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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I still think that dual photo with the Israel rally and big smiley face is just a making fun of the death and destruction Israel is engaged in and therefore highly POV. (Remember the original caption was extremely POV and had to be removed.) There already are a number of good rally photos on wikimedia here. I just added a couple more general ones without "unverified" shots. 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign!! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Who on earth has been editing the "Hamas military activity" section? It is dreadful - it reads like it was written by a 7 year-old and is full of garbage. Is it really worth suggesting that Hamas's military tactics include: "Hamas' tactics to confuse the Israeli military include [...], not walking about in groups, and spreading false informations."[sic]. Come on guys, sort this out. This article improves and deteriorates like the ebb and flow of the tide right now... Fig ( talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Estimates of the number of suspects executed range from 40 to 80, but amid the prevailing conditions shelling, fear of walking the streets and media blackouts it is virtually impossible to verify the numbers or identities of the dead.
I drastically edited the problematic subsections mentioned by Fig and Sean, but the original version was restored by Jake Wartenberg without discussion, and now it's sitting alongside my version, so it's now redundant besides its other problems. I will presently revert once, but will not be dragged into an edit war. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If someone has problems with the wording/grammar, please improve and do not delete. The sources are good ( The Times and Der Spiegel), and a section about Hamas military actions and war aims is badly needed. Expand/improve. Skäpperöd ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to restore my version in two edits, but in the middle was reverted by Skapperod. As I said, I will not make any further revert so as not to get into what could look like an edit war.
As for what needs to be done. This section has three parts, let's deal with them one by one.
Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In the "Israeli offense" section, we have a subsection "Objectives". Why shouldn't we have something similar in the Hamas section? Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been asking for help in drafting such a section on Palestinian militants and their tactics. We to cover the different factions involved in the fighting too, as listed here [1]. There's also a section on tunneling on that page, which should definitely be part of the tactics section. I was waiting for people to respond before adding more info. Maybe we should do it all in sandbox? before adding it here? Tiamut talk 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Jalapenos, I would like to go ahead and remove the section on internecine fighting. If you find additional sources, please put it back in. I remember this discussion from a few days ago. The Jerusalem Post published a similar story which, if my memory serves me right, relied on an unnamed source said to be close to Hamas! This story has simply not been repeated by neutral mainstream media outlets that are covering the story in detail and while it may or may not be true, it involves too serious an allegation to be included without multiple neutral sources. Second, the section on war aims is ridiculous. The section reads: "Gruesome television pictures have also been part of the plan". On what basis did the writer in Der Spiegel make this inference? No justification is provided. The writer is entitled to his/her personal opinion but this is hardly verifiable content. The Times article that is cited includes the line:"With an easy smile that masks his fanaticism", which gives away its lack of neutrality. Moreover, this article gives no justification for claiming that the capture of a soldier is a top priority. Once again, if we want to make statements about "top priorities" of Hamas, we need better sources ... preferably sources that report on what Hamas has to say directly. For all these reasons, I'm about to remove subsection 3.3 and 3.4. If they are better sourced and rewritten they can go back in. Jacob2718 ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well done - the re-organisation is a big improvement! :-) Fig ( talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright with me, though of course still in need of further expansion. Skäpperöd ( talk) 07:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am curious if it is OK for us to copy and paste the word "truce" that the IDF uses for the 3 hours a day. I think a truce has to be an agreement from both sides, not just one side deciding not to attack. Am I correct? Would there be better terms to use instead? I think it might be better to re-write the 3 hour truce sub-section by specifying the difference between what the IDF is offering (a 3 hour pause in hostility from their side for humanitarian purposes), and what they are calling it (a truce, a 2-sided agreement). althena ( talk) 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
i agree - truce, according to m-w , is "a suspension of fighting especially of considerable duration by agreement of opposing forces"
this was simply a suspension of bombing by israel and should be stated as such. Untwirl ( talk) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to waltz in, but, erm, may I suggest, you know, we chack, what the sources say? I mean, "V" around here is not for vendetta... :D--
Cerejota (
talk)
21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier, I've altered the wording slightly to reflect the concensus here that truce is inaccurate. Props to whoever noted the definition of truce in the first para. Superpie ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Its a three hour ceasefire on the Israeli side because of pressure from humanitarian perspectives. In this sense, its undoubtedly a humanitarian ceasefire. It is not POV to describe it as such. Superpie ( talk) 17:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
How about by stopping to bomb and shell Palestinian neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals! I really have a problem with this section since it is very similar to the psychological warfare section present here previously . Is this section neutral?-- 23prootie ( talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why stop bombing? If anything more bombs show be dropped in Palestinian neighborhoods, true victory will not be reached until one side is completely destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.58.203.31 ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand you may not agree with me, but I have every right to voice my option as you do!!!!
It sure looks like a forum to me!
We have 20 UN OCHA reports, 2 UN security council meetings, several Amnesty International reports, Human Rights Watch reports, and the International Red Cross reports, all of them calling it a "humanitarian crisis". Renaming this section is not acceptable. There's no room to debate something reported by about 30 official reports. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If the name of the section is "Effects on Gazans," could the section be expanded to include other impacts on ordinary Gazans? PinkWorld ( talk) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
The section on international law included the following paragraph that I have removed
In March 2008, a Hamas parliamentarian spoke of a "death-seeking" culture that uses women, children and the elderly as human shields against Israeli military attacks. "The enemies of God do not know that the Palestinian people have developed methods of death and death-seeking," Fathi Hammad said in a speech televised on Hamas' Al-Aqsa television station. "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children," Hammad said. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life,'" he said.[526]
First, as far as I understand this speech doesn't constitute a violation of international law, so I don't know what it was doing in that section. In fact, I know of no section in this article where this will fit in. This article is not a forum for general discussions of the ideology of Hamas or Israel or any of the other groups involved. I hope the editor who inserted this will refrain from edits like this. Jacob2718 ( talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
jalepenos do exist (btw - great name) stated that no one has a problem with that section - actually, i created a section that stated some problems with it. please refer to the section above (re: rocket attacks) to see those issues.
1. the word 'notable'
2. dead links
3. no mention of wounded or casualties
Untwirl ( talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
this page moves so fast i'm surprised anyone can keep up. just think what we could do if we all put all this effort into something useful! ;) the totals do belong in casualties section, but if you look at the sections on israeli offensive, casualty numbers do appear there for individual strikes. Untwirl ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
not really. :)
the links are dead so i couldn't even if i wanted to. that is actually the first thing that should be fixed or we should probably take this out. i'd like for it to be in if properly sourced. Untwirl ( talk) 05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
For such a claim, we need more (reliable) sources than the Iranian TV. Rabend ( talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because it's Iranian TV doesn't automatically mean it's false. Also I clearly indicated that it was Iranian Government TV to let the reader judge the possible bias of the source. Erxnmedia ( talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Need for sourcing is key, and for V too. But why is this controversial? Depleted uranium is standard munitions of any modern army in the world, and is widely used in armor too. Protestations that it is radioactive are unfounded, and its real harm is as a heavy metal, with similar health effects as lead etc. It is more dangerous than lead because it shatters (being a crystal) and becomes a fine particulate that aerosols and hence its easier to breath than lead... Depleted uranium. And in terms of international law, it is completely legal.
Its mention on this article is as irrelevant as mentioning that "F-16s" or "Apaches" were used: these are things that are assumed of any regular combat using modern military forces. I see nothing interesting in its mention, even if well sourced, and can confused readers who do not know what DU is. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
BBC and The Independent both claim that the IDF called a clinic operated by Christian Aid and told them to evacuate in 15 minutes. They then blew it up. Unless someone can prove that they are wrong or are unreliable sources, we must assume that the IDF is targeting medical facilities. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems fairly reasonable. I was able to get a synopsis of this conflict by going to the sections I was interested in etc. But there was 1 section that didn't seem correctly labelled. Under 'Palestinian offensives' there is a section labelled "Engagement with IDF ground forces". Unless this is outside Gaza or specifically a counter-attack with the strategic capacity to get outside Gaza I wouldn't consider it much of an offensive. Offensive's are not 'attacks' but attacks where you go towards or into enemy territory.
The rocket attacks are to a degree offensives and perhaps Iran does have designs to push into Israel's borders so those sections are fine. But I just don't think a ragtag bunch of militia, fighting a professional army house to house in the cities and towns they live in can be considered an offensive. Perhaps this needs to be relabelled defensive actions or put under the section for the Israeli ground offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.107 ( talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe an emphasis should be placed on the fact that the terrorist group Hamas is using human shields. For example, firing rockets near schools, storing weapons in civilian apartments, firing rockets in residential areas. WacoJacko ( talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Gaza War? Operation Cast Lead? There seemed to be concensus above about moving the article to a new name, but which one is better? Squash Racket ( talk) 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys, seriously that article is not worth reading, deleting it would be much easier than trying to stitch it, would it be possible to create 2 articles, israeli & palestinian POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 ( talk) 12:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is how the section on Depleted Uranium now appears.
The Iranian Government TV news channel Press TV claimed on January 4, 2009, that evidence of Depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. [1]
An ISM activist named Eva who is in Gaza also saw a reference to that same doctor and that same statement on a BBC news TV broadcast. However, there are other quotations from that same medic in which he has said that he does not have further information on DU. He offered information on DIMEs instead. It is possible that what he initially thought to be wounds caused by suspected DU had actually been caused by suspected DIMEs. I feel terribly dimwitted at the moment, though: I did not save a copy of any of those "switch" interviews. If anyone wants one, I could try to find one. PinkWorld ( talk) 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
Could we? Please?-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the image about the protesters with a Wikipedia:Featured picture which previously was the sole image before being replaced. Any change of image should be first discussed as the File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG has been deemed to most encyclopedic and good quality image by the wikipedia featured picture participants Muhammad (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This text is as dishevelled as the average high-school paper, if indeed those are still written. We need correction of gross mispellings, as well as redrafting towards normal syntax, and adjustments for narrative coherence on chronological lines, etc.etc. This can be done without significant challenges to the body of material as plunked, stuffed, crammed in all over the place by editors who are too busy to attend to the overall quality of the article. I've done a little, while not touching in any substantive way material than still looks out of place, or inadequately organized. A little time spent on house-cleaning or 'napkin changing' would not be amiss by editors with some experience, and there are many, in copywriting. Nishidani ( talk) 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody resectioned the article, giving an entire section to "Israeli planning". I restored the original sectioning. The logical place for Israeli planning is in the section on the Israeli offensive, and besides, this type of thing would lead to someone creating an entire section on Palestinian planning, and so on. I think almost everybody would agree with me on this one, but you never know. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
so wikipedia are using Israeli views to describe the incidents
i think the article needs to be re-written from the beggining, its really not worth reading
or maybe 2 seperate articles, 1 from israeli POV (using CNN as the main source) & another from a Palestinian POV (using Al Jazeera as main source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 January 2009
Hi, I'm posting here because this merits broader discussion. The second paragraph of the lead has changed. It includes grammatically incorrect sentences, factually incorrect information and is not NPOV. The second paragraph currently reads
A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008.[52][53][54] Hamas declined to extend the truce, contending that Israel did not lift the Gaza Strip blockade and for did not halt raids in Gaza[55] and resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.[56] On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation in response with the stated objective to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[57] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[58]
This is factually incorrect as explained in our background section because rocket fire had increased after the Nov 4 incident. It is quite incorrect to state that Hamas 'resumed it rocket and mortar attacks' .. there was a background low level of conflict persisting from Nov 4 and this escalated on December 27. Second, the word "in response" is also incorrect. For one, as we ourselves explain later in the article there were complex factors that led to this war; the current sentence suggests that this was an immediate response to increased rocket fire.
Third, this paragraph is written to suggest that Hamas did something and only in response did the IDF do something. We've discussed this extensively and come to the consensus and sentences like this can be extended in the past without end; Hamas could say that the IDF did something else which is why they did what they did .. etc. We agreed not to include such statements in the lead. These allegations are dealt with later in the article.
I did notice a talk page comment from Pedrito on the Lead talk page but it does not seem to have attracted much attention or debate at all. It was inserted in the middle of an old discussion with the comment: "Well, then it's not the reason Israel ended the truce... My understanding was that Israel wanted the truce extended and Hamas not. The whole formulation is kind of shaky and confusing. May I suggest the following? ". Indeed, the current version of the second paragraph is written to reflect this viewpoint. This is not NPOV. Once again, referring to our article, there is dispute about who wanted to extend the ceasefire and who didn't.
For these reasons, I'm going to change the paragraph back to what it was about 12 hours ago. The previous version which was far more neutral and did not take sides read:
A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008,[50][51][52] after Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade and for continuing raids in Gaza[53], and Israel blamed Hamas for the rocket and mortar attacks directed at its southern cities.[54] Israel's stated objectives in this conflict are to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[55] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[56]
I'm posting this comment here, because the Lead discussion page seems increasingly defunct which is why this edit seems to have gone through without discussion. Jacob2718 ( talk) 14:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pedrito, thanks for your message. I still feel the second paragraph suggests that Hamas did not want to renew the truce whereas Israel did. I think neutral sources around the world reveal a far more complex story. For example, here are six sources that claim that Hamas was willing to renew the truce with Israel:
Reuters:"Hamas offers to study fresh Gaza truce with Israel"
Ynet: "Hamas: Willing to renew truce"
BBC: Hamas 'might renew' truce in Gaza
Star(Malaysia): Hamas offers to study fresh Gaza truce with Israel
Nation(Pakistan) Hamas leader willing to renew truce with Israel
Huffington Post: "Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer In December"(this appears to refer to a separate proposal in mid-December)
It is evident that the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the truce were far more complex than "Hamas ... announced that it would not extend the truce". The wording of the second paragraph should be changed in accordance. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to use the passive voice for the breakdown of the truce, without assigning blame to either Hamas or to Israel. best, Jacob2718 ( talk) 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks pedrito. I improved the second paragraph to
A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19 2008.[52][53][54] Earlier, contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade and following an Israeli raid into the Gaza Strip on November 4,[55] Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. After initially announcing, on December 19, that the truce was "over",[56] Hamas offered to extend the truce on December 23.[57][58][59][60][61][62] On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of defending itself from Hamas rocket fire[63] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[64]
I don't want to put more or less blame on either party. I just feel that, if we go by our reliable sources, the breakdown of the truce is a complicated event. I don't think the article should shy away from examining this event; just that I feel that the second paragraph of the lead is not the appropriate place to do it. The current version does work in the revised truce offer, but I feel its only a matter of time before this gets attacked by other editors who want to insert even more background. I'm wary of opening a can of worms but I hope the current version is satisfactory to the two of us at least! Jacob2718 ( talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
could someone let me know whether dead links need to be removed or not? see section above (rocket attacks (again)).
i am relatively new so i could be wrong, but i thought for verifiability we needed live links. thanks Untwirl ( talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Since our article is extremely long, we should be working on making it more succinct.
I've been joining some specific subsections (eg, DIME and DU), since each is about 2 lines long and their both about basically the same thing, as well as cutting short all sorts of obviously personal stories and other info that is strictly non-encyclopedic (I'm not touching canonical things, obviously). Yet someone keeps reverting back these changes, presumably from the pro-P side.
Please, all editors, let's try to keep this article as straight and to the point as possible.
Rabend (
talk)
15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all: I'm going to edit this section as posted for English usage. As it is currently written, it is riddled with errors of both style and some grammar. I do not intend to change the meaning of the paragraph, but only its formatting, etc.
The Arion ship which headed to Gaza with a Greek flag in order to offer humanitarian aid, reported it had to return back to Larnaka, Cyprus on 15th of January. According to its crew, the captain had to make that decision after the ship was threatened by an Israeli line in a distance of 92 sea miles from the Cavo Greko foreland, while at international waters. According to the captain, five Israeli ships approached Arion and blocked its sight with lights, while threatening at the same time that it would be attacked if continued on its caurse. At the ship there were twelve Greek activists and nine of other nationality who were doctors and journalists. Although the ship tried to shift to Egypt or Lebanon, according to the journalists aboard it avoided a deliberate embolism and returned to Larnaka as the orders commanded.
Greece had informed the Israeli part on its transfer of humanitarian aid days ago.[537][538]
The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs made representations towards the Israeli authorities, as soon as the incident of the Arion blockage was made known. [539]( V. Joe ( talk))
Cheers V. Joe ( talk) 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
=== The Arion Incident === The Arion [[Merchant Marine|merchant vessel]], which was headed to Gaza under a [[Hellenic Republic|Greek]] [[Merchant Ensign]] in order to offer humanitarian aid, returned to [[Larnaca]], [[Republic of Cyprus|Cyprus]] on January 15th. According to the crew, the Captain decided to return to Larnaca after an encounter with a Israeli [[warship|warships]] at a distance of 92 [[nautical miles]] for the [[Cape Greco]] off [[Cyprus]] in [[Famagusta Bay]], which is in [[International Waters]]. According to the Captain, 5 Israeli ships approached the Arion and ordered her to heave to or to be fired upon. Aboard the Arion there were twelve Greek nationals and activists aboard as well as journalists and doctors of other nationalities. Although the ship tried to drift to Egyptian or Lebanese waters, the vessel avoided a deliberate rupture and returned to Larnaca as ordered. Greece had informed the Israeli government on its transfer of humanitarian aid days ago.<ref>[http://www.tanea.gr/default.asp?pid=41&nid=4496861 Επιστρέφει στην Κύπρο το πλοίο "Αρίων" Ta Nea], 15/1/2009 (in greek)</ref><ref>[http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s reply to a question regarding the approach of the vessel Arion to the Gaza Strip], 15/1/2009</ref> The [[Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs]] made protested towards the Israeli government, as soon as informed of the Arion incident. <ref>[http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/15012009_ALK1103.htm Representations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards the Israeli Authorities regarding the "Arion" ship], 15/1/2009 (in Greek)</ref>
I believe that this a substanital improvement in usuage, although I fear I may have treaded too heavily with sea going terms. Please let me know what you think (civilly) while I attempt to find English language sources about this incident. V. Joe ( talk) 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I support version two for the reasons I already gave here. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. How about we hash out the start date, first? As I have stated on the other page, I think placing the start date at December 27 is unfair, since the first bout of violence began on December 19, the day the truce ended, and to place the start date at December 27 portrays the events as "Israel attacks Hamas/Gaza. Period.", ignoring Hamas's contributions to the violence. Also, since there is a significant section about the ceasefire ending and the events immediately after the end of the ceasefire, the later date of December 27 seems inconsistent with the article. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
the first one seems cut and dry, as a lead should be. the third one seems neutral also. the second one reads like an israeli pr piece. i don't think even the most biased pro-palestinian editor would suggest we put "hamas warned israel they would keep sending rockets if the blockade wasn't lifted and raids stopped. with no end to the blockade or attacks, hamas launched its counteroffensive . . ."
Untwirl (
talk)
06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:I support version 3 since it is the most readable as well as detailed. As Goldilocks said, version 1 is too short while version 2 is too long.--
23prootie (
talk)
07:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Version 3.
I do think that the info in V2 is very important, but should be in the 2nd paragraph. However, one suggestion: "targeting militant Hamas members and infrastructure". In the following sentence you mention that Hamas is the government of Gaza (which is kind of an awkward statement, I think), so it looks like Israel is going after just members of a government. We all know that Hamas doubles as both the governemnt and a militant organization, and I think the emphasis regrding military activity here should be on the militant side of Hamas. This is truly how things are from the Israeli point of view.
Rabend (
talk)
07:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Support version 2. The other versions suggest Israel launched the attack with no special reason at the moment the truce expired. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"assign responsibility for Palestinian deaths on the Palestinians themselves" - hmm...and they are not responsible? And both sides agreed to the current version which would be a REAL concensus? Squash Racket ( talk) 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment I see your point regarding version 3, what I wonder is if "The Arab and Israeli media have widely termed it the Gaza War ", why is Wiki terming it something else? RomaC ( talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is helpful for us
Strongly support version 2. I cannot accept anything that includes pretending that there is equality between calling something "Operation Cast Lead" and calling it "The Gaza Massacre" . Even if the whole world were to see it that way, the facts are as Version 2 puts it. It is not terribly long and it could be shortened (since someone above complained of its length). By having that material in the beginning, the next couple of paragraphs could easily be shortened and much of it reduced to the body of the article. So far I have not seen complaints that anything is wrong or mistaken in #2. It is accurate and far less POV than others. It balances the accusationn of "Massacre." Tundrabuggy ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support version 3. In my opinion it is the best proposal. But more importantly I think it is one which is most able to achieve consensus status. It already has support or approval from a group of editors with pretty diverse perspectives (or "POVs"). I think it is a descriptive, reasonable, NPOV edit. It isn't just a fair comment but as if it was literally written from a neutral point of view.
I realize this version it isn't everyone's idea of perfection. But we have here the chance here to create a paragraph that upsets very few people. And that's as close to perfect as we're going to get on this article. So let's not pass that up, okay? -- JGGardiner ( talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How about
I think this is probably as accurate as we can get given limited space. Jacob2718 ( talk) 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's yet another proposal, which I think is brief while describing the main events and avoiding POV. The question of what to name the article is a separate issue, and I agree with several editors above that we are approaching the point - if we haven't already reached it - where we can call this Gaza War or 2008-2009 Gaza War. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I already said this above, but I'll repeat myself. We are supposed to cover what is notable. How do we decide what marks a sharp break from the past? The most objective way to do that is to see when news coverage and attention exploded. In that context, look at the relevant Google trend. There is a very dramatic rise in news and attention around the 27th and nothing like that either on the 19th or the 24th. Hence, the 27th marks a clear break which neither the 19th or the 24th do. This data is essentially conclusive and it rules out version 5; in my mind now, this issue of the start date is not even a question. Jacob2718 ( talk) 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Current its fine, and "intensified" is not what thsi article is about. The events this article coveres started on Dec 27, not intensified. That we are unable to agree on calling this the Gaza War which is how all the Israeli Media is calling it and how almost all other media is calling it speaks badly of us, but lets not make it worse by POVFORKING this article into being about something else. Next thing you know, people are re-creating Operation Cast Lead because "there is no article that covers it". Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am also joining the "Support Cerejota Movement".-- Omrim ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Elaboration of what caused this event is for the background section. No reliable source is reporting as fact any reason (Al-Jazz and JP/Ynet/Haa not RS in this case, as they are pushing narratives even if the rest of their reporting verifies). There is no deadline, and in the name of article quality, I think eshould stick to uncontrovertible facts for the intro, provide information on the constracting view on the causes in the background. Pretty much any reliable source is saying what we are saying: "Israel says it wants the rockets to stop", "Hamas says the blockade is the cause of the rockets", and that "this part of the ongoing, wider I-P conflict". All of these are factual, uncontroversial, and well sourced. NPOV is served. In fact, no one has proven this otherwise to me or anyone else.
Of course this is all about the intro. In the background section we should eleaborate the narratives with an eye to not overlap other articles. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cerejota’s point as well. But I’d like to point out that is compatible with Version 3. That draft was really about addressing the conflicts regarding the naming disputes that had been occurring. So it modified the third sentence and added the fourth. But it works with or without “intensified”. I personally prefer it without.
I’d also like to say that is important that we learn to achieve change through dialogue and compromise and to not just accept the rough de facto version that is created from back and forth editing conflicts. Right now we are acting too much like the subjects we write about. And that strategy hasn’t worked out well for them. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with defining the article's subject as December 27 and onwards. I'm also fine with naming the article Gaza War, or conflict, or whatever. I also don't care about the focus of that stupefyingly long argument, about the name "Gaza Massacre" in the first paragraph. However, I strongly believe that we cannot begin an article saying "X attacked Y. X has its point of view, and Y has its point of view. Then a bunch of stuff happened. X and Y also have a long history of hating each other." If we begin "X attacked Y", we are unintentionally (and perhaps unavoidably) implying that X "started it". To cancel that, we must immediately add the stated or the plausible reason for that attack. After that we can talk about points of view. I've checked some other WP articles on "X attacked Y, marking the beginning of a conflict" situations (far from exhaustively), and in all the ones I saw, the reason was either stated in the first paragraph or was the sole subject of the second paragraph. I think we should do the same here. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Version Two with minor alteration "following the expiration of the truce and citing Israel's refusual to lift its economic blockade, Hamas fired a barrage of rockets into Israel.[15][16][17][18] "
I think version two with the above edit is fair :D. Superpie ( talk) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I jizz in my pants... This is not the first line, thats about the only intro we need. I would use the Capital War, but lets just all fall behind this version, regardless of title. It is NPOV, balanced, truthful and backed by moar sauce than all the BBQ in Texas. Opposing this is borderline WP:POINT. Shit, and it came from a new SPA, take that wikipedians, a noob pwnd us all! -- Cerejota ( talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Guardian20091105
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help); External link in |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "gaza_massacre7" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
iht
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |agency=
(
help); line feed character in |agency=
at position 432 (
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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I still think that dual photo with the Israel rally and big smiley face is just a making fun of the death and destruction Israel is engaged in and therefore highly POV. (Remember the original caption was extremely POV and had to be removed.) There already are a number of good rally photos on wikimedia here. I just added a couple more general ones without "unverified" shots. 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign!! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Who on earth has been editing the "Hamas military activity" section? It is dreadful - it reads like it was written by a 7 year-old and is full of garbage. Is it really worth suggesting that Hamas's military tactics include: "Hamas' tactics to confuse the Israeli military include [...], not walking about in groups, and spreading false informations."[sic]. Come on guys, sort this out. This article improves and deteriorates like the ebb and flow of the tide right now... Fig ( talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Estimates of the number of suspects executed range from 40 to 80, but amid the prevailing conditions shelling, fear of walking the streets and media blackouts it is virtually impossible to verify the numbers or identities of the dead.
I drastically edited the problematic subsections mentioned by Fig and Sean, but the original version was restored by Jake Wartenberg without discussion, and now it's sitting alongside my version, so it's now redundant besides its other problems. I will presently revert once, but will not be dragged into an edit war. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If someone has problems with the wording/grammar, please improve and do not delete. The sources are good ( The Times and Der Spiegel), and a section about Hamas military actions and war aims is badly needed. Expand/improve. Skäpperöd ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to restore my version in two edits, but in the middle was reverted by Skapperod. As I said, I will not make any further revert so as not to get into what could look like an edit war.
As for what needs to be done. This section has three parts, let's deal with them one by one.
Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In the "Israeli offense" section, we have a subsection "Objectives". Why shouldn't we have something similar in the Hamas section? Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been asking for help in drafting such a section on Palestinian militants and their tactics. We to cover the different factions involved in the fighting too, as listed here [1]. There's also a section on tunneling on that page, which should definitely be part of the tactics section. I was waiting for people to respond before adding more info. Maybe we should do it all in sandbox? before adding it here? Tiamut talk 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Jalapenos, I would like to go ahead and remove the section on internecine fighting. If you find additional sources, please put it back in. I remember this discussion from a few days ago. The Jerusalem Post published a similar story which, if my memory serves me right, relied on an unnamed source said to be close to Hamas! This story has simply not been repeated by neutral mainstream media outlets that are covering the story in detail and while it may or may not be true, it involves too serious an allegation to be included without multiple neutral sources. Second, the section on war aims is ridiculous. The section reads: "Gruesome television pictures have also been part of the plan". On what basis did the writer in Der Spiegel make this inference? No justification is provided. The writer is entitled to his/her personal opinion but this is hardly verifiable content. The Times article that is cited includes the line:"With an easy smile that masks his fanaticism", which gives away its lack of neutrality. Moreover, this article gives no justification for claiming that the capture of a soldier is a top priority. Once again, if we want to make statements about "top priorities" of Hamas, we need better sources ... preferably sources that report on what Hamas has to say directly. For all these reasons, I'm about to remove subsection 3.3 and 3.4. If they are better sourced and rewritten they can go back in. Jacob2718 ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well done - the re-organisation is a big improvement! :-) Fig ( talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright with me, though of course still in need of further expansion. Skäpperöd ( talk) 07:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am curious if it is OK for us to copy and paste the word "truce" that the IDF uses for the 3 hours a day. I think a truce has to be an agreement from both sides, not just one side deciding not to attack. Am I correct? Would there be better terms to use instead? I think it might be better to re-write the 3 hour truce sub-section by specifying the difference between what the IDF is offering (a 3 hour pause in hostility from their side for humanitarian purposes), and what they are calling it (a truce, a 2-sided agreement). althena ( talk) 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
i agree - truce, according to m-w , is "a suspension of fighting especially of considerable duration by agreement of opposing forces"
this was simply a suspension of bombing by israel and should be stated as such. Untwirl ( talk) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to waltz in, but, erm, may I suggest, you know, we chack, what the sources say? I mean, "V" around here is not for vendetta... :D--
Cerejota (
talk)
21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier, I've altered the wording slightly to reflect the concensus here that truce is inaccurate. Props to whoever noted the definition of truce in the first para. Superpie ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Its a three hour ceasefire on the Israeli side because of pressure from humanitarian perspectives. In this sense, its undoubtedly a humanitarian ceasefire. It is not POV to describe it as such. Superpie ( talk) 17:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
How about by stopping to bomb and shell Palestinian neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals! I really have a problem with this section since it is very similar to the psychological warfare section present here previously . Is this section neutral?-- 23prootie ( talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why stop bombing? If anything more bombs show be dropped in Palestinian neighborhoods, true victory will not be reached until one side is completely destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.58.203.31 ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand you may not agree with me, but I have every right to voice my option as you do!!!!
It sure looks like a forum to me!
We have 20 UN OCHA reports, 2 UN security council meetings, several Amnesty International reports, Human Rights Watch reports, and the International Red Cross reports, all of them calling it a "humanitarian crisis". Renaming this section is not acceptable. There's no room to debate something reported by about 30 official reports. -- Darwish07 ( talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If the name of the section is "Effects on Gazans," could the section be expanded to include other impacts on ordinary Gazans? PinkWorld ( talk) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
The section on international law included the following paragraph that I have removed
In March 2008, a Hamas parliamentarian spoke of a "death-seeking" culture that uses women, children and the elderly as human shields against Israeli military attacks. "The enemies of God do not know that the Palestinian people have developed methods of death and death-seeking," Fathi Hammad said in a speech televised on Hamas' Al-Aqsa television station. "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children," Hammad said. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life,'" he said.[526]
First, as far as I understand this speech doesn't constitute a violation of international law, so I don't know what it was doing in that section. In fact, I know of no section in this article where this will fit in. This article is not a forum for general discussions of the ideology of Hamas or Israel or any of the other groups involved. I hope the editor who inserted this will refrain from edits like this. Jacob2718 ( talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
jalepenos do exist (btw - great name) stated that no one has a problem with that section - actually, i created a section that stated some problems with it. please refer to the section above (re: rocket attacks) to see those issues.
1. the word 'notable'
2. dead links
3. no mention of wounded or casualties
Untwirl ( talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
this page moves so fast i'm surprised anyone can keep up. just think what we could do if we all put all this effort into something useful! ;) the totals do belong in casualties section, but if you look at the sections on israeli offensive, casualty numbers do appear there for individual strikes. Untwirl ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
not really. :)
the links are dead so i couldn't even if i wanted to. that is actually the first thing that should be fixed or we should probably take this out. i'd like for it to be in if properly sourced. Untwirl ( talk) 05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
For such a claim, we need more (reliable) sources than the Iranian TV. Rabend ( talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because it's Iranian TV doesn't automatically mean it's false. Also I clearly indicated that it was Iranian Government TV to let the reader judge the possible bias of the source. Erxnmedia ( talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Need for sourcing is key, and for V too. But why is this controversial? Depleted uranium is standard munitions of any modern army in the world, and is widely used in armor too. Protestations that it is radioactive are unfounded, and its real harm is as a heavy metal, with similar health effects as lead etc. It is more dangerous than lead because it shatters (being a crystal) and becomes a fine particulate that aerosols and hence its easier to breath than lead... Depleted uranium. And in terms of international law, it is completely legal.
Its mention on this article is as irrelevant as mentioning that "F-16s" or "Apaches" were used: these are things that are assumed of any regular combat using modern military forces. I see nothing interesting in its mention, even if well sourced, and can confused readers who do not know what DU is. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
BBC and The Independent both claim that the IDF called a clinic operated by Christian Aid and told them to evacuate in 15 minutes. They then blew it up. Unless someone can prove that they are wrong or are unreliable sources, we must assume that the IDF is targeting medical facilities. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems fairly reasonable. I was able to get a synopsis of this conflict by going to the sections I was interested in etc. But there was 1 section that didn't seem correctly labelled. Under 'Palestinian offensives' there is a section labelled "Engagement with IDF ground forces". Unless this is outside Gaza or specifically a counter-attack with the strategic capacity to get outside Gaza I wouldn't consider it much of an offensive. Offensive's are not 'attacks' but attacks where you go towards or into enemy territory.
The rocket attacks are to a degree offensives and perhaps Iran does have designs to push into Israel's borders so those sections are fine. But I just don't think a ragtag bunch of militia, fighting a professional army house to house in the cities and towns they live in can be considered an offensive. Perhaps this needs to be relabelled defensive actions or put under the section for the Israeli ground offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.107 ( talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe an emphasis should be placed on the fact that the terrorist group Hamas is using human shields. For example, firing rockets near schools, storing weapons in civilian apartments, firing rockets in residential areas. WacoJacko ( talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Gaza War? Operation Cast Lead? There seemed to be concensus above about moving the article to a new name, but which one is better? Squash Racket ( talk) 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys, seriously that article is not worth reading, deleting it would be much easier than trying to stitch it, would it be possible to create 2 articles, israeli & palestinian POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 ( talk) 12:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is how the section on Depleted Uranium now appears.
The Iranian Government TV news channel Press TV claimed on January 4, 2009, that evidence of Depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. [1]
An ISM activist named Eva who is in Gaza also saw a reference to that same doctor and that same statement on a BBC news TV broadcast. However, there are other quotations from that same medic in which he has said that he does not have further information on DU. He offered information on DIMEs instead. It is possible that what he initially thought to be wounds caused by suspected DU had actually been caused by suspected DIMEs. I feel terribly dimwitted at the moment, though: I did not save a copy of any of those "switch" interviews. If anyone wants one, I could try to find one. PinkWorld ( talk) 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
Could we? Please?-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the image about the protesters with a Wikipedia:Featured picture which previously was the sole image before being replaced. Any change of image should be first discussed as the File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG has been deemed to most encyclopedic and good quality image by the wikipedia featured picture participants Muhammad (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This text is as dishevelled as the average high-school paper, if indeed those are still written. We need correction of gross mispellings, as well as redrafting towards normal syntax, and adjustments for narrative coherence on chronological lines, etc.etc. This can be done without significant challenges to the body of material as plunked, stuffed, crammed in all over the place by editors who are too busy to attend to the overall quality of the article. I've done a little, while not touching in any substantive way material than still looks out of place, or inadequately organized. A little time spent on house-cleaning or 'napkin changing' would not be amiss by editors with some experience, and there are many, in copywriting. Nishidani ( talk) 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody resectioned the article, giving an entire section to "Israeli planning". I restored the original sectioning. The logical place for Israeli planning is in the section on the Israeli offensive, and besides, this type of thing would lead to someone creating an entire section on Palestinian planning, and so on. I think almost everybody would agree with me on this one, but you never know. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
so wikipedia are using Israeli views to describe the incidents
i think the article needs to be re-written from the beggining, its really not worth reading
or maybe 2 seperate articles, 1 from israeli POV (using CNN as the main source) & another from a Palestinian POV (using Al Jazeera as main source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 January 2009
Hi, I'm posting here because this merits broader discussion. The second paragraph of the lead has changed. It includes grammatically incorrect sentences, factually incorrect information and is not NPOV. The second paragraph currently reads
A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008.[52][53][54] Hamas declined to extend the truce, contending that Israel did not lift the Gaza Strip blockade and for did not halt raids in Gaza[55] and resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.[56] On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation in response with the stated objective to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[57] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[58]
This is factually incorrect as explained in our background section because rocket fire had increased after the Nov 4 incident. It is quite incorrect to state that Hamas 'resumed it rocket and mortar attacks' .. there was a background low level of conflict persisting from Nov 4 and this escalated on December 27. Second, the word "in response" is also incorrect. For one, as we ourselves explain later in the article there were complex factors that led to this war; the current sentence suggests that this was an immediate response to increased rocket fire.
Third, this paragraph is written to suggest that Hamas did something and only in response did the IDF do something. We've discussed this extensively and come to the consensus and sentences like this can be extended in the past without end; Hamas could say that the IDF did something else which is why they did what they did .. etc. We agreed not to include such statements in the lead. These allegations are dealt with later in the article.
I did notice a talk page comment from Pedrito on the Lead talk page but it does not seem to have attracted much attention or debate at all. It was inserted in the middle of an old discussion with the comment: "Well, then it's not the reason Israel ended the truce... My understanding was that Israel wanted the truce extended and Hamas not. The whole formulation is kind of shaky and confusing. May I suggest the following? ". Indeed, the current version of the second paragraph is written to reflect this viewpoint. This is not NPOV. Once again, referring to our article, there is dispute about who wanted to extend the ceasefire and who didn't.
For these reasons, I'm going to change the paragraph back to what it was about 12 hours ago. The previous version which was far more neutral and did not take sides read:
A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008,[50][51][52] after Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade and for continuing raids in Gaza[53], and Israel blamed Hamas for the rocket and mortar attacks directed at its southern cities.[54] Israel's stated objectives in this conflict are to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[55] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[56]
I'm posting this comment here, because the Lead discussion page seems increasingly defunct which is why this edit seems to have gone through without discussion. Jacob2718 ( talk) 14:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pedrito, thanks for your message. I still feel the second paragraph suggests that Hamas did not want to renew the truce whereas Israel did. I think neutral sources around the world reveal a far more complex story. For example, here are six sources that claim that Hamas was willing to renew the truce with Israel:
Reuters:"Hamas offers to study fresh Gaza truce with Israel"
Ynet: "Hamas: Willing to renew truce"
BBC: Hamas 'might renew' truce in Gaza
Star(Malaysia): Hamas offers to study fresh Gaza truce with Israel
Nation(Pakistan) Hamas leader willing to renew truce with Israel
Huffington Post: "Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer In December"(this appears to refer to a separate proposal in mid-December)
It is evident that the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the truce were far more complex than "Hamas ... announced that it would not extend the truce". The wording of the second paragraph should be changed in accordance. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to use the passive voice for the breakdown of the truce, without assigning blame to either Hamas or to Israel. best, Jacob2718 ( talk) 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks pedrito. I improved the second paragraph to
A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19 2008.[52][53][54] Earlier, contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade and following an Israeli raid into the Gaza Strip on November 4,[55] Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. After initially announcing, on December 19, that the truce was "over",[56] Hamas offered to extend the truce on December 23.[57][58][59][60][61][62] On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of defending itself from Hamas rocket fire[63] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[64]
I don't want to put more or less blame on either party. I just feel that, if we go by our reliable sources, the breakdown of the truce is a complicated event. I don't think the article should shy away from examining this event; just that I feel that the second paragraph of the lead is not the appropriate place to do it. The current version does work in the revised truce offer, but I feel its only a matter of time before this gets attacked by other editors who want to insert even more background. I'm wary of opening a can of worms but I hope the current version is satisfactory to the two of us at least! Jacob2718 ( talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
could someone let me know whether dead links need to be removed or not? see section above (rocket attacks (again)).
i am relatively new so i could be wrong, but i thought for verifiability we needed live links. thanks Untwirl ( talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Since our article is extremely long, we should be working on making it more succinct.
I've been joining some specific subsections (eg, DIME and DU), since each is about 2 lines long and their both about basically the same thing, as well as cutting short all sorts of obviously personal stories and other info that is strictly non-encyclopedic (I'm not touching canonical things, obviously). Yet someone keeps reverting back these changes, presumably from the pro-P side.
Please, all editors, let's try to keep this article as straight and to the point as possible.
Rabend (
talk)
15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all: I'm going to edit this section as posted for English usage. As it is currently written, it is riddled with errors of both style and some grammar. I do not intend to change the meaning of the paragraph, but only its formatting, etc.
The Arion ship which headed to Gaza with a Greek flag in order to offer humanitarian aid, reported it had to return back to Larnaka, Cyprus on 15th of January. According to its crew, the captain had to make that decision after the ship was threatened by an Israeli line in a distance of 92 sea miles from the Cavo Greko foreland, while at international waters. According to the captain, five Israeli ships approached Arion and blocked its sight with lights, while threatening at the same time that it would be attacked if continued on its caurse. At the ship there were twelve Greek activists and nine of other nationality who were doctors and journalists. Although the ship tried to shift to Egypt or Lebanon, according to the journalists aboard it avoided a deliberate embolism and returned to Larnaka as the orders commanded.
Greece had informed the Israeli part on its transfer of humanitarian aid days ago.[537][538]
The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs made representations towards the Israeli authorities, as soon as the incident of the Arion blockage was made known. [539]( V. Joe ( talk))
Cheers V. Joe ( talk) 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
=== The Arion Incident === The Arion [[Merchant Marine|merchant vessel]], which was headed to Gaza under a [[Hellenic Republic|Greek]] [[Merchant Ensign]] in order to offer humanitarian aid, returned to [[Larnaca]], [[Republic of Cyprus|Cyprus]] on January 15th. According to the crew, the Captain decided to return to Larnaca after an encounter with a Israeli [[warship|warships]] at a distance of 92 [[nautical miles]] for the [[Cape Greco]] off [[Cyprus]] in [[Famagusta Bay]], which is in [[International Waters]]. According to the Captain, 5 Israeli ships approached the Arion and ordered her to heave to or to be fired upon. Aboard the Arion there were twelve Greek nationals and activists aboard as well as journalists and doctors of other nationalities. Although the ship tried to drift to Egyptian or Lebanese waters, the vessel avoided a deliberate rupture and returned to Larnaca as ordered. Greece had informed the Israeli government on its transfer of humanitarian aid days ago.<ref>[http://www.tanea.gr/default.asp?pid=41&nid=4496861 Επιστρέφει στην Κύπρο το πλοίο "Αρίων" Ta Nea], 15/1/2009 (in greek)</ref><ref>[http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s reply to a question regarding the approach of the vessel Arion to the Gaza Strip], 15/1/2009</ref> The [[Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs]] made protested towards the Israeli government, as soon as informed of the Arion incident. <ref>[http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/15012009_ALK1103.htm Representations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards the Israeli Authorities regarding the "Arion" ship], 15/1/2009 (in Greek)</ref>
I believe that this a substanital improvement in usuage, although I fear I may have treaded too heavily with sea going terms. Please let me know what you think (civilly) while I attempt to find English language sources about this incident. V. Joe ( talk) 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I support version two for the reasons I already gave here. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. How about we hash out the start date, first? As I have stated on the other page, I think placing the start date at December 27 is unfair, since the first bout of violence began on December 19, the day the truce ended, and to place the start date at December 27 portrays the events as "Israel attacks Hamas/Gaza. Period.", ignoring Hamas's contributions to the violence. Also, since there is a significant section about the ceasefire ending and the events immediately after the end of the ceasefire, the later date of December 27 seems inconsistent with the article. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
the first one seems cut and dry, as a lead should be. the third one seems neutral also. the second one reads like an israeli pr piece. i don't think even the most biased pro-palestinian editor would suggest we put "hamas warned israel they would keep sending rockets if the blockade wasn't lifted and raids stopped. with no end to the blockade or attacks, hamas launched its counteroffensive . . ."
Untwirl (
talk)
06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:I support version 3 since it is the most readable as well as detailed. As Goldilocks said, version 1 is too short while version 2 is too long.--
23prootie (
talk)
07:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Version 3.
I do think that the info in V2 is very important, but should be in the 2nd paragraph. However, one suggestion: "targeting militant Hamas members and infrastructure". In the following sentence you mention that Hamas is the government of Gaza (which is kind of an awkward statement, I think), so it looks like Israel is going after just members of a government. We all know that Hamas doubles as both the governemnt and a militant organization, and I think the emphasis regrding military activity here should be on the militant side of Hamas. This is truly how things are from the Israeli point of view.
Rabend (
talk)
07:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Support version 2. The other versions suggest Israel launched the attack with no special reason at the moment the truce expired. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"assign responsibility for Palestinian deaths on the Palestinians themselves" - hmm...and they are not responsible? And both sides agreed to the current version which would be a REAL concensus? Squash Racket ( talk) 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment I see your point regarding version 3, what I wonder is if "The Arab and Israeli media have widely termed it the Gaza War ", why is Wiki terming it something else? RomaC ( talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is helpful for us
Strongly support version 2. I cannot accept anything that includes pretending that there is equality between calling something "Operation Cast Lead" and calling it "The Gaza Massacre" . Even if the whole world were to see it that way, the facts are as Version 2 puts it. It is not terribly long and it could be shortened (since someone above complained of its length). By having that material in the beginning, the next couple of paragraphs could easily be shortened and much of it reduced to the body of the article. So far I have not seen complaints that anything is wrong or mistaken in #2. It is accurate and far less POV than others. It balances the accusationn of "Massacre." Tundrabuggy ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support version 3. In my opinion it is the best proposal. But more importantly I think it is one which is most able to achieve consensus status. It already has support or approval from a group of editors with pretty diverse perspectives (or "POVs"). I think it is a descriptive, reasonable, NPOV edit. It isn't just a fair comment but as if it was literally written from a neutral point of view.
I realize this version it isn't everyone's idea of perfection. But we have here the chance here to create a paragraph that upsets very few people. And that's as close to perfect as we're going to get on this article. So let's not pass that up, okay? -- JGGardiner ( talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How about
I think this is probably as accurate as we can get given limited space. Jacob2718 ( talk) 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's yet another proposal, which I think is brief while describing the main events and avoiding POV. The question of what to name the article is a separate issue, and I agree with several editors above that we are approaching the point - if we haven't already reached it - where we can call this Gaza War or 2008-2009 Gaza War. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I already said this above, but I'll repeat myself. We are supposed to cover what is notable. How do we decide what marks a sharp break from the past? The most objective way to do that is to see when news coverage and attention exploded. In that context, look at the relevant Google trend. There is a very dramatic rise in news and attention around the 27th and nothing like that either on the 19th or the 24th. Hence, the 27th marks a clear break which neither the 19th or the 24th do. This data is essentially conclusive and it rules out version 5; in my mind now, this issue of the start date is not even a question. Jacob2718 ( talk) 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Current its fine, and "intensified" is not what thsi article is about. The events this article coveres started on Dec 27, not intensified. That we are unable to agree on calling this the Gaza War which is how all the Israeli Media is calling it and how almost all other media is calling it speaks badly of us, but lets not make it worse by POVFORKING this article into being about something else. Next thing you know, people are re-creating Operation Cast Lead because "there is no article that covers it". Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am also joining the "Support Cerejota Movement".-- Omrim ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Elaboration of what caused this event is for the background section. No reliable source is reporting as fact any reason (Al-Jazz and JP/Ynet/Haa not RS in this case, as they are pushing narratives even if the rest of their reporting verifies). There is no deadline, and in the name of article quality, I think eshould stick to uncontrovertible facts for the intro, provide information on the constracting view on the causes in the background. Pretty much any reliable source is saying what we are saying: "Israel says it wants the rockets to stop", "Hamas says the blockade is the cause of the rockets", and that "this part of the ongoing, wider I-P conflict". All of these are factual, uncontroversial, and well sourced. NPOV is served. In fact, no one has proven this otherwise to me or anyone else.
Of course this is all about the intro. In the background section we should eleaborate the narratives with an eye to not overlap other articles. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cerejota’s point as well. But I’d like to point out that is compatible with Version 3. That draft was really about addressing the conflicts regarding the naming disputes that had been occurring. So it modified the third sentence and added the fourth. But it works with or without “intensified”. I personally prefer it without.
I’d also like to say that is important that we learn to achieve change through dialogue and compromise and to not just accept the rough de facto version that is created from back and forth editing conflicts. Right now we are acting too much like the subjects we write about. And that strategy hasn’t worked out well for them. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with defining the article's subject as December 27 and onwards. I'm also fine with naming the article Gaza War, or conflict, or whatever. I also don't care about the focus of that stupefyingly long argument, about the name "Gaza Massacre" in the first paragraph. However, I strongly believe that we cannot begin an article saying "X attacked Y. X has its point of view, and Y has its point of view. Then a bunch of stuff happened. X and Y also have a long history of hating each other." If we begin "X attacked Y", we are unintentionally (and perhaps unavoidably) implying that X "started it". To cancel that, we must immediately add the stated or the plausible reason for that attack. After that we can talk about points of view. I've checked some other WP articles on "X attacked Y, marking the beginning of a conflict" situations (far from exhaustively), and in all the ones I saw, the reason was either stated in the first paragraph or was the sole subject of the second paragraph. I think we should do the same here. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Version Two with minor alteration "following the expiration of the truce and citing Israel's refusual to lift its economic blockade, Hamas fired a barrage of rockets into Israel.[15][16][17][18] "
I think version two with the above edit is fair :D. Superpie ( talk) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I jizz in my pants... This is not the first line, thats about the only intro we need. I would use the Capital War, but lets just all fall behind this version, regardless of title. It is NPOV, balanced, truthful and backed by moar sauce than all the BBQ in Texas. Opposing this is borderline WP:POINT. Shit, and it came from a new SPA, take that wikipedians, a noob pwnd us all! -- Cerejota ( talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Guardian20091105
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help); External link in |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "gaza_massacre7" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
iht
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |agency=
(
help); line feed character in |agency=
at position 432 (
help)