![]() | 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 5 | â | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | â | Archive 15 |
"Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons." - Associated Press Dec. 27
CNN is a reliable source (though i have a feeling there is something off about that article). On the other hand, to exclude other information from other sources is simply irresponsible and wrong.
The CNN article referred to has faults of its own but those most probably should not be addressed here.
This section in the article lists a number of critics of Israel. Fair enough. But why is the list of supporters of Israel hidden in between two negative sentences and a final negative one? Should not get its own paragraph where people will not miss it? Why are there a number of anti-israel quotes and yet the statements of leaders such as the President of the United States or the President-Elect ("If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," Obama said at the time. "And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." -- [1]) not recorded? Or Secretary of State? ("We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence there" [2])
There are arguments that Israel is committing war crimes? Fine, be balanced and state them but keep them in the section on Israeli Violations. These are the first two paragraphs of the section on Palistinian violations:
The UNHRC statement by Falk also noted: "Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response."[257]
In 2007 exiled Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal, a leader of the terrorist Hamas group called recent rockets attacks on Israel "self defense."[264] In a 2007 report on âIndiscriminate Fireâ by both sides in the conflict Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas leaders âargue that rocket attacks on Israel are the only way to counter Israel's policies and operations, including artillery strikes.â[265]
These are paragraphs that more strongly argue that Israel is the aggressor. These paragraphs belong elsewhere. The author lessons the importance of the arguments made against Palistinian forces by inserting unrelated information in that section.
...and maybe move your comments up there for clarity. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for ideological battles to be fought on who is right and who is wrong. But it is a place where people expect to be given real information and all the information. It is a place where people expect to be given both sides of the argument. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for ideological battles to be fought on who is right and who is wrong but the problem is that the author of this article does not.
11aa11aa ( talk) 07:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 11aa11aa
israel has a right to exist because the un decided to create it. the "well established historical/archaeological facts that are also being described in a religious context in the ancient bible book" that you refer to compare nicely with the rock painting example. until israel stops declaring itself chosen by god and therefore entitled to whatever land it desires these issues will continue to offend secular types who try to respect other cultures. if jewish people hold that belief that's fine, i think lots of religious ideas are silly, but it won't be accepted by the international community as a legal basis for the claims. Untwirl ( talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
this is extremely off content - i wasn't stating my opinion above - simply stating what the international community does and does not recognize for our purposes in the article. i don't think this is a good forum for the direction this discussion is taking. let's discuss specific facts pertaining to this article. Untwirl ( talk) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"The Holy Land has only known peace at the point of a foreign sword"...Winston Churchill
"Only the Romans and the Ottomans have ever been able to keep peace in the Holy Land, because they did what they wanted and needed to do, and they cared not about public opinion." Winston Churchill - both added by-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" ,"And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg."..."Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this." Quotes from the Life of Brian-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Up till 1948 wasn't everybody there in the Holy Land there by Right by Conquest? Historically speaking didn't the Hebrews, Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans et al, get there by invading the place under some pretext or other?-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
At least two as instructed by their own deity? I.E. Hebrews and Arabs-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This sidebar has nothing to do with Zionism, only with Israel's de facto existence as a country.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
And, just to throw gas on the fire:
1, Continuous Jewish residence/occupation since time of Joshua
2, Balfour Declaration of 1917
3, League of Nations Mandate which incorporated the Balfour Declaration
4, UN partition Resolution of 1947
5, Israel admitted into UN in 1949,
6, Diplomatic recognition by many countries.
Plus wars of defense against an enemy who massively outnumbered them on several occasions, 48, 56, 67, 73, 82, and all the small things like the Water War etc.
-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the "Israel's Attack on Gaza Strip - The reason" external link. I'm not sure what other peoples thoughts are on whether it should be removed or not. It qualifies as propaganda I suppose but at least it does graphically show what is happening....on one side...which is a start. Having said that, I haven't looked at the Palestinian link to see whether that's meant to balance it in detail although the first thing I saw was 'A satanic, genocidal Israel'..charming. I couldn't see a discussion the links (..maybe archived) hence this note. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The infobox sources the UN as saying the "25%" of the casualties in Gaza are civilians... which doesn't make sense, because as the total grows, that 25% number grows at different rate than the actual civilian death toll. Someone needs to check the grand total when that report was released and take 25% of that number... or just keep updating it with the real number from the UN. Percentages only work once the conflict is over. Jeztah ( talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
According to BBC [3], It is not clear who fired the rockets, and no-one has yet said they did it. BBC says in another article [4] that Most analysts have concluded it is unlikely to be Hezbollah - despite recent fiery rhetoric from the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah about the possibility of renewed conflict with Israel. According to New York times [5], Hezbollah hasn't accepted the responsibility yet.-- Seyyed( t- c) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
is that original research or a sourced statement? if "nothing happens in South Lebanon without Hizbollah's permission" is what the media says, please provide a source, otherwise it is simply your opinion and shouldn/t be used to determine what to include in the article. Untwirl ( talk) 14:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The intro now has an extensive quote from Ehud Olmert's interview to Al-Arabiya. While this may merit a mention later in the article, it definitely does not mention 7 lines in the introduction. The introduction should briefly review the most important facts. Neither this nor other statements by Hamas leaders or Israeli leaders qualify here.
Jacob2718 (
talk) 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:I can't see why not. It does not link to propoganda video "explaining facts". I simply links to a video in which a man is saying something, and we quote the man's sayings. What is to be miss represented here?--
Omrim (
talk)
17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
this edit
"Fathi Hamad a Hamas representative in the PA legislative council, takes pride on Palestinian TV in the fact that women and children are used as human shield in fighting Israel. He describes it as part of the "Death Industry" at which they excel, and explains that the Palestinians "desire death" the same way Israelis "desire life". [311]"
links to a youtube video. i don't believe youtube is an acceptable source, esp. for an article as controversial as this one. Untwirl ( talk) 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Shows Hamas in a bad light?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
please assume good faith. i am simply referring to youtube as a source. find one that is reliable and i will strongly support its inclusion.
Untwirl (
talk)
17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
i wasn't worried about misrepresentation, as i said it's just youtube that i was doubting. with a quick glance i didn't see any other youtube links (there may very well be - i wasn't very thorough) i am relatively new here so maybe you can help me understand when youtube is okay. thanks for your patience. Untwirl ( talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
on second look i do see other youtube links. however, they are listed as youtube/(whatever) not the title of the video. also the actual source isn't palestinian news, its palestinian media watch - they translated a 45 sec clip and posted it on youtube. i think we should be consistent and also list the source in the article as the other youtube links do. Untwirl ( talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Under 2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict:1) Background, there seems to be a case of misuse of information. According to Ref. 88, it was quoted "the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival." It is fine to quote this however, I find it terribly misleading to the reader when the next paragraph in the article is left out.
The next paragraph reads "Israeli officials acknowledged that transferring previously banned goods had been the plan, but said that there was no specific date for the increase and that it was to happen in steps. But the rockets never fully stopped."
I think if we are to provide information on an informative site such as Wikipedia, it is only fair that we provide unbiased views on this conflict. There is simply too much information on the article about 1)the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and 2)the border blocks that Israel has enforced. What I find lacking is Israel's explaination for all it has done and that is available in many articles, even the articles that were referenced but were left out for unknown reasons. I also chanced upon another discussion to create a bar chart of the wounded/dead on both Israeli and Palestinian sides. I am not against it, however, to be fair, I request that a similar bar graph be plotted on the number of projectiles fired from both sides. It should also be mentioned that there is a difference in these projectiles. Israeli missiles have guiding systems to hit (near) where they intended to hit. Quassams do not have such systems.span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">âPreceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.92.2 ( talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
can i assume these "projectiles" will include those shot from planes as well? how about guns? (bullets are essentially projectiles). your post seems to be wanting to improve npov, i assume good faith.
Untwirl (
talk)
15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the best way might be to count the number of reports involing explosive projectiles. These should be rockets, missles, rockets, mortars and artillery shelling. I recommend that the chart be split into two categories though, During War and Non-War time. War should probably refer to this current war, because reports are still fresh and information found on multiple sources are more trustworthy. And yes, I am doing this in good faith. I feel this chart is important, because it might give a clearer picture. After all, Israel did say that this war is all about rocket fire on Southern Israel.
sorry, not trying to sound sarcastic, i was just pointing out that "projectiles fired from both sides" instead of illustrating israel's point to self-defense from rocket fire, could be taken so far as to mean bullets fired by idf on raids targeting palestinians. especially considering how contentious that issue is here. there is already a decent amount of background on israel's reasoning for the attack. (also, please sign your post by typing 4 tildes ~)
Untwirl (
talk)
16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
the latest edit (new poll):
"A decisive majority of respondents support continuing the army's air campaign against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip without endangering the lives of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in a ground offensive ..."
is missing the source link. Untwirl ( talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You better maintain your neutrality, Wikipedia, or you will lose all credibility
Taking pro-abbas propaganda as factual facts is certainly not Neutral âPreceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.176.241 ( talk) 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The following statement is made under the UN school section:
I can find no source other than the Earth Times that says this. While the Earth Times is a WP:RS, it's pretty much a second-tier news agency. It's fine to use, but can anyone find me an article from the BBC, CNN, NYT, Jerusalem Post, etc. that also says that? If not, this sentence should be removed for WP:Notability and WP:Reliability. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's more:
ANd then again, maybe not-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
How bout this..."Just because fire came from outside the school doesn't mean it came from near the school"... âPreceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio ( talk ⢠contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
this Rare view from ground zero may help understand what is actually going on, beyond the phosphorus smokescreen, and news black out. Then again, there weren't many newspapers reporting the Warsaw uprising. Nishidani ( talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
1)Raffaele Cardinal Martino does not represent the whole church. That's the job of the Pope, in this case Benedict XVI.
2) The government of the Church (The Church being the body of believers and not the hierarchy) is largely a European organization and therefore it should be noted that the Church very much has a European bias in foreign affairs. When the Church, in her wisdom chooses to elect a non-European Pope, and the Curia is not dominated by Italian and French bureaucrats, we can take the Vatican more seriously in foreign policy. 3) That said, it is very much the job of the church to tend to the faithful and protect the Holy Land. The Cardinal liking any Israeli operation to a Concentration Camp OR any aspect of the Holocaust is irresponsible and provocative and he cannot help but be aware of this fact. (I thought such stupid banalaties were limited to Rowan Williams.) I hope Benedict censures the Cardinal, but I am not realistically hoping that V. Joe ( talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone mention somewhere on the article that the Red cross has accused Israel of failing to help civilians and the UN aid agency has had to suspend operations in Gaza because of the danger to their staff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7817926.stm Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to bring this up for discussion once more before I revise this. No one opposed this edit but I did not receive many responses so I thought it would be appropriate to give people a new opportunity to discuss this as it refers to a large block of prominent text.
In the background page someone has cited an NYT article with the following excerpt:
"The New York Times summed up the situation leading to the complete breakdown of the cease-fire and the dramatic increase in hostilities thus: "Opening the routes to commerce was Hamasâ main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israelâs central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israelâs intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 700 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity.[41]"
According the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rockets fired from Gaza after the truce ranged between 2-12 per month, not going over 15 even a single time. In fact this table summarizes the data provided by the IMFA over the period of the truce and just before.
Type | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June 1-18 | June 18-30 | Jul | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rockets | 136 | 228 | 103 | 373 | 206 | 153 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 125 | 361 |
Mortar | 241 | 257 | 196 | 145 | 149 | 84 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 68 | 241 |
Reference: The Hamas terror war against Israel. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 01-01-2009. See Statistics of Kassam rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip subsection.
As this table demonstrates total rocket attacks (mortar+rocket) never went above 12 and decreased to 2 for the month of october, just before Israel raided armed Hamas members on Nov 4.
I propose that that source is scrapped since it is innacurate accorind the IMFA itself. Instead it should state the data presented by the IMFA and give context for how drastic the drop in rocket attacks were. A possible revision:
"A total of 37 rockets were launched from Jun 18 to the end of October, which represents a 98 percent drop from the previous four and a half months during which 1894 rockets had been launched. Following Israel's Nov 4 attack that killed six Hamas operatives, rocket fire resumed from Gaza and 193 rockets were launched in the remainder of Nov."
The NYT article is exagerating the the rocket fire by over a factor of two with regards to official Israeli records. This fact calls for a revision along the lines of my proposal. (See #Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire, for my first and more comprehensive critique of our coverage in the Background)
See: #NY Times article exaggerates Rockets fired during truce for the few responses this proposal received. If there isn't significant discussion on this issue I will go ahead with the edits in some time. Thrylos000 ( talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not put a caption on the chart image in the article that lists data sources. Those sources change frequently as I find updates on the numbers. And the data sources are always listed at the bottom of the chart image itself. I change them as necessary on the chart image itself. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
BobaFett85 has a habit of making updates to the page without using edit summaries. He most recently changed the injured Israeli civilian count t0 41 from 39 citing this JP article. There is no total count listed there. Presumably he made the edit because the article states: "One resident suffered a broken leg and another sustained bruises, both apparently from slipping on the floor after emergency sprinklers came on."
We have already addressed the reasons why summing across sources is not allowed, yet Bobafett continues to make edits without deliberation this time even sloppier than the last. I've reverted his edit and encourage him to come here and discuss his editing practices. Thrylos000 ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I found some more numbers.
See the data, quotes, and sources in the image summary for the chart:
It also has numbers for wounded women and children. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see this diff: [6]
I could not undo the damage due to other edits since then. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what have I done? -- Fipplet ( talk) 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I can say it a thousand times - the Arabic article "the Massacre of Gaza" cannot be regarded as an equivalent to this article. There was a short period of time when the Arab Wikipedia had indeed a relatively fair article about the events in Gaza, but they moved it again to this provocative title, and made that article once again into an anti-Israeli propaganda. They also created "a series of articles about Israeli massacres" which includes that "massacre" article with "The Gaza Holocaust" and other despicable materials like this. The fact that the Arabic Wikipedia users breached any possible Wikipedian rule is one thing, the fact that the English Wikipedia cooperate with this approach by considering this article equivalent to that "massacre" article is another. They are not equivalent, and shouldn't be regarded as such. DrorK ( talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
DrorK: I agree the Arabic wikipedia is mistaken in naming their article "massacre", but their mistake is their mistake: this is EnWiki... don't inter-wiki forum shop :D.
Your argument on "murdering" is compelling, but ultimately falicious in this context: no one (serious) here is saying that we call these events "massacre". In an article about someone charged with murder, we ar enot allowed to call the person a "murderer" that is true. But we are allowed to say that the prosecutor called the subject a "murderer". It doesn't make it true or biased, it simply describes accurately the views of the prosecutor.
Likewise, this article describes these events as "Operation Cast Lead", a description not accepted by one side of the events, but significant nevertheless and we must mention it in the lead/lede/intro because it is the the description given by one side. We must give due weight consideration to the "massacre" name, provided it is well sourced and verifiably an official claim - we had some issue with false sourcing - and will accept sources in any language provided they verify (it is trivial to find verification in other languages, even rough online translations are enough). Nuetrality requires that we do, as it would be like the prosecutor's description of a person accused of murder, but whose guilt has not been proven.-- Cerejota ( talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In contrast to DroK,I note that linking to all Wikipedia articles is vital to indicate various approaches to covering an issue. The best that the English Wikipedia can do is indicate the questions arising in relation to the Arabic version. Not to link would be to close a door on an information source .Any item that provides information, whatever the origin of that information,is a source, even if only a source at a third or fourth remove.
(Undent) The other wikipedias dont call it a massacre because their sources do not call it a massacre. Arabic sources overwhelmingly do call it a massacre, and thus, the wiki being a product of its sources, the article is called the gaza massacre. This whole time you have been arguing that arabs shouldnt be calling it a massacre, that the facts dont support such a claim. That opinion, whether valid or not, is not what determines the name of an article, it is what the common name in the language for the event that determines the name. You cannot argue that the 2 wikis are discussing the same event, so to then argue that because of the common name for said event is in your mind, and understandably so, non-neutral that we should then censor that undermines core principles of the wikis. Yes the wiki should serve to convey facts and hopefully transfer knowledge, but what we think are facts are almost always perceptions of facts. It boggles my mind that something that should be as trivial as asking what is the common term associated with an event in a given language needs to be so difficult. If arabs are calling this event the gaza massacre, then surprise! the name of the article will be the gaza massacre. Nableezy ( talk) 02:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
DrorK, here it is not being discussed wether that event is a massacre or not. That is indeed a POV matter but it's not at all the focal point here.
According to wikipedia rules the name of the article should be the one most commonly used within the language of that wiki. In this case "Gaza Massacre" is the most common way to refer to these events in the arabic world. Period.
It is a fact that most arab speakers know it that way, thus arab wiki must name it that way.
Since "Gaza Massacre" in arabic and "Israel-Gaza conflict 2008-2009" refer to the same events, the interwiki stays regardless of how arabic wiki names it.
So, unless you can demonstrate somehow that 1)"Gaza Massacre" refers to a different phenomenon than "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" and 2)that "Gaza Massacre" is not the most common name within the arabic world, your point and efforts are futile.
It is not up to English or any other language wikipedias to legitimize or deligitimize other wikipedias, wikipedias are not boycott instruments. Acknowledge the rules and desist in pushing your own point of view. ~Krasniy Prizrak
What is wrong with you people? Omrim's horribly typed statement has been in the article for hours and I thought someone was going to fix it, I come back and it is still there? FIX IT!! Again, I cannot edit the article because my account is not auto confirmed yet. Please fix "Acoording to their statemets, About..." in the section entitled Samouni family. -- Learsi si natas ( talk) 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
done and chill Nableezy ( talk) 04:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been blocked for one day you (insert profanity here) not for eternity. :) Nablezu 3yenuk - 68.123.141.153 ( talk) 05:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I was just letting him know we were not going to get a response, I dont really give a shit if this kid doesnt like me, it isnt going to affect me at all. Not like I am going to go racing to report him. Whatever tho, you right, but actually look at what I wrote and see if there is any kind of put down or offense I could have possibly sent, I didnt even say the name was bad (I thought it was funny that he tried to use the name) Nableezy ( talk) 06:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Should probably be added to the notable events; Israelis attacked a UN humanitarian relief truck, killing the drivers, and causing the UN to completely end their humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza, citing this incident as well as the school bombings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637
AndarielHalo (
talk)
17:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We should get rid of the infoboxes in the "Notable Incidents" section. Clearly the article itself and Major parts of it deserves infoboxes but those parts are minor parts. It will just make the article blurry and double the information, the Samouni family infobox is as high as the actual information without contributing with anything. Unneccessary. If we keep them we should add an infobox to every minor part of the article where it is possible, like to the the "Rockets from Lebanon" section for example, so we can illustrate all attacks with infoboxes. Not just those where Israel is perpetrators, that is POV.-- Fipplet ( talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I see alll the aforementioned infoboxes have been removed.-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been following the development of this article, along with the issues raised on the talk page, for some days now, and I have to say that the article is extremely informative and reasonably neutral, the latter being especially impressive in light of the sensitivity of the topic and the fact that - let's be honest - several of the active editors seem to be motivated primarily by the desire to defend one or the other of the sides. Bottom line, this article increases my optimism regarding the Wikipedia process. I want to contribute to the page, and am waiting to be autoconfirmed. In the meantime, I would like to make some suggestions regarding the structure of the article, in the hopes one of you will be convinced by them and adopt them.
I have many more suggestions, but I'll wait to see if any of these are adopted. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Really, is that a joke? I am having trouble to assume good faith here. It seems as if statistics are being used here not to describe facts but rather to promote someone's POV. Was a Linear Regression performed? What is the R square of this finding, and was the correlation found to have Statistical significance? Why not presenting the percentage differences between October and November (both presumably months in which the truce was still in effect)? It shows an increase of 200% in the rocket fire. Why four months of average? why not 6? why not a year? why not 10? Statistics is a very dangerous tool and should be used cautiously and only with expertise. What other Independent variables were used? Have you considered weather? what about the same time previous year? is it proven not to be cyclical? Statistical intrepretation is, after all, original research. Hence, please remove it. The fact the fire from Gaza has decreased is already there, and there is no need to add it with statistical interpretations, and we shouldn't do so. Come on people. At least TRY to be impartial.-- Omrim ( talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Omrim, The edit you refer to is mine and I would be happy to discuss it. The 98% reduction is a descriptive statement of the data presented by the Israeli government. As I stated in the edit (and several times before I made this edit) Rocket fire went from ~1900 to 37 in consecutive 4.5 mo periods. That is a 98% drop. None of the data is my own.
If you would like to argue that this didnt happen because of the ceasefire you may propose a way to rephrase the statement. Your contention however about statistics is not relevant in my opinion. Hamas agreed to stop launching rockets as part of the ceasefire. Hamas therefore would attribute the reduction in rocket launching to the ceasefire. Do you have any source suggesting a different reason for the reduction in rockets?
If you would like to say rockets increased ~200% from oct to nov you can do so. That would be a description of data as well in my opinion. Of course it would be most accurate if you provided context and referenced that Hamas said it launched retaliatory rockets due to the events of Nov 4. These are stated reasons and have nothing to do with statistical correlation. Thrylos000 ( talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A percentage is an arithmetic operation that summarizes data. Its not a statistical statement. Statistics deal with probability, uncertainty, correlation and associations. A percentage is not a statistical object. Thrylos000 ( talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Omrim, I have removed the ambiguous causal language in my statements. I do not fully agree with your criticism becuase causality can be attributed to certain events by actors such as Hamas (reduction in rockets after Jun 18, increase after Nov 4) without needing stastical confirmation, which is hardly relevant in this case. I agree that the wording can be improved however and made less ambiguous. Please check my edits and comment. Thank you. Thrylos000 ( talk) 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"However, between Israelâs evacuation of Gaza and the election of Hamas (Aug. 15, 2005 â Jan. 25, 2006), there was an average of about 15 rocket and mortar attacks a month. [1] Hence the average number of rockets fired during the truce represent a true decrease of ~20% in rockets and mortar attacks."
Of course it is not relevant any more. Just goes to show I wasn't lazy, and that I was trying to bring concerete example that shows why it is bad idea to include statistics. Thanks again. -- Omrim ( talk) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Omrim, I appreciate what I view as your sincere effort to assure all statements are written with the necessary rigor, especially given the nature of this article. I am glad we were able to resolve this contention in good spirits. I welcome any criticism of my edits. Thanks. Thrylos000 ( talk) 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
About statistical analyses, A recent statistical analysis by three academics (one at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one at Harvard and one from Tel Aviv University) found that an overwhelming majority of lulls in violence since 2000 (when the second intifada began) ended when Israelis killed Palestinians, sparking renewed tit-for-tat violence. According to Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki, "79 percent of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8 percent were interrupted by Palestinian attacks." The pattern was "more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. ... Of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96 percent." Tiamut talk 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the star tribune doesn't source this article. I wonder if it exists. Sounds like the kind of article that would (should) be all over the news. I would also be very interested in seeing it, and I agree it should be included in the more general article. Thrylos000 ( talk) 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html. Not exactly peer review. Interesting nonetheless but Tiamut's post made it sound like a major, refereed study. Thrylos000 ( talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about statistics, but I do understand the notion that they can be used misleadingly to make a point. A mere tally of rockets fired over the period immediately preceding the ceasefire and up to the resumption of hostilities may be a skewed way of looking at the conflict as a whole, because the rocketfire spiked immediately beforehand.
As regards the politics of this offensive however, it is in fact a piece of obfuscation to present this one dimensional number in analysis anyway. I'm not saying it shouldn't be presented -- just that without detailed breakdown its only relevant to the conditions in southern israel and nothing more. The political significance of the rockets fired during the ceasefire was completely different than those fired before - those fired during the ceasefire were fired without Hamas' support, but Israel might claim, proved Hamas' were not competent at maintaining order. That's because they weren't fired by Hamas. No choice of statistical timescale could make one variable (quantity of rockets) faithfully present the behaviour of many political actors with complicated relationships âPreceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.203.142 ( talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
My point is, Israel sees ceasefires and truces differently than their common definition. Israel itself has said in the past that it reserves the right to BREAK those ceasefires when it sees fit. Their reasoning being that if Hamas makes a move they need to respond, but even when Hamas does not make a move, Israel can because the country is involved in an ongoing conflict and its security is above the ceasefires and truces.
Hamas sees it the same way, but its options in answering to Israel attacks are limited. In fact, the s in options should be in parenthesis. It is then why, Israel is condemned when it makes these moves, because its options are greater and of multiple capacity.
Israel counts and plays with the number of rockets that fall in Israel. Hamas plays with the number of civilian deaths.
I am of the opinion, that unless you are personally involved in this conflict, we shouldn't take sides or defend one and/or attack the other. Defending people(specially when violence is concern) will get you off guard with your pants down. Cryptonio ( talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be a lot more clear in the infobox that this number comes from the Palestinian government, such as ".. killed according to the Palestinian ministry", and we should include an independent figure too. Otherwise it can be misleading, this figure doesn't have to be factual. 64.91.118.41 ( talk) 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added Yesterday to the International Law, in the "By Palestinian militants" section:
but it was commented out, suggesting that this statement belong to the "By IDF forces" section. I'll return it back to the "By Palestinians" section cause I think it belongs there. If someone have problems about this, please discuss below. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I found a page that lists all 4 Israelis killed by rocket and mortar fire:
They are listed in the middle of the page. One is a soldier. Here is the list:
This explains the confusion between the number of civilians and soldiers killed. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/HP_487.html#1/837/770
I have been told on my talk page that this article has some kind of total. Can someone translate? We really need a reference for the infobox. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FHP_487.html%231%2F837%2F770&sl=iw&tl=en&history_state0= Nableezy ( talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
OCHA oPt ( United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory).
Anyone else think that the box should say the civilians dead are only women and children? âPreceding unsigned comment added by Kaiserkar ( talk ⢠contribs) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No, cause we are sure that there are definitely male civilian casualties, despite what what's his name from the UN thinks.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been arguing this point for several days now. I think its a significant point that none of the civilian counts include men. This is a distinction that ought to be made. I thought that the MoH was counting men too which is why I stepped back a bit but the newest UN report makes it clear that they don't. I strongly support a note stating that civilians only include women and men. Thrylos000 ( talk) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This has all been discussed before, with the same result. Are there no male civilians?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You know I added this link a week ago, hoping it might help with our discussion, not for the article itself. But I don't think anybody saw it. Unfortunately it was archived within about two hours of my posting because the section mirrored an already open discussion about casualties. But men were partially included, it was just that UN did a very rough estimate and, for the most part, excluded them. So we can't really say men are completely excluded. Well we can say it but it probably isn't true. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Forgot the actual link. [9] -- JGGardiner ( talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"North of the city, the agency attempted to get a more complete count by including adult men who were not wearing dark-blue police uniforms and whom community members identified as noncombatants." I've not seen a UN estimate from their situation reports state civilian casualties. The most recent one, as nearly all the rest only cites women and children (Totaling 303). Thrylos000 ( talk) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Israeli says ongoing rocket fire from Gaza is its reason for launching the offensive. The words "Qassam" and "(Palestinian) rocket(s)" appear a total of 58 times in the article. Meanwhile, Hamas says the ongoing blockade by Israel is its reason for launching the rockets. The word "blockade" appears only 12 times throughout. Is this a neutral article? RomaC ( talk) 02:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
We are readers not statistical analysis machines. Decontextualization is common of POV pushing. I can understand lack of balance in the article, there is indeed lack of balance. But this is not the way to go around fixing it.-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Psychological Warfare section is a bit questionable. I wouldn't call roof knocking 'psychological warfare'. It's a technique designed to limit civilian casualties. See: [10], [11]. I've changed it, but I'd definitely be willing to have a discussion if there was a consensus against it. Bsimmons666 ( talk) Friend? 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, hopefuly this is the end to it. Is it custom to put it in the infobox as "result"?-- Omrim ( talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The section 2008â2009_IsraelâGaza_conflict#Humanitarian_aid_deliveries resembles the date by date entries we had in the "Development" section, until they were rightfully moved out to Timeline of the 2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict. The section should have a similar fate, with its contents summarized here.
However, I'm wondering if we should create a new article for the Gaza humanitarian crisis (and move a lot of the humanitarian stuff there), or just move this date by date content to the timeline article? VR talk 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A very worrying edit to the lead was introduced, which clains this conflict was "accelarated" rather than begun on 27 December 2008. This would be a major re-purposing of this article, and given the attempts to WP:POVFORK "Operation Cast Lead", very worrying. To be clear, this article is about the specifics
We agree that the current title might not be the best, but it is the best neutral alternative a rough consensus has allowed. Ambiguities regarding its title should be fixed early in the lead, and hence the specification of the conflict "starting on". Context that this conflict is part of a wider conflict is given by wikilinking to the Parent of All Parents of articles in this topic: Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A discussion of title alternative is ongoing, and discussion should be had there. We have no deadline.
I personally see that continuing beating of this dead horse into a mushy pulp as evidence of some editors insisting on establishing a point of view. Under advisory of this article being under sanctions precisely because of large scale flounting of the editing process by means of disruption, please stop. To show your unhappiness with the consensus by unproductive editing is pointy as pointy gets. Thank you for your time. -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but you are just wrong about this. The article is named 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict. It is you who are trying to WP:POVFORK the article to Operation Cast Lead. I want to the article to reflect its title. If it were indeed about Operation Cast Lead then you can say it began on 27 December 2008, but since it is NOT about that it is inappropriate (ie WRONG) to claim the 2008 conflict began then. This is an issue of reality simply. Once your title is changed then change the wording. In the meantime it is simply ridiculous to have it read the way you would have it. Sorry. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
i just noticed this line
"U.N. spokesman Chris Gunness said We've been coordinating with them (Israeli forces) and yet our staff continue to be hit and killed.[220]"
and the quote is in italics and not in quotes. this should probably be changed, no? Untwirl ( talk) 04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
done. Untwirl ( talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
UN_council_6061
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 5 | â | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | â | Archive 15 |
"Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons." - Associated Press Dec. 27
CNN is a reliable source (though i have a feeling there is something off about that article). On the other hand, to exclude other information from other sources is simply irresponsible and wrong.
The CNN article referred to has faults of its own but those most probably should not be addressed here.
This section in the article lists a number of critics of Israel. Fair enough. But why is the list of supporters of Israel hidden in between two negative sentences and a final negative one? Should not get its own paragraph where people will not miss it? Why are there a number of anti-israel quotes and yet the statements of leaders such as the President of the United States or the President-Elect ("If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," Obama said at the time. "And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." -- [1]) not recorded? Or Secretary of State? ("We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence there" [2])
There are arguments that Israel is committing war crimes? Fine, be balanced and state them but keep them in the section on Israeli Violations. These are the first two paragraphs of the section on Palistinian violations:
The UNHRC statement by Falk also noted: "Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response."[257]
In 2007 exiled Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal, a leader of the terrorist Hamas group called recent rockets attacks on Israel "self defense."[264] In a 2007 report on âIndiscriminate Fireâ by both sides in the conflict Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas leaders âargue that rocket attacks on Israel are the only way to counter Israel's policies and operations, including artillery strikes.â[265]
These are paragraphs that more strongly argue that Israel is the aggressor. These paragraphs belong elsewhere. The author lessons the importance of the arguments made against Palistinian forces by inserting unrelated information in that section.
...and maybe move your comments up there for clarity. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for ideological battles to be fought on who is right and who is wrong. But it is a place where people expect to be given real information and all the information. It is a place where people expect to be given both sides of the argument. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for ideological battles to be fought on who is right and who is wrong but the problem is that the author of this article does not.
11aa11aa ( talk) 07:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 11aa11aa
israel has a right to exist because the un decided to create it. the "well established historical/archaeological facts that are also being described in a religious context in the ancient bible book" that you refer to compare nicely with the rock painting example. until israel stops declaring itself chosen by god and therefore entitled to whatever land it desires these issues will continue to offend secular types who try to respect other cultures. if jewish people hold that belief that's fine, i think lots of religious ideas are silly, but it won't be accepted by the international community as a legal basis for the claims. Untwirl ( talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
this is extremely off content - i wasn't stating my opinion above - simply stating what the international community does and does not recognize for our purposes in the article. i don't think this is a good forum for the direction this discussion is taking. let's discuss specific facts pertaining to this article. Untwirl ( talk) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"The Holy Land has only known peace at the point of a foreign sword"...Winston Churchill
"Only the Romans and the Ottomans have ever been able to keep peace in the Holy Land, because they did what they wanted and needed to do, and they cared not about public opinion." Winston Churchill - both added by-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" ,"And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg."..."Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this." Quotes from the Life of Brian-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Up till 1948 wasn't everybody there in the Holy Land there by Right by Conquest? Historically speaking didn't the Hebrews, Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans et al, get there by invading the place under some pretext or other?-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
At least two as instructed by their own deity? I.E. Hebrews and Arabs-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This sidebar has nothing to do with Zionism, only with Israel's de facto existence as a country.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
And, just to throw gas on the fire:
1, Continuous Jewish residence/occupation since time of Joshua
2, Balfour Declaration of 1917
3, League of Nations Mandate which incorporated the Balfour Declaration
4, UN partition Resolution of 1947
5, Israel admitted into UN in 1949,
6, Diplomatic recognition by many countries.
Plus wars of defense against an enemy who massively outnumbered them on several occasions, 48, 56, 67, 73, 82, and all the small things like the Water War etc.
-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the "Israel's Attack on Gaza Strip - The reason" external link. I'm not sure what other peoples thoughts are on whether it should be removed or not. It qualifies as propaganda I suppose but at least it does graphically show what is happening....on one side...which is a start. Having said that, I haven't looked at the Palestinian link to see whether that's meant to balance it in detail although the first thing I saw was 'A satanic, genocidal Israel'..charming. I couldn't see a discussion the links (..maybe archived) hence this note. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The infobox sources the UN as saying the "25%" of the casualties in Gaza are civilians... which doesn't make sense, because as the total grows, that 25% number grows at different rate than the actual civilian death toll. Someone needs to check the grand total when that report was released and take 25% of that number... or just keep updating it with the real number from the UN. Percentages only work once the conflict is over. Jeztah ( talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
According to BBC [3], It is not clear who fired the rockets, and no-one has yet said they did it. BBC says in another article [4] that Most analysts have concluded it is unlikely to be Hezbollah - despite recent fiery rhetoric from the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah about the possibility of renewed conflict with Israel. According to New York times [5], Hezbollah hasn't accepted the responsibility yet.-- Seyyed( t- c) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
is that original research or a sourced statement? if "nothing happens in South Lebanon without Hizbollah's permission" is what the media says, please provide a source, otherwise it is simply your opinion and shouldn/t be used to determine what to include in the article. Untwirl ( talk) 14:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The intro now has an extensive quote from Ehud Olmert's interview to Al-Arabiya. While this may merit a mention later in the article, it definitely does not mention 7 lines in the introduction. The introduction should briefly review the most important facts. Neither this nor other statements by Hamas leaders or Israeli leaders qualify here.
Jacob2718 (
talk) 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:I can't see why not. It does not link to propoganda video "explaining facts". I simply links to a video in which a man is saying something, and we quote the man's sayings. What is to be miss represented here?--
Omrim (
talk)
17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
this edit
"Fathi Hamad a Hamas representative in the PA legislative council, takes pride on Palestinian TV in the fact that women and children are used as human shield in fighting Israel. He describes it as part of the "Death Industry" at which they excel, and explains that the Palestinians "desire death" the same way Israelis "desire life". [311]"
links to a youtube video. i don't believe youtube is an acceptable source, esp. for an article as controversial as this one. Untwirl ( talk) 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Shows Hamas in a bad light?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
please assume good faith. i am simply referring to youtube as a source. find one that is reliable and i will strongly support its inclusion.
Untwirl (
talk)
17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
i wasn't worried about misrepresentation, as i said it's just youtube that i was doubting. with a quick glance i didn't see any other youtube links (there may very well be - i wasn't very thorough) i am relatively new here so maybe you can help me understand when youtube is okay. thanks for your patience. Untwirl ( talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
on second look i do see other youtube links. however, they are listed as youtube/(whatever) not the title of the video. also the actual source isn't palestinian news, its palestinian media watch - they translated a 45 sec clip and posted it on youtube. i think we should be consistent and also list the source in the article as the other youtube links do. Untwirl ( talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Under 2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict:1) Background, there seems to be a case of misuse of information. According to Ref. 88, it was quoted "the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival." It is fine to quote this however, I find it terribly misleading to the reader when the next paragraph in the article is left out.
The next paragraph reads "Israeli officials acknowledged that transferring previously banned goods had been the plan, but said that there was no specific date for the increase and that it was to happen in steps. But the rockets never fully stopped."
I think if we are to provide information on an informative site such as Wikipedia, it is only fair that we provide unbiased views on this conflict. There is simply too much information on the article about 1)the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and 2)the border blocks that Israel has enforced. What I find lacking is Israel's explaination for all it has done and that is available in many articles, even the articles that were referenced but were left out for unknown reasons. I also chanced upon another discussion to create a bar chart of the wounded/dead on both Israeli and Palestinian sides. I am not against it, however, to be fair, I request that a similar bar graph be plotted on the number of projectiles fired from both sides. It should also be mentioned that there is a difference in these projectiles. Israeli missiles have guiding systems to hit (near) where they intended to hit. Quassams do not have such systems.span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">âPreceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.92.2 ( talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
can i assume these "projectiles" will include those shot from planes as well? how about guns? (bullets are essentially projectiles). your post seems to be wanting to improve npov, i assume good faith.
Untwirl (
talk)
15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the best way might be to count the number of reports involing explosive projectiles. These should be rockets, missles, rockets, mortars and artillery shelling. I recommend that the chart be split into two categories though, During War and Non-War time. War should probably refer to this current war, because reports are still fresh and information found on multiple sources are more trustworthy. And yes, I am doing this in good faith. I feel this chart is important, because it might give a clearer picture. After all, Israel did say that this war is all about rocket fire on Southern Israel.
sorry, not trying to sound sarcastic, i was just pointing out that "projectiles fired from both sides" instead of illustrating israel's point to self-defense from rocket fire, could be taken so far as to mean bullets fired by idf on raids targeting palestinians. especially considering how contentious that issue is here. there is already a decent amount of background on israel's reasoning for the attack. (also, please sign your post by typing 4 tildes ~)
Untwirl (
talk)
16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
the latest edit (new poll):
"A decisive majority of respondents support continuing the army's air campaign against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip without endangering the lives of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in a ground offensive ..."
is missing the source link. Untwirl ( talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You better maintain your neutrality, Wikipedia, or you will lose all credibility
Taking pro-abbas propaganda as factual facts is certainly not Neutral âPreceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.176.241 ( talk) 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The following statement is made under the UN school section:
I can find no source other than the Earth Times that says this. While the Earth Times is a WP:RS, it's pretty much a second-tier news agency. It's fine to use, but can anyone find me an article from the BBC, CNN, NYT, Jerusalem Post, etc. that also says that? If not, this sentence should be removed for WP:Notability and WP:Reliability. Saepe Fidelis ( talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's more:
ANd then again, maybe not-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
How bout this..."Just because fire came from outside the school doesn't mean it came from near the school"... âPreceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio ( talk ⢠contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
this Rare view from ground zero may help understand what is actually going on, beyond the phosphorus smokescreen, and news black out. Then again, there weren't many newspapers reporting the Warsaw uprising. Nishidani ( talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
1)Raffaele Cardinal Martino does not represent the whole church. That's the job of the Pope, in this case Benedict XVI.
2) The government of the Church (The Church being the body of believers and not the hierarchy) is largely a European organization and therefore it should be noted that the Church very much has a European bias in foreign affairs. When the Church, in her wisdom chooses to elect a non-European Pope, and the Curia is not dominated by Italian and French bureaucrats, we can take the Vatican more seriously in foreign policy. 3) That said, it is very much the job of the church to tend to the faithful and protect the Holy Land. The Cardinal liking any Israeli operation to a Concentration Camp OR any aspect of the Holocaust is irresponsible and provocative and he cannot help but be aware of this fact. (I thought such stupid banalaties were limited to Rowan Williams.) I hope Benedict censures the Cardinal, but I am not realistically hoping that V. Joe ( talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone mention somewhere on the article that the Red cross has accused Israel of failing to help civilians and the UN aid agency has had to suspend operations in Gaza because of the danger to their staff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7817926.stm Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to bring this up for discussion once more before I revise this. No one opposed this edit but I did not receive many responses so I thought it would be appropriate to give people a new opportunity to discuss this as it refers to a large block of prominent text.
In the background page someone has cited an NYT article with the following excerpt:
"The New York Times summed up the situation leading to the complete breakdown of the cease-fire and the dramatic increase in hostilities thus: "Opening the routes to commerce was Hamasâ main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israelâs central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israelâs intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 700 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity.[41]"
According the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rockets fired from Gaza after the truce ranged between 2-12 per month, not going over 15 even a single time. In fact this table summarizes the data provided by the IMFA over the period of the truce and just before.
Type | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June 1-18 | June 18-30 | Jul | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rockets | 136 | 228 | 103 | 373 | 206 | 153 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 125 | 361 |
Mortar | 241 | 257 | 196 | 145 | 149 | 84 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 68 | 241 |
Reference: The Hamas terror war against Israel. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 01-01-2009. See Statistics of Kassam rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip subsection.
As this table demonstrates total rocket attacks (mortar+rocket) never went above 12 and decreased to 2 for the month of october, just before Israel raided armed Hamas members on Nov 4.
I propose that that source is scrapped since it is innacurate accorind the IMFA itself. Instead it should state the data presented by the IMFA and give context for how drastic the drop in rocket attacks were. A possible revision:
"A total of 37 rockets were launched from Jun 18 to the end of October, which represents a 98 percent drop from the previous four and a half months during which 1894 rockets had been launched. Following Israel's Nov 4 attack that killed six Hamas operatives, rocket fire resumed from Gaza and 193 rockets were launched in the remainder of Nov."
The NYT article is exagerating the the rocket fire by over a factor of two with regards to official Israeli records. This fact calls for a revision along the lines of my proposal. (See #Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire, for my first and more comprehensive critique of our coverage in the Background)
See: #NY Times article exaggerates Rockets fired during truce for the few responses this proposal received. If there isn't significant discussion on this issue I will go ahead with the edits in some time. Thrylos000 ( talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not put a caption on the chart image in the article that lists data sources. Those sources change frequently as I find updates on the numbers. And the data sources are always listed at the bottom of the chart image itself. I change them as necessary on the chart image itself. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
BobaFett85 has a habit of making updates to the page without using edit summaries. He most recently changed the injured Israeli civilian count t0 41 from 39 citing this JP article. There is no total count listed there. Presumably he made the edit because the article states: "One resident suffered a broken leg and another sustained bruises, both apparently from slipping on the floor after emergency sprinklers came on."
We have already addressed the reasons why summing across sources is not allowed, yet Bobafett continues to make edits without deliberation this time even sloppier than the last. I've reverted his edit and encourage him to come here and discuss his editing practices. Thrylos000 ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I found some more numbers.
See the data, quotes, and sources in the image summary for the chart:
It also has numbers for wounded women and children. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see this diff: [6]
I could not undo the damage due to other edits since then. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what have I done? -- Fipplet ( talk) 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I can say it a thousand times - the Arabic article "the Massacre of Gaza" cannot be regarded as an equivalent to this article. There was a short period of time when the Arab Wikipedia had indeed a relatively fair article about the events in Gaza, but they moved it again to this provocative title, and made that article once again into an anti-Israeli propaganda. They also created "a series of articles about Israeli massacres" which includes that "massacre" article with "The Gaza Holocaust" and other despicable materials like this. The fact that the Arabic Wikipedia users breached any possible Wikipedian rule is one thing, the fact that the English Wikipedia cooperate with this approach by considering this article equivalent to that "massacre" article is another. They are not equivalent, and shouldn't be regarded as such. DrorK ( talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
DrorK: I agree the Arabic wikipedia is mistaken in naming their article "massacre", but their mistake is their mistake: this is EnWiki... don't inter-wiki forum shop :D.
Your argument on "murdering" is compelling, but ultimately falicious in this context: no one (serious) here is saying that we call these events "massacre". In an article about someone charged with murder, we ar enot allowed to call the person a "murderer" that is true. But we are allowed to say that the prosecutor called the subject a "murderer". It doesn't make it true or biased, it simply describes accurately the views of the prosecutor.
Likewise, this article describes these events as "Operation Cast Lead", a description not accepted by one side of the events, but significant nevertheless and we must mention it in the lead/lede/intro because it is the the description given by one side. We must give due weight consideration to the "massacre" name, provided it is well sourced and verifiably an official claim - we had some issue with false sourcing - and will accept sources in any language provided they verify (it is trivial to find verification in other languages, even rough online translations are enough). Nuetrality requires that we do, as it would be like the prosecutor's description of a person accused of murder, but whose guilt has not been proven.-- Cerejota ( talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In contrast to DroK,I note that linking to all Wikipedia articles is vital to indicate various approaches to covering an issue. The best that the English Wikipedia can do is indicate the questions arising in relation to the Arabic version. Not to link would be to close a door on an information source .Any item that provides information, whatever the origin of that information,is a source, even if only a source at a third or fourth remove.
(Undent) The other wikipedias dont call it a massacre because their sources do not call it a massacre. Arabic sources overwhelmingly do call it a massacre, and thus, the wiki being a product of its sources, the article is called the gaza massacre. This whole time you have been arguing that arabs shouldnt be calling it a massacre, that the facts dont support such a claim. That opinion, whether valid or not, is not what determines the name of an article, it is what the common name in the language for the event that determines the name. You cannot argue that the 2 wikis are discussing the same event, so to then argue that because of the common name for said event is in your mind, and understandably so, non-neutral that we should then censor that undermines core principles of the wikis. Yes the wiki should serve to convey facts and hopefully transfer knowledge, but what we think are facts are almost always perceptions of facts. It boggles my mind that something that should be as trivial as asking what is the common term associated with an event in a given language needs to be so difficult. If arabs are calling this event the gaza massacre, then surprise! the name of the article will be the gaza massacre. Nableezy ( talk) 02:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
DrorK, here it is not being discussed wether that event is a massacre or not. That is indeed a POV matter but it's not at all the focal point here.
According to wikipedia rules the name of the article should be the one most commonly used within the language of that wiki. In this case "Gaza Massacre" is the most common way to refer to these events in the arabic world. Period.
It is a fact that most arab speakers know it that way, thus arab wiki must name it that way.
Since "Gaza Massacre" in arabic and "Israel-Gaza conflict 2008-2009" refer to the same events, the interwiki stays regardless of how arabic wiki names it.
So, unless you can demonstrate somehow that 1)"Gaza Massacre" refers to a different phenomenon than "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" and 2)that "Gaza Massacre" is not the most common name within the arabic world, your point and efforts are futile.
It is not up to English or any other language wikipedias to legitimize or deligitimize other wikipedias, wikipedias are not boycott instruments. Acknowledge the rules and desist in pushing your own point of view. ~Krasniy Prizrak
What is wrong with you people? Omrim's horribly typed statement has been in the article for hours and I thought someone was going to fix it, I come back and it is still there? FIX IT!! Again, I cannot edit the article because my account is not auto confirmed yet. Please fix "Acoording to their statemets, About..." in the section entitled Samouni family. -- Learsi si natas ( talk) 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
done and chill Nableezy ( talk) 04:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been blocked for one day you (insert profanity here) not for eternity. :) Nablezu 3yenuk - 68.123.141.153 ( talk) 05:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I was just letting him know we were not going to get a response, I dont really give a shit if this kid doesnt like me, it isnt going to affect me at all. Not like I am going to go racing to report him. Whatever tho, you right, but actually look at what I wrote and see if there is any kind of put down or offense I could have possibly sent, I didnt even say the name was bad (I thought it was funny that he tried to use the name) Nableezy ( talk) 06:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Should probably be added to the notable events; Israelis attacked a UN humanitarian relief truck, killing the drivers, and causing the UN to completely end their humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza, citing this incident as well as the school bombings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637
AndarielHalo (
talk)
17:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We should get rid of the infoboxes in the "Notable Incidents" section. Clearly the article itself and Major parts of it deserves infoboxes but those parts are minor parts. It will just make the article blurry and double the information, the Samouni family infobox is as high as the actual information without contributing with anything. Unneccessary. If we keep them we should add an infobox to every minor part of the article where it is possible, like to the the "Rockets from Lebanon" section for example, so we can illustrate all attacks with infoboxes. Not just those where Israel is perpetrators, that is POV.-- Fipplet ( talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I see alll the aforementioned infoboxes have been removed.-- 98.111.139.133 ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been following the development of this article, along with the issues raised on the talk page, for some days now, and I have to say that the article is extremely informative and reasonably neutral, the latter being especially impressive in light of the sensitivity of the topic and the fact that - let's be honest - several of the active editors seem to be motivated primarily by the desire to defend one or the other of the sides. Bottom line, this article increases my optimism regarding the Wikipedia process. I want to contribute to the page, and am waiting to be autoconfirmed. In the meantime, I would like to make some suggestions regarding the structure of the article, in the hopes one of you will be convinced by them and adopt them.
I have many more suggestions, but I'll wait to see if any of these are adopted. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Really, is that a joke? I am having trouble to assume good faith here. It seems as if statistics are being used here not to describe facts but rather to promote someone's POV. Was a Linear Regression performed? What is the R square of this finding, and was the correlation found to have Statistical significance? Why not presenting the percentage differences between October and November (both presumably months in which the truce was still in effect)? It shows an increase of 200% in the rocket fire. Why four months of average? why not 6? why not a year? why not 10? Statistics is a very dangerous tool and should be used cautiously and only with expertise. What other Independent variables were used? Have you considered weather? what about the same time previous year? is it proven not to be cyclical? Statistical intrepretation is, after all, original research. Hence, please remove it. The fact the fire from Gaza has decreased is already there, and there is no need to add it with statistical interpretations, and we shouldn't do so. Come on people. At least TRY to be impartial.-- Omrim ( talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Omrim, The edit you refer to is mine and I would be happy to discuss it. The 98% reduction is a descriptive statement of the data presented by the Israeli government. As I stated in the edit (and several times before I made this edit) Rocket fire went from ~1900 to 37 in consecutive 4.5 mo periods. That is a 98% drop. None of the data is my own.
If you would like to argue that this didnt happen because of the ceasefire you may propose a way to rephrase the statement. Your contention however about statistics is not relevant in my opinion. Hamas agreed to stop launching rockets as part of the ceasefire. Hamas therefore would attribute the reduction in rocket launching to the ceasefire. Do you have any source suggesting a different reason for the reduction in rockets?
If you would like to say rockets increased ~200% from oct to nov you can do so. That would be a description of data as well in my opinion. Of course it would be most accurate if you provided context and referenced that Hamas said it launched retaliatory rockets due to the events of Nov 4. These are stated reasons and have nothing to do with statistical correlation. Thrylos000 ( talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A percentage is an arithmetic operation that summarizes data. Its not a statistical statement. Statistics deal with probability, uncertainty, correlation and associations. A percentage is not a statistical object. Thrylos000 ( talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Omrim, I have removed the ambiguous causal language in my statements. I do not fully agree with your criticism becuase causality can be attributed to certain events by actors such as Hamas (reduction in rockets after Jun 18, increase after Nov 4) without needing stastical confirmation, which is hardly relevant in this case. I agree that the wording can be improved however and made less ambiguous. Please check my edits and comment. Thank you. Thrylos000 ( talk) 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"However, between Israelâs evacuation of Gaza and the election of Hamas (Aug. 15, 2005 â Jan. 25, 2006), there was an average of about 15 rocket and mortar attacks a month. [1] Hence the average number of rockets fired during the truce represent a true decrease of ~20% in rockets and mortar attacks."
Of course it is not relevant any more. Just goes to show I wasn't lazy, and that I was trying to bring concerete example that shows why it is bad idea to include statistics. Thanks again. -- Omrim ( talk) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Omrim, I appreciate what I view as your sincere effort to assure all statements are written with the necessary rigor, especially given the nature of this article. I am glad we were able to resolve this contention in good spirits. I welcome any criticism of my edits. Thanks. Thrylos000 ( talk) 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
About statistical analyses, A recent statistical analysis by three academics (one at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one at Harvard and one from Tel Aviv University) found that an overwhelming majority of lulls in violence since 2000 (when the second intifada began) ended when Israelis killed Palestinians, sparking renewed tit-for-tat violence. According to Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki, "79 percent of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8 percent were interrupted by Palestinian attacks." The pattern was "more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. ... Of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96 percent." Tiamut talk 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the star tribune doesn't source this article. I wonder if it exists. Sounds like the kind of article that would (should) be all over the news. I would also be very interested in seeing it, and I agree it should be included in the more general article. Thrylos000 ( talk) 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html. Not exactly peer review. Interesting nonetheless but Tiamut's post made it sound like a major, refereed study. Thrylos000 ( talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about statistics, but I do understand the notion that they can be used misleadingly to make a point. A mere tally of rockets fired over the period immediately preceding the ceasefire and up to the resumption of hostilities may be a skewed way of looking at the conflict as a whole, because the rocketfire spiked immediately beforehand.
As regards the politics of this offensive however, it is in fact a piece of obfuscation to present this one dimensional number in analysis anyway. I'm not saying it shouldn't be presented -- just that without detailed breakdown its only relevant to the conditions in southern israel and nothing more. The political significance of the rockets fired during the ceasefire was completely different than those fired before - those fired during the ceasefire were fired without Hamas' support, but Israel might claim, proved Hamas' were not competent at maintaining order. That's because they weren't fired by Hamas. No choice of statistical timescale could make one variable (quantity of rockets) faithfully present the behaviour of many political actors with complicated relationships âPreceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.203.142 ( talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
My point is, Israel sees ceasefires and truces differently than their common definition. Israel itself has said in the past that it reserves the right to BREAK those ceasefires when it sees fit. Their reasoning being that if Hamas makes a move they need to respond, but even when Hamas does not make a move, Israel can because the country is involved in an ongoing conflict and its security is above the ceasefires and truces.
Hamas sees it the same way, but its options in answering to Israel attacks are limited. In fact, the s in options should be in parenthesis. It is then why, Israel is condemned when it makes these moves, because its options are greater and of multiple capacity.
Israel counts and plays with the number of rockets that fall in Israel. Hamas plays with the number of civilian deaths.
I am of the opinion, that unless you are personally involved in this conflict, we shouldn't take sides or defend one and/or attack the other. Defending people(specially when violence is concern) will get you off guard with your pants down. Cryptonio ( talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be a lot more clear in the infobox that this number comes from the Palestinian government, such as ".. killed according to the Palestinian ministry", and we should include an independent figure too. Otherwise it can be misleading, this figure doesn't have to be factual. 64.91.118.41 ( talk) 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added Yesterday to the International Law, in the "By Palestinian militants" section:
but it was commented out, suggesting that this statement belong to the "By IDF forces" section. I'll return it back to the "By Palestinians" section cause I think it belongs there. If someone have problems about this, please discuss below. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I found a page that lists all 4 Israelis killed by rocket and mortar fire:
They are listed in the middle of the page. One is a soldier. Here is the list:
This explains the confusion between the number of civilians and soldiers killed. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/HP_487.html#1/837/770
I have been told on my talk page that this article has some kind of total. Can someone translate? We really need a reference for the infobox. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FHP_487.html%231%2F837%2F770&sl=iw&tl=en&history_state0= Nableezy ( talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
OCHA oPt ( United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory).
Anyone else think that the box should say the civilians dead are only women and children? âPreceding unsigned comment added by Kaiserkar ( talk ⢠contribs) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No, cause we are sure that there are definitely male civilian casualties, despite what what's his name from the UN thinks.-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been arguing this point for several days now. I think its a significant point that none of the civilian counts include men. This is a distinction that ought to be made. I thought that the MoH was counting men too which is why I stepped back a bit but the newest UN report makes it clear that they don't. I strongly support a note stating that civilians only include women and men. Thrylos000 ( talk) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This has all been discussed before, with the same result. Are there no male civilians?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You know I added this link a week ago, hoping it might help with our discussion, not for the article itself. But I don't think anybody saw it. Unfortunately it was archived within about two hours of my posting because the section mirrored an already open discussion about casualties. But men were partially included, it was just that UN did a very rough estimate and, for the most part, excluded them. So we can't really say men are completely excluded. Well we can say it but it probably isn't true. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Forgot the actual link. [9] -- JGGardiner ( talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"North of the city, the agency attempted to get a more complete count by including adult men who were not wearing dark-blue police uniforms and whom community members identified as noncombatants." I've not seen a UN estimate from their situation reports state civilian casualties. The most recent one, as nearly all the rest only cites women and children (Totaling 303). Thrylos000 ( talk) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Israeli says ongoing rocket fire from Gaza is its reason for launching the offensive. The words "Qassam" and "(Palestinian) rocket(s)" appear a total of 58 times in the article. Meanwhile, Hamas says the ongoing blockade by Israel is its reason for launching the rockets. The word "blockade" appears only 12 times throughout. Is this a neutral article? RomaC ( talk) 02:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
We are readers not statistical analysis machines. Decontextualization is common of POV pushing. I can understand lack of balance in the article, there is indeed lack of balance. But this is not the way to go around fixing it.-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Psychological Warfare section is a bit questionable. I wouldn't call roof knocking 'psychological warfare'. It's a technique designed to limit civilian casualties. See: [10], [11]. I've changed it, but I'd definitely be willing to have a discussion if there was a consensus against it. Bsimmons666 ( talk) Friend? 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, hopefuly this is the end to it. Is it custom to put it in the infobox as "result"?-- Omrim ( talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The section 2008â2009_IsraelâGaza_conflict#Humanitarian_aid_deliveries resembles the date by date entries we had in the "Development" section, until they were rightfully moved out to Timeline of the 2008â2009 IsraelâGaza conflict. The section should have a similar fate, with its contents summarized here.
However, I'm wondering if we should create a new article for the Gaza humanitarian crisis (and move a lot of the humanitarian stuff there), or just move this date by date content to the timeline article? VR talk 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A very worrying edit to the lead was introduced, which clains this conflict was "accelarated" rather than begun on 27 December 2008. This would be a major re-purposing of this article, and given the attempts to WP:POVFORK "Operation Cast Lead", very worrying. To be clear, this article is about the specifics
We agree that the current title might not be the best, but it is the best neutral alternative a rough consensus has allowed. Ambiguities regarding its title should be fixed early in the lead, and hence the specification of the conflict "starting on". Context that this conflict is part of a wider conflict is given by wikilinking to the Parent of All Parents of articles in this topic: Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A discussion of title alternative is ongoing, and discussion should be had there. We have no deadline.
I personally see that continuing beating of this dead horse into a mushy pulp as evidence of some editors insisting on establishing a point of view. Under advisory of this article being under sanctions precisely because of large scale flounting of the editing process by means of disruption, please stop. To show your unhappiness with the consensus by unproductive editing is pointy as pointy gets. Thank you for your time. -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but you are just wrong about this. The article is named 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict. It is you who are trying to WP:POVFORK the article to Operation Cast Lead. I want to the article to reflect its title. If it were indeed about Operation Cast Lead then you can say it began on 27 December 2008, but since it is NOT about that it is inappropriate (ie WRONG) to claim the 2008 conflict began then. This is an issue of reality simply. Once your title is changed then change the wording. In the meantime it is simply ridiculous to have it read the way you would have it. Sorry. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
i just noticed this line
"U.N. spokesman Chris Gunness said We've been coordinating with them (Israeli forces) and yet our staff continue to be hit and killed.[220]"
and the quote is in italics and not in quotes. this should probably be changed, no? Untwirl ( talk) 04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
done. Untwirl ( talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
UN_council_6061
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).