![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | â | Archive 5 |
It appears that the user LOTRules insists on re-adding a death toll of 225 to the article. Where is the source? I have read the article and watched each video on
the linked page 3 times, and there is no indication of the number 225 anywhere. Either I've missed something, and will gladly be corrected when the precise location of the figure is given, or please find another source/stop adding incorrect figures. --
Ynhockey (
Talk)
21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I found an AP article that mentions civilians: "Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead." Hereis the article info: Israeli assault on Hamas kills more than 200 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asat10j06fLdzogLL4jbmSKs0NUE By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer Ibrahim Barzak And Amy Teibel, Associated Press Writer 28 Dec 2008 âPreceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld ( talk ⢠contribs) 07:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC) oops: PinkWorld ( talk) 07:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
I have seen one reference to an investigation so far. It is, though, by a local group; and I do not think that a second group has verified the investigation. Here is the quote:
"The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which keeps researchers at all hospitals, said it had counted 251 dead by midday Sunday, and that among them were 20 children under the age of 16 and nine women."
The information for the news article is as follows.
"Israeli troops mobilize as Gaza assault widens," By IBRAHIM BARZAK and KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writers, 28 Dec 2008 PinkWorld ( talk) 00:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
Saudi Arabia has no comment? âPreceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.191.246 ( talk) 07:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
As an aside: I notice that "Palestinian medical sources" has been used in the infobox as a source of civilian casualty figures. I have to wonder if whoever put that there would also accept the presence of an IDF civilian casualty estimate as reliable. Neither belong in an infobox, do they? -- Hiddekel ( talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It is used as a reference and source, yet it is far from unbiased. It is pro-palestinian, pro-Hamas website and it is against any sort of peaceful solution. It also engages in egregious anti-semitism âPreceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 ( talk) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) PNN is the only source for the 780 wounded figure, CNN just said over 400 wounded, and they didn't say whether the 400 wounded were civs or militants.
Does someone know where to get free pictures or can someone help with the fair use rationale in the available picture please. I will add another picture of the air strike after a minute. Israel has released a video of their air strike can someone get. It is in the public domain if it's by the government right?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If pictures are to be added, they must not be only from the Gaza side. They must show some of the rockets that fell on Southern Israel too. --
Darwish07 (
talk)
00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed many statements of the parties involved & I didn't notice that they said that the Egyptian president was informed. The foreign affair minister denied that. I think this section needs citations.-- Mustafaahmedhussien ( talk) 07:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
before adding to article! Image:Gaza 2008 bombings 2.jpg and Image:Gaza 2008 bombings 1.jpg
Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.[6]
This kind of statement can start nationalist edit wars in Wikipedia. To avoid this, the above statement should have more than one source. All sources must be of impeccable reliability. This comment is to help Wikipedia, not support or oppose one of the combatants. Ipromise ( talk) 02:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Several users insist on reverting my passage revision: "Palestine News Network reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded.[9] Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives." TO: Palestinian Medical Sources reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded.[9] Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.[7] To begin, PNN isn't even close to being a reliable source, but because few have been reported, I'm willing to let it slide until another more reliable reference can be obtained. Second, PNN is not a base for Palestinian Medical Sources, nor are these sources cited in the article. The statement isn't even exaggeration, it is simply false. To be perfectly honest, however, the article would be better off without the citation at all. The number cited by PNN could be as high as 10,000 and it still doesn't merit any weight, for their reporting is highly unregulated or recognized by any remotely professional media entity. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm calm, Cerejota. I was cordial and plight, but dealing with you is beyond unbearable. You come in and offer your one sentence reduction, or write some thousand paragraph defense that is nothing less than fallacies proving fallacies, and to top it all off, you tell people to calm down when they call you on it. Please, for the sake of this article, take a break. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Ok, let's quote WP: RS - Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
So, you think PNN is a credible third party source, with a reliable publication process? Ok, straight from their website: PNN endorses the idea of supporting and strengthening the role of the local Palestinian media through unifying news sources and publishing news bulletins simultaneously to a number of radio stations in the West Bank and Gaza. And lastly: We strive to empower the Palestinian people and their cause, particularly that of nonviolent resistance to occupation.
On their very own website, they admit their lack of objectivity and complete loyalty to one side of the spectrum. So, before you start whipping out rules, why don't you read them yourself. I'm done. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Better than a Thanks! after every post. Thanks! Thanks!
Wikifan12345 (
talk)
02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I added the tag in light of the recent discussions involving the title, important passages, and various controversial elements of the article. Until those are revolved, I think it's important we warn the reader that there is a strong will to improve the article but several critical points aren't fully cleared. Therefore, a neutrality tag is necessary. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The source is this, [1], the title does say "Most Hamas bases destroyed in 4 minutes" but it is not elaborated in the article (e.g. who says that, what is the definition of "most") JVent ( talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is the second intifada template included in this article? Does anyone have a reliable source claiming this is part of the second intifada? Yesterday, hamas leaders stated that this operation might lead to a third intifada. Liransh Talk 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
"In June 2008, a six-month Egyptian brokered cease-fire agreement was signed between Hamas and Israel[14], Hamas kept firing moderately and Israel reacted with an economic blockade, leading to a shortage of gas, electricity, water, and medicines, among other goods."
I'm editing this due its bias - the economic blockade has been ongoing since January 2007, and was the result of Hamas' election and not their firing. There is no reference for Hamas "firing moederately", and it is worded in a biased manner.
I think the entire section needs to be worked on to be more reflective of the actual background, and to reflect both the Israeli blockade and its effects as well as the firing by Hamas of rockets. Amjra 12:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked up some citations of number of rockets fired between 19 Dec 2008 termination of truce and 27 Dec 2008 commencement of military action. (truce: 19 June 2008 truce, not sure of name) This particular time frame interests me because it falls between the termination of a truce and the commencement of a military action. The BBC counted "more than 50." The Christian Science Monitor reported that "hundreds of rockets" followed the expiration of the truce. Doing some math at the Globalsecurity.org site gave me 240 rockets fired since 19 December (300 total, 40 on Sunday 28 December). I learned during the Mumbai attacks that the BBC tends to be conservative in its descriptions of unfolding events due to the preference to have multiple sources for its reports. This might explain their small numer. Below is information about these articles.
Israeli strike kills Hamas member http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7798685.stm 25 December 2008
Gaza: Why Israel and Hamas are trading rocket fire http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1229/p01s03-wome.html By Joshua Mitnick December 29, 2008
HAMAS Rockets http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm PinkWorld ( talk) 01:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
With this reaction, do you think it is appropriate to move this sentence further up the article?
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei issued a religious decree to Muslims around the world on December 28 , ordering them to defend Palestinians in Gaza against Israeli attacks "in any way possible"
doktorb words deeds 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two conflicting reasons for the reopening of the crossing given in the article. The first is that it was in response to international pressure; the second is that it was a deceptive act taken to reassure Hamas. Do we have a conclusive source one way or the other? topynate ( talk) 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
On the page Background section it's said: "On 26 December 2008, in an apparent concession, Israel reopened five crossings between Israel and Gaza".
On the planning section, it's said: "Several actions were taken purposefully to deceive Hamas, including the reopening of border crossings"
On Haaretz, it's [ said]: "In parallel, Israel continued to send out disinformation in announcing it would open the crossings to the Gaza Strip and that Olmert would decide whether to launch the strike following three more deliberations on Sunday - one day after the actual order to launch the operation was issued.
We should have a single opinion on this. Ideas? Darwish07 ( talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What are the same sources that said it was an humanitarian nature at the time saying now about this topic? There shouldn't be a lot of controversy around this, the IDF has clearly stated it was a deceptive move intended to lower the guard of the opponents, but we shouldn't contradict sources without looking at what they are saying now. If we do not find it, a "Sources said X before now, but it is now known that this was part of a deception strategy". Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Any idea on where this should be mentioned? Perhaps a "casualties" section would be appropriate at this point? 24.81.65.229 ( talk) 16:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The source article:
The "Hamas" casualties included many who did not share Hamas' core belief but were those desperate for work:
Hamas's goals with regards to the ceasefire:
Both of these key facts should be added to the article. The New York Times is a very reliable source with the two reporters who wrote this story operating both Gaza and Israel. -- John Bahrain ( talk) 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
â | Verifiability, not truth | â |
ââ Wikipedia:Verifiability |
Neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources are the combined matrix from which all content should come in English Wikipedia. These policies are not negotiable, and all content must conform to them.
As quoted, the key point is that we are not seeking the truth as seen by any of us, but that the information is a verified fact or opinion. A fact in Wikipedia is anything published in a reliable source that is a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.. An opinion is what is subject to controversy, but there are facts about opinions. And we must present these verified facts in a neutral fashion, further more, we are required to assert facts, including facts about opinionsâbut do not assert the opinions themselves. The policies couldn't be more clear.
This verifiability is a changing value depending on the amount of controversy and disagreement. So for example, less verifiability is needed in order to say that "the sky is blue", that what would be needed to explain the process that makes the sky blue. No one denies that the sky is mostly blue (except for clouds) during daylight hours, but there might be disagreement on what the process is. Hence, less or more verifiability.
There seems to be a misconception around reliable sources: they are not required to be neutral.
A reliable source can be partisan and non-neutral. What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source. The more controversy around a topic, the more need for verifiability. Hence, there needs to be more sources and more variety of POV in sources.
The ones required to be neutral in the presentation of sources are us.
Also, please keep in mind that reliable sources are classified in primary, secondary, and tertiary. In general secondary sources are better, but primary sources can be used to provide verifiability to known facts.
Primary sources should never be used if they contain opinion, except as quotes to verify the facts of the opinion. So even closely linked to the belligerents are to be allowed (such as partisan media, like the Jerusalem Post or the Palestinian News Network) but they must be verified by other sources more distant from the conflict, or be quoted, rather than cited. There is no doubt they are reliable sources: in a discussion of atheism, what the Catholic News Service has to say is an important source in order to provide balance and neutrality - so is the PNN in this case. However, we must not give undue weight, in particular if the information doesn't verify.
The insistence of some of using only one source or one group of partisan sources to provide information in the encyclopedic voice is in total violation of policy. If there is controversy, is unacceptable to allow non-neutral text to remain as a fact, rather than a fact about opinion. Likewise, just because one source is not-neutral, it doesn't automatically make it unreliable: a good faith effort to find verifiability in other sources must be done. If this effort fails, mentioning the information from all sources, using due-weight criteria, mentioning is the best way to ensure neutrality. Removal of reliable sources is discouraged, more sourcing is better sourcing.
We have to speak for the other side. Period. Not negotiable. If you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia.
An argument has been made regarding Wikipedia not being "news". This is true, but in the context used, it is a total fallacy and editors are advised to stop using it in good faith. Since this is a current event, there will not be any tertiary sources (like encyclopedias) or secondary sources (there are no books or academic papers) other than news and primary sources. So in "current event" and "recent events" we MUST be necessity be guided by what news organizations are saying, because they are the only ones providing verifiability.
In fact WP:NOT#JOURNALISM is not about not using news sources, but about making Wikipedia a news source itself. It has nothign to do with sourcing, but with no original research. This argument is fallacious and disruptive, and continued use will be considered WP:POINT.
To the partisans, I remind you that this is not a soapbox. Article quality would be better served if we refrain from emitting opinions in support of, or against any of the sides of the matter. We would also move forward better if we do not appeal to motive: most of us already know where we all stand on this conflict, there is no need to remind each other. If you are going to dispute the reliability of a source, do so using the guidelines in WP:RS, not your personal opinion of a given source: blogs are out, professional organizations are in, what a government says of itself is primary sourcing etc, etc. If you think X source is a rabid nest of thieves, that might be true, but its irrelevant. Kindly keep it to yourself, or open a blog somewhere else in which to emit your opinions.
This is a good faith effort to try to bring clarity. Some of the arguments here have been pretty creative interpretations of policy, and some of the editing has been done in total disregard of policy, and some cases, common sense and decency. Don't. This not another battlefield in your battles, this is an encyclopedia done by geeks. Who for the most part don't care about your beliefs, just want facts. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 19:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Could we get people to at least agree with automatic archiving of discussions via bot?
Its already getting a bit long, and bots are smart enough not to archive ongoing discussions. They also are less error prone than archiving by hand.
Please opine so we can set it up. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source to backup the idea that the conflict started on December 27 and hence casualties immediately preceding that date due to Hamas rockets won't be included in the death toll statistics? The ceasefire did run out on December 19 so why wouldn't that be a more suitable date given that the rocket attacks started increasing at that date? 118.208.59.98 ( talk) 20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Reverting John Bahrain's POV deletion of official Popular Resistance Committees (notable group) spokesperson statement prior to the end of the ceasefire as this is relevant to the context. Stated reason for deletion was "remove quote from a nobody" when a cursory examination of previous news stories indicates otherwise over an extended period of time and the actions and words of Hamas-allied militia /are/ a key "casus belli" leading to this event. Stating that only a quote from a "more prominent, influential leader" is acceptable is misleading non-NPOV in this case since presumably that means anything other than an "official" Hamas statement will be deleted. Regards, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What is a militant group? Hamas is defined as a " militant group" at the beginning of the article, yet this term is not defined in Wikipedia. John Hyams ( talk) 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, WP:TERRORIST. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me like somebody is trying to put a spin on things by stating that there are "29+ civilians" dead among the 287 on the basis of an ABC article stating that among those dead, at least 20 were children and 9 were women. That is quite biased, and should be changed ASAP, as while it is not technically incorrect, it is very misleading.
Also, it needs to be reflected in the article that quite a few of those killed were working in the Hamas government as civilians, carrying out normal jobs that involved no militant action because Hamas is essentially the government of Gaza. These people are no different to any public employees in any other country, especially considering the massive unemployment in the Gaza Strip. Amjra 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean you can't compare Western civil servants with Hamas civil servants? The majority of the Gaza Strip, as I mentioned, is unemployed, and there are many jobs a government provides, no matter what its nature is, that are of a civilian nature and are related to the day to day running of the Strip. People desperate for work will take up these jobs regardless of the employer, because their main concern is feeding their family.
I am not saying this to have a political debate, I am saying this because it is something that is very relevant to the casualty figure, and because there is no mention of it anywhere in the article. I agree with Boud, we need reliable sources to reflect this, and with Mostlyharmless in that it needs to be described. I am not suggesting we include a detailed causality figure reflecting this, because that would be impossible, simply a section which reflects the nature of the casualties and why the numbers may not tell the full story would do. Amjra 09:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
How many times does the name of the operation need to be explained in the article? Currently I count three times... In the the first paragraph, The December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: ××׌ע ע×פרת ×׌×ק×â) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), after a line in a children's song for Hanukkah, in the background section, Launched during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, the operation was codenamed after a Hanukkah poem by Haim Nachman Bialik referring to a "dreidel cast from solid lead" and in a section all of it's own Name of the operation. Wouldn't once be enough? -- Xagent86 ( Talk | contribs) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Dudes, while discussion is always welcome, patently and uncontroversially unneutral material can be removed without discussion. Its the tasty bits of bias that should be discussed. If we were to discuss every reversion this would never end. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Or would that be too simple? OperationOverlord ( talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No, see title discussion. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see there is a dizzying "discussion" going on up there, about whether to call it a Genocide, a Massacre, an Operation, an Aistrike, a Bombing, about the date. It seems anything but the simplest, economical label will do. Other people have done it, but I think in some Wikipedian's hands "World War Two" would become the "1939-1945 Airstrikes and Ground Operations Against Germany and Japan."
When is a war not a war? When its a Wikipedia article. Still, I expect things will become a lot clearer when ground troops move in in the coming days. OperationOverlord ( talk) 07:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Does the fact that one side is "winning" mean it isn't a war? Does war means only balanced two-way battle? As long as fire is being shot in both directions, it is a war.-- Omrim ( talk) 18:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have created a new redirect - "2008 Gaza War" which leads to this page. Let's see how it flies. OperationOverlord ( talk) 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Undertaken as a retaliation against frequent Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities and civilians, the attacks which have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians because of a single dead Israeli have attracted both support[25] and criticism.
That statement is incorrect. Part of the intro says only 21 confirmed civilians have been killed, but this says hundreds. I already corrected one weasel statement which said the majority of casualties were civilians, which just wasn't true. I'm afraid to change it because I know the second I do some fanatic is going to reverse it. Thought I'd post it here for reference and discussion.
Also, do you think this article needs a temporary lock?
Wikifan12345 (
talk)
05:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
As 1 Egyptian border guard is killed by Palestinians, should we add Egypt to list of belligerents?-- Kavas ( talk) 10:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Its a biased and irrelevant rhetoric to say what Israel "planned" and for how long, especially not mentioning what Hamas planned (its a small wonder why, as the Hamas plans were probably much more malevolent, primarily targeting civilians, and therefore this writer elegantly omits discussion of them, as if only Israel can plan and Hamas just goes day by day). Either you omit what the sides "planned" or you say what both planned. Find some other way of siding with Hamas, this one is too transparent. What each side does is the important thing. Wikipedia is about facts, not about musings, intentions and telepathy. Honestreporting2 ( talk) 11:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English TV is reporting that 345 have been killed and 1450 have been injured. I can't find an online source, can someone help look please so we can update the article accordingly. Cheers Ijanderson ( talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly are the belligerents only listed as Hamas? My feeling it should follow the way of 2nd Intifida with the first line showing the Palestinian people, followed by the militant groups involved, like Hamas and IJ. It seems to me a pro-Israel POV, in fact not just pro-Israel but the Israeli POV, to declare that this attack is only against Hamas. Nableezy ( talk) 15:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat.
Have reverted the unilateral addition of the Palestinian People for now pending the outcome of discussion as this is not a "small matter". Regards, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that under international law, policemen are considered to be civilians if they as individuals do not take part in any hostilities.
Here is an article that discusses the fact that Policement are considered civilians:
I point this out because the NYTimes reported that many of the policement were young men tempted by steady work:
The two sides of this issue (i.e. whether policemen are considered civilians or not) should be added to the article.
-- John Bahrain ( talk) 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is coverage of this issue in the Guardian:
The two sides of this issue clearly need to be added to the article. -- John Bahrain ( talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that a good number of news agencies update their articles without without updating their link. A number of facts get removed by that act, leading to a lot of unreliable references. Please archive the unstable news articles on Webcite before referencing them. Thanks! -- Darwish07 ( talk) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The "Suggested Other Motivations" near the end reads like it was written by a high school student. It already has a "refimprove" tag, along with lots of spelling errors, lack of punctuation, questionable use of adjectives and hyperbole, and a complete lack of NPOV. Given that this is for a current event, this must be fixed very soon, or it will be removed. pjh3000 ( talk) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments and sources:
Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 17:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
omedia.co.il is an inevitably speculative/POV source and not worth being included in this wikipedia article. -- Severino ( talk) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
your pov. -- Severino ( talk) 08:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
BBC on motives (source: [7]):
Reuters on motives (source [8]):
Guardian on motives (source [9]):
Hope that helps beef up the references. -- John Bahrain ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hamas activist are saying that Israeli forces are attacking the palestanian people living in Gaza Strip, on the other hand Israeli officeials are saying we are attacking Hamas activist. However, the belligerents were identified to be Hamas and IDF? is this neutral? to take what Israeli officials are saying and disregard what is mentioned from Hamas? I think this needs to be changed, unless I am missing something. Yamanam ( talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. Hamas hides themselves in civilian buildings and lobs rockets from hospitals and schools, deliberately trying to use civilians as human shields. Is it any surprise they'd lie about what was going on too?
I agree with SoWhy's decision to semi-protect this; someone was making edits that greatly compromised the neutrality of this article, and in my opinion people will continue to do so. Qoou.Anonimu ( talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The article currently has the construction worker as an Israeli-Arab. Reports are that he was Bedouin. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050925.html). Can't change it myself, given the lock-down. EliezerIsrael ( talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
Colombo Man ( talk) 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Long story short - I ask that we avoid quotes as much as possible. They usually add little to the reader's understanding, biasing him towards some viewpoint ("Oh, X said this and that"). The reader should reach his own conclusions, based on the facts we present. People's opinions, unless they are in a position of power (like a US president) are usually of little significance. Especially I ask not to include any quotes in the already very long background section, where they are wholly unnecessary. Thoughts? okedem ( talk) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Citation for "On 23 December 2008, the IDF killed three Palestinian militants who were planting explosives on the Gaza border."
3 Gaza militants killed in clash on Israeli border
Also mentioned in Reuters article:
Flare-up dims truce hopes along Israel-Gaza border
Information detailing the airstrikes is sinking in the article as more background and other support information is added at the top. The article should cover the airstrikes themselves before justifications, reactions, or background. I've tried to fix this a bit. RomaC ( talk) 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not all UK and EU Policiticans are attempting to keep a foot in both camps.
SOURCE http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7802733.stm is as follows...
"For the Conservatives, William Hague warned there was little leverage Britain could exert over the immediate situation in Gaza.
He told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "It is quite right for the UN Security Council to call for a ceasefire and an end to hostilities and we should all support that, but that does of course require both sides to cease hostilities.
"The evident reason for Israel's onslaught on Gaza in recent days has been the very large number of rocket attacks launched by Hamas into Israeli territory. That's a difficult thing to resolve."
But Ed Davey, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "The Israeli reaction is utterly disproportionate.
"From the standpoint of ordinary people in Gaza this is a full-scale attack, which is leaving women and children dead and thousands of innocent people suffering. "
"The rocket attacks by Hamas are totally unacceptable, but Israel ought to have learnt from its attack on Lebanon which only served to strengthen the cause of extremism." âPreceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.119.220 ( talk) 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Are they public domain? Please no opinions, just the facts. Remember we must be GFDL compatible. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The casualties section in the information box is incorrect. Israeli fatalities include one soldier, not 4 civilians as currently. Source:
[12] The source currently used says only 4 deaths, without elaborating whether they are civilians or soldiers.
JVent (
talk)
04:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please revert edit by Jaakobou, POV pushing. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.89.181 ( talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This page was looking a little sparse as far as pictures are concerned so I was going through the other language versions of this page and found the following picture which I was only able to find on the farsi and arabic pages. [13], [14] I also consider the picture to be mislabeled as far as NPOV is concerned. Thoughts? Comments? -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 06:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering about pictures from official Hamas and IDF websites. I do know that IDF pictures are copyrighted, but is it possible that using very specific pictures to demonstrate something related to the article, for example, can be considered as Fair Use? I mean, unless there's a comment under the picture "(c) Reuters" and etc., like most News sites have it... --- Boris "NomĂŚd" AranoviÄ ( talk) 09:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The initiator of the previous move discussion, while in good faith, certainly used a non-standard format that has led to a convoluted, disorganized process. I think I have fixed this, as there is a generalized sense of urgency because of the naval operations. Keep it mind, that even if we change now, if the past is any lesson, there is a ground component, a different name might emerge. I have used what I feel are the two major lines of thought. Please move forward. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am saying this as a man that in Israel and know what really happen here.
See and participate Talk:December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes#Requested_move. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
i've started off the section on public relations campaigns with info from a Haaretz article on the Israeli govt PR campaign. i've added a {{Missing information}} tag warning about the need to get info about any similar campaign by the Hamas de facto govt of Gaza Strip. i would imagine that because the latter do not have a massive international network of embassies/consulates, they cannot carry out a campaign using anything like the same techniques with any chance of efficiency - i.e. they cannot get their ambassadors etc. to put pressure on local media groups around the world and on national politicians around the world. However, what i imagine is not an NPOV fact. Anyone with a non-original-research, referenced idea for what we can put here to balance the section?
Just to clarify the tag: IMHO we certainly should include info about either the Gaza Strip de facto government's public relations campaign (whatever that is) or the lack of such a campaign if it is documented to be absent. i don't (presently) know which is closer to the wikipedia (NPOV) version of truth. Boud ( talk) 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The quotes in the last two paragraphs in the "public relations" section are too excessive. They do not help in any further understanding of the war and are biased by the nature of their speakers. Deleted till further discussion. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The links are an integral part of the background to the Israeli PR campaign. Without them it reads like a propaganda campaign by Israel. Wikieditorpro ( talk) 23:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"The massive offensive is in retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities"
This is what is said by the Isreali officials, it should not be considered as a fact and treated the way we treat the description of what is happening in the strip, I'll add, Israeli officials are justifying this massive offensive as a retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities âPreceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam ( talk ⢠contribs) 06:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The following two news snippets might add details to the article. I do not want to add them myself for fear of making some stupidly huge mistake. I hardly know anything about adding material to Wikipedia articles with the referencing, and this is no place to experiment, Sandbox or no.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asat10j06fLdzogLL4jbmSKs0NUE By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer 28 Dec 2008 The Israeli army says Palestinian militants have fired some 300 rockets and mortars at Israeli targets over the past week, and 10 times that number over the past year. ... A second wave was directed at squads who fired more than 110 rockets and mortars at Israeli border communities.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081224/wl_afp/mideastconflictgaza_081224215711 by Sakher Abu El Oun Sakher Abu El Oun (AFP) Wed 24 Dec 2008 "Hamas gunmen launched more than 70 projectiles, the largest barrage since before an Egyptian-brokered truce went into effect in and around Gaza in June but expired five days ago. ... Hamas...said Wednesday's rocket fire was in retaliation for the killing of three militants the day before..."
I included the second because it quotes Hamas's reason for launching rockets in the days after the termination of the 19 June 2008 truce - a potentially useful detail for this article. PinkWorld ( talk) 07:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
Sources mostly say this is the case, and we have List of Qassam rocket attacks, no need to reference blogs which are not reliable sources. If there is a blog with links to news sources, use it as research tool for the sources, we cannot reference directly, nor use its synthesis. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Given that we mention the six months prior planning of the attacks in the text, the summary needs to at least state this briefly, which i've done. Boud ( talk) 01:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that the above-referenced List of Qassam rocket attacks refers to List of Qassam rocket attacks in Israel in 2008. Once the facts settle down, the latter article will need to be updated with the totals for the current conflict. â Wdfarmer ( talk) 23:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"The massive offensive is in retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities."
"Israel began targeting dozens of buildings belonging to the ruling Hamas militant group."
I think the bolded terms need to be reworded, removed, or preferably quantified. The sources do none of these, so perhaps a rewording is in order. Alternately, they could just be quoted. The same basic facts are used elsewhere in the article with different sources without the unquantified portion.
Jokeyxero ( talk) 07:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
israeli newspapers are definitely NOT reliable and neutral sources. (except maybe for the football results of their league).-- Severino ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
"world class newspaper", "fair in reporting" and so forth are opinions and not really provable. generally, there should be mistrust towards israeli sources, not at least because of the interweavement of the civil society (including the media) and the military in this country. (see also the call up for resevists which affects a very big part of the israeli society).-- Severino ( talk) 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I am extremely unhappy at the tone of the introduction. It is grossly lopsided and tends toward the triumphal. Official Israeli sources (excluding Ha'aretz) are used 5 times, the UN (who are actually present in Gaza) once, Ha'aretz (quoting Khaled Meshal) once. There is NOT ONE SINGLE local Palestinian source quoted.
".. as a retaliation against frequent Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities." is a justification and should be omitted. HAMAS stated explicitly that it was not extending the cease fire because of the continuing Gaza blockade. The factual statement of the attack should stand on its own, or be expanded. There are indications from Israeli officials that one of the principle purposes of the raids is to re-establish Israelâs 'military' credibility after the Lebanon operation was widely regarded as a failure. This makes the justifying clause even more contentious, especially if Cast Lead has been in planning for six months, i.e. about the time cease fire started!
Quoting the IAF "an estimated 95 percent reaching their targets" is a vague assertion from a dubious source. In the absence of proper independent reports the IAF quote should at least be balanced by some local source.
âThe attacks have attracted both support and criticism.â This is factually accurate, but misleading. The Chinese occupation of Tibet attracts both support and criticism. Almost every reaction calls for an end to violence. The overwhelming majority support Israelâs right of self defence, but critisize the scale of the attacks, and the (Palestinian) rocketing. A few express outright condemnation of the attacks. The implication of parity is misleading. It would be acurate to say "Most 3rd countries are both supportive and critical of the attacks." This conveys the schizophrenia of the international community over the issue, whereas the existing quote obscures it.
MIND BOGGLING!!!
I have just looked at the boxed section on the right. It may be Israelâs official view that this is an attack on HAMAS. I am absolutely certain that that is not a view shared by the overwhelming majority of Gazans. The Belligerents are Israel and GAZA, or alternatively the belligerents are IDF/IAF/Israeli governing coalition and HAMAS/IJ etc.. I cannot recall reading any other Wiki 'battle' entry where the belligerents of an inter state conflict are listed as a state versus thier opponents governing party.
--
Milezmilez (
talk)
04:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Islamic University of Gaza does not say anything about that university being "a cultural symbol of Hamas", so i put that as a claim by the BBC. If someone has reliable, external evidence for the university's symbolism, please add that to Islamic University of Gaza, since it would seem to be relevant to me. Probably the quotes around "evacuated in advance" are not needed, though i was unsure what would be NPOV for that bit. Boud ( talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | â | Archive 5 |
It appears that the user LOTRules insists on re-adding a death toll of 225 to the article. Where is the source? I have read the article and watched each video on
the linked page 3 times, and there is no indication of the number 225 anywhere. Either I've missed something, and will gladly be corrected when the precise location of the figure is given, or please find another source/stop adding incorrect figures. --
Ynhockey (
Talk)
21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I found an AP article that mentions civilians: "Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead." Hereis the article info: Israeli assault on Hamas kills more than 200 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asat10j06fLdzogLL4jbmSKs0NUE By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer Ibrahim Barzak And Amy Teibel, Associated Press Writer 28 Dec 2008 âPreceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld ( talk ⢠contribs) 07:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC) oops: PinkWorld ( talk) 07:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
I have seen one reference to an investigation so far. It is, though, by a local group; and I do not think that a second group has verified the investigation. Here is the quote:
"The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which keeps researchers at all hospitals, said it had counted 251 dead by midday Sunday, and that among them were 20 children under the age of 16 and nine women."
The information for the news article is as follows.
"Israeli troops mobilize as Gaza assault widens," By IBRAHIM BARZAK and KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writers, 28 Dec 2008 PinkWorld ( talk) 00:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
Saudi Arabia has no comment? âPreceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.191.246 ( talk) 07:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
As an aside: I notice that "Palestinian medical sources" has been used in the infobox as a source of civilian casualty figures. I have to wonder if whoever put that there would also accept the presence of an IDF civilian casualty estimate as reliable. Neither belong in an infobox, do they? -- Hiddekel ( talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It is used as a reference and source, yet it is far from unbiased. It is pro-palestinian, pro-Hamas website and it is against any sort of peaceful solution. It also engages in egregious anti-semitism âPreceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 ( talk) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) PNN is the only source for the 780 wounded figure, CNN just said over 400 wounded, and they didn't say whether the 400 wounded were civs or militants.
Does someone know where to get free pictures or can someone help with the fair use rationale in the available picture please. I will add another picture of the air strike after a minute. Israel has released a video of their air strike can someone get. It is in the public domain if it's by the government right?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If pictures are to be added, they must not be only from the Gaza side. They must show some of the rockets that fell on Southern Israel too. --
Darwish07 (
talk)
00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed many statements of the parties involved & I didn't notice that they said that the Egyptian president was informed. The foreign affair minister denied that. I think this section needs citations.-- Mustafaahmedhussien ( talk) 07:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
before adding to article! Image:Gaza 2008 bombings 2.jpg and Image:Gaza 2008 bombings 1.jpg
Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.[6]
This kind of statement can start nationalist edit wars in Wikipedia. To avoid this, the above statement should have more than one source. All sources must be of impeccable reliability. This comment is to help Wikipedia, not support or oppose one of the combatants. Ipromise ( talk) 02:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Several users insist on reverting my passage revision: "Palestine News Network reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded.[9] Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives." TO: Palestinian Medical Sources reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded.[9] Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.[7] To begin, PNN isn't even close to being a reliable source, but because few have been reported, I'm willing to let it slide until another more reliable reference can be obtained. Second, PNN is not a base for Palestinian Medical Sources, nor are these sources cited in the article. The statement isn't even exaggeration, it is simply false. To be perfectly honest, however, the article would be better off without the citation at all. The number cited by PNN could be as high as 10,000 and it still doesn't merit any weight, for their reporting is highly unregulated or recognized by any remotely professional media entity. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm calm, Cerejota. I was cordial and plight, but dealing with you is beyond unbearable. You come in and offer your one sentence reduction, or write some thousand paragraph defense that is nothing less than fallacies proving fallacies, and to top it all off, you tell people to calm down when they call you on it. Please, for the sake of this article, take a break. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Ok, let's quote WP: RS - Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
So, you think PNN is a credible third party source, with a reliable publication process? Ok, straight from their website: PNN endorses the idea of supporting and strengthening the role of the local Palestinian media through unifying news sources and publishing news bulletins simultaneously to a number of radio stations in the West Bank and Gaza. And lastly: We strive to empower the Palestinian people and their cause, particularly that of nonviolent resistance to occupation.
On their very own website, they admit their lack of objectivity and complete loyalty to one side of the spectrum. So, before you start whipping out rules, why don't you read them yourself. I'm done. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Better than a Thanks! after every post. Thanks! Thanks!
Wikifan12345 (
talk)
02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I added the tag in light of the recent discussions involving the title, important passages, and various controversial elements of the article. Until those are revolved, I think it's important we warn the reader that there is a strong will to improve the article but several critical points aren't fully cleared. Therefore, a neutrality tag is necessary. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The source is this, [1], the title does say "Most Hamas bases destroyed in 4 minutes" but it is not elaborated in the article (e.g. who says that, what is the definition of "most") JVent ( talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is the second intifada template included in this article? Does anyone have a reliable source claiming this is part of the second intifada? Yesterday, hamas leaders stated that this operation might lead to a third intifada. Liransh Talk 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
"In June 2008, a six-month Egyptian brokered cease-fire agreement was signed between Hamas and Israel[14], Hamas kept firing moderately and Israel reacted with an economic blockade, leading to a shortage of gas, electricity, water, and medicines, among other goods."
I'm editing this due its bias - the economic blockade has been ongoing since January 2007, and was the result of Hamas' election and not their firing. There is no reference for Hamas "firing moederately", and it is worded in a biased manner.
I think the entire section needs to be worked on to be more reflective of the actual background, and to reflect both the Israeli blockade and its effects as well as the firing by Hamas of rockets. Amjra 12:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked up some citations of number of rockets fired between 19 Dec 2008 termination of truce and 27 Dec 2008 commencement of military action. (truce: 19 June 2008 truce, not sure of name) This particular time frame interests me because it falls between the termination of a truce and the commencement of a military action. The BBC counted "more than 50." The Christian Science Monitor reported that "hundreds of rockets" followed the expiration of the truce. Doing some math at the Globalsecurity.org site gave me 240 rockets fired since 19 December (300 total, 40 on Sunday 28 December). I learned during the Mumbai attacks that the BBC tends to be conservative in its descriptions of unfolding events due to the preference to have multiple sources for its reports. This might explain their small numer. Below is information about these articles.
Israeli strike kills Hamas member http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7798685.stm 25 December 2008
Gaza: Why Israel and Hamas are trading rocket fire http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1229/p01s03-wome.html By Joshua Mitnick December 29, 2008
HAMAS Rockets http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm PinkWorld ( talk) 01:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
With this reaction, do you think it is appropriate to move this sentence further up the article?
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei issued a religious decree to Muslims around the world on December 28 , ordering them to defend Palestinians in Gaza against Israeli attacks "in any way possible"
doktorb words deeds 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two conflicting reasons for the reopening of the crossing given in the article. The first is that it was in response to international pressure; the second is that it was a deceptive act taken to reassure Hamas. Do we have a conclusive source one way or the other? topynate ( talk) 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
On the page Background section it's said: "On 26 December 2008, in an apparent concession, Israel reopened five crossings between Israel and Gaza".
On the planning section, it's said: "Several actions were taken purposefully to deceive Hamas, including the reopening of border crossings"
On Haaretz, it's [ said]: "In parallel, Israel continued to send out disinformation in announcing it would open the crossings to the Gaza Strip and that Olmert would decide whether to launch the strike following three more deliberations on Sunday - one day after the actual order to launch the operation was issued.
We should have a single opinion on this. Ideas? Darwish07 ( talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What are the same sources that said it was an humanitarian nature at the time saying now about this topic? There shouldn't be a lot of controversy around this, the IDF has clearly stated it was a deceptive move intended to lower the guard of the opponents, but we shouldn't contradict sources without looking at what they are saying now. If we do not find it, a "Sources said X before now, but it is now known that this was part of a deception strategy". Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Any idea on where this should be mentioned? Perhaps a "casualties" section would be appropriate at this point? 24.81.65.229 ( talk) 16:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The source article:
The "Hamas" casualties included many who did not share Hamas' core belief but were those desperate for work:
Hamas's goals with regards to the ceasefire:
Both of these key facts should be added to the article. The New York Times is a very reliable source with the two reporters who wrote this story operating both Gaza and Israel. -- John Bahrain ( talk) 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
â | Verifiability, not truth | â |
ââ Wikipedia:Verifiability |
Neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources are the combined matrix from which all content should come in English Wikipedia. These policies are not negotiable, and all content must conform to them.
As quoted, the key point is that we are not seeking the truth as seen by any of us, but that the information is a verified fact or opinion. A fact in Wikipedia is anything published in a reliable source that is a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.. An opinion is what is subject to controversy, but there are facts about opinions. And we must present these verified facts in a neutral fashion, further more, we are required to assert facts, including facts about opinionsâbut do not assert the opinions themselves. The policies couldn't be more clear.
This verifiability is a changing value depending on the amount of controversy and disagreement. So for example, less verifiability is needed in order to say that "the sky is blue", that what would be needed to explain the process that makes the sky blue. No one denies that the sky is mostly blue (except for clouds) during daylight hours, but there might be disagreement on what the process is. Hence, less or more verifiability.
There seems to be a misconception around reliable sources: they are not required to be neutral.
A reliable source can be partisan and non-neutral. What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source. The more controversy around a topic, the more need for verifiability. Hence, there needs to be more sources and more variety of POV in sources.
The ones required to be neutral in the presentation of sources are us.
Also, please keep in mind that reliable sources are classified in primary, secondary, and tertiary. In general secondary sources are better, but primary sources can be used to provide verifiability to known facts.
Primary sources should never be used if they contain opinion, except as quotes to verify the facts of the opinion. So even closely linked to the belligerents are to be allowed (such as partisan media, like the Jerusalem Post or the Palestinian News Network) but they must be verified by other sources more distant from the conflict, or be quoted, rather than cited. There is no doubt they are reliable sources: in a discussion of atheism, what the Catholic News Service has to say is an important source in order to provide balance and neutrality - so is the PNN in this case. However, we must not give undue weight, in particular if the information doesn't verify.
The insistence of some of using only one source or one group of partisan sources to provide information in the encyclopedic voice is in total violation of policy. If there is controversy, is unacceptable to allow non-neutral text to remain as a fact, rather than a fact about opinion. Likewise, just because one source is not-neutral, it doesn't automatically make it unreliable: a good faith effort to find verifiability in other sources must be done. If this effort fails, mentioning the information from all sources, using due-weight criteria, mentioning is the best way to ensure neutrality. Removal of reliable sources is discouraged, more sourcing is better sourcing.
We have to speak for the other side. Period. Not negotiable. If you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia.
An argument has been made regarding Wikipedia not being "news". This is true, but in the context used, it is a total fallacy and editors are advised to stop using it in good faith. Since this is a current event, there will not be any tertiary sources (like encyclopedias) or secondary sources (there are no books or academic papers) other than news and primary sources. So in "current event" and "recent events" we MUST be necessity be guided by what news organizations are saying, because they are the only ones providing verifiability.
In fact WP:NOT#JOURNALISM is not about not using news sources, but about making Wikipedia a news source itself. It has nothign to do with sourcing, but with no original research. This argument is fallacious and disruptive, and continued use will be considered WP:POINT.
To the partisans, I remind you that this is not a soapbox. Article quality would be better served if we refrain from emitting opinions in support of, or against any of the sides of the matter. We would also move forward better if we do not appeal to motive: most of us already know where we all stand on this conflict, there is no need to remind each other. If you are going to dispute the reliability of a source, do so using the guidelines in WP:RS, not your personal opinion of a given source: blogs are out, professional organizations are in, what a government says of itself is primary sourcing etc, etc. If you think X source is a rabid nest of thieves, that might be true, but its irrelevant. Kindly keep it to yourself, or open a blog somewhere else in which to emit your opinions.
This is a good faith effort to try to bring clarity. Some of the arguments here have been pretty creative interpretations of policy, and some of the editing has been done in total disregard of policy, and some cases, common sense and decency. Don't. This not another battlefield in your battles, this is an encyclopedia done by geeks. Who for the most part don't care about your beliefs, just want facts. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 19:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Could we get people to at least agree with automatic archiving of discussions via bot?
Its already getting a bit long, and bots are smart enough not to archive ongoing discussions. They also are less error prone than archiving by hand.
Please opine so we can set it up. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source to backup the idea that the conflict started on December 27 and hence casualties immediately preceding that date due to Hamas rockets won't be included in the death toll statistics? The ceasefire did run out on December 19 so why wouldn't that be a more suitable date given that the rocket attacks started increasing at that date? 118.208.59.98 ( talk) 20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Reverting John Bahrain's POV deletion of official Popular Resistance Committees (notable group) spokesperson statement prior to the end of the ceasefire as this is relevant to the context. Stated reason for deletion was "remove quote from a nobody" when a cursory examination of previous news stories indicates otherwise over an extended period of time and the actions and words of Hamas-allied militia /are/ a key "casus belli" leading to this event. Stating that only a quote from a "more prominent, influential leader" is acceptable is misleading non-NPOV in this case since presumably that means anything other than an "official" Hamas statement will be deleted. Regards, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What is a militant group? Hamas is defined as a " militant group" at the beginning of the article, yet this term is not defined in Wikipedia. John Hyams ( talk) 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, WP:TERRORIST. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me like somebody is trying to put a spin on things by stating that there are "29+ civilians" dead among the 287 on the basis of an ABC article stating that among those dead, at least 20 were children and 9 were women. That is quite biased, and should be changed ASAP, as while it is not technically incorrect, it is very misleading.
Also, it needs to be reflected in the article that quite a few of those killed were working in the Hamas government as civilians, carrying out normal jobs that involved no militant action because Hamas is essentially the government of Gaza. These people are no different to any public employees in any other country, especially considering the massive unemployment in the Gaza Strip. Amjra 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean you can't compare Western civil servants with Hamas civil servants? The majority of the Gaza Strip, as I mentioned, is unemployed, and there are many jobs a government provides, no matter what its nature is, that are of a civilian nature and are related to the day to day running of the Strip. People desperate for work will take up these jobs regardless of the employer, because their main concern is feeding their family.
I am not saying this to have a political debate, I am saying this because it is something that is very relevant to the casualty figure, and because there is no mention of it anywhere in the article. I agree with Boud, we need reliable sources to reflect this, and with Mostlyharmless in that it needs to be described. I am not suggesting we include a detailed causality figure reflecting this, because that would be impossible, simply a section which reflects the nature of the casualties and why the numbers may not tell the full story would do. Amjra 09:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
How many times does the name of the operation need to be explained in the article? Currently I count three times... In the the first paragraph, The December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: ××׌ע ע×פרת ×׌×ק×â) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), after a line in a children's song for Hanukkah, in the background section, Launched during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, the operation was codenamed after a Hanukkah poem by Haim Nachman Bialik referring to a "dreidel cast from solid lead" and in a section all of it's own Name of the operation. Wouldn't once be enough? -- Xagent86 ( Talk | contribs) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Dudes, while discussion is always welcome, patently and uncontroversially unneutral material can be removed without discussion. Its the tasty bits of bias that should be discussed. If we were to discuss every reversion this would never end. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Or would that be too simple? OperationOverlord ( talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No, see title discussion. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see there is a dizzying "discussion" going on up there, about whether to call it a Genocide, a Massacre, an Operation, an Aistrike, a Bombing, about the date. It seems anything but the simplest, economical label will do. Other people have done it, but I think in some Wikipedian's hands "World War Two" would become the "1939-1945 Airstrikes and Ground Operations Against Germany and Japan."
When is a war not a war? When its a Wikipedia article. Still, I expect things will become a lot clearer when ground troops move in in the coming days. OperationOverlord ( talk) 07:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Does the fact that one side is "winning" mean it isn't a war? Does war means only balanced two-way battle? As long as fire is being shot in both directions, it is a war.-- Omrim ( talk) 18:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have created a new redirect - "2008 Gaza War" which leads to this page. Let's see how it flies. OperationOverlord ( talk) 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Undertaken as a retaliation against frequent Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities and civilians, the attacks which have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians because of a single dead Israeli have attracted both support[25] and criticism.
That statement is incorrect. Part of the intro says only 21 confirmed civilians have been killed, but this says hundreds. I already corrected one weasel statement which said the majority of casualties were civilians, which just wasn't true. I'm afraid to change it because I know the second I do some fanatic is going to reverse it. Thought I'd post it here for reference and discussion.
Also, do you think this article needs a temporary lock?
Wikifan12345 (
talk)
05:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
As 1 Egyptian border guard is killed by Palestinians, should we add Egypt to list of belligerents?-- Kavas ( talk) 10:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Its a biased and irrelevant rhetoric to say what Israel "planned" and for how long, especially not mentioning what Hamas planned (its a small wonder why, as the Hamas plans were probably much more malevolent, primarily targeting civilians, and therefore this writer elegantly omits discussion of them, as if only Israel can plan and Hamas just goes day by day). Either you omit what the sides "planned" or you say what both planned. Find some other way of siding with Hamas, this one is too transparent. What each side does is the important thing. Wikipedia is about facts, not about musings, intentions and telepathy. Honestreporting2 ( talk) 11:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English TV is reporting that 345 have been killed and 1450 have been injured. I can't find an online source, can someone help look please so we can update the article accordingly. Cheers Ijanderson ( talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly are the belligerents only listed as Hamas? My feeling it should follow the way of 2nd Intifida with the first line showing the Palestinian people, followed by the militant groups involved, like Hamas and IJ. It seems to me a pro-Israel POV, in fact not just pro-Israel but the Israeli POV, to declare that this attack is only against Hamas. Nableezy ( talk) 15:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat.
Have reverted the unilateral addition of the Palestinian People for now pending the outcome of discussion as this is not a "small matter". Regards, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that under international law, policemen are considered to be civilians if they as individuals do not take part in any hostilities.
Here is an article that discusses the fact that Policement are considered civilians:
I point this out because the NYTimes reported that many of the policement were young men tempted by steady work:
The two sides of this issue (i.e. whether policemen are considered civilians or not) should be added to the article.
-- John Bahrain ( talk) 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is coverage of this issue in the Guardian:
The two sides of this issue clearly need to be added to the article. -- John Bahrain ( talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that a good number of news agencies update their articles without without updating their link. A number of facts get removed by that act, leading to a lot of unreliable references. Please archive the unstable news articles on Webcite before referencing them. Thanks! -- Darwish07 ( talk) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The "Suggested Other Motivations" near the end reads like it was written by a high school student. It already has a "refimprove" tag, along with lots of spelling errors, lack of punctuation, questionable use of adjectives and hyperbole, and a complete lack of NPOV. Given that this is for a current event, this must be fixed very soon, or it will be removed. pjh3000 ( talk) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments and sources:
Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 17:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
omedia.co.il is an inevitably speculative/POV source and not worth being included in this wikipedia article. -- Severino ( talk) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
your pov. -- Severino ( talk) 08:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
BBC on motives (source: [7]):
Reuters on motives (source [8]):
Guardian on motives (source [9]):
Hope that helps beef up the references. -- John Bahrain ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hamas activist are saying that Israeli forces are attacking the palestanian people living in Gaza Strip, on the other hand Israeli officeials are saying we are attacking Hamas activist. However, the belligerents were identified to be Hamas and IDF? is this neutral? to take what Israeli officials are saying and disregard what is mentioned from Hamas? I think this needs to be changed, unless I am missing something. Yamanam ( talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. Hamas hides themselves in civilian buildings and lobs rockets from hospitals and schools, deliberately trying to use civilians as human shields. Is it any surprise they'd lie about what was going on too?
I agree with SoWhy's decision to semi-protect this; someone was making edits that greatly compromised the neutrality of this article, and in my opinion people will continue to do so. Qoou.Anonimu ( talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The article currently has the construction worker as an Israeli-Arab. Reports are that he was Bedouin. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050925.html). Can't change it myself, given the lock-down. EliezerIsrael ( talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
Colombo Man ( talk) 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Long story short - I ask that we avoid quotes as much as possible. They usually add little to the reader's understanding, biasing him towards some viewpoint ("Oh, X said this and that"). The reader should reach his own conclusions, based on the facts we present. People's opinions, unless they are in a position of power (like a US president) are usually of little significance. Especially I ask not to include any quotes in the already very long background section, where they are wholly unnecessary. Thoughts? okedem ( talk) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Citation for "On 23 December 2008, the IDF killed three Palestinian militants who were planting explosives on the Gaza border."
3 Gaza militants killed in clash on Israeli border
Also mentioned in Reuters article:
Flare-up dims truce hopes along Israel-Gaza border
Information detailing the airstrikes is sinking in the article as more background and other support information is added at the top. The article should cover the airstrikes themselves before justifications, reactions, or background. I've tried to fix this a bit. RomaC ( talk) 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not all UK and EU Policiticans are attempting to keep a foot in both camps.
SOURCE http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7802733.stm is as follows...
"For the Conservatives, William Hague warned there was little leverage Britain could exert over the immediate situation in Gaza.
He told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "It is quite right for the UN Security Council to call for a ceasefire and an end to hostilities and we should all support that, but that does of course require both sides to cease hostilities.
"The evident reason for Israel's onslaught on Gaza in recent days has been the very large number of rocket attacks launched by Hamas into Israeli territory. That's a difficult thing to resolve."
But Ed Davey, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "The Israeli reaction is utterly disproportionate.
"From the standpoint of ordinary people in Gaza this is a full-scale attack, which is leaving women and children dead and thousands of innocent people suffering. "
"The rocket attacks by Hamas are totally unacceptable, but Israel ought to have learnt from its attack on Lebanon which only served to strengthen the cause of extremism." âPreceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.119.220 ( talk) 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Are they public domain? Please no opinions, just the facts. Remember we must be GFDL compatible. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The casualties section in the information box is incorrect. Israeli fatalities include one soldier, not 4 civilians as currently. Source:
[12] The source currently used says only 4 deaths, without elaborating whether they are civilians or soldiers.
JVent (
talk)
04:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please revert edit by Jaakobou, POV pushing. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.89.181 ( talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This page was looking a little sparse as far as pictures are concerned so I was going through the other language versions of this page and found the following picture which I was only able to find on the farsi and arabic pages. [13], [14] I also consider the picture to be mislabeled as far as NPOV is concerned. Thoughts? Comments? -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 06:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering about pictures from official Hamas and IDF websites. I do know that IDF pictures are copyrighted, but is it possible that using very specific pictures to demonstrate something related to the article, for example, can be considered as Fair Use? I mean, unless there's a comment under the picture "(c) Reuters" and etc., like most News sites have it... --- Boris "NomĂŚd" AranoviÄ ( talk) 09:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The initiator of the previous move discussion, while in good faith, certainly used a non-standard format that has led to a convoluted, disorganized process. I think I have fixed this, as there is a generalized sense of urgency because of the naval operations. Keep it mind, that even if we change now, if the past is any lesson, there is a ground component, a different name might emerge. I have used what I feel are the two major lines of thought. Please move forward. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am saying this as a man that in Israel and know what really happen here.
See and participate Talk:December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes#Requested_move. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
i've started off the section on public relations campaigns with info from a Haaretz article on the Israeli govt PR campaign. i've added a {{Missing information}} tag warning about the need to get info about any similar campaign by the Hamas de facto govt of Gaza Strip. i would imagine that because the latter do not have a massive international network of embassies/consulates, they cannot carry out a campaign using anything like the same techniques with any chance of efficiency - i.e. they cannot get their ambassadors etc. to put pressure on local media groups around the world and on national politicians around the world. However, what i imagine is not an NPOV fact. Anyone with a non-original-research, referenced idea for what we can put here to balance the section?
Just to clarify the tag: IMHO we certainly should include info about either the Gaza Strip de facto government's public relations campaign (whatever that is) or the lack of such a campaign if it is documented to be absent. i don't (presently) know which is closer to the wikipedia (NPOV) version of truth. Boud ( talk) 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The quotes in the last two paragraphs in the "public relations" section are too excessive. They do not help in any further understanding of the war and are biased by the nature of their speakers. Deleted till further discussion. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The links are an integral part of the background to the Israeli PR campaign. Without them it reads like a propaganda campaign by Israel. Wikieditorpro ( talk) 23:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"The massive offensive is in retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities"
This is what is said by the Isreali officials, it should not be considered as a fact and treated the way we treat the description of what is happening in the strip, I'll add, Israeli officials are justifying this massive offensive as a retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities âPreceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam ( talk ⢠contribs) 06:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The following two news snippets might add details to the article. I do not want to add them myself for fear of making some stupidly huge mistake. I hardly know anything about adding material to Wikipedia articles with the referencing, and this is no place to experiment, Sandbox or no.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asat10j06fLdzogLL4jbmSKs0NUE By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer 28 Dec 2008 The Israeli army says Palestinian militants have fired some 300 rockets and mortars at Israeli targets over the past week, and 10 times that number over the past year. ... A second wave was directed at squads who fired more than 110 rockets and mortars at Israeli border communities.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081224/wl_afp/mideastconflictgaza_081224215711 by Sakher Abu El Oun Sakher Abu El Oun (AFP) Wed 24 Dec 2008 "Hamas gunmen launched more than 70 projectiles, the largest barrage since before an Egyptian-brokered truce went into effect in and around Gaza in June but expired five days ago. ... Hamas...said Wednesday's rocket fire was in retaliation for the killing of three militants the day before..."
I included the second because it quotes Hamas's reason for launching rockets in the days after the termination of the 19 June 2008 truce - a potentially useful detail for this article. PinkWorld ( talk) 07:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
Sources mostly say this is the case, and we have List of Qassam rocket attacks, no need to reference blogs which are not reliable sources. If there is a blog with links to news sources, use it as research tool for the sources, we cannot reference directly, nor use its synthesis. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Given that we mention the six months prior planning of the attacks in the text, the summary needs to at least state this briefly, which i've done. Boud ( talk) 01:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that the above-referenced List of Qassam rocket attacks refers to List of Qassam rocket attacks in Israel in 2008. Once the facts settle down, the latter article will need to be updated with the totals for the current conflict. â Wdfarmer ( talk) 23:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"The massive offensive is in retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities."
"Israel began targeting dozens of buildings belonging to the ruling Hamas militant group."
I think the bolded terms need to be reworded, removed, or preferably quantified. The sources do none of these, so perhaps a rewording is in order. Alternately, they could just be quoted. The same basic facts are used elsewhere in the article with different sources without the unquantified portion.
Jokeyxero ( talk) 07:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
israeli newspapers are definitely NOT reliable and neutral sources. (except maybe for the football results of their league).-- Severino ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
"world class newspaper", "fair in reporting" and so forth are opinions and not really provable. generally, there should be mistrust towards israeli sources, not at least because of the interweavement of the civil society (including the media) and the military in this country. (see also the call up for resevists which affects a very big part of the israeli society).-- Severino ( talk) 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I am extremely unhappy at the tone of the introduction. It is grossly lopsided and tends toward the triumphal. Official Israeli sources (excluding Ha'aretz) are used 5 times, the UN (who are actually present in Gaza) once, Ha'aretz (quoting Khaled Meshal) once. There is NOT ONE SINGLE local Palestinian source quoted.
".. as a retaliation against frequent Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities." is a justification and should be omitted. HAMAS stated explicitly that it was not extending the cease fire because of the continuing Gaza blockade. The factual statement of the attack should stand on its own, or be expanded. There are indications from Israeli officials that one of the principle purposes of the raids is to re-establish Israelâs 'military' credibility after the Lebanon operation was widely regarded as a failure. This makes the justifying clause even more contentious, especially if Cast Lead has been in planning for six months, i.e. about the time cease fire started!
Quoting the IAF "an estimated 95 percent reaching their targets" is a vague assertion from a dubious source. In the absence of proper independent reports the IAF quote should at least be balanced by some local source.
âThe attacks have attracted both support and criticism.â This is factually accurate, but misleading. The Chinese occupation of Tibet attracts both support and criticism. Almost every reaction calls for an end to violence. The overwhelming majority support Israelâs right of self defence, but critisize the scale of the attacks, and the (Palestinian) rocketing. A few express outright condemnation of the attacks. The implication of parity is misleading. It would be acurate to say "Most 3rd countries are both supportive and critical of the attacks." This conveys the schizophrenia of the international community over the issue, whereas the existing quote obscures it.
MIND BOGGLING!!!
I have just looked at the boxed section on the right. It may be Israelâs official view that this is an attack on HAMAS. I am absolutely certain that that is not a view shared by the overwhelming majority of Gazans. The Belligerents are Israel and GAZA, or alternatively the belligerents are IDF/IAF/Israeli governing coalition and HAMAS/IJ etc.. I cannot recall reading any other Wiki 'battle' entry where the belligerents of an inter state conflict are listed as a state versus thier opponents governing party.
--
Milezmilez (
talk)
04:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Islamic University of Gaza does not say anything about that university being "a cultural symbol of Hamas", so i put that as a claim by the BBC. If someone has reliable, external evidence for the university's symbolism, please add that to Islamic University of Gaza, since it would seem to be relevant to me. Probably the quotes around "evacuated in advance" are not needed, though i was unsure what would be NPOV for that bit. Boud ( talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)