Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

The ultimate "Controversial war of 2008 article" challenge!

Hear, hear, editors of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, in the name of 2008 South Ossetia war I challenge you for the ultimate "Controversial war of 2008 article" title.

So lets get right down to the rating (you ask why I get to make the ratings? Well, I never said it was a fair challenge, did I?). We will look at both articles and determine which one is more controversial.

The title

The hallmark of a controversial article is a controversial title. Lets see how the contenders will fare:

• 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: 3 names + a move template on the talk page
• 2008 South Ossetia war: 5 names + a separate sub-talk page discussing the name

Result: It's a close thing, but this point goes to: 2008 South Ossetia war

The infobox

Surely, a controversial war article has to have a fought over infobox. Which article can claim the victory here?

• 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: About 1 page long. Several numbers at casualties.
• 2008 South Ossetia war: Nearly 2 pages long. Numberous unclear numbers. An additional campaign box

Result: A hands down win for: 2008 South Ossetia war

Templates

The best way to spot a controversial topic on wikipedia? Watch out for those template clusters! They lurk on talk pages, but also articles, shouting the controversy to even the most casual reader.

• 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: neutrality box on the article. Plenty of templates on the talk page.
• 2008 South Ossetia war: No box on the article, just a single neutrality related template on the talk page.

Result: There is not a sliver of doubt, the winner is: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Reverts

What would a controversial article be without reverts? Lets go and (roughly) count them. How many reverts did I find in the last 500 edits?

• 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: 86 reverts
• 2008 South Ossetia war: 43 reverts

Result: The numbers speak a clear language, the better (edit) war was: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Spawned pages

Really controversial topics wont do with one page, they need several pages to war on (conveniently linked from each section as "main article" or "see also").

• 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: 16 linked articles.
• 2008 South Ossetia war: 20 linked articles + a campaign box to list them all

Result: 2008 South Ossetia war outspawns the opponent and wins this round

Final tally

After 5 heavy rounds of fighting, we can now announce the final result. The winner of the ultimate 2008 controversial war article challenge is: 2008 South Ossetia war

Tough luck guys (and gals). --Xeeron (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We already have Cerejota for these things. Thanks for your info though. Cryptonio (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Sean.hoyland - talk 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That article wins this title just for having the most brutal image. Ewww- Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish our article had high quality, brutal images like that from both sides. Oh well. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

At a point we did have at least 2 brutal images, but as you know there was much controversy around those images. So I take back what I said, this article beats the other article in this department. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys. If I had known there was a prize involved I'd have been much less civil and productive. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What sort of rigged shit is this? If it still comes down to current reigning champion retaining its title after a recount I'm getting over to fill those talk pages with drama. By the way, this article is just slightly shorter.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how they got us in the first place. You need to create the drama here if we're going to compete with them. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How many kittens have been posted on the 2008 South Ossetia talk page?

What? None?

I rest my case... The Squicks (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wait till next year. We're competing for 2009 too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But what about archives...with 39 to only 20, this article is a winner...Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys suck, we lost to the fucken South Ossetians/Georgians/Russians :P And I suck, because someone out-Cerejota'd me!--Cerejota (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We're #24 in wikirage for the last month. They're nowhere. Yeah, Americas Best Dance Crew beat us but we beat American Idol season 8), losers. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We're Wikipedia's best editing crew yo. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And the best thing is, we all get on with it in peace and harmony. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

i demand a recount! we didn't have a sub talk page on the name, but we totally had one on the lead and they didnt! Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Leaduntwirl(talk) 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

since you demanded a recount i've done one

• cerejota (who was just #2 in the Top 30 Editors for last Hour) was right. we suck. we're not even in the top 30 now.
• BUT AND FOR THE WIN if you examine the source code for wikirage you will note this clause (b.rawedits - b.reverts - b.undos) QualityEdits which means that their edit counts don't include edit warring where we clearly lead the pack. they're idiots. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly they can't measure intensity. Their problems might be numerous but ours are clearly worse. The atmosphere is much more venemous here. Has anyone actually seen their talk page? It looks like the kind of page that my grandmother could edit. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda and psychological warfare 2

Continued from here

Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Cryptonio (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First, things have been called propaganda, so changing the title to only Psych warfare is incorrect. Second, you are removing well sourced information again. Please discuss such removal. Nableezy (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Propaganda is not a weasel word. Everything else is fully sourced. Nableezy (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cross references sources in order to be neutral. Could you argue more verbosely? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, each of the things in the paragraph have been called propaganda or psychological warfare by RSs. So we do the same. Where they are called other things they are also mentioned in those sections. Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Every source in the article has been accused of propaganda, most notably PCHRC and AJ. Shall we put a caption reading their accusations of propaganda? "Warning" residents to leave their homes or be blown to bits is not propaganda, it's a warning. We need to be very prudent when it comes to blasting things as "propaganda" in an article so sensitive as this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

When the government of a side is accused of propaganda it is a little different than you accusing AJ or the PCHRC or propaganda. This argument has been had before, I am not going to argue with you whether or not the sources should call actions by the Israeli government or Hamas propaganda. Can we please stop going in circles here? Nableezy (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at least read this before you use the word again. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial porposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."

Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996

The problem is that sources (even reliable ones) use the term sensationally. We need to be on the look out for extra commentary in the sources. Propaganda can be taken the wrong way but at the same time it has been used so deserves some mention. I prefer PR, media relations, and so forth but sometimes it is simply propaganda and needs to be called so when it is.Cptnono (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We're using propaganda pejoratively, not to illustrate an accurate portrayal of the situation. No need to rationalize it Sean. If we're going to slam every little fact that is accused of being propaganda, we have a lot of editing to do. A sharp critique detailing explicit propaganda-characteristics of AJ during the war. Any accusations of blatant propaganda should be included in Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and not stealthily squeezed in this article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Would use of the term be OK throughout the article and/or in Media where appropriate assuming a complete section is not devoted to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure if you want a critique of AJ from RS that can go in Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, but this article deals with the actions of the governments and army/militant groups. We barely say the things have been called propaganda, what actions by each side that has been called by RSs propaganda should be here as well. If those same actions are more often called media relations greater weight is given to it in that section with it being mentioned in the Prop/Psych warfare section. We are not talking about the actions of media organizations in this article, we are talking about the actions of those involved in the conflict. We are using the term exactly how the sources are using the term. We dont make accusations, we report the accusations. I do not see what the controversy here is. And stealthily squeezed? This has been discussed countless times, and Cpt I thought you agreed we can mention it as the RSs have. Nableezy (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the term being used. What I meant was ditching the section titled "propaganda" if necessary in my last comment. The term carries some weight (even though technically it doesn't need to) so I would prefer to use it with caution but not using it would not do justice to the conflict or the article.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion illustrates one of the key problems here, namely editors caring what an RS says and letting that affect their approach to the information in the RS. It's inappropriate. It isn't a problem if a reliable source uses a word in a certain way. We just say what the RS says. We aren't censors on a censorship committee with filters and word preferences trying to ensure that words are used in the way we want them to be used. There shouldn't be a controversy here. The fact that there is tells us that we're doing something wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I get what you're saying and agree to a certain extent. Does "So and so said" every few lines become a style concern? Obviously facts trump aesthetics but if it can be paraphrased while staying neutral it should be OK. A topic as contentious as this one doesn't leave much margin of error while paraphrasing of course. I don't know the actual wiki guideline or preferred method is on it though so am just saying.Cptnono (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources under WP in Law

"The Israeli military used white phosphorus munitions in the Gaza strip[260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268]"

Is that necessary? I mean.

There was mention that Israel initially denied using WP(that mention is now gone) (why?) (was it not newsworthy in this context? talking about WP?)

Is this the reason why now we have almost 10 sources for one line?

1) are all of those sources necessary(yes i could check myself etc.)

2) can someone input the reason here why the mention of Israel's initial denial of using WP was removed?

Cryptonio (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Originally it was a long list of everyone who accused them of using the munitions and I was trying to cut down on surplus info. It looked like people were entering news every day but weren't melding it together afterward. I kept the sources in because I ran out of time and they were good sources. I figured myself I would get to those but honestly forgot about it. I thought "Israel used white phosphorus" was straight forward and inline with the facts so kept it at that. If you want to mention that they waited a month to admit it go ahead. "The IDF originally denied using white phosphorous munitions but acknowledged its use after the conflict" should work fine.Cptnono (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Added.Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually I like when I see 10 sources in an article. It is a useful red flag like a footnote that tells me "please be aware that this assertion is unprovable and was contested". But in this case it does seem unnecessary. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those claims that a lot of people saw as controversial and therefore those who added it wanted it to be seen that it was true without a shadow of a doubt. 10 is perhaps over the top, but I think there should still be at least 5, so that people do not think it is a dubious claim.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think all we need is a source that says all the aid organizations that said it. It isn't disputed that the allegation was made so we don't need to go overboard. I assumed when going through it originally that removing any of those reports would be a hot button.Cptnono (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of claims in this article with just one source(after our spring cleaning about a week two weeks ago). Cutting it to 5 would be a nice start. But still I imagine just one source would suffice for that specific sentence which only makes one specific claim. We could wait for others to weight in on this, but it shouldn't be a hot issue at all. Cryptonio (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I thought originally removing the list plus all the sources would be a bad move. I'm sure we can find 1 - 5 to cut it down.Cptnono (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive index

The archive index is there now thanks to some fine work by User:Krellis especially for us to handle the stupid en dashs we have in the article/archive names. Hey, let's rename the article to get rid of them, I vs P (season 61) or something neutral like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well according to The Economist, its season 100, so go figure. :D--Cerejota (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

War against Gaza Strip?

I believe Israel was fighting this war against Hamas and not the "Gaza Strip." Thus, I believe the list of belligerents to be reflected as such. Why use the Palestinian flag when the Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas blamed Hamas for starting the war in the first place...see:http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/12/2008122813459308175.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.209.37 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We dont go off of what you believe, sorry. Nableezy (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I didn't understand your last remark: "We dont go off of what you believe, sorry." Could you clarify? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is something besides what somebody believes we take that into consideration. But just saying I believe this was a war against Hamas doesnt do much here. What any one of us believes does not matter, all that matters is what can be shown based of reliable, verifiable sources. Thats all I meant by that. (I should have also said we dont go off of what I believe either) Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's much clearer now. Re "But just saying I believe this was a war against Hamas doesnt do much here." Yes, just saying it, doesn't make it true. But I seem to recall that there were indications of the Israelis being against Hamas, rather than the people of Gaza in general. Afterall, the Israelis gave as the reason for invading Gaza, that they wanted to stop the rocket attacks by Hamas. Also, please consider this excerpt from a news article,

Khaldeh, 22, fled with her family from their central Gaza Strip home late Sunday after Israel began striking the homes of Hamas terrorists. Her neighbors are local Hamas field leaders, and the family feared Israel would target the nearby home, putting them at risk. [1]

It appears that the Gazan in that article thought that Israel was attacking Hamas, rather than Gazans in general.

And I thought in the article there was something that said that members of Fatah in Gaza were helping Israel in the attacks on Hamas, and some of Fatah were executed because of it. Why would Fatah help Israel if it thought Israel was against Palestinians rather than just against Hamas? Do you recall anything like that?

Also, I think the above message made a good point, "Why use the Palestinian flag when the Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas blamed Hamas for starting the war in the first place?" And that editor gave the source too for the Abbas remark. If Abbas thought the Israelis attacked because they were against Palestinians in general and not just Hamas, why would he blame Hamas? Also note that the article was in Al Jazeera, so one can't claim that it is biased against Palestinians. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The flag is dependent on who the belligerent is, if it is Gaza then the flag should be the flag of Palestine. And I say once more, it the list of belligerents used to include each armed faction that the sources say were taking part in this conflict. A 'pro-Israeli' user brought up in Talk that we par that down for a more concise infobox, and he changed it to Gaza. And Fatah was one of those groups, Fatah has said their militant organization was fighting against Israel in Gaza in this conflict. The change was made in here. But if we say Gaza, because it was clearly more than Hamas, then the flag should be the flag of Palestine. I personally think it should say Gaza as Hamas is the government of Gaza and when 2 governments are at war their nations/territories are at war. Nableezy (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful info and I will try to study what you said. However, there was one part of your remarks that was disturbing.

"A 'pro-Israeli' user brought up ..."

All Wikipedia editors are expected to follow WP:NPOV. Please keep in mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA (accusations of bias). Focus only on content, not the editors themselves, unless you are proposing official proceedings against an editor. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. All editors are expected to edit the encyclopedia using WP:NPOV. None of us, and the ArbCom has been clear on this, are expected to be neutral. However, if you are not capable of writing NPOV because of your bias, you should probably consider editing pokemon articles or somesuch. To claim neutrality in WP:ARBPIA is hilariously disingenuous, and your claim that arguing an editor has a bias is a violation of NPA and AGF is a crass misreading of both policies. You are begining to smell like a troll to me. --Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, if only wishing made it so. I am just saying that this was a compromise among those who are considered 'pro-Palestinian' and 'pro-Israeli'. I know what I am in real life, here I try to just be pro-Wikipedia. But I certainly have been called pro-Palestinian (a few times much worse than that) and Dovid has certainly been called a 'pro-Israeli'. Just trying to say that some of us tried to put out ingrained bias to the side and focus on the article. But we could definitely use more of that attitude (me included). Peace, Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest thinking of it as a compromise between those on both sides of the flag issue, rather than those on the Palestinian side and those on the Israeli side. To characterize the editors in that way is to say that none of them edit with NPOV, which goes against WP:AGF. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And I will try. Nableezy (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow Bob is like Obi-Wan. He just got Nableezy to admit that his self-description violated NPA and AGF. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Im feeling kind of woozy, I really dont remember what happened. Is that the power of the force? I must hone my jedi skills to withstand such power. Nableezy (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is called appeasement, you Egyptians know how to do that best. Just kidding :D --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ouch, low blow. Nableezy (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, appeasement may not be a bad thing. You're a lot better off than us stubborn types. :D --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob, regarding "To characterize the editors in that way is to say that none of them edit with NPOV, which goes against WP:AGF". Not necessarily. Editors may be acting in good faith and think they are complying with NPOV when in fact they are not. It can be unintentional. They may be editing in good faith and yet not comply with NPOV because of their own systemic bias. This is true of all things but it's particularly the case in I-P related articles. You can see it all the time around here, unfortunately it's inevitable and I imagine that usually it's not cynical or deliberate. NPOV non-compliance can result from both the inclusion and the absence of information of course so we're pretty exposed to peoples systemic bias e.g. in sourcing. There are pro-X editors. Nothing wrong with that. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He is right on not labeling others, but when I said 'pro-Israeli' I really just meant that other users have voiced that perception. I personally think Dovid is a fine editor, though I have disagreed with him in the past, and my perception of his bias or lack of bias is just that, my perception, so we should try to stay away from labeling others. I dont think it is a personal attack or not assuming good faith, but it does lead to a type of battle mentality that we should strive to step away from. If not calling somebody pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian helps that, Im all for it. But I certainly dont think to say that x is pro-X that somehow implies that x cannot edit with NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree (again). To me it's just a handy shorthand, like saying someone is Canadian or a Christian. It doesn't really contain much useful information and it shouldn't cause a battle mentality here (unless we're literally talking about Canadian Christians of course who I f**king hate...okay, I made that up). As I've said before, I'm happy to see people come out and say they are pro-X. I think it helps but yes, let them assign their own label if they want to. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're all really sorry about the whole Benny Hinn thing. It won't happen again. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No need for apologies, its not like its a real country any way. Nableezy (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not fair. Its like you Hamas types won't respect anyone's right to exist. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

JGG and I are clearly joking if anybody is at all confused. Although I think we should stop now, this is abooot to get off topic, I only want to talk abooot the article ;) Nableezy (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't want our five lines of fun to drown out all of the productive dialogue in the previous 36 archives. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That made me laugh out loud. Thanks! By the way, anyone interested in an archive index like this for example or is the search thingy good enough ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

An index is a good idea in theory. But you'll never get everyone to agree on what to put in it. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I must object to the placing of any index. You would in effect be saying how discussion should be defined, often violating NPOV and demonstrating considerable bias in your choices, and the definition of these discussions may be considered a personal attack. Nableezy (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The archive index would be autogenerated by a bot. I imagine it just runs sql directly on the DB, extracts the headers and builds alpha sorted links to the archived discussions. We don't get to make any choices apart from whether we want one or not. It's certified primate-free. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the bot should be banned for violations of NPOV, SYNTH, NPA, and CENSOR. I think an index would be nice, the search works very well, but an index would be fine with me Nableezy (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll give the bot a good dressing down at it's next annual appraisal. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt know botaphilia was permissible in Thailand, but that shouldnt surprise me should it? Nableezy (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know Thailand, it's a complicated and confusing culture where things like a man being arrested for sexually assaulting several banana trees or Thai country music videos for songs about how girls shouldn't wear short skirts and 'spaghetti tops' with the obligatory backing dancers wearing short skirts and 'spaghetti tops' or bombing the secessionist muslim south with millions of little paper origami birds of peace are normal. It's 'Thai style'. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point Nableezy. I've also noticed that bots almost never follow WP:IAR policy. And I can't be the only one who's noticed that Miszabot has a serious WP:OWN problem. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, your bot sucks. I keep looking for this index that was promised to me, only to be met with disappointment from rejection. Nableezy (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it hasn't turned up for work for a few days. Not sure what's happening. I think it's reading a Sam Beckett play at home. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We probably scared it off. I said before, this is why we can't have nice things. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Experimental and Special Weapons

I added the following section (including the above title) to the portion of the article on the Israeli military offensive. I believe that the new/special/unconventional/experimental weapons that appear to have been used are an important dimension of the military offensive. If there are objections grounded in WP rules, post them.

Israel appears to have used particulary lethal explosives that were developed to minimize explosive damage to structures while inflicting catastrophic wounds on its victims. Doctors who volunteered to work in Gaza reported injuries consistent with GBU-39, a Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) developed in 2000 by the U.S. Air Force, Boeing Corporation, and University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

"There's a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons," Dr. Mads Gilbert, a member of a Norwegian triage medical team in Gaza told reporters upon his return to Oslo. Dr. Gilbert said the kinds of injuries he and his colleague Dr. Erik Fosse had seen during their ten-day aid work in Gaza had proven that Israel had used Dense Inert Metal Explosives. Survivors close to the lethal range may have their limbs amputated as their soft tissues and bones are shredded to pieces. The victims may also subsequently contract cancer from the micro-shrapnel embedded in their body tissue within just four to six months. "We have not seen the casualties affected directly by the bomb because they are normally torn to pieces and do not survive, but we have seen a number of very brutal amputations... without shrapnel injuries which we strongly suspect must have been caused by the DIME weapons," stated Dr. Fosse. The weapon "causes the tissue to be torn from the flesh. It looks very different (from a shrapnel injury). I have seen and treated a lot of different injuries for the last 30 years in different war zones, and this looks completely different," said Dr. Fosse. "If you are in the immediate (vicinity of) a DIME weapon, it's like your legs get torn off. It's an enormous pressure wave and there is no shrapnel," he explained.

Dr. Jan Brommundt, a German doctor working for Medecins du Monde in Khan Younis in south Gaza, described widespread but previously unseen abdominal injuries that appear minor at first but degenerate within hours causing multi-organ failure. Dr. Brommundt stated that the injuries he had seen are "absolutely gruesome." "It seems to be some sort of explosive or shell that disperses tiny particles at around 1x1 or 2x1 millimetres that penetrate all organs, these miniature injuries, you are not able to attack them surgically." Doctors said many patients succomb to septicaemia and die within 24 hours.

The Times reported earlier in January that it had identified stockpiles of M825A1, a US-made White Phosphorus munition, from high-resolution pictures taken from Israeli artillery units on the Gaza border. A phenomenon characteristic of White Phosphorus, also known as WP or Willie Pete, is that it can burn through flesh to the bone and leave bodies "entirely shriveled with black-green skin."

Earlier in January, Dr. Gilbert's team, told Press TV that medics had found depleted uranium, a radioactive substance, in some Gaza residents. I forgot to add my signature before.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the new section, I didn`t see this one. Also, please sign your posts.Kinetochore (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have many, many, many problems with this section.

Since you raise many objections without numbering them I added my response after each objection. If that is unacceptable to you, please number your objections, and then you can remove my responses and number each to correspond to the objection to which it responds.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, I object to the inclusion of this section to begin with, on the grounds that information that could perhaps be added to this section could easily be split up into the various other relevant sections of the article

Disagree. The special weapons used are a dimension of the military operation that is worthy of its own section. Just imagine for a moment if it was reported that Hamas had used a brand new experimental weapon as part of rockets fired and the weapon was particularly leathal and cancer causing, how newsworthy and interesting on its own that would be.--

NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not edit these articles to include what is interesting. That you think that this information adds a new dimention to the conflict is irrelevant - what is relevant is what Reliable Sources have said. Sources which have reported instances of the use of these weapons can be included in the article, in relevant sections (such as the international law section).Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By interesting I mean noteworthy by WP rules. Without my proposed section there is NO section of the article that presents this dimension of the military conflict. The law section of the article you keep citing mentions White P. but does not mention DIME, and the particular type of DIME, referred to by "my" sources. Nor are the doctors reports provided to corroborate the use of DIME. Nor are some other special/nonconventional weapons mentioned that "my" sources mention. Nor is the experimental weapons nature of Israel's military offensive mentioned there.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Much of this section is synth and OR (do sources categories these weapons as `experimental and special`? or just illegal, as they are?). Dr. Jan Brommundt's suspicions and the injuries of the patients she has seen are absolutely irrelevant to the article entirely, and by no means is it clear who she is accusing of what.

Disagree. (a) If you read the footnoted sources and compare them to the article, for example, the Al Jazeera Magazine source, it's easy to see that there is no OR or synth. (b) the injuries observed by seasoned doctors, including Dr. B., are important because they help to confirm that a new type of weapon is being used and the injuries described by the doctors are consistent with the DIME weapon reported.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You have fallen into a trap where you have admitted to performing OR in your denial of performing OR. The doctors absolutely did not confirm the use of those weapons. They suspected they have been used. But they are not weapons experts, and offer only their medical analyses. You are presenting that, since these doctors say there are X injuries, and X injuries are similar to injuries caused by Y, then this information supports the hypothesis that Y was used. That is Original Research, and not acceptable in wikipedia. Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "my" sources present the doctors' reports of the injuries as being consistent with the special weapons mentioned. I did not come up with that one. I am not a medical expert and could not make this stuff up even if I wanted to.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We should have some DIME mention. We have in the past -- I don't know how it disappeared. But, as I said below, I'm troubled by your suggestion that the GBU-39 has been deployed as a DIME weapon. Only one of your sources, the Berkely Planet actually says it was. I'm not sure if it is an RS or not. But I've read a fair bit now about DIME weapons and I've not seen a good source that says DIME versions of the GBU-39 exist for certain, let alone have been deployed. Does anyone know of such a source? It is certainly misleading to say that the GBU-39 is purely a DIME, as the source suggests. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• It makes many accusations, many of which are repeats of info in the international law section.

It's relevant here too regarding the miltiary aspects of the conflict. Once we add this section, we can cross-reference to the law section, if appropriate and maybe add detail here or

there.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that eventually this would be done, but this repetition of information means that there is even less new information provided in this section than you intended, so it offers even less information to the readers. Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• It does not present the Israeli or other humanitarian organization perspectives on any of these accusations.

OK. present them. I wanted to start this new section and I would be happy to see others taking the ball and rounding it out as necessary.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem offering Israeli or other perspectives on these issues. But I still disagree with the inclusion of this section entirely, and am in favour of relevant information (of which there is little which is not repeated from other parts of the article) being moved. Allegations of the use of several of these weapons is thoroughly documented in the article already, in the International Law section, complete with neutral and Israeli perspectives. There is no reason why we must present this same information again, at a different point in the article.Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See my earlier response to your "int'l law section already has all your stuff" argument.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is extremely POV, not at all neutral (both in selection of info, presentation of info, selective use of quotations, misrepresentation of sources, weasel words - the section is overflowing with them - Claims and accusations here are being presented as fact in several instances - It is unclear who is accusing Israel of these crimes, what the crimes are, etc)

There are many facts that tend to portray one or the other side more or less favorably. Our job as editors is not to pick and choose in order to make the article have exactly half the facts make the reader feel good about one side, and half the other side. The piece does not describe any legal issues or crimes. I could not include everything from the sources; I tried to focus on the parts concerning the new weapons and the descriptions of wounds regarding the weapons.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First, these are not facts, these particular examples are allegations and claims and even suspicions by non-neutral observers (claiming them as facts is just one example of weasel words in the section). I hope you can see the difference. To portray Israel's use of these weapons as fact, you would need reliable sources reporting this as fact. Second, this has nothing to do with good or bad protrayal. These allegations from the get go present Israel in a bad light, and there is no 'making good' out of them. The problem is that your paragraphs suggest that these claims are true. That is your point of view, and so is not allowed to be a part of the article.Kinetochore (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This point may involve adding a word or two to the text to make it consistent with the sources. If the sources present a statement as fact then we should too, otherwise we can state it as an allegation or whatever the source says.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• This has been discussed in earlier archives: Mads Gilbert is a doctor, but he is far from being a neutral observer of this conflict. He is an activist for one side of the conflict, and so must be presented as such. Moreover, the inclusion of his opinions in the article in this capacity is very much Undue Weight.

Disagree. Just because Dr. Gilbert sympathises with the Palestinian cause (I am conceding for this discussion that this is a fact, I don't know), it does not follow that his observations should not be included. That's an ad homined argument and thus a red herring. For all you know, I may practice cannibalism in my spare time but it does not follow that my work here as an editor should not get fair treatment.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my argument. You present Gilbert as neutral. He is not. This is misleading. See the archived discussions on Gilbert.Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, he is not deserving of so much space in the article. More than one or two sentences, and this section becomes 'this is what Gilbert says on the conflict'. Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, other users in the past have argued that quotations from activists for one side of the article (such as Alan Dershowitz) should in general be avoided, as their biases detract from their legitimate arguments. Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If Alan Dershowitz were in Gaza and quoted in a RS as saying he saw X, particularly if X was within his field of expertise, then we could include it. The quotes from Dr. G concern what he says he saw, not his opinions regarding the nature of the conflict or the merits of the Palestinian cause. The quotes from Dr. G and the other medical professionals describe a phenomenon that they witnessed: medical injuries that conform to a particular pattern. That's why they're noteworthy and relevant.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a place for individuals to put up lists of quotations which describe just how grusome and bloody specific injuries are. Random doctors explaining that they have seen cases with patient's legs being torn off, gruesome abdominal diseases, soft tissue being shredded to pieces, etc, provides no relevant information to the reader. This 'war porn' is unacceptable in this article.

Disagree. See my response above. The quotes are not included for their gruesomeness. The doctors are describing types of wounds they had never before seen. In fact, if you compare what I have included here to the articles footnoted, you'll see that I tried to trim material to focus on the weapons issue.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And I am saying that this does not belong in the article, is Synth, and is completely irrelevant to the conflict. Or do you also feel that we should document medical cases from the Israeli side, where patient's limbs have had to be amputated from rocket shrapnel wounds? (To be absolutely clear, this would also be unacceptable, for the same reasons)Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this synth? Furthermore, it is not irrelevant, the news sources happen to discuss the use of these weapons in this exact conflict. Rockets, missiles, shelling are conventional weapons used in war but the use of these chemical weapons is of greater controversy and that's why there is more attention on the latter type. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The list of gruesome symptoms is synth. Completely agree that used illegal weapons (i.e. chemical weapons) should be discussed in the article - in the international law section.Kinetochore (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy says "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources." 'The list of gruesome symptoms' is taken from the source so it is not synth. Also, why would this information be in international law section? I don't remember the use of DIME being a violation of law. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

His conclusion is not in the sources. List of gruesome symptoms does not = experimental and special weapons use in Gaza. It perhaps supports the claims, at best.Kinetochore (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The doctors in the articles indicate that they see gruesome symptoms from use of experimental and special weapons. I do think that NYCjosh captured the meaning of sources so I don't see any synth problem here. We can always ask for a third opinion, would you like that? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Falastine, I just reread the source, this is the closest that Gilbert comes to a direct accusation: "We have not seen the casualties affected directly by the bomb because they are normally torn to pieces and do not survive, but we have seen a number of very brutal amputations... without shrapnel injuries which we strongly suspect must have been caused by the DIME weapons," he added." [emphasis added by me]. Gilbert has no first hand proof, and can only offer a hypothesis/suspicion based on his medical observations. For NYCJosh to list all the symptoms that the doctor saw, and then come to a conclusion that even the doctor himself did not make, is very much synth. The following is from NYCJosh's proposed paragraph, after a list of several injuries from one article, and before a list of injuries from another article: "Dr. Gilbert said the kinds of injuries he and his colleague Dr. Erik Fosse had seen during their ten-day aid work in Gaza had proven that Israel had used Dense Inert Metal Explosives."[emphasis added by me] I would of course welcome additional opinions.Kinetochore (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dr. Gilbert said the kinds of injuries he and his colleague Dr. Erik Fosse had seen during their ten-day aid work in Gaza had proven that Israel had used Dense Inert Metal Explosives." is actually from the source, word-for-word. Check fourth para of this source [2] So it is not synth, because it was taken directly from the source itself. That is a different issue which NYCjosh has agreed to resolve. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Identification of stockpiles of a weapon are very much different from allegation of its inappropriate use.

Agreed. But if it were reported that Hamas had stockpiled a battery of, say chemical weapons, or other nonconventional arms, don't you think that would merit inclusion? --NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What you or I think about how Hamas will use their hypothetical chemical weapons stockpiles is irrelevant. You do not seem to grasp this concept. It is what sources think that matters. Also, according to your line of reasoning, Israel likely has nuke stockpiles, which are definitely 'special weapons', and so we should include that in this section.Kinetochore (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what the sources say is what matters, and the sources I cite do present it as relevant--they are consistent with the the notion that the weapons were used.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I must insist that this section remain out of the article until these issues are thoroughly addressed. I hope that my list of problems with this section will persuade some users to agree with my position that it be removed entirely.Kinetochore (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The direct quotes in the sources are not neutral even if the sources are. Also, plagiarism. Paraphrase it and cut down on the doctor's POV and it may not be terrible. Info merged in preexisting sections would be preferred. Too many red flags to be acceptable as originally included.Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It sucks to have so many reverts but it has to be done on the plagiarism alone. Please paraphrase and fix weight issues and then where it can be included can be discussed.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not plagiarism to include short quotes (less than a paragraph each) with proper attribution to speaker and with footnotes. You are mistaken about what "plagiarism" means. Please consult WP rules. I quarantee you that if I had paraphrased and not quoted the doctors, I would be accused of synth, OR, mischaracterization, etc. The quotes are from several professional medical personnel in the field, some with decades of practice as doctors, who are describing types of wounds from explosives they had never before seen. That's both quite relevant and worthy of inclusion in this WP article.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right it is not plagiarism. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text may be a problem here, but this is not plagiarism. I will have to take a look at the section to see if we have a violation of the quotation policy since you mentioned that there are "short quotes (less than a paragraph each)" I was thinking half a sentence is a short quote :p --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this section, reference number 129, 131, 133, and 134 are all one source. 130 is a separate source and 132 is a separate source.

First paragraph is fine, maybe some close paraphrasing but no copyright violations.

The second paragraph, in my opinion, contains extensive use of copyrighted text. And this 'Dr. Gilbert said the kinds of injuries he and his colleague Dr. Erik Fosse had seen during their ten-day aid work in Gaza had proven that Israel had used Dense Inert Metal Explosives. Survivors close to the lethal range may have their limbs amputated as their soft tissues and bones are shredded to pieces. The victims may also subsequently contract cancer from the micro-shrapnel embedded in their body tissue within just four to six months' is plagiarized. I can tell that you have made an effort in correctly attributing text to its source, but this instance was not in quotations like the rest are and can be seen as plagiarism.

The third paragraph is mostly fine but with some close paraphrasing that can be easily fixed. 'Doctors said many patients succomb to septicaemia and die within 24 hours' wasn't in quotations and wasn't properly attributed so it can be seen as plagiarism.

Fourth paragraph is plagiarized. Fifth paragraph is partly plagiarized.

Plagiarism in all these instances would also mean copyright violations because these are copyrighted texts that you have taken excerpts from.

Please review the guidelines on using non-free content and make changes where necessary to consider adding the section back. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Posting a substantial chunk, say a half or a third, of an article verbatim, might be copyright infringement. It's not a copyright infringement to copy isolated phrases or even a consecutive sentence or two from a source to which attribution is provided. However, I have no problem altering the wording of a few of the sentences to satisfy your copyright concerns, but the quotes from the doctors should stay to avoid the accusation of inaccurate paraphrasing. Plagiarism is when one uses a source or a portion of a source without attribution. It's not plagiarism here because the source is attributed in the footnote and the speaker of the quote is identified. Footnotes are provided at the end of each paragraph and cover the entire preceeding paragraph. If you think it's necessary or desirable to repeat the footnote after every quote within the paragraph, feel free to copy it, but that's not the way it's usually done.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you when you said It's not plagiarism here because the source is attributed in the footnote and the speaker of the quote is identified but the sentences that I pointed out as plagiarism are not quoted (not enclosed in quotation marks) and the speaker isn't identified (the authors of the articles that paraphrased the doctors). It is not acceptable to copy and paste word-for-word with regards to copyrighted text unless it is being used under fair use or directly quoted. I don't think the text meets criteria for fair use. It is recommend to use original language or direct quoting with copyright text. We just had a recent case like this, please review this thread. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Copying one sentence from a source is well within the fair use safe harbor of the copyright laws (with or without quotes around it if properly attributed), and I think the thread you pointed to would agree. But I will concede the point per the four principles noted in that thread, and agree to change the phrasing. I would also be happy to consolidate the text a bit, but I wanted to avoid being accused of POV phrasing. I thus errored on the side of inclusion of material, including quotes, from the sources, without too much change.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can discuss all of those things. But probably not in the way they are there. I don't look at the article that often -- it is too depressing but I have just now. I see we already have a para on WP in International Law. I don't think this adds anything worthwhile to that.

We should have a mention of the DU suspicion if it is sourced and something on DIME suspicions as well. I would note that the author of the Berkley source may be getting ahead of himself: I understand there was a program to investigate the GBU-39 but most sources don't consider DIME versions to have been produced. It is certainly not a DIME weapon generally as the sentence implies. You can read Amnesty on DIMEs here (and other weapons)[3].

I would suggest that we should also include the "cube-shaped shrapnel" which is also mentioned in the AI report that I linked. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I keep saying this, I have no inherent objections to inclusions of relevant and notable information (i.e. allegations of DIME weapon use) in the article. But a whole section dedicated to an essay on how Israel has turned Gaza into an experimental weapons testing facility is not appropriate to this article. RS have not said this is the case. Moreover, Gilbert's quotations need to be kept to within due weight (if he is used at all), and his position as a pro palestinian activist (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477881,00.html) needs to be mentioned if he is quoted, much as the president of the Canadian Jewish Congress is noted as such when he is quoted in the international law section of this article.Kinetochore (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad we are moving toward resolution of all but one of the issues, plus choices in wording and how much to use quotes from the article. The one issue remaining it seems is whether this should be a separate section. I don't really see how else it could be included other than as a separate section. Someone suggested it be added to the law section. But then additional citations would have to be provided to show the relevance therein. Also, the section seems to fit more comfortably in the military history portion of the article because it concerns weapons used, types of injuries, etc.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned "I don't really see how else it could be included" - what are you referring to here? There is no new information in your proposed paragraphs, except for DIME weaponry allegations. If you are looking for a place to mention concerns with suspected DIME use, it could go in the International Law section, per the following statement by Amnesty: "[Amnesty International] believes further studies are required before it can be determined whether the use of DIME munitions is lawful under international law." I would also like to point out that few RS have published articles on DIME munition allegations. A google search on DIME weaponry turns up little other than Al Jazeera (which is an RS, but only one RS, wheras notable issues are usually covered by many RS). This allegation's due weight must be considered. Kinetochore (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant to the law section you cite. But I'll copy here a response I posted to the undue weight section below. This aspect of the military conflict sheds light on the following aspects of the conflict: (1) the array of Israeli weapons used, (2) the U.S. source of Israeli weapon superiority, (3) the novel, perhaps never before seen in a war situation, effect of the weapons on their targets, (4) the(im)balance/asymmetry in military technology between the two sides. Now if you don't think this merits inclusion in the Israeli military offensive section, just consider what you would think if a group of international doctors volunteering in Sedorot, Israel, had reported that many Israelis were injured by rockets from Gaza carrying what may be a brand new experimental weapon supplied, say, by Iran, which caused a new pattern of injury and was particularly lethal.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Weaponry is incredibly important to the conflict. Unfortunately, previous edits have focused solely on the victims while ignoring all other notable aspects.Cptnono (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Weight has do with what sources deem important, not what you (or I) deem important. I keep saying this- I have no objection inclusion of relevant info about allegations of DIME weaponry, just keep it under due weight, as very few sources have published on this topic. Your hypothetical example is not a good analogy, since rocket attacks on civillian population centres are already illegal per international law (regardless of what they carry).Kinetochore (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The info was originally removed due to it being poorly done. If an editor wants to write an outline we could see if it should be back in. It looks like the info is all in under intl law but a weapons section could be added if it was not duplicate information and had appropriate weight. If the article is fine or better as is we can skip it.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you another hypothetical situation. Imagine if, unlike the DIME situation where a few doctors just gave descriptions that were consistent with use, a respected international organization like Amnesty International actually reported seeing direct evidence of a different microshrapnel weapon. And then imagine that a Wikipedia editor brought this up on the talk page. Would anyone care about that? --JGGardiner (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. But I've added a section on it below anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Does any of you actually know what DU and a DIME are? Are the different groups is possession of evidence or than anecdotal? That is the key question: what the RS are saying should not be misrepresented and should be attributed. --Cerejota (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the main issue is really the scope of inclusion or "weight" although it seems more like a simple editing decision to me. But nobody is free to admit that they make decisions these days it is chic to say that UNDUE forces our hand. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts while trying to reduce leading of the reader in Airstirkes section

"On December 27, a force including more than 50 F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters entered Gazan airspace, killing 225-292 Palestinians and wounding more than 1,000.[83][84] The IAF dropped more than 100 bombs on 50 targets,[85] which included Hamas paramilitary bases, training camps, and underground Kassam launchers. It also hit Hamas headquarters, government offices and police stations." Israel dropped bombs on targets. The result was casualties.Resulting casualties should be at the end of the sentence. Reads like terrible as is.Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is funny you call this reducing POV while trying to present this as a structure problem at the time. So I am not sure how to take this really. Can you tell me which one it is? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you paste the section links for this paragraph? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know how. But it is the first paragraph of Airstrikes section

It is both. Simple as that. I made a handful of edits since they led the reader and you reverted which I find ridiculous. Israel was bombing targets and it reads as if they were bombing whatever just for the sake of killing.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If a sentence read "On December 27, 50 rockets were fired at Southern Israel from Gaza killing X Israelis and wounding more than Y" would you think it was pushing a POV. I can't see the problem yiu are seeing. It's a statement of fact that is then expanded upon. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I am not sure if I follow along. They led the reader to know that there were casualties? Trying to push the casualty number further into the paragraph is in my opinion biased editing. You have a point about structure but since you spoke of reducing POV, I am now convinced it is an attempt to remove the casualty number from the forefront. So structurewise, you had a point, POV-wise it backfired on you. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The casualties were a result of targeted bombings. I have no problem with he casualties being in I have a problem with it looking like Israel was indiscriminately killing. They were using too much force while attempting to bomb objectives. Look at my edit if you haven't, Sean. The numbers were in just moved to the end of the paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the first sentence (and the example I gave) talk about actions and consequences not intentions. That seems like a good approach from the npov perspective. Actions have consequences no matter what the intentions are. Do we want to talk about Hamas' intentions when we talk about missiles ? What are their intentions ? I'm sure they have some. I guess my point is that it is easy to apply double standards here without a bit of care. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Are we mass murders every time we take an international flight? The action of entering Gazan airspace didn't kill anyone. Dropping bombs did.Cptnono (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably depends on what kind of racial profiling/security systems they have in place e.g. a smear test of my laptop got an initially positive for explosives but subsequently negative result at PDX airport once. Caused a bit of excitement. Anyway, see what you mean about the "entering Gazan airspace". Sean.hoyland - talk 08:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed I think. Replaced "entered airspace" with "attacked objectives".Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to attacked targets instead of objectives. The objectives were to attack targets. You carry out or complete objectives, you attack targets. Nableezy (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

targets is cool with me.Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2

What is with the mention of when school got out? I didn't know it was discussed before but disagree with inclusion. Reads like Israel attempted to kill children. If you don't see that I question your neutrality. (also in Israel attacking section)Cptnono (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Meant "deleted" not "moved" by my revert comment. I'm not disputing that it happened I'm disputing that it reads like it was done to kill kids.Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits already tells me exactly what you are trying to push here. The Haaretz and Aljazeera sources present the event the same way, and the event explains the children casualties. Children were going home at the same time air strikes were happening and some were killed, injured and others survived. If you are disputing how it reads, then don't delete it, fix it. I don't know how you are going fix it since it is already presented neutrally. If it was written as Israelis attacked the police station when the students were leaving a closeby school then you got a point but it wasn't. Adding unintentionally is OR.... I just don't see your point --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you don't see my point. It doesn't need to be fixed it needs to be removed. It leads the reader and is not necessary information. Kids died (so says the very next line). That is in and that is all that is needed.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, readers need to know why there were children casualties since Israelis "strike Hamas targets only." So no I don't see your point at all. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are implying that Israel tried to kill children walking home from school? Don't want to put words in your mouth but that is the only logical conclusion from your last comment. And don't play dumb, too many civilians (including children) have died. That isn't being disputed.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yawn, another attempt to poison the well again. 'Logic conclusion' made me laugh, logical fallacies seems to be your specialty. "And don't play dumb, too many civilians (including children) have died" worthless line (not saying that the rest of your post was of worth), but what is your point here? Don't answer that question. I don't want to hear what you have to say next. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've said this before but it irks me when I see a mention of an F-16 specifically when the author had no way of knowing that an F-16 was literally involved. Some journalists just it as a lazy shorthand but this this inclusion does not seem RS. The other source on that sentence also looks to be not an RS. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On F-16s, isn't that the aircraft type that appears in the sources? I see "Using F-16s and AH-64 Apache helicopters" in the source I think speculating on how thorough the reporters are is beyond our role here, and would open up the mother of all cans of worms. In any case, if you don't like the existing source, here is one that has the IDF identifying the aircraft as F-16s.[4] RomaC (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that source is better. The other two are not RS. Although only one of the two actually mentions the planes. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the bold and revert policy I attempted to discuss this. Falastine fee Qalby's personal feelings on this prevent him/her from editing neutrally. Reverting.Cptnono (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That isnt really fair. I think what is needed is consistency in what type of detail is included and what kind is omitted. That is the only way we are going to have anything even resembling a consensus about these things. But if the detail is included in the rocket attacks that hit a school the question is going to be raised why not the same detail on the schools hit in Gaza. The answer to me is that the detail like this does not belong on either. Nableezy (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers on the day, (from memory), noted that the massive bombing coincided with the precise moment when large numbers of children (Gaza has a huge population of children in schools) were leaving school, or coming to school (since they have an alternation of attendence at the same school, and the switch in students occurs at 11.30 am. What one may wish to deduce from this, in lieu of RS interpretations of strategy, it remains a deeply significant fact, and should be noted. I can see no sense in Cpnono's revert.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I never believed that you edit neutrally, your removal of this sentence shows that you would like to hide facts that make Israel look bad. Your sweeping under the carpet is not going to help much though. As Nishidani said, the strikes on the police station at the same time students were walking home is a fact that was brought up in several news reports, it was very notable. It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or unintentional, it happened and it caused the deaths and injuries of some of the students. Anyway, as Nableezy said, there has to be consistency, removing that line justifies other users of removing details with regards to why/how Israeli children were injured or killed. I myself might have to do a POV-reduction today. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never been a proponent for rocket attacks receiving too much detail. In fact, if you look at the discussion you are involved with up above,I stated: "We don't need to mention the number of bricks being destroyed" while trying to make a point that we don't need so many details and fluff. This isn;t a discussion about weight it is a discussion about leading the reader in this one particular incident. It is not responsible to let other editors' previously poor decisions automaticaly grant inclusion here just to make a point. Unless the source says that it was done in an attempt to kill children, it does not belong since its placement leads the reader. If children getting out of school increased casualties throughout the conflict it might be an appropriate line to put in somewhere else in the article but not here since it leads the reader.Cptnono (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, they didn't attack a school so it is not directly related. Regardless, of all the sentences used in the source, the reason this one mention was originally put in the article was to be sensationalist. The paragraph says that children died in this attack. The reader knows kids died. Putting in this line about school is to further vilify Israel. They have done that on their own without us needing to in additional commentary in the hopes that the reader will come to that conclusion even more.Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll never get anywhere if people from either side compete to add or elide information that, in their view, vilifies. You elided text that was in the reliable source cited, objecting to the content of that source. You reason is 'it vilifies' Israel. 99% of reportage on the area 'vilifies' (Israel/Hamas) if one is to begin reading it as you do. We know this, and cleave to reportage of significant facts, of which the coincidence of an attack with school breaks is one. Your objection is not based on wiki editing principles but on dislike of a fact. If you dislike a fact, discuss its presence in terms standard principles (WP:Undue etc). Do not remove things simply because you suspect they 'vilify' a party.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not disputed that it happened. I mam taking exception for how it comes across where it is. Can you honestly tell me you have read the source and believe the line should be in where it is? I just don't see it. As I said earlier, it could easily go in somewhere but as it is it comes across like Israel was attempting to kill children due to its placement in the paragraph. Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The hour of attack coinciding with the school hours was only given so much attention because BBC got one of the first interviews with a resident named Fikr Shallpoot who briefly mentioned it. Good footage and interesting so it got picked up by other news sources but the brief mention was only given a single line here and there since there was plenty of other more notable content in that and other interviews. There have not been any reliable reports stating that it raised the death toll. If there was, I would be happy with it in the casualties section explaining why so many children died. It serves no purpose in this article as is. It is an interesting thought that the attacks occurred during these hours but what did it mean? Nothing. The children would have probably died anyways with all of the bombs falling.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

An early report from Russia Today also mentioned it. However, the wording was that they "expected" to see more children and civilian casualties. Without a follow-up report I don't think it matters what they were expecting.Cptnono (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything else? Is there a relevant source out there with information relevant to this section of the article? So far the sources lack any information that grant inclusion here.Cptnono (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel, in an operation named after a children's game played during Hanukkah, launched its operation precisely at a time when the maximum number of people (parents and schoolchildren) would be on the streets. One makes no deductions. One simply states what a large number of sources, from people within Gaza, and outside Gaza, in reliable sources, noted. That the attack coincided with a shift switch involving children going to and from school. This is what Haaretz dutifully reported. I myself thought originally this should go into the lead, but I have never pressed for that. I fail to see why you think this is irrelevant to the section. I do note you harp it should not be there, using strange arguments about Fikr Shallpoot and the BBC (so what?) I haven't found the original, in a mainstream newspaper, which mentioned that at the time of the attack some 200,000 people were in the streets, and that the timing perhaps related to an intent to make a massive visual impact on the population. It may even be my age's dwindling memory and confusion. But the coincidence was widely remarked on, and Haaretz has been sourced for it. For your information, please read the following reports many of which reflect local observers who noted the coincidence.

• The attack coincides with the school shift at 11.30 'Gaza Diary', The Guardian 27/12/2008
• On 27 December seven students from a school run by the United Nations were killed outside the school, just after lessons finished as they were trying to get home. The Israeli bombardment had first started at about 11.30 am on a Saturday, a day and time when the streets are very busy, particularly as children finish school just after midday, just as the initial bombardment was at its most intense. Seven students from a UNRWA school were killed outside the school just after lessons finished and they were trying to get home.On 27 December Muhammad al-Awadi finished his exam and left the al Carmel School in the Rimal district of downtown Gaza City, a school located near the al-Abbas police station in a residential district, at about 11.30 am to return to the orphanage where he lived with his brother Ahmed. He was fatally wounded when a bomb was dropped on the Police station, just as he came out of the school. Muhammad was treated in the ICU unit of Gaza City Hospital but died in the evening of 30 December. This happened at the very beginning of the bombing campaign and was totally unexpected. Amnesty International.
• Palestinian columnist Ibrahim Hammami argues that Israel preferred to make the attacks at 11.30 to coincide with the students’ taking time off from their schools. He says that the information given by the Egyptian officials to Hamas to guarantee the “no operation by Israel” and beginning of a new cease fire was serving to mislead Hamas. The guarantee given by the Egyptians was already broadcasted by Al Jazeera on Friday night as well. International Strategic Research Organisation
• Bombardment by F16s and Apaches at 11.30 in the morning, as children leave their schools for home reveals a contempt for civilian safety as does the 18 months of a siege that bans all imports and exports, and has resulted in the deaths of over 270 people as a result of a lack of access to essential medicines. Ewa Jasiewicz, 'Gaza City', UK Indymedia
• I was at home, lying down on my bed. It was 11.30am; a time when students fill the streets on their way home from school. All of a sudden I heard massive explosions, one after the other. The windows in my bedroom began to shake violently. Mohammed Ali (working for Oxfam) ‘Gaza diary: Welcoming the New Year,’ Al-Jazeera
• Earlier, we investigated several other cases in the Khan Yunis area, in the south of the Gaza Strip. There, the latest drone attack had occurred on 29 January, despite the 11-day-old ceasefire, in the centre of Khan Yunis. The target, it seems, were two suspected Palestinian militants who were riding a motorcycle. They were hit and injured, but so too were 16 civilians, almost all of them children, as might have been predicted considering the location and time of the missile strike. It was launched at a point opposite the hospital, only a few metres distant from the entrance to a UN primary school and directly in front of a row of food stalls. The attack was launched at 11.30am, just as children were leaving school at the end of the morning lessons. ‘Faulty Intelligence, Wanton Recklessness, or a Combination of the Two,’ Amnesty International Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If we do mention this in the article, we have to use wording like "the attack coincided with a shift switch involving children going to and from school" or "the attack occured around noon. At that time, school shifts were changing with many children in the steets." or something similiar.

We have no evidence that the Israelis purposely located a large group of children and then deliberately targeted and killed them just because they hate children. The Squicks (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Give me some time to look over the reports.Cptnono (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources mentioned above are not reliable sources/ok per Wikipedia standards due to being free lance journalism, a blog, biased/not reputable "alternative media". The Ibrahim Hammami mention looked OK until I looked at the sources mentioned in the footnote. However, one did jump out:

Amnesty Intl:

"We urge all parties not to target civilians and not to carry out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks that put civilian lives in danger.”

Examples:

On 27 December seven students from a school run by the United Nations were killed outside the school, just after lessons finished as they were trying to get home...''

Although some editors have argued that they are not OK to use I disagree for the most part. I still believe there is a weight issue by including it where and how it is. If we want to mention these 7 deaths being due to the school hours it might be good in the Reactions section as: "Amnesty Intl urged all parties to not use indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks citing an example of 7 children being killed since the initial bombardment occurred while school was letting out" (or something similar).Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks, you are arguing against something I am not asserting, but that was reported by a Palestinian journalist Ibrahim Hammami, and which I hadn't even adduced, except to back up the fact that many sources, reliable, note the coincidence. I am defending a passage elided on spurious grounds, not pushing a possible reading of that passage. I am defending the simple fact that the attacks are reported to have coincided with the school shift. Nothing more, nothing less. This was sourced to Haaretz, and questioned. I provided, randomly several other sources, from Amnesty, the Guardianj (actually Time could be added), al-Jazeera. Now these are called 'mostly unreliable' by Wiki standards. There is no Undue weight problem,Cptnono. These are only several words added by Haaretz, contextualizing the fatality. I still fail to see any legitimate technical reason for this fuss over a text that stood, and which you disliked, though thoroughly backed by several reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't see how 7 kids dieing gets such a commanding spot in the section. Second, Yes, a couple of reliable sources mentioned the timing. I still don't see much commentary on it except for non acceptable sources. Do you want me to go through each one so are on the same page as to why they are not OK? Seriously, let me know if it would help. Third, I think it is somewhat notable and madly interesting. It just not belong where it is and certainly should not read like Israel did it to kill children. Basically, if we move it to an appropriate section and word it better I have no problem with inclusion. Even a bit of expansion on it is fine as long as it isn't overboard.Cptnono (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you're the only person so far who finds it objectionable, you're the one who's obliged to prove the case for excision (b) The text is cleft-handed stylistically 'going home from close by school' is dumb, and apparently should read ' going home from a school close by'. Don't overdo the rhetoric: noting that 'seven children died' is not a 'commanding spot'. Had that happened in Sderot from a Qassam, we would, understandably, have a page on it, as indeed often happens. I personally don't believe such forking proper, and wouldn't do it in this instance for Palestinians. But I insist that you are making a polemical mountain out of a tragic molehill. I think it succinct, appropriate since child casualties were a hallmark of the campaign, and demure, strictly factual. 'Israel' doesn't kill children. The IDF adopts policies, as do many armies, that don't complicate battle decisions by worrying overly about such consequences, as Dan Halutz once said. But this is not in the text, and your only objection is that readers might draw that conclusion, and in doing so, receive the wrong impression about Israel. Take that over-nervous attitude, and you may as well blank the page as a prophylaxis against perceived misconceptions. Loosen up, and stick to relevant facts.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The quick proposal I threw up was just that. Wasn't even proper grammar. It wasn't meant to be anything but "hey look what it says". The only reason I have an attitude at all is because it is leading. That's is what the line there does. As I mentioned above, with the additional commentary found at the Amnesty International page (one of the few reliable sources that actually details anything but a single line), it might be relevant but not in the current section since it isn't that notable when compared to the thousands of others that had bombs fall on their heads. Undue weight and leading the reader are valid concerns for any Wikipedia article. I don't see that as being nervous. If you do not think it is a big deal, then why do you care if it is moved?Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, why are we discussing casualties in the airstrike section anyways? We have a casualties section already. I honestly don't mind it too much but this does border on the whole rocket attack weight discussion above.Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(a)There are nine sources. Show me in detail why most of them are to be weeded out as not compatible with Wiki rules on RS. (b) Then tell me why 7 children being killed is not 'notable', as opposed to the 8 at the Mercaz HaRav massacre but just 'collateral damage'. (c)Where does the wording 'lead' the reader? (It could if one used to Palestinian journalist's remark, which I haven't) (d) Everything in the world is 'no big deal' sub specie aeternitatis. Wiki editors are not Spinozans: they look at reportage, cull them for detail, and write up pages according to the best sources. Here we have several. You alone find it a big deal, requiring removal. So the burden of the argument is uniquely on your shoulders. Otherwise, it should stay. etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this mentioned in the air strikes section you ask? Because it happened when the air strikes occurred and when the police station was hit. It is one flawed argument after another to try to hide an important, notable detail. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That is more to respond to than expected. In no particular order

• "The air strikes occurred at the same time children were going home from a close by school.[88] Children were among the casualties" gives undue weight to something that is relativity insignificant to all of the bombs dropping that day. We have a Casualties section if it is needed and the Amnesty Intl source would be perfect for the Reactions section. *Falastine fee Qalby, you have referred to me poisoning the well a couple times. I don't really care that much but you do come across like a hypocrite when you accuse me of trying to hide facts. I'm not trying to hide anything. I want it in the proper place. Originally I thought it should be simply removed since it seemed like a random couple of lines only included to make a point (which is more than likely why it was originally included). After looking at the first Amnesty Intl source I agree that it deserves inclusion somewhere. It does not however belong here just like every rocket attack death does not need to be mentioned in the campaign section.
• Gaza Diary

• This isn't journalism. It is the thoughts on the subject from a Gazan resident.

• Intl Strategic Research Org

• One mention of an opinion piece Palestinian columnist Ibrahim Hammami is not a good enough source for inclusion here. Maybe a mention of the allegation somewhere else would be fine.

• UK Indymedia

• Exactly that. Unreliable biased "alternative media"

• Al Jazeera

• Again, a "diary"

• Amnesty Intl 2

• A blog. Blogs are not OK.

Cptnono (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You've violated a basis rule. You are questioning a reliable source by contesting the source it in turn quotes, i.e. making a content judgement of what the reliable source reports, in order to disqualify that source. I can't keep up with the edit-warring here, but if the contested remark is removed, nothing you've said above, or below, justifies its exclusion, particularly because you show poor judgement on what wiki editing requires.

I hate adding lines to make sure other lines don't have too much weight. Unfortunately, if moving these lines was not an option something has to be in.Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Found a quote more related to the beginning. Actually fits in better.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So I thought everything would be fine and dandy but Roma decided that this made the section too long. I reverted. I have been a proponent for shortening the article but this quote is a well sourced fact. It also happens to balance out the article. It is nice how things work out sometimes.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting to be too much. Cptnono makes an edit, Roma removes it citing balance and Cpt puts it back in citing balance. Balance doesn't require either of those edits. I disagree with Roma's idea of balance that requires us to weigh aspects of the article down to the sentence. I also disagree with Cpt's idea of balance which requires everyone have their say. Apologies if I got those wrong. In any event, I don't believe that NPOV requires us to include or exclude a particular sentence on the basis of balance alone. Please everyone remember that we are the editors of the article. We do have some editing discretion. We have agency. It seems like more and more every day the arguments are just about how some policy, usually NPOV, compels us to include or exclude something.

I don't really care about this edit although I'd prefer to exclude it. I don't think inclusion benefits the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the school hours benefits the article here. A factually reported source is a factually reported source though. It also isn't like: "It was sunny that day". It is relevant to the initial strikes, provides a good segway into the next line, and I like the balance.

Also, both my original concerns are addressed now without removing any information. "against targets" was all that was needed for #1 (that was ridiculously simple in hindsight) and this finishes this one off if it stands.Cptnono (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're very hypocritical to a point that it is becoming disruptive. You argued against placing the detail about the children going home from school in the air strikes section, yet you place a statement that was NOT made in connection with the air strikes. A statement is NOT a fact btw. Especially one that is easily countered by simple facts. Though I am okay with its inclusion elsewhere in the article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Before you try to accuse me of implying that Israelis don't minimize civilian casualties, I will say yeah I believe Israelis don't try to minimize civilian casualties. Only idiots would buy the lie made by the Israeli representatives. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I just put in a well sourced quote. It is a fact that she said it. The argument was made that the school hours were well sourced and valid and I believe this meets the same criteria. Also, the statement was mad ein the opening days regarding the accusations. Sorry if your feelings are hurt. Hmmm... this well water tastes funny.Cptnono (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked the article again... did you even bother to look up the date of the article you got the well-sourced quote from? It is from March 2008...a year ago... O_o [5] Even if it is from Dec 29 2008, it is not acceptable. A quote relevant to the section would answer why they attacked at a time that children and their parents were filling the streets. But again I am okay with the inclusion of a similar quote elsewhere. It is a popular, notable statement that we hear repeated throughout the years every time scores of civilians are killed, so it must have been repeated during this recent conflict. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This section is a mess. It has no coherent structure and has alot of info that could be condensed. I'm happy to re-write it while trying to avoid controversial cuts.

• (Military) Targets
• Militant Casualties
• Civilian Casualties
• Misc. (roof knocking)

--Andi Hofer (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a fan of either campaign section. They are both kind of laid out in chronological order related to what that side might have done wrong. Rewriting, combining, maybe making it more about the military aspects (since there are sections for the other stuff), and/or massive changes might OK. Probably should start a new discussion subsection and throw in your draft there. Great idea as far as I am concerned.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V Check VI: Godzilla versus Verifiability

I actually checked a few sources that were good. Or dead links at the worst. But here's one, actually close to my earlier check. In the international law section we say that Raji Sourani accuses the Israel of targeting civilians (along with Falk) sourced with this column.[6] He doesn't literally mention "targeting civilians" there but rather "bombing civilian buildings repeatedly". Whilethat may be a good inference, it is not the same thing and a clarification of what he actually said. If they believed there was a military target in there it would be disproportionate force, assuming the force was not proportionate to the benefit of striking the target. Still a crime but of a different sort. Is there a better quote for Sourani or should we change the text? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A better representation of the source might be that he 'accused Israel of recklessly disregarding civilian casualties' or something more like that. The Squicks (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It would take wikilawyering in order to connect the source with the charges, no doubt about that. Although, there has been other reports accusing Israel of targeting civilians.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/20/gaza-israelandthepalestinians

* http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Norwegian_doctor_in_Gaza_Israel_targeting_0105.html

"Just a little bit more than an hour ago, the Israelis bombed the central food market in Gaza City and we had a mass influx of about 50 injured and between 10 and 15 killed,"

It is deduced then, that by attacking civilian facilities, you are targeting civilians, for civilians occupy civilian facilities. (this reached by this OR). The question here is, is there an Israel response to this in the article(of course there is) and it basically states that since Hamas fire from civilian populations, Israel has the right to attack ANY place in Gaza.

"Accused of targeting civilians and civilian facilities"?. would that work out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is a fundamental difference, indeed prehaps even a black verses white difference, between targeting non-combatant civilians directly to maximize their deaths (which is a war crime) and targeting a civilian facility that is allegedly being used by the military (which is simple generic warfare). The Squicks (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you put all these checks as subsections in one section, that would make it a lot easier to tie them together? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to be the pretty ring girl who distracts everyone from the fighting here and there. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On a different note, I think this is good work, but I'm concerned that you only seem to be picking out sources that (are said to) show Israel in a bad light. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your concern is unfounded. Like I said above, the choice is completely random. I open up a new spreadsheet in Microsoft Works Spreadsheet (it came preloaded with this computer). I type "=rand()" in the first cell and I pick the first three digit sequence that will fit into the number of citations we have. There were exactly 300 when I first checked (298 now) so I use any number from one to 300. I usually have to press a key, I like DEL, to regenerate the number because it takes a few tries to get a suitable number. Without widening the column it only displays seven digits.

I should say that the ones I have placed here aren't all that I've checked. I replaced a few dead links and I even saw a couple of sources that conformed to WP:V. Just before posting this one I looked at the source which said 60% of the agricultural land in northern Gaza was unusable. It looked fine to me. Although I would expect that we have more information detailing Israeli attacks than anything else so that's what I would come across most.

Even though you are wrong to impute a motive on my part, I also think your characterization of the Checks is wrong:
Check II reformed a source that corrected the number of injuries in a Hamas rocket attack. Our article says three, the source implied 17. I could have just corrected it to 17 but I did some searching and found lower numbers in other sources so I asked. Just conforming to our source would have been most anti-Hamas.

Check III was to repair a broken link.
Check IV was to remove a criticism of Hamas that our article sourced to an HRW letter but I felt was unsupported.
Check V was a problem with our article making an inference about Abbas' criticism of Israel.
Check VI is from the same area and I have the same problem with our use of Sourani's quote.

I think all four Checks showed unfounded criticism of their subjects but two were of Hamas and two were of Israel. However on Check V and VI I asked for the criticism of Israel to be retained but minimized to only what the source actually said. On Chevk IV I actually asked that a criticism of Hamas be removed entirely. And on Check II, while I did ask the number of wounded to increased, I did not choose the highest number, the one in our existing source. I actually did a little searching to find information that showed Hamas "in a better light". If anything, you should be accusing me of a pro-Hamas bias.

I know all this is long but I'm seriously ticked off here. I resent the accusation. I think I've done my best all these weeks to be a neutral editor here. I don't consider myself pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I know editors will say "I'm not anti-X, I wanted to exclude a statement that they eat babies." But I'm pretty sure that I'm the only editor who has brought "negative" information about both sides to the attention of the editors here. Not only did I bring up the "cube shaped" microshrapnel weapon that AI accuses Israel of using, my last edit was to complain that editors are ignoring it!

So please A a little GF next time. I think that I deserve it and so do all the other editors--JGGardiner (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I apologise. I hadn't seen that you were randomising it with a computer, and I should have read a couple of the checks more closely. As I said above, I do think this is good and valuable work. So please accept this apology, and hopefully there are no hard feelings. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No hard feelings. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As somebody whose edits and user page have inspired one to write that I am a Hamas operative, I feel pretty safe in saying categorically that your concern is indeed unfounded. But with the sick mind that I have, I can read 'A a little GF' in a rather perverse way, so I'll spell it out. Assume a little good faith next time. Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And even if he was going through every statement that somebody could perceive to show Israel in a bad light and making sure that they meet policy in terms of WP:V and WP:RS he should be thanked for that. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all V checks are equally welcome and necessary. JG is doing fine work. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

..of course that MS rand() pseudo-random code was originally written in Tel Aviv. I'm just saying... Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, are you questioning Falk's line as well? I hope not. Will it be oka then, to say ""Accused of targeting civilians and civilian facilities". The Falk line hangs on its own since it's his words. Civilian facilities would be tie to Sourani. Cryptonio (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments. Wikifan raised the related issue that the language/terms we are using are Falk's. That's fine of course when we attribute the statements directly to the UNHRC. If we then go on to try to squeeze other people's round peg statements into the same square holes created by Falk's terms we run the risk of misrepresenting what people said. That seems like a genuine issue to me. And can we use stated or a simple word related to 'said' rather than accused if possible as per....is it wp:weasel ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't say ""Accused of targeting civilians and civilian facilities"" because that is pure OR, we are conflating two very different things as if they are the same. Sean is right on the money here. These are different ideas being artifically labeled as one. The Squicks (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oka, let's backtrack here for a second. Is there an accusation(albeit not official or anything to the point) by Sourani? does it stand on its own? what should we say that accusation is? "bombing civilian buildings repeatedly"? I don't understand how this would fall under OR.

If we go by JG's "If they believed there was a military target in there it would be disproportionate force..." that would clearly be OR. Who knows what they believed, etc.

Are we saying, that Sourani's accusations is being taken to the same 'court' that Falk's is taking his? and that somehow that is 'wrong'? I want this resolve, for i refuse to drawn in a glass of water. If we are saying that Falk's accusations are not 'official charges' than why do we even have an international law section? or are there more charges that can be brought against individuals and countries besides 'crimes against humanity'? Cryptonio (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we say disporportionate force. Indeed, I was arguing against that sort of interpretation. What I said was that we currently interperet "civilians were hit" to mean "direct targetting" when it could also just as easily been interpreted to mean "disproportionate force". Or perhaps "failure to distinguish". What I'm saying is that we can't interpret. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a source where Sourani is quoted as saying the Israelis targeted civilians except for this interview he had with an IRNA. If that doesn't suffice, perhaps we can quote Sourani's organization PCHR instead: "Witnesses on the ground have confirmed that IOF are targeting civilians, including medical personnel." [7] --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It does look like he's saying that there was direct targetting there. I assume that's what he means with the "eye" comment. I think that in the original quote he was probably referring to all the events which had different problems. I think you could switch the source or remove it entirely if that was preferred. I was just checking the WP:V status, I'm not really interested in the editing decision here. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JGG here, we should swap the sources. The Squicks (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Although, "bombing civilian buildings repeatedly" falls under Article 52 and 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

• http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/4e473c7bc8854f2ec12563f60039c738/f08a9bc78ae360b3c12563cd0051dcd4!OpenDocument

• http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750068?OpenDocument

Would we put 'words' in Sourani's mouth if we include this information? something like "accused of violating article(s) 52 and 53 by "bombing civilian buildings repeatedly" ? Cryptonio (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would expounding what he said. We are limited to including what he said or a reasonable paraphrasing. Although I don't think we need Sourani specifically so if you're unhappy with what he said, just find someone else who said something you do. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we add the IRNA source to Sourani's line? Cryptonio (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I will do it since JGG has a phobia of making editing decisions, though he helped us make one. :) --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a phobia, I'm just on a -1RR. But I think the IRNA source is a fine substitute. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V Check VII: Verifiability is Forever

"Hamas assumed administrative control of Gaza following the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and its 2007 military victory over Fatah, the secular Palestinian nationalist party. Subsequently, Egypt closed the Rafah Border Crossing when EU monitors left.[8]"

The second sentence speaks of events after the Battle of Gaza (2007) in June 2007 but the Jerusalem Post story we use as a source is from March, 2006 and must refer to older events. So I'm deleting the sentence for now. But a mention of Egyptian border closing could be there so does somebody have a source for something contemporary? I'd look myself but I'm not even sure what time period we're talking about. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, this might help - http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/242029.htm

"The EU monitors left the crossing last June when Hamas seized control of Gaza after routing security forces loyal to Abbas. "

"Egypt closed the last breach of the border fence along the Egyptian-Gaza border on Sunday morning amid efforts exerted to mediate among parties concerned on the administration of Rafah crossing."

Dated February 4, 2008 Cryptonio (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks good. I'd like to include something because the rest of the para reads funny without it. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps also, that EU monitors left in June 2007? since the para looks funny i'll add the sentence and source in a few unless you have another idea etc. Cryptonio (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cryptonio (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

IDF vandalism of Palestinian homes during Gaza offensive reported in Haaretz

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068989.html --John Bahrain (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, earlier today I added some details released by amnesty alleging that Gazan houses were demolished for no military purpose, in areas already controlled by Israeli troops.(International law > Israel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to shorten this new edit or sum up the sources better? (Aesthetic not content dispute)Cptnono (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Emphasize this is Amnesty International. They've been screaming war crimes since the start of the war, but you'll find equally partisan and "reliable" advocacy/political organizations that say the exact opposite. If they mention international law, be explicit, and provide counter argument from notable expert/organization/etc if available. As far as I know, Amnesty International is not a legal entity and has no authority to give verdicts, so that must be made crystal clear. We have enough organizations accusing Israel of committing x crime against humanity in the article so unless it's extremely notable there is no need more need to add more. Also, make sure it's in the right section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty is a legal entity. But I think you meant to say it is not a judicial authority. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant legal entity in the sense that it is obligated to follow x rules/laws/consensus. AI has created a unique agenda without affiliations with recognized-judicial organizations. On another sour note, several news organizations are now citing AI exclusivelyWikifan12345 (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link John. That is interesting. To me, the more important thing in the article is the accusation that children were used as human shields. Although I do understand the yuck factor with the (spoiler alert) feces bit. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree on what is important in that article, though they barely gloss over it. Nableezy (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind this instead:Amnesty International stated that Israeli troops had engaged in "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes. Israel's military said buildings were destroyed because of military "operational needs". Both Amnesty International and Breaking the Silence claimed that demolitions had been carried out when there was no immediate threat. You used the same source for all of the lines but cited them as separate (I suck with inputting sources myself so am not implying anything). I don't think Donatella Rovera's rebuttal statement is needed since it is simply her speculation on why the anti-tank ordinance was there and we don't need to go into either side's detail that much when the initial claim speaks for itself. Yes it is much shorter but sums it up well.Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes sounds fine. I put them as seperate references because I don't have the technical know-how to make them all the same reference, though I know it can be done.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather used "accused" than stated. We need a source from the IDF that says "operational needs" or something similar, can't paraphrase more. And "operational needs" is understated compared to the over-emphasis and emotional context given to AI. IDf has given a lengthy reasoning for these demolitions over the years, most are done to "clear out terrorists" but in reality it just makes it easier for troops to move around. House-by-house search tends to drive up the casualties so bulldozers work best. :D Also, if we're going to use AI+1 then there probably is another charity/advocacy/propaganda group that sides with Israel's PR. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The source actually goes into decent detail that wasn't put in the original edit: 'Substantial operational needs': The IDF said buildings in the Gaza Strip were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead due to "substantial operational needs". In a written statement, it said: "For example, buildings were either booby-trapped, located over tunnels, or fire was opened from within them in the direction of IDF soldiers.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Begging the question and beating dead horses to a jelly are lame, and to a certain extent disruptive. Unless you have a new reason (aka new sources) to not follow common sense consensus, stop bringing this up.--Cerejota (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Hot Potato (game)

Continued from here and here

I'm not really sure who disputed Israel as Belligerent of this conflict or flags of commanders so I performed following edit. Please don't ban me from editing I/P conflict :). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop putting the flag of Hamas as the flag in that section, and by agreement of other editors all the flags were removed. You have been doing this across articles, and if it does continue you may very well be banned from I/P articles. Please take this as friendly advice to not continue to make the same disputed edits over and over. Nableezy (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being my friend :). Could you explain again:

• Who disputed Israel as Belligerent of this conflict?
• Who disputed flags of commanders?

I re-read the whole discussion archive, but still could not figure it out. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody disputed that, but what was agreed to, just to stop this inane fight, was that we remove all flags from the infobox. Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Gaza strip flag was disputed and I respect it. Somehow I did not see neither dispute nor agreement about (*) and (*). Thank you. Could you revert your fast revert. Friendly advice :) Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really. It was agreed to remove all flags. Nableezy (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's not clear enough

• I object to removal of Flag of Israel
• I object to removal of commanders flags of both sides.

Please reach consensus. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ok, if the flag of israel is included, then for consistency the flag for gaza should be as well. since you keep insisting, without any type of rationale, and against the views of multiple other editors, that the flag of gaza is the flag of hamas, and we have not been able to agree on that, we, meaning other editors, agreed to remove the flag. nobody spoke up about it so we did remove the flags. all of them. if you want to start this up again then fine, but if you want the flags on one side they need to be on the other. and the flag for gaza is the flag of palestine. Nableezy (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I do not follow your all or nothing logic. There is compromise in the middle.

• Flag Of Israel not disputed - so it is included.
• Flag Of Gaza strip is being disputed - so it is not included.
• Flag Of Hamas not disputed - so it is included.

Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this at all. The commanders section for Israel is garbage and the flag this is ridiculous. There is a Gaza City Municipal flag which does not encompass the whole region and there is a Hamas flag which does not represent all of the combatants fighting Israel from Gaza. The Palestinian flag was flown over the rubble of destroyed buildings not the flag of the ruling political party. Standard Palestinian flag is fine.Cptnono (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, though I do not understand "garbage" argument :). I clearly object using PNA flag which is also Palestinian National Flag, since none of the combatants used it. Protesters did. What do you propose? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli commander section is only 4 since the Gaza side is. The Southern command dude (I can find it again if this is actually up for discussion) and maybe the commander and chief are OK if basing it off similar articles. A google image search of terms frequently used for this conflict + flag come up with the standard Palestinian flag flying in the ruins of buildings in the Gaza Strip. I have tried to find an alternative and have not. Hamas flag is for the party which does not represent the whole of the population or all of the combatants and the municipality of Gaza flag does not encompass the whole strip.Cptnono (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just did some more poking around, the green flag of Hamas does pop up more than it did a few weeks ago. (seriously, one of them is getting a Pulitzer with how many hits it is getting) The red with he crescent comes up some. Overall, the standard Palestinian flag seems common or is used with the Hamas green.Cptnono (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I had found some stories that refer to flags after the Hamas takeover. One was saying that Hamas police were guarding the Rafah border crossing under the Palestinian flag. Another was saying that at the Gaza police station, there were 2 flags, the flag of the police and the Palestinian flag. But just so we stop arguing, squicks, jgg, and myself agreed to remove all the flags. I dont even see why this is an issue anymore. The issue is that people cannot keep making the same disputed changes over and over without any type of consensus. And going across multiple articles and adding the flag of Hamas to anything that references Gaza is starting to piss me off. Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Airstrikes Re-write

I attempted to restructure/condense the Air Strikes section to make it more readable. I tried to avoid controversial changes but some comments:

• Intro: I didn't think it had enough content to justify standing on its own. I added the Israeli stated justification from the existing sources. Its relevant enough.
• Casualty numbers: I used Reuters as the source for total casualties.
• Roof knocking: I tried to summarize the criticisms of roof knocking in one sentence. Its not well sourced yet but i think better than some of the inferred criticism we have right now. Also, I'm sure the whole conflict led to panic (as stated elsewhere in the article), not sure we need to again mention this here.
• Phone services: My impression is that there is widespread damage to all aspects of Gazan infrastructure. I didn't think it's worth highlighting the details of damage to TC infrastructure. At most, I'd insert "including telecommunications" after "...inflicting massive damage to Palestinian infrastructure."
• Generally: I'm not a fan of random factoids that look out of place or are of questionable relevance but are meant to lead the reader to some (relevant) conclusion. We have human rights groups criticizing the fact that the attacks took place around the time that school got out. Why introduce that fact in such a roundabout way?

Let me know if you have any comments.

===Israeli offensive===

Israel began planning for a military operation as early as six months before the conflict by collecting intelligence on potential targets. The IDF also engaged in a disinformation campaign to give Hamas a false sense of security and to take them by surprise. Defense minister Ehud Barak stated that the offensive was the result of Israel’s “patience running out” over the rocket attacks.

====Air strikes====

On December 27, 2008, the Israeli Air Force bombed over 170 targets in Gaza, including Hamas paramilitary bases, training camps, and underground Kassam launchers. The air strikes also hit Hamas headquarters, government offices and police stations, killing around 140 Hamas security forces, including the chief of police Tawfiq Jabber. Israel contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities.

At least 230 Palestinians were killed and more than 700 injured on the first day of air strikes. Civilians, including children, were among the casualties. Human rights groups critically note that the attacks began around the time that children were leaving school. The Israeli attack was the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict, which has has led some Palestinians call to it the Massacre of the Black Saturday.

In the weeks following the initial air raids, the Israeli Air Force continued to target Hamas facilities while also inflicting massive damage to Palestinian infrastructure. The IDF also targeted homes of Hamas commanders, noting: "Destruction of hundreds of Hamas leaders' homes [is] one of the keys to the offensive's success. The homes serve as weapons warehouses and headquarters, and shelling them has seriously hindered Hamas capabilities." Several high-ranking Hamas commanders were killed, including Nizar Rayan, Abu Zakaria al-Jamal, and Jamal Mamduch. The Hamas leaders often died along with their families in their homes.

In a practice codenamed "roof knocking,” the IDF issued warning calls prior to airstrikes on civilian buildings. Typically, intelligence officers contacted residents of a building in which they suspected storage of military assets and told them that they had ten minutes to leave. Critics of the practice note that some of the attacks took place sooner than the warning suggested, that some calls delivered false warnings, and that the dense urban environment and absence of bomb shelters make it difficult for residents to find safe havens.

By January 3, 2009, the Palestinian death toll stood at 400, with 25 percent thought to be civilian casualties. The air offensive continued throughout the ground invasion that followed, and as of January 15, Israeli forces had carried out 2,360 air strikes.

--Andi Hofer (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am for reducing fluff. I do not think some of this proposal will stand for some but think it could be a fine baseline. I know it is a big request but I would be curious to see what you could do with combining the two military campaigns into one section. The article could be lead, background, battle, casualties, other stuff, more stuff. Also, Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Andi, You've added some new info to the Roof Knocking section paragraph with "absence of bomb shelters make it difficult for residents to find safe havens." This shouldn't be in the roof knocking paragraph. It was discussed previously that bomb shelters aren't relevant to roof knocking since it is known where the bombs are going to hit and the residents just flee the building rather than go to bomb shelters. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I’ll wait until tomorrow to get more feedback on it. With regards to a combined military campaigns section: That would be a massive edit. I can try to come up with a proposed outline but not really keen to do spend the time without the buy-in to make that change. My feeling is that the individual sections need to be pared down one by one before a move like that becomes workable.

Bob, I understand your point. I actually took the last sentence in the current section and moved it to the roof knocking section. I realize that it sort of changes the context, which may have been an over-reach. I think it works but I could change the wording to make it clear that this is a general issue, not just related to roof knocking. Otherwise, I don’t think there’s a good place to put this sentence and removing it entirely may be problematic.--Andi Hofer (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Andi, The bomb shelter remark works fine where it is, outside the roof knocking paragraph. In the roof knocking paragraph it definitely does not work. It is not relevant to roof knocking. This has been discussed before[9] and the present position of the "bomb shelter" remark has been accepted.

Re your remark, "Otherwise, I don’t think there’s a good place to put this sentence and removing it entirely may be problematic." Of course there's a good place for it in your rewrite. At the end, like it is currently in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I'm not in favor of the majority of the roof knocking paragraph to consist of criticism of the practice by a Palestinian advocacy organization. The majority of the paragraph should consist of a description of the practice. It should also include the "standing on the roof" tactic and dummy-missile counter-tactic, since these are extremely novel elements. Nobody ever gave a reasoned objection to including these elements, and yet they seem to have been removed anyway (not by you, I assume). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree in the abstract, but there is an article named Roof knocking, which is where that information belongs. The entire section should be limited to a one or two sentence description of the tactic and a one or two sentence of criticism and a see also hat link tot he article.--Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the change, incorporating Bob's feedback. I would tend to agree with Cerejota on roof knocking. Its an interesting practice and we mention it (with link) but its a tactical aspect and I don't think it warrants more than 2-3 sentences (if that). I'm tempted to condense the paragraph on the bombing of Hamas leaders' homes but i'm not quite sure what the important and unimportant parts are.--Andi Hofer (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[OT] Shooter joke

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:NOT and WP:TALK by Nableezy (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia as ultimate Web 2.0 shooter game allegory

In order to implement modern ultimate shooter computer game three features should be implemented:

• Shoot enemy
• Shoot friendly for lulz
• Reload

In order to extend Shooter in Web 2.0 social network style two more features should be added

• kick
• ban

Was not lazy to login, somewhere near Tel Aviv, Israel though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For some editors wikipedia became a social network thought. Super.zhid (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not what the talk page is for, closing. Nableezy (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you cannot use non-free images anywhere outside of an article on wikipedia. Please do not restore. Nableezy (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. GNU licensed image might be more appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved here AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what the joke is. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jokes often depend on the humour of the unexpected, the mildly taboo (which can include the distasteful or socially improper), or playing off stereotypes and other cultural beliefs :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UNOSAT GIS damage analysis maps

Anyone think these UNOSAT GIS damage analysis maps are of interest for the article ? Not quite sure what this means with respect to usage in WP. "These maps have been produced or facilitated by UNOSAT for the humanitarian community from public sources. We ask you to kindly credit UNOSAT and/or the original source if this information is used in a report, project etc". Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the last two but besides that those are cool. How/where would we work it in? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

The UNOSAT web site doesn't specify the license but indicates that one can use the work but with proper attribution. In Commons, there is a derivative work of one of the UNOSAT maps [10] so I think the maps are acceptable for usage here at Wikipedia. which map did you have in mind? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The lack of response indicates that the decision to choose which map is all mine. Eeny meeny miney moe... I choose map number 7, I might consider 4. I will see if I could get someone to edit the map. No objections? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

These are the 2 that caught my eye being the latest updates for those 2 areas of interest

• Map 4 (which post-dates 7) - Damage Assessment for the Gaza Strip (As of 10 January 2009) Product ID: 1329 - 15 Jan, 2009
• Map 5 - Damage Assessment Overview for Gaza City - Update 1 Product ID: 1328 - 15 Jan, 2009

A cropped version of the following might be useful.

• Map 2 - Gaza - Post-Shelling Satellite Overview of UNRWA HQ Product ID: 1331 - 20 Jan, 2009 Sean.hoyland - talk 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Map 5 seems to be more effective as a visual than map 4. There is a project group here at Wikipedia that edit images, and I am thinking of presenting this image to them if there are changes that need to be made. For now, I will convert the pdf to an image file. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Shoot, UNOSAT just added more images, one of them is better than the one I converted/uploaded. [11] -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's like their biased against Israel or something. Damage assessments, that's supporting terrorism that is. Sorry, I had to get that in before anyone else. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The last two (mentioned above) relegate rockets into Israel in a teeny-tiny corner of the image so they come across like shit. The other ones are awesome though.Cptnono (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Those maps are pretty cool. But I'm not sure if we could fit them into the article very well. But I would like to at least have a link or something. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not completely clear. Of course we couldn't integrate them but what I meant to say is I don't think anybody could. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going by comparison with the 2006 Lebanon War which has had the luxury of time to calm down a bit. They use these kind of images in a way that I think benefits the article. I don't think they could be used in their raw state here. They probably contain too much info for that when rescaled. Definitely worth a link though. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)