Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Neutrality and Factual accuracy

Neutrality is made abundantly clear, but was placed by Wikifan12345 over the title issue.

However, the factual accuracy tag I don't get. There might be issues here and there, but I don't see in this talk page anyone raising a coherent "factual accuracy" argument, as per WP:AD.

I just gave the article a read, and found bias and neutrality issues (in particular, use of partisan sources, and lack of verifiability), found it is ugly, etc. But accuracy of factual claims? Nope, not a single one.

Anything that is stated as a fact, verifies as such pretty quickly.

Since this is the case, I am removing the "factual accuracy" tagging, and will do so under "snowball", unless an explanation for its placing is given, so we can fix the inaccurate information.

If the issue is with an specific line or piece of information, rather than with multiple items in multiple sections, WP:AD provides a betetr way to handle that, similar to the {{fact}} tag. That is the {{dubious}} tag. You can use this tag to mark specific inaccuracies so they can be fixed. Better yet, use the tag with {{dubious|section}} which allows you to point to the place in the talk page, using the "section" name.

For example:

“ Pie are the best desert. ”

Points to the "Pie is the best?" section below.

If the tag is placed as a general protest, that is unhelpful. The purpose of tagging is to fix the article until tags can be removed. This is expedited by raising specific issues.

I hope we can do this, because we really need a good article and we can do it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pie is the best?

If you click "discuss" above, it'll bring you here

Of course! Because I say so. I said so, so it must be true.--Livebythepie

No way, ice cream is best.--Iscream4icecream

Butter pie, naturally. doktorb _words^deeds 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss below here

I added the Factual accuracy tag yesterday or the day before as there have been many examples (as the whole talk page above shows) where certain parts of the article have been worded certain ways because of bias which results in factual inaccuracy. There were multiple issues and i didnt see the problem with adding another warning to this article just so people do not take everything included as correct. The articles been improved alot since then so its no longer the problem it was. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis

There should probably be a section on the unfolding humanitarian crisis. That there is nothing in the lead about it is strange. And it's weird to be five full sections and thousands of words into the article and then discover, in a sentence that isn't even a paragraph topic sentence, that "A United Nations relief agency has said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire and on the brink of catastrophe."--G-Dett (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the above mentioned sentence in the lead (the UN is usually a very reliable source), but someone replaced it with a less dramatic one: "Many countries and organizations have called for an immediate ceasefire and expressed concern for the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip", which I think is an understatement given how bad the situation really is. Also, I would happily create a new section for "humanitarian situation", and move most of the statements concerning the humanitarian crisis there, but this would break the timeline format used in the rest of the article, so I'm unsure if I should do that. Offliner (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. We need such a section to provide context which cannot be discussed in detail in the timeline. The timeline can mention daily developments briefly, and the section can cover the overall situation and its development. In any case, it's not clear the timeline format can be maintained, particularly if the bombardment continues, as it currently seems poised to do. Tiamut^talk 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A section specific for the humanitarian crisis was added. Thanks for your grammar corrections, it made the article look much more "encyclopedic" :-). --Darwish07 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone who knew nothing about this would get the wrong impression from the Intro. To take just one example - humanitarian situation - you'd think there were no problems and that Israel is behaving like a saint. The only mention now seems to be of the amazing effort of Israel sending aid to Gaza. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nonsense of Palestenian accusation of geneocide and war crimes

From the article:

Furthermore, arguing that Palestinians are guilty of terrorism, war crimes and genocide (under the Genocide convention), Israel has a legal duty to prevent and punish Hamas' rocket attacks, and cut off aid to the Palestinians. It also has the right to impose economic sanctions and conduct a full-scale assault on the Gaza Strip. They also state that countries must refrain from charging Israel of violating International Law, fulfill their own legal obligations, and take measures to prevent Palestinian war crimes, terrorism and genocidal efforts.

This is extremely biased to be even digested. Let's not forget that Israel is an occupying force. It's enough to compare the UN 1948 partition plan with the current Israel map which shows:

- 33 settlements in the supposedly Palestinian land.

- Zapping Palestinians from their cities, given by the UN, to Gaza strip by force.

- The cut of Palestinian land to two un-connected pieces.

The paragraph was like a terrorist saying that all Israelis should not have the right to exist. It's bothering when the Palestinian news network was accused of extreme bias while the above statement, just because it was said in a politically tidy manner, be accepted in Wikipedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why I suggested to delete the legal section, see: [1]. If the stand of a princeton professor (nonsense to some) made its way to the article, why not the stand of a Uconn professor (nonsense to others)? This is endless, counterproductive, and this is why this section should be deleted altogether.--Omrim (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And I don't see any point in responding to your specific comments, as it will create exactly the kind of "discussion" we're trying to avoid in an informative (rahter than interpretative) article. --Omrim (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should not have such debate on a Wikipedia talk page, but the criticized paragraph is as biased as relegious fundamentalism. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff by this Jerusalem-based lawyer about genocide etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I undid it, since the issue is still being discussed. Please lets try to reach a consensus.--Omrim (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete this fringe view. Delete the entire legal section. It's basically an "opinion" section for lawyers. RomaC (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! finally someone!--Omrim (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, this section should be deleted, or we'll go in endless not-too-useful-to-wikipedia debates. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. as per Omri and Darwish. I weighed in here as well[[2] : Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please respond to the suggestion to delete the legal section here:Suggestion to delete the legal section altogether. Thanks, --Omrim (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, Pieter Kuiper: i have not (yet, anyway) checked the international lawyer status of Weiner and Bell, but until we have evidence to the contrary, we should presume that it is true that Weiner is an international human rights lawyer and that Bell is a professor at the UConn School of Law. People who feel that Weiner is biased in favour of Israel because he is Scholar-in-Residence at an Institute in Jerusalem can make that interpretation when they read the text. People who believe that Falk is biased in favour of most-of-the-world (and against Switzerland) can make that interpretation when they read the text that Falk was appointed by a United Nations body. It's not up to wikipedian editors to tell readers that there is no legal discussion at all about these actions. It is a fact that some lawyers who have passed a very thorough professional filtering process have made legal declarations following the first few days since 27 December (Falk) and preceding 27 December (Weiner/Bell). Boud (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07: PS: in fact, you were partially right that that part of the text was problematic. The way it was written unintentionally sounded like a list of facts rather than a list of claimed facts. i've put "they state" in each phrase/statement in order to NPOV it. The style may not be the most elegant, but at least it's NPOVed. Either we put all the statements as "claimed" or "alleged" or we leave them all as "stated" or "said" etc. IMHO "stated" etc. should read better than a whole repeated list of "claimed"'s and "alleged"'s, though that's a question of style. Boud (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia approach: which lawyers are notable? and why?

Richard A. Falk has had a wikipedia entry since before the existence of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict page and made a comment after the conflict started. Justus Reid Weiner and Avi Bell commented about the attacks before they occurred and after the attacks had occurred, they initially (until now 02:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)) did not have wikipedia entries.

i suggest we take a constructive wikipedia approach. If Weiner and Bell are notable enough, then people should do some work and create their pages, let WP:NPOV and WP:RS and notability discussions take place. If their opinions are "fringe" opinions, then wikipedia readers will be able to judge that easily by the content of those two people's respective entries. However, take note of WP:BLP. The same applies to Falk. i don't know how NPOV or RS or WP:BLP the content of his page is at the moment (i suspect there is some work to be done there), but in any case, readers will go to his page and judge both from the content of his opinions and to some degree, from information about him himself and then decide how seriously they should take his judgments.

i don't imagine we have a huge amount of international law experts wikipedified, so it probably can't hurt to increase their numbers. We could then eventually choose among the most prominent/selected-by-professional-processes from "both" (or all main) camps. Boud (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My estimate was wrong! Category:International_law_scholars presently has 62 entries. We might be able to search among their published opinions after the first few days since 27 December and try to consense on whose points of views are most reliable from the two main parties' sides (Israel and Gaza Strip). Boud (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

TO DO:

• Justus Reid Weiner - start article if s/he's notable Boud (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Avi Bell - start article if he's notable Boud (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I realy don't get it (just to make certain, I think that ALL "scholars" currently mentioned are not notable) - not only we're questioning legal definitions and interpretation of facts, we now questioning which commentator is more "notable". This is getting ridiculous.--Omrim (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm not suggesting that we remove Weiner and Bell's opinions on the grounds that they're not notable. It's a fact that at present, Richard A. Falk has a wikipedia entry, which means that other wikipedians than us created and NPOVed etc. the page, but Weiner and Bell do not. If you seriously think that the Princeton University emeritus professor of international law who since March 2008 has been United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 is not notable, then propose to delete his entry. Personally, i would prefer to think that Weiner and Bell are likely to be notable and that some people will do the work to create their pages and establish their notability in the wikipedia sense. If we eventually get quotes from too many international law lawyers, then at some point we will have to select from them in some neutral, NPOV, way. That's why i titled the subsection this way. i hope that clarifies. Boud (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See my suggestion above (in the deleting suggestion section) to change the title of the section. Also, I hardly think that having a Wiki entry has any relevance to levels of "notability". My PHD supervisor is probably no. 1 in the world in his feild (which has nothing to do with this conflict, just to make it clear), and has no Wiki entry. So what? Does that make him less notable? Or not one of the most cited professors in his feild? --Omrim (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG! People, this is "Verifiability not truth", of course Israel doesn't want to kill all Palestinians and do a genocide. But if notable, relevant people say so, we should quote it somewhere not as fact, but as an assertion. Probably not the intro, but maybe in "Reactions"?

I can't believe that this is so hard to understand. Just because it is biased, it doesn't mean it doesn't belong: it means we should present the bias in a neutral fashion, with due weight in cosideration as a fringe belief. Its simple, really. No need to fret and get bellingerent about it. --Cerejota (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we delete Weiner and Bell quotes?

i am not in favour of deleting the Weiner and Bell quotes/summaries, since that risks POV concerns for the whole section. For the moment i am restoring them. Boud (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Weiner and Bell are just a lawyer and just some professor who wrote something for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Their stuff is not published in a reputable journal of international law. It is just propaganda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? whct about: December, 2000, 100 Columbia Law Review 1965, THE INTEGRATION GAME, Abraham Bell and Gideon Parchomovsky; 16 Temple Int'l & Comparative Law Jourbal 43, THE USE OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN THE AL-AQSA INTIFADA: A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS*, Justus Reid Weiner; 37 Geoorge Washington Int'l Law Review 309, ISRAEL'S SECURITY BARRIER: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND LEGAL EVALUATION, Dr. Barry A. Feinstein*, Justus Reid Weiner; Fall, 2007, 22 Connecticut Journal of Int'l Law 233, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF 'SAFE PASSAGE' RECONCILING A VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE WITH ISRAEL'S SECURITY REQUIREMENTS , Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison; Abraham Bell "JUST" earned his doctoral degree from Harvard. They certainly most no "just lawyers" (Sill,I am still not sure they should be mentioned as their publication was made before the current conflict).--Omrim (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the reliability of the quotes from these two either. It would be equally easy to go and get quotes from lecturers at a Palestinian university saying the opposite, and that doesnt achieve much. It would be much better to use only quotes from independent international legal experts. Fig (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The section is only expanding, with now eight (8!) references to their article "published" on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Claims of genocide are ludicrous. They belittle the real cases of genocide that have taken place in history. And does anybody care about Darfur. I will remove the propaganda from the Israeli thinktank. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove relevant, sourced material without consensus, as that is borderline vandalism. You are welcome to your personal opinions about about Bell and Weiner, but they are published academics in reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that it's required, as the JCPA is reliable and notable itself, but the Weiner & bell arguments have been picked up in mainstream media, such as here. Please do not remove this agian without consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a view one way or the other about the material itself, and I know the Spectator ref is not being used as a key point, but I would just say that it is pushing the definition somewhat to suggest that Melanie Phillips' blog on the Spectator website counts as significant "mainstream media". I would also note that Electronic Intifada links have been excluded from this page. Is that any worse or less partisan a reference point than JCPA? --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote, the Spectator mention is not required, but there is a big difference between an column in mainstream media such as the Spectator, and self-published websites such as EI. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged you weren't relying on the Phillips piece, but I really would stress the point (perhaps for future reference) that she is viewed as being pretty "out there" by most other media in the UK, and also that this appears to be an online post rather than a published comment piece; and of course my comparison was between EI & JCPA, not between EI & The Spectator. Whatever you or I might think of EI or JCPA, they are both partisan self-publishers as opposed to mainstream outlets - that doesn't necessarily disqualify either of them from being quoted or cited when appropriate and with proper attribution, but you can't treat one differently from the other. --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the equivalence between EI and JCPA. EI is little more than an unabashedly partisan self-published blog, operated by its four journalist founders. The JCPA is a think tank, its staff comprised primarily of dozens of academics who are recognized experts in their fields, with a well identified board of directors, steering committee and oversight committees. It is the equivalent (albeit on a smaller scale) of such think tanks as the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. NoCal100 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am aware, Dore Gold is a big figure in JCPA, and the group's wiki page (for what it's worth) lists 4 serving and former IDF personnel at the top of the list of major contributors/researchers. Its own website, in the homepage's first sentence, says "Israel's growth and survival are dependent on its winning the war of ideas". I guess everyone can make up their own minds as to whether this makes them a partisan organisation or not. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You should know better that to use wiki article as support for your argument. Nevertheless, I'm sure you didn't miss, on that page, the following names - Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University; Professor Bernard Lewis; Dr. Uzi Arad, ;Dr. Ephraim Kam,;Professor Mordechai Abir; Professor Gerald M. Steinberg - yet for some strange reason those names didn't make it into your above post. Does EI have comparable names on its staff? A more comprehensive list can be found here- [3], and a quick browsing through the names will confirm what I wrote - the research staff is made up of academics, many of whom are notable experts in their fields. Of course the center has its own agenda, as do the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. But the simplistic equivalency of "this blog is partisan, this think-tank is partisan, thus they are equivalent sources" is a false equivalence. NoCal100 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, hence my use of the phrase "for what it's worth" in respect of the WP page (and actually of course there were seven IDF related names at the top of the list, apologies for that). And yes, I did also notice the name of Bernard Lewis there, as I have now noticed Efraim Karsh, Uzi Landau, Richard Landes, Daniel Pipes etc on the much longer list you've linked to on the JCPA site. Thankfully, EI does not have comparable names on its staff. Flippancy aside, I repeat my point that both are valid places to go to for a particular POV and in order to source the opinions of those who write under their auspices. Both are quite explicit about where they are coming from. In addition Ali Abunimah for example is often published elsewhere and EI cited with approval by mainstream media, even though it does not drape itself - and nor of course could it, admittedly - in the often-spurious trappings of a "think-tank". --Nickhh (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are thankful that EI does not have world renown experts on the subject such as Bernard Lewis. No more needs to be said. NoCal100 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The JCPA site is obviously unsuitable as a source for an unbiased account of what international law might have to say about the attacks. Its talk about "genocide" is inflammable. Inclusion of this material is clearly WP:UNDUE and borderline trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to this personal opinion, which I disagree with, and as I've pointed out, it's also been published in the Spectator. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A blog that call the UN "Club of Terror" is not neutral. I will remove it again. Do not put this kind of stuff back unless it you have a reference to a reliable source, such as a refereed academic journal with a good reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No source is "neutral". Falk is not neutral either. Wikipedia does not require 'neutral' sources - it requires reliable sources, which both the JCPA and The Spectator are. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus, as that is disruptive behavior. NoCal100 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Weiner and Bell quotes, though farcical, should be left in, because they show just how convoluted and detached from reality one needs to be to justify this aggression. However, they should not be paired up with Falk or any other serious legal authorities. We should not use format to create the appearance of dialogue where there is none. Let the Weiner and Bell statements stand alone.

The artificial division between "Attacks by Gaza Strip" and "Attacks by Israel" imposes a symmetry where there is none. Eliminate these misleading subheadings. Instead, have one subheading for Falk and one for Weiner and Bell. NonZionist (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, what's going on here only proves that I was right when saying we should delete this section altogether. Please don't edit the section without consensus. I undid the last two edits. --Omrim (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't ignore the discussion we already had.[4] --Omrim (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I started to delete the most obviously propaganda. The JCPA web site is not not a serious source on international law regarding Israel's occupied territories. But as I am so clearly outnumbered by Zionists here, I will leave you guys. Bye-bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

duh!. It's the nature of all internet communities to have debates, don't be so sensitive and assume WP:AGF. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Allen Dershowitz

If are going to include the "assertions" of a fanatic like Falk, surely we can find an opinion of Alan Dershowitz? He is far more notable than Falk, in fact, he is one of the most prominent experts on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I can't find anything though....hmmm...Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi wikifan, didn't see you for a while. Alan Dershowitz is also clearly pro-israili biased to the level that he's much criticized by the Israili author Norman Finkelstein in his books for his bias. I'm not against adding pro-israili POV ofcourse, I'm against adding more bias to a section that's currently over-biased. Removing the quotes by Falk means making the paragraph pro-israili and anti-Palestinian beyond imagination. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and criticizing Israel actions do not make people fanatics. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He's pro-Israeli yes, that's how opinions work. If we are going to include legal scholars like Falk, then we should include similar scholars like Dershowtiz. I'm not trying to create a bias balance, but the distribution of opinion should be fair. Cherry-picking biased opinion while rejecting others is ridiculous. I seriously just want to delete the legal section if this doesn't get sorted soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's another quotes in the paragraph alleging Palestinians of genocide and war crimes (which we're yet to see if they'll be included or not), don't you think that this makes the distribution of opinions go to the Israeli side even more than needed ;-) ? Really, I'm with you. I want to get rid of this stupid Legal opinions section too. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockets Hit Ashkelon

As I am about to go to bed, I cannot add this story anywhere but a Sky News link is - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Rockets-Hit-Ashkelon-As-Israeli-Bombing-Continues-After-Hamas-Commander-Nizar-Rayan-Dies-In-Blast/Article/200901115196480?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15196480_Rockets_Hit_Ashkelon_As_Israeli_Bombing_Continues_After_Hamas_Commander_Nizar_Rayan_Dies_In_Blast_

doktorb _words^deeds 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous comparision

The infobox gives strengths as 176,500 regular troops (Israel) and 20,000 militants (Hamas). That's patently ridiculous. Hamas would have all of its available troops available on-the-ground inside the strip. Israel has created havoc from the air, but how many troops would it have on-the-ground inside the strip. The infobox is so misleading it is hard to agf and not believe it was deliberately intended to promote POV. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is the recent removal of sourced information on IDF troop strength. Now, after infobox edits of the last 24 hours, Israel has no aircraft or personnel involved in the "conflict." I won't revert or discuss, I want to see how far this will go. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, it wasn't removed. It was replaced with info about the number of reserves but bad markup prevents it from showing. Like you, I'm just curious to see have far people are willing to go with this approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro is becoming non-neutral and POV (Israel POV) again

Intro is becoming non-neutral and POV again:

• Israel vs Gaza Strip (neutral) became Israel vs Hamas (represents Israeli POV, ignores fact that bombs don't first check Hamas party/armed wing membership evidence before killing)
• writing only Operation Cast Lead favours the Israeli name; the closest thing to the Gaza Strip name is Massacre of Black Saturday someone removed this; here's the URL

Boud (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we go an entire thread without saying "POV"? It has lost all meaning on this talk page and it is frequently used as a substitution for just saying what you mean. Granted, you actually explained what you meant, but it would have meant the same without the use of "POV". It's enough to say X and Y ignore the Palestinian position, rather than X and Y are POV. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Boud, it's ridiculous, no casualty figures and almost all the focus is on aggression by Hamas. But, we took our first step down this slippery slope when the title and article focus were changed. This is no longer an article about the unprecedented ferocity of the recent IDF airstrikes on Gaza, this is now an article about a few days in the general Israel-Hamas conflict. The subtle distinction opens the door to all sorts of artful arguments for "equal" and "balanced" content because now "it's a two-way conflict." (See: gaming the system.)

For example, consider: Battle of Hiroshima -- The Battle of Hiroshima refers to a flareup in an ongoing conflict between the United States and the Japanese Imperial Army Forces, which intensified when an American plane dropped a bomb on a target in southwestern Japan on August 6, 1945. According to American sources, the attack targeted an area of Japanese Imperial Army military production, and was launched to damage the Imperial Army's infastructure and stop its ability to attack targets in Asia and the Pacific. Japanese forces had broken the peace between the two countries on December 7, 1941, with an attack on Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii. After that time, the Imperial Forces had intensified its attacks against civilian targets in Asia and the Pacific, killing an estimated 10 million. The Battle of Hiroshima was a response to these attacks, according to American forces. In the conflict, Japanese militants fired rockets and guns and threw stones at the Enola Gay aircraft, and one crew member suffered burns to his upper leg when a thermos of coffee spilled during evasive actions. He was transported to a military hospital where he is listed in stable condition. There have been reports of injuries and deaths among Hiroshima militants due to the conflict, but we'll get to that in paragraph number six . . .

Who will step up and start an article about the IDF airstrikes themselves? That's the only way we'll bypass this bullshit. RomaC (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's becoming silly. I think in particular the contributions by User talk:Thebiojoe are unhelpful (possibly unintentionally). The event has a broader context which as usual is getting buried under the rubble. The lead needs to be dramatically reduced in size and simply present the basic facts within the context of the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite the intro somewhat, removing repetition (the old version repeated over and over again that Israel launched the attacks in response to Hamas rockets) and adding Hamas point of view that Israel broke the ceasefire by not respecting the terms. I think the latter is important to have in the intro for balance. Offliner (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This would all be resolved if you kids stopped looking at the lede/intro/lead as a way to introduce new information into the article, and rather as a summary of the information already in the article. My one addition has been uncontroversial and survived several waves of edit war because it does exactly that. I know we are throwing all kinds of polices overboard here, but can't you guys at least give good olde, ranty, illegal-page-mover Cerejota one tiny New Years gift and let him have the WP:LEAD obeying intro he wants and craves? This isn't about neutrality or other stuff, it is about WP:LEAD. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the people inflating the lead aren't coming here to discuss things and get consensus. Cerejota, if you can make the lead strictly comply with WP:LEAD while avoiding concious/unconcious systemic bias either way, go for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit I described above was reverted by User:Thebiojoe without giving any reason, so I reposted it. I think its important to have mention of the six-month truce in the lead as it establishes a connection to the wider conflict. Offliner (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, see below. We have a "Background" section, the lead should quickly summarize, not give the who story out. It should create more questions in our reader's head than give answers, in order to encourage them to read the rest of the article. Marketing, if you will. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The current locked version of the intro is from the Israeli POV and could be considered Israeli propaganda. "...when Israel responded to an increase in rocket and mortar fire...". The problem is the word "responded", this is a claim by one side, it shouldn't be in the intro without qualification. Jleske (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD compliant, unbiased intro

Any biases are unintentional, I swear. So please WP:AGF.

I also included a series of invisible comments. I am making them visible here because I want them discussed too.

My goal was to write an intro based solely on the information otherwise found in the article, with sourcing for controversial issues. I also put all sources at the end of the sentences rather than when needed. Lastly, the last line has no sources because all you have to do is go to the section and see the reactions: its borderline WP:SYNTH, but all good ledes are borderline original synthesis.

Also, I already put it into the wild, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss and include changes...

NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, SEE HISTORY TO SEE THE ORIGINAL

“ The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict, refers to an ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas which began when the Israel Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip, after planning the operation for over six months. On 27 December 2008, (11:30 am local time (9:30 am UTC)) Israeli airstrikes hit various high-profile military and security targets and others suspected to be related to the Hamas government. Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities. This conflict has included the bloodiest one-day death toll in 60 years of the conflict, leading some Palestinians to label the operation the "Black Saturday Massacre". The strikes have resulted in significant civilian casualties in Gaza.

By the first evening, Israeli Air Force fighter aircraft had deployed approximately 100 tonnes (110 short tons) of explosives, with an estimated 95 percent reaching their intended targets, according to IAF sources. Israel bombed roughly 100 Hamas-operated security installations (including police stations, prisons, and command centers) in four minutes during the first wave of the strike. Israel also hit Hamas operated security installations in all of Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City and Beit Hanoun in the north and Khan Younis and Rafah in the south.

The Israeli Navy has shelled targets in Gaza, instituting at the same time a naval blockade of Gaza, which has resulted in one naval incident with a civilian boat.

Hamas renewed its attacks with rockets and mortars, hitting civilian communities like Beersheba and Ashdod, and esclating the distance of previous attacks to as far away as 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Gaza border. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure, including an empty school.

The IDF started massing infantry and armor units near the Gaza border and engaged in an active blockade of Gaza. On January 3rd, a ground invasion began, with mechanized infrantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.

Both Israel and Hamas are under pressure for a humanitarian truce, while Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Hamas' Damascus based political leader, Khaled Meshal, had changed his earlier calls for ending the lull and started calling for a truce. Israel has said its military action could last weeks, while Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak stated that this will be a "war to the bitter end" Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip have also dismissed the idea of a cease-fire.

International reactions on the conflict have either condemned the Israeli operation, or the Hamas' attacks, or both. Many countries and organizations have called for an immediate ceasefire and have expressed concern for the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. Israel mantains that their humanitarian efforts, which include ambulance services, and hundreds of aid trucks, are enough, and that a humanitarian cease-fire is not necessary at this point.

”

NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, SEE HISTORY TO SEE THE ORIGINAL

Discuss intro proposal

A few comments:

1. The conflict did not begin "when the Israel Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes", but long before. At the very least, when the truce ended, and Hamas launched dozens of rockets in a single day. This needs to be clear, otherwise the context is lost, and the reader is left thinking - "oh, so Israel just decided to attach Gaza for no reason". A tiny bit of history and context are needed here.
2. "after planning the operation for over six months" - Period of planning is irrelevant. Countries make plans to deal with contingencies. This is standard practice, and really means nothing. It might be worth mentioning in the background section, but is of too little importance for the lead.
3. "Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities." - This sentence leaves me with a bad taste. It makes it seem as though Israel is claiming there was rocket fire, but who knows. The rocket fire is real, and this ought to be clear. Again - context. Years of rocket fire.
4. The TV station and Science building bit seem to be too detailed for the intro.
5. "There have been confrontations between naval vessels off the coast of Gaza" - makes it sound as if two navies clashed, whereas it was only a meeting between a single civilian ship and the Israeli navy. Better to keep only the "Israeli Navy has shelled targets in Gaza" bit.
6. "Hamas has responded by launching a series of counter attacks with rockets and mortars" - same issue as 1, really. Hamas was firing dozens of rockets before the operation started, so to characterize these launches as a response isn't justified.
7. "small number of short-lived ground incursions." - I've seen little support for this claim. Actually, I've only heard Hamas makes that claim, but no independent confirmation. In fact, the China Daily source at the end of that sentence does not support this assertion.
8. I'd like to see some mention of the increasing range of Hamas attacks in this conflict, something along the lines of: "During the conflict, Hamas rocket attacks have increased in range, hitting, for the first time, Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Beersheba."

Thanks, okedem (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Okedem on most of the points. As a sidenote, I recently added Hamas' claim that Israel didn't comply with the terms of the ceasefire to the intro (for balance.) I think this is important for the same reasons Okedem described on point 1. The reader shouldn't be left thinking "oh, so Hamas just decided to intensify their rocket attacks and break the truce for no reason." They probably had their reasons; that Israel failed (in their point of view) to respect the terms of the truce probably was one of them. Offliner (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To point 3: No one denies that the rocket attacks were real. However, no one except Israel knows the real reasons for the attack. So "the strikes are a response" is not a fact, but an assertion by Israel and the wording should reflect this. Offliner (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas claims - yea, you're right about that.

Point 3 - I know, but somehow the wording of that doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps the causal and temporal relationships need to be separated. So it's clear to the reader that A) There were a lot of rocket attacks, and B) Israel says its actions are a response to those attacks. okedem (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, these are fair points, okedem

Please consider the following as responses, some in disagreement and some in agreement:

1. The intro is not to give a complete view of the events, but to explain what THIS article is about. However, my proposed intro covers this issue clearly and in an unbiased fashion:Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities. I really don't know how we can rephrase the sentence without moving to one or the other POV, I really don't and I tried very hard. However, this topic, in the intro, deserves little more than a sentence (see below #2). We have a HUGE (nearly a third of the article) "Background" section which goes into some detail, besides a ton of articles spanning back into the 19th century and the first Aliyahs. We are covered.
2. Nope, it is an unquestionable fact of the background and the source is the IDF, so it isn't idle speculation. However, nothing sinister is implied, it only opens the question "Why they planned for six months?" And we provide the answer right away "a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities". Since the background is a third of the article, we need to have it in the intro.
3. I understand this, but please trust me it wasn't my intention to leave anyone with a bad taste, see my explanation in #1. Can you come up with a better sentence, or atleast a counter propossal?
4. I kinda agree, but I hesitated to take it out as they had been in the intro for many, many edits. If we can reach consensus on removing them, I am for it, for the same reasons as you: too much detail. Now, in the body of the article these are key facts, for which both the fact of the bombing and the fact that the TV station and Univeristy are linked strongly to Hamas need to be mentioned, and the Israeli statements as to the university being used to manufacture bombs need to be given space.
5. I hear your point, and I see I was mistaken: I though there had been other incidents. I support removing the mention of the destiny incident from the intro (not the article), but the naval blockade must be mentioned, as it is a fact that should be in the intro (ie it is a core part of the IDF's goals and strategies).
6. How about "Hamas has responded by continuing its attacks with rockets and mortars (etc)"? It is actually factually correct supported by sources etc.
7. "small number of short-lived ground incursions." Youa re actually correct, I took some fellow editors claims at face value (pro-Israeli mind you). We all KNOW that you cannot effectively use JDAMs, most UAVs, and naval shelling without forward observers and special operations infils, but this is for the history when its written (I love Israeli military history, it is usually so honest, so you learn all the nasty juicy details :D). RS do not support the assertion. BTW thanks for pointign it out, because I thought it was factual! (and I read one source only).
8. Thats going into too much detail territory, which we both agree is crappy territory. If you notice, I included the "maximum" range. At most, i'll add something like "increasing the range from previous attacks to up to". But this thing about range is more for aticles than intro. I just wanted to address what others have raised about the intro being solely about Israeli actions, which was felt as biased.

Things we agreed on, I am doing, as it is my propossal :D. I am not putting it in the article just now, to wait for further input. I think this is precisely the type of productive exchange we should be having, and I thank you for laying out evrythign clearly, and specially, for being constrained in what is surely an emotional issue :D. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Response below is for okedem, due to edit conflict)

I agree with several points but disagree with others.

1 can be easily resolved by saying that the operation cast-lead started the airstrikes.

2, I disagree, because there is an entire section on this in the article, and the lead is supposed to reflect what is in the article. If anything this point should be expanded.

3, I agree we should *very briefly* mention both Hamas rocket fire, and Israeli attacks on and blockade of Gaza.

4, agreed.

5, agreed, and briefly mention the dignity incident (e.g. "Israeli navy clashed with a civilian aid ship and shelled targets in Gaza").

6, well they were launched before the strikes, and are also a response. They are both.

7, no comment

8, considering point 4, I think it would be too much detail (unless there have been casualties in Beersheba and Ashdod).VR _talk 10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1 due to length

2,3 - if the planning bit is expanded, we can also include the context, which would solve 3.

5 - Regarding aid, though, I'd like to include the fact that throughout the fighting, Israel has been allowing about 100 aid trucks a day to enter the strip (maybe in the paragraph discussing Humanitarian issues/blockade). It's quite unusual for a state of fighting to be accompanied by humanitarian aid from one belligerent to the other, so I believe that's worthy of mention.

6 - No, I don't think we can claim they're a response. They were launched just the same before the airstrikes. Saying it's a response means it wouldn't have happened without the airstrikes, which is doubtful.

8 - The expansion of the threat to include such large cities (5th and 6th in Israel) is important. It greatly affects the Israeli side's actions. okedem (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the intro with the article! :D See my proposal re: hamas rockets (but what you think, is, how can I say this, irrelevant - its what the sources say, even if what you think is the truth!). Israeli cities: since we mention cities in Gaza, we should mention the cities in Israel, no brainer bias-wise. I agree on the trucks, and where to place the info, but where is the sources and verification (do the current ones mention it, let me check)? I wouldn't expand at all on beckground, except maybe mention this is part of the wider I-P warfare? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Shit, even Al-Jazeera verifies the humanitarian aid, quoting Tzipi Livni [5]. And hell, they are a tabloid, un-capable of balance, as we all know! :D--Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I still see some systemic bias creeping in. It seems Israel is hitting military targets (apparently the 1.5m people living in Gaza have vanished or are they all military targets including the children that have been killed ?) whereas Hamas is hitting civilian targets. This is not really what is happening is it as the casuality figures make clear. Targeting a TV station is a big deal under international humanitarian law unless it's directly contributing to military operations. I think it probably deserves a mention. We seem to be missing some context. Hamas decided not to renew the ceasefire. Why ? What's been happening in Gaza recently that might make them want to do that ? Why are they firing rockets ? What have the Israeli's been doing in Gaza preceeding this event, in November for example ? Please let's not include something about aid going in now unless it's placed in the context of Israel's obligations under international law with 'occupying power' status and what they have been doing with aid (etc) preceeding this event. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, all of those questions are not to be addressed in the lede/intro/lead. They are for the article itself. I agree with the systemic bias issues you raise, but I am not sure the intro is the place. Also, lets try not to do WP:SYNTH: the narrative must come from the sources, not ourselves.

I know for a fact that Israel has bombed civilian targets, but not because they are evil Zionist Dogs hell bent on Palestinian genocide, it is simply because it is impossible to hit something in such a dense place as the Gaza Strip and not hit something civilian. Even when your weapons are precise to ten meters, chances are your non-civilian target is five meters from a civilian place - its called margin of error, look it up. The Hamas attacks are basically random shots into the void, their intention is to pursue assymetric warfare, economic disruption, and strees on its enemy, not to kill civilians because they are bad big wolves (in fact, after 3,000 rockets in a year the death toll is much lower than a single day in this conflict, for murderers they are not very effective). War sucks, this conflict should end, and there are assholes and good people on both sides, yada yada yada. However, all these truths I hold self-evident are irrelevant. The sources tell me something and thats it. That is what I write neutrally, verifiably, and in an encyclopedic format, and hope that others, faced with the facts come to the same conclusions. T'is simple. --Cerejota (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand but really my point is that it's not simple. It's notions like "they are a tabloid, un-capable of balance, as we all know!" applied to Al Jazeera but not to other major media outlets in the US and elsewhere (often with much lower reporting quality than Al Jazeera particularly when it comes to context) that can result in unconcious systemic bias. Al Jazeera is a reliable source in the sense that the BBC and CNN are reliable sources. Neutrality with verifiability requires balanced sourcing from reliable sources. This article could easily accidentally become another element of an assymetric conflict rather than a useful, balanced and informative article in an encyclopedia. You can see that by studying the (no doubt good faith) edits that have occured today. And the lead in particular needs to avoid wandering blindly into this kind of pothole/bomb crater. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You know I was being ironic about "Al-jazeera" right? They are the Arab Fox News, they have some balance and editorial controls, but ultimately they also have an editorial focus based around the religious right-wing in the Arab world. They are far from unreliable, but also far from unbiased, in particular their language. Another good comparison is the Jerusalem Post, also same editorial commands: right-wing religious. Its all basically a huge case of Pots callign Kettles black. That said, my favorites in the region are the Daily Star (Lebanon) and Haaretz (Israel), they always deliver where others fail. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: it is pretty inaccurate to describe Al-Jazeera as having an editorial focus based around the "religious right wing". Same for the Jerusalem Post - yes it stands on a pretty right-wing agenda, but I'm not sure it would be accurate to stress any particularly religious aspect to that. And having said that, both are of course reliable media sources for the simple issues of fact that they choose to report, regardless of their biases - which afflict all media sources to a lesser or greater degree, the Daily Star and Haaretz included. --Nickhh (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We agree on the assessment of all media having biases, including my faves. That is why I am such a strong supporter of verifiability besides accepting it as policy. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To Cerejota's numbered list responding to me -

1,3 - Well, I still don't really like it, but I can't come up with a better phrasing right now, so let's stick to that one.

2 - I don't dispute its factual accuracy, but I don't see its importance at this level. Military operations are nearly always pre-planned, even if the events precipitating them were surprising. Nations/armies make contingency plans, which are then put into action if needed. Mentioning the planning here seems to give it a malevolent air ("so they were planning this all along, during the truce! Treacherous bastards!"). (Please note I'm not accusing you of anything here.)

4 - Well, we'll see what the others think.

6 - That's much better, thanks.

8 - Your solution to this in the proposed intro seems fine ("..esclating the distance...").

Regarding aid - I'm not sure I understood you there, but the sources for aid are in the day-by-day sections, so please take a look at them, there.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1,3:Thank you for understanding, we should continue to seek better phrasing, thats the advantage of a wiki!

2 - I think its important to tie up with the near daily rockets attacks. The reader sees that, ask herself Why plan? And the has that answered by Oh, rocket attacks! This also reminds me we mention nothing of the cease-fire, but its because even reliable sources can't agree even within themselves on what to make of that.

4 actually, I actually removed before, I think!

6-8 thanks!

Aid: I actually deserve a medal for this one: It is currently sourced using Al-Jazeera to verify Jerusalem Post. Now, in the history of the I-P conflict articles, has anyone managed to join those two to source a single sentence? If no, then I just did :D. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was made to realize by RomaC that there is indeed one lingering bias, which is the focus on Israel hitting military targets and Hamas hitting civilian targets. Thing is, this is pretty much what the sources are saying. The only way I think we can resolve this is that the sources are also saying that about a third to half of the casualties are civilians, including children etc. I think we can add to the strike part language that says something like this: "the strikes have nevertheless resulted in heavy civilian casualties." This is factually true and verifiable, but I can be flexible as to what wording to use. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply refine the labels when they appear in an RS. Provide the details. instead of "military target", specify the target -- e.g., university, television station, ministry, etc.. Instead of "conflict", provide the numbers of people killed by the IDF and the number killed by Qassems. The reader will then get to decide for himself whether a 40-to-1 kill ratio over a period of years is a "conflict" or a "slaughter" NonZionist (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agre that this hsould be the case in the article. But the lead need to have brevity, and this cannot be achived by describing everything. By necessity, we must use general instead of specific instances. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush has blamed Hamas

Someone please add this: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/02/bush.gaza/index.html?iref=topnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.105.105 (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS!!! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!! However, you are in the wrong article: try International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict --Cerejota (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian civilian casualty photos removed

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.

Pictures were copy-vio. Please be careful people. --Cerejota (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

File:Operation Cast Lead, wounded Palestinians 02.jpg

Palestinian girl wounded Dec 28, 2008 in Gaza City.

File:Operation Cast Lead, wounded Palestinians 01.jpg

Wounded Palestinians in Beit Lahia on Dec 29, 2008.

I added civilian casualty photos from both sides. The admin Tariqabjotu removed the only labeled photos of Palestinian civilian casualties from the article (the ones to the right). See this diff: [6]

He left in the 2 photos of Israeli civilian casualties that I had added. I don't know if Tariqabjotu realized what he did. The edit summary was "image overload." I agree that the helicopter and F-16 jet photos should have been removed now that we have casualty photos, and need the room. I did not add those helicopter and F-16 jet photos.

But as someone who categorizes casualty photos from many wars, I can tell you it is rare to get timely free images onto Wikipedia of civilian casualty photos while the war is going on. Or oftentimes ever. Free images of civilian casualties are frequently hard to find for many wars. Even years later. And if we want to humanize this war, then we need civilian casualty photos from all sides. And during the war.

I am returning the two images, and I hope they are left in, and that everybody sees the logic and fairness of what I am doing. I see no problem with image overload. Many pages have many more images. And various image galleries too.

I will consolidate the Palestinian and Israeli Dec 29 2008 images in gallery form in order to lessen the appearance of image overload. Images are smaller in gallery form than when posted as thumbs on the right side.

• Funeral for Israeli woman killed Dec 29, 2008 in Ashdod, Israel.
  Funeral for Israeli woman killed Dec 29, 2008 in Ashdod, Israel.
• Wounded Palestinians in Beit Lahia on Dec 29, 2008.
  Wounded Palestinians in Beit Lahia on Dec 29, 2008.

<gallery> </gallery>

See the above wikicode for galleries. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I also put the images in gallery form on Dec 28, 2008. Now the page looks much less cluttered. Here is my last version: [7]

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't Wikimedia Commons; we should be illustrating the content as we go along, not putting as many pictures as possible in the article simply because they are available (especially since we already have a collage of several in the infobox).

I am not going to respond any further to your comment, though, because you have suggested bias might have been a reason behind the edit even though there was no evidence of that. It doesn't matter that you say "I don't know if [I] realized what [I] did".; it's akin to the ill-advised statement "not to be offensive, but...". If you want to join the cohort of contributors to this article who can't discuss any element of it without suggesting bias, fine. But my time is too important to waste on responding to them. Return with a comment that doesn't make baseless accusations and then we'll talk. -- tariqabjotu 13:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if what I said came across as an accusation. Feelings are high right now. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, although your comment did put me up to writing this. As you said, it is rare that we find free images of civilian casualties. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another failure of WP:AGF... I'll be honest, I have a good radar for the underhanded, but Timeshifter didn't seem like that.--Cerejota (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Welshman. I've been married for 20 years, happily and with two children. I am not related to any Palestinians or Israelis; I count myself 100% Celtic-Welsh. Retired headteacher. Why the credentials? For every 1 Israeli killed in this war, 100 Palestinians have died. What I see is an injustice towards the Palestiniain people. I have watched Sky news and BBC news (English medium) ALL day. No images of those poor dying children. Turn to Al Jazeera, and yes - we can see the blood, and how one sided this war is. NOW THEN, do we want Wiki to become a sensor? A red hand types... By NOT publishing an image of shot, bleeding, dying children we contribute to the insanity caused by Israel. I have been faithful to Wiki over the years for one reason: it's free, unbiased speech. An honest Wiki will show the madness of war (all wars)... in order to take the romance out of it. Then, and only then, will it stop. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What a sad world! Half an hour ago I submitted an image of a crator caused by an Israeli air-bomb. It was taken off a few seconds later - but no name was given! As far as I can see, the image is genuine. Why take it off? Israeli dark glove?

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.

Casualties in the Lead

Strongly support putting casualties in the lead -- figures are highest ever in Gaza and we have reliable sources. Presently casualties are in paragraph 14 and the infobox, which article-reading eyes do not scan. Concise casualty info belongs in the lead, something like: "More than 400 Palestinians and four Israelis were killed in the first six days of attacks." Here's an edit that clears space for the above casualty info: remove "after gathering intelligence for the operation for over six months" as Israeli is always gathering intelligence, as pointed out above this is hardly remarkable and definitely not worthy of the lead; and On 27 December 2008, (11:30 am local time (9:30 am UTC) can be changed to "On the morning of December 27, 2008." RomaC (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I always oppose casualty figures in the intro of current events. The reason I disagree is because this figure will continuously change, and we need a stable place to put them. We have an info box for that purpose. Adding them to the lead only serves to add more clutter to an already over-sized lead, and makes it difficult to update, besides being completely redundant with the info box. When this is over, and we have stable figures, then perhaps. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Clutter"? I think casualty counts are critical in understanding the scale and impact of a conflict. And I can't accept "difficult to update," currently the article is changing every few minutes, updating timeframe casualty figures every few days will hardly be a strain, anyway you don't have to do it yourself there are plenty of other editors around. By the way, currently in the lead are: "Israeli airstrikes hit various high-profile military and security targets..."; and "Hamas has responded by ... hitting civilian communities. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including an empty school." How is the normal reader to interpret this other than to conclude that Hamas has caused civilian casualties and Israel has not? That's why good old facts and figures are useful high up. By the way I do see casualty figures in the leads of most Wiki articles on Hamas attacks. Comments from editors please. Cheers RomaC (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Providing detail is one way to circumvent the systemic bias that infests our abstractions and generalizations. Specify the precise nature of the "military target": Is it a university? a tv-station? a social ministry? a private home? Specify the nature of the "conflict": Is it 1-to-1 or 40--to-1? This elaboration is necessary because the generalizations are skewed and misleading. NonZionist (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention in the intro of civilian and belligerent casualties, to give an idea on the scale of these events. Also, the intro now mentions Israeli civilian casualties (quite rightly), but does not mention Palestinian civilian casualties (which are 1 or 2 orders of magnitude greater in number). That seems imbalanced to me. RomaC's suggestion of cutting out the mention of 6 months of intelligence gathering seems very sound, that also struck me as an odd thing to highlight at the top of the article. Ta. Fences and windows (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC: I see your point on civilian vs military, but its an issue of sourcing. I do think I have a solution, but could you please discuss my proposed intro? Lets try to centralize the discussion around concrete proposals we can all view? That said, as to casualties in lede in other articles... are they for current events? Please read what I wrote again, I specifically said in current event articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree as per Cerejota on taking the casualties out of the intro as the casualty count will change and we need the intro to be stable. There is a place for casualties below and civilian vs military casualty issues can be ironed out. Also agree with Fences and windows cutting the mention of 6 months of intelligence gathering as "odd" - or worse, POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on something. Now, explain to me how inclusion of a verifiable fact in the intro, verified by the IDF, is POV? I still do not understand how it can be! I can understand, however, that it can be used to introduce novel syntheis. However, the two don't go hand in hand: one can both present the fact and defend against it being used to pursue synthesis not supported by source. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it is not the fact but how it is presented that makes it POV. The presentation in the lead implied, as I stated earlier, that Israel was sitting around planning heavy air attacks on Hamas while Hamas was simply honoring a truce with Israel. That's POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of having the casualty numbers of both sides in the lead, as per RomaC. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please change all casualty counts to indicate that "civilian" counts do not include male deaths. This is well documented but is not reflected in the current page. Specifically the infobox claims that ~25% are civilians (figure from the UN, does not include men) and then extrapolates that ~75% are members of the security forces, police etc and sites some NY times article that says nothing of the sort. This is clearly wrong. No one has released a total count of civilian deaths that include men. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, which the UN cited at least once for its death count (on 12/28 see UN document: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf see AMCHR source: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=919) publishes death counts daily but only states TOTAL, and WOMEN AND CHILDREN counts. The only exception is the 12/28 release which states 20 women, 9 children and 60 civilians were killed that day. It is unclear if the civilian count there is additional civilians or includes the women in children. In any case the count on 1/3 by AMCHR has 363 total dead, 77 women and children. The women and children casualties represent 21% of the dead in their estimates, close to the UN's claim that ~25% of the dead are "civilians." Clearly, male civilians are NOT being counted in any death count so this needs to be CLEARLY stated every time a death count refering to "civilian" deaths is refenced. Please make the necessary changes and monitor to make sure they remain.

Daily death counts can be found in at least two places: 1. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php 2. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection&section_id=97&static=0&format=html

AMCHR is consistently lower then OCHA. The recent figure of >400 deaths that the UN is citing (as of 1/3/09) is from the Ministry of Health in Gaza (see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_03_english.pdf).

Thrylos000 (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Source of photos questionable

I've been holding back, but I'm going to have to bring this up now. Am I the only person that finds it a bit hard to believe that all of these new pictures were taken by one (freelance) journalist? This would require him to cross the Israel-Gaza border multiple times, something that I find quite improbable. Further, I have found some of his images attributed to other sources elsewhere with the captions he used on Flickr. For example, just here, this image is attributed to AP photographer Majed Hamdan, this image is attributed to AP photographer Hatem Moussa, and this image is attributed to Haim Horenstein of Getty and AFP. They all have identical captions as well. I'm sure we could find all of these photos elsewhere, attributed to professional photographers (who don't have them released under the appropriate license). -- tariqabjotu 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sucks. Oh well. Here are some advanced Flickr searches that pull up only free images posted or taken after Dec 26, 2008 with "gaza" or "palestine" somewhere on the image page:

http://flickr.com/search/?q=gaza&l=commderiv&d=posted-20081226-&ss=2&ct=0&mt=photos&w=all

http://flickr.com/search/?q=gaza&l=commderiv&d=taken-20081226-&ss=2&ct=0&mt=photos&w=all

http://flickr.com/search/?q=palestine&l=commderiv&d=taken-20081226-&ss=2&ct=0&mt=photos&w=all

Of course, one has to ignore all the images uploaded by Amir Farshad Ebrahimi. Also, one should search for the image caption via Google if the image seems questionable.

Other search words can be used. Use Flickr advanced search:

http://flickr.com/search/advanced

Check all the boxes for "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content". Then upload the images that are acceptable to the Commons, and categorize them under

commons:Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or its subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick note of formatting sources

Fellow editors,

When new sources, please:

1. Give your source a meaningful, unique name. I've seen several instances of some ref being named "ynetnews", or "jpost". These sites are used throughout the article, and we might get our sources confused (when later trying to call a ref by its name alone, like: "<ref name="ynetnews"/>").
2. Use the citation templates, such as "cite news", or "cite web".
3. Look at the new footnote afterwards, to make sure you didn't forget something in the formatting, like forgetting to fill in the "url" field.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Background text

Most of the background text does not respect sources, but paraphrases them with wiki editorial POVs. Take one example. The way Rory McCarthy's Guardian article is twisted. What he was saying was not 'both sides'. He was specifically analysing Israel's unilateral breaking of the ceasefire, which had held. He was saying what Haaretz (many other sources could be cited for the crucial significance of Barak's decision here) said on the 28/12/2008. 'Israel's violation of the lull in November expedited the deterioration that gave birth to the war of yesterday.’ Haaretz Editorial , ‘Define the objectives in Gaza 28/12/2008Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The "both sides" SOUNDS fair, but when we look at the details hiding behind the abstraction, we see that the term is part of a systemic bias. I propose changing

Following this, violations of the cease-fire agreement were made by both sides, with a major eruption of violence occuring on 4 November 2008 when Israel carried out a raid into the Gaza Strip in which troops killed six Hamas militants.[39]

to

A major eruption of violence occuring on 4 November 2008 when Israeli troops, four months into the ceasefire, raided the Gaza Strip and killed six Hamas gunmen.[39]

and I invite the pro-Israel people to SPECIFY the nature of the violation by the "other side", if any. NonZionist (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it tradition to use editorials (also known as opinion articles) to verify/support facts? Serious question here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

What is most likely the true number of fallen Palestinians - is it the given 350 or is it more closes to the 420 given by Palestinian sources and medical personnal in the region? Great Gall (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

civilian protests

http://kuruc.info/r/2/32802/ there was a protest in Budapest. 78.92.64.1 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add the information you found in the article: just logg in or create an account - sure that won't be hard, then all you have to do is to include a section on the protest with the source you found! Take care! Great Gall (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a registrated user in an other-languaged Wikipedia, I'll register, but my English is catastrophic. Great Gall, please in this time paste that information into the article, thank you. 78.92.64.1 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How come there are references to protests Against the Israeli operation, but non who support Israel? -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because there are so few - you would not make much of an impression with just enough protestors to count on one or two hands! :) In any case, your average Joe Schmoe won't protest in favour of a nation killing dozens of innocent women and children. Great Gall (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It seem that's exactly what these protesters are doing - cheering on a nation that is shooting rockets at civilian communities. NoCal100 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, NoCal100 is 100% correct. Secondly, there are plenty of protest in Support of Israel, but for "some unknown reason", almost no media is covering it. Almost, the biggest protests against Israel are in Arab/Muslim countries, and it's quite obvious. I think it puts "international protests" under a comical light. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they are. It would be better not to cheer for either party. Anyway, cover all protests under one section if possible. Great Gall (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a point to listing and linking to every single location where a protest took place? This does not look very encyclopedic to me. How about shortening this lengthy list to a sentence taht says protests took place in many cities, and perhaps calling out the more significant ones (in terms of size, or otherwise). NoCal100 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to move or change civilian protests section

It is getting too long. I support NoCal100 suggestion to shorten it (maybe just list all the cities in a paragrph, rather than bullets). The other option is to start a new article (similar to the one on reactions) where we can add some more details (numbers of protesters, dates, etc). Thoughts? --Omrim (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to International reactions--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this move decision was made prematurely. It's just a list. I've been working on it for the last five hours and would have appreciated someone dropping me a note before deciding to toss it to another article. The details on the protests can go into the other article, but some form of the list should stay here. Perhaps it could be organized by country with the cities listed in brackets. Could someone restore it here for now until more discussion takes place? Tiamut^talk 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Why must "some form of the list should stay here."? What encyclopedic purpose does it serve, beyond what is already in the section? NoCal100 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so against having a list here in some form? Why was the decision made to move it only a few hours after it was made? What happened to discussion and trying to achieve consensus? Or respect for your fellow editors' work?

There is a vast difference between a detailed and sourced list of where protests have happened and a truncated two sentences in that section which doesn't cover anything at all. The international demonstrations are a big part of the story since these events began and deserve coverage in this main article. I agree that detailed discussion of them can go into the International Reactions spin-off article, but I don't see why we should remove a list of where protests took place from here. I'm open to discussing how to restructure it. Do you have any suggestions? Tiamut^talk 18:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I explained what I have against this list - it is not encyclopedic, and does not provide anything beyond what is currently in the section, which is that protests occurred in dozens of cities. If there is value in naming and listing every single city, then, as suggested above, we can create an article called List of Cities where protests related to the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict were held, so the information can be conveyed without unduly burdening this article with such a long and pointless list. NoCal100 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

DONE - moved to [[8]] and left a summary. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. NoCal100 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though it was my suggestion I still think it should have more room in the main article. How about listing all cities in a single paragraph (rather than bullets)?--Omrim (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wht's the point? Say there are 300 cities in which such protests occurred, why would we list every single one, rather than say "protests occurred in 300 cities"? NoCal100 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia of effectively infinite size so we can provide that information, i think it is of historical note that there were peaceful demonstrations in 18 different places in the UK today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7809216.stm ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we also list the cities/places of interest that have held rallies in support of the offensive? Listing all 300 cities doesn't seem necessary, excluding "major" or notable cities. I've never seen that in an article. This article is cluttered as is with blatant bias and opinion against/for Israel. Maybe we should start another article that can store all the hate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two_protesters_edinburgh.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edinburgh_January_protest_.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:For_Bush_and_Israel.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.203.224 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please can any one add it to the article? it is in Scotland Edinburgh in Princes Street 3 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.203.224 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I categorized the images in this Wikimedia Commons category:

commons:Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict protests

There are many more free protest photos on Flickr and in other photo archives. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Demonstrations.

This article is locked to most Wikipedians. Could somebody please insert "Dublin, Ireland" on the list of places where demonstrations have taken place. Here are some refs http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85911, http://demotix.com/en/2009/01/03/demonstration-against-israels-military-offensive-gaza-strip, http://www.politics.ie/foreign-affairs/39410-today-5pm-israel-embassy-ballsbridge-demonstration-against-israel-murderers.html Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwhi (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dublin and Cardiff added, as they are cities. We had one down the road as well, in Caernarfon, but I'd better not add that one! There is so much injustice in the world. It's time to be counted (even for the middle aged collar and tie brigade, like myself. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic efforts?

We need a section on the diplomatic efforts to stop the conflict. A search for the prefix "diploma" in the Article or Talk does not produce any relevant results. Surely diplomatic activities are a relevant part of the "international reaction". Here is an article describing the EUs diplomatic effort for example. Is there other information available that could contribute to an overview of the diplomacy efforts surrounding the conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.6.6 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to the Arabic Wikipedia

Please could some one add link to the Arabic Wikipedia

ar:مجزرة غزة ديسمبر 2008 Reads : "Gaza massacre (December 2008)"

--78.150.203.224 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add it. However, a couple of editors are against adding it, claiming that the title is biased or does not cover the same event because it reads "December Gaza massacre". I don't find this a compelling argument. It's obvious both are discussing the same event. One could argue that this title is biased since it creates a false parity between the military actions of the 4th strongest army in the world and those of militants tossing in homemade rockets. But that's just my POV.

What do others think about wikilinking to the Arabic page? Tiamut^talk 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Arabic article is title 'Gaza massacre' or something similar, we should not be linking to it, as it introduces a POV rejected for this article's title. NoCal100 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic sources use "Gaza massacre" much more than "Israel-Gaza conflict", which is why that article is titled that way. I don't see why we should reject the wiki articles in other languages simply because we don't like their titles. Tiamut^talk 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not because "we don't like their titles", it's because we like NPOV. If the Arabic Wikipedia has lower standards than the English WP regarding NPOV, that doesn't mean we should lower our standards to accommodate it. NoCal100 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous! Who cares what the other wikipedia names the events, its the same subject subject. Plus, who knows, they might rename the article soon or in the future. No justification for not linking it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me as being very POV not to link to the Arabic Wiki. I trust that the interwiki links which surely are the very watchword of Wikipedia will be maintained here.

I don't know the procedures here in the en-wp but the attempt to remove the arab interwiki in the hebrew wikipedia (which I come from) was quickly dismissed. Someone wrote above that is is unprecedented in en-wp. If so, then surely that link has to be restored. יחסיות האמת (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the link. Breaking the link is censorship in behalf of aggression. NonZionist (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic link is at the top of the link list, which see>--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I added it back basically because I saw a lot more people leaning towards adding it than removing it in the other discussion above and as has been mentioned, POV disputes are not grounds for removing interwiki, claims the article is not the same are not same don't hold much ground as anyone who even uses an electronic translator can figure out they are about the same topic. --Shipmaster (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The fuller discussion is here. Consensus appears to be towards inclusion. Even if some editors think the title or contents are (in their eyes, by definition) biased, I am not sure that means we should not link to another language WP page. This is after all common practice, and inevitably pages in other languages, written by editors from other countries, are going to show differences. --Nickhh (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone listed a translation of the article, so those making a judgment solely based on the questionable title should see that for reference. From what I recall, the article was essentially a POV attack on Israel and Jews as a whole. It used the term "Zionist Aggressors" dozens of times, commonly references the attacks as a massacre rather than a war/conflict, and is loaded with fallacies and borderline propaganda. Any linking of that POS article will be immediately deleted by me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

here's a translation. While the machine translating isn't very good, you can get a general picture of it. Currently, the article does describe, very roughly, the same events as the English one. It is very POV and propagandist in nature, but still deals with the same topic. At least they do mention the rocket fire on Israel, though they frame it in a very certain way. The article, at least right now, actually contains a section titled - "role of Hosni Mubarak, the traitor". It is a piece meant to persuade the reader, not to inform him/her.

Sadly, I believe the interwiki should remain. Any Arabic speaker who wishes to read it doesn't need our help anyway. If Arabic Wikipedia wants to shame itself, let it. I guess they have yet to internalize the concepts of neutral reporting, and delivery of facts as opposed to opinions. okedem (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the Google translation, and the version I looked at does not refer to "Zionist aggressors", at least not "dozens of times". It's not perfect, but neither is this article. And as discussed endlessly, massacre is a subjective term which is applied to various different events, often depending on where the viewer is coming from. Is there dodgy stuff in the Arabic WP article? Of course there is, as there is in 100s of en.wiki articles, including both seemingly innocent slight POV and some truly ridiculous and offensive content which can sit there for months before common sense prevails. And all this is irrelevant anyway, the link should remain regardless of what one or two editors here happen to think about the quality of the article, it is totally standard practice to have these links. Oh, and has anyone asked editors on Arabic WP whether they want to be inter-wiki'd with this article, which frames the conflict as an equal two-way battle? However insane that idea is, obviously. I mean it's not as if there's a world beyond the US, Europe and Israel now, is there? The smell of arrogance and self-righteousness seeping out of a lot of comments here, is, well, somewhat instructive.--Nickhh (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the article a couple of days ago so I'm sure some heavily biased materials have been weeded out. But we cannot be ignorant here. Arabic is not a diverse language, those who speak it tend to possess the same general opinion of Middle Eastern topics. That's just a fact. And in combination with such a controversial article, it's beyond me why we would add even further POV-pushing until this article is settled. I don't see the necessity nor a reasoning in including the link. There was a long discussion that responded to your exact points somewhere in the archive, I'm too lazy to find it but I know it's there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, POV disputes have never been grounds for interwiki removal, you said it yourself, some of the heavily biased materials have been weeded out, some of the other material are under active discussions, just like any other article undergoing development. I am pretty sure some systemic bias will remain, but since we have some very good articles NPOV wise on the topic on ar.wp, the statement that people who speak Arabic generally have the same opinion about the middle east is pretty much a blanket statement. Regardless, all that is beside the point, the large majority of people commenting on this thread and the one above do not believe that POV disputes are grounds for interwiki removal, period. --Shipmaster (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. If the standard of comment here is going to sink to the level of "Arabic is not a diverse language" and "those who speak it tend to possess the same general opinion of Middle Eastern topics. That's just a fact" - while bizarrely appealing for us "not be ignorant" - then my slightly jokey comment about the Arab WP not wanting to be associated with us may be closer to the mark than I thought. And even if those observations were true, what on earth has that got to do with removing an interwiki? To repeat, as noted above and below, and elsewhere previously, just because one or two editors don't like what they see as the POV on display in another language WP, is no reason to override basic and standard practice. --Nickhh (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DrorK is right. The link should never have been included since it violates NPOV guidelines. Regarding consensus, since when is Wikipedia's NPOV policy a popularity contest?

It is unacceptable to remove an interwiki link because you regard the article as too POV. Indeed I'm concerned enough to raise this issue here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Interwiki links Incidentally, I'm pretty sure interwiki links are maintained by bots, so if the Arabic article is linked by one other wikipedia or if they link to us or some other language on the conflict, then it's going to come back eventually anyway. Perhaps it's possible to disable the bot but there is clearly no good reason in this case. It is an article about the same thing, POV or not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Breaking the link further deprives us of access to the perspective of the victims. It is censorship in behalf of the aggressor. Our use of the symmetrical word "conflict" in our own title -- thereby equating victim with aggressor -- is evidence of our own POV bias. The only way to correct this bias over time is to make other POV's accessible. NonZionist (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The lack of an interwiki link to the Arabic article suggests we have our own bias and POV on the en.wiki side. We may not like their phrasing, but we cannot with credibility argue for NPOV on this page only to show prejudice and censorship with relation to the Arabic article. doktorb _words^deeds 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF entered the Gaza Strip

Right now. Guy0307 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have heard as well reports of eyewitnesses saying this. Until reliable sources confirm it, though, mention of this can't be placed on the article. 217.44.215.61 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC reporting it now, saying confirmed by Israeli military source. Ground troops entered gaza, dont know if its a full invasion or a raid tho BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN reports also --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Albeit 2nd hand from unnamed sources --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any CNN or BBC article about it, but I linked to Haaretz and YNet. Even though they are Israeli sources, I think that's quite reliable. If you disagree, replace references with BBC/CNN/whatever. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

theres now a BBC source someone can add http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809959.stm BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New interwiki link should be added

For: hr:Sukob Gaza-Izrael 2008.-2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.60.245 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Will add now. BlueVine (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect classification of Palestinian Casualties as "combatants", that's original research

The current casualty figures say that 75% of the dead on the Palestinian side on "combatants". There is no link to support this claim. I maintain that this is original research / interpretation that is not supported by reputable sources.

There is significant evidence to the contrary. For example, the day with the most casualties was the first day of bombing. Here is the New York Times account of that day's casualties:

Taghreed ElKhodary, Ethan Bonner. "Israeli Attacks in Gaza Strip Continue for Second Day". New York Times. December 28, 2008.

"Israeli officials said that anyone linked to the Hamas security structure or government was fair game because Hamas was a terrorist group that sought Israel’s destruction. But with work here increasingly scarce because of an international embargo on Hamas, young men are tempted by the steady work of the police force without necessarily fully accepting the Hamas ideology. One of the biggest tolls on Saturday was at a police cadet graduation ceremony in which 15 people were killed."

Just because someone is employed by Hamas as a policemen, does not make them a combatant. I will change the wording to that used by the NEw York Times in its most recent article on the casualty count. It used the term "Hamas security personnel."

Escalation Feared as Israel, Continuing Bombing, Lets Foreigners Leave Gaza

Medical officials in Gaza said 430 Palestinians had been killed and some 2,200 wounded since the Israeli campaign began last Saturday. The casualty figures include many Hamas security personnel members, but the United Nations has estimated that a quarter of those killed were civilians.

--John Bahrain (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

According to information already on the article, 138 of the Palestinian dead are police. Counting them as civilians, half the killed are civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.57.110 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I take pretty much everything Hamas says like a grain of salt. They're notorious for embellishment, sensationalism, and downright lies. One article against the dozens of sources establishing the difference between civilian and soldier is in my eyes enough to keep the material as is. Let's face it, Gaza is a chaotic state. Citizens aren't policed, and odds are, those who armed tend to be loyal to the militant government. Plus, "police" is commonly understood to be combatants. A vast majority of the gunman are trained in "police" camps. mmkay? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 "mmkay" is childish and rude and adds nothing to this discussion. And arguments like "I take it with a grain of salt"; "They're notorious"; "odds are"; "it's commonly understood" and "a vast majority"; are unsourced and not really helpful either. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh get off your horse man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't backed your assertions up with anything other than innuendo, so your comments come across as bigoted, self discrediting and inappropriate. I haven't read anything from you that doesn't sound like Zionist jingoism. Perhaps you should stop trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk)

Comment on edits, not editors. Personal attacks are not going to be tolerated. NoCal100 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking anyone. I can't see how "mmmKay" is particularly offensive. Clearly you guys need some ammo in an attempt to hide your blatant bias. Comments such as "Zionist jingoism" is more than personal and merits a report. Why don't you follow your own advice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please archive alot of the talk page

With ground troops in Gaza there will be alot of new information coming in fast. Please can someone archive most of the talk page? all the rename info can go for sure, this lags badly for some thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead, & possibly article title, to be revised per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV

The lead sentence is genuinely bizarre:

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to an ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas which accelerated in the last few days of 2008 when Israel responded to an increase in rocket and mortar fire by launching a series of airstrikes, known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip.

This is pure original research. We are absolutely alone in calling this the"2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict," absolutely alone in framing it as part of an "ongoing conflict" which "accelerated" at the end of 2008, etc.

It may be that five years from now, this is how RSs will frame this event. It is not how they are framing it now. I am going to fix the original-research problem. Neutrality is a challenge here, obviously, and I welcome and solicit everyone's input. But neutrality is not achieved by departing entirely from the reliable sources and devising a novel framing device because one or more editors finds it fairer and more broad-minded and more suited to their view of events.

Many people are heated here, and understandably so. But let's do our best to edit within policy.--G-Dett (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you should present your suggested changes here, before launching what will almost certainly lead to yet another edit war. NoCal100 (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The article title is accurate and seems pretty stable at the moment, the important thing is the content. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

NoCal, that's precisely what I am doing. I'm presenting the problem first, just so that we can at least verify that there's a consensus that the current lead violates WP:NOR. I'll present an alternative soon enough, but while you're here, can you verify that you do agree that (a) the lead sentence and title violate NOR, and that (b) we shouldn't violate NOR? And if you have suggestions for fixing the problem, I'd like also to hear those.

Forget bias (real and alleged) for the moment. What the lead is doing now is trying to get out ahead of the historians, framing the broader view before the RSs have done so. Classic original research, bias aside.

BritishWatcher, what I'm talking about is content, and your opinion that the title is accurate is original research. If you think it isn’t original research, could you please point me to a reliable source that is calling this the “2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict”? And who describes the bombing campaign as an “acceleration” of same? Thanks, --G-Dett (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the lead violates WP:NOR. This article's subject has been called 'The Gaza massacre" by some sources, 'Operation Cast Lead" by others, and "War in Gaza" (or variants thereof) by many others ([9]). Adding the specific dates is common wiki practice to distinguish it from other Gaza conflicts. What do you propose as an alternative? NoCal100 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer sure the title is a problem either. I've done searches now without the dates, and "Israel-Gaza Conflict" gets several hundred thousand (as opposed to 9 hits – all from Wikipedia – for "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict"). So please excuse me there. I am still concerned about the framing. From what I can tell, no one is referring to this as an "acceleration" (or any synonyms I can think of) of an ongoing conflict; by and large, they're framing this as a major Israeli operation mounted in response to Hamas rocket-fire. The title may be fine, but we're still trying to get out ahead of the historians here by presenting this as a ratcheting-up of an existing state of affairs. Israeli spokesmen and strategists are themselves referring to this as a "game-changer," and other mainstream journalists are calling it unprecedented. We seem to be quite alone in our euphemistic broad view.--G-Dett (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think is ok to describe 'a major Israeli operation mounted in response to Hamas rocket-fire' as an acceleration, but I would not object to using that exact phrase (e.g: The 08-09 Israel-Gaza conflict is a major Israeli operation mounted in response to Hamas rocket-fire) in the lead lead. The lead should of course describe this as a 2-side affair - Israeli air/ground strikes, and Hamas rocket attacks. NoCal100 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is now calling it a "War on Hamas." The Washington Post is calling it "Israel's Attack on Hamas." CNN is calling it Israel's "assault on the Hamas-ruled territory." The most common headline phrase seems to be "Assault on Gaza." These are all from today's headlines. The phrase "Israel-Gaza conflict" gets google hits for appearing in this or that website, but it doesn't seem to be the framing device for the major reliable sources.

This isn't surprising: Hamas' rocket attacks have been going on (off and on) for a long time. The current situation is notable (lead story in every major mainstream newspaper in the world for eight days running) because of the unprecedented scale of the Israeli operation, now said to consist of two phases, first airstrikes and then ground invasion.

It seems to me that we have to follow the reliable sources in how we frame this story. The reliable sources are currently newspapers and periodicals; history books will follow. Neutrality should be achieved through some other means than a major reframing of the story. As it stands now with the reliable sources, the story is about Israel's large scale assault on the Gaza strip. Hamas' rocket attacks are a minor component of the news reporting of that story, and a more major component of the opinion-analysis of that story. Our article should be following that lead rather than blazing our own trail.

My suggestion:

Israel's 2008-2009 Assault on Gaza, known as Operation Cast Lead, began on December 27 in retaliation for Hamas' renewed Qassam rocket attacks on southern Israel. On January 3, after eight days of aerial attacks, Israel launched a limited ground invasion.

With perhaps a link after the first sentence to List of Qassam rocket attacks? Does that make sense?

I'll tell you what doesn't make sense. The reader of the article in its current state has to read through the entire lead, plus two more complete sections and thousands of words, and get to the fourth section – "Development" – to find out when the thing they've been reading about in the papers, Israel's assault on Gaza, actually began. This anomaly is a direct result of our novel framing of the subject.--G-Dett (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN is also calling it 'Gaza Conflict' (see the promo for AC360). The BBC calls it "Gaza Conflict - [10]. Reuters calls it "Gaza Conflict" [11]. UPI calls it "Gaza Conflict - [12]. The quotes you are referencing seem to be directed to the current ground attack. Renaming this article to something long the lines of '"Israel's Attack on Hamas." will not fly, as it is a POV that ignores the rocket barrage by Hamas that preceded it, as well as the ongoing bombardment of Israeli towns by Hamas rockets. If we want to focus just on the Israeli operation, I will not be opposed to renaming this article Operation Cast lead. NoCal100 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

NoCal, you're right that the BBC has used "Gaza conflict" in a headline, though here is a list (I think exhaustive) of every other framing phrase the article you link to uses to summarize the story: "Israel's military offensive," "the bombing campaign," "the violence," "the offensive," "continued Israeli offensive in Gaza," "the bombing raids on Gaza."

But to your broader point about titles and POV, isn't it the case with every article of this kind that it's named after the major operation that gives it notability in the eyes of RSs, that it takes its framing cues from the RSs themselves? Since when do we try to "correct" what you see as imbalanced framing? Thus we have Second Intifada (not 2000-2006 Israel-Palestinian violence), Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not 1945 U.S.–Japan conflict), Bombing of Dresden in World War II (not 1945 U.S.–Germany conflict), etc. Each of these titles "ignores the X that preceded it."

Furthermore, the current framing opens the door to the inclusion of other Xs, Ys, and Zs "that preceded" the operation that mainstream RSs are covering. For example and most notably, the blockade of Gaza. What is to keep an editor from making that part of the framing? As soon as you've departed from RS-precedents in framing a subject, the door is wide open to that. This is precisely why there's a prohibition against original research in the first place.

Please understand me on the following: of course Hamas' Qassam attacks against Israeli civilians has a major place in this story. They are Israel's causus belli, and a major focus for pundits and analysts commenting on this story. But the story itself, as far as the reliable sources are concerned, is a major Israeli assault on Gaza, unprecedented in scale and duration.

This bears repeating: we don't achieve NPOV by reframing a story to suit our own sense of fairness and the long view. We achieve NPOV by neutral writing and the inclusion of all major points of view.--G-Dett (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We have Falklands War, not Argentinian Invasion of Falklands. We have 1948 Palestine war, not Arab Invasion of Israel, and countless other examples. When we have large-scale events, we often have a name for the main one, such as World War II, alongside names for specific incidents, operations or battles within that conflict, such as German Invasion of Poland, or your examples of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or Bombing of Dresden in World War II. if you want to focus this article just on the Israeli offensive - fine - let's rename it Operation Cast lead, and make it a sub-article of a larger article that will put the Israeli attacks in the context of the broader conflict - as multiple reliable sources have done. NoCal100 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We have Falklands War because that's by and large how the event is known by reliable sources. If it were framed by most RSs as Argentinian Invasion of Falklands, then we'd call it that. See 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example – which isn't called 2002-2003 U.S.–Iraq conflict, even though many people think Iraqi provocations during that period were key to the situation. It's called 2003 invasion of Iraq because that's how most RSs frame it, how they circumscribe their topic.

And this is true of all your examples. In all of the examples you've just given – whether for large-scale events or specific operations – the title Wikipedia uses reflects how the preponderance of reliable sources have framed the subject. This article's title, however, does not. Rather, it reflects how you and other Wikipedians believe the subject ought to be framed and considered.--G-Dett (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply not true. I have shown you that every major news source, from the BBC to UPI, has referred to it as the Gaza Conflict. You are selecting certain references over others to allege a framing that does not exist. NoCal100 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]I'll grant you that we're both being selective with regards to headlines. I take it you do agree that our framing should reflect the framing of the RSs? If so, perhaps we could approach this more systematically. We could for example take the A-1 headlines & article ledes from the major mainstream newspapers and periodicals for the last eight days (or alternately, the last two weeks), aggregate the data and see exactly how they're framing this.

I'm quite ready to be proven wrong on this, and I don't claim yet to have researched this systematically. I'm working on impressions, but I do think they're pretty solidly founded. I have not read any major journalist who frames this story as an ongoing conflict that got "accelerated" on December 27. And I think it would be very strange for, say, a New York Times reader who comes here after reading a headline story about Israel's "eight-day war on Hamas" to have to read through thousands of words and multiple sections before getting to information about when the bombing campaign he's been reading about, day after day, actually began. That strange situation reeks of original research. Everyone else is talking about a story that began on December 27; we've substituted a different framework because we think it's fairer to Israel. I don't see a precedent for doing this on Wikipedia. There is certainly no precedent for it in the examples we've given above. American patriots have not succeeded (nor perhaps even tried, for all I know) in changing 2003 Invasion of Iraq to 2002-2003 U.S.-Iraq conflict.

Even the two or three cites you've provided (with the phrase "Conflict in Gaza" in the headline) make very clear that the story they're talking about begins for them on December 27th. Here's the lede sentence of your UPI story: Israel's airstrikes on Gaza have exposed the rift between Palestinians who want to make peace with Israel and those who support Hamas, observers said. Here's the first sentence of your Reuters story (a minor "Q & A" feature): Israel launched a ground offensive in the Gaza Strip on Saturday after a week-long air campaign against Hamas militants firing rockets into the Jewish state. Sounds a lot like my proposed lead sentence. And here's the first sentence of your BBC story: Mass demonstrations are being held around the world in protest at Israel's military offensive against Hamas, as the campaign enters its second week.

Shall we place a little wager, and look at the lead paragraphs of the A-1 stories in tomorrow's editions of the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal, and see if they're framed in terms of Israel's 8-day assault on Gaza, or rather as part of an ever-unfolding Israel-Gaza conflict that precedes that?--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure tomorrow's A-1 headlines will say something along the lines of "Israel launches a ground assault" - will you then be recommending we rename this 'Israel's Ground Assault"? I'm positive that on June 6th, 19944, most papers had headlines describing "Allied Invasion Of Normandy", yet our article is still called World War II. The naming has been discussed twice already, and the consensus was for the current title. Your case for renaming, based on an admitted selectivity in headline selection , is not compelling. NoCal100 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow's headlines will indeed be about the ground invasion, which is why I suggested we look at the lead paragraphs. Will they say something along the lines of "The months-long conflict between Israel and Gaza took a new turn yesterday, with Israel sending in ground troops," or will it be something closer to "Israel's eight-day assault on the Gaza strip went into a new phase yesterday, with the beginning of a ground invasion"? My wager is on the latter.

The invasion of Normandy happened on June 6, 1944; our article on it is called Invasion of Normandy. The larger background article is World War II. Similarly, this article should be called something like 2008-2009 Assault on Gaza. Its larger background article is Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --G-Dett (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already suggested that we can focus this article on the Isreali operation, and call it Operation Cast Lead. But if it is not going to have that focus and that title, then it will be called "Israel-Gaza Conflict", as numerous sources have described it. NoCal100 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And what do you say to the American patriot who argues, We can focus this article on the American operation, and call it Operation Iraqi Freedom. But if it is not going to have that focus and that title, then it will be called 2002-2003 U.S.-Iraq conflict, as numerous sources have described it? Do you say, right on brother?

Which of the major reliable sources are using "Operation Cast Lead" in their headlines and lead sentences?--G-Dett (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN for one: "The goal of Operation Cast Lead is to halt what Israeli officials describe as a near-constant barrage of Hamas rockets into the southern part of the country from Gaza. [13]. The Sydney Morning Herald would be another "The second stage of Operation Cast Lead to end rocket attacks by Gaza militants on southern Israeli cities began under cover of darkness about 8pm Israeli time" [14]. All of the Isralei media do as well, of course. NoCal100 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you if you could find any mainstream anywhere who used the phrase somewhere once. We're talking about framing. The CNN article you've linked to doesn't use the phrase at all; I don't understand why you've presented it. Bravo on the Sydney Morning Herald thingie. Haaretz is not covering this under the rubric of Operation Cast Lead. Is the Jerusalem Post? Check out Fox News; you might find what you're looking for there.

The CNN article used it when I linked to it. It has now been edited so that it is no longer there. CNN's web site calls it 'Gaza conflict", Ha'aretz (in Hebrew) has put every single story under the heading of "Operation Cast lead", and it's English web site frames it as "Warfare in Gaza" (while the HTML source has the title as "Operation Cast Lead"). Ynet frames it as 'The Gaza War" (Hebrew edition) and "War in South" (English). CNN's TV coverage frames it as 'Crisis in the Middle East', and the BBC, in a bid to be original, frames it as "Middle East Crisis".I think we're done here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has a habit of covering major military operations under their nationalist brand names, I am not aware of it. I trust you'll understand when I say that your RS evidence is underwhelming.--G-Dett (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Nordlicht, Operation Bagration, Operation Edelweiss, Operation Platinum Fox, Operation Kremlin, Operation Braunschweig , dozens of others. Welcome to Wikipedia, newbie. NoCal100 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with G-Dett. This is a central problem to the article, without fixing it right away, the article will not cover what people are coming here to read about, which is an attack, of unprecedented magnitude, by Israel on the Gaza. RomaC (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "Israel-Gaza Conflict" is unsatisfactory. "Israel-Hamas Conflict 2008-9" or "2009 Gaza Invasion" might be better. It's too soon to say what this particular incident will be known as historically. Decades after the end of the Second World War Operation Barbarossa has stuck wheras Operation Eagle hasn't. I would say that what terms news media are currently using for these events are a poor guide to what an encyclopedia should call them. Oh... and at the top of this page there's a banner saying that this article has been referenced in news media but as it happens that is a story exactly about how this operation is called "Operation Cast Lead" and contrasting it with "Operation Summer Rains". We will have to wait and see and perhaps amend the title of this article accordingly. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bingo, superb post. The proper WP name at any given time is a function of the consensus of reliable sources. This is necessarily more volatile in the early stages of something, but it's not our role to get out ahead of the historians. Anon, you can write. Get yourself registered and become a regular.--G-Dett (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The word escalation as it is used in the article implies two sides provoking each other to employ greater force, which gives a falsely neutral impression in this context. We should say it is an escalation on Israel's part (since Hamas has indeed intensified its resistance in response) or not use the word escalation at all. This is for the obvious reason that Operation Cast Lead is admitted by the Israelis themselves to have been a surprise attack, and a decisive escalation solely on their part to wipe out Hamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my prediction above, here are the headlines+leads from today's New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal:

1. NYT: Israeli Troops Advance, Bisecting Gaza: Ground Fighting Widens a 9-Day War on Hamas
2. WashPo: Gaza Attacks Further Split Arab Rulers, Public: Israel's offensive against Hamas illustrates the widening chasm between longtime Arab leaders and those they govern over the Palestinian cause.
3. WSJ: Israeli Troops, Tanks Push Deep Into Gaza: Israeli tanks and troops poured into the Gaza Strip Saturday night and by Sunday afternoon appeared to have pushed deep into the north of the territory, as the Jewish state launched a ground assault against the militant group Hamas. The land attack marks the dramatic escalation of an Israeli offensive that Palestinian hospital officials say has left as many as 470 Gazans dead and wounded over 2,200 since it began on Dec. 27.

"Israel's 9-Day War on Hamas," "Israel's offensive," "Israeli offensive." In every case the story frame is the Israeli offensive that began December 27.--G-Dett (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, just like the June 7th, 1944 stories talked about how well the invasion was going. Our article is still called World War II. NoCal100 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ground attack confirmed

Ground troops are entering Gaza strip as January 03, 2009, 1 PM. EST. Please update article. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. BlueVine (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

English source: Nableezy (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image sources

Search for free images from multiple sources:

• http://search.creativecommons.org

On the search form put checkmarks in front of these:

- Search for works I can use for commercial purposes.

- Search for works I can modify, adapt, or build upon.

This will ensure that only free images are found. Only free images can be uploaded to the Commons.

Download the largest version of images, and then upload the images to the Commons,

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload

and categorize them under

• commons:Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or its subcategories.

See the above talk section: #Source of photos questionable. Some people upload non-free copyrighted images to Flickr and other image archives. One way to tell is by searching for the image captions via Google. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove soldier casualties

there has been no confirm of soldier casualties, it is simply a Hamas psycological trick so please remove it from the summary card at the beggining of the page.MarioDX (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. According to Israeli sources, there were 30 wounded soldiers. Two dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomaed (talk • contribs) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplications in "Ground Attack" and "January 3" sections

Same facts are being reported both in the "ground attack", "developmet", and "naval operations" sections. Now that the ground attack have begun, this is turrning to be much more than airstrikes and relativly low scale naval operations. I sugget we change the structure so all information is delivered ONCE, in a coherent manner. Options: Lose both "naval operations" and "ground attack" sections and move their content to the relevant chronological part in "developmet"; Or, make sure that "development" is only dealing with airestrikes (we would have to change the title), and move all naval and ground activity to their proper sections. Thoughts?--Omrim (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would copy part of the "Ground attack" section into "January 3". After the ground incursion, the previous build-up could be described. Sarejo (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Could a mention of the implications of the ground invasion be added either to Ground attack or January 3rd. For example France is now condemning Israels land offensive. Where would that belong (its a big development) and shouldnt just be sidelined on the international reactions page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Section has been created at Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 5#Requested move for further discussion--Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Third renaming discussion: this is not a two-sided conflict

This is an Israeli operation designed to wipe out resistance in the Gaza strip. The current title is misleading. It could apply to the conflict running continuously for years. The article should be about the current assault. Almost no news source refers to it as the "Israel-Gaza conflict". Most people see it as an Israeli attempt to wipe out the Hamas organisation. This isn't a POV, its a fact. Hamas rockets are nothing new, they have been firing them before this moment.

It is usually described in the press as something like "The Israeli attacks on Gaza"(BBC news).

Therefore, the name should be returned to something like "2008-09 Gaza Strip Bombardment and Invasion" or "The assault on Gaza".

Can we please have a thorough discussion about how to name this article in a way that people would think to search for if they were looking for the article?

I'd imagine most would search for something like 'Gaza bombings' or '2008-09 Gaza Strip attacks'

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is of course a 2 sided conflict, with Hamas rockets falling on Israeli cities daily, both before the Israeli strikes and after. Multiple news sources including CNN, the BBC, Reuters and UPI refer to it as a conflict. NoCal100 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that while I agree the article should be renamed, I do not agree with Jandrews23 that "this is not a two-sided conflict." As NoCal says, of course it is. The article should be renamed because the framing of the subject should follow the reliable sources, and they have clearly and consistently presented the story as Israel's "Assault on Gaza," "War on Hamas," etc. They have not for the most part framed it as the "Israel-Gaza conflict." --G-Dett (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

jandrews, you are wrong. Without two sides involved, it isn't a conflict. You are very selective when you say it is usually described in the press as something like "The Israeli attacks on Gaza"(BBC news). I just did a google search for "Gaza conflict". Here are the first half dozen results (less the wiki ref).

1. Israel wants to entangle Lebanon in escalating Gaza conflict, Daily Star, Lebanon.
2. Gaza conflict, heading, in The World
3. Battle Plans in Gaza Conflict, BBC
4. Domestic politics fuels Gaza conflict, CS Monitor
5. Gaza conflict timeline, London Telegraph
6. Obama Monitoring Gaza Conflict, CBS News

I did this little exercise because I knew it would be easy to balance your statement. I don't have a hard and fast preference for how we should describe it, but whatever it is, it has to be POV. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Does 'Operation Cast Lead' have its own article or is this it? If this is the article about 'Operation Cast Lead' why not name it as such? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the parent. This is a question of categories. The Israeli assault ("Operation Cast Lead") is an event in its own right, and it is *orders of magnitude* greater in terms of violence, casualties, strategic ambition or any other metric one might choose, than the Hamas resistance. Let me make an analogy - would you call a robber stabbing an elderly lady a "fight" if the elderly lady happened to swing her handbag in response? You would call it an assault and we are talking about the same disproportionality in terms of force employed in this conflict! This is an *assault*. There should be no truck with Israeli propaganda.

I've been arguing this for days. The Hamas rockets have been flying for years, this article is about a specific air and sea (and now ground) attack of unprecedented ferocity. The current framing of the attacks in the muddying context of a larger conflict (as a 'flareup' or 'escalation' or whatever) is exactly the original research we are meant to avoid, as more editors are finally discussing. Title should be something like "Israeli Winter 2008/9 Invasion of Gaza," article should be about the attacks that have been the world's top news story for a week now. RomaC (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not the way to have these discussions... we have a process, lets have it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:21, 4 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.

Israeli site hacked

I have now posted information about an Israeli site being hacked by people in support of the Palestinians for the THIRD time.

I don't think it should be casualy removed, as I understand the way Wikipedia should work.

If anybody should feel the information would better be moved (as opposed to REmoved) to another section, that I would be able to understand. Actually, I'm not too convinced myself the place I found for this information is the best one. But still, such a move should also be discussed.

I would be happy to hear my more experienced collegues express themselves on the points I made, and the questions implied.Debresser (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a war between people who support Palestine and people who support Israel. At least, it's not that way for me, really. WP:AGF --Darwish07 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As to the opinion of Darwish07 that this information is "utterly unrelated" to the subject, I respectfully have to contest his opinion. The section is called "Reactions", and it just happens to be that one of the reactions to the ongoing conflict was the expression of support made by ways of hacking into an Israeli site.Debresser (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It was inconsistent to read the reactions of the UN, the European Union, the African Union and other involved parties and then directly read that a no-name Israeli website is being hacked. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The hacking information you posted is unsourced. If it happened, even if you saw it, you still need to supply reliable sources to add it to the article. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary irrelevant particularly if government websites were involved. The reason for the hacking is likely related to the conflict. For example the 2008 South Ossetia war mentions some hacking incidents. But regardsless, what we need are reliable sources which discuss the hacking (in relation to the conflict). In case there is any confusion, screenshots of the alleged hacking are not reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne in both aspects: that the information is relevant, but cannot be posted as it is unsourced.
I thank you all for the discussion, and think the subject can be considered closed.Debresser (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New Information

I have posted new information on the subject. This time with references. So I honestly do not think it may me removed any more. Moving it to another location also does not seem justified in view of above discussion. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps making a new subsection would be in order? Either right in the section 'Reactions' (and the corrolated article 'International_reaction_to_the_2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict'), or in the section 'Public relations campaign'. Your opinion? Debresser (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Date?

why does it say January 2-present? Should it not say December 27-present?-Kieran4 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Where? On what subject? Please specify, so any mistakes may be corrected.Debresser (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Professor Falk

As for the naming controversy and other elements of this article, I have little to no opinion... but I do feel that whatever his merits, Proffesor Falk's opinions are given too much weight, as he is mentioned at least 3 times. V. Joe (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment he is quoted twice on one subject in one section, and once on another subject in another section. Given his expertise and function, that does not seem excessive to me. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Assassinated" not "killed"

I think we need a dose of reality here. When a person is deliberately targeted, for their military or governmental importance to an organisation, and has a bomb dropped on them that is an act of assassination not merely killing. Doesn't matter whose side you take, it is assassination. I think this needs to be reflected within the article.The Night Walker (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines "assassinate" as:

1: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously

2: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

You are correct to note the prominent person aspect of the word, but the method (secretly, unexpectedly) and the negative moral connotations (murder, treacherously) don't fit the context of the armed conflict going on or Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. "Kill" is neutral, sufficient, and exact.

89.139.102.5 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

i have to agree with night walker on this. on the wiki page list of assassinated people there are many hamas leaders. assassination is not a pov, and its not only used for 'good' people. Untwirl (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong at least twice Untwirl, and therefore so is The Night Walker. 1. The point lies not in whether the person killed was "good" or "bad", just in the method, as pointed out before. 2. Many Hamas leaders have indeed been killed unexpectedly (=assassinated) in the past, and that is why they are listed as 'assassinated people', but this is not the case here and now. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser and whoever posted from 89.139.102.5. As far as I can ascertain, most if not all of the major Hamas people who have died either died because they were in the streets fighting Israel on the ground or because they refused to evacuate their homes after the IDF told them to. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

support "assassination" as the descriptor -- RomaC (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Make an argument, or you will be ignored. NoCal100 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous "use" of quotes

There are way too many quotes used in places where they aren't needed. Even when reporting what someone else said, there is no need to place quotes on isolated words cited. The quotes can change meaning from citation to allegation.

Examples of unnecessary quotes:

Aidan White, Secretary-General of the International Federation of Journalists "condemned" the destruction of the television station.

Another one, which can convey a subtle allegation, as in "they said it's due to security reasons, but really it isn't":

Israel has banned reporters from entering the Gaza strip since November 2008, citing "security" reasons.

89.139.102.5 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, we do this all the time. In particular in "Reactions" sections, but also in point/counter-point situations. If a quote is verifiable and sourced, and from a relevant source (the Secretary-General of the International Federation of Journalists is certainly relevant when dealing with media being attacked). These are facts and hiding facts because they are not convinient is against policy. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)