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. |
ArchiveĀ 1 | ā | ArchiveĀ 3 | ArchiveĀ 4 | ArchiveĀ 5 | ArchiveĀ 6 | ArchiveĀ 7 | ā | ArchiveĀ 10 |
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}} citation needed tag. That is the {{ dubious}} dubious ā discuss 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:
ā | Pie are the best desert. dubious ā discuss | ā |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
TO DO:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Intro is becoming non-neutral and POV again:
Boud ( talk) 05:25, 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)
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)
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
ā | The 2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza 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: ××צע ×¢×פ×Ø×Ŗ ×צ×ק×, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the
Gaza Strip, after planning the operation for over six months.
[1] On 27 December 2008, (11:30 am local time (9:30 am UTC))
[2] Israeli airstrikes hit various high-profile military and security targets and others suspected to be related to the Hamas government.
[3]
[4]
[5] Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily
Palestinian
rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities.
[6] 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".
[7] The strikes have resulted in significant civilian casualties in Gaza.
[8]
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. [9] [10] 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. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 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. [17] [18] [19] [20] 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 (25Ā mi) from the Gaza border. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure, including an empty school. [21] [22] [23] [24] The IDF started massing infantry and armor units near the Gaza border and engaged in an active blockade of Gaza. [25] On January 3rd, a ground invasion began, with mechanized infrantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza. [26] [27] 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. [28] [29] [30] 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. [28] [31] [32] 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. [33] [34] |
ā |
NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, SEE HISTORY TO SEE THE ORIGINAL
A few comments:
(Response below is for okedem, due to edit conflict)
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)
Someone please add this: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/02/bush.gaza/index.html?iref=topnews āPreceding 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)
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.
<gallery> </gallery>
See the above wikicode for galleries. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:09, 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)
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 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)
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§ion_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)
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)
Fellow editors,
When new sources, please:
Thanks, okedem ( talk) 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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.ā Haaretz Editorial , āDefine the objectives in Gaza 28/12/2008 Nishidani ( talk) 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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]
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]
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)
http://kuruc.info/r/2/32802/ there was a protest in Budapest. 78.92.64.1 ( talk) 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
How come there are references to protests Against the Israeli operation, but non who support Israel? -NomƦd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 16:28, 3 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)
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)
DONE - moved to [ [8]] and left a summary. -- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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 āPreceding 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 āPreceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.203.224 ( talk) 16:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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 āPreceding unsigned comment added by Darwhi ( talk ā¢ contribs) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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? āPreceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.6.6 ( talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please could some one add link to the Arabic Wikipedia
ar:Ł Ų¬Ų²Ų±Ų© ŲŗŲ²Ų© ŲÆŁŲ³Ł ŲØŲ± 2008 ReadsĀ : "Gaza massacre (December 2008)"
-- 78.150.203.224 ( talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Arabic link is at the top of the link list, which see>-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Right now. Guy0307 ( talk) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
CNN reports also [35]-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 18:42, 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. -NomƦd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For: hr:Sukob Gaza-Izrael 2008.-2009. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.60.245 ( talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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:
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."
-- John Bahrain ( talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
The lead sentence is genuinely bizarre:
2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza 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: ××צע ×¢×פ×Ø×Ŗ ×צ×ק×ā, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip.
This is pure original research. We are absolutely alone in calling this the"2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza 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)
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.
[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)
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)
Regarding my prediction above, here are the headlines+leads from today's New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal:
"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)
Ground troops are entering Gaza strip as January 03, 2009, 1 PM. EST. [36] Please update article. Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Search for free images from multiple sources:
On the search form put checkmarks in front of these:
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,
and categorize them under
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Another one, which can convey a subtle allegation, as in "they said it's due to security reasons, but really it isn't":
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)
Haaretz1050426
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
aljazeera_mosque_tv
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
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. |
ArchiveĀ 1 | ā | ArchiveĀ 3 | ArchiveĀ 4 | ArchiveĀ 5 | ArchiveĀ 6 | ArchiveĀ 7 | ā | ArchiveĀ 10 |
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}} citation needed tag. That is the {{ dubious}} dubious ā discuss 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:
ā | Pie are the best desert. dubious ā discuss | ā |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
TO DO:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Intro is becoming non-neutral and POV again:
Boud ( talk) 05:25, 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)
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)
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
ā | The 2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza 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: ××צע ×¢×פ×Ø×Ŗ ×צ×ק×, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the
Gaza Strip, after planning the operation for over six months.
[1] On 27 December 2008, (11:30 am local time (9:30 am UTC))
[2] Israeli airstrikes hit various high-profile military and security targets and others suspected to be related to the Hamas government.
[3]
[4]
[5] Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily
Palestinian
rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities.
[6] 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".
[7] The strikes have resulted in significant civilian casualties in Gaza.
[8]
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. [9] [10] 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. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 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. [17] [18] [19] [20] 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 (25Ā mi) from the Gaza border. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure, including an empty school. [21] [22] [23] [24] The IDF started massing infantry and armor units near the Gaza border and engaged in an active blockade of Gaza. [25] On January 3rd, a ground invasion began, with mechanized infrantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza. [26] [27] 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. [28] [29] [30] 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. [28] [31] [32] 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. [33] [34] |
ā |
NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, SEE HISTORY TO SEE THE ORIGINAL
A few comments:
(Response below is for okedem, due to edit conflict)
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)
Someone please add this: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/02/bush.gaza/index.html?iref=topnews āPreceding 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)
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.
<gallery> </gallery>
See the above wikicode for galleries. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:09, 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)
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 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)
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§ion_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)
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)
Fellow editors,
When new sources, please:
Thanks, okedem ( talk) 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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.ā Haaretz Editorial , āDefine the objectives in Gaza 28/12/2008 Nishidani ( talk) 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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]
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]
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)
http://kuruc.info/r/2/32802/ there was a protest in Budapest. 78.92.64.1 ( talk) 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
How come there are references to protests Against the Israeli operation, but non who support Israel? -NomƦd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 16:28, 3 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)
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)
DONE - moved to [ [8]] and left a summary. -- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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 āPreceding 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 āPreceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.203.224 ( talk) 16:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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 āPreceding unsigned comment added by Darwhi ( talk ā¢ contribs) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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? āPreceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.6.6 ( talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please could some one add link to the Arabic Wikipedia
ar:Ł Ų¬Ų²Ų±Ų© ŲŗŲ²Ų© ŲÆŁŲ³Ł ŲØŲ± 2008 ReadsĀ : "Gaza massacre (December 2008)"
-- 78.150.203.224 ( talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Arabic link is at the top of the link list, which see>-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Right now. Guy0307 ( talk) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
CNN reports also [35]-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 18:42, 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. -NomƦd (Boris A.) ( user, talk, contribs) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For: hr:Sukob Gaza-Izrael 2008.-2009. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.60.245 ( talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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:
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."
-- John Bahrain ( talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
The lead sentence is genuinely bizarre:
2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza 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: ××צע ×¢×פ×Ø×Ŗ ×צ×ק×ā, Mivtza Oferet Yetzukah), against targets in the Gaza Strip.
This is pure original research. We are absolutely alone in calling this the"2008ā2009 IsraelāGaza 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)
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.
[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)
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)
Regarding my prediction above, here are the headlines+leads from today's New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal:
"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)
Ground troops are entering Gaza strip as January 03, 2009, 1 PM. EST. [36] Please update article. Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Search for free images from multiple sources:
On the search form put checkmarks in front of these:
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,
and categorize them under
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Another one, which can convey a subtle allegation, as in "they said it's due to security reasons, but really it isn't":
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)
Haaretz1050426
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
aljazeera_mosque_tv
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)