infrastructure, Hamas owns Gaza. Both are the same thing, one is more specific while the other is unnecessarily vague. Perhaps we don't know what belligerent means: A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Is Gaza fighting? No, Hamas is. The fighting is occurring in Gaza, that doesn't mean Gaza is the belligerent. [Gaza]. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is the government of Gaza, an attack on Hamas is an attack on the government of Gaza by definition. Gaza is the 'entity' which acts in a hostile manner, unless you define the belligerents in the Iraq War to be the US Marines, Army, Air Force, and Navy. If you were to define it in such a way, then the belligerents would be as it had previously been: Hamas (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades)
Fatah (Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades)^[14]
Islamic Jihad in Palestine (Al-Quds Brigades)^[15]
Popular Resistance Committees^[14]
(Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades)^[14]
there was consensus to change this to Gaza and it stuck. Nableezy (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

While protesters against military operation in Gaza around the world used PLO/PNA flag, which is also happens to be a Palestinian national flag, the Belligerent in this conflict, fighting Israel is not PNA. No reliable sources claim so. Sources say that Israel was fighting with political entity that Wikipedia call Governance of Gaza Strip. Dudes with guns on Gaza side were using green head bands.

Anglo-Iraqi War. All RS call it "English" but Belligerent is UK.
Mexican–American War. All RS call it "American" but Belligerent is US.
Iberian Peninsula is not a Belligerent of any war. Still Spain and Portugal had some.

We should bring more encyclopedic value and not protesters view. Belligerent is not geographical or Ethnic group term, but political and military one. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is a political entity, a part of a larger one, currently governed by Hamas. Gaza is not synonymous with Hamas. Gaza is what is listed as the belligerent along with Israel. The flag of Gaza, as in the flag used at government locations, is the Palestinian flag, not the flag of Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This Gaza is a political entity, like Israel.

This Gaza is a geographical region, like Iberian Peninsula.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is why infoboxes must burn in Hell. Everything has to fit into neat little categories. Is Hamas the government of the PA? Yes and no. Is Hamas the government of Gaza? Yes and no. Is Gaza a state? Yes and no. Is Hamas the state of Gaza? Yes and no. Is the PA flag the flag of Gaza. Absolutely -- or absolutely not depending on the answers above. Are Hamas armed forces the armed forces of Gaza? Of Palestine?

Did Israel attack the Hamas organization? Militia? Their government? Their state? The geographic entity? And which one had been firing rockets at Israel?

The problem is that Hamas is simultaneously the de facto government of Gaza, the de facto state of Gaza, a claimant to the de iure government of the PNA and a political party with a militia. In Gaza it exerts powers that it does not deserve and in the West Bank it is prevented from those it does. Infoboxes can't convey complex information. If they could, we wouldn't need the articles. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is not the government of the PA. If it were, West Bank Palestinians would be involved in this fight as belligerents. And they are not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not say the Palestinian Territories are the belligerent, we say Gaza. The flag of Gaza is not the flag of Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

agree with nableezy. government buildings do not take on the political leanings of whichever party is in power, they are simply gaza government buildings. likewise the iraq war listed iraq as belligerent when the ba'aths were in power, not just ba'ath.untwirl (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Belligerent is not geographical or Ethnic group term, but political and military one." Well that couldn't be put more clearer. So when we state Israel as a belligerent, we assume we are placing the IDF as the default party that compromises Israel's military interest. And this is done according to the norm (which is country waging war against another country which both have standing armies, this is the point you guys seem to avoid or are having a hard time swallowing). Since Palestine is consider a territory, that definition means that in Israel's view, there is no reason for Gaza(Palestinian Territories, Palestine) to have a standing army, unless it wants to 'terrorize" Israelis civilians. Now, we are in the 21st century, what 'country' in its right mind will elect not to have an Army?(i will say Costa Rica, but only because I know its notable enough for being only a handful of countries who do not have a standing army) This can all be 'brewed' because of Israel insistence that Palestine has no right or reason to have an army. It is then why, Hamas and other groups are placed under the 'umbrella' of terrorist organization(because it dares goes against the wishes of Israel, but notice that no UN resolution has called for the dismantling of Hamas itself, for its view by the world body has 'part' of the army of Gaza). To be objective, we would clear state that Gaza(and Gaza used to be specific on where the operation is taken place, we could very well have used Palestine, Gaza is not being mention as the absence of a country 'named' Palestine, since we know the country exists, it just haven't been recognized or its borders clearly defined) is defending itself, and more to that, Hamas is a militia which means is made up of 'Gazans' and other Palestinians. How Israel sees Hamas is of no concern here, unless we include the line that states "Israel sees Hamas as a terrorist organization, blah blah blah". This conversation should be over rather sooner, Wikifan is already defining for us what belligerent means. as if. Cryptonio (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop conflating Palestinians with Gazans. Hamas is not a militia. It has a militia. Fatah is not taking part in these hostilities, and in fact many Palestinians and other Arab nations have condemned the violence, much as they did regarding the violence of Hezbollah, as drawing Israeli fire against them. After WWII Germany and Japan were "demilitarised." Costa Rica would not appreciate being considered "not notable." Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, there are sources saying Fatah militants have taken part in this battle against Israel. Nableezy (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures are ok, but the verbiage is not Ok with everyone. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it all started with Big Bang. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I can't see the problem with using Agada's wordage: "Governance of the Gaza Strip" -- it can be clicked for further information. It is accurate. Accuracy is always nice in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want the Israel entry to be listed as Kadima? Nableezy (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel has a coalition government. It is relatively stable and efficient, whereas Gaza is run by Hamas. H-a-ma-s. Not PNA, not Fatah...Hamas. It's a different kind of governance, so comparing is...well....retarded. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, what is retarded is not recognizing that Hamas actually does have the majority of the legislature in the PNA and is the government of Gaza. What is retarded is this insistence on not recognizing basic things because it goes against the Israeli narrative. Hamas is the government of Gaza. Even if we were to somehow accept this notion that Israel attacked Hamas, not Gaza, an attack on Hamas is an attack on the government of Gaza. An attack on the government of Gaza is an attack on Gaza. But that argument is only needed if we accept the retarded idea that this was an attack on Hamas because Israel says so. If we do not bow to said retarded idea then it plainly obvious that Gaza and Israel are the belligerents of this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Palestinians are not Gazans, Hamas is not a militia, Fatah is Fatah. That covered everything. Costa Rica, notable for not having an army. And Germany's military was also restricted after WWI and we know how that turned out. The armies of Germany and Japan were disbanded after the war, but how soon after did they raised up another army? Pretty quickly, specially when they gave in into having the so called "humanitarian constitutions". Heck, even with the world protecting them, they weren't about to go and about the world without some protection. Same situation in Iraq, the week after the US defeated Saddam's army, plans were drawn up for a NEW Iraqi army. My point was and remains the same, a country these days can't be without an army, specially since in many countries they also serve as National Guards(with their many civil/peace time functions.) Done? because I think Wikifan is about to argue Representative/Federalist Oligarchy is the best form of government. I shall sit through his lecture. Cryptonio (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ignores crypt rant* Nab, I'm not disputing Hamas isn't the government of Gaza, but the belligerent is Hamas. Gaza isn't a belligerent, Gaza (Gaza Strip to be more precise) is 1 of 2 Palestinian Territories. For reference, see Gaza Strip: "The area is recognized internationally as part of the Palestinian territories. Actual control of the area is in the hands Hamas, the democratically elected de facto government." If we are going to use geography to determine belligerents (which is totally stupid IMO), then it would be proper to say "Palestinian Territories." Hamas does not use the PNA flag, it used the Hamas flag. Am I making sense? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas has a flag. What flag they use mon-thu and fri-sun is not of our concern. Geography, income, number of wives...whatever you want to use to determine this, will have to be followed by both sides. Gaza/Israel Kadima/Hamas IDF/Hamas Blue/Blue Violet/Violet. this is the point that has been brought to you from sentence one. Big dummy :) Cryptonio (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

IDF vs Hamas would not be accurate, although both have flags and emblems and so on. (Invasion of Grenada does not list "USA Military vs New Jewel Movement" for example.) Israel and Gaza are the involved parties in this conflict, what is the reason to argue otherwise? RomaC (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense only if we accept the idea that Hamas is the belligerent. I am fine with your latest edit to the Gaza Strip (though I am about to clean it up, no need for a pipe when the name displayed is the same as the name in the link). Palestinian territories (or people) have already been shot down, that was what I wanted the day this started. It used to list each militant organization that was fighting, the list I put up above. If you say the belligerent is Hamas and that Hamas is the government of Gaza it then follows that the belligerent is Gaza (or to be more complete the Gaza Strip, which I will be abbreviating to Gaza in talk). Gaza is currently a self-governing entity. We are not using geography to determine belligerents, we are using the self-governing entity of Gaza. That it has been fractured from the rest of the Palestinian territories is, in my personal view, incredibly unfortunate, but in this conflict here, Gaza is not just a part of the Palestinian territories, it is its own entity. Nableezy (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Nab, we're going in circles you. Gaza is a self-governing entity, but it is governed by Hamas. Like Israel is governed by.....Israel. I'm ok with the Gaza/PNA/whatever flag, that doesn't really matter IMO. But Hamas is the belligerent, like Israel is. Hamas is simply more precise, both are the same in terms of location but Gaza isn't a belligerent. Hamas is, Gaza is just a piece of land. The title verifies that...Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The circles you speak of would be easily broken if you could acknowledge that whatever else you think about Hamas it is also a political party that won the most recent elections in the Palestinian territories, and that they are the governing party of Gaza, much like Kadima was the governing party of Israel. For the very same reasons that we dont put Kadima as the belligerent (and no it is not because Israel has a coalition government, Kadima was the governing party) we do not put Hamas. And if we were to put Hamas because of how you wish to define belligerent, it would not be just Hamas, and it would be in the form as I wrote above. But Hamas is not the belligerent. An attack on Hamas, as the governing party of Gaza, is an attack on Gaza. Even if we accept the notion that because Israel says that the target is Hamas that somehow means that this was an attack on Hamas and not on Gaza, the belligerent would still be Gaza. The political party in power is not the belligerent, the entity that the political party is in party of is the belligerent. Nableezy (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kadima doesn't govern over the military (entirely), sciences, health research, education, etc... It's an unfair comparison Nab. An attack on Gaza is an attack on Hamas. Gaza is the place of the attack, but Gaza isn't the belligerent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This argument is going nowhere, it is not an unfair comparison, and the idea that an attack on Gaza is an attack on Hamas is ludicrous. Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I just said why it was an unfair comparison, saying "it is not an unfair comparison" is an unfair rebuttal. :D The belligerent is Hamas, it is the power/entity that is fighting. Gaza is a name of a place on earth, two entirely different things. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It is a fair comparison because Kadima was the governing party, as shown in the fact that the PM was from Kadima. Yes the Def Min is from Labor in the coalition government, but the governing party of Israel was Kadima. Likewise, the governing party of Gaza is Hamas. Gaza is more than a name of a place on earth, it, again like Israel, is a self-governing entity. Just for one time in your life consider treating each side the same. Try it, just once, see if you like it. And as has been shown, many more groups other than Hamas have fought, including Fatah militants. Nableezy (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is all kind of murky. Hamas doesn't acknowledge that Gaza is any sort of political entity as far as I know. If "Gaza" is the de facto state that Hamas controls, are the rockets fired by "Gaza" and not Hamas as the first para says? Was the truce between Hamas and Israel, as the second para says or between Gaza and Israel? It is complex and any answer should really be nuanced. The infobox is written in black and white unfortunately. And that's why it is evil.

I know that there is a culture developing here that interprets WP:UNDUE to mean that we must balance all things -- a picture of a fat casualty must be balanced with a thin one. But really it says that we should represent all "viewpoints". That's the important thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is only true if doesn't recognize the clear asymmetry in the conflict. The rockets attacks are claimed, most of them at least, directly by all the groups that fire them (to wit, HAMAS, PRC, and Islamic Jihad) - never by the Government of Gaza. Even if all that happens is a change of uniform, and not even that, the reliable sources tend to see things as differenct. Hence this is the "Gaza war" or "Invasion of Gaza", but the rockets are fired by "militants" or "terrorists" of each group. Since Gaza doesn't have a standing armed force, all forces enaging Israel are irregular, non-State forces. But the ground in which the conflict was fought is in Gaza. What are the RS saying? --Cerejota (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's kind of what I was trying to say.If Hamas is engaging Israel seperately from the political entity, Hamas perhaps the two are not the same for the purposes of identifying belligerents. Especially if the militias are using all the Katyushas and the Kalishnikovs. It is sort of a Clark Kent/Superman situation. I'm not saying Gaza is Hamas or that it isn't. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Do they eat arroz con mango in PR? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest we do then? Nableezy (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Commit mass suicide. Problem solved. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to start without me, once I see the Kool-aid work Ill be right behind you ;) Nableezy (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry buddy but I think WP:UNDUE says that if a pro-Israeli editor commits suicide then a pro-Palestinian has to as well. You know balance and all. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually 3 Pro-Palestinian editors = 1 Pro-Israel editor. We use disproportionate use of force. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's rather talk solution. I'm surprised JG and Cerejota did not offered something on that regard since it seems they both have a finger on this issue. But well, Nableezy did mention, that a pro-Israeli editor was the one who changed it to Gaza because of the many groups involved in the fighting(not just Hamas). That is such a rationale, we could have avoided all of this. IMO Cryptonio (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some get way off topic, but noone disputes that Governance of the Gaza Strip is Belligerent. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is disputed, a number of people have said The Gaza Stip is the belligerent, not Hamas. Please stop putting in this change every day, you keep removing and changing stuff without consensus. Please stop. Nableezy (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any references to Iberian Peninsula being belligerent? Do you agree belligerent is usually a political entity? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this? We are talking about the self-governing entity the Gaza Strip. Like the self-governing entity Israel. Nableezy (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we are talking about the self-governing entity located geographically in Gaza Strip called by Wikipedia Governance of the Gaza Strip. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you silly :). "Governance of the Gaza Strip" is the title of the article(not the title of the political office). What it's conveying is, the process that took place in order for Hamas to become the de facto ruler of Gaza. Thus, "Governance of the Gaza Strip". It is not a political party, and its not intended to replace anything official(as in, if we want to call Hamas ruler of the universe, we can). In plain words, it is not an official office in Gaza(as in "The office of the president of the United States of America"). You silly thing, how adorable. Cryptonio (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Copied from above in 'Palestinian Ministry of Health' discussion: That is the name of an article covering the governance of the Gaza Strip. Sort of like Government of Canada or Government of Guam or Government of Israel. That would be like calling it the Government of Israel IDF. Though the extra commentary is not helpful as I am quite sure he is serious. Nableezy (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, just in case. Although we are buddies. Cryptonio (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. My mistake regarding governance being belligerent. Why Governance of the Gaza Strip unlike Government of Canada or Government of Israel has country infobox? Agree, this is why infoboxes must burn in Hell! I clearly misunderstood the span of this article, probably ref from Gaza strip to governance and vice versa are appropriate. And This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Gaza Strip infobox on governance side. But this is another discussion :). Thank you for explaining. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I should say that I took the "burn in Hell" line from user:Future Perfect at Sunrise. He has a cool picture of it and an even better caption. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if you are saying that the Gaza Strip is the belligerent not Governance of the Gaza Strip. Hope we have this straightened out. Nableezy (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Still current situation is unacceptable and should be changed:

Clearly Gaza strip does not have any military. And according to Wikipedia also not government (missing Gaza Strip -> Governance ref) . Likely Southern Israel does not have any military. Infobox already mention both in Location.
In 2006 Lebanon War the main Belligerent on Lebanon side of the conflict is Hezbollah, probably because dudes with guns used yellow flags and belong to Hezbollah organization. Still Hezbollah is not a country but armed political party in Lebanon coalition government.
In this conflict dudes with guns on Gaza side, according to reliable sources, were using green head bands. So did commanders.

This is why I propose to change Belligerent to Hamas and its military wing. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have a suggestion. We already had this discussion, and it was changed from a listing of all the groups (and it was not just Hamas, but Fatah, PFLP, and a few others) that the sources have said are fighting in this conflict to Gaza. It cannot just be Hamas as it was not just Hamas. Gaza is what works the best because Hamas is the government of Gaza, and even if we accept that Israel attacked Hamas, an attack on the government of Gaza is an attack on Gaza. Gaza is the belligerent, just like Israel. Nableezy (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. Let's add all armed groups, supported by reliable sources quotes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If we put Hamas, Al-Aqsa Brigade etc, then on Israels side we would need to put IDF rather than "Israel"Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, see 2006 Lebanon War Wikipedia description. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you apparently do not agree with me. My position is that the belligerent is Gaza because the government of Gaza (currently Hamas) was engaged in an armed conflict with the government of Israel. That makes the belligerents Gaza and Israel. Nableezy (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In conflict region political parties sometimes have military wing and engage in wars. Please see 2006 Lebanon War. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not just a political party, it is the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Hamas is one of the parties which took part in 2006 elections. Has supporters also in the West bank. Currently takes part in unity government negotiation brokered by Egypt in Cairo. Did you notice Egypt opened Rafah crossing lately to encourage the effort? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, and at the time of this conflict, Hamas is the government of Gaza. That cannot be disputed. It was the governing party that controlled all government ministries and performed all government functions in Gaza. It was the government of Gaza. If a unity government is formed that rejoins Gaza and the West Bank, they will then be a part of the government of the PNA (which they technically are de jure part of that government now, but not de facto), but at the time of this conflict, Hamas was the government of the self-governing territory the Gaza Strip. Nableezy (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree Hamas party is goverment of Gaza Strip, see background section. Also see Wikipedia precedents. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

^ http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/01/04/20090104gaza0124.html
^ http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2095127.ece
^ "Situation Report From The Humanitarian Coordinator - January 7, 2009, 1700 hours". UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2009-1-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)
^ "Olmert Delivers 'Last Minute' Warning to Gaza". December 25, 2008.
^ "Israel Reopens Gaza Crossings". The New York Times. December 26, 2008. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Israel's Gaza war adds psychological operations". Associated Press via MSNBC. 2009-01-11. Retrieved 2009-02-19.
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm
^ ^a ^b "Text messages and phone calls add psychological aspect to warfare in Gaza". The Guardian. 2009-01-03. Retrieved 2009-02-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm
^ http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Technology-Delivers-War-Propaganda-to-Gaza-Israeli-Citizens-65825.html?wlc=1234835531
^ http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/08/63828.html
^ "Israel continues Gaza assault". Doha, QA: Al Jazeera. 2009-01-03. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
^ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1230456531523
^ ^a ^b ^c "Hamas: We're using PA arms to battle IDF". The Jerusalem Post.
^ Senior Jihad man, 14 others die in IDF strikes, Ynet, 29-12-2008

[1] ttp://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/01/04/20090104gaza0124.html

[2] ttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2095127.ece

[ocha_report_1_7-3] "Situation Report From The Humanitarian Coordinator - January 7, 2009, 1700 hours". UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2009-1-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-1-7. Retrieved 2009-1-7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date=, and |archivedate= (help)

[Olmert_Last_Warning-4] "Olmert Delivers 'Last Minute' Warning to Gaza". December 25, 2008.

[nytimes-5] "Israel Reopens Gaza Crossings". The New York Times. December 26, 2008. Retrieved December 27, 2008.

[ap-msnbc-psych-war-6] "Israel's Gaza war adds psychological operations". Associated Press via MSNBC. 2009-01-11. Retrieved 2009-02-19.

[7] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm

[guardian-psychwar-8] "Text messages and phone calls add psychological aspect to warfare in Gaza". The Guardian. 2009-01-03. Retrieved 2009-02-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[9] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm

[10] ttp://www.technewsworld.com/story/Technology-Delivers-War-Propaganda-to-Gaza-Israeli-Citizens-65825.html?wlc=1234835531

[11] ttp://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/08/63828.html

[Jazeera_2009-01-03-12] "Israel continues Gaza assault". Doha, QA: Al Jazeera. 2009-01-03. Retrieved 2009-01-03.

[13] ttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1230456531523

[JP3-14] "Hamas: We're using PA arms to battle IDF". The Jerusalem Post.

[IslamicJihad-15] Senior Jihad man, 14 others die in IDF strikes, Ynet, 29-12-2008

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]