Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Phone Calls

"Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons." - Associated Press Dec. 27

CNN is a reliable source (though i have a feeling there is something off about that article). On the other hand, to exclude other information from other sources is simply irresponsible and wrong.

The CNN article referred to has faults of its own but those most probably should not be addressed here.

please sign your posts with the little signature button. you'll find it just above the box where you're typing things in. thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

International Reactions

This section in the article lists a number of critics of Israel. Fair enough. But why is the list of supporters of Israel hidden in between two negative sentences and a final negative one? Should not get its own paragraph where people will not miss it? Why are there a number of anti-israel quotes and yet the statements of leaders such as the President of the United States or the President-Elect ("If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," Obama said at the time. "And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." --[1]) not recorded? Or Secretary of State? ("We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence there" [2])

Because the Obama quote was not in reference to this, it was taken during the campiagn when he went to Israel. Also, I think we should limit the quotes to the leaders statements or lacking that some official statement. So I dont think Rice needs to be in there. Nableezy (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Violations of International Law

There are arguments that Israel is committing war crimes? Fine, be balanced and state them but keep them in the section on Israeli Violations. These are the first two paragraphs of the section on Palistinian violations:

The UNHRC statement by Falk also noted: "Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response."[257]

In 2007 exiled Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal, a leader of the terrorist Hamas group called recent rockets attacks on Israel "self defense."[264] In a 2007 report on “Indiscriminate Fire” by both sides in the conflict Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas leaders “argue that rocket attacks on Israel are the only way to counter Israel's policies and operations, including artillery strikes.”[265]

These are paragraphs that more strongly argue that Israel is the aggressor. These paragraphs belong elsewhere. The author lessons the importance of the arguments made against Palistinian forces by inserting unrelated information in that section.

Hi, there's a debate going on about these matters further up the talk page. Please join in. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

...and maybe move your comments up there for clarity. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for ideological battles to be fought on who is right and who is wrong. But it is a place where people expect to be given real information and all the information. It is a place where people expect to be given both sides of the argument. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for ideological battles to be fought on who is right and who is wrong but the problem is that the author of this article does not.

11aa11aa (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 11aa11aa

you'll need to be very specific about proposed changes/concerns etc or else you're voice will be lost. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ISRAEL if a bit off topic

if Israel's right to exist is based on texts in the Old Testament, which are passages originally written by tent-dwelling nomads living in the Bronze Age, wouldn't it be fair to say, if you don't believe a word of the Bible, then the grounds to have a Jewish homeland are pretty weak. Comparing the fate of others cases of religious prophesy, there is no comparison.

The teachings of holy man, Wovoka led to the ghost dance movement. Followers believed all the white Americans would peacefully leave and things would be as they were before manifest destiny destroyed the native americans way of life. Instead the 7th cavalry didn't believe it and the massacre at Wounded Knee was the result.

Thought experiment: how would western society feel if the Australian Aborigines provide rock paintings (within their religions) that prove Sydney and Melbourne are still rightly theirs, the ancestors of the Incas want most of the Amazon basin back because stone tablets claim it, or the Ainu take back Hokkaido from the Japanese. In all cases the above cultures have ceased to exist for generations but none of them have any religious book that suggests they have a right to reclaim lost lands. Therefore making any claims ludicrous in the eyes of the international community.

Yet it seems to be OK to claim ownership if a religious book says it is right to do that - and a majority of people adhere to the same belief. Footnote: If you DO believe the Bible, then you must know that the 'Promised Land' was already occupied by people (a slight oversight by God), so when the Hebrews arrived - it wasn't an open door, and they had to conquer the area of Canaan. I wonder whether these pre-Bronze Age peoples have a right to their homelands, too?

I conclude that there would be no tragedy like the one in Gaza if people - who believed in the Bible and it's alleged teachings from God - hadn't proliferated such a book. But then again a horrible precedence is always set when 'might is right'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.139.66 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What you said is completely irrelevant. Israel's right to exist is only doubted by radicals, mostly in Islam. The state of Israel is there, and it's a fact. It's a democratic state, a member of the UN. And don't compare "accidental discovery of rock painting", to well established historical/archaeological facts that are also being described in a religious context in the ancient bible book. Israel has the right to exist because there are Hebrew people (Canaanites/Phoenicians that follow Judaism) in this land, for 3000 years at least. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

israel has a right to exist because the un decided to create it. the "well established historical/archaeological facts that are also being described in a religious context in the ancient bible book" that you refer to compare nicely with the rock painting example. until israel stops declaring itself chosen by god and therefore entitled to whatever land it desires these issues will continue to offend secular types who try to respect other cultures. if jewish people hold that belief that's fine, i think lots of religious ideas are silly, but it won't be accepted by the international community as a legal basis for the claims. Untwirl (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel has a right to exist partly because of survival. The Arab countries have repeatedly attempted to destroy it both directly ('48, '68 and Yom Kippur war...) and by proxy (Arafat and now Hamas!). Of course, Hamas is a factor that many Arab governments are at least as uncomfortable with as Israel, especially since Israel is essentially allied with Turkey (strictly not an Arab state, but a secular-Muslim one, as well as through the Ottoman Empire, previous owners of the lands which are now Israel and Palestinian lands.), has benevolent neutrality from Egypt and Jordan and an Iraq that absorbs most of the attention and resources of Tehran.

As for peace, Israel has repeatedly made arrangements, usually brokered though the United States or European powers (Sweden, France, (West) Germany and Great Britain have all been involved) between itself and various Arab governments to secure peace with first her neighbors and then the Palestinians. The Arab governments have mostly kept the faith, largely because of fear of the IDF, with the notable exception of the unlamented Saddam Hussein. The efforts with the Palestinians bordered often on appeasement with predictable results, and the Qassam rockets were obviously over the line. V. Joe (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody claims that Israel has the right to exist because they are "the chosen people". This is again the propaganda of radical Islam and Hamas. You can believe it, but you can also believe the "teachings" of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Israel has the right to exist because, as V. Joe said: "Israel has a right to exist partly because of survival. The Arab countries have repeatedly attempted to destroy it both directly ('48, '68 and Yom Kippur war...) and by proxy (Arafat and now Hamas!)."

Israel is the most advanced, democratic and successful state in the middle east, despite the existential struggle they're in on almost daily basis. Israel has given the world much in technology, medicine and science in the last 60 years much more than all the Arab states taken together. That alone is enough for it to earn the right exist.

Again, there is a status quo of the Israeli state, and the Palestinian people. They are located in 2 different zones, neighboring. Israel tried to make peace with them, that will eventually lead to the removal of all Israeli military from Palestinian territory (they are currently there to defend Israeli citizens, because when they aren't there, there are numerous terror attacks against Israel originating from these same areas). Israel already removed itself from Gaza.

-Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

this is extremely off content - i wasn't stating my opinion above - simply stating what the international community does and does not recognize for our purposes in the article. i don't think this is a good forum for the direction this discussion is taking. let's discuss specific facts pertaining to this article. Untwirl (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Holy Land has only known peace at the point of a foreign sword"...Winston Churchill

"Only the Romans and the Ottomans have ever been able to keep peace in the Holy Land, because they did what they wanted and needed to do, and they cared not about public opinion." Winston Churchill - both added by--98.111.139.133 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And that is simply untrue. When the Romans ruled here, there was civil unrest and there were revolts, sieges, wars, exiles and etc. When the Ottomans been here, this place was pretty much a barren desert, with small populations of Nomads and Jews here and there. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Boris A. on this one. Churchill had a very good reason, but he is the very example of an unreliable narrator when it comes to the History of the British Empire. From almost the first time he put pen to paper as an adult, he was a Imperial loyalist. His role in successive governments concerning Palestine were not among his best efforts nor the best efforts of governments when he was in Opposition to the current incarnation of HM Government. He wished to excuse the role of both His Government (during the war) and the government of Anthony Eden (his protege) concerning the Holy Land. V. Joe (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" ,"And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg."..."Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this." Quotes from the Life of Brian--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest moving all this to Talk:Zionism. FWIW I believe Israel has a right to exist, but there's a lot of truth in the comparison of some Zionist attitudes and "manifest destiny".--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Up till 1948 wasn't everybody there in the Holy Land there by Right by Conquest? Historically speaking didn't the Hebrews, Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans et al, get there by invading the place under some pretext or other?--98.111.139.133 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

At least two as instructed by their own deity? I.E. Hebrews and Arabs--98.111.139.133 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This sidebar has nothing to do with Zionism, only with Israel's de facto existence as a country.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomtom9041, you are splitting hairs. Zionism, quoting ourselves "continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel". Let's not filibuster the talk page.--Chikamatsu (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This sidebar has nothing to do with this article and shouldn't be here. Nobody has brought up Israel's 'right to exist' in this conflict, think we should limit the talk page to discussion of the actual topics of the article, not whether the romans or the ottomans or whoever did what. Nableezy (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it has nothing to do with the article, but "unsigned comment added by 86.130.139.66 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)" brought this thing up. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And, just to throw gas on the fire:

1, Continuous Jewish residence/occupation since time of Joshua

2, Balfour Declaration of 1917

3, League of Nations Mandate which incorporated the Balfour Declaration

4, UN partition Resolution of 1947

5, Israel admitted into UN in 1949,

6, Diplomatic recognition by many countries.

Plus wars of defense against an enemy who massively outnumbered them on several occasions, 48, 56, 67, 73, 82, and all the small things like the Water War etc.

--98.111.139.133 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel's Attack on Gaza Strip - The reason

I just noticed the "Israel's Attack on Gaza Strip - The reason" external link. I'm not sure what other peoples thoughts are on whether it should be removed or not. It qualifies as propaganda I suppose but at least it does graphically show what is happening....on one side...which is a start. Having said that, I haven't looked at the Palestinian link to see whether that's meant to balance it in detail although the first thing I saw was 'A satanic, genocidal Israel'..charming. I couldn't see a discussion the links (..maybe archived) hence this note. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My views: It's opening a Pandora's Box to allow polemical links to non-verified sources in 'External Links', just as it does to allow synthetic linking such as Pallywood in 'See Also'. If the phenomena of amateur propaganda, web activism / jihad deserves mention, it should be somewhere in the "media strategies". However, I think it overlaps heavily with "international reaction" as a form of protest.--Chikamatsu (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"25%" Pal. casualties civilians

The infobox sources the UN as saying the "25%" of the casualties in Gaza are civilians... which doesn't make sense, because as the total grows, that 25% number grows at different rate than the actual civilian death toll. Someone needs to check the grand total when that report was released and take 25% of that number... or just keep updating it with the real number from the UN. Percentages only work once the conflict is over.Jeztah (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hezbollah participation is not clear

According to BBC[3], It is not clear who fired the rockets, and no-one has yet said they did it. BBC says in another article[4] that Most analysts have concluded it is unlikely to be Hezbollah - despite recent fiery rhetoric from the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah about the possibility of renewed conflict with Israel. According to New York times[5], Hezbollah hasn't accepted the responsibility yet.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the bottom of the BBC article. there's a line that says ...this may be a way for them to show solidarity with Gaza without provoking a massive Israeli retaliation....--23prootie (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In this context, it is important to remember that nothing happens in South Lebanon without Hizbollah's permission. Rabend (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about what you think, this is about information that can actually be verified. The sources all say that Hezbollah has respected the UN's presence in South Lebanon, and that this does not appear to be their work. 400,000 Palestinians live in Lebanon, and this could easily be them acting in solidarity with Gaza. -Amjra 14:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

is that original research or a sourced statement? if "nothing happens in South Lebanon without Hizbollah's permission" is what the media says, please provide a source, otherwise it is simply your opinion and shouldn/t be used to determine what to include in the article. Untwirl (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Olmert quote in Intro

The intro now has an extensive quote from Ehud Olmert's interview to Al-Arabiya. While this may merit a mention later in the article, it definitely does not mention 7 lines in the introduction. The introduction should briefly review the most important facts. Neither this nor other statements by Hamas leaders or Israeli leaders qualify here. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) :I can't see why not. It does not link to propoganda video "explaining facts". I simply links to a video in which a man is saying something, and we quote the man's sayings. What is to be miss represented here?--Omrim (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

youtube as a source?

this edit

"Fathi Hamad a Hamas representative in the PA legislative council, takes pride on Palestinian TV in the fact that women and children are used as human shield in fighting Israel. He describes it as part of the "Death Industry" at which they excel, and explains that the Palestinians "desire death" the same way Israelis "desire life". [311]"

links to a youtube video. i don't believe youtube is an acceptable source, esp. for an article as controversial as this one. Untwirl (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Shows Hamas in a bad light?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

please assume good faith. i am simply referring to youtube as a source. find one that is reliable and i will strongly support its inclusion. Untwirl (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why not. It does not link to propaganda video "explaining facts". I simply links to a video in which a man is saying something, and we quote the man's sayings. What is to be misrepresented here?--Omrim (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

i wasn't worried about misrepresentation, as i said it's just youtube that i was doubting. with a quick glance i didn't see any other youtube links (there may very well be - i wasn't very thorough) i am relatively new here so maybe you can help me understand when youtube is okay. thanks for your patience. Untwirl (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

on second look i do see other youtube links. however, they are listed as youtube/(whatever) not the title of the video. also the actual source isn't palestinian news, its palestinian media watch - they translated a 45 sec clip and posted it on youtube. i think we should be consistent and also list the source in the article as the other youtube links do. Untwirl (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased volume of information?

Under 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict:1) Background, there seems to be a case of misuse of information. According to Ref. 88, it was quoted "the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival." It is fine to quote this however, I find it terribly misleading to the reader when the next paragraph in the article is left out.

The next paragraph reads "Israeli officials acknowledged that transferring previously banned goods had been the plan, but said that there was no specific date for the increase and that it was to happen in steps. But the rockets never fully stopped."

This next parag you cite form the NY Times source actually confirms the key aspects of the material I added from the same source. Israeli officials acknowledge that providing more goods to Gaza had been part of the cease-fire plan and, by implication that Israel continued to block major increases because "there was no specific date for the increase and that it was to happen in steps." The Israeli officials also state that the "rockets never FULLY stopped" (emphasis mine), which is an implicit acknowledgement of the diminution of the number of rockets fired. The portion of the piece I added states that there was a major decrease but no complete cessation of rockets fired and even provided numbers (or at least ranges) for selected months. Having said all that, if you think that your paragraph is crucial, add it instead of complaining about the rest.

What I find biased is that someone added the words "Hamas claims" before the sentence Hamas' efforts to stop rockets being fired were largely successful. This is a deliberate misstatement of what the NYT sources states. The NYT source states as a matter of fact that Hamas' efforts were largely successful, not that this is a Hamas version, and then cites specific numbers of rockets for selected months to buttress this fact.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if we are to provide information on an informative site such as Wikipedia, it is only fair that we provide unbiased views on this conflict. There is simply too much information on the article about 1)the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and 2)the border blocks that Israel has enforced. What I find lacking is Israel's explaination for all it has done and that is available in many articles, even the articles that were referenced but were left out for unknown reasons. I also chanced upon another discussion to create a bar chart of the wounded/dead on both Israeli and Palestinian sides. I am not against it, however, to be fair, I request that a similar bar graph be plotted on the number of projectiles fired from both sides. It should also be mentioned that there is a difference in these projectiles. Israeli missiles have guiding systems to hit (near) where they intended to hit. Quassams do not have such systems.span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.92.2 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

can i assume these "projectiles" will include those shot from planes as well? how about guns? (bullets are essentially projectiles). your post seems to be wanting to improve npov, i assume good faith. Untwirl (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way might be to count the number of reports involing explosive projectiles. These should be rockets, missles, rockets, mortars and artillery shelling. I recommend that the chart be split into two categories though, During War and Non-War time. War should probably refer to this current war, because reports are still fresh and information found on multiple sources are more trustworthy. And yes, I am doing this in good faith. I feel this chart is important, because it might give a clearer picture. After all, Israel did say that this war is all about rocket fire on Southern Israel.

sorry, not trying to sound sarcastic, i was just pointing out that "projectiles fired from both sides" instead of illustrating israel's point to self-defense from rocket fire, could be taken so far as to mean bullets fired by idf on raids targeting palestinians. especially considering how contentious that issue is here. there is already a decent amount of background on israel's reasoning for the attack. (also, please sign your post by typing 4 tildes ~) Untwirl (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was a wrong to add "Hamas claims". I was in a rush to delete adjectives not in source (such as "only modestly"), and I added that as well, sorry about that. Yet, the source is not a news article, it is a "news analysis". In other words, it is an intperetation of facts, and we present it in our article as facts. We should either lose it and stick to known facts (i.e. such and such rockets were fired on that day, and such and such trucks were allowed in that day), or put an analysis (many of which are out there) putting the blame on the Hamas to counterweight. We are discribing someone's intrepretation to a very contriversial issue (who is to blame for ending the truce) as "fact". We already had a concensus (a few days back) to simply state each side's argument (meaning each side blaming the other). This was in and someone took it out and revert a consencus. We should re-write it to simply present each side's argument, rather then bringing one "analysis" form a single source.--Omrim (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A NY Times article labelebed News Analysis is not an op-ed piece. It's called News Analysis because it (as opposed to a report or a dispach) does something we at Wikipedia are not supposed to do: synthesize a number of different pieces of info to provide context for the reader. When information is stated without qualification (X did y to Z) it is NOT an opinion. Unless states otherwise, info stated as fact is fact in such an article.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

missing source link

the latest edit (new poll):

"A decisive majority of respondents support continuing the army's air campaign against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip without endangering the lives of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in a ground offensive ..."

is missing the source link. Untwirl (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks for noting.--Omrim (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pride for Human Shields

You better maintain your neutrality, Wikipedia, or you will lose all credibility

Taking pro-abbas propaganda as factual facts is certainly not Neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.176.241 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to provide specific constructive criticism, we are all ears. If you wish to make blanket assertions and unsupported allegations then take it elsewhere.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel admits no militants in UN school

The following statement is made under the UN school section:

According to a UN spokesman, Israel later admitted that in fact the militant fire had not come from the school.

I can find no source other than the Earth Times that says this. While the Earth Times is a WP:RS, it's pretty much a second-tier news agency. It's fine to use, but can anyone find me an article from the BBC, CNN, NYT, Jerusalem Post, etc. that also says that? If not, this sentence should be removed for WP:Notability and WP:Reliability. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in the Guardian print edition today, which may well be where this source got the info from in the first place, but I can't seem to find it online (after spending all of two seconds trying just now). --Nickhh (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You get the print edition? Lucky bastard... If you've got the title or a catchphrase try googling with "site:guardian.co.uk" in the query. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.01.2009 16:57

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167303802&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull "The Israeli army in private briefings with diplomats have admitted that the militant fire from Jabalya yesterday came from outside the UNRWA school compound and not inside the UNRWA school compound," said Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the UN Relief and Works Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.205.222 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's more:

• A spokesman for UNWRA separately told Reuters that the Israeli army, in private meetings with diplomats, had admitted that the mortar fire came from outside the school compound and not from within it. (Reuters)
• The Israeli army has admitted privately to the UN that no firing came from a Gaza school where 42 people died on Tuesday after being hit by Israeli mortars, officials of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa) disclosed last night. Publicly, the Israeli army claims that the school, which was providing shelter for around 350 people, was being used by Hamas fighters to carry out attacks. Unrwa officials said they were fully confident this was not the case. (The Independent) Tiamut^talk 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As in the Iranian airbus incident in 1989, all governments lie to the press about what their military did, and know they did, when the shit hits the fan, and flood the press with disinformation. The strategic aim is to create confusion and doubt in the public's mind while effective action is under way. The truth comes out usually after 6 months or a year, if one manages to get an official enquiry, and usually on a small column of back page print that no one reads, or that deals with the issue after it has been long forgotten. That is why so few official inquiries are made. This does not mean that invariably IDF explanations are wrong. It means only that, though official, they should be taken cum grano salis, since belligerents are waging war on two fronts, the ground and in the media (as in here). The UN and its bodies, or people on the ground with some official aid body credentials, are probably closer to the realities than those working in back offices, making reports under instruction for the mass media.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ANd then again, maybe not--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for finding so many sources so quickly! I went ahead and updated the wording of the sentence to reflect these sources. After all, saying that fire came from outside the school doesn't mean fire didn't come from the school. Someone could have stood right next to it and fired, which might appear the same to a commander in the heat of battle. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, saying that "fire came from outside the school" DOES mean "fire didn't come from the school", which is what the UN has said and Israel refused to admit till now...

How bout this..."Just because fire came from outside the school doesn't mean it came from near the school"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Since journalists are not allowed in

this Rare view from ground zero may help understand what is actually going on, beyond the phosphorus smokescreen, and news black out. Then again, there weren't many newspapers reporting the Warsaw uprising. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how appropriate. Let's compare with the holocaust. Same thing, of course. Everyone knows Jews committed suicide bombings in Berlin, and fired rockets into Munich. Exact, same thing.

Low, even for you. okedem (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not too low for the Vatican: Gaza Strip resembles a concentration camp, says top Vatican official. Tiamut^talk 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we remind you the Vatican's (in)actions during the holocaust? The Vatican hardly holds any moral ground to compare anything to the holocaust. I have yet to see the Israelis commit a methodological killling of Palestinians just for the sake of killing them. If this was the case, the entire thing would be over in three days.--Omrim (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would you need a moral high ground to compare things? The Vatican with their first hand helping hands in the holocaust probably knows what it looks like and therefore can compare it? — _CHANDLER^#10 — 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest the whole interview with Cardinal Raffaele Martino be read, instead of that one phrase. It is highly critical of Hamas and of Israel. Concentration camps were invented by Spain in Cuba in 1898, used by the British against the Boers. They are not exclusive to Jewish history. Gaza has long been a concentration camp, since no one can get in, or out, and all have been on starvation rations since the plebiscite that, under American pressure for elections, voted in Hamas, was greeted by a massive blockade that destroyed any reasonable prospects for its people to survive with minimal dignity. Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of salient points about the church:

1)Raffaele Cardinal Martino does not represent the whole church. That's the job of the Pope, in this case Benedict XVI. 

2) The government of the Church (The Church being the body of believers and not the hierarchy) is largely a European organization and therefore it should be noted that the Church very much has a European bias in foreign affairs. When the Church, in her wisdom chooses to elect a non-European Pope, and the Curia is not dominated by Italian and French bureaucrats, we can take the Vatican more seriously in foreign policy. 3) That said, it is very much the job of the church to tend to the faithful and protect the Holy Land. The Cardinal liking any Israeli operation to a Concentration Camp OR any aspect of the Holocaust is irresponsible and provocative and he cannot help but be aware of this fact. (I thought such stupid banalaties were limited to Rowan Williams.) I hope Benedict censures the Cardinal, but I am not realistically hoping thatV. Joe (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You, like most young people, do not know your own historyokedem. Herschel Grynszpan was acting quite rationally when he shot the German ambassador Ernst von Rath in Paris in 1938. As were Tuvia and Zus Bielski, when they shot back, or even like the Jewish Military Union shot collaborators in their ranks (as Hamas does, as Amira Hass notes in today's Haaretz. One does not approve, but all this crap about Hamas's behaviour, when it echoes with analogies from Jewish history's most tragic moments, looks odd). Historians like Raul Hilberg worried a lifetime as to why so few Jews shot back. Israel learnt the lesson, but in learning it, has forgotten that Palestinians have been told by a government minister a shoah is around the corner, and large numbers of them have no intention of being passive in the slaughter. I didn't expect comment on the article. But I linked it, expecting that at least all might read it, and simply take note mentally that what RS sources, which have no one on the ground in that inferno, say or pontificate about, and we use only them, they don't reflect in any way the realities actually as lived through by people on the ground. We have thousands of articles and visits to Sderot, and zilch from inside Gaza. Some of us are extremely sensitive about these things precisely because we grew up reading thoroughly the tragic history of the ghettoized Jews, and were militant in their defence, and precisely for this reason, are now, for decades, deeply disturbed by certain overpowering analogies. There is no offence in analogy, unless one believes some people are unique. I'll leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again with the "young people". Your last (and lazy) resort, to belittle the other person, in the patronizing tone to make other people think you're so knowledgeable, and the other so ignorant. I know my history, and, obviously, much more than you do, as I actually know the extreme differences between the situations. I suppose you'll never get it, though. From what you write, I learned a long time ago that your mind is so extremely skewed and biased, you'll never face facts. (And as a note to others - things can be wrong without comparison to the Nazis. It's a stupid comparison to make, and usually shows ignorance and demagoguery in the speaker). okedem (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks Okedem. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not give you the right to abuse them. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No harm done, Okedem. These are difficult articles. A little blowing off of steam is neither here nor there. Mind you, when being 'bashed', I prefer my adversary to cite facts I appear ignorant of. That hurts, but at the same time, enlightens me. As for epithets, water off a duck's back. There's plenty of software that will churn them out on demand.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with disagreement, but with manipulative, deceitful and patronizing presentation of claims. But why do I bother? Forget it. Those who can see through the crap - do, those can't - won't. okedem (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. And if you can't, pull back from making comments. Personal attacks and bad faith assumptions are toxic to a collaborative editing environment. Everyone is angry for their own reasons over what is going on, but we don't need to be rude with one another. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AGF is for editors you don't know. When you get to know them, you no longer need to assume either way. okedem (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okedem and Omrim, I don't think there is much use arguing. When trying to make WP a more objective and a less hyped media/propaganda-influenced place, I came to realize that this effort is rather futile. Most editors participating in articles involving the war live comfortably outside this region, and can view this conflict only after it was filtered to them through media which more often than not is biased. They do not have a continuous first hand access to the actual reality of the situation, and the context in which it is taking place. They (and of course I don't blame them, they're only doing what they can) can only collect bits of hot-enough "information" given by who-knows-whom to some who-knows-what-agenda-run media people, and use this 1% of the actual ongoing conflict as representing 100% of it. I could easily sit in my chair here and cynically count the number of "horrible" violation of civil rights in the UK/France/Germany etc. in these countries' fight against terrorism, or quickly update the number of Iraqi civilian deaths in the American "massacre" of Iraqis in the US's attempt to instill democracy there. Of course, the reality is much more complex. I would help (again, not necessarily on purpose) make it look like these countries are horrible dictatorships. Yet I would be telling only 1% of the story. This would leave out all the more boring other sides of the story, like how these rights violations most probably stopped dozens of terrorist attacks and hundreds of European deaths, and how (if it weren't for Muslim extremists) Iraq would be a viable democracy instead of that despotic regime where 1000s of civilians would "disappear" each year. But continously stopping terror or building a democracy from scratch are slow and tedious processes involving a myriad of good-hearted small pushes by good-hearted people, and these are really boring and would probably not appear in the WP article Democracy in Iraq.

WP is quickly becoming yet another source of biased, one-sided-story info. The last thing I want is to discourage/bash editors. Most of you, like myself, try to contribute to human knowledge through good faith. In this case, however, most of it is done indeed in good faith, but under limited objective access to the real situation. As such, WP does not really reflect the objective reality or full context of matters, but rather someone's agenda. Rabend (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I.e. only Israelis and Arabs should edit it: wikipedia as written by interested parties. Chechnya should only be written by Russians and Chechens: Tibet only by Chinese and Tibetans. In all cases, the Russians, Israelis and Chinese have the internet connections, and a far higher technologically literate population with internet access, and therefore, yes, there will be one or two Tibetans, Chechens or Palestinians of their respective diasporas to hold up the flag against the majority. . .Brilliant. We should post as individuals, not as members of a collective, Italian, American, Israeli, Chinese, whatever. Even a grazing acquaintance with Israel will tell you that there are a large number of local Jewish Israelis who happen to share exactly the views you associate with 'furreners' out of touch with the real world. It's thus not 'us' versus 'them'. It's conscientious analysis of the flow of sources to achieve NPOV in an article where two parties are to be represented with equality of rights. The best historians feel obliged to do this even when writing of an enemy. We small fry should follow their example. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, please let's not WP:SOAP. Generalizations about the ignorance of fellow editors are note helpful. We write here using reliable sources, and not by drawing on our opinions or expertise.Tiamut^talk 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite appropriate, my apologies Tiamut. We have all soaped, and it's time to wash off the lather and get back to editing.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Red cross and UN aid suspension

Could someone mention somewhere on the article that the Red cross has accused Israel of failing to help civilians and the UN aid agency has had to suspend operations in Gaza because of the danger to their staff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7817926.stm Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs to this are in the lead, last line.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think BritishWatcher is right that we need a section for this here. I added something to the timeline article about it. But it seems to be a growing issue UN pulls out of Gaza over fears for its staff. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacing NY Times article that exaggerates Rockets fired during truce

I wanted to bring this up for discussion once more before I revise this. No one opposed this edit but I did not receive many responses so I thought it would be appropriate to give people a new opportunity to discuss this as it refers to a large block of prominent text.

In the background page someone has cited an NYT article with the following excerpt:

"The New York Times summed up the situation leading to the complete breakdown of the cease-fire and the dramatic increase in hostilities thus: "Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’ main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 700 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity.[41]"

According the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rockets fired from Gaza after the truce ranged between 2-12 per month, not going over 15 even a single time. In fact this table summarizes the data provided by the IMFA over the period of the truce and just before.

Rockets and Mortars Launched from Gaza May-Nov '08

Type	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	June 1-18	June 18-30	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec
Rockets	136	228	103	373	206	153	5	4	8	1	1	125	361
Mortar	241	257	196	145	149	84	3	8	3	3	1	68	241

Reference: The Hamas terror war against Israel. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 01-01-2009. See Statistics of Kassam rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip subsection.

As this table demonstrates total rocket attacks (mortar+rocket) never went above 12 and decreased to 2 for the month of october, just before Israel raided armed Hamas members on Nov 4.

I propose that that source is scrapped since it is innacurate accorind the IMFA itself. Instead it should state the data presented by the IMFA and give context for how drastic the drop in rocket attacks were. A possible revision:

"A total of 37 rockets were launched from Jun 18 to the end of October, which represents a 98 percent drop from the previous four and a half months during which 1894 rockets had been launched. Following Israel's Nov 4 attack that killed six Hamas operatives, rocket fire resumed from Gaza and 193 rockets were launched in the remainder of Nov."

The NYT article is exagerating the the rocket fire by over a factor of two with regards to official Israeli records. This fact calls for a revision along the lines of my proposal. (See #Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire, for my first and more comprehensive critique of our coverage in the Background)

See: #NY Times article exaggerates Rockets fired during truce for the few responses this proposal received. If there isn't significant discussion on this issue I will go ahead with the edits in some time. Thrylos000 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the edit. Preferably, as above, it should replace the NYT's quote, which is as useless as tits on a bull. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualty chart caption

Please do not put a caption on the chart image in the article that lists data sources. Those sources change frequently as I find updates on the numbers. And the data sources are always listed at the bottom of the chart image itself. I change them as necessary on the chart image itself. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

BobaFett85's edit 'summing wounded Israeli soldiers from sources' pt.2

BobaFett85 has a habit of making updates to the page without using edit summaries. He most recently changed the injured Israeli civilian count t0 41 from 39 citing this JP article. There is no total count listed there. Presumably he made the edit because the article states: "One resident suffered a broken leg and another sustained bruises, both apparently from slipping on the floor after emergency sprinklers came on."

We have already addressed the reasons why summing across sources is not allowed, yet Bobafett continues to make edits without deliberation this time even sloppier than the last. I've reverted his edit and encourage him to come here and discuss his editing practices. Thrylos000 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

He did the same with soldier count citing this article. I'm reverting that as well. Please lets standardize our counting practices a bit and not scour new sources and then sum as we see fit. Thrylos000 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Total numbers of dead women and children

I found some more numbers.

See the data, quotes, and sources in the image summary for the chart:

• File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png

It also has numbers for wounded women and children. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Fipplet removing much text from talk page

Please see this diff: [6]

I could not undo the damage due to other edits since then. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what have I done? --Fipplet (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see this other diff [7] and the edit summary from Nishidani that says this: "restoring my reply to okedem, mischievously elided by Fipplet. Don't do this again." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Interwiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, let me summarize my points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DrorK, here it is not being discussed wether that event is a massacre or not. That is indeed a POV matter but it's not at all the focal point here.

According to wikipedia rules the name of the article should be the one most commonly used within the language of that wiki. In this case "Gaza Massacre" is the most common way to refer to these events in the arabic world. Period.

It is a fact that most arab speakers know it that way, thus arab wiki must name it that way.

Since "Gaza Massacre" in arabic and "Israel-Gaza conflict 2008-2009" refer to the same events, the interwiki stays regardless of how arabic wiki names it.

So, unless you can demonstrate somehow that 1)"Gaza Massacre" refers to a different phenomenon than "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" and 2)that "Gaza Massacre" is not the most common name within the arabic world, your point and efforts are futile.

It is not up to English or any other language wikipedias to legitimize or deligitimize other wikipedias, wikipedias are not boycott instruments. Acknowledge the rules and desist in pushing your own point of view. ~Krasniy Prizrak

Incorrect spelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN attacked by Israel, end of humanitarian aid

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

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

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

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

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

I think its worth more than a brief note, the UN stopping and the Red cross perhaps stopping because of Israel shooting at them. — _CHANDLER^#10 — 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Infoboxes

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

I think the infoboxes highlighting major attacks are worth including. (The ones in this diff [8]) Is there is a major attack against Israelis by Palestinian militants that you would to include that is not currently represented?

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

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

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

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

Suggestions regarding structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rockets and mortar fire decreased 98%?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

infobox- moh casualty number

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

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

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

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

Commented out Qatar statement returned

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for total number of Israeli dead and wounded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation from Hebrew needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New source for total Israeli wounded found

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

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

Civilians, women and children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incidence of key words is unbalanced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Psychological Warfare"

The Psychological Warfare section is a bit questionable. I wouldn't call roof knocking 'psychological warfare'. It's a technique designed to limit civilian casualties. See: [10], [11]. I've changed it, but I'd definitely be willing to have a discussion if there was a consensus against it. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

UNSC resolution 1860: immediate cease fire

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

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

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

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

Not exactly immediate; [12] Nableezy (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, both sides rejected it officially now. [13]--Omrim (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Date by date

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

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

Topic of the article (pointy as pointy gets)

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

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

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

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

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

humanitarian crisis

i just noticed this line

"U.N. spokesman Chris Gunness said We've been coordinating with them (Israeli forces) and yet our staff continue to be hit and killed.[220]"

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

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

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