Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Alleged violations of international law misrepresentation

It makes no sense whatsoever that the violations for the IDF is around double the size of the hamas violations. It's common sense that a terrorist organization violates much more laws than a democratic state(israel). Everyone knows that Hamas has been the source of much critisism for their many human rights violations.these include:

-Targeting civilians
-launching rockets towards civilian areas
-killing their own people (caused by misfiring of mortars)
-using it's civilian population as human shields
-not allowing media coverage for certain events they don't approve of (such as killing their own people)
-stealing aid
-stealing doctors from civilians
-attempting to capture IDF soldiers
-stashing weapons in civilian houses
-telling people to go to targeted houses and using civilians because they know Israel is too humane to kill them
-......
the list goes on. I suggest that either the IDF subsection is shortened or peple try to lengthen the hamas section of human rights violation so thzat the article is more truthful. I alraedy started doing this but i don't have the time to do it all on my own. Thank you. (Raphmam (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

• Totally agree. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• All of this is the extreme POV of the Israeli side. A lot of such stuff is denied by Hamas. And the truth is that both sides (IDF and Hamas) are bastards anyway and causing a humanitarian crisis to innocent people. Duh, the IDF is accused of using civilians as human shields too as lately said by Amnesty international. Do not give the impression that the IDF is a saint in such a crisis of all aspects of respectful life in Gaza and all those evidences and reports by more than 6 humanitarian organizations. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What you refer to as "common sense" is, in fact, a POV. Moreover, when you say "everyone knows", you are again referring to a particular point of view. The point here is to cover what has already been reported by mainstream sources. Without adopting any particular position on this issue and without attempting to delve into the reasons for this, it must be conceded that mainstream sources have focused on Palestinian casualties and violations of international law by Israeli forces. That is why the section on violations by the IDF needs to be larger.Jacob2718 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, as I explained above it is common knowledge. I even listed examples. All the mainstream media sources I have been reading have been mentioning mostly hamas human rights violations. It seems like the "mainstream media you are referring to may have there own POVs and are not really that mainstream. Wikipedia should definitely not adopt a position on this situation like you said. That is the exact reason the idf part needs to be shortened and the hams part lengthened. It demonstrates a clear POV to have have the israeli side's violations double that of a terrorist organization. All you need to do is open your eyes and see all the media sources that allege human rights violations on the israeli side.(Raphmam (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Hi, there was (is?) a debate about this but the archive bot seems to suffer from some sort of obsessive compulsive cleaning disorder or else it's using the time system of a rapidly rotating planet rather than earth. Have a look in archive...er...hang on...yes it's 7 here. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• "I suggest that either the IDF subsection is shortened or peple try to lengthen the hamas section of human rights violation." I think that many would see that as a violation of WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 05:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree VR. If the Palestinian section isn't lengthened than it is definitely a violation of WP:UNDUE. (Raphmam (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I made some efforts to reduce the size of the Israeli section,[1][2][3] without removing too much content. This is obviously a better thing to do in an article that is already too long.VR _talk 06:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to throw a quick comment out there about WP:UNDUE. There appears to be an implicit assumption that accusations against the IDF and Hamas should be given equal weight. That seems to be inconsistent with the pronouncements of international bodies such as the UN and many more, various human right groups and very remarkably indeed, even the ICRC. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a wrong interpretation of WP:UNDUE. If 10 different official people blamed X, and 4 blamed Y, Do you want Wikipedia to give the impression that 5 blamed X and 5 blamed Y? Ofcourse not, cause this will be skewing data to make a POV. And the POV will be forcing our opinion of WP:UNDUE against the events themselves. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Darwish. People trapped and starving in camps sending out a few hundred rockets that mostly land in fields or junk up pavement and kill a few people just is no comparison to one of the world's top militaries bombing camps of trapped and starving people with advanced weaponry that has killed 780+; while 13 Israelis have died in the interim. I also don't think Falk's statement should be divided if his comments about Hamas rockets not excusing Israel actions is going to be deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

International law has more to do with the intent of the combatants, and less to do with the body count. That's why, if there are x-many organizations of international clout that call Israeli attacks illegal, there are y-many organizations that call Hamas attacks illegal, where y is greater than x. And if there are m-many organizations that defend the legality of Israel's actions, there are n-many organizations of international clout that defend the legality of Hamas' actions, where n is less than or equal to zero. So the violation of WP:UNDUE is in that the Israel section is way larger than the Hamas section.

At any rate, I don't see the need for Falk's statement that Hamas rocket fire is illegal. As Special Rapporteur, his opinion on Hamas rocket fire is irrelevant (he's only in charge of investigating Israeli wrongdoing, and he even overstepped in that). What's more, that position is already represented in the section. I'm all for removing his condemnation of Hamas. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you are right about intent, vs. outcome, and without a truly WP:RS source in the article saying that I can't see why it should replace wiki commonsense.

I don't care if Falk on Hamas is removed completely. I did reorder it more logically: falk (whole statement if stays); rocketeers statement; israel's statement; intnl statements with one sentence cut from Dershowitz as WP:UNDUE. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

White Phosphorus Again

Some editors have been particular concerned with the possibility the WP is being used in Gaza in an anti-personnel capacity. I have not been following this conversation too closely so I'll refrain from commenting for the time being but perhaps this article] from the Times (London) deserves attention: Gaza victims' burns increase concern over phosphorus

Excerpt: "There were indications last night that Palestinian civilians have been injured by the bombs, which burn intensely. Hassan Khalass, a doctor at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, told The Times that he had been dealing with patients who he suspected had been burnt by white phosphorus. Muhammad Azayzeh, 28, an emergency medical technician in the city, said: “The burns are very unusual. They don't look like burns we have normally seen. They are third-level burns that we can't seem to control.”...Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian war surgery specialist working in Gaza, told The Times that he had seen injuries believed to have resulted from Israel's use of a new “dense inert metal explosive” that caused “extreme explosions”. He said: “Those inside the perimeter of this weapon's power zone will be torn completely apart. We have seen numerous amputations that we suspect have been caused by this.”"

but also: "Human Rights Watch had no evidence that Israel was using incendiaries as weapons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

White phosphorous is not a “dense inert metal explosive”. Bombs (conventional bombs) can have various explosives in them. Some of them cause intense heat and burns. I don't know what's used in Gaza, but the quote doesn't match WP. okedem (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this Dense Inert Metal Explosive. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Gaza Massacre"

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.

There was a huge bloody debate about the term in Archive 9. Please read it completely before discussing the topic any further. And if you completely absolutely think your concerns wasn't debated there (I doubt), you should discuss it on the Lead anyway. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Moved to Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead.VR _talk 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been debated to death in [/Archive 9|Archive 9]]. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Word, some people refuse on acknowledging simple basic facts with plain sources when presented to them, to remove a phrase is simple censorship on the basis the some dont think the arabs should be calling it this, the argument that arabs are calling it this has been presented and proven, but still some feel the must disrupt. Nableezy (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really I thought you took pride when Arabs are silenced especially Arabs who go against the majority. Interesting. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make any further comments here. Make the comments at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead, just so all the discussion is happening at one place.VR _talk 05:56, 9 January 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.

I know you want this somewhere else but I have to respond to ol boy up there. I am one of the most pro-Arab people you will ever think of meeting, so dont be talking shit when you dont know what your saying. The fact that I don't let (or at least try to not let) my pride in my people influence what I write here on wikipedia I think is a virtue. You really have no right to question my loyalty to my people or my pride in them, so please knock it off. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nabz -- Please don't let a sniping anon editor get under your skin. RomaC (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

youtube as a source?

i had started a section for this but it got archived rather quickly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_10#youtube_as_a_source.3F

i noticed that vr made an edit with regard to youtube not being a good source and wondered if you could also look at this one. Untwirl (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, youtube is generally not a good source for several reasons. Many times videos are open to interpretation. Also, anyone can post things there. Also, not everything on youtube is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.

Finally, I have not seen any argument/fact on youtube that is also not published in major newspapers or other reliable sources. So let's use these papers, and not youtube.VR _talk 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks - do you have an opinion on whether we should strike the edit i referred to in the above post? i'm new and trying to step lightly after treading on some toes in the recent past. Untwirl (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree, VR, I think a YouTube post would be OK if it was in English, and a video of a well known political or other figure. For example, if during the 08 Presidential Campaign, if any of the candidate had posted a speech on YouTube, it would be OK by me... V. Joe (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Name change Proposal: Israel's Assault on Gaza 2008-2009

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.

Please move discussion to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Requested_Move_4_January_2009

---

Time Magazine calls the so-called conflict "Israeli's Deadly Assault on Gaza" [4] and also "Israel's Gaza Assault" [5]

I think this is a suitable name for this event because the term conflict is broad and when has it never been conflict between Gaza and the Israelis? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine referred to a specific attack on Gaza City, not to the entire conflict which takes place in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel. If you want my general opinion about adopting names and titles from the press, you can see what I've just written under "Arabic Interwiki" on this page (at the bottom of that long paragraph). DrorK (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To which specific attack are you referring to? It appears that the "Israel's Gaza Assault" refers to Israeli Airstrikes on Dec 27 and onward to the date of the article which is Dec 29. They labeled the conflict as "Israel's Gaza Assault" and not a certain attack. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You were referring to to the title of the image. The title describes the image, not the entire conflict. DrorK (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not the image I am only referring to, btw it is a slideshow of images. Please refer to the article that I am referring to (the second link). Here it is again [6] --68.123.141.153 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I'm actually more inclined towards "Gaza's rocket barrages on Israeli towns 2008-2009". Do you seriously claim this proposition to be NPOV? Rabend (talk) 06:22, 9 January 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.

Women and Children in Info Box?

This edit, again by BobaFett, who I've twice before mentioned has carried out questionable edits without discussion removes women and children casualty numbers from the infobox. He says "BobaFett85 (Talk | contribs) (This is already all mentioned downstairs in the casualties section,the infobox is here to cite numb. of combatant KIA from both sides and the numb. of civilians killed,everything else goes downstairs)"

I would like to open this for discussion. I for one support the format where women and children casualties are stated in the infobox. Please discuss your opinions below. I encourage Bobafett to reconsider his unilateral approach to editing this page. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the call for Bobafett to join the talk page while editing, so as to address the concerns of users. He should also look at the section below.VR _talk 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support since adult male civilians are not included. Damn, I though we already discussed this like three times. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please state from where you are going to take reliable sources about the women and children who were killed. I know Israel publish this kind of data, but Hamas don't publish his casualties, so we don't know for sure how many of the dead are combatants and how many are civilians. Furthermore, why women and children and not civilians in general? DrorK (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly get what you're saying in the first two sentences, so I won't comment until a clarification. However, as for the last sentence: It would be misleading to the reader when he reads the civilian casualty number and then thinks those are all the civilians killed. These are just the stats for women and children, why the men lack mention, I don't know. It must be clarified or the reader might think the rest of the 760+ killed were militiamen. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree that it must be made clear when the counts reference women and children. The UN publishes this data daily, recently it has been citing the PMoH. Sources are not the problem. I was specifically referring to the inclusion of this data in the infobox as Bobafett's edit removed it. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the UN doesn't have a delegation or a peacekeeping force in Gaza that can collect data about this conflict directly. They rely on some kind of reports. Who supply this report and what are the criteria? Is it based upon the Shifa hospital records? Is it data collected by UNRWA? Is a child anyone below 18? Are these numbers final or estimations? DrorK (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are coming from, at least cited to, Palestinian health agencies. We do not know how they define children and we have been putting approx signs in front of any estimates. But we do properly attribute the source and further we state that the Palestinian numbers cannot be independently verified, I would think that is qualification enough until final internationally and independently verified numbers are given. Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox inclusions

There are a couple of issues.

• 4 UN envoys have been killed since the start of the conflict.[7] Are they Palestinians, or included in the Palestinian casualties? If yes, that's ok, if not then they need to be mentioned separately.
• This edit[8] keeps repeating itself. The source for these deaths, according to JP, is Hamas. It was agreed that Hamas isn't a reliable source: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_6#Is_Hamas_a_reliable_source.3F. If the consensus has changed, someone should remind me. Even if it is, than these 35 deaths are likely counted as civilians (or unknown) on the Palestinian side. We don't differentiate between Israeli soldiers killed by Hamas, and Israeli soldiers killed by Israeli tanks, I don't see why it should be any different for Palestinians.
• Should Palestinian women and children be mentioned as reported by UN?

That's it for now.VR _talk 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

actually  jp doesn't even say 'hamas' is says 'sources close to Hamas"

i think we should report what rs say, what hamas says and what israel says as just that - what they say - and leave it at that. 
leave the interpretation to the reader.   we shouldn't state what unnamed sources close to hamas or israel say. Untwirl (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 

Yes for the third point and as for the second, those allegedly killed by Hamas were killed purposely unlike the Israelis who were killed by accident. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the PDF file a UN official report or an UNRWA report? UNRWA reports usually reflect the Palestinian view. I'm not saying the Palestinian view is incorrect, but it should be checked and compared to other resources. DrorK (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So you think that we should single them out, but not single the Israelis killed in friendly fire out? I'm assuming that those 35 deaths (if happened) are already included in the death toll, and there's no evidence to say the contrary (or maybe I'm missing something). Finally quoting the Hamas killing of Fatah members, using Hamas sources, gives legitimacy to Hamas as a reliable source. Is this what we want?VR _talk: 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas, like the IDF should not be relied on exclusively, I agree. I now also change my stance on your second point. I didn't take into account that the allegedly killed are highly likely to have already been included in the total Palestinian casualty count, if they were indeed killed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, I'm assuming you haven't been following casualty reporting very closely, or the media situation in Gaza. There are no foreign journalists there and there thus no "independent" verification of sources. As can be expected official figures of casualties will be reported by the respective institutions of each side, in the Palestinian case, the PMoH is the most cited source. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights also publishes casualty figures which are not straight from the PMoH, but they are just as "Palestinian." The UN report is a UN OCHA report.

I would not take any figures given by Hamas (or sources "close to") and report them in WP. Please refer to Hezbollywood for some reasons why. I would be more inclined towards using info from independent humanitarian Palestinian organizations. Rabend (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If I said the same about the Israeli govt I would be called an anti-semite. We clearly reference where the numbers come from and explain that the cannot be independently verified. That should be enough. Nableezy (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the infobox inclusion of women and children casualties. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not support the inclusion of women and children in the infobox. How many war articles have we had on Wikipedia, name me several, or even one that states in the infobox how many women and children there are among the dead civilians. State the number of killed women and children, but not in the infobox, in the infobox we put only the numbers of combatants killed from both sides and the number of civilians killed from both sides. The casualties section covers enough of the issue of the numbers of women and children killed. No need to say it in the infobox. Also, the number of civilians killed by Hamas who have been accused by Hamas of being Israeli or Fatah collaborators, these are not counted in the total count of Palestinian deaths so they should me mentioned in the part of the infobox that also mentiones the Egyptian border guard killed. MoH and the UN have stated that all of the deaths of Palestinians by this point have been the result of the fighting and of the bombings, as a result of the Israeli offensive, this is an internal matter among the Palestinians. Also, the four UN relief workers are Palestinians, thus they are counted in the total number of dead Palestinians so stop mentioning them separately in the infobox. I have already mentioned them along with 21 medical workers killed in the casualties section. BobaFett85 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to include a figure of "35" palestinians killed in internecine conflict, you need a better source than a single JP article (or its reprints in other newspapers). Jacob2718 (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't put the source, second, the incident was given little attention for obvious reasons and so I doubt there will be any more sources then this one but if the incident occured the figure should be put in the infobox, third it is stated in an Israeli newspaper by Palestinian officials, that would make an acknowledgment by both sides of the incident. BOTH SIDES ACKNOWLEDGE IT.BobaFett85 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The palestinian un workers warrant separate mention because of their un association, the women and children go in because the sources explicitly say women and children, so to avoid any ambiguity as to whether or not men are civilians or women are militants we report it as the sources do. Nableezy (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK here's a compromise solution, we put in the infobox the number of UN and medical workers killed and women and children, BUT we put it beside the ** at the bottom, where already I have put the mention of the Ukranian woman and here child. So? What do you say? Is it a deal?BobaFett85 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be opposite the Israeli killed and wounded, the Israelis and Palestinians are the two principle groups suffering casualties so they should be put in the main section of casualties. I think it would be dishonest for us to say civilians when all our sources explicitly say women and children. Or at least we say civilian in the main section of the infobox with a *note at the bottom stating that Palestinian casualty figures are only counting women and children. Does that sound reasonable? Nableezy (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Check other war articles, there are dozens of them that state just the bare main number of dead combatants in the main part of the infobox but put *note at the bottom stating additional things about the casualties. Check the Iraq war article for example. Listen, I have agreed to this solution, the numbers will be in the infobox but I don't accept the women and children be mentioned in the uper part of the box because that would look like propaganda against the Israelis, any reader of Wikipedia who comes to read the article and checks the infobox will first see the number of dead women and children and think Those killers!. This way it is more neutral, just what Wikipedia is all about. In any case the infobox is there to state the bare numbers of dead combatants from both sides and the numbers of civilians killed from both sides, as for how many are children and women, well, that's why we have *.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While it may look like propaganda it is only accurately reflecting the source. No matter tho, I agreed to this, if others do as well id say feel free to modify. Nableezy (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Roof knocking" AfD

I have started Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roof_knocking, please participate. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties in the Lead

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.

Please move discussion to the appropiate subpages, which you just listed. Theya re clearly desdcribed at the top, so the discussion is there, don't forum shop

---

In my opinion, the lead should contain at least one sentence summarizing the casualty count. To many readers, that is the most important consequence of a war --- the consequence in terms of human lives. As things stand, the reader has to scroll down several screens before coming to the section on casualties. I propose a single sentence in the lead with details in the appropriate section.

Previous discussions on this issue here and at the special page created for the Lead here have been somewhat inconclusive. So, I'm moving this discussion here to solicit opinions. Jacob2718 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 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.

Aircraft deployed

Not a single aircraft deployed. In Israel you don't need to deploy any aircraft close to the battle line, but every single strike fighter or helicopter gunship can be used. Each aircraft may used only one, or once a day, or whatever. Flayer (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but deployed can be used in the sense of "put in battle" rather than in the sense of "put in theater" that I think you are using. I don;'t feel strongly about this, but just a thought.--Cerejota (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been times when IDF aircrafts have been used more than once or once a day, and since they are old it led to accidents. I think the second Lebanon war that was recently fought showed that. Aircrafts were heavily used multiple times. --89.0.160.247 (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, lets say 60 aircraft could be "put in battle" on Monday, 40 of it and 10 other aircraft on Tuesday, 35 completely other aircraft and 50 of the aircraft of Monday and Tuesday could be "put in battle" on Wednesday, another 30 - on Thursday... So how many aircraft deployed? Any amount of the 700-800 combat aircraft that IAF has in service could have been deployed. IAF not necessarily puts in battle the same aircraft every day. It is meaningless. Flayer (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We use the maximum amount of aircraft put into battle at any one point. This is true for how many soldiers Israel has deployed. If Israel sent 80 soldiers to a particular location we don't look at that, but look at the total number of soldiers Israel sent into Gaza.VR _talk 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos in civilian reactions section

I notice someone has removed the picture of the anti-Israel protest in Dar es salaam and replaced it with a large picture of a pro-Israel protest in Tel Aviv. I think this has clearly been done for POV reasons and it is unrepresentative as the vast majority of protests have been against Israel. There is also a picture of an anti-ISrael protest in Washington DC but it's much smaller and less eye catching.

I suggest removing the DC picture and replacing Tel Aviv with the Dar es salaam picture again.. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

agree. More so, because (a) I was unable to discover the date for this picture, so its not clear if its a 'reaction' to current events or a protest that preceded the attack (b) there is no publicly available description of the protest this describes or how many people attended. In the absence of such information it is impossible to judge if the protest this picture captures was 'notable'. I didn't see the earlier picture but, in for the reasons mentioned above, I do not feel that the current picture deserves inclusion. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has re-inserted this image with a strong, unsourced caption. Could you please look into this and put the original image back. Jacob2718 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cash?

under the humanitarian crisis section it refers to money as cash under the cash header, isn't this an incorrect and unencyclopedic term to use in refrence to money? i believe the term should be changed to money or currency or the name of the money used in the gaza strip. (216.164.151.206 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

What's about "Banknotes" ? --Darwish07 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Monetary situation? Cryptonio (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Planning

The article is currently organized chronologically. Hence, it includes a large "Planning" section. As a result other (in my opinion) more important issues like the humanitarian aspects of the war have been pushed down. I think the section on "planning" should either be moved down, or significantly shortened. In any case, we don't have reliable sources for this section. A mishmash of articles is cited, some of which merely repeat rumors, like this one from Haaretz which dates back to June and reports that in June, Barak was planning a strike within weeks. I don't know if we should give prominence to stories like this, which float about all the time anyway.

The section does raise an important point that the IDF and Hamas took advantage of the ceasefire to rearm and regroup, but offers little else. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree the section should be shortened and/or moved lower. RomaC (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, make it a subsection of the of the background, but in general articles have a chronological sequence. I disagree with giving undue prominence to the humanitarian aspects: as callous as it sounds, this article is about the conflict, not just one aspect of it, but all of it. If a section on planning gets long, and "bumps" the humanitarian aspects, readers can use the ToC to jump. We are not responsible if people have short attention spans. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I am asking for a neutrality check due to the controversies that have flared up. I am all for getting uninvolved eyes in here. --Cerejota (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to help, but the article is too long (and same with this talke page) to figure out where the article needs it the most. Could you please point at paragraphs which should be looked at? I can't read through it all. --Eivind (t) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Before you start could you confirm that

• a) you haven't working for Israeli Intelligence
• and b) you haven't contributed any money to the free gaza movement ?

I'm just asking because we're struggling a bit here. We've reached the point where BBC Arabic was rejected as a reliable source because of it's poor coverage of woman's lingerie or something, I forget the details. Good luck. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that. I haven't worked for Israeli Intelligence and I haven't contributed money to any Free Gaza movement (: --Eivind (t) 13:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing process...to assume it needs 'progress' is to look at it not from a neutral point of view. Simply speak up! Cryptonio (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean: your gallows humor is really, really cool ;). Nao, moar seriously: Currently the first two paragraphs of the lead would seem to me to be a good start.--Cerejota (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish activity in Europe

There has been a rise in the number of Anti-Jewish attacks (of Jews and synagogues) by European Muslims since the opeartion began. Should we include this, as this is a direct effect of the conflict? Rabend (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, if one can write it from a neutral point of view. Some of this Anti-Israel attacks are quite massive, like yesterday, when a number of people was injured in Norway's capital Oslo, and there was damages for millions of NOK on Oslo's main street. It's all a direct effect of this conflict, but I'm not sure how relevant it is, though. --Eivind (t) 12:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I would think this could go in international reaction, or if you have a better spot for it, but the source is clearly making a correlation between the hostilities in gaza and the hostilities in europe between muslims/jews. Nableezy (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They are already included in a neutral manner "There were global isolated attacks against Jews, Israelis and Jewish targets". In fact, the civilian protest section has been one of the more stable section, that came about from various reverts and discussion. I encourage you to add the anti-Jewish attacks to the International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.VR _talk 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Internecine Conflict

User:BobaFett85 wishes to include the line "More than 35 Palestinians executed and 75 wounded by Hamas, suspected for collaborating with Israel.[21]" in the infobox. This claim is based on a single Jersualem Post article. The article gives no details merely claiming that "sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations." In my opinion, this violates WP:RS. Strong claims require multiple neutral and verifiable sources. The source above clearly does not meet this criterion. I was unable to find other sources for this claim, except for reprints of this article on websites that one would hardly call neutral.

Parenthetically, I should add that there have been other reports of internecine conflict and these are already dealt with in the text. There are also other reports that claim the opposite.

In any case, I've reverted this edit twice, since it is definitely not well-sourced enough to mention an Infobox inclusion, but User:BobaFett85 has put it back each time. I would like to ask for other opinions here. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition: I notice that this line has now appeared a third time with no comment or justification here. Someone else needs to look into this. I've reached my 3 revert limit. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree this shouldnt be there, reverting. Nableezy (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And i am not saying that the info doesnt belong in the article at all, or even perhaps in the infobox, but if you want it in there at least come to the talk when there clearly us a dispute about it Nableezy (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would need to be added into a new section along if Abbas reactions and other Palestinians'(IN Palestine) reactions. Something along the lines of "Palestine Politics in the Conflict" Cryptonio (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, keeping in mind that, though deplorable, this is normal in conditions of war: it happened all over Europe in WW2 in the closing stage of WW2 by the victors, and was not unexceptional when Israel was fighting for nationhood, as Nachman Ben-Yehuda's, Political Assassinations by Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice,(1993) noted in great detail. Of course, in our memory-less times, the Hamas instance is cited by sources to underline their 'exceptional' contempt for the Geneva conventions (akin to the secret killings and torture of suspects under Yoo and Alderman's rules in the Bush rendition programme) Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i think it belongs in the article if there are verifiable sources. nameless "sources close to hamas" saying something is not good enough. Untwirl (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

'Nameless sources close to Hamas' are just as good as nameless sources close to the IDF, or the Israeli government. You cannot treat what Israel says as bond and what the Palestinians say as shit, sorry but that is the very definition of POV. Nableezy (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So I think the answer is accept them both and reference them in line and with solid references. That should clear any NPOV issues Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry nableezy, i think you misunderstand me. i think we should report what hamas and what israel (or sources close to them) say as just that - what they say and who said it. leave the interpretation to the reader. we shouldn't state what unnamed sources close to hamas or israel say as fact without stating "sources close to x say"

i definitely do not want to exclude palestinian sources. i apologize again if what i say was taken that way. Untwirl (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt directed at you really at nobody in particular, and I completely agree with what you are saying. Just starting to get a lil pissed at how people are claiming that because a source is arab or palestinian it is inherently unreliable, while the idf and the rest of the israeli govt word is taken as gospel. Sorry for the rant. Nableezy (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That BBC Arabic discussion up in [9] still has me a lil heated I guess, time to take a break from this. I swear wikipedia is worse than crack, all the addiction and none of the glowy feelings Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

hey no problem. i'm having my own issues on another page, too. if only i could afford crack maybe i could drop this new wiki monkey of mine. :) Untwirl (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

References

I'm just amazed that the 1st and 2nd references within this article are from Ynet news and Jerusalem Post which are both Israeli news outlets, why such choice If I may ask and is it valid? I mean, there's always another side to the story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 January 2009

Do you have something specific you believe to be misrepresented? Or are you here just to bash Israeli media? We don't rule out source just for being Israeli. In fact, due to the stupidity (if I may) of the IDF, all reports coming out of Gaza are from Palestinian sources. Do you sugget we ignore them only because they are reported by Palestinians? Didn't think so. Now, if you have something concrete, please, by all means, let's discuss.--Omrim (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not there to bash Israeli media, neither asking for singling it out - as I said specifically that a mention of other sources that might be more neutral could possibly be done. I was just trying to raise a question and seek the validity of using these sources, I'm not here to bash or create racist personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is good to know, and sorry for being a little aggressive in my response. Yet, I still think the point you're making is abstract.--Omrim (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i believe the user is trying to say there are more neutral sources that could be used for these very same facts to avoid the appearance of impropriety. i for one, agree wholeheartedly that both israeli and palestinian sources should be used, and identified as such, but i also see his point about trying to use the most neutral sources for this controversial of a topic. if you have more neutral sources to use for the info you ae referring to, by all means please suggest them here. Untwirl (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC) by 'you' i meant the ip user suggest more neutral source, not putting the onus on you omrim Untwirl (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Carter

I again removed the Jimmy Carter editorial citation, which is merely Carter's opinion that the Hamas tunnel of the November 2008 incident was a "defensive tunnel." I don't think even Hamas has asserted this, but I would welcome a news source that makes this point to replace Carter's opinion. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of an ex-President of the USA, who has had a long and active role in the region, and is briefed on it far more deeply than anything we get in the press we are citing, is an informed opinion by an active participant in decades of negotiations. It is not equivalent to some editorial take by some journo in your average mainstream paper.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets be honest, Jimmy Carter is going to blame Israel for anything Israel does. He will also blame the United States for anything the United States does. Jimmy Carter is still bitter because he lost that second election, and all of his post-election posturing is about that. He would've been remembered as a great humanitarian for Habitat for Humanity, now he will remembered by many as a border-line anti-Semite and a saboteur of U.S. Foreign Policy. It is really terribly sad. V. Joe (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike anyone else here or in the area or the world, Jimmy Carter actually brokered the only stable peace agreement in the region. He knows all of the political actors, has a profound personal knowledge of the politics and history of the area. Please don't abuse the word 'antisemite' in a way that confuses a deeply rooted, religious and ethical position with paranoid hatred. That's very ambitious of you, shooting out of the anonymous world of a shady left-corner, to dismiss that record. Let's face it, what you wrote is a smear attack on someone with a life of achievement as a peace-broker.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

His opinion his notable, and I agree that it should be put in the article. I do, however, stand by remarks. Jimmy Carter is not only not a friend to Israel, he is not a friend to his own country. I could find hundreds of citations that agree with that, but like him or not, his opinions are relevant, just as other notable world leaders. (If Jacques Chirac were to comment, it would just as noteworthy). V. Joe (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He and his opinion are notable, after all beyond being the ex-President he has been involved in this conflict for the last 30 years or slightly under that. That some consider him 'a border line anti-Semite' is irrelevant unless you have a source and wish to use it to contrast his statements. But the Nobel-prize winning, Camp David negotiating, ex-President of the United States, is notable and so is his opinion on the matter. That people in Israel currently dont like him or his views are not the subject of this article. Nableezy (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While he is an ex-president and a former peace-broker and probably a good golfer, he is in no way whatsoever an authority on current tactics of guerilla warfare in the Gaza strip. His personal opinion of whether this tunnel was made for kidnapping people or actually for delivering yummy chocolates to the western world is 100% irrelevant here, and I don't care how many security briefings he received as president between 1977 and 1981.

Rabend (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy: He may have negotiated, or rather let Sadat and Begin negiotate at Camp David, but the principle role of Mr. Carter and the United States was to host and fit the bill. As for Noble Peace Price, it seized to be worth of respect since Yasser Arafat was awarded it, and Saddam Husseisn was repeatedly nominated. As I've said, though, I agree with notability... but I wanted to vent about Carter's activies... and to warn everyone who might not be knowledgeable about the amount of political theater that Carter is capable of. V. Joe (talk)

None of the journalists we have cited here are authorities on tactics of guerilla warfare in the Gaza Strip. The IDF is not in itself a reliable source, either for that matter. It represents views and interpretations that favour its policies. You should update your knowledge of what former Presidents are entitled to. Daily briefings from the CIA are one of those entitlements. Carter uses them, and can access and check information to higher levels in that capacity than most journalists.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that he is entitled to CIA briefings. Do not dare to patronize me. Carter is a diplomat first and foremost, and that is what he is notable for. His military knowledge may exceed that of the average man, but I do not know that, and he is definitely not notbale for it. If you want to use this personal opinion of his, provide first some citation qualifiying him as an expert on current guerilla warfare. And on a personal note, it seems that even if the tooth fairy said that she found the super-secret Israeli plans to conquer the world, you would twist common sense into making it look like she's a notable reference. Rabend (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how many security briefings he received as president between 1977 and 1981.Rabend16:00

You should update your knowledge of what former Presidents are entitled to. Daily briefings from the CIA are one of those entitlements..Nishidani16:18

I am well aware that he is entitled to CIA briefings. Do not dare to patronize me. Rabend 17:18

It's not patronizing to inform you of what your first post indicates you did not know. You are correct that you are 'well aware' of the fact now. Yes, you've had an hour to digest what I told you about former Presidents' entitlements to daily security briefings, which means they do not draw on outdated knowledge from their watches 30 years ago, as implied. Nothing patronizing there. It's our job to fill the gaps in each other's knowledge. I'll ignore the innuendo in the tooth fairy tale that I subscribe to a belief in that notorious fabrication, the Protocol of the Elders of Zion. Such charges are a serious breach of propriety, and reportable. I don't report these things. I do take note of them, however. Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitherto, you have honestly not filled any gaps in my knowledge, despite your bizarre attempt to prove that. Anyone who watched that Michael Moore movie knows that ex-presidents get daily CIA reports. Additionally, you completely misunderstood my personal note. I am not suggesting you believe in the tooth fairy. I take the liberty to assume that you don't. I am saying that editing alongside you in the last few days gives me the feeling you are experiencing a conflict of interests that is affecting the objective quality of this article. That is my opinion. Feel free to report me if this makes you feel like a victim, or maybe take a minute to think about what other people have to say. Your call. Rabend (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You aspire to objectivity, and people who disagree with you, don't. It must be comfortable, living in that kind of world. I don't report anybody, with one rare exception, antisemites or racists, on principle. As to victimization, if I ever detect such symptoms in myself, I shall check in with the local hospital for a psychiatric check-up. Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No comment. Rabend (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether Carter's opinion is notable. As a former president of the US, with a Nobel Peace Prize writing in a major American newspaper, it definitely is. It is entirely fair to attribute his opinion to him i.e say that Carter thinks so and so. However, I think his opinion is notable and should be included. In addition, a quick google search will suffice to show that Carter's statement that the tunnel was defensive has already attracted much attention. I myself have my own views on Carter as, I'm sure do most other people here, but those views are a matter of personal opinion. From the strict point of view of verifiability and notability, this statement merits an inclusion. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Computer game

I removed the section on the computer game, but added it to International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. I think users need to refrain from adding such trivial content to this article.VR _talk 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli official stance on UNRWA school

Why people keep "forcing" the sources to argue that Israel officially admitted that no mortars were fired from the school? Gunnes says that Israeli diplomats privately admitted to it, and that all the article should say, i.e. something like "offical at the UN says that Israeli diplomats privetly admitted that no mortars were fired from the school". "Privetly" is exactly NOT "officialy", and as far as I am aware the official IDF amd MFA statements still stand. I'll wait a little to see what you boys and girls think, and unless you convince me to the contrary, I'll change it back --Omrim (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, one can't keep track of everything at this speed. I made the original edit, which clarified that the wording about Israel's official position was to be followed by the most recent UN source that said in briefings (always private) to diplomats Israelis had admitted this had been an error. But it doesn't give confidence that the video used as evidence by Israel dates to 2007, something which misled UN diplomats and infuriated them when they discovered they were being talked around. We've had several months in here arguing about the falsification by Palestinians of evidence, with huge partisan imput suggesting anything they provide is fabricated (Pallywood, Muhammad al-Durrah), as opposed to Israel's invariable 'reliable sources'. Still, you are right to correct the revisions, if they have smudged my original distinction Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This video is probably the worst PR mistake done by the IDF in this conflict. Yet, Israel never said I think (correct me if I'm wrong here) that they responded to the shooting IN the video. The video was only to show that mortars were previously fired from the school. The current Israeli shooting at the school was presumably in response to a fresh incident of shooting from the school. If I am right, the article aslo shouldn't prescribe the incident as a response to the video shooting.--Omrim (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but the video was produced to justify the shooting, and such videos are dated by archivalists. They knew it was from 2007. The UN gave the IDF satellite coordinates for all 23 schools under their supervision, and explained their function as refuges before these attacks.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We agree, then (I believe). The fact that The UN gave the IDF satellite coordinates should be included (it is already, I think), and the IDF shouldn't be attributed with a claim that the shooting was in response to the video shooting.--Omrim (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing but what reliable sources say.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lead and other topics

are also being discussed here: - Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead. Note that the lead is not the only subject being talked about there and that discussion from this page is also being moved to that page. I would appreciate leaving new discussion regarding the lead on this page. I notice that the lead keeps being reverted back to a version that has not been accepted as consensus and is in fact highly POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

F-16

Israel has (or at one point had) deployed 60 F-16 aircraft for attack purposes. Source: "Israeli jets kill 'at least 225' in strikes on Gaza".. Yet this fact keeps getting removed from the infobox. Why? The airstrikes campaign was a major part of the conflict.VR _talk 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be replaced ~ "Qassam" is mentioned frequently with figures, we should specify "F-16" RomaC (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arab League reaction

On the International REaction page, it still lists the Arab league's response as calling a summit for 2nd of January. Does anyone know what happened at this summit (I've checked google and found nothing) or whether it even took place. Has the Arab League released an official statement?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm... I don't know. But if they had a summit, I bet I know what they decided... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article severely unbalanced

I want to offer 2 writing approaches:

1. If any event, action and explanation that is published in the press chooses to be started writing with "which --- claimed to be" "which ---- identifies as" "says it" and claims, stated as,... I suggest both sides should be addressed in the same way, because if there are no universal facts for one side, so shouldn't the other have.

example: Israel claims / hamas claims .. . On all written events that share this article.

2. Just facts for both sides, no claims.

Example: Hamas suffered 40 civilian casualties, most are women and children, from Israeli bombings. / Israel bombed civilian buildings used for hiding of militants, tunnels and ammunition.

Ether believe both sides, or don't believe any of them.

• The first option will make the article much more longer, heavy and irritating to read. But it will be fair-sided and would not point a certain agenda or sympathy towards on side. The second will shorten it and will be more challenging, perhaps difficult to edit. But it will look very organized and not messy, and also fair-sided.

One more thing

Article to be called "Operation Cast Lead" like "Operation Defensive shield" and "Second Intifada". The initiator and leading body of this particular event is Israel. Naming it "conflict" devalues the general conflict between Hamas government and the state of Israel which began after the party won the election. Conflict inside a conflict, and sub-conflict defocuses the main overview and perspective of one. The Palestinian Civil Conflict divided the society into 2 separate entities, which is also related to the Israeli conflict. Very complex and can be confusing.--Bob1969 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You can call it "Mineral Oil spot" just like Hamas used to call it.

Awesome neutrality there!

More pro-israeli pictures? What the hell? For a moment there, I thought I stumbled upon Zionpedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.176.241 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the name "Second Intifada" mean a Zionist propaganda to you?--Bob1969 (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

i support israel/hamas/un/jiminy cricket state/claim/say/holla as a format. "just facts" leads to endless questioning of reliability on talk pages, and i prefer leaving statements open to interpretation of the reader. for example, if the un says something, some editors believe they are biased so there really is no agreed upon source of 'fact' or 'truth' Untwirl (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC) also i think the title discussion is going on somewhere else. Untwirl (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro: POV clause

Is it POV to mention the Israeli casus belli, rocket attacks "which had dramatically increased in November and early December 2008." given that Hamas' grievances are also stated? I think not, User:Trachys, do you disagree? Kaisershatner (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not wait for responses to your comment here at all before reinserting your edit. The increase in rocket attacks is discussed in detail in the background section. As things stand, both positions have been given equal prominence; Hamas's viewpoint is discussed with no embellishments and the Israeli viewpoint needs to be stated plainly as well. Adding in a further justification about the increase in rocket attacks in November will then bring in the question of why the rocket attacks increased etc. etc. This is better left to the background section. We are working on tightening the lead anyway. Also, please take further discussion of this topic to the special page on the Lead. best. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors severely unbalanced...just kidding

Out of curiosity I searched for Iran and found the following in the Background -> Extension section.

Rockets have in subsequent stages of the conflict reached as far as the cities of Gan Yavne[106] and Gedera[107], 40 km inside Israel, validating the IDF "Color Red" warning system.[108] Israel and outside observers allege that Iran appears to be using Hamas militants in Gaza as proxies to terrorise Israel. They claim that Iran supplied Hamas with components to allow it to upgrade the range and accuracy of its rockets that it was firing into Israel.[109]

Does this need to be balanced by presumably equally valid views from the NPOV perspective that make similar allegations when it comes to US military aid to Israel ? The UNHRC highlighted this in their recent statement i.e.

"The Israeli airstrikes today, and the catastrophic human toll that they caused, challenge those countries that have been and remain complicit, either directly or indirectly, in Israel's violations of international law. That complicity includes those countries knowingly providing the military equipment including warplanes and missiles used in these illegal attacks, as well as those countries who have supported and participated in the siege of Gaza that itself has caused a humanitarian catastrophe"

Thoughts ? Perhaps it's covered elsewhere and I've missed it. I assume the article mentions who's supplying IDF weapons somewhere....maybe. If not, I guess the article falls into a "We are right" trap by default i.e. weapons from Iran = terror, weapons from the US = cute puppies. Please don't infer anything about my own views on this matter. They're irrelevant.

Anyone willing to tackle that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I nominate you! RomaC (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think I will refer to the matters and affairs of this War in GOOD vs. BAD, Terrorists ( spreads 'Terror and 'Mayhem'), Evil doers and 'Cute Puppies' you are mistaken. You can legitimize whatever you want, as long as you do everything else.. So yes, you will strip the news coverage you read from it's politic siding and filter the facts, because this website is not a news dump. --Bob1969 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this website has already become a news dump. As opposed to articles about fun things or science or animals or things like that, anything political here is inherently severly biased since it feeds PRIMARILY on news tidbits or organizations with some agenda, and all we are doing is couch-editing from our comfortable homes according to what we read on the internet, not actual facts. Add to that editors with an aggressive agenda, and you basically got yourself a glorified blog. Being an editor myself, this depresses me. Rabend (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm supportive of this type of review of the article and I second RomaC's nomination! You could always talk about the US support of Fatah as well. This Vanity Fair article compares their manipulation of Fatah and their material and military support of the party after the 2006 elections to the Iran-Contra affair. I'm not sure if this belongs in the current article, but it is an interesting article nonetheless and pertinent to the over all situation. This treacherous maneuvering of the US probably shouldnt surprise anyone with knowledge of our history in South and Central America, the US etc, esp during the cold war. Thrylos000 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a link in to the Vanity Fair article (note 111, for the moment) yesterday or the day before. It does belong to the article's background, esp. given the fact that so many loose and irresponsible mainstream reports conflate and generalize the issues, and blur the known facts, which are that Hamas was elected in free elections, and then the object of a coup d'état by Fatah, which it then repressed. This is not to espouse the justice of Hamas's cause. It is simply to note crucial details of Hamas's legal status as the elected administrative power in the Strip, not as a terrorist usurper of some pre-existing PNA democracy, as many sources insinuate.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a good article but pulls some punches. VF describes a US forced and back Fatah-lead coup attempt, the entire article, yet calls the events that lead to Hamas consolidating power in Gaza a coup itself. This, instead of saying Fatah was ejected from Gaza after their failed coup attempt. Very strange indeed. Also, the main preoccupation of the article seems to be that the US strategy was a foreign policy blunder. Its not very critical of its interference in the democratic process in Palestine, or of its general meddling. Good data and investigative journalism, tame delivery. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

• Anyone who can read Arabic? look at this wiki...calling it a genocide instead. --Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I forbid this discussion. Go to your room...or have a look through the talk archives. The discussion is there somewhere. Bottomline = take it up with the editors there. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

الإبادة الجماعية (assuming google works) don't appear in the article text according to a quick search so I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway, like I said take it up with the editors there. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• While going to my room! try to learn Arabic...instead of goggling, I'm talking to Israelis here, who have some notions of arabic, Arabs or arabic learners can participate also, Ok?

Eh, nd try: مجزرة، Genocide. --Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that means massacre. Nableezy (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to speak to your fellow Israelis as you say, go to the Hebrew Wiki. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually I have tried to learn Arabic but it doesn't help with words like these since my Arabic is pre-school level. Google says massacre for مجزرة، so if that is a correct translation which I fully expect it to be then that is a word I would fully expect to see in that article. It's also in this article. It's been discussed at length. You can find the discussions and read what people have said. I'm not sure why you want to address one subset of editors working on this page but if you have a problem with the Arabic page you should discuss it over there. Is your objective to improve this article ? If not please go away. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• While going away! try to be polite...instead of, u know...

I talked in that page nd i got blocked, the page was called literally the butchery of Israel, not a war or anythin' neutral. Hamas has killed more than 700 people from Fateh, nd they didn't want to say it in the article of Hamas, I'm a man of Fateh, nd i'm an Arab.

Things in the Arabic wiki are more direct and dismissal, if u have another pov, really.

I know now why u failed in ur arabic studies...--Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to take it up with the editors there, not here. Please take some time to look through the archives here and you will see that it's been discussed as great length. I will even go and find the discussions for you if you want. You will find people in those discussions who probably have the same concerns as you and you can contact them via their talk pages not here. I'm trying to be polite with you but unless you are willing to read what has already been discussed and the consensus reached it's difficult to assume good faith on your part. Furthermore, the English translation of Arabic terms you keep supplying are not consistent with what I am seeing. Why is that ? For example, last time I looked the article was called (الهجوم على غزة (ديسمبر 2008 The attack on Gaza (December 2008) and not 'the butchery of Israel'. Perhaps you are looking at a cached page. I don't know. It doesn't matter because you need to work with the editors of that page to address your concerns. This page is for addressing issues related to the English language version of the article. Let me know if you want me to find the discussions for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

...and just in case you want to know, I didn't fail in my Arabic studies. I didn't even get that far because I was transferred elsewhere. If I had stayed then I would probably have failed in my Arabic studies as you say. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, find it for me, since ur archiving ALL the talks here, like the discussion in the arabic wiki article...for divers purposes, who knows.

The article originally is called the butchery, nd there's a Redirect to the title: Attacks on gaza, it's subtle, but still there's butcheries!

I want others to Know/comment about this Arabic wiki, it's admins are not biased! they are fighting with Hamas!! (Imagine, no a single description of how all this started, not to mention the talk page!)

I was there, before commin' here

--Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to say please first...not really. The archiving problem has been addressed I think. It was archiving every 3 hours, Now it's 24 hours after last edit. I'll come back with the links to archives but please, you need to comply with the rules and use this talk page to address issues related to this article. If you want to let others to know/comment about the Arabic wiki you must do it elsewhere e.g. on peoples talk pages, you can figure it out. Also, can you supply the url for the butchery -> Attacks on gaza redirect page ? I want to see it with my own eyes because everything you have told me so far has proved to be incorrect. Surprise me. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

here is the first discussion and here is the second one. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• some links titles

holocaust, butchery...

Again, this thread is to be viewed, nd commented! it's in a public space i guess, not restricted also, ur with Hamas, aren't u? nd why can't archive only old threads --Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at them tomorrow. No, I'm not with Hamas. I'm with Wikipedia and it's guidelines trying to collaborate to produce useful and interesting encyclopedia articles that are entirely neutral. Have a look at User:MiszaBot about the archiving. There might be something there that explains these things. I don't know. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move notice

"The result of the move request was no action. This is a long and contentious debate, which I can almost guarantee will re-occur once this conflict has ceased. The current title seems to gather a higher proportion of support than any other option, so we will keep it here for now. Any more new suggestions for a new title should be shelved until this is no longer a current event. Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 07:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"

(copied here by Skäpperöd (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Pro-Israel bias in images of destruction/protests

This is biased. Now the images only represent Israeli deaths. with a death rate of 80-1 the majority of images are about 'Israelis taking cover' or 'Israelis in a bomb shelter'. this is a total travesty.

Hey... Re-read the article, ther are tons of things that talk about the rates of death on the Side of Gaza, and I didn't read anything whatsoever that is positive (as in unfair) to Israel. In my opinion, if no press is let into Gaza (another topic...), and the only pictures coming out of the area are the pictures of Israel's side, you should claim no bias. If no pictures are "capable of being shot", then there are none to be posted to make it non-biased. Additionaly, pictures of either side are barely displayed, so it appears that this comment should be marked for deletion.
Does anyone agree to delete it?Pokoleo (talk)

I agree and was about to upload a better protest photo. Other Wikicommons options here. Also two photos about tiny [small rockets which do relatively little damage and only have killed a few people], when mega bombs are killing hundreds is POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly describes Palestinian suffering (which I have no doubt is very grave). Once pictures become available we will for sure post them. Yet the thing I find biased is calling rockets "tiny", as if they are not deadly weapons aimed specifically (and admittedly by their users) at civilians. Then, to use the "tiny" argument as an excuse to remove pictures showing the "tiny" damage they cause. You may point to Osher Twito that the're tiny, so there is nothing he should be worried about.--Omrim (talk) 02:27, 9 January009 (UTC)

A problem we've had is the lack of copyleft pictures available from Gaza. Because we have none, the pictures of damage in Israel create an impression that is unbalanced and certainly does not reflect the disproportionate casualties and damage figures. Suggest the pics be removed. RomaC (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a much better argument. I support as long as they are back once we have pictures available from Gaza.--Omrim (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. One side is "loading the deck" by not allowing press into Gaza, resulting in an unequal opportunity for visual reports from that area. I agree that the pictures ought to be removed. Tell someone (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason that they are not letting the press into Gaza, is the fact that they know that all press that goes into Gaza will suddenly become pro-Gazan. I do not condemn their descision to do this, because it is strategically the most feasable option. In war, the idea is to [try to] obliterate the other side, or to pummel them into submission. It is harder for one side to do that to the other side, while the entire world is turned against them. Gazans have used this weapon before, the conflict, and Israelis are doing it now. But this is another topic we are talking about the pictures. -Pokoleo (talk)

Because somebody is worried that international press will become pro-gazan upon seeing civilians rotting in the street is reason to endorse censorship? Nableezy (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't figured out who gave what excuse for taking out photos of protesters with Palestinian flags at Obama's HQ, but most protests do emphasize Palestinian rights and harm against Palestine. Therefore it's POV to put in a photo saying "Stop Israel" - again to use images to make POV point that Israel is the much more greatly aggrieved party. More such photos are at wikicommons Gaza protest search.

And feel free to delete WP:Soapbox material directly above about killing people. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: it is not called Palestine. There is no curent state of Palestine. No current (unbiased) map shows this name, unless the map is pro-Gazan. It's POV to put images of pro-Gazan protests, without pro-Israeli protests. Unless the page has been changed since I last looks, the pictures are generally equal. --Pokoleo (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Equal? There are 3 Israeli related images, while only one Palestine-related photo. I am not surprised. The pro-Israeli viewpoint considers the causalities and suffering of this assault on Gaza/Palestine to be equal on both sides. Can someone take down at least two israeli-related photos, until we find more Palestine related photos? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DO not Take down the pics yet I count, 3:2, not 3:1. Go ahead and find another one of shrapnel/rockets fired into Gaza to go with the on es going into Israel. --Pokoleo (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you count the UN meeting pic as a Palestine-related photo?? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Like you, I understand why Israel wants to keep the truth hidden. But wikipedia is under no obligation to support this "obliteration" (as you call it) of an entire people! NonZionist (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, didn't notice this was already being discussed - i added my comment in a new section at the bottom here it is:

there are more than 20 countries listed with anti-israeli protests and fewer than five cities that the sources state had "small group of pro-israel" supporters opposing them, it gives undue weight to have any photos of tel aviv protestors.

i read the policy and it seems clear to that point.

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

also the photo of a rocket in israel and the chart of rockets fired into israel aren't balanced by a photo of an israeli strike or a chart of israeli incursions into gaza. Untwirl (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, your user page says "I hope I can bring my contributions to the project !". You just have. Thank you very much for reminding people about this extremely important Wiki policy, Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you sean. i have been treading lightly in this discussion, reading both sides and hoping to learn more. i'm here less as a knowledgeable insider and more as a socratic observer. my first impression of wiki is that editing controversial material is not lined out well in policy and therefore these unending talks continue without an authority figure we can run to and have cut the baby in half for us. we have to do it ourselves. :) Untwirl (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's deleted one of the Israeli protest photos as wp:undue since there's another one right below it.

FYI. Either a friend is going to let me use a photo of his of a protest poster with photos of atrocities or I am going to get one myself today; meanwhile I've been looking around for something in or easily gotten into public domain of Gaza casualties. If you see a good one that obviously is someone living in Gaza on Flickr or elsewhere you can always ask if they'll allow to put in public domain and give them http://commons.wikimedia.org address.

Meanwhile, I hadn't even looked at the graph. Obviously there should be a minimum of 2/1 Palestine casualty photos/charts vs. Israeli. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Three unaddressed problems with the term "Gaza Massacre"

There are three problems with the term "Gaza Massacre" which have yet be addressed.

• Firstly, the term violates WP:NPOV. It is incorrect to answer "well we have the Israeli name so we should have the Arab name". The Israeli is just a random name given to a military operation. The name is not a per se POV. On the other hand, the Arab name is controversial and contentious. It is a direct false attack on the IDF. The definition of Massacre is

“ the deliberate and intentional killing of a large number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to "the usages established among civilized peoples. ”

(International Humanitarian Law term from the Martens Clause). Nobody reasonable will argue that Israel's actions fit under this accepted definition. WP:NPOV does not require that each side gets "their name." In this case, if each side gets their name the result is a greater WP:NPOV violation then if the attack name is excluded from the lede.

• Secondly, there is no reliable sources supporting the claim that the Arab World calPls it the "Gaza Massacre". Ghits are irrelevant when they consist of of screaming-attention-grabbing headlines of sources whose reliability is unknown. We need significant reliable sources which state that "the Arab world calls this the Gaza Massacre". Not one has yet to be found.

• The third problem is sort of collateral of the second. Apparently this term massacre in relation to Israeli actions has been around for a while and has been applied to a number of other incidents. A look at Google News archives reveals that this is not the only incident that the Arab world has called a massacre. The term "massacre" is not unique to this particular action. Thus it would be wrong to call this a "massacre". They are not calling it a specific name. Every Israeli action that kills multiple people gets a "massacre reaction". The Arab world is not giving the action a proper noun. They are merely describing the action. Look at this way: instead of calling each Israel action a "killing", they are calling it a "massacre". That being said, there is no intention of giving a specific name to the Israeli operation. The action taken by editors in naming this conflict is original research, at best.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Rabend (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As to your claim that Nobody reasonable will argue that Israel's actions fit under this accepted definition., what do you make of this? If the Daily Telegraph is not in error, then what is that other than a massacre? JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume the Israelis really want to kill Arab civilians. Why would they? It's just not worth it due to the loss of public international support.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if the name given to the conflict is true, it only matters that is the name they use. WE are not using the name, we are only saying that the Arab world calls is 'The Gaza Massacre' Nableezy (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is bullshit, you have been given too many to count Arab sources that clearly refer to the conflict as 'The Gaza Massacre.' You refuse to acknowledge this point, it is not POV to say that Arabs are calling this 'The Gaza Massacre' it is a statement of fact backed up by a number of sources. All of these points have been addressed, you just refuse to acknowledge them. Archive 9 contains the entire discussion, and it blatantly dishonest for you to come back here and claim that these points have not been addressed. Nableezy (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling another editors comments "bullshit" isn't conducive to a civil discussion. You also misinterpreted my stance. I have acknowledged the reference to "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab media. However, ghits do not overcome the lack of WP:RS and the use of WP:SYNTH, two important Wikipedia policies. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Making bullshit arguments is not conducive to actually moving this article forward. You said not a single RS has been used to show that the name used is Gaza Massacre, so no I did not misinterpret your words, if your words dont match you your stance not much I can do about it. And WP:SYNTH doen not apply, arab sources can be quoted using the term 'The Gaza Massacre', so there is no synthesis of sources. Surely arab media is at least reliable enough to report what the name of a conflict in arabic is. Nableezy (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, please stop referring to another editor's comments as "bullshit". WP:CIVIL is WP policy that must be abided by even if when you disagree with another's opinion. As for "moving the article forward", I'm not trying to move anything forward. I'm trying to make it neutral and verifiable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Playing dumb is included in that policy. We have given you numerous sources yet you keep asking for 'only one.' Nableezy (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take this discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Lead where this point has already been discussed. The point here is to report notable events. We cannot judge whether or not Israeli actions should be called a massacre; we can only report notable names and nouns that are used by third parties to describe these actions. In this context, a google news search for "gaza massacre" (note the quotes) http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&nolr=1&q=gaza+massacre&btnG=Search yields almost 40,000 results. This is about the same number of results that "Operation Cast Lead" results in. I think it cannot be disputed that the term "Gaza Massacre" is in wide use. Hence, it is notable and deserves a mention. Now, individual wikipedia editors may or may not feel that this name is justified, but that is their personal opinion which is not relevant here. Jacob2718 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead -- the Israeli name -- should NOT be written off as something "random". Israel has used the name of a children's toy to designate the slaughter of over 700 men, women, and children. That indicates an Israeli inability or unwillingness to understand the sacredness of human life and the moral gravity of the slaughter now being perpetrated. BOTH names are expressive, the Arab name expressing horror and the Israeli name expressing sociopathic indifference. We should not reject names simply because they are meaningful! NonZionist (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with NonZionist. The choice of codename was designed to create cognitive dissonance. As an apparently random phrase it confuses the public. This confusion can only be resolved by explaining the phrase's origin which is evocative of innocence and Jewish tradition. By "dressing" the conflict in a metaphor that denotes innocence, the IDF are dissuading the broader public from thinking critically about it. On the other hand, the morbidity associated with "cast lead" is domestic propaganda. It reflects the sense of finality, of "burying Hamas" for security, that they want the domestic public to see as justification for the atrocities, reinforced by sentimental ideas of Jewishness stimulating patriotism etc.. It is in fact an ingenius piece of propaganda that is perfectly balanced by the stark truth of the term "massacre".--Chikamatsu (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF operations are named randomly by a computer program, as much as I know. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the viewpoint that it is very POV-ish to say "Gaza Massacre". Israel's view of this is defense in response to Hamas's 144 rockets and 86 mortars fired from Gaza at Israeli 'civilian' targets. Two extremely differing viewpoints from that of the "Arab world". "Gaza Massacre" suggests that Israel has cruelly and hastefully killed a huge number of innocent people intentionally and violated international law. This is very much more POV than "Operation Cast Lead" could ever be. Operation Cast Lead has no accusations, no bias or hateful connotation. Nothing. Its just random words as said above.Coreywalters06 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One last point on this page. It doesnt matter if you think it is POV of arabs to call it 'The Gaza Massacre,' that they do call it that is what matters. The name given by the Israelis is 'Operation Cast Lead' if they wanted to call it 'Operation to drive out thos god hating muslims' then I wouldnt object to having that as the Israeli name for the event. It is not a POV violation to accurately report what Arabs are calling it, the argument here, again, is that arabs should not be using the term, not that they are not using the term, That they are using the term is enough for inclusion. Nableezy (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, again, it does not matter if we think the name is POV, it matters that RS tell us it is the name being used in the Arab world for the IDF campaign in Gaza. Actually I think we need to change that bit in the lead, from "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre..." to "the campaign/offensive has been called the Gaza Massacre..." as the sources apply the name to the IDF military campaign and not the "conflict" in general. RomaC (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Below "Reply to claim 1" and "Reply to claim 3" paragraphs answers your concerns. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to claim 1:First I'd suggest seeing Archive 9 cause all of this is debated. Second, If the Arabs called the operation The "Most horrible, Sickening, Disgusting, Revolting, Baby-killing, Maggot-infested, sorry, Rotten" operation, we'll put it. If the Israeli called it "Kill all those fucking bastard Arabs" we'll put it so. There's no point in debating about the logical and psychological dimensions of the names. If anyone have a problem with the damn names, discuss it with the callers, not in here. This issue has been debated to death. The same arguments go over and over again, I'm sick of it. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Claim 2: which is also false. From Archive 9: After debating your yesterday false wrong al-* argument:...War in Darfur is bold without a reference saying "The war is called war in Darfur". In Iraq War, it's told that it's also known as "Occupation of Iraq" without a reference saying "The Iraq war is also called Occupation of Iraq", It was mentioned as so because cited references directly called it "Occupation of Iraq", as in exactly our case in the Arabic links we have given. Brewcrewer, you're just making a new complicated-looking argument every day. I'm sorry --Darwish07 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Further Reply 2: By your claim, if we have references from sources A to Z calling an event "lambda", then we can not add to Wikipidea "People A-Z call the event lambda"! unless some folk on the Internet say "People A-Z call the event lambda"? Doing so, you require a previous Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia itself, which is false logic. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with this. Battle of the Bulge lists the Allied and German ("Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein") names, because they are both notable names for the conflict. It doesn't matter which side is right or whether the names are accurate (we could argue about whether the front was actually "bulging" or not, but that is just what it's called). dbw (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• And all the names on all given examples (as in "Ocuupation of Iraq") was bolded too dbw. --Darwish07 (talk)

• Reply to Claim 3: Not our business to criticize how rightly it's called. Not our call. We're only the messenger. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not following the discussion closely so prepared if what I say is random why include the Arabic text if it is just meant to translate the English name that you decided was proper for it? The reason why we include the Arabic text is because it is an event that happen to Arab people, so the term they use to refer to it goes. Otherwise the Arabic text in the way you want to use it is worthless. Now here is a source with the usage of the phrase : [ http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E62CB22F-15B2-4C47-9FB5-3DD89CFF1ED8.htm] --68.123.141.153 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration?

This is hopelessly circular; no consensus can apparently be reached. The next step should be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. However, until the arbitration can be resolved the term should be removed from the lede pending the discovery of atleast one reliable source that states the Arab media refers to the conflict as the Gaza Massacre. Only one. Only one. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree completely. It is wiki policy that if the information is not verifiable and properly sourced it should be vanished. NONE of the references say what the statement says. I am all for going to arbitration. I was thinking of an RfC on the first paragraph at the very least. I have never done one so I don't really know how. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?????? You are going to remove verifiable and properly sourced text on the basis that until the arbitration rules it shouldnt be there. NOPE, until the arbitration it stays. Nableezy (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually no need for ArbCom (and editing doesn't stop while in arbcom). As per the dispute resolution process I have raised the OR point that has been answered and belabored to Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#2008.E2.80.932009_Israel.E2.80.93Gaza_conflict_and_.22Gaza_massacre.22 (I swear I started it before you posted here). Of course, you can feel free to raise it to ArbCom. It will be sad when they ban you from editing this article for trying to chill discussion and contentious editing. --Cerejota (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that you have not let the editors here that differ from you know that you did this in a courtesy notice. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, On Archive 9 several users (with different biases) told you you're wrong. In that case, until the arbitration, it should stay. This is very powerfully sourced and a lot of people (RomaC, Cerejota, Sean, ..) said so. You seem to personally dislike the term cause:

• First (Yesterday) you gave wrong theories about Arabic Grammar, and I proved you false
• Second (Yesterday and Today) you debated whether the Arabs are right or wrong for using this name. We told you it is not our business.

My guess is that you're trying to give birth to weird arguments every day to avoid this hot term being in the Lead listening to your own internal systematic bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this qualifies for OR, unless somebody is saying that translating the names from the headlines of all the sources cited in archive 9 is OR. And they do explicitly say 'The Gaza Massacre' when translated from arabic to english in all the sources we cited. The debate then went to should massacre be capitalized, and we calmly explained how case is handled in arabic (it isnt) and as a proper noun referring to this conflict it would be capitalized. The argument being consistently made is that having 'The Gaza Massacre' as the name given by arabs is NPOV and BIAS. I would think it should go there. Nableezy (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we go with مذبحة غزة? If it is more popular. Can someone with fluent Arabic verify these sources if have the phrase? [10] [11] [12] [13] --68.123.141.153 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre is the translation. Nableezy (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

not so. Not in English translations. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I know it means massacre, I took it from the Hebron Massacre article. You're not an Arabic speaker.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And depending on the context 'The' would be added. Nableezy (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And congratulations anon! We now have BBC using the phrase in their arabic website. Is that a reliable source? Nableezy (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well not entirely. I found some very strange errors on the BBC Arabic Website which didn't appear on the English version. Apparently the chief British editors don't really know what happens in their Arabic department. BTW, I sent a letter to the BBC asking about these discrepancies and received no reply. Anyway, something written on BBC Arabic which is not backed by the BBC English edition is not reliable. DrorK (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! This is the greatest argument ever. Can you point us to reliable sources that back you on the lack of knowledge of the BBC's arabic edition on the part of the BBC at large, or do we take your word for it? The goalpost keeps on moving farther and farther...--Cerejota (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont even know how to respond to that a source of the quality of the BBC cannot even be trusted to give the name of an event. Wow. Nableezy (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can. Their account about Sabra and Shatila in Arabic is totally false. The English version is reliable. DrorK (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do they at least call it Sabra and Shatila? Nableezy (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So only British approval is needed to make this Arab source reliable? I thought this was about what Arabs refer to the event. Not what western based new sources in Arabic have to say. You got Aljazeera saying it is a massacre. that suffices. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

British approval might get those who object to stop, we tried giving them a ton of arab sources and they continue, see archive 9. Nableezy (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but noticing that the "antis" are using a similar argument to the one that was used about the Arabic interwiki link - if the Arabic source/WP is not a direct facsimile (in translation) of an English-language source/WP, or is not backed up by one, it is by definition not reliable. Does anyone really need to explain or discuss the simple arrogance and false thinking behind that view, let alone the odd consequences that would follow were it to be taken seriously? Or the irrelevance of the claim that because DrorK saw something that he disagreed with in the coverage of one story there, therefore BBC Arabic cannot be used as a WP:RS? In any event a Google news search (as was highlighted somewhere above) even in the English language reveals plenty of Arabic and Asian media, as well as international bodies, using the phrase "Gaza Massacre". If you want these excluded, you're going to have to say not only that foreign language media are unreliable and/or cannot be used, but that any foreign media sources are suspect. Feel free to take that view if you wish, it will at least clarify the nature of this debate. --Nickhh (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it clearly - BBC Arabic is written mostly by Arabs. It is not a translation of the BBC news in English, and it is not written by British journalists who happen to speak Arabic. The BBC is supposed to guarantee the validity of the facts and terminology used there, but it is often not the case. I personally found discrepancies between the Arabic and English versions of the BBC websites. Sometimes they are brought to the chief editors attention and corrected, but not always. BTW, many of Al-Jazeera reporters used to work for BBC Arabic in the past. If you want to cite BBC Arabic, please verify that the BBC website doesn't say something else in English. I'm suggesting that from my experience. DrorK (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing - calling and event "a massacre" is an accusation. It is not merely a different choice of terminology, it is a straightforward accusation. Therefore, if you say the Arab world call the events "a massacre", you are saying "all Arabs accuse Israel of deliberately and intentionally killing civilians". If this is the case - fine, but think well what you are writing here. The fact that many media resources use terminology in an irresponsible way doesn't mean that we should do the same. DrorK (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not about what they say in English, it is about what they say in Arabic that we are discussing. We are giving the Arabic name for the conflict, how can you possibly argue against using arabic sources for that? Nableezy (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

although this discussion is quite entertaining let's just change it to "the benevolent raining down of the righteous pixie-star-dust of self-defence on the terrorist so-called palestinians in the unoccupied gaza strip, israel.". it will calm things down. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if we rename the article 2008-2009 Palestinian Lovefest.--Cerejota (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

But that would just mean having to find an english source that says, exactly, that 'Palestinians are capable of love' Nableezy (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the first sentence of DrorK's comment above succinctly proves the point I was hinting at. Thank you for being honest about your objections to BBC Arabic as a source. --Nickhh (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

its entertaining when you sit back and look at it, but right now i dont think im high enough to laugh :( Nableezy (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They rejected Aljazeera even though it is the most well known and most popular Arab news sources. It seems that the only Arabic sources deemed legitimate for their standards is if it told from a Western perspective and perhaps with a sympathetic-to-Israelis slant. If this is a question about bias and a lack of neutrality, Arab news is biased, so are Israeli and Western sources. The question is why do we legitimize the requests of these people if they think that Arab sources are not legitimate unless white people control/regulate them? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't spoken about this yet because I don't have a position in this debate. But it does seem to be dragging on and on. It is also becoming less civil. So I thought I should.

I think this sort of selection is really an arbitrary process. A few sources don't prove anything one way or the other. So I was asking my self what I would expect for inclusion. And I think we need to expect that the term is the name generally used in the other language. Which means that I would want to know that it is used in that language with some consistently and frequency. If it were not, it couldn't be said to be the usual name, right?

I don't speak Arabic but maybe someone who does can look into this? For example, I can find lots of instances of the same terms being found even in English (5427 hits for Gaza AND massacre on google news) but I know it isn't the usual English term for it. But I can see those five thousand are a small part of the many stories (220,000 that include Gaza AND Israel). Or I could see that "Gaza Massacre" gets fewer hits than, say, "Gaza AND fighting" (40,000) or "Gaza AND crisis" (38,000) or "Gaza AND offensive (79,000). So, in English, I'd know it isn't even the most common.

I wouldn't suggest a minimum threshold of course but maybe seeing this kind of information would help to satisfy the concerns some of the exclusionists are having. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make things clear. A source that has a screaming headline titled "Gaza Massacre" is insufficient. To move beyond OR we need reliable sources that state exactly (or in other words) what the article now claims - that the Arab media refers to the entire conflict as the "Gaza Massacre". Again, attention grabbing headlines of the sources themselves churned up at Google do nothing. We need a reliable source to state explicitly what the article claims.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See my "Reply to claim 2" above. It specifically replies to this bogus claim by two concrete examples. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I can see that I was quick to dissatisfy someone. But I thought I'd take my own advice anyway.

I had noticed someone mention google translation above so I thought I might as well give it a try. So I searched for stories that had both "Gaza" and "Israel" in the last month, just to get an idea of how many stories there are in total. That gave me 47,633. Then if I added "massacre" to those two (making sure it was the same as the word used in Arabic above) I get 3,937. I didn't want to mess around in a foreign language and search for exact terms or compare it to other phrases. Please excuse any mistakes I made on that. Questo per me è arabo. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. This is WP. This shouldn't be a place for people to subtly push forward a belligerent propaganda. Can we stick to objective facts, and not to agendas of biased media sources representing only one side? Including such an extremely biased, subjective pharse as "Gaza Massacre" strips away what (very) little objectivity was still left in WP. Rabend (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that Arabs are calling this conflict "The Gaza Massacre." I dont see why there is even an argument on this point, it is indisputable. The article is not advocating that it is a massacre, it is not advocating that it be called a massacre, it is only reporting that Arabs are calling it "The Gaza Massacre". And an interesting tidbit from the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roof_knocking; [14] Nableezy (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No at best they are calling it a 'massacre' -- little "m". Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your level of Arabic, and why do you assume you know better than native Arabic speakers with regards to Arabic news?--68.123.141.153 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Israelis also call the 7-year-long qassam attacks a "massacre" or "atrocities" or what have you. I still wouldn't think it's part of the objective description of the situation. Particularly if it was made by Jewish-only media sources from around the world. Rabend (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can make a case for the common name of these attacks being called the 'Massacre of innocent Israelis' or whatever it is, then by all means add that as the common name in Israel for the List of Qassam rocket attacks. But here the case has clearly been made that Arabs are calling this conflict 'The Gaza Massacre' and as such that should be included. Like I said earlier, we are not endorsing the view that what is happening is a massacre, that would be a POV issue, but here we are simply reporting what Arabs are calling this conflict. That some might find that title objectionable is understandable, but to want to censor it from wiki is not, in my mind at least, reasonable. Nableezy (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since in this particular case consensus is far from being reached on the merits of including this phrase, particularly since its relevance is not clear (and also in my view since it incites hatred), maybe we should just leave it out for the time being, and concentrate on other aspects of the article. Rabend (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, the issue is not whether it "incites hatred". The point that several editors above have tried to make is that the issue is one of whether this term is in common use. I think overwhelming evidence has been presented through translations and google news results that this is the case. I understand you are uncomfortable with the phrase .. but please try and understand that wikipedia is not endorsing or rejecting the phrase. It is merely reporting that this is the term being commonly used in the Arab world. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No one denies that the Arab press is calling it a massacre. However if anyone wants to call it a massacre in the lead, they should add Israel's justification for it in the same breath, as my earlier edits did. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is not presenting it as a charge, it is presenting it as the name given by Arabs. The name of the conflict ON BOTH SIDES go in the lead, the justifications, again ON BOTH SIDES, belong below that. The article is NOT saying that this is a massacre, it is saying that Arabs are calling the conflict 'The Gaza Massacre' Nableezy (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob is correct this is a simple matter of including not only the name given to the event by Israeli but also the name given to the event by the Arab World. RomaC (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe we should vote for consensus? it seems there are only 1 or 2 users fighting against this. Untwirl (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, when I first posted on this yesterday, I didn't really have an opinion, other than wanting to end this debate. I did my searching cause I was hoping it would go some way to satisfy the exclusionists. I'm still not really interested in how this is resolved either way. But I'm not sure any more that it is fair to say this is the usual name for these events in Arabic.

If I did not make an error in my searching, then the term "massacre exsists in just eight percent of the articles. That's very few when compared to the English words that have been proposed for the title. In the English articles those would be: offensive (36%) war (23%) conflict (18) operation (18) crisis (18) assault (13) invasion (11). And I don't think any of those words would be considered the standard English name. So I think that while "Gaza Massacre" and its variations are certainly said, adding them might be like going to a non-English WP and saying "Gaza crisis" or "Gaza war" is the standard name in English.

I'm still not expressing support for one side or the other. But I'm a little surprised. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No vote. The vote is down "party lines" and one side is not dealing with the other side's concerns. I would like to see arbitration on this highly POV article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The one point I would raise with your search is that it is limited to english sources, whereas searching for the arabic term give many news sources that would be considered reliable referring to the term مجزرة غزة, or translated gaza massacre (cases do not exist in arabic). I think there is a flaw in saying that arabic name for an event must be cited in many many english sources for us to use it. Going through the arabic news sites, yes there are other names in use, but the majority, the vast majority, of the time Gaza massacre is used. I do think that this info can certainly be used, but we are searching on english sources for an arabic name. I am not suggesting we use BBC Arabic, or Al-Jazeera (non-english) as sources for other content, but surely they are reliable enough to accurately report what the name of the conlict is no? Nableezy (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my search for "massacre" was in Arabic (see above) but I was comparing its prevalence (8% in Arabic sources) to the prevalence of the other terms in English sources. Now I may have done my Arabic search wrong (again see my concern above). But if those numbers are correct it makes me wonder.

"Gaza crisis" (the presence of "Gaza" and "crisis") occurs in 18 percent of the English articles. Yet "Gaza crisis" and it variants are clearly not the usual name in English. If "Gaza massacre" (again, the presence of those two terms) occurs in only eight percent of the Arabic articles can we really say that it is the usual name in Arabic when it occurs so infrequently?

Again, maybe someone should double check my numbers. Which obviously would have changed a little anyway from last night. But those numbers leave me feeling less satisfied than I was when I first spoke yesterday. I still don't really care how this is resolved but I'm not sure that I could support the inclusion myself even though I would have been initially. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As per my dif here [15] the sources given do not support the accusation. This is English wiki and we are supposed to use English sources. Comments have been translated from the Arabic by the RS given and they did not make it clear that the Arabs are in fact calling it "The Gaza Massacre." Until and unless it is clear in an English translation, it really doesn't need to be in the second sentence without any balance. My edit has been reverted numerous times despite the fact that it is balanced and includes a reference to a "massacre" in Gaza.[16] It is becoming clear to me that one side here is not willing to even try to find common ground. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So to be clear here. Here's what happened Yesterday and Today:

1. First, people made arguments about Arabic Grammar. I absolutely proved it was false in Archive 9.
2. Second, Brewcrewer gave three new claims above, I, again, proved they are false, And no single counter argument challenged my replies.
3. Third, People began to be racists and dared to say that BBC Arabic is not a reference and we need BBC English "approval". Although we are discussing what's called in the Arabic world, not internationally.
4. Fourth, after all of this, people began saying that we should not be talking about Arabic news agencies anyway!!!. Although we are, again, discussing what's called in the Arabic world, not internationally
5. Any one noticed the pattern? Just inventing of new illogical arguments to avoid this term which seems to really bother a subset of editors in here. Although it's not their call to give opinions about what others call a conflict, but --supposedly-- to just report it. I'm sure tomorrow someone will just try to invent a new statistically irrelevant argument to satisfy his sympathy and taste. Oh well. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my understanding of the situation. A google search for the exact Arabic phrase has over 800K hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%B1%D8%A9+%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9%22), MANY more than a search for "Operation Cast Lead," which has under 250K hits. The Google trends are comparable. Therefore, clearly many Arabs call this event "مجزرة غزة"... that does not appear to be in dispute. To me the outstanding question is, is this "The Gaza Massacre" (capital T, capital G, and most importantly, capital M) or is it "a massacre in Gaza?" Arabic doesn't have capital letters, of course, but you know what I'm getting at. Compare "The Great Depression" (capital letters) to "the financial crisis" (lowercase)... one is a name for a particular event, the other is a descriptor, used in both news items and casual speech, to describe a current event in today's context. Most likely, nobody in 2059 will know what "the financial crisis" refers to. Will "The Gaza Massacre" still refer to this conflict in 50 years? I suspect it will. dbw (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyond that, here are some english news sources: SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [17]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [18]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [19]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [20]. That enough english sources? Nableezy (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the problem with that method is most of those references are about other things. If you reduce the time frame to only the past year it will reduce the hits to 216,000. If you limit to the last month, the hits are reduced further to 103,000 which would eliminate 748,000 hits (88% of the 851,000). So most of those hits refer to other Gaza massacres. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the english ones above that plainly show Hamas, the other main belligerent in this battle, is calling it 'the gaza massacre'? Is it not customary to include the name given to the battle on both sides? Look through the list of battle pages Battle of the Bulge, Yom Kippur War, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Six-Day War and so on. Nableezy (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To put the numbers in context, there are 392,000 results for "מבצע עופרת יצוקה" (the hebrew words for operation cast lead) over the past month. Put that against the 103,000 over the past month for "مجزرة غزة" (the arabic for gaza massacre). I would expect the hebrew to have more hits than the arabic as Israel has a much more developed news infrastructure as well as higher standards of living (leading to higher usage of the internets). But it is clear that the term is in quite abundant usage in the arab world. That we have the BBC and Al-Jazeera using the term, two highly reliable sources (regardless of others insinuations that arabs are incapable of accurately reporting anything) adds to this. That we have english sources quoting arab leaders and hamas leaders using the term, further add to this. Nableezy (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is this: I'm totally open to the idea of inclusion. I'm sure that lots of Arabic speakers do call it that. My gut reaction, before looking at this was that "Gaza masscare" and its variants were the usual name in Arabic. I'm sympathetic to inclusion but to be happy about it the Wikipedian in me would like to see some real evidence. Honestly I would love to be convinced and have this over with. Although, like I've said, I have not asked that my skepticism be considered against inclusion. I'm just sharing my thoughts.

So please consider this scenario. We're talking on this article but in another language, let's say the Italian version (which I've seen exists but is not interwikid yet). And let us imagine that an editor proposed to include the Arabic name, "Gaza massacre" and the English name "Gaza crisis" (or if you prefer "Gaza conflict" or "war" or "assault" or "offensive") but faced objections. Excluding the notion that English is unimportant for this conflict (which is what I'd say), what arguments could one provide to say that "Gaza massacre" is the usual Arabic name that could not also be provided to show that "Gaza conflict" (or one of the others) is the usual English name. Since those terms are not the usual English name, I'd expect "Gaza massacre" to have some currency that they do not. I've yet to see it however. But I am completely open-minded about it. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think you have exceedingly reasonable in all this. But to answer the question here goes. Lets just further say that US is an involved belligerent because it make the analogy that much easier. If US government officials referred to it as 'Gaza crisis' or whatever then I think that would merit inclusion on it being the official position of one of the involved parties. Hamas, as the ruling government of Gaza should be granted the same. Beyond that, if major news organizations that broadcast in English, lets say BBC and ABC, call it 'Gaza crisis' I think that would merit inclusion as that is what RS say the name is. Aljazeera and BBC Arabic are such sources in the arab world. And finally, I would like to point out the above section from the interwiki debate, from both those who called it 'Gaza Massacre' in that wiki (which I am not suggesting is a source) and those who tried to get the interwiki link removed on the basis of that name:

The fact that most (not all) Arabic resources call these events "a massacre" merely indicates that most Arabic resources have a certain opinion about these events. (from Drork)

the fact that almost all major Arabic news agencies address the event as "Massacre of Gaza", and by almost all I mean a really considerable amount of ALMOST ALL. Simply put, this is the name widely used in Arab world to refer to this event. Whether the name is not appealing to someone is not, and will not be an issue back in Arabic wikipedia. Such naming conflict is similar in nature to the Arabian-Persian gulf naming conflict. The article name might be changed in the future if the majorty of local media shift the use of the naming criteria. Such criteria was applied to the the 2006 war on Lebanon article as the article was finally named "حرب لبنان 2006" arabic for "2006 Lebanon War". That did not seem to bother Dorok at the time, as calls from lots to name it "Lebanon Massacre" were ignored (from Tarawneh)

Even those who are adamantly opposed to us including the statement admit that most Arabic sources call these events 'a massacre', though he understates it, they generally call it 'The Massacre', 'The Massacre in Gaza' and 'The Gaza Massacre' which == 'The Massacre of Gaza' in arabic. So, what do you think? Nableezy (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the article had a more accurate title, e.g. 2008-2009 Attack on Gaza, then it may not be necessary to refer to it as a massacre in the intro. The current title serves Israeli propaganda in that is suggests that the attack is 1) not very serious - I have "conflict" at work when I disagree with a coworker, and 2) it is somehow a two-way battle - a notion too absurd to remark on. Trachys (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless what the title is, it is common practice (and dont take my word for it just look up any random battle you can think if in the last 100 years) that the english title for the event be followed by the title given by either side. Does anybody out there say that hamas does not refer to this as the 'gaza massacre'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• A word about POV: names are names and can't be POV. If some terrorist is named "Todd Innocent" then that is what we call him, regardless of what the word "Innocent" means. Similarly Hassan Nasrallah's last name means "help from God" (some would call him a "curse" more than a "help") in Arabic. However, the wikipedia article on Hassan Nasrallah shouldn't strike out his last name just because its meaning is highly POV. I could go on about this (Hezbollah means "army of God" for example). The point is that wikipedia must mention the name of the subject of the article in the first paragraph.VR _talk 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun house shelling

The first sentence of this section currently reads,

Based on Palestinian survivors eyewitness reports, The United Nations has alleged Israeli troops of having evacuated some 110 Palestinians – including children – into a single resident house at the Zeitoun district in Gaza and then shelling the property 24 hours later, killing some 30 people.

I am concerned about well-poisoning, whitewashing and original research in this sentence. First of all, the mainstream media are reporting this as fact, not as something "the United Nations has alleged." Secondly, "Palestinian survivors eyewitness reports" is redundant; the extraneous modifier "Palestinian" is not being used by most of the sources and serves here as well-poisoning. Thirdly, our saying this is all based on Palestinian eyewitness reports is original research, and dubious original research at that; the sources are also basing this on reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

A final, more general point. Israel is currently still barring journalists from getting into Gaza. Virtually all of the reporting in the mainstream media right now is synthesized from the reports of eyewitnesses, international observers like the Red Cross and the U.N., and official statements from the Israeli military. Where there is significant doubt, the media report conflicting allegations. Where the media report something as fact, we should do so also. When we say hmmmm, let's find out who's telling the media this, and make a note of it and report it as so-and-so's "allegations", we are engaging in original research as well as well-poisoning.--G-Dett (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? What is too 'well-poisoning' 'whitewashing' for you to read, don't read it. There are allot of other sources that are more 'friendly' for the common reader.--Bob1969 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i believe g-dett stated explicitly what he believes the problem is: see above:

"First of all", "secondly," and "thirdly"

alleged seems to me what i've seen referred to as a weasel word, and if the modifier 'palestinian' isn't used in the source, it shouldn't be here.

to tell someone, "if you don't like it dont read it" isn't conducive to collaborative editing and seems uncivil as well. Untwirl (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What can you say, Bob? You can say something useful and responsive. Don't be fooled by my conciliatory tone ("I am concerned" etc.): what I laid out in my post above are concrete violations of policy. If the New York Times says something happened, period, and we then try to figure out who their informants were, highlight the ethnicity of those informants when they don't, then add on top of that another so-and-so-alleges formulation (even though the New York Times and other top-notch sources are presenting the "allegation" as fact), then we are engaged in original research and well-poisoning.--G-Dett (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, can you explain this edit to me, wherein you write that –

Allegra Pacheco also added that these claims were not verified UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) or any other independent observer and refused to name source for this accusations.

The grammatical errors make what you're saying here pretty opaque, but I gather you're trying to summarize the live interview between Pacheco and a BBC journalist. This takes us into the territory of original research: for example when you write that Pacheco "refused to name source [sic] for this accusations [sic]," we have no RS saying she refused and no evidence that her "refusal" was significant to anyone but you. Also, it's likely to be misinterpreted in a well-poisoning sort of way: she's refusing to give the proper names of survivors of the attack, for obvious ethical reasons, but she's not refusing to say who her sources are (survivors, hospital officials, etc.).

The Zeitoun incident has been covered in detail by just about every mainstream print RS. Perhaps we should just write from those sources in the usual manner, rather than presenting ungrammatical, well-poisoning personal summaries of how a TV interview went down.--G-Dett (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence for this alleged incident, and the IDF has made it clear that it was nowhere even close to that area during that time, let alone move people from one building to another, why even mention it? Is WP just a collection of newsflashes, real or fake? Rabend (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We have two international agencies collecting, within gaza, eyewitness reports. We have an IDF disclaimer. The latter only made 'clear' its own (provisory) position. We give space to both these authoritative sources. Neither is definitive. That is the way wiki works reports.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So you believe that the AP, the Daily Telegraph, the New York Times, and Reuters are all lying? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All sources I have read so far (including yours, JCDenton2052) clearly state that all reports (including the UN's)are based on eyewitness accounts by Palestinian/Family eyewitnesses. No one treat it as a "fact", all of them report testimonies. In the video the BBC reporter specifically asked that question and the UN offical responded to that question. This is not POV. IDF is accused here in a grave war crime, which if turns out to be true, I might as well just give up my Israeli citizenship and never return to Israel. Due to the gravity of the accusations, it is essential to note that ALL reports are based on Palestinians, since they are! A reader from Mars reading that there were eyewitnesses would conclud the issue resolved, after all what is more objective than an eyewitness? Also, how come there are "confirmed eyewitnesses"? the UN only confirmed that it heard witnesses, not that it confirmed their testimonies to be true! You treat it as a "fact" while ALL SOURCES report "the fact" that palestinian eyewitnesses reported something, and we should do the same. I must admit I am having very hard time to believe that this indeed happened. And since there is no objective source to confirm it had happenned, we can't treat it as a "fact".--Omrim (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two aspects. The incident and its aftermath. Certainly, in the aftermath, at the rescue, representatives of the Red Cross, officials of that organization based in Gaza, were present on the scene at Zeitoun, when the survivors were discovered, and spoke with Israeli soldiers in the vicinity, who warned them off. This is not just about the survivors' narratives. We have their direct testimony that soldiers not only did not lift a finger, but asked them to leave the site, and made no effort to help them in getting the stricken back past the berms to a hospital. Not even first aid. That's quite normal, in most wars. This in any case is not a moral problem for you. It's a legal problem for the IDF, the Government and the International Bodies which will pursue it in the appropriate international courts.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of that paragraph presently say: "The IDF referred to an Israeli television network examination of the matter that apparently showed that Gaza hospitals had no knowledge of the incident." Well, this "examination" is clearly rubbish. Two Norwegian doctors are based at the Shifa hospital in Gaza (the largest hospital, AFAIK), and they reported this incident already on Monday. Tuesday, the largest "serious" newspaper in Norway, Aftenposten, carried a piece on the matter: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/midtosten/article2850359.ece Headline: "Her family was exterminated" Subheadline: "The Israelis collected the whole family in two houses. Afterward the houses are apparently bombed. The doctor Mads Gilbert is chocked." And: The attack shall have happened at 8 AM Monday morning, in the village of Zytom, in Gaza...Dr Gilbert underlines that he has not been able to investigate the houses himself, but has been told the story from several witnesses, including the grandmother of the little girl with the amputated hand. And: "This case must get international attention" say dr. Gilbert ....So how on earth can Israeli television network "examination" show that Gaza hospitals had no knowledge of the incident? Regards, from a very disgusted Huldra (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing to me the disconnect between the mainstream English news and that of the rest of the world. Al-Jazeera has been airing interviews with a handful of survivors of the initial attack who managed to escape the house to the main road and get a ride to the hospital for a few days now. I've been waiting for decent English language sources, or print articles to write about the incident for days, but there were hardly any that gave a coherent narrative. I can't understand how in the 21st century, in an age of instant telecommunications, we can have information managed so tightly. Anyway, thanks for providing the source. God help us all. Tiamut^talk 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut; I heard the first report about this on BBC Friday evening, with an interview with two of the elder children, and I see that there is now a piece on their web-site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819261.stm ...do you feel like incorporating it into the article? Huldra (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Huldra. I'll try adding some of it soon, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. If it gets too long, we can farm it out to its own article. After reading it again though, and especially the part about there are some areas they have not yet been able to reach, I'm totally outraged. I think I'd better not put it into words just this second. I might use a whole lot of words objectionable to the sensitivities of some of our fellow editors. Tiamut^talk 03:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And now there is an International Herald Tribune article, too: [21] Huldra (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's this January 6 report too, from Btselem: "The family still had one cell phone. However, the family member in contact with B'Tselem said that the phone was taken by soldiers this afternoon, as one of the girls in the family was talking on it." Tiamut^talk 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)