Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

3 month old girl injured in Gedera

this seems to be overemphasized. nearly 2000 palestinian children injured (according to the article) and there is no mention of specific injured children except for this one. i think "one civilian" or even "child" would be better. untwirl (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I did find another passage providing specific age information for individual child casualties, "Rocket attacks continued — about a dozen rockets and mortar bombs were fired from Gaza into Israel, one accidentally striking a northern Gaza house and killing two Palestinian sisters, aged five and thirteen...", which also concerns child victims of Palestinian fire. Is this neutral treatment, or might it 'humanize' some child victims more than others? RomaC (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
That's 2 names. X children died is enough, any more details would violate NPOV. If and when more RS emphasize children casualties by names, typical wounds, ages, etc, hen I'm all for it. But right now, no. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan I'm sorry I can't understand your comment here. RomaC (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry then. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think he said the names should not be included and it should say "x children died" instead of listing any particular details. Nableezy (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
there seems to bee a discrepancy between 'injured' and 'killed' in the two examples cited. i didn't see any other ages listed for children injured on the Palestinian side, and these number nearly 2000. untwirl (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
According to Hamas. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Untwirl, yes I see what you mean re: an inconsistency in the descriptive information set for victims on each side. So I suppose I agree with your initial proposal. Wikifan, I ask you to explain a nonsensical English comment and you respond with a grin. I will not suffer WP:SPA editors who delight in the obtuse. RomaC (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Single purpose account? Ah, yeah very nice RomaC. Untwirl, You, Nab. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be more accurate: RomaC, too bad so much effort has to be spent arguing on these talk pages, much more than any other area in wikipedia. Me, Im just new here, and while my interests go beyond this area, this article has gotten a bit of a hold of me, so give me some time to build that up. Nableezy (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I just find it funny how Roma goes out of his way to whip out rules solely against me. I like to laugh. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, this Monday you made 70 edits, almost 100% I-P related, that's more edits in one day than my total for the last two weeks. But it's not quantity, really, that I'm talking about, rather it's the sameness quality of your edits. It's a bit boring to know in advance almost exactly what another editor is going to come in and argue. My interest is primarily in human rights articles, and yes I have a bias, a pro-Wikipedia bias. I wouldn't be on this article so much if it didn't suffer from the type of problems associated with zealous WP:SPA editors. Believe it or not :D RomaC (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
70 edits today? Are you sure? According to my contrib, it's 15. Almost every user here is overwhelmingly IP anyways, including yourself. I do however appreciate your interest in me. Do you want my number? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
many of us do not delight in the "lol, whatever, :D" type of response.
RomaC - do you suggest that we change it to 'civilian' or 'child' ? if 'child' then we should be sure that Palestinian children injured are accounted for in the same way.untwirl (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I generally support including specific information, so "three-month old girl" is better than "a civilian." My concern here is that although Israeli fire killed many more children than Palestinian fire, the only three cases where we have the (emotive) ages of child victims is in cases where they were injured or killed by Palestinian fire. I support treating information on injuries to and deaths of Palestinian or Israeli children in the same way, with gender and age whenever possible. So we add such details for Palestinian children. There are several in the source cited in the "Weaponry" talk section belowRomaC (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan on my clock it's 70 edits on Monday Feb 23, here. And no need for your number, I know I can always find you on this page. RomaC (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. Details should be left out for individuals, even if available. Ages is more than enough, or else we have to do the same for EVERYBODY...which will take forever. Obviously people want to include the info cause it evokes a stronger sense of emotion (and therefor POV), compared to just numbers...but come'on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan you disagree with what? The question is about including age and gender details on victims. Please read the discussion if this is not clear to you. RomaC (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I was here before you were RomaC. I disagree with including age/gender on a case-by-case basis. We don't do it for other articles unless there is a significant incident of such happening (i.e, kindergarten school explodes - 400 children die). But simply listing age/gender for no reason other then "it's there" is unnecessary and violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and undue weight. None of the other articles go into significant detail about individual kills other than type of wound or age if available, unless there is something special about an attack. For age, typically "children" is sufficient to denote someone below the ages of 18. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As much as I hate to do this, I would agree with wikifan. We are trying to have an encyclopedic account of this conflict, I cannot imagine this type of detail about individual people who are not notable outside of being killed in this conflict being in an encyclopedia. I think children is sufficient. Nableezy (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Success! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, Wikifan, I asked because I wondered if your default was to disagree with everyone. So, when you say "ages is more than enough..." and then in your next comment say "I disagree with including age..." it is not clear what you are saying other than "disagreeing." The sentence in question is "On January 6, a rocket hit Gedera for the first time, injuring a 3-month-old girl." This, it seems we can agree, should be changed. To what? "killing one" "...injuring one"? RomaC (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
'injured one child' should be fine. Nableezy (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
agreed, and changed. untwirl (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Good, also content on the girls killed by the Hamas mortar I suppose we should remove their ages. RomaC (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Commanders

In the infobox, there is no citation for the commanders of either side. A search of google yields few results for "Eyal Eisenberg" except to say he was a war criminal in the Lebanon War.

I'd suggest we only need perhaps two commanders for each side; obviously, there will be hundreds of people who have some command at some stage, each taking their authority from the level above.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Most conflict articles have multiple commanders. The Iraq War article has twenty for example. I think Eisenberg's inclusion is quite warranted because he was the actual local commander, with the Gaza Division. This ynet article says he was "commanding the operation".[1] --JGGardiner (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states "The Commander of the operation is Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, GOC Southern Command." Some other articles in Wikipedia show the President in the field but the Cheif of the General Staff and the Defense Minister are not common. I believe we should not put them in.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Most sources do say that Galant was the real commander. But I think we should include Ashkenazi as well. Personally I don't like to include politicans like Barak, even though I realize he was a general. But we have room for four Israelis anyway since we include four commanders for the other belligerent, the Gaza Strip Hamas. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Found this info in a blog. Has anyone seen any sources to verify it: Hamas has organized itself, for the most part as a guerrilla organization; this involves a military command structure with a commander in chief, officers, troops, etc.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of infobox information

71.249.66.85 made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=273113407&oldid=273113235 which removed information about damage to Gaza from the infobox. Another part of information seems to have also been removed in the last 6 hours or so but i can't find the edit. It used to read:

Over 50,800 Gaza residents displaced.[15]
Over 4,000 homes destroyed; around $2bn worth of damage to Gaza[16]

Personally I think this information belongs in the infobox, it is a good way to summarise most serious effects. However, according to the above user's "Notes" there is an overwhelming consensus for removingJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

corrected address. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember a consensus that the editor is talking about. I think including the monetary value of damage is a little excessive. I'm fine with the displacement inclusion even though we usually exclude it. I'm not familiar with any articles that include anything like home destructions. Or am I wrong about that? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked over at WP:MILMOS and couldn't see this. Perhaps we are missing something? Can we ask the WP:MILHIST guys?--Cerejota (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about an MOS, just from all the articles I've seen. I also looked up a few before I wrote that where I expected we might see displacement, like the 1948 War, the Korean War, the Chechen wars, etc. The 2008 South Ossetia War did have a "refugees" section but it seemed to be the exception. But I wasn't sure so I asked if that was the case. And I'm cool with you asking the MILHIST guys or anyone else. --JGGardiner (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Having scanned through some more articles I see Colombian_Civil_War_(1964–present), Central African Republic Bush War, War_in_Somalia_(2006-present), 2007–2008 Kenyan crisis and Croatian War of Independence also have displacement figures. Although it does seem like a rare inclusion -- I looked through 200 or so modern conflict articles. Iran-Iraq War is the only one I've seen with an economic figure. That actually includes total costs and not just damages. I haven't seen any that have anything like the number of houses destroyed. but examples may well exist. --JGGardiner (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It is called deceptive vandalism. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Old requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza war — As per the last RM discussion, there was clear consensus that a name change was needed, and there was rough consensus on "war". I have removed the "Israel", because that divided the !votes. I hope people will understand that this article needs renaming, even if Gaza war proves "temporary" it should beats the "temporary" one we have now. — Cerejota (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - just do it.--Cerejota (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (Loosely)Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - it is an improvement, simpler, easy to find, doesn't mention Hamas, romanised and therefore consistent with Naming conventions (Tibetan). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-Support - Simple, but it needs a "2009" qualifier since there has been alot of other wars in Gaza even before 1948. --Darwish (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We have done this same song and dance over and over again. 1. Gaza is NOT a country, 2. War was not declared on either side, and 3. this conflict is part of something bigger that has been going on for over 60 years.Knowledgekid8711:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesnt matter if either side declared war (for instance see Vietnam War, or Korean War which was officially a 'police action'). All that matters is what do the sources call this. Nableezy (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War and the War of Attrition. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
If your concern is that the article implies Gaza is a belligerent, the new name is better than the current one. Cerejota's suggestion has "Gaza" as the location of fighting whereas the current title has "Israel-Gaza" which could be read as a conflict between the two. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The media can eat up as much as they want on a story, it still cant be called a war. The biggest thing for me is that gaza isnt even a country. I just really think the title war is unneeded.Knowledgekid8723:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
But that is your own logic and reasoning telling you that, or in other words WP:OR. I dont think War should really be used either (I would honestly favor Attack if my personal feeling matter), but we should be, as always, reflecting the sources judgment on such matters on not replacing that with our own. Nableezy (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Call it "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza War" for reasons said in discussion about this (See further down) and it has my support.Knowledgekid8716:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Seems ambiguous and unclear. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • maybe we should start the survey again with the year, would that help ? e.g. 1430H Gaza War...oops I mean 2009 Gaza War. We could use the Thai calender to avoid the 2008/2009 transition, 2551 Gaza War...okay, maybe not. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose without a complete re-write of the article since this "war" did not start December 27, 2008. This article is intent on describing OCL and pretending that OCL is the whole "conflict" or "War." It is not. The conflict or war between Israel and Gaza has been ongoing. I believe it started when Israel withdrew her citizens and Gaza militants started rocketing Southern Israeli towns and villages. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand that you object to the scope of the article but why take it out on the poor title? Since this article describes only events during the military operation, shouldn't the title reflect the content? --JGGardiner (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Since the article describes only events during the military operation, as you say, it should be titled Operation Cast Lead, which I would support. However, OCL is only one operation in a larger Gaza conflict/war. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would only support this if it could be proved that most sources refer to the conflict as a war. For us to decide that it was a war is OR, since many could argue it was not, for many reasons. My understanding of the situation, is that some sources call it a war, but most do not. Kinetochore (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That is better. It comes closer to expressing the actual name. It is also much easier for our readers to find. And that's really the most important thing. So I definitely support the change. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would support moving the article to Israel's Offensive on Gaza. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see sufficient imperative for changing the name of an article that conforms with the names of all previous articles on the conflict. The distinction between 'conflict' and 'war' is a fine one, not one to forgo for the sake of simplicity. masqueraid 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masqueraid. I don't see the necessity or merit in the suggested change. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-- The term "conflict" is ambiguous. The article uses warfare related terms as "ceasefires", "attacks", "ground invasion", "air strikes", "combatant and non-combatant casualties", etc. The title should reflect this content. The "Gaza War" is use by the media 1 including the New York Times, and Washington Post. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, for now and for all further proposals until eternity.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current title seems to be more appropriate an accurate to me. - fchd (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - even though I personally dont want to use the term 'War' as I think others are more fitting, my own opinions should not replace what the sources have said, and it seems pretty clear that they have in large used the term War. That either side did not declare war is irrelevant, that Gaza is not a country is irrelevant, all that is relevant in this discussion is what is the common English name, and that is determined by the usage in the sources. So I begrudgingly support the move. Nableezy (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that newspapers refer to current events and the names that they give to incidents are in the context of what's happening at the time. Thus they are not ambiguous for that present time-frame. However, in the context of a time-frame of years, the term Gaza War is ambiguous since there have been significant conflicts between Israel and Gaza in the past[2] and there may be even more significant conflicts between them in the future. Please note that we need to keep the title unambiguous not just in the present time-frame, but in the timeframe that includes the past and the future too. Also, we want to keep the title consistent with other parts of Wikipedia.[3] [4] [5] [6] So the wiki should not be titled Gaza War. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I must second the above. Well put. masqueraid 14:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case then we can change it in the future, but right now the RS are calling this the Gaza War. Nableezy (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A mere delay in changing the name of the article does not remove the problems associated with the change. This article exceeds and will exceed the scope and context of the sources you are referring to. Neither does a delay change the fact that nothing warrants this conflict to be labeled as the Gaza War as such conflict have and probably will happen in the future. Can you find such a previous precedent of changing the names of articles after a delay on Wikipedia? masqueraid 15:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I dont need to, because everything that was written was OR. That you think 'nothing warrants this conflict to be labeled as the Gaza War as such conflict have and probably will happen in the future' may very well be true, but it is your opinion. We are not bound by your, or mine, opinion, what we are bound by is that we use the most common English name that can be supported by the sources. Like you, I dont think War is the most appropriate term, though we differ in what term would be more correct, but my preference does not change the fact that the RSs are calling this the Gaza War. Nableezy (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
2004 Israel–Gaza conflict
2006 Israel–Gaza conflict
2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict
2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
Please remember that The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Content on Wikipedia is base on the of use reliable, third-party, published sources. It would be helpful if we start discussing about the use of the term in reliable sources and not personal opinions or other articles. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the link you gave, "other articles" and I could not find anything relevant to the present discussion. It appears to be about keeping, deleting, or creating a particular article or policy, not naming articles. Could you please identify more specifically what you think is relevant? Perhaps I missed something? Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right. My point is that we are discussing changing the title of this article and no other articles. I can start pointing out all articles that use the term "war" but that is not helpful in any way. This discussion should be about this article's title and the use of the term "Gaza war" in reliable sources. If we keep the current title we should be more specific, this is a "armed conflict" not a diplomatic or domestic conflict. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
For the orderly encylopedic presentation of information, we should have a title that conforms to the rest of Wikipedia that discusses the other Israel-Gaza conflicts over the years, which I mentioned previously. Also, I didn't understand your point re "this is a 'armed conflict' not a diplomatic or domestic conflict", since the wiki's that I gave links for above were armed conflicts and didn't use "war" in their titles but used "conflict".
Surely you must realize that this:
2004 Israel–Gaza conflict
2006 Israel–Gaza conflict
2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict
2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
is better than this:
2004 Israel–Gaza conflict
2006 Israel–Gaza conflict
2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict
Gaza war
Also, please note that Gaza war redirects to Gaza–Israel conflict so this type of issue was probably already discussed and resolved in the past, and calling the present wiki "Gaza war" would be in conflict with the redirect that already exists.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing is resolved in Wikipedia, everything is open to discussion. I stand by my argument that the title of this article should reflect the terminology used by reliable, third party sources. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the points I made are overwhelming, but you are entitled to your opinion and I will respect that. Thank you for the discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
But none of those conflicts had such an all out battle, small skirmishes maybe (which is why conflict would be more fitting if War is not used in the sources) but in this conflict, War is used. I remember a while back when we were working on the lead an Israeli user pointed out that Israeli media as well are calling this The Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Arab sources are largely calling it either the War on Gaza, Attack on Gaza, Assault on Gaza, or Gaza War. Many English sources are also calling this the Gaza War. Nableezy (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No they are not, the are underwhelming. To begin with, you have been absent from the multiple discussions and surveys that have been had around the title of the article, so you are missing some really important information around how the consensus developed. You are also missing 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, another article in the so-called series - which is really a collection of aborted WP:COATRACKs. The fact is that there is a systemic issue with I-P conflict articles, as illustrated by WP:ARBPIA, but this fact is not resolved by arguing that other stuff exists, but by arguing each article on its merits. I find the whole "Date Israel–Gaza conflict" formulation to be a self-reference formulation, something temporary the community adopts to name notable events until which time the RS give us a name. In the case of this article, or 2006 Lebanon War, we have the advantage of the sources actually providing an actual name that is NPOV. So we should take advantage of this. Our innability and unwillingness to do the right thing on those articles doesn't mean we should do the same thing here.
Please see the last discussion Archive_30#Requested_move or the first after the ground inavasion started [7]. It clearly demonstrates the temporary nature of this name, and the consensus on which is the topic of this article.
There seems to be a confussion on your part, and I think this is a very relevant one that has been raised time and again. This article started, and has been a focused, on the events that Israel calls "Operation Cast Lead", but the media overwhelmingly calls "Gaza war". This is not a general exploration of conflict like 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict or 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict, but for a specific timeframe and events. Perhaps an article is needed on the the generalities of the conflict after OCL, but it is too early. It is clear to me, and others, that this is the case.
But even if this weren't the case, the RS have no discernible name for the events in say 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict, but they do have it for this: "Assault", "Campaing", "Invasion", but "war" seems to be the winner, as has been proven time and time again with gnews ghits using "allintitle" for the appropiate date range. Right now it stands at around 225+ 25 or so archived. And it is used in editorial descriptions of the war - not as quotes, for example here AP - Jews in Muslim lands anxious over Gaza war or here YNET - Doctor who lost daughters in Gaza war: We were created to live together. The evidence from RS can truly be described as "overwhelming", unlike your weak argument based on articles in wikipedia, which are self-referential and and to a certaine extent WP:COATRACK-like.
Your weakest is that about "Gaza war" being a redirect. We turn redirects to articles all the time, and not always for topics centered on the topic for which it used to be a redirect - for example, Food Channel was recently redirected from Food Network (a TV channel) to The Food Channel (a website). This is an invalid point, thats stands contrary to all previous practice in Wikipedia. Ask around.
(That said, I do agree with date disambiguation, but this was oppossed in previous discussions, as there is no previous event named "Gaza war".)
For these reasons, along with others argued here, your point are far from overwhelming, and actually are quite the contrary: they ignore completely the need for policy based (ie WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V) solutions, over one based on arguments that constitute, ultimately efforts at WP:SYNTH. Your position is a typical POV pusher's position, even if that's not your intent. I also recommend that you do not use superlatives like "overwhelming" unless you have anythign other than your opinion to back you up. Saying something over and over doesn't make it any more true: providing evidence so that we can make up our own minds does.--Cerejota (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
<outdent>Thank you all for the discussion. There have been a number of interesting points, but the points for not changing the name to Gaza War are stronger, in my opinion. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
What are those points for not changing the name? That it fits with a pattern of other articles? We are not talking about other articles, we are talking about this one. That Gaza is not a country so cannot be at war? Doesnt matter what any single one of us think about that, if the sources call it 'Gaza war' then we shouldnt be changing that because we dont think that it qualifies as a war. That would be called 'OR'. The most basic point in all of this discussion is that the sources call it 'Gaza war'. It doesnt even make sense that people are arguing about the meaning of the word 'war', we are not commentators who are writing an editorial. It does not matter if we think that Gaza war is wrong for the title, if the sources think it is right that should be the end of the discussion. Let me say again, I do not like the name Gaza war. I think it is a bad description of the event. But it is not my job to give my description of this event here, if I wanted to do that I would go get a blog. Here, we do not give our own judgments on what is correct or what is truth. If somebody has an argument based on an actual policy then please present it. The only thing we should be arguing about is what is the most common English name for this event. Nableezy (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - a big improvement on the current title; we can change it again in the long termJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider, and look on this as a temporary improvement

Most people seem to be opposing on the grounds that it is not a perfect title. Could those who opposed please let us know whether they think this would be an improvement on the current title - this is really the only relevant consideration here. Grazie Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Would it be more appropriate to say Israel-Hamas War? Are we talking about the "countries" involved or their armies? Israel could be multiple definition for its army and land/country, which is why I bring this up. I don't any objections to the current title and Israel-Gaza War or Gaza-War are just too vague. Tons of battles have been fought between Israel and in/around Gaza, what separates them? Certainly not the title, only the content - but the title is very important regardless. I'm neutral because in the end I really don't care and my main concern is not with the title, but the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes on my vote per requested discussion page guidelines: Supported by google news search it looks like. 2009 Gaza War could have worked if it would have waited about a week.Cptnono (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Something intresting I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_war
Entering the words "Gaza War" in the searchbox, comes up with that article. It seems as if these conflicts are all connected.Knowledgekid8700:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Could just remove that redirect. Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. To quote Bob K31416, "there have been significant conflicts between Israel and Gaza in the past[8] and there may be even more significant conflicts between them in the future." The redirect refers to a general article about the conflict at large and is hence most appropriate. masqueraid 14:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If the commonly used name changes in the future we change this in the future. The sources call this the Gaza War. That is all that should matter here, not whether or not we think there are other Gaza Wars or if there will be more Gaza Wars in the future. All that matters is what do the sources call this. Nableezy (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is not meant to be, and isn't, a direct resemblance of the sources used to back the claims made herein. Rare, if any sources discuss this conflict as the Gaza War when treating the topic within the wider context of the conflict between Israel and the entities in control of Gaza.masqueraid 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Evidence? I have search the gnews archive, because I suspect this,but there is nowhere near the use of "war" for any of the previous armed conflicts. This is probably because this is an unprecedented part of the conflict: Israel occupied the Gaza Strip for most of the history of the I-P conflict, and had not done an attack like this since the unilateral withdrawal. Of course, if there issues of disambiguation, these can be addressed by the usual WP:NAME disambiguations, of adding the Year in Front. Lets be productive, this is not a vote.
I find it interesting that the loudest oppose voices are editors who have been absent from all previous discussion, and have suspiciously similar arguments - and both are ignoring completely the history of the discussions and how this article came to have this name and get move protected.
As to "finding" the redirect, that is disingenous, clicking on it (as listed on top of the discussion reasons) took you there. That article is a WP:COATRACK in its current state.--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think that it is necessary to complain about new editors to the article, or to claim that their arguments are "suspiciously similar." It is neither WP:ASG nor welcoming. We need plenty of viewpoints here, and anyone can claim that one side or the others' arguments are "suspiciously similar." This type of thing poisons the atmosphere and drives productive editors away. Please avoid it. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I will do that when you finally take care to address any substantive point that I raised, instead of patronizing me, with protestations that coming from a banned editor sound a little disingenuous to me. Of course, that seems too much to ask. Or to quote you: "address the content, not the editors". --Cerejota (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I was banned for presumed edit-warring, never for personal attacks or violating uncivil, so your "kettle" analogy is meaningless. It is never uncivil to point out that someone is being rude to another editor. All the substantive points in the world are meaningless if raised in an unpleasant way. One of the basic pillars of Wikipedia is its code of conduct. I will stop patronising just as soon as you stop attacking other editors. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Where do I say you were banned for personal attacks? You where banned for violating the most core of our behavioral policies: edit warring. And not pressumed. You were evaluated and found guilty and banned. You edit warred. That you won't admit it doesn't bode well for your future editing.
I do not attack other editors. I address their points, when I see it as productive I do my best to celebrate it, when I see it as unproductive I point it out. I call spades, spades. If you have a specific issue, suggest a solution, point out the specifics, stop citing policy, and start living it. I am very patient with you: you very rarely try to address points of substance, and you cannot blame people for being exasperated at that. This is not your or anyone's soapbox. --Cerejota (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree, but I think all articles should be a direct resemblance of the sources. That is how you stay away from OR. Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
After thinking it over and looking at the link I brought up If it HAS to be called a war, I would approve the topic being called "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza War". It being called "Gaza War" is just too broad, it can redirect however if that is a concern.Knowledgekid8714:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]Support Knowledgekid's view. However, if it is to be called the Gaza War, what exactly would the start date for this war be? December 27, 2008? Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Nableezy (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it started with the airstrike portion of Operation Cast Lead. I also supported Knowledgekid87's proposal, and proposed it myself in the last survey, but ti was voted down for including "Israel". To be frank, I think all this nitpicking is unproductive, the thing is precisely to change it from "conflict" to something more specific. --Cerejota (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Just exactly what makes this the start-date? The fact that Israel used heavy weapons? Hamas's rockets and kidnapping and murdering of soldiers did not constitute Hamas warring against Israel? Did Israel "declare war" on Gaza or Hamas? In fact it is clear that Israel considers this an "operation" in part of a bigger conflict. Were there truces prior to this date? What were those truces supposed to do if not put a stop to the violence and "warring" going on. Did Hamas "declare war" on Israel? Certainly one could be excused for reading their charter as such.

For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long: “Allah has decreed: Lo! I very shall conquer, I and my messenger, lo! Allah is strong, almighty.” 1988 Charter [9]

Clearly the Gaza War did not happen before Hamas established control of Gaza. But the Gaza War, if you want to call it that, was declared from the moment Hamas took over Gaza. You simply cannot talk about a war without clarifying the background. WWII did not start when planes started dropping bombs. You are a military buff...
1935:Nuremburg Laws
1936:Germans march into Rhineland
1937:Hitler reveals his war plans
1938:Nazis take Austria
Hitler wins in Munich
Night of Broken Glass
1939:Nazis take Czechoslovakia
Nazi-Soviet Pact
Nazis invade Poland.
Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.
British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy.

Did the war start in September '39 when Britain attacked the German Navy? Did Britain start it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundra, it is generally accepted by historians that WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. There is indeed learned debate around this, for example, the Spanish Civil War is seen by some historians as the start of WWII. But the histographic consensus is that it started when Germany invaded Poland. This happened more than two years before Japan attacked the USA, in other words, when it was still a European war, which is what some other historians argue is the real start of WWII.
Leaving aside the fact that comparing this conflict to WWII can lead us down very nasty paths, so we should refrain from doing so, I appreciate your original research, I find it smart and interesting.
But it doesn't hold to scrutiny from reliable sources: they clearly establish that the prelude to the conflict was the ceasefire, the blockade, and the rocket attacks, and that it started with Operation Cast Lead. It might not be the truth, but we are not concerned in Wikipedia with the truth, we are concerned with verifiability.
I also express worry and exasperation that you continue to beat this WP:OR point too much, too frequently and too imovably. I seriously hoped that your time banned would have helped you reflect upon how disruptive you are by ignoring our content policies and the needed to develop consensus. The sad part is that when you do argue using the policies, you do usually present very interesting things, and productive edits: but it is both your opposition to obviously encyclopedic and needed information, and your continuous proposing of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in a great miserable exercise of beating the dead horse into a jelly that I find unproductive, disruptive, and unnecessary. The is no a snowball's chance in hell that this OR narrative can be allowed in wikipedia unless adopted by RS. If the BBC comes up with a timeline like this, definitely. But if some partisans want to argue this as historical truth - I am sorry, but wikipedia is not their soapbox. I hope this is the last time we see such extreme examples of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR on your part, because they do not help us at all to develop a better article, but rather makes us have to spend time engaged in unproductive discussions. We can be long winded, and we can have heated discussions, but they should be based on our content policies, not on our whims or belief systems.--Cerejota (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Cere, the WWII analogy was just that-- an analogy to demonstrate that the idea that the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict started on December 27 with Israel's attack on Gaza is simplistic. Since the "conflict" or war has been going on the entire year, the article should reflect the title. See WP:NPOV#Article naming. This is not a matter of WP:TRUTH, but of simple accuracy. Even were this article named Operation Cast Lead, it would require the background to the operation, which would include the kidnapping of Shalit and negotiations related to him. To say so is not a matter of soapboxing, but indeed an attempt to improve the article. As for relevant wiki policies, they would include WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. NPOV requires that all major views be included. I recognize that my view of the start-date is not the popular one, but it is a fair one and provides one rationale for including more background, including Shalit. The importance of Shalit in this conflict can be seen in the links put up earlier, and keeping him out simply on grounds that we are only talking about events from Dec 27 is disengenuous. From WP:NPOV "Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides." Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Casualties chart

Agada, I've put the chart back for now because I didn't understand your removal on the basis of 'no consensus'. Did I miss that discussion ? Where is it ? It's a major change for the article in my view so I just wanted to give people a chance to discuss it. I'm neutral on it but others may not be I suppose. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean I mentioned in commit log that No consensous for inclusion of disputed Body countCounting casualties of Gaza's war http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7855070.stm This chart is far from being a fact as section wording suggests. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice save. It is extremely bad faith to remove an illustration that has been in the article for more than a month without even going to talk. But I honestly didn't even notice the picture, so perhaps it was a good thing he did this. To be frank, after reviewing the picture I don't see why it is necessary or notable. I will summarize my complaints with bullets to avoid confusion.

Here is the picture in question since Sean didn't post: Shazaaam

  • First and probably the most superficial claim is the that the picture is incredibly crude. Almost as if it was made from paint. Not hard enough to remove, but I thought I should mention it.
  • Second - Is it necessary? We already have a casualty box, that makes it clear the numbers are estimated and disputed, which brings me to my next point.
  • Third - statistics. We are at a point where objectivity is a crucial issue here, and it doesn't seem fair to include an illustrated diagram that carries disputed casualty numbers without emphasizing that they are estimates at best. But this is probably the most arguable point considering how emotional some users might become...so, my next point.
  • Fourth - Sources. Reuters and UN are feeding their info from the Hamas-run ministry of health, and Jpost is simply citing stats from Israel casualties. This creates are a false sense of objectivity, listing multiple sources gives the impression the numbers are being widely-covered..but they aren't. They're simply verifying each other. This also creates confusion, the jpost article doesn't cover the Gaza casualties (or else I don't think it does because the article won't load), and the PMH is only reporting Gaza casualties. Reuters is reporting both sides.

I'm all for a diagram, but as far as I can tell there is very little reason to include it unless it manages to paint a clear and neutral picture, and not condense everything into a sloppy illustration. It might have been necessary a month ago, but with all the information we have I no longer see the point other than conveying a half-truth summary. In short, the casualty box is everything the diagram isn't. Unless it offers some unique perspective and is clearly neutral, I'm all for it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As it stands now(the current location) the chart adds aestheticism to the page(if per the opposition's rationale 'we are presenting a product to our clients'). I don't think is our job to either inform or misinform our readers, since I don't think a reader should use wiki to make up their minds. But we could help them by making the article and its information accessible and I think that's the only reason why the chart is/or was there. The numbers in them is a different story and I don't see any argument against them(at least for the exclusion of them in general in the article). Cryptonio (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Believe casualties are central to an article on armed conflict, and this chart provides casualty information at a glance. I am strongly against the stealthy removal of long-standing content without specific discussion on Talk. RomaC (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate this chart, I have always hated this chart, and will continue to hate this chart. Its a WP:SYNTH piece of crapola that is not even verifiable (as there is a verifiable controversy on the casualties). But, Agada should have known better and raised the discussion, because it was a sure shitstorm raiser. --Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Its no more synth than the infobox. I think the chart should clearly say where each number came from, but just giving a chart of information that is already in the article I think would be fine. Nableezy (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Reasons why it should go listed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with including a chart but the previous chart was a piece of crap, pure and simple. You wouldn't put that thing in a HS term paper.--Andi Hofer (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm neutral as I said but what I would question is whether the figures represented in the graph are really 'disputed' to the extent that they misrepresent/distort the basic information the chart is intended to convey. The difference between sources for the charted figures is relatively small which doesn't really seem like enough to get excited about from the charting perspective. Hey, I even made it smaller when I put it back which reduces the effect of the 'dispute' on the rendered chart. I do take Cerejota's point about synth though. I'm just not convinced it matters very much for a simple chart. To me the question therefore becomes "do we want to visually represent the casualty stats or not ?". Hell, the proton to electron mass ratio is 'disputed' if you want to get all pedantic about precision. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
CORRECTION "if you want to get all pedantic about precision" should, strictly speaking be "if you want to be a pedant about precision". Heh. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Relatively small? Israel says ~950/250 civ dead while Hamas says 1200+ mostly civilian. Wounded is hard to determine, odds are Hamas simply went with the highest estimate. The casualties are disputed beyond reason. I have no problem with a chart, as long as it accurately represents the article. It can't conflict with the text. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
..and what does the chart say about the number of dead that is inconsistent with what you have written ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Your information is outdated. Yes there is a dispute in the civilian counts, but in a JPost article that has been in here for a few days, brought up in the talk page a few times, the IDF says they have identified 1200 fatalities and "Another 300 of the 1,200 - women, children aged 15 and younger and men over the age of 65 - had been categorized as noncombatants, the CLA said." here. Nableezy (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I just had my math wrong. I was looking at civilian casualty disputes, not total. Sorry about that. That isn't 300+250, it's 300. Current article says that. That's certainly less than the 950+ according to Hamas. And seeing how truthful they are, he incident near a UN school in Jabalya on January 6, in which initial Palestinian reports falsely claimed IDF shells had hit the school and killed 40 or more people, many of them civilians., it's logical to assume more lies will be found eventually, though that is a POV issue and no RS can verify such a thing just yet. Has Hamas issued 200 page report disclosing its casualty numbers? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes more lies may be forthcoming, I am really looking forward to the debunking of the IDF numbers. Nableezy (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. But at least Israel has shown good faith by actually publishing a report, whereas Hamas simply mouthed off to the UN and the whole world took it. Like during Jenin when Israel was accused of "massacres", an accusation later to be "debunked" but still nonetheless damaging. So in the event Hamas' numbers are wrong (if they are), it won't matter. Israel doesn't have a history of totally fabricating thousands of casualties, they are notorious for underestimating or failing to list numbers when they are available... This is all POV/irrelevant to talk so it's probably best we focus our attentions elsewhere. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
for the second time in my life i agree with you (only the very last sentence obviously). Nableezy (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Only the very last sentence? Awww...; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to jump into this fight, but there are some (minor) discrepancies between the charts and the information in the article itself. At the very top, it says that the Palestinian Ministry of Health puts the death count at 1330, while the article quotes them as saying 1324. The chart says that the Palestinian Center for Human rights puts the civilian death total at 940, while the article puts their figure at 895. Also, why do you quote the total death total of the Palestinian Ministry of Health, but the breakdowns of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights? Wouldn't it make more sense to quote all of the figures of either one (or both) of the organizations? Towards the bottom of the article, there is a second chart, with the caption referring to the constant changing of the casualty figures. I understand that, but perhaps it would be better to amend it to the most recent figures. The total Israeli wounded figure is given by the chart to be 523, while the article implies (it isn't very clear), that it's 518. The death count of the Palestinians is here given as 1380, which disagrees with all the sources listed in the article. The chart gives a figure of the total wounded, while the article doesn't really give any numbers. I don't know which is correct, the chart or the article, but it seems best for all the information to be at least consistent. Considering most people will probably look at the charts rather than the article itself, maybe the charts should be even the most consistent

I don't know if we actually do need to visually represent the numbers. We have pictures, an info box, and a section all devoted to casualties. We could make a different chart for each source or make a tricolor chart so that the current disclaimer isn't needed. We could just do it the easy way and remove the chart until complete numbers are available.Cptnono (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok so can I delete it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the chart's deletion. Wikipedia users are literate and tech-savvy (http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/02/wikipedia-and-the-new-curriculum/) enough to find and read the casualty figures themselves, without the help of quaint bar graphs. Kinetochore (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't hurt my feelings.Cptnono (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a chart is about the most neutral way possible to present information. It has been there for weeks and weeks and should not be removed because an editor doesn't like the information it contains. RomaC (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, that's an extremely poor representation of the arguments. I suggest you revise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
True, an aberration is an aberration. However, my concern is that is not verifiable. --Cerejota (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Searching through the article and I think someone deleted it. Are we done here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Agada took it out, again, with another extremely disputed edit that he keeps pushing through. I reverted the whole edit, but do not object to removing the chart. Nableezy (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
i just did, if somebody want to revert me then go ahead, punk. make my day. Nableezy (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I think enough argument has been made to remove the chart. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I took it out, I dont really care, but the argument of SYNTH doesnt seem all that valid. Like I said maybe a few weeks back, I dont think a chart is really needed, somebody wants to read an encyclopedia article they should read the encyclopedia article (and preferably all the sources, and even better all the sources we are not allowed to use). But if somebody wants to revert me, feel free, I dont really care either way on this issue. Nableezy (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about it, but I do think a casualties chart is a dispassionate way to represent the human cost of the conflict. So reverting you Nableezy. To those complaining about the design maybe you can do better? RomaC (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Passion is irrelevant, accuracy is. Reverted. Rationale explained throughout this discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I count about the same number of editors and reasons for keeping as for removing, and among those for removing are comments about accuracy and aesthetics, both things that can be improved instead of deleting the chart. RomaC (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
what of we took the numbers off it so that it just had the bars ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
We could also remove the bars and incorporate the numbers into the text. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant!..or a pie chart showing all the people that weren't killed or injured. We have many options. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The chart is a good attempt but isn't needed with all of the other info (numerous sections, infobox, images) and aesthetically could be improved. A reader already knows that the Israel went in and smashed and that too many civilians were killed. We don't need the chart as an explanation point.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
log10 scale so it looks better ? just kidding. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted the chart based off rationale above. I do agree a chart is a notable theme, but the stats are off, disputed, and there isn't really any reason to leave aside from promoting a false/slanted POV. Superficially, it is also extremely crude and sticks out big time...but that isn't so much of a reason as it is a plus for deleting. :D RomaC, wikipedia is not a democracy, as far as I know. We followed the rules here, continuing to say "think x x x x x" is not particularly persuasive nor a rational claim for keep without evidence. "neutral as can be"...compared to what? If you guys really want a chart, use the sources from the info box/article and create a detailed one. Perfect! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
There is "rationale" on both sides of this discussion. If there is a dispute on the numbers or the aesthetics of the chart please propose ways to fix the chart instead of delegating this yo "you guys" (?). Fix it before deleting it. RomaC (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason for it right now. It is disputed, poorly done, and potentially only included in the article to make a point. We have plenty of info in the article related to dead and hurt people. If a nice chart is produced it might be slightly more acceptable to some editors but as it stands it doesn't work in the article well.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

background death/injured numbers

I corrected the stats and added more sources to verify the numbers.

This is the new version:

Between 2005 and the start of the 2008/2009 conflict, Palestinian groups launched over 6,000 rocket, missiles, and mortars into Israel, in addition to 11 suicide attacks, killing 104 people and wounding over 1300. .[1][2]

Here is the previous edit:

Between 2005 and the start of the 2008/2009 conflict, Palestinian groups launched over 8,000 rocket and missile attacks into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens more.[3] During this time period Israeli air strikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations have killed more than 800 Palestinians.[4]

Notice the erroneous numbers. Even excluding mortar fire, which I added, more than 12 were killed and hundreds were wounded...that is a far cry from "dozens."

Also corrected rocket/mortar/fire numbers, it was 6000+ not 8000+ after counting. And I switched Israel casualties to digits instead of words to correlate with the Palestinian numbers. Hope that is ok.

I added 3 sources to verify casualty numbers, counted the stats individually from the MFA brief, just go to the link. I didn't know the # wounded for Palestinians and couldn't find the stats so if someone wants to add it feel free to do so.

I don't want Falestine to revert with this kind of rationale again: "I don't know where you are getting these numbers, not from the source you provide." [10]

Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ediT: there is one more source for the israeli casualties, just go to the article. forgot to paste it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The MFA source says "1,177 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000", not from 2005 when the data would be relevant, and also is including 'terrorism' from the West Bank. The second source (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/content/T1.asp?Sid=18&pid=121), manually adding the numbers in the graphs, says 3638 rockets since 2005 and 2,428 mortars since 2005. The last source says: "Since 2001 rocket and mortar shell fire has been directly responsible for the deaths of 24 Israelis and the wounding of 620", again taking the numbers since 2001. I do not see where in your sources it shows over 100 Israelis killed since 2005. I also dispute you adding 'suicide bombings' for as far as I know the Israeli government has not brought that up in relation to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't include anything about 1,177. 100=1177? I know the difference between stabbing/shooting. Each source is loaded with numbers, you're paraphrasing from specific quotes. No, you added wrong - this is it (more or less):

417 968 1645 377 3278

The problem with these kinds of numbers, is unlike Hamas - who seem to be able to calculate numbers relatively quickly, Israel takes way longer and often times reputable sources come up with different numbers. So I simply put 6000 rockets and ~100 - less than 150 i know that, killed (edited) as that is acceptable. Specifics can be found elsewhere.

6,000 is the lowest possible estimate for rocket attacks, it's probably more but nothing verifies 8000 from the original source. And the original source didn't say 12 killed and dozens wounded. The original editor flat-out lied. Not all 3 sources verify every fact, but combined they verify the numbers. Read again and post your discrepancies specifically. I checked and double checked, either way, it's far more accurate than the previous version. Far.

I don't understand how that could remain for so long. It was one source, easy checking.

Oh, for the deaths from mortars/rockets/suicide - I simply added the briefing give on the first link. There is a long list of individual deaths, I simply added them all and subtracted the stabbings, shootings, anything non-mortar/missile/rocket from the total and it came to be roughly 100. Way more than 12. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

also, no more reverting to inaccurate numbers until this is resolved. I could be wrong specifics -wise (sources disagree), but the previous stats were downright false. Not even close to truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the following edit summary speaks volumes on wikifan's editing style "104 seems off based on the conflicting data, but it's more than a 100 and less than 150 so this seems like a reasonable compromise" This answers my question where did he get the numbers including the 104 from. His head.
Wikifan initially provided 2 sources, the pdf document from terrorism-info.org.il claims that 10 civilians were killed from mortar and shell fire from 2001-07 (although we are supposed to be counting from 2005) and I don't see any other fatality number in the pdf. The other source indicates that 40 people died from suicide bombings from 2005 until now. 40 + 10 doesn't equal 104. His post doesn't clarify where he got the number from, it just justified my revert. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I left the 6000 rockets/mortars part. The casualty numbers I find nowhere. Where are they in the sources? Please provide that information, as I have read through them all and cannot find anything. And you cannot just add up each name like that. Many of the names on the list are from attacks that originated in the West Bank, and also the suicide bombings have not been brought up by anybody in the Israeli government as regards this conflict. We put the rocket/mortars because Israel says stopping that is their intention in this campaign. Nableezy (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He's adding civilians AND military personnel(security forces). Cryptonio (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And anything that came from the West Bank and 'suicide attacks' which the Israeli government has not brought up as it relates to this conflict. And saying 'no more reverting to inaccurate numbers', sorry but I think that is exactly what you are doing. Nableezy (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Where and what is the military personnel number, Cryptonio? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Graph 1 - http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d9d90d845776b7af85256d08006f3ae9/be07c80cda4579468525734800500272!OpenDocument Cryptonio (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I checked the graph, I would still ask where wikifan got his numbers from. The graph isn't easy to read, but I assume that the number of Israelis civilians and IDF killed from 2005 is no more than 70 as indicated by that graph. My revert of his edit stands. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you Nab. Here:

This verifies rocket/shell/mortar/whatever numbers

this also verifies # of mortars, rockets, etc...it's not the same as terrorism.info, but not a huge difference. also verifies suicide attacks, which from 2005-2007 killed 40 according to the graph. dont know 2008 numbers.

This is a doosy, but here you go:

Deleted list per copyright violation - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm . Included link Cryptonio (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I read all of them, subtracted stabbings/shootings/anything not mortar/suicide/rocket/etc...and tallied. My figure came to be 104 but changed it to 100 to fit with Palestinian stats. It's 100 more or less, definitely more than 12.

third link is weird, says 24 people were directly killed from rocket attacks. However, it later says in bold "over 250 Israelis will have been killed or wounded by rocket or mortar shells by the end of 2008." I'm guessing this starts from 2001, so I didn't factor it in.

I could probably find more links to verify everything to 100% but all I wanted to do was correct the erroneous mistake/error/inaccuracy/etc...

Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And here is a source that has everything, all Israeli and Palestinian deaths that occurred in 'direct conflict related incidents': http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/POC_Monthly_Tables_October_2008.pdf;
According to this UN document, since 2005, 116 Israelis were killed, among them 30 soldiers. This counts everything in Israel and the oPt (it includes 35 Israelis killed in the West Bank). 1509 Israelis were injured in that time frame, among them 170 IDF soldiers and settlers in the West Bank, 612 total IDF soldiers, 688 total Israelis in the West Bank. During that time frame, 1735 Palestinians were killed in Israel and the oPt, among them 1333 in Gaza, 377 in the West Bank. 8308 total Palestinians were wounded, including 4960 in the West Bank, 3241 in Gaza.
I think this source breaks it down pretty nicely without needing to add up individual names. Nableezy (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Should we include suicide attacks?
  • Should we include military deaths by Israel?
  • Should we include numbers coming from the West Bank?
  • Should we include number of Palestinians arrested by Israel during this time period?
  • If Israeli military personnel is included, should we break down Palestinian numbers including children? Cryptonio (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should just use the numbers cited to the UN doc I linked above, and disregard anything that happened in the West Bank. Use their language 'direct conflict related incidents' and we come up with something like this:
Since 2005, 81 Israelis have been killed in Gaza and Israel in direct conflict related incidents, and 821 injured. 1333 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, 3241 injured. Nableezy (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Is that acceptable Wikifan? Nableezy (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Having trouble responding because of constant edit conflicts - Sounds good Nab, but other sources verify casualties were above 100+. Does the UN differentiate between killed by rockets/mortars and shootings/stabbings/whatever? I know many more have been killed when totaling up everything. I'd still leave the other sources there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
They just say 'direct conflict related' so I think so, but we avoid that by using their language. But the numbers seem close to your counting, but I would exclude the West Bank numbers on both sides. If you want to include them on both sides then that is also fine with me. Can we put this in and end this? Nableezy (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Crypt - yeah suicide attacks should be included, they account for the majority of deaths from what I know, and are simply another vehicle for attack by Hamas/Fatah whatever. Yes we should include military deaths for Israel since we do the same for the Palestinians. Yes, we include numbers from the West Bank because those are Israeli's...however, very few have been killed so I doubt it would make much of a difference. Arresting is iffy, remember - this is a general overview, no need to break everything down. I don't really understand your third - how does Israeli military personnel equate with children? Any Israeli killed by mortar/rocket/suicide regardless of origin, must be included. This is only a background, there are dozens if not hundreds of wikipedia articles that discuss these things in greater detail. All I wanted to do was correct the major error. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to include any Israeli casualty regardless of origin of attack, then we also need to include any Palestinian regardless of location of attack. I am cool either way as long as we are consistent with it. Nableezy (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Aren't we already doing that? Sources list all Palestinians death from every origin, not just the Gaza Strip. Also, for the Palestinians - were counting every fatality, from "targeting killings", etc...not just shells, mortar, rockets, for the Israelis. Shall we also count kidnapping murders, shootings, etc...to be fair with the Palestinians? Deaths would obviously go above the 100. Just want to maintain neutrality and balance here. Also, no need to detail every activity - "military operations" is fine. targeted killings, arrests, border incidents - all are the same. They are all military operations, saying more is redundant. This is just a background here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
"Between 2005 and the start of the 2008/2009 conflict, Palestinian groups killed over 100 civilians and military personnel, wounding more than 1300. [55][56][57] During this time period Israeli military operations caused the death of nearly 1100 Palestinian militants and civilians. [58][59]"
Looks good? Cryptonio (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Using the UN source we can get more info and better numbers than that. Here goes, including everything:
Between 2005 and late 2008, 116 Israelis were killed in Israel and the Palestinian Territories in direct conflict related incidents, 1509 injured. During this time, 1735 Palestinians were killed in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, 8308 wounded.
That cool with everybody? Nableezy (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That sounds wrong. According to the source, Israel numbers surprass 150 when counting the stories given by the site (someone deleted it here). I got 100ish excluding anything non-air related, and I know it's more than 116. Count again and see for yourself. Can you find another source to verify Palestinian casualties? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
All I have found that makes any type of distinction between pre and post-2005 is that source. Just look at the source and see if I am adding incorrectly. Nableezy (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Numbers will be fine. I am opposing including Israeli military personnel casualties. Cryptonio (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we have to, we do not have any source that says number of Palestinian civilians killed as opposed to militants. I think we have to give total Israeli and total Palestinian. Nableezy (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Crypt is constantly reverting sourced info and is becoming a poster child for WP:Point. Stop it, seriously. The sources clearly say the deaths are the result of mortar/suicide/rocket, not anything else. We have to differentiate. You added all these unnecessary details that simply fit the scope of military operations - excluding targeted killings which could include the mossaad and other sub-groups of the IDF but should be pointed out for safety sakes. But adding in border incidents, arrests, etc...all of which you added, is unnecessary and obviously violating WP:undue weight. please stop your reverts and edit warring, seriously man it's totally unproductive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, stop, you are both well past 3RR. Now wikifan, what is wrong with the sentences I placed above. The source does differentiate between 'direct conflict' and 'indirect conflict' I would add those as well but it only has Palestinian totals on 'indirect conflict' The numbers are in line with what you reported, taking out stabbings and such, the source is good, is there anything in those lines you do not like? Nableezy (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You want to be specific on what caused those deaths by the Palestinians. We need due weight as you said. Also included that in 2006 alone, Israel fired over 14,000 artillery shells into Gaza. Resulting in 59 casualties, most of them civilian. Rockets for rockets.
Also, "Since September 2000, of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces, whose status was known 7/, 59% were civilians and 41% were engaged in hostilities at the time of their death." It does not specify, what percentage of the total killed had their status identified. Plus "7/ This figure does not include a futher 964 Palestinians whose status was either unknown or who were the object of a targeted killing at the time of their death"
You don't know if ANY of the Palestinians killed between 2005 and 2007 were militians, since the source does not specify. Cryptonio (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't have to, simply citing 1% were non-friendlies is enough to include militants/hostiles/combatants whatever. Put just putting "Palestinians" is inaccurate. I added a story that mentioned a militant being killed within the time frame - either way, we're being nitpicky here. At least ONE palestinian killed was a militant, so listing militant is more than reasonable (sources verify). If this truly bothers you, put a citation needed, ill get the source..but seriously, the source says it. Also, nab are we counting the Palestinian deaths among the 400+ who were killed by Palestinians? - "More than twice as many Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians (415) in 2007 as were killed by Israelis (185." Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No we are not, I specifically did not count those casualties. Look at the source, it breaks it down by 'direct', 'indirect' and 'internal violence'. The direct is 216+678+396+445=1735. Cryptonio, I was about to write what he said on this, but ec. At least 1 militant was killed, nobody disputes this. We can just say Israelis, including IDF personnel, and Palestinians, including militants from various groups, or just say Israelis and Palestinians because that covers everything. But wikifan, we are not counting internal, and I even kept out 'disputed'. Nableezy (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And the causes dont need to be mentioned on either side, unless you want to mention them all. Just say during 'direct conflict incidents' and cite it to OCHA. Nableezy (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you both take a break from editing the article so someone (maybe you Nableezy) can sort out the background section? I have a tendency to trust Cryptonio because wikifan has a big problem with attributing information to sources in an incorrect way, so we should keep Cryptonio's version at the time being. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That wont work, 1 pro-Palestinian (a nicer description of me I think wikifan would approve of) making unilateral changes after 1 pro-Israeli and 1 pro-Palestinian (each according to the other) edit warred something with the pro-Palestinian's version being the starting point aint gonna fly with some. Just everybody chill, the article can be fucked up for an hour, and lets just figure it out on this page instead of the article. Nableezy (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok with Israelis and Palestinians. Also, i must insist in the number of shells fired by Israel. The number of rockets fired by Palestinians are included, why not the number of shells by Israelis? Cryptonio (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Who cares about the number of shells? Who has brought up the number of shells? The world press has reported the number of rockets, the world press takes notice of every single rocket launched, the Israelis have made that number relevant background. Not every single sentence and word has to be balance out by an opposite sides sentence or word. Nableezy (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
5 fucking edit conflict! Forgot to copy my paragraph explanaition but looks like Nab has it cover. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And we already talk about the reasons Hamas fires the rockets, that information is afforded space. We also dedicate more information to violations of international law by Israel because the sources report that in a much higher volume and with more incidents. Thats just how it goes. Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we please try to solve one problem at a time. Do either of you have any problems with this:
Between 2005 and late 2008, 116 Israelis were killed in Israel and the Palestinian Territories in direct conflict related incidents, 1509 injured. During this time, 1735 Palestinians were killed in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, 8308 wounded.
cited to this OCHA report? Nableezy (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm content with the current version (excluding Crypt shell inclusion). Israel sources conflict with UN. 116 is a nice round number, can we get more sources to verify (non-UN)? Sounds off from what I've looked up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The world press has not mentioned deaths as a result of suicide bombers as part of this conflict. Wikifan must understand that will bring a "sentence etc". Nableezy's proposition will be good for consensus and to avoid further edits by me. Cryptonio (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan other editors are pointing out that you are not editing this article based on sources, instead you are fighting to advance your position, by tirelessly seeking and synthesizing sources such that they might be made to appear to support what you want the article to say. I note here, you were cautioned and you were banned last summer, within days of setting up your single purpose account to push unwaveringly pro-Israeli positions, and you have already been warned repeatedly and also banned from editing this particular article. In light of this, I ask you to kindly desist from accusing other editors of being disruptive or unproductive. Enough is enough. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, Wikifan has not been banned from this particular article, to my knowledge only TundraBuggy. And while yes, he is concentrated on the WP:ARBPIA area, so are you. If Wikifan gets out of hand, he will be dealt with, however, this is not the first time I call on you to chill. If you are goign to go round admonishing people, have the common dencency of admonoshing those on yourr side once in a while. Pretty much everyone knows were pretty much everyone stands *yawn*. And yeah Wikifan, sources say so, we say so. Thats how it crumbles. --Cerejota (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, I saw Wikifan blocked on Feb 4, later lifted. I want to say that I don't belong to a "side," and I really wish fewer editors did, so we could focus on writing good articles. I won't go into who or what I am, but my bias is a pro-Wikipedia bias. RomaC (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

*ignores Roma rant *. : D I'm really confused here crypt: suicide bombings are a crucial part of this conflict and have been widely reported by world media, I don't know why you were arguing this. Second, Nab isn't siding with anyone here aside from disagreeing with your POV-push/"insisting" your inclusion of 14k arty shells must be wqie. I firmly believe you are on the edge of becoming a defining user for WP:POINT. Trust me, it's easy to obtain such distinction, but in spite of evidence and rationale provide you refuse to concede or compromise, ignoring every editors explanation including Nabs. And stop deleting sourced material, such as my revision to make distinctions between Palestinian civilian and soldier. There are two sources, one from the UN and one from PCHR. We use both for casualties throughout the article. You said there was no source issue, no you are saying this is a WP:Synth issue. This isn't plagarism, OR, it's simply proving militants and civilian Palestinians were killed, just as Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed. Stop edit waring. You have consistently failed to go to talk for your disputes, instead taking your issues out on the article. Roma, that is why I said crypts edits were disruptive, which they are. no need to poison the well to prove your point(s). I am no longer going to revert/edit any articles on background. Really not in the mood to get blocked, so I'll wait for Cerrejota/Tundra/more users to show up, then we can do this cordially with a consensus instead of blatant violations. So feel free to mess with it, I'm not going to revert. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I just made a change, pretty much based off my above proposal. Somebody doesnt like it do it what you want. But I think this is as neutral as we can make it, and as verifiable as we can make it. Nableezy (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Still disagree per post above but won't tamper until further editing. Crypt, please do not edit background unless it's grammar related. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok bossman. Cryptonio (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You know Wikifan, I'm going to give you a heads up. You took food from Cptnono's mouth(thinking you could do a better job, QUICKER, not understanding what he was doing). Food that not belonged to you. You shouldn't have oppose him when he and Nableezy were working on the Hamas/Fatah tug. When Cptnono himself was working out some things, did you even see an objection? I think not. You see, Cptnono came in and he filled the space that he understood was needed to be filled. And in the process, the opposing camp accepted him(even before his own camp did so). You took food from his mouth that did not belonged to you. You that came in with all the baggage you came in with. Then, you identified the alpha male in Nableezy and you totally blew it. The same Nableezy who is unchallenged here on this side of the aisle. Unchallenged because of the understanding that nobody is willing or able to do what he does. You took food from Cptnono's mouth, and now is beginning to eat your stomach. I'm telling you this, because in some people's eyes, Cptnono is appearing weak(because of you) and we have some people satisfied on this camp, but always willing to eat some more. I recommend you to give back what you took from Cptnono, because you won't survive out here with lieutenants like Tundra and Brew. Have you noticed the new "land" that was discovered today? You won't be able to farm it by yourself. Man, I tell you, I was just ready to enjoy myself the 'meetings' between Cptnono and Nableezy(fully understanding that Cptnono is more than capable). But you came in and took food that not belonged to you from Cptnono's mouth.
  • Stop attacking the UN(and the other organizations)
  • Stop defending arguments from your camp that has no traction(go ahead and submit a compromise, the FIRST TIME, not after you have been forced to do so.)
  • Stop edit warring. You get reverted, you must wait for someone from your camp to come in.
  • Stop taking food from Cptnono's mouth(from this camp, if he's strong, only one person is really needed to object him)
  • If you are patient, you'll eat, Cptnono will make sure of that.
  • Take Agada under your wings.
  • Continue receiving nourishment from Cerejota. No one is better equipped.
  • STOP group thinking. Believe in the Herd mentality.

Other than this, don't roam too far off the camp. There are wolfs everywhere. Cryptonio (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Eat my meat for it is good BWAHAHAHA. My primary concern has always been reducing the size of this bloated article and preventing it from being full of POV. If finding compromise with someone "from the other camp" is that much of a concern you should be working on another project because you will only make this article worse. You want to know what I did that was a little manipulative? I pushed as much as possible for Wikifan and Nableezy to find consensus on a previous discussion to see if it would be productive. It worked and although I have been a jerk to Wikifan it seemed like a good way to set everything straight. I assume you are a little butt hurt because for whatever reason you thought I disagreed about merging the Propaganda sections. How about instead of calling me out for these perceived offenses you stick to the subject, send it to my talk page, or knock it off. Stop being weird.Cptnono (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the article is bad, so i doubt i'll make it worse(on my own, anyways). Other than that, good looking out. Cryptonio (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Another heads up, UEFA IS ON!!!. Cheers! I've been excommunicated so I'm going to enjoy the match. Cryptonio (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, can I change the title of the section to "Falastine fee Qalby justifiably reverts Wikifan's inaccuracy"? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as how wikifan so disliked the sections naming him in the title i am changing it to background death/injured numbers as that is what is covered in this section. Hope you dont mind wikifan. Nableezy (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Cryptonio please beware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. I've been very forgiving over your attacks and hostility, mostly because I think it's hilarious but also I don't enjoy trials and bad-blood. Try to chill out a bit mmmkay? Hopefully I speak on behalf of everyone here. I do agree with cptnono that POV is a major concern, but the original mention of rockets/missiles were allowed to stay for months, I don't see the rationale in claming it needs to go now. I do not see the harm in adding a sentence clarifying the methods of attack, especially of an article of this importance. My opinion, again chill Crypt. It's just wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rockets and mortars are in. I don't see why suicide bombings can't be either.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, added source to verify. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The only rationale I see for not keeping in the suicide bombings was that it wasn't cited as a catalyst. Israel has referenced the bombings so I don't see what the concern is. Was there something else I missed in the above discussion (there was a lot to go over)? We don't need every number and name and place and date but simply stating "there were suicide bombings" isn't bad.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It was cited many times, at one point with 3 sources, but all that was removed and replaced with what is now the current section. Would you like to include your opinion on the new section titled "suicide bombings" created by wikifan12345? That would be very helpful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Background source update

Hey. I decided to make a new section since the other one was being cluttered. Hope that is ok.

After reading the UN report, I think we might have the Palestinian death toll off.

Here is the current version - background:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 116 Israelis, including civilians and IDF personnel, were killed in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents" and 1,509 were injured.[5] During this time, 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed while 8,308 were wounded from Israeli attacks.[5]

After doing the math on Table P3, page 8, Israel deaths 116 deaths have been reported according to the UN. However, does this include suicide bombings? 552 dead since 2001, 40 since 2005. UN doesn't specify so I'm just wondering. Also, the UN doesn't mention # of rocket attacks - we probably should use the source an editor removed (thinking Nab, no offense) to verify. And can we also include suicide bombings? Rocket attacks/missiles shouldn't account of all casualties, since some were the result of suicide bombings. It is false to omit sbings but still keep original stats.

I still believe we should use Israel stats, since the UN is reporting off Palestinian sources. Is that fair? anyways, good job with the paragraph for now...but we should axe missiles/rockets/suicide bombings until a source can verify. I don't the UN does specifically. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It does include suicide bombings, it also includes Palestinians who have killed themselves during these suicide bombings (I believe the doc says 8 Palestinians). And I kept the rockets source that you used. And the UN is not reporting off of Palestinian sources, those numbers are from their investigations and use Israeli and Palestinian information. Nableezy (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
But I say we dont include anything beyond 'direct conflict related incidents' for the wording of the how these people died. Nableezy (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
UN doesn't explicitly say where they got their info. "Palestinian information" is Palestinian sources. Israel hasn't had any political influence over the region excluding Fatah and the occasional spy, and I know their numbers have always conflicted with the UN's. I know you kept the rocket source, but the UN link doesn't say method of attacks...or detailed x number of rockets shot. Can I add in the original IDF link (which verifies # rockets, missiles, suicide bombings) to support the info? Without it, we should delete the # of rockets fired unless the UN states it somewhere in the source which I can't find. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
They are two separate pieces of information. The number of rockets is cited to the terrorism-info.org.il citation. We do not say how many people died from rockets, we just say how many people died from any type of violence 'in direct conflict related incidents'. And the UN report explicitly says where the info is from:
The information used to compile the Weekly Briefing Notes comes from a range of sources compiled by OCHA field teams1 in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Typically, the OCHA field teams receive an initial incident report from a source, which is verified through visits to the incident site in addition to further corroboration with a third source, such as an NGO.
Each week the following sources are used to compile the Weekly Briefing Notes:
Physical protection: OCHA field teams, Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), World Health Organization (WHO), Israel Defence Forces (IDF) website, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website, offices of Palestinian Authority (PA) governors, Palestinian District Civilian Liaison (DCL).
Shelter and property: OCHA field teams, UNRWA, Palestinian DCL.
Access and Movement for Civilians: Palestinian DCL, Christian Peacemakers Team (CPT).
Curfews: OCHA field teams, Village Councils, UNRWA, Palestinian DCL.
Additional Protection issues: OCHA field teams, UNRWA, United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS), UNSCO, Palestinian DCLs, Palestinian Governors’ offices, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, IDF website.
They are getting the info from a variety of sources, including the IDF, and are manually verifying and using another third party verification as well. If you want to take out the number of rockets and mortars launched go ahead, I thought you wanted that info, but that isnt cited to OCHA it is cited to terrorism-info.org.il which I believe you added. Nableezy (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
again, no information is explicitly attributed to every kill/injury. UNRWA is almost entirely comprised of Palestinians volunteers, as is PRCS, PA, and virtually every other source excluding the trickles of Israel orgs which they are obligated to include. On another note - is the terrorism.info still there? I only saw one citation, and that was the UN one. No, I would like the numbers of rockets/mortars included, it was sourced after all until someone removed the citations and replaced them with one UN source. Can I put the sources back in so we can attribute facts accordingly? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to explicitly attribute information to ever kill/injury. We use exactly what they say "direct conflict related incidents". We are not including each suicide bombing because it hasnt been brought up as background to this conflict, and if you want to include that we are going to have to include the the number of individual attacks by the Israelis. What has been brought up as background to the conflict is the number of rockets from Gaza. And the terrorism-info.org.il is in there and used as a cite. We do not say that all 116 were killed by rockets. Nableezy (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

terrorism-info.org.il is not an secondary RS and should be used with extreme caution as it is a partisan website.--Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated with an IDF number, 7200 cited to http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/03/rocket-statistics-3-jan-2009/ Nableezy (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I said I wasnt going to report you for edit warring yesterday, but keep it up today. Nableezy (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring, one revert without summary is NOT edit warring. Section made. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thats why I said keep it up. The number of rockets launched is relevant background as Israel has said that was a cause for this action. The stated objective is stopping the rockets. The suicide bombings have barely been brought up in the sources, there is no reason to add that. And if you want to keep adding stuff like that dont expect the section to start detailing individual targeted assassinations, individual rockets and shells fired by Israel and things of that nature. The death numbers include all casualties. On both sides. I am not going to argue about the accuracy of the numbers because they come from 'Palestinians volunteers' that work for member institutions of the ICRC and the UN. I am not having that discussion with you. But as far as the suicide bomber line, show how it is relevant background to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you put this in the new section below? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Who don't like Casualties

Wikif I'm writing this here because I see that you are simultaneously challenging the casualty figures in the casualty section, and opposing casualty figures in the lead, and working to remove the casualties figures chart. I don't want to argue in three places, so here's my question: Where do you think casualty figures should appear in this article? (Aside from the infobox, which is a sort of sidebar, but in the article proper.) Also, on casualty figures, what sources do you accept and what sources do you reject? Inquiring minds want to know. RomaC (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(I thought we weren't going to mention people in the headers anymore) I am not wikifan, but obviously in the casualties section. However disputed, the RS have not made much of the dispute outside of Israel, so WP:UNDUE is all there, so methinks wikifan barks up the wrong tree on that. I have always consistently opposed both inclusion in the lead as figures (although not entirely as a narrative, ie "the have been casualties") and the graph with the casualties, but for different reasons: 1) the infobox is like the lead a quick palce to get a glance, so it is redundant to have the info in both the elad and the infobox 2) the graph is a sucky piece of unverifiable SYNTH. --Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
RomaC, sufficient reasoning was provided to remove the chart. These aren't "my casualties" as stated by your awesome title (it is my glorious name after all), but please. All the information is sourced and cited throughout the article, both in the infobox and casualty listings. If you want to make a chart that recognizes all casualty information like some users have suggested, feel free to. But please don't try spinning this as yet another one of your wikifan hate rants. I'm seriously going to die from laughter. Repeating highly-debated argument to chance another *consensus* is definitely a violation of something. We as users don't get to accept/reject sources as you ask, we apply RS and apply wikipedia rules to sift through the crap. Again, the dispute isn't with sources, but lack of recognizing information. Next time you want to make a section about me take it up at the noticeboards. I've been extremely forgiving with the attacks between you and crypt, but if it continues I will be obligated to do something. Simply a caution Roma. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just saw that, last time mentioning 'Wikifan' in a section title I promise. I know Cerej, you argued back in the early days that in the article proper, you support having the casualty figures only in the casualties section. I recall the consensus was to have a brief note of total casualties in the lead, as casualties largely define human cost of the conflict -- morbid, but can you agree that with no death and destruction, there would be no article? The casualties section is more than 2/3 of the way down in the body of the article, a reader should not have to plow through for so long to find this information, except maybe to get details/breakdowns, which require more space.
I also hope to hear from other editors and especially Wikifan on this, because I want to know how he proposes to balance his apparent bias (lotsa Palestinian deaths makes Israel appear brutal) with his obligations as a Wiki editor (reflect the realities of the conflict, which is that lotsa Palestinians were killed). IMO, which means little of course, Wiki's conflict of interest policies should relate to those advancing not only corporate agenda but also a political agenda -- anyway, I am taking a deep breath, and I want to learn how we might work with this. RomaC (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You made a section concerning my casualty edits, now you're trying to make this a trial. You have an issue? Go to noticeboards. We can race and see who gets there first. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wiki, if you think I've attacked you I'm sorry. I am trying to be patient with an editor who has a clear point of view and whose every edit seems aimed at the promotion of a political agenda. I realize that at present that is not against Wiki policies such COI above, so I am trying to figure out how I (we) should deal with you. You one one of, if not the most active editors on this page. Compounding the challenge is that you are articulate and intelligent, so I repeat: In your perfect article on the "Gaza War," where would casualty information appear? Lead? Bottom 1/3rd? RomaC (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Where was cerejota when wikifan (who is under cerejota's wing apparently) dedicated a section to me last night? Cerejota is defending wikifan across this talk page and not commenting on wikifan's hostile behavior and bad editing. Makes me wish I had warmed up to cerejota so he could defend me the way he does wikifan :(. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed the title of the section. If wikifan did it, doesn't mean the rest have to. it's offending, IMO. Cryptonio (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed the title of the section. Would not want to offend. 18:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality/factual accuracy disputed.

Not sure who put the tags up there, but as per Wiki rules there should be an explanation. If the explanation is somewhere out there, can it please be moved to this section? thanks in advance. Cryptonio (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion a couple of days ago, several actually. Cerejota can link you or you can search the talk. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, but a section on this must be opened. Cryptonio (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? We already had this discussion, several times, less than 4 days ago. This talk alone is evidence for the dispute tags, as is the wealth of arguments and sources provided to verify such claims. I wasn't involved so much in the tag-inclusion so talk to Cerejota and Tundra, they're the ones who came to a compromise if I recall. Feel free to make continue the section but I don't see the purpose of it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
That we disagree isn't a dispute. Its you.


Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

I've read the past discussion, and it seems as if Beta was who claimed this tag(s).

Here are his reasons, i suppose. Which hopefully further addressing will be provided rather sooner, because nothing specific was pointed to.

I know that you all know this. That's why the activediscuss tag is there. But the activediscuss tag is sterile; this article isn't simply being "developed", it is being used for POV purposes.

The article is not neutral because it is being edited in a POV fashion. What possible other reason could there be for a lack of neutrality? The tag is to flag the lack of neutrality, not the act of editing in a POV fashion.

Everybody agrees that the article is not neutral.

The article is not neutral.Cptnono

Personally, I think the neutral tag should be on this article. It simply states the neutrality is disputed. Clearly it is; those both for and against Israels attack think the article is biased against their viewpoint. Jandrews23jandrews23

Also, there is no balance in the talk. It is extremely one-sided, and we know which side that is. I'm not trying to build walls but it's true, so we should stop kidding ourselves and face the facts if we want to get things done. This talk is far from productive and I know I'm part of the problem, which is why I won't edit anything major without a strong and FAIR consensus....lol. Good luck hehe. Wikifan12345

The neutrality tag is fine. I hate too much junk but it makes sense. Both ask the reader to look at the article with care but for different reasons. A tag at the top is better than tags over each section since neutrality swings wildly throughout the article.Cptnono

My feeling is that further tags are required - the article is, in parts, poorly written and generally crapulent. I know we've all put effort into it but you know it's true. There are significant enough flaws to warrant substantial rewriting - if anybody could be bothered. Some of the tags that this article deserves: -{cleanup-rewrite}-, -{weasel}}-, -{COI}}-, -{unbalanced}}-, and especially -{Disputed}}-. The latter because it is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral; facts are in serious dispute. At this stage I think it is crucial that readers understand that the article, as it stands, is unacceptable. The activediscuss "in development" wording doesn't even begin to describe what's wrong with this article.

Tags will be removed when it can be proven that the issues do not exist. Until then, there is a prima facie case for their inclusion. Relevant tags do not favour one side and they are totally unobjectionable. Betacrucis

Absolutely. Totally agree with Betacrucis on this and his reasoning. Tundrabuggy


Why?--Cerejota

Because it isn't: the article is already clearly tagged as non-neutral. And yes, I am asking "why" he agrees, I am interested in the reasoning etc. Perhaps a solution would be the use of -{article issues}}-: why I do not want this is because it will mean five tags cluttering up the article, when there are clear alternatives that the community has devleoped precisely for these issues. You people are making it into a WP:BATTLE, when it isn't: it is about common sense. --Cerejota



These are the "quotes" that I found relevant on this discussion...with this one being the best "descriptive".

My feeling is that further tags are required - the article is, in parts, poorly written and generally crapulent. I know we've all put effort into it but you know it's true. There are significant enough flaws to warrant substantial rewriting - if anybody could be bothered. Some of the tags that this article deserves: -{cleanup-rewrite}}-, -{weasel}}-, -{COI}}-, -{unbalanced}}-, and especially -{Disputed}}-. The latter because it is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral; facts are in serious dispute. At this stage I think it is crucial that readers understand that the article, as it stands, is unacceptable. The activediscuss "in development" wording doesn't even begin to describe what's wrong with this article.

Tags will be removed when it can be proven that the issues do not exist. Until then, there is a prima facie case for their inclusion. Relevant tags do not favour one side and they are totally unobjectionable. Betacrucis


  • Poorly written
  • Crapulent?
  • The article is not neutral because it is being edited in a POV fashion
  • facts are in serious dispute
  • is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral

Since those other tags are not currently on, i will not include them. Any suggestions on how to address these concerns? Cryptonio (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Poorly Written

Section on how to work out this concern.

Solutions to fix "Poorly written"

1)

2)

3)

4)

Crapulent

Section on how to work out this concern.

TO fix crapulent

1)

2)

3)

4)

"crapulent" means something else, no? RomaC (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is not neutral because it is being edited in a POV fashion

Section on how to work out this concern. Cryptonio (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How not to edit in a POV fashion?

1)

2)

3)

4)

Facts are in serious dispute

Section on how to work out this concern. Cryptonio (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Facts that are disputed

1)

2)

3)

4)

is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral

Section on how to work out this concern. Cryptonio (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

selection of information that is non-neutral

1)Concern with quote selection: Refer to Talk:Address to UN President/councilKinetochore (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)  Done Cryptonio (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2)

3)

4)

One more problem. While doing an accuracy check, I already found a copyright violation within minutes. Anyone would like to admit responsibility? Maybe then we can correct whatever edits you made and educate you on the rules of Wikipedia's citation policy. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How is that a copyright violation? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I readded the info so I could find the source and review any alleged "plagiarism." The source is not in the sentence reference so I had to re-add it, just give me a minute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This was taken from the Washington Independent (not BBC as I mistakenly said in the edit summary) article: wrote in The Jerusalem Post that there is “almost no comparable example” anywhere in the world today of a group that so systematically violates international agreements regulating armed conflict as Hamas. This is not a quote from Cotler, and it wasn't placed is quotation marks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It clearly is the opinion of Cotler. Perhaps the quotations were used to emphasize words, but from my POV that is a statement made by Cotler. Is it the writer's? No. If plagiarism is your concern, go ahead and paraphrase, rearrange sentences, or whatever but deleting information according to such a questionable excuse is a mistake. We want to avoid writing the article by our beliefs so if the section uses the source word-for-word, put a "according to x source" with Cotler 4 word quotation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It is required by policy to delete copyright violations. If you want that information, you fix it, it is not my responsibility to paraphrase the information. Don't just restore the violation and expect me to do the work. I don't even think it is necessary for the article so for me to make an effort for it is out of the question. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I fixed it the best I could. I restored the violation so I could fix it, I said that so calm down lol. Thanks for bringing this up though. Cotler had a much larger opinion on the conflict so I included his quotes in the section and deleted the one you considered plagiarized. Wouldn't have noticed it, and the original source was rather lacking in notability IMO. Cheers!
I am sorry to say but your recent edit must be reverted because "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". Please revert your edit. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I will just revert to the version before I removed the copyrighted text and then I will fix it. It would be much better than the extensive quotation of copyrighted text. Also it is too much attention given to a non-notable. Furthermore, this article is not a polemic, try to keep it as NPOV as possible. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I decided to keep one of the quotes that you provided instead since you removed the one that was contested first. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not debating this "copyright" rationale, but the entire paragraph is basically quotation and a word-for-word statement by Cotler. He is being interviewed by Jpost, he released his opinions to a recognized-media organization, whether it is copyrighted or not is totally irrelevant. 95% of all quotions in this article are "copyrighted", but as long as there is a source and no OR, POV-pushing, or "plagiarizing", there is no reason to delete. I'm not denying your sincerity here, but I encourage you to speak with more a experienced and objective user like User:Cerejota. 2 sources provided, quotation given, no commentary by any user or even the interviewer. If you have any more disagreements, which I'm certain you still do, hold off on the reverting for now and wait for Cerejota or more users to come in and offer their opinion. You're claim is copyright violation, correct? We can debate that. In terms of NPOV, he is an "expert" in this subject, whether his views are controversial don't really matter. We could apply the same reasoning to Falk, who is by far one of the most POV and opinionated "experts" in this article. May I reiterate, please please refrain from further reverting. A couple more and it may constitute an edit war, and that is never pretty. This isn't particularly a "crucial" section IMO, and again my edits are sourced and simply expand on the original quotation which I also corrected a few inaccuracies. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah this is not a copyvio. Its a fair-use of a media statement. Its how all content in wikipedia is developed. However, this article is not about Hamas, so I do not see the relevancy of the quote here.--Cerejota (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)  Done Cryptonio (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
But it is undue weight for one persons opinion. We are almost quoting the entire interview, I kept one quote and removed the rest. Nableezy (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I will ask admin Moonriddengirl, she seems more familiar with copyright policies than any of us here. But I would support deletion because it is undue weight given to one person. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
In brief, I agree that this material does not meet our non-free content criteria. For an explanation of why, please see here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Responded. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
So I assume now this is resolved. We can establish that lazy-ass writing (stringing together quotations) is not cool and the version we have now is okay. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't ok but it should be resolved soon. The version we have is woefully understated and there is a wealth of information to further explain Cotler's position in a non-copyright/fair use violating way. Much of what he say is agreed upon by the IDF in the later paragraph, a notable expert verifying a governments opinion is certainly notable. Similar to Falk verifying the angst of the Arab League...hehe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Falk is not given a fraction of weight that you want to give to Cotler's position. Again, undue weight shouldn't be given to this one person, the one sentence that we have up suffices. Even Cerejota doesn't find the quote relevant and you were the one who asked him for his opinion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? falk, abbas, sourani, all laughable characters IMHO epitomize the classic wikipedia triple threat. They all basically have the same general opinion, and together their weight far surprasses the Palestinian section by 4 paragraphs. My intend on expanding Cotler's opinion was to compensate for the obvious imbalance. As I said, the undue weight argument is moot for reasons provided at Moon's talk discussion, which I assumed was where this conservation was going to stay. Cerejota never said he didn't find the quote relevant, and neither did you. You said this was a copyright/free-use, relevance is indisputable. He comments the legality of Hamas' actions in Gaza, in all the quotes none stray away from the topic as far as I know. I plan on crafting an alternative paraphrased/trimmed/appropriate quotation/non-plagiarized paragraph with Moon reviewing said paragraph before posting. Waiting for her response, however. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it relevant, that does not mean we put everything the man said. We also use Cordesman and others, each organization is given its proper weight. We are not putting all of what one person had to say in here. Nableezy (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
this isn't everything he said, the original quotes were a fraction of the total interview. There are mountains of commentary from Cotler regarding this war, and considering how unbelievably lacking the current Palestinian section is, I'm hoping some people might be willing to help me out here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
But lets say we wanted to include a similar portion of everything Falk has said about this, would that be all right with you? Due weight isnt necessarily equal weight, the quotes of Falk, as he represents the UN, have gotten considerably more weight than what Cotler, who is a former president of the Jewish Canadian Congress (i think thats what the article said) has said throughout the world. We cannot give more weight to what this man has said as compared to what Holmes has said. Nableezy (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Am I reading the same talk page as you? What did Cerejota mean by "However, this article is not about Hamas, so I do not see the relevancy of the quote here" I thought he meant this article is not about Hamas so he does not see the relevancy of the quote here. But I will let him clarify his position if he wishes. There is also the problem of undue weight. Still, not those three combined is given the undue attention that you wish to give to Cotler. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you link me to that quote? Seems rather out of context considering the article IS about Hamas. You keep saying there is the problem of undue weight, and I explained why that is true, but to a different extent. Feel free to explain to me the problem of "undue" weight according to your perspective. Why was your original excuse for deletion plagiarism and not undue weight? Understand, eventually we'll have to supplement the Palestinian section with something so hypothetically speaking, if you trying to initiate some sort of roadblock I don't think it will work. I'm not questioning your motivates but this talk has experienced its fair share of drama. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, the problem it seems to me is that editors often appear to want to give equal weight/space to the allegations of violations of international law against both belligerents when in fact the emphasis in the major relevant RS is heavily weighted towards allegations against Israel. WP:DUE seems to provide clear guidelines under these circumstances. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I know the guidelines, and sourcing isn't an issue. I'm trying to expand the Palestinian section, it makes sense considering the amount of information available and the blatant imbalanced when compared to the Israel section. The major "relevant" sources mostly come from the UN, or members of the UN, or those who belong to some form of government, or experts who are known to take a stance to against Israel. We cannot pass off these views as impartial or objective by gift-wrapping with legal conclusions, these are allegations at best, saturated and zealous opinions at worst, nothing less and nothing more. The problem may be undue weight from your perspective, but I see the much greater problem - a clear and rather odd imbalance of criticism. 7+ paragraphs for Israel and a little less than 3 for Palestinians. And the Israel is compounded with more details and emotive quotations, while the Palestinian section defines standard and unnecessarily ordinary considering the circumstances. I was originally against the whole legal section or merging it into it's own article cause I knew it would be prone to these kinds of arguments. The entire legal argument rests solely on the GC, which, oddly enough might not even apply in this war, or so I've heard. Anyways, whatever happens I do plan and hope to expand the Palestinian section according to information available. I think the 1st paragraph in Israel/International Law could use a grammar cleaning, especially with the opening sentence and repetitive use of Falk and weirdly separated quotations. Not sure who put in the final tag with [Humanitarian Law, but it doesn't seem sourced though it is obviously a valid conclusion based on the opinions of cited notables. I believe we cannot make that conclusion simply based on how polarized the conditions are or even humanitarian law applies in a legal sense for this situation. And, the whipping out of said law is unfair considering how friggin huge and lengthy it. Many commentators have picked out various clauses that support Israel's massacre..errr...war, whatever you call it, while others have drawn completely opposite conclusions. The sentence appears to be more assertive than it should be, there must be some clarification here IMO. Again, this won't lead to a consensus so like my other response, please create a new section or move this convo to it. It's hard to navigate through this talk page with random discussions LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It gets really frustrating when you don't pay attention to the conversation. This is plagiarism and this is extensive use of quoted copyrighted text and undue weight, if you go over the conversation we had, you will know that this was my stance from the beginning.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
How about this: Much of what Cotler says is fluff which boils down to accusing Hamas of committing war crimes by claiming they targeted civilians, attacked from civilian areas, and recruited minors to fight. You know it is that easy to condense 7 sentence of fluff into one concise sentence. Are you willing to accept this as a compromise? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It gets really frustrating when you don't even recognize simple sentences. I bolded them for you. It is plagiarism but not to black-marker extent. I did not put the "plagiarized" statement there, you TOTALLY removed it and I had to re-add something to replace the "plagiarism." I wanted to make sure no more accusations of "plagiarism" occurred, then you said undue weight blah blah, deleted...that's fair, but don't spin the truth here. Nothing is fluff, this are all individual points and like most things in this articles they are accusations, though I'm sure you dispute that. : ) Can you condense using human as shields, inflating casualties by launching rockets in close proximity to homes (on top of a home, for example), and using children for military purposes into a single sentence? And most importantly, citing specific legal documents (as Cotler cites them) to support the statements? Can you? We did it for Israel. And since we are using Abbas' opinion on the legal argument Mahmoud Abbas, then I'm sure we can plug in some nutty ultra nationalist leader or current heads of states in Israel for the Palestinians. Correct? It needs balance and I'm just trying to find it. So can you help me instead of accusing everything I do as against the rules? I've done everything in GF, most of the time I don't even edit articles without going to talk unlike most users here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I put something related to this in the "I have a solution" section. Sorry it is so scattered. This page is so big and confusing. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, if this does continue though I hope we make a separate section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we documenting specifics issues within this article that supports the tags? we should move forward rather sooner, if the case warrants, to remove those tags and leave the only tag that has been on this article since its beginning. which is that the neutrality of the article is being disputed. Cryptonio (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I inserted that tag awhile back and it was promptly removed. It was then replaced with a more descriptive tag (i.e, factual disputes, weasel words, etc..) I think the current tag is perfectly fine. Factual accuracy is a major dispute considering how polarized and unreliable many of the sources are (specifically those who gather info from Hamas), but we are still expected use them. Neutrality has been disputed since day one, searching through this talk will verify that. Not so sure on weasel words though...that can be tricky depending on POV, especially in an article like this. We've had several consensus about this so I think it would be premature to remove the tag without right now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons"

SPECIFICS in order to fix them...got it?

Cryptonio (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to fix, this isn't a math equation. the tag has been argued to death several times and many examples were given, search for it. I wasn't involved in most of them. If anything, you should point out why the article doesn't need the tag. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous. It doesn't need to be there because there are no specifics being noted in this section where there is space for "Facts that are disputed". Besides, you weren't the one who put the tag on, so... Cryptonio (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
And I think you are a little lost. If you are referring, for example, to the Casualties figures, the figures are being disputed WITHIN the conflict itself, and within the article, there is mention that such an occurrence is ongoing as PART of the conflict. The numbers are not being disputed in the sense that, the figures given in the article, are wrong and should not be included in the article. Important aspect which i doubt you'll be able to grasp. Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the energy for this. Message tundra, Cerejota, Nab, anyone else...but please, I'm done here. You win. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for keeping the section alive. Cryptonio (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a jillion reasons for the disputed tag. Casualty figures are just the beginning. We have "start date", name, Pal Ministry of Health name, psych warfare, inclusion of Shalit, photographs etc etc etc etc. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Spare me your logic. simply state here what is your compromise to these issues. for example, you would like to add Gaza to the ministry of health? and that Hamas uses that office to inflate casualties figures?(this, as in, information you would like to add to the section).

Start Name.

Ministry of Health.

Casualties figures.

Propaganda psychological warfare.

Shalit.

No logic, proposal.(meaning changes that you expect for everyone to agree to. be bold) Cryptonio (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties in the Lead

I notice that information on casualties has been removed from the lead. This is troubling, the article certainly should have an estimate or ranges in the lead. RomaC (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, casualties in infobox and section. We need a lead that is cleaner.--Cerejota (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree, the casualties have gotten more press than any other part of this conflict. How can we not include that, one line on the casualties could hardly add to the clutter. Nableezy (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Casualties are central to a conflict, actually it could be said that they are what, in effect, define a conflict, and this is evidenced in the media coverage of this event. If brevity is our concern, consider that in the article now, references to Hamas "rockets" or "mortars" number five in the lead's first three paragraphs alone. Trimming this repetition would free up enough room for "Between 1,200 and 1,324 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the conflict." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomaC (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 February 2009
Sign your posts. Casualties are disputed, IDF says ~950 have died. Infobox verifies dispute. Using such certainty in a lead is a clear violation of NPOV and possibly OR though I'm not sure. It boils down to Hamas's math vs. Israel's, and the article emphasizes this to an extent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, when I read "references to Hamas "rockets" or "mortars" number five in the lead's first three paragraphs alone. Trimming this repetition.." etc I assumed you had written this and I was going to award you a barnstar...then I saw "Sign your posts"....D'OH! Sean.hoyland - talk 04:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan you are wrong. The IDF says they have already identified 1200 of what they say are 1338 casualties:
Basing its work on the official Palestinian death toll of 1,338, Levi said the CLA had now identified more than 1,200 of the Palestinian fatalities
in a JPost article used in the casualties section. How can you identify 1200 fatalities if there are only 950? Nableezy (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
So propose "Between 1,200 and 1,338 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the conflict." Succinct and shows the range that the various estimates fall into. I think the casualty count in this conflict has attracted so much media attention is because it is unbalanced by a factor of two, anyway a survey of prominent sources reveals that the figures are absolutely notable enough to make the lead in an article about the event. Sorry Wikifan, I forgot to sign my last post. And, in your reminder to me, you used the imperative. You did not use the magic word. RomaC (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confusing total casualties with militant/soldier/terrorist/freedom fighter numbers. The major dispute is civilian casualties. Casualties in lead should emphasize the difference between combatant and civilian disputes. 1200+ palestinians vs 13 dead Israeli looks a lot better for Hamas than 950 terrorists vs 10 Israeli soldiers. I can see the motivations to avoid such details...; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is covering anything up, but we also wont accept as fact whatever Israel says on the numbers just because they say it. Nableezy (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Did I say to accept it as fact? No. I simply said emphasize should be put on differentiating between civilian and militant/whatever according to their respected sources. 1200+ Palestinians is misleading if it doesn't list the combatant count. It would be unprecedented to not make such a distinction in the lead. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is saying not to include the civilians as well, but both sets should be included, with a something like this (almost taken verbatim from casualties section, probably be reworked to cover less space):
The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health has stated that 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians. [6] The Palestinian Center for Human Rights puts the death toll at 1,285 with 895 civilians deaths.[6] The IDF stated that Israel has identified 1,200 Palestinian fatalities, of which 300 were identified as noncombatants.[7]. 13 Israelis were killed, 3 civilians.
. . . Nableezy (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is PCHR given verbatim but not IDF? We should do this by the book IMO. Also "IDF stated that Israel.." is redundant. Crafting a paragraph can be done in due time, but this whole argument has been carried with a major flaw and it must be recognized by everyone that the lead should include detailed statistic disputes, not "1300 pal/13 israeli's." Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to say that the IDF has identified 300 women, children under 16 and men over 65 that would be fine with me. How would you craft the IDF sentence? The IDF stated that they have identified . . .? The only person who sees such a flaw is you, nobody said it should not include the dispute on numbers, nobody said any one set of numbers should be accepted as fact and the only word. I dont even know what you are complaining about, does my example, with minimal tweaks, not meet your requirements? Nableezy (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. The IDF has identified ~300 civilian dead out of and estimated 1200-1300 Palestinians. Don't need to be hostile, I just won't respond. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasnt being hostile, you asked why the IDF was not quoted verbatim, I asked if you wanted them quoted verbatim. And my question stands, is there anything in the proposed wording, with minimal tweaks, would not be acceptable to you? Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This: "The only person who sees such a flaw is you" is hostile. I don't care if they're quoted verbatim, but it neutral to cite IDF and Pal stats in the same way if options allow.

Your version: The Palestinian Center for Human Rights puts the death toll at 1,285 with 895 civilians deaths.[6] The IDF stated that Israel has identified 1,200 Palestinian fatalities, of which 300 were identified as noncombatants.[7]. 13 Israelis were killed, 3 civilians.

For starters, we shouldn't use PCHR in comparison to Israel. We should quote Hamas numbers specifically, those given by Health Minister of the Palestinian National Authority as said here. Second, "IDF stated that Israel..." Is redundant. We can say "IDF has identified blah blah blah." Or in my phrasing, IDF has calculated (or determined, concluded, identified, whatever) 1200 Palestinian casualties, of which 300 were classified as civilian (synonymous with noncomb)." Have we come to a consensus that this should be even put in? The info box says it loud and clear and the casualty section is more than enough IMO. Half of the article is about blown up bodies anyways. I'm personally against including any numbers in the lead without a strong consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt realize you were so sensitive, I apologize for the offense caused. But the fact is that you have been arguing against nobody on that point, and then say that this discussion started on a flawed concept, no the discussion started because there was not any mention on the casualties in the lead besides saying they are disputed. I would be fine with MoH numbers without the PCHR numbers. And I would oppose saying 'The IDF identified' as they say they have identified, by putting it like that you are giving the impression that it is fact that the IDF numbers are accurate and correct. That is why I said they say they identified. Nableezy (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm not "so sensitive", but I truly am tired of your constant need to poison the well when things don't go your way. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Is there something wrong with my NPOV example? What point have I not been arguing against?? I responded to your post, all what of it was relevant and notable. It wasn't an empty conservation, I don't know what you were reading but please look again. I don't care what you would be fine with, I'm simply telling you what is NPOV. You would never use Amnesty International numbers against US military numbers, get it? There is nothing wrong with saying "IDF has identified", that's a true statement. They have identified, what should be put? "IDF says Israel identified" is redundant. It's like saying United Military says United States has identified a bazillion etc etc... Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Poison the well? wtf is wrong with you? My way? I dont even need to respond to that. But I just said I did not need to put the PCHR numbers. The imaginary point you were arguing was that we should only put up one set of numbers or that we should not say total/civilian for each side. Nobody made that argument. Now, if you can stop crying for 2 seconds, is there anything wrong with what I wrote without the PCHR numbers. And yes I would put AI numbers against US numbers, I cannot see how it non-NPOV to do so, <sarcasm>but as you are obviously a beacon of neutrality Ill just take your word for it.</sarcasm> Nableezy (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And Israel says they have identified these people, nobody else has accepted that identification. That is why Israel says they have identified is NPOV and saying Israel has identified represents the Israeli POV. Nableezy (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally like "Between 1,200 and 1,338 (or maybe even "at least 1,200) Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the conflict". Terrorists, freedom fighters, babies, clowns, little people, or any other data necessary data is in the casualties section. Cptnono (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that by stating the numbers by who is giving them we imply that the numbers are disputed, and that dispute is dealt with in the casualties section. Just giving the range doesnt show any type of dispute in the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
We can save a couple lines by not mentioning the three sources or we can add a line about the disputed numbers. It will only be a difference of 1 sentence it looks like so not a big deal either way.Cptnono (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Giving such a general range gives an extremely negative impression. We must differentiate between soldier and civilian according to their sources or they shouldn't be put in. Point me to an article without such a distinction. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, with the removal of the PCHR numbers, is there anything you object to in what I wrote above? Nableezy (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed the range alone belongs in the lead with a breakdown including controversies, classification and other details in the relevant section lower in the article and/or over in the infobox. RomaC (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Nab you wouldn't put AI estimates against US estimates. You would put US estimates vs. whoever country she is fighting. Right? Ok. Still disagree with the inclusion. It promotes an unnecessary POV where two additional sentences could clarify easily. 13 Israeli vs 1300+ Palestinians should not be in the lead, it should carry the disputed stats and separation between civilian and terrorist/soldier/evil zionist/etc.... We already have the stats in the info box anyways, as well as several paragraphs dedicated to the casualty figures and their disputes. None of the previous conflicts have numbers in the lead: 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict, and 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. No precedent has been set, I don't see a rule that requires this, and I don't see any compelling arguments. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would put all 3, 2 of which would be clearly biased, while AI would be presumptively unbiased. Nableezy (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well of course you would put all eventually, every notable source with numbers deserves some place. But in a lead, or anywhere, you would never contrast an advocacy organization against a sovereign country specifically. Get it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would. I would put the AI numbers ahead of any others, with each sides own numbers after that. The contrast would be between the 2 sides, and that together would be contrasted against a neutral observer's numbers. And yes, in the lead I would do that. But unlike you (I dont actually know for certain what you think of them, so striking), I think pretty highly of AI and such 'advocacy organizations'. Nableezy (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this is a bit off topic, but you would never put Amnesty International against a sovereign government figures directly. Like, X government vs AI (or any "advocoacy group) unless no numbers existed for the opposing government. This according to wiki standards. I'm sure you think very highly of AI.: ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit off-topic but that Charity Navigator link was fascinating. I've been there before but not for AI. Their former director got compensation to the tune of 250K a year from donors. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that's about enough to buy roughly 14 metric tonnes of 120mm flechette tank fired AP shells for interest.....that's a lot of flechettes. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And HRW. And I just said I wouldnt put X govt vs AI, I would put AI, then X govt vs Y govt. But yes, off topic. Lets move back to this article. Nableezy (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. So, "It is estimated that 1,200 or more Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the conflict." Succinct and germane. I don't know how to respond to the suggestion that it gives a "negative impression" so I will just leave that alone. It's a fucking body count. It's not going to be cheery. RomaC (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That guy Count von Count on Sesame Street with an autism spectrum disorder might enjoy it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I just explained in plain English why it violates NPOV by gibing thorough credible evidence. You responded hostilely which I took in jest, but don't expect me to count the syllables. Clearly this is a comprehension issue if you "don't understand." You can disagree, that is fine...but not "understanding" is hmmmm. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You could just have it like this:
The Palestinian Ministry of Health, based in Gaza, has said that 1314 Palestinians were killed, "most" of which were civilians. The IDF has stated that they have identified 1200 of the casualties, of which 300 were identified as noncombatants.
There is one problem though, the MoH has only given numbers on 'women and children', whereas the IDF has said children, women, and men over the age of 65 who they classified as 'noncombatants'. The only numbers from a Palestinian organization that specifies a number of 'civilians' is the PCHR. Wikifan has already objected to using the PCHR numbers, but that is the only way I can see including a number given by a Palestinian organization that contains numbers on 'civilians'. So I ask Wikifan to reconsider and the rest of you to comment on what to do with numbers on the Palestinian counts. The MoH says 1314 total including '522 women and children', whereas the PCHR says 1285 total including '895 civilians'. My suggestion is to use all 3, like so:
The Palestinian Ministry of Health, based in Gaza, has stated 1314 Palestinians had been killed, "most" of which which were civilians. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights stated that there had been 1285 fatalities, 895 of which were civilians. The IDF has stated that they have identified 1200 of the casualties, of which 300 were identified as noncombatants.
I think this would be the best way of presenting the information if you have to include civilian counts. Which Wikifan is apparently insisting on. If you do not need to include civilian counts than I think it would be best handled like so:
The Palestinian Ministry of Health has stated that 1314 Palestinians had been killed. The IDF said they have identified 1200 of the fatalities.
. . . Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we have to abide what Wikifan is insisting on. We should listen and discuss, but in the end we have a lead that introduces the article. A military assault, we give an estimate of how many people lost their lives. Simple. Later in the body, there is a section we break the figures down. RomaC (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's totally trash all of wikifan's horrible ponts, and instead "listen and discuss." Noted Roma. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting what I said, a straw man argument is not constructive. If people don't agree with you, restating, rearranging or redirecting your arguments ad nauseam may not be productive. In any case I believe you have been given a very fair hearing on this point. RomaC (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not misrepresenting anything. This isn't a matter of simple agreement, I provided fair rationale and you joined the bandwagon. You've contributed very little to this discussion, I won't hold that against you but taking sides is not particularly appealing nor persuasive. Quite ironic, "listen and discuss", which is basically all I've been doing...whilst you, lol. Please, we've been through this before RC. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue of casualties in the lead has been argued since day one. Many editors, including Cerejota above, have indicated it should not be in the lead. It messes with the stability of the lead. For all we know things may heat up again tomorrow and we will have new numbers. We know there are casualties in war. If we want to know the details, we have a section on that and it is in the info box as well. This has been discussed, but those who want it in seem to put it back in, and accuse others of editwarring if they take it out. We have talked and listened to the tune of some 40 archives, but certain things seem to be sacred cows to certain people. Regarding Nableezy's: "The Palestinian Ministry of Health, based in Gaza..." It should not say "based in Gaza" since there is another in Ramallah that seems to be the base for the PMoH. Thus at best we should say "The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza...." Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The conflict has been in large part defined by the casualties, and the numbers should be in the lead. The casualties section should go into further detail on those numbers, but not having casualties because it may change is nonsense. If we get new numbers we can change the article. Nableezy (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism. September 2000 to January 27, 2009 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  2. ^ Summary of rocket fire and mortar shelling in 2008.
  3. ^ Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism. September 2000 to January 27, 2009 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  4. ^ OCHA Special Focus on Palestinian Territories
  5. ^ a b "POC_Monthly_Tables_October_2008" (PDF). OCHA-oPt. October 2008. Retrieved 2009-02-25.
  6. ^ a b c Younis, Khan. "Rights Group Puts Gaza Death Toll At 1,284". CBS. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
  7. ^ a b Katz, Yaakov (15 Feb 2009). "'World duped by Hamas death count'". JPost. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_38&oldid=1142483873"