![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Folks, I moved the DIME/DU text from the legal section (where it doesn't belong) to the casualty section. Perhaps not ideal but better in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057962.html
From no less than the commander of Battalion 101 of the Paratrooper Brigade, Lt. Colonel Avi G.: Lt. Col. Avi also describes the Hamas fighting abilities as professional. "They prepared for defense and sabotage. We found groups of booby-trapped homes, with the explosives facing the direction from which they believed we would approach. They have people who understand sabotage a lot better than the average platoon commander in the IDF. In one mosque there were booby traps with sensors that would set the explosive off the minute we entered. In the northern Gaza Strip they retreated as we approached. But the further we moved to the center of the city, Hamas resistance became more serious."
In the area where his unit fought, rocket attacks against Israel ceased. "It is just like the marines say: 'Boots on the ground.' There are things that only a ground force can deal with. It may be that a few ranks above us they call this an operation, but at the battalion level, there is no doubt that this is war. We did not use terms like 'routine security operation.' We talked about 'occupying, assault, attack' - war terminology."
Avi is keen to stress that his soldiers did not consciously target civilians. "At Atatra, a neighborhood in northern Gaza, we saw a light in a house and heard screams, and we let the families walk out with a white flag. I was very concerned about harming civilians. When we went into the Strip I told the soldiers: 'We are not like the Russians in Chechnya.' I was glad to see that the guys knew how to hold their fire."
The only problem is Lt. Avi G. makes the admission in a comment posted on an article, not in an article itself. He wrote (in response to a reservist major arguing the IDF could have gone all the way): ""Up front, we were getting shot at. The IDF advance went well until we got into the heavily populated areas of Gaza. Our tanks couldn’t maneuver properly. The streets were too narrow and the anti-tank fire became so heavy that we were ordered to pull-back to prevent casualties. We could have destroyed Hamas, but not without losing hundreds of soldiers. Hamas of today is not the Hamas of ten-years ago. They are a well-trained force, second only to Hezbollah." 84.65.47.55 ( talk) 09:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
A reminder: User:Cerejota/OpCastLead for MILHIST crap... remember to sauce because this will be organized for inclusion once the fog of war lifts some moar.-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129657
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050197099&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE50R3WW20090128
where should this go? international? ceasefire? incidents? Untwirl ( talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The Infobox isn't meant to be comprehensive and authoritative. There sould be no need to footnote. Just make sure the article clarifies or expands any thought expressed in the infobox.
That said, is there anything in the footnotes ("starred entries") that AREN'T clear fromthe main text? Dovid ( talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The chart only gives the highest (Hamas-based) estimates of Palestinian casualties, as indicated in the narrative others are lower. The cited sources (eg reuters and jpost) do not say these are definite casualty numbers. The chart thus gives undue weight to a fringe source. Please fix before reintroducing. Skäpperöd ( talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The Palestinian death toll after three weeks of Israel's war was 1,285, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, or 1,268, according to the al-Mezan Human Rights Centre. Among those dead were at least 280 children. McCarthy, 'Children of Gaza: stories of those who died and the trauma for those who survived,' The Independent, 24,01/2009 Nishidani ( talk) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The chart is still not good. Though "Pal MoH" is included as a source, it is cited only in line with random secondary sources, and the sources are not attributed to the numbers and/or primary sources they cite. Skäpperöd ( talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) User:Hapsala recently added this great archive search form:
We agreed for the most part to use this chart. Please see the Jan. 5, 2009 discussion concerning the chart:
See this diff: [2]
Skäpperöd removed the chart again with this edit summary "again rm chart: numbers not attributed to sources, only Hamas figures shown for Pal deaths. fix first see talk."
The image caption explains that there are other estimates: "Casualty figures are disputed and changing. See the main text for other estimates. Click the chart for more info on the chart sources."
No chart can have all estimates, all civilian/combatant breakdowns, etc. and be of reasonable legibility at small sizes in the article. There are all kinds of charts we could use or combine with this chart. For example;
.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest this horizontal gallery of small thumbnails as a way to show some casualty photos in the article (in the casualties section):
Al-Jazeera. A variety of ages. We need some photos of adult men. I believe that ISM has some male casualties in their free images. need some Israeli casualty photos. We might be able to use some Fair Use images. This is a war article, and we use images from many sources, and all sides. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are some possible Fair Use images:
I did an advanced search of Flickr for "israeli qassam rocket" and "israel rocket death" and found no completely free images that can be used on Wikipedia. Other search terms might be tried.
Here is a possible Fair Use image of an Israeli casualty during the time period of the war:
I found some free images of rocket remains: http://www.flickr.com/photos/novecentino/sets/72157612460369023/ -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus to add any additional photos, particularly in the nature of casualty photos --not of either side. The thinking and commentary on this has been enormous, with all sorts of rationale used -- eg unbalanced, undue, unsourced, improperly sourced, questionably sourced, non-neutral, family feelings, tabloid, sensationalist, non-neutral, non-informative etc etc. I know the other side has arguments in favor of putting them in, but as long as there is no consensus, please do not continue to post photos daily. While we know that consensus may change, give us a week or so for that changing. Furthermore, I believe that puts the burden on those who wish to insert material of a controversial nature. So give us a break and lets move on to the text of this article. Everyone knows that in war innocents die. Leave it alone and let's move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy ( talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have eliminated the galleries because they are ugly, eliminated redundant photos, added better and more descriptive captions, eliminated redundant photos (another wounded child and the guy in some other section), and provided sourcing for the captions.-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
i'm sorry, but you can't unilaterally declare a "a moratorium on additional casualty photos." each photo and text addition to the article stand on their own merits and encyclopedic value. Untwirl ( talk) 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Both of you summarily reverted. Get some other hobby, clearly illustrating an encyclopedia is not something either of you can do. Am sorry Sean, you can be witty, but this is pointy as point gets. And Tundra, stop screaming "no consensus", as you have done for the past two weeks. Its boring, unproductive, and pointy. This article should be illustrated, and illustrating the casualty section with one picture of the dead and another of the wounded is encyclopedic, necessary, and well beyond the needs of writting an encyclopedia. Your efforts at hiding information with constantly changing arguments, disruptive editing, and ultimately blackmail about ArbCom is trite, uncivil, and bullshit. Stop. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Its boring, unproductive, and pointy. This article should be illustrated, and illustrating the casualty section with one picture of the dead and another of the wounded is encyclopedic, necessary, and well beyond the needs of writting an encyclopedia. Your efforts at hiding information with constantly changing arguments, disruptive editing, and ultimately blackmail about ArbCom is trite, uncivil, and bullshit.
I find that a clear violation of WP: Civil as well as a personal attack on TB. I agree with him more than I disagree, but I would certain like something about evidence about blackmail. As for ever changing arguments, I do not feel that is "trite, uncivil or bullshit." It is rather necessary when dealing with unapologetic editors (and I do not include any specifics, and exclude you, Cerejota) who seek to endlessly push one POV irregardless of arguments, usually through ad hominem attacks and who make their unchangeable views clear and advocacy unitarian (they only advocate the Palestinian viewpoint) by their very wiki-names. Tundra-Buggy make sometimes go too far, but he is doing yeoman's work in attempting to keep this at least a semi-balanced article. I have, by attempting to make my own views on the article clear have been accused of a number of very not nice things, as well as had my ethnicity and national origin questioned.
As for you and I, we disagree about what images (if any) should be included, but I feel that the inclusion of many of these photos have not been made with good faith, they have not shown reliable sources and have been largely an effort to poison the well. This is why I proposed the moratorium.
V. Joe (
talk)
01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Referencing [ 25, "Start of conflict], the last bit of discussion was as follows:
I just came across this. [3] It explains the Israeli thinking a little better. They think between 1100 and 1200 people were killed. They claim to have identified about 700 as militants and 250 of them as civilians. And the rest have not yet been identified. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
After reading this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/hamas-reprisal-attacks I think it might be an Idea to create a section on the impact the conflict has had on the political environment within the Gaza strip.
This article talks about reprisal attacks by Hamas against members of Fatah and even members of their own organisation who are believed to have provided the Israelis intelligence. Attack involve not only outright killings but also things like kneecaping mafia style and other acts of that nature (According to the article and their reported accounts)
I figured it was worth a mention Andrew's Concience ( talk) 01:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we have verifiability on this, the scale ("dozens") and the actions certainly would warrant more than one RS. That said, it probably belongs at Fatah–Hamas conflict, not here - although if it verifies perhaps a one sentence here with a wikilink to F-H concflict - this is notable stuff. I think we should be careful not make the latest article on the latest major event in the Israel-Palestinian conflict be the repository of all news until the next major event.-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
At first I agreed, but in that article it also mentions Hamas members who gave Israeli's information being punished Andrew's Concience ( talk) 05:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember seeing this article [4] on the subject last week. This line really jumped out at me: "Some Fatah members said in interviews that some of those being sought for reprisals had been singled out for having handed out sweets in celebration of Israel's war on Hamas." I'm not asking for anything to be included. I'm just saying it was kind of surprising. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Since his videotape was aired during the middle of the conflict, I haven't heared nor seen a single sign of life from az-Zahar. This is very unusual for a man in his situation, unlike Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah who rush to the cameras to declare "victory" az-Zahar's voice is silent. I've heared many Rumors concerning him, that he was severly injured and taken to a hospital in Egypt and that he was killed and his body was taken by the Israelis. Do you know why he vanished from the face of the earth? and is it worth mentioning here? 87.69.41.159 ( talk) 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
this edit by ip http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&curid=20855562&diff=267459716&oldid=267434041#Incidents doesn't seem to be covered by more than one source.
when newsgoogling "unrwa school" that source is the only one i can find that says this and another one talks about a humanitarian report and an "investigation into the attack on the main compound of the world body in the Gaza Strip during Israel's three-week pummeling of the Palestinian enclave" recently announced by the un sec gen.
maybe we should say school compound or something (i personally think "school" includes the grounds) but regardless this story does not seem to be reported anywhere else. Untwirl ( talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
See Falklands War, Six Day War, and Battle of Salamis as precedent for the acknowledgement of victories for what they plainly are. Havvic ( talk) 06:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't do original research. Next.-- Cerejota ( talk) 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, this wasn't fast enough, NEXT. Nableezy ( talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't do original research. Next. (rudely stolen from Cerejota) Nableezy ( talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (142,259 bytes) (→Gaza strip: No consensus. POV and unbalanced. Time to take this to arbitration I think)
Then do it.-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some of you managed to get me banned over "edit-warring", rather than take the main issue to arbitration. Afraid you might lose that one on the merits? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I know the lede is a powder keg, but for the benefit of readers who actually want to read the article to know what happened, I made two small additions.
I also wikilinked the first mention of Hamas in the lede instead of the second mention. I have a grain of hope that these changes won't lead to endless partisan bickering, but...they probably will. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::It's interesting to me that you have that gripe, because one of my pet peeves is that "villages" is used in the media only for Palestinians and not for Israelis. Since "village" has no particular administrative meaning, but does conjure images of a bucolic, peaceful New-England-type setting, I consider it to be borderline weasel-wordage in the I-P context. But since it's a problem in the RS's themselves, I would never argue against its use in Wikipedia, as long as it was adequately reflected in the cited sources.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk)
16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::::"Israeli village" has 13,600 google hits, most referring to Arab-Israeli villages or reconstructed villages. "Palestinian village" gets 84,200 google hits. I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of never getting into rambling talk page discussions not related to the article. I can control myself when seeing opinions I disagree with, but when people get facts messed up, I get sucked in.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk)
17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The Israeli objective is clear: deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter. Ostensibly, it will not prevent heavy rocket fire on the Negev towns, but it will likely make it more difficult for Hamas to carry out more damaging attacks against Israel.
This should sate your desire for "forthcoming evidence". Now please restore the more informative, if somewhat less succinct version, and please never waste my time again by demanding that I prove trivialities. Also, please please please don't ever again make me sit through your extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing. As a symbolic admission of my partial guilt in this case, I'm striking through my earlier comments that were not directly related to the article. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
My two changes to the lede were proposed together, since one adds info on Israeli violence (and thus vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Israeli editors) and one adds info on Palestinian violence (and vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Palestinian editors), while both add necessary information for the naive reader. Nishidani was the only one who objected, predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence. Since he has not responded to me, and more importantly, since no one else has objected to my (in all honesty, ridiculously cautious) change, I am restoring it. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
'saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you.'
I am adopting Blackeagle's suggestion above about splitting one sentence into two. It is a stylistic necessity and does not change the content at all. If anyone objects to it for some reason, they can say so here. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Dec 30 - Israel attacks Gaza for the fourth day - http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=54699 (from the BBC)
On goals(aim) - "Israel's defence chief earlier said his country was fighting a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas."
On whether to use 'stated' or not - "Israel says its aim is to end the rocket attacks by Hamas-linked militants - of which there were reportedly more than 40 on Monday."
Dec 27 - Israel's attack on Gaza kills hundreds -
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11323391
On goals - "The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel."
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said late Saturday that the goal was "to bring about a fundamental improvement in the security situation." He added, "It could take some time."
"Stated"? - see above plus "Israel warned it might go after Hamas' leaders, and militants kept pelting Israel with rockets - killing at least one Israeli and wounding six.
Dec 30 - Israel Assaults Hamas In Gaza -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/27/israel-launches-air-strik_n_153664.html
On goals - "Israel's stated goal is to cripple Hamas' ability to launch rockets at Israeli towns, which means that a ground invasion is becoming more likely as it becomes clear that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job."
"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has declared "all-out war against Hamas."
"Stated"? Yes. But infrastructure? and since Hamas fire those rockets from civilians area, not having military bases of their own, police stations and houses in gaza are Hamas' infrastructures?
I recognized Nishidani's point as being that from the beginning there was ambiguity as to what this Israel's attack was to bring Israel itself. Now there was a target inside Gaza, Hamas, there is war, but is war about what? goals? yes to some degree, but most of those goals can't be archived until conquering has been archived(re:Iraq war, AND Israel's previous occupations of both Lebanon and Palestine)...so to cripple Gaza, only Hamas's "infrastructure" was the "stated" goal?
At what point, even Israel's foreign minister was at odds with what the prime minister was "stating" as the goals for this operation.
Needless to say then, it would be a great disservice if we use Israel's "stated goals" as of Jan 30.
My humble suggestion is to leave it as "The operation was aimed at..." Stated is a loaded term.
There should be even more discussion on this BTW. Cryptonio ( talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Plus, Dec 30 - ANALYSIS / Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza - http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051024.html
On goals - "The operation's goals, as defined by the cabinet, are "creating a different long-term security situation in the south, while bolstering Israel's deterrence." The IDF does not interpret this to mean a complete end to the rocket fire, as it considers this impossible. Rather, its goal is to eliminate Hamas' desire to attack Israel. The bombing campaign has so far dealt a severe blow to Hamas."
Fire in the hole. Notice ref to "as defined"(so they are defining what they are stating? or vice-versa?) plus IDF does not interpret what's been stated(which of course was defined before it was stated) which at the end, they disregard what was stated for them(perhaps rather just defined, in order for them to interpret on their own?) because they found what was 'defined' for them impossible(or what they interpreted as being defined to them). Cryptonio ( talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Jalapenos do exist and other committed editors. I'm extremely wary of touching leads until agreement is established via discussion. It used to be fairly balanced. What we have now, on checking it this morning, is gross reduplication, which the text didn't have earlier. It reads:-
(a) with the stated intention of stopping Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[32][33][34]. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[35][36][37][38][39]
(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.)
(c) On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire and the smuggling of weapons through underground tunnels from Egypt. [50] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade.[51]
In my view (b) relatively untouched since the beginning, is fairly balanced. However (a) and (c) repeat the same phrasing, and this should never occur in leads.
(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel claimed cross-border tunnels were used for smuggling weapons while Hamas insisted the tunnels were necessary to supply Gaza with goods and food. [insert reliable source here] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel using the smuggled weapons.[50]
What exactly does that paragraph purport to explain? Why the truce was not renewed? You have Hamas claiming that Israel was not lifting the blockade as justification, though it is not clear whether that was agreed upon as part of the truce agreement. You have Hamas holding one cross-border tunnel raid as a reason, and give Hamas' rationale for the tunnels. You say "Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks using smuggled weapons." Nowhere does it acknowledge that Hamas fired weapons and mortar into Israel the entire time of the truce, really ratcheting it up in November & December. It does not state that Israel considered this to be a "serious breach of the truce". The fact that the weapons were smuggled was not Israel's reason for this counter-offensive. It was in fact the constant, almost daily fire throughout most of the truce that was the main reason -- and Israel did in fact hold the constant firing on the "southern communities" to be a "serious breach of the truce". Israel's view isn't really reflected in this paragraph except perhaps as an afterthought. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Having in mind that the current title is disputed and the settlement was to wait until a "favourite" name is established after the conflict is over, I performeda web search with various of the previously proposed titles. I used the qualification "2009" for accuracy and excluded "arafats zionists ass fuck motherfucker bitch piss" to avoid counting hate blogs and the like.
Results (28 Jan 2009, highest to lowest number of hits):
Replacement of "Gaza" with "Gaza strip" resulted in a significantly lower number of hits (not shown).
Thoughts on the search parameters, additional names to search for, and comments on whether to wait some more or start a new RM are appreciated. Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice work Skäpperöd! If I can build on this a bit, Google News doesn't really require the "2009", since it only holds articles from the past month. Without 2009, the numbers are:
In this case, Operation Cast Lead takes the lead (due to articles from the 27-31 December being more likely to use the Israeli codename, perhaps?) Other than that, the numbers are pretty similar to Skäpperöd's searches.
Google news also allows you to confine searches to the titles, which may do a better job of representing what newspapers are calling the conflict, versus just mentioning the phrase somewhere in the story.
Confining the search to the titles, Gaza War and Gaza Conflict emerge as the clear leaders. Operation Cast Lead and Invasion of Gaza drop out almost entirely.
Blackeagle ( talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Another possibility is "Gaza Campaign"
Blackeagle ( talk) 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually "Gaza campaign" was one of my favorite titles, because it is more war-like than "conflict" but not as outright as "gaza war" (putting this skirmish in a line with eg the Thirty Years' War and WWII). Yet google search turned out only a few results so I struck it out my list, but I added a line on the campaign search in the first list of this section now for illustration.
I think the searches have shown well what titles must be dropped, and we now may consider the consistency in naming the I-P / I-Gaza conflicts. Many articles are named after the corresponding Israeli operation codename, and "conflict" seems to be rather used for coverage of a longer period:
We have only 3 articles titled with "war": 1948, 6day and Yom Kippur. "Gaza War" seems not to be in line with that. Skäpperöd ( talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose following addition as first paragraph:
Democratically elected Hamas Governance of the Gaza Strip is considered terrorist organization by many countries. In such countries Hamas officials are "not welcome" [1] and expected to be prosecuted by law. Egypt authorities closed Rafah crossing in June 2007 [2] after Hamas took control of Gaza Strip, de-facto imposing a blockade.
Please no edit wars. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
RomaC, Already agreed to it. Egypt authorities closed Rafah crossing in June 2007 [2] after Hamas took control of Gaza Strip. It just an example of International law problem during this conflict. Fair enough? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, let's strike many and replace it with neutral some. It is notable fact about this conflict. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The tone here is getting a bit pointy; I would suggest that editors tone it down a bit. Thanks. As for the substantive issue, I basically agree with AgadaUrbanit. I can't imagine there's any sort of neutral and npov rational for censoring basic information about Hamas. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We have multiple articles to which we can wikilink for further information on a whole range of topics, which is why the background section has so many "see also", and hence could be shorter. We do not have to mention in every article about the I-P conflict that Israel was founded in 1948, for example. The issue is not that the information is not relevant - it is relevant. The issue is that this article is not about the bellingerents and it is not a standalone journalistic article - it is an article in a wikilinked encyclopedia, the whole purpose of wikilinking is to subdivide information into discrete articles that are then linked for context.
Try to imagine, for example, if in every wikipedia article on Mammals, such as say Dog or Platypus, mentioned what a mammal is, instead of wikilinking to Mammal? It would make for an ugly, repetitive, and in fact boring encyclopedia.
This is a total n00b error ( please, I am lamely attempting being humorous), which is assuming each article must include all information relevant to it, without consideration to other articles, and to the fact that encyclopedias - including paper encyclopedias - are never written as stand-alone essays, but as part of a compendium of information, interlinked and cross-referenced.
I agree that we should not edit war, but the best way to not edit war is to carefully evaluate, in the context of a given article, if a piece of information actually belongs in a given article, if it adds to its encyclopedic value, and if it meets our content policies and stylistic guidelines.
Certainly in controversial article one should also use common sense, and try to concentrate on what are the main pieces of information, the ones were consensus can be reached without controversy - and measure the impact a given edit or opposition to a given edit will give to the editing environment - suggesting changes that will stir crap up without resulting in increased encyclopedic value (such as bringing previously unknown information or highligthing specific threads the reliable sources are exploring) is in my opinion a lack of judgement. For example, we would have to shoot down anyone who suggested we call Israel, the Zionist Entity on grounds of NPOV, because that is what Israel is verifiably called by many involved in this conflict - not only is a suggestion bound to irritate a number of editors, but it borders on WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:BATTLE - even if at face value it is a civil request to discuss a possible edit. Both sides of the POV divide have done this: some very salient ones are "Babycue" on the part of the pro-Palestinians (when it became obvious that other casualty picture were available, and that the ISM was iffy for this), and with "Gaza massacre" on the pro-Israelis (when the verifiability was 25% of the sourcing in the lede).
We should also assume intelligent readers, who if given a wikilink to Hamas, and not knowing anythign about Hamas, would seek to learn by reading about it in that article.
Long story short, I do not support inclussion of an WP:SYNTH discussion on why the blockade on the part of egypt happened, which what I feel AgadaUrbanit is unwittingly doing - but I do support saying, in the background, that Egypt is part of the blockade, and any RS material with the reasons why. The blockade is a significant part of Hamas' argument for the rockets, and any key facts around it deserve a sentence or two in the background. At least until a better background consensus develops, because as I have stated before, the background section has a disproportionate weight in this article, and should be shorter, cover only the events between the Operation Hot Winter (which should be renamed as per WP:MILMOS) and the end of the ceasefire, and material moved to the corresponding articles. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I hear you guys. Thank you for making it clear. How about such addition:
Former Canadian justice minister and McGill University law professor Irwin Cotler, a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, wrote that there is “almost no comparable example†anywhere in the world today of a group that so systematically violates international agreements regulating armed conflict as Hamas. “In general when you’re talking about international law enforcement, measures are weak and uneven,†said Executive Director of B'Tselem. [3]
Is it relevant? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, thank you for being balanced. What do you think is relevant section in this article for "UN has not recognized the government of Hamas in Gaza."? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, it looks I rushed it, sorry.I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267478739&oldid=267459716 I tried to make it balanced. Let me know if you agree. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has 349 footnotes as of now, double of what the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has! Some of the statements in the (too long) intro are backed up by up to 9 notes. Is this necessary? A shorter article with a single reliable source per statement would look much nicer.-- 84.190.37.235 ( talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit had no consensus and removed large amounts of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267618629&oldid=267617910
Can the page be protected again?
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
i don't think, the "global news service for jewish people" meets the demands of WP:RS. excerpts from their self concept ( http://jta.org/about):
JTA is driven by the belief that knowledge is power, and that only by being better informed can the Jewish community be better connected.
Over the years, the Jewish community has come to rely on JTA as the single most credible source of news and analysis available about events and issues of Jewish interest anywhere in the world.
-- Severino ( talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context". if, for example, serbia is at war with croatia and a serbian news agency/news platform says something analogous about itself (to deal with THIS parameter), that would raise doubts about their reliability/impartiality as a source in this war, yes. btw, does your recitation have the purpose to impress somebody?-- Severino ( talk) 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
Cerejota, with misleading (see above) and uncivil ("not only is it a dick move")and threatening edits here, I suspect it is far more likely that you will be blocked. Again, false claims and contradictory arguments do not help the project. Doright ( talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
please don't split user comments, doright. new comments on the bottom.-- Severino ( talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to a recent discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard in regard to the JTA. [26] The way I interpret the discussion was it is considered reliable. The only difference between it and any other RS is that it "collect(s)and disseminat(es) news among and affecting the Jewish communities of the diaspora as well as Israel." It does not skew it, it collects and disseminates news of interest to Jews worldwide, and has for 90 years. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in knowing what is the edit that Severino objects to which references the JTA? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ceasefire is not official end. Casualties must be changed to 15 one soldier and another will b taken from life support! Total 12 soldiers! ALWAYS ADD IF SOLDIER GETS KILLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Folks, I moved the DIME/DU text from the legal section (where it doesn't belong) to the casualty section. Perhaps not ideal but better in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057962.html
From no less than the commander of Battalion 101 of the Paratrooper Brigade, Lt. Colonel Avi G.: Lt. Col. Avi also describes the Hamas fighting abilities as professional. "They prepared for defense and sabotage. We found groups of booby-trapped homes, with the explosives facing the direction from which they believed we would approach. They have people who understand sabotage a lot better than the average platoon commander in the IDF. In one mosque there were booby traps with sensors that would set the explosive off the minute we entered. In the northern Gaza Strip they retreated as we approached. But the further we moved to the center of the city, Hamas resistance became more serious."
In the area where his unit fought, rocket attacks against Israel ceased. "It is just like the marines say: 'Boots on the ground.' There are things that only a ground force can deal with. It may be that a few ranks above us they call this an operation, but at the battalion level, there is no doubt that this is war. We did not use terms like 'routine security operation.' We talked about 'occupying, assault, attack' - war terminology."
Avi is keen to stress that his soldiers did not consciously target civilians. "At Atatra, a neighborhood in northern Gaza, we saw a light in a house and heard screams, and we let the families walk out with a white flag. I was very concerned about harming civilians. When we went into the Strip I told the soldiers: 'We are not like the Russians in Chechnya.' I was glad to see that the guys knew how to hold their fire."
The only problem is Lt. Avi G. makes the admission in a comment posted on an article, not in an article itself. He wrote (in response to a reservist major arguing the IDF could have gone all the way): ""Up front, we were getting shot at. The IDF advance went well until we got into the heavily populated areas of Gaza. Our tanks couldn’t maneuver properly. The streets were too narrow and the anti-tank fire became so heavy that we were ordered to pull-back to prevent casualties. We could have destroyed Hamas, but not without losing hundreds of soldiers. Hamas of today is not the Hamas of ten-years ago. They are a well-trained force, second only to Hezbollah." 84.65.47.55 ( talk) 09:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
A reminder: User:Cerejota/OpCastLead for MILHIST crap... remember to sauce because this will be organized for inclusion once the fog of war lifts some moar.-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129657
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050197099&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE50R3WW20090128
where should this go? international? ceasefire? incidents? Untwirl ( talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The Infobox isn't meant to be comprehensive and authoritative. There sould be no need to footnote. Just make sure the article clarifies or expands any thought expressed in the infobox.
That said, is there anything in the footnotes ("starred entries") that AREN'T clear fromthe main text? Dovid ( talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The chart only gives the highest (Hamas-based) estimates of Palestinian casualties, as indicated in the narrative others are lower. The cited sources (eg reuters and jpost) do not say these are definite casualty numbers. The chart thus gives undue weight to a fringe source. Please fix before reintroducing. Skäpperöd ( talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The Palestinian death toll after three weeks of Israel's war was 1,285, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, or 1,268, according to the al-Mezan Human Rights Centre. Among those dead were at least 280 children. McCarthy, 'Children of Gaza: stories of those who died and the trauma for those who survived,' The Independent, 24,01/2009 Nishidani ( talk) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The chart is still not good. Though "Pal MoH" is included as a source, it is cited only in line with random secondary sources, and the sources are not attributed to the numbers and/or primary sources they cite. Skäpperöd ( talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) User:Hapsala recently added this great archive search form:
We agreed for the most part to use this chart. Please see the Jan. 5, 2009 discussion concerning the chart:
See this diff: [2]
Skäpperöd removed the chart again with this edit summary "again rm chart: numbers not attributed to sources, only Hamas figures shown for Pal deaths. fix first see talk."
The image caption explains that there are other estimates: "Casualty figures are disputed and changing. See the main text for other estimates. Click the chart for more info on the chart sources."
No chart can have all estimates, all civilian/combatant breakdowns, etc. and be of reasonable legibility at small sizes in the article. There are all kinds of charts we could use or combine with this chart. For example;
.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest this horizontal gallery of small thumbnails as a way to show some casualty photos in the article (in the casualties section):
Al-Jazeera. A variety of ages. We need some photos of adult men. I believe that ISM has some male casualties in their free images. need some Israeli casualty photos. We might be able to use some Fair Use images. This is a war article, and we use images from many sources, and all sides. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are some possible Fair Use images:
I did an advanced search of Flickr for "israeli qassam rocket" and "israel rocket death" and found no completely free images that can be used on Wikipedia. Other search terms might be tried.
Here is a possible Fair Use image of an Israeli casualty during the time period of the war:
I found some free images of rocket remains: http://www.flickr.com/photos/novecentino/sets/72157612460369023/ -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus to add any additional photos, particularly in the nature of casualty photos --not of either side. The thinking and commentary on this has been enormous, with all sorts of rationale used -- eg unbalanced, undue, unsourced, improperly sourced, questionably sourced, non-neutral, family feelings, tabloid, sensationalist, non-neutral, non-informative etc etc. I know the other side has arguments in favor of putting them in, but as long as there is no consensus, please do not continue to post photos daily. While we know that consensus may change, give us a week or so for that changing. Furthermore, I believe that puts the burden on those who wish to insert material of a controversial nature. So give us a break and lets move on to the text of this article. Everyone knows that in war innocents die. Leave it alone and let's move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy ( talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have eliminated the galleries because they are ugly, eliminated redundant photos, added better and more descriptive captions, eliminated redundant photos (another wounded child and the guy in some other section), and provided sourcing for the captions.-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
i'm sorry, but you can't unilaterally declare a "a moratorium on additional casualty photos." each photo and text addition to the article stand on their own merits and encyclopedic value. Untwirl ( talk) 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Both of you summarily reverted. Get some other hobby, clearly illustrating an encyclopedia is not something either of you can do. Am sorry Sean, you can be witty, but this is pointy as point gets. And Tundra, stop screaming "no consensus", as you have done for the past two weeks. Its boring, unproductive, and pointy. This article should be illustrated, and illustrating the casualty section with one picture of the dead and another of the wounded is encyclopedic, necessary, and well beyond the needs of writting an encyclopedia. Your efforts at hiding information with constantly changing arguments, disruptive editing, and ultimately blackmail about ArbCom is trite, uncivil, and bullshit. Stop. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Its boring, unproductive, and pointy. This article should be illustrated, and illustrating the casualty section with one picture of the dead and another of the wounded is encyclopedic, necessary, and well beyond the needs of writting an encyclopedia. Your efforts at hiding information with constantly changing arguments, disruptive editing, and ultimately blackmail about ArbCom is trite, uncivil, and bullshit.
I find that a clear violation of WP: Civil as well as a personal attack on TB. I agree with him more than I disagree, but I would certain like something about evidence about blackmail. As for ever changing arguments, I do not feel that is "trite, uncivil or bullshit." It is rather necessary when dealing with unapologetic editors (and I do not include any specifics, and exclude you, Cerejota) who seek to endlessly push one POV irregardless of arguments, usually through ad hominem attacks and who make their unchangeable views clear and advocacy unitarian (they only advocate the Palestinian viewpoint) by their very wiki-names. Tundra-Buggy make sometimes go too far, but he is doing yeoman's work in attempting to keep this at least a semi-balanced article. I have, by attempting to make my own views on the article clear have been accused of a number of very not nice things, as well as had my ethnicity and national origin questioned.
As for you and I, we disagree about what images (if any) should be included, but I feel that the inclusion of many of these photos have not been made with good faith, they have not shown reliable sources and have been largely an effort to poison the well. This is why I proposed the moratorium.
V. Joe (
talk)
01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Referencing [ 25, "Start of conflict], the last bit of discussion was as follows:
I just came across this. [3] It explains the Israeli thinking a little better. They think between 1100 and 1200 people were killed. They claim to have identified about 700 as militants and 250 of them as civilians. And the rest have not yet been identified. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
After reading this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/hamas-reprisal-attacks I think it might be an Idea to create a section on the impact the conflict has had on the political environment within the Gaza strip.
This article talks about reprisal attacks by Hamas against members of Fatah and even members of their own organisation who are believed to have provided the Israelis intelligence. Attack involve not only outright killings but also things like kneecaping mafia style and other acts of that nature (According to the article and their reported accounts)
I figured it was worth a mention Andrew's Concience ( talk) 01:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we have verifiability on this, the scale ("dozens") and the actions certainly would warrant more than one RS. That said, it probably belongs at Fatah–Hamas conflict, not here - although if it verifies perhaps a one sentence here with a wikilink to F-H concflict - this is notable stuff. I think we should be careful not make the latest article on the latest major event in the Israel-Palestinian conflict be the repository of all news until the next major event.-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
At first I agreed, but in that article it also mentions Hamas members who gave Israeli's information being punished Andrew's Concience ( talk) 05:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember seeing this article [4] on the subject last week. This line really jumped out at me: "Some Fatah members said in interviews that some of those being sought for reprisals had been singled out for having handed out sweets in celebration of Israel's war on Hamas." I'm not asking for anything to be included. I'm just saying it was kind of surprising. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Since his videotape was aired during the middle of the conflict, I haven't heared nor seen a single sign of life from az-Zahar. This is very unusual for a man in his situation, unlike Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah who rush to the cameras to declare "victory" az-Zahar's voice is silent. I've heared many Rumors concerning him, that he was severly injured and taken to a hospital in Egypt and that he was killed and his body was taken by the Israelis. Do you know why he vanished from the face of the earth? and is it worth mentioning here? 87.69.41.159 ( talk) 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
this edit by ip http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&curid=20855562&diff=267459716&oldid=267434041#Incidents doesn't seem to be covered by more than one source.
when newsgoogling "unrwa school" that source is the only one i can find that says this and another one talks about a humanitarian report and an "investigation into the attack on the main compound of the world body in the Gaza Strip during Israel's three-week pummeling of the Palestinian enclave" recently announced by the un sec gen.
maybe we should say school compound or something (i personally think "school" includes the grounds) but regardless this story does not seem to be reported anywhere else. Untwirl ( talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
See Falklands War, Six Day War, and Battle of Salamis as precedent for the acknowledgement of victories for what they plainly are. Havvic ( talk) 06:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't do original research. Next.-- Cerejota ( talk) 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, this wasn't fast enough, NEXT. Nableezy ( talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't do original research. Next. (rudely stolen from Cerejota) Nableezy ( talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (142,259 bytes) (→Gaza strip: No consensus. POV and unbalanced. Time to take this to arbitration I think)
Then do it.-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some of you managed to get me banned over "edit-warring", rather than take the main issue to arbitration. Afraid you might lose that one on the merits? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I know the lede is a powder keg, but for the benefit of readers who actually want to read the article to know what happened, I made two small additions.
I also wikilinked the first mention of Hamas in the lede instead of the second mention. I have a grain of hope that these changes won't lead to endless partisan bickering, but...they probably will. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::It's interesting to me that you have that gripe, because one of my pet peeves is that "villages" is used in the media only for Palestinians and not for Israelis. Since "village" has no particular administrative meaning, but does conjure images of a bucolic, peaceful New-England-type setting, I consider it to be borderline weasel-wordage in the I-P context. But since it's a problem in the RS's themselves, I would never argue against its use in Wikipedia, as long as it was adequately reflected in the cited sources.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk)
16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::::"Israeli village" has 13,600 google hits, most referring to Arab-Israeli villages or reconstructed villages. "Palestinian village" gets 84,200 google hits. I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of never getting into rambling talk page discussions not related to the article. I can control myself when seeing opinions I disagree with, but when people get facts messed up, I get sucked in.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk)
17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The Israeli objective is clear: deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter. Ostensibly, it will not prevent heavy rocket fire on the Negev towns, but it will likely make it more difficult for Hamas to carry out more damaging attacks against Israel.
This should sate your desire for "forthcoming evidence". Now please restore the more informative, if somewhat less succinct version, and please never waste my time again by demanding that I prove trivialities. Also, please please please don't ever again make me sit through your extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing. As a symbolic admission of my partial guilt in this case, I'm striking through my earlier comments that were not directly related to the article. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
My two changes to the lede were proposed together, since one adds info on Israeli violence (and thus vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Israeli editors) and one adds info on Palestinian violence (and vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Palestinian editors), while both add necessary information for the naive reader. Nishidani was the only one who objected, predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence. Since he has not responded to me, and more importantly, since no one else has objected to my (in all honesty, ridiculously cautious) change, I am restoring it. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
'saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you.'
I am adopting Blackeagle's suggestion above about splitting one sentence into two. It is a stylistic necessity and does not change the content at all. If anyone objects to it for some reason, they can say so here. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Dec 30 - Israel attacks Gaza for the fourth day - http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=54699 (from the BBC)
On goals(aim) - "Israel's defence chief earlier said his country was fighting a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas."
On whether to use 'stated' or not - "Israel says its aim is to end the rocket attacks by Hamas-linked militants - of which there were reportedly more than 40 on Monday."
Dec 27 - Israel's attack on Gaza kills hundreds -
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11323391
On goals - "The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel."
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said late Saturday that the goal was "to bring about a fundamental improvement in the security situation." He added, "It could take some time."
"Stated"? - see above plus "Israel warned it might go after Hamas' leaders, and militants kept pelting Israel with rockets - killing at least one Israeli and wounding six.
Dec 30 - Israel Assaults Hamas In Gaza -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/27/israel-launches-air-strik_n_153664.html
On goals - "Israel's stated goal is to cripple Hamas' ability to launch rockets at Israeli towns, which means that a ground invasion is becoming more likely as it becomes clear that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job."
"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has declared "all-out war against Hamas."
"Stated"? Yes. But infrastructure? and since Hamas fire those rockets from civilians area, not having military bases of their own, police stations and houses in gaza are Hamas' infrastructures?
I recognized Nishidani's point as being that from the beginning there was ambiguity as to what this Israel's attack was to bring Israel itself. Now there was a target inside Gaza, Hamas, there is war, but is war about what? goals? yes to some degree, but most of those goals can't be archived until conquering has been archived(re:Iraq war, AND Israel's previous occupations of both Lebanon and Palestine)...so to cripple Gaza, only Hamas's "infrastructure" was the "stated" goal?
At what point, even Israel's foreign minister was at odds with what the prime minister was "stating" as the goals for this operation.
Needless to say then, it would be a great disservice if we use Israel's "stated goals" as of Jan 30.
My humble suggestion is to leave it as "The operation was aimed at..." Stated is a loaded term.
There should be even more discussion on this BTW. Cryptonio ( talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Plus, Dec 30 - ANALYSIS / Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza - http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051024.html
On goals - "The operation's goals, as defined by the cabinet, are "creating a different long-term security situation in the south, while bolstering Israel's deterrence." The IDF does not interpret this to mean a complete end to the rocket fire, as it considers this impossible. Rather, its goal is to eliminate Hamas' desire to attack Israel. The bombing campaign has so far dealt a severe blow to Hamas."
Fire in the hole. Notice ref to "as defined"(so they are defining what they are stating? or vice-versa?) plus IDF does not interpret what's been stated(which of course was defined before it was stated) which at the end, they disregard what was stated for them(perhaps rather just defined, in order for them to interpret on their own?) because they found what was 'defined' for them impossible(or what they interpreted as being defined to them). Cryptonio ( talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Jalapenos do exist and other committed editors. I'm extremely wary of touching leads until agreement is established via discussion. It used to be fairly balanced. What we have now, on checking it this morning, is gross reduplication, which the text didn't have earlier. It reads:-
(a) with the stated intention of stopping Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[32][33][34]. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[35][36][37][38][39]
(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.)
(c) On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire and the smuggling of weapons through underground tunnels from Egypt. [50] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade.[51]
In my view (b) relatively untouched since the beginning, is fairly balanced. However (a) and (c) repeat the same phrasing, and this should never occur in leads.
(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel claimed cross-border tunnels were used for smuggling weapons while Hamas insisted the tunnels were necessary to supply Gaza with goods and food. [insert reliable source here] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel using the smuggled weapons.[50]
What exactly does that paragraph purport to explain? Why the truce was not renewed? You have Hamas claiming that Israel was not lifting the blockade as justification, though it is not clear whether that was agreed upon as part of the truce agreement. You have Hamas holding one cross-border tunnel raid as a reason, and give Hamas' rationale for the tunnels. You say "Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks using smuggled weapons." Nowhere does it acknowledge that Hamas fired weapons and mortar into Israel the entire time of the truce, really ratcheting it up in November & December. It does not state that Israel considered this to be a "serious breach of the truce". The fact that the weapons were smuggled was not Israel's reason for this counter-offensive. It was in fact the constant, almost daily fire throughout most of the truce that was the main reason -- and Israel did in fact hold the constant firing on the "southern communities" to be a "serious breach of the truce". Israel's view isn't really reflected in this paragraph except perhaps as an afterthought. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Having in mind that the current title is disputed and the settlement was to wait until a "favourite" name is established after the conflict is over, I performeda web search with various of the previously proposed titles. I used the qualification "2009" for accuracy and excluded "arafats zionists ass fuck motherfucker bitch piss" to avoid counting hate blogs and the like.
Results (28 Jan 2009, highest to lowest number of hits):
Replacement of "Gaza" with "Gaza strip" resulted in a significantly lower number of hits (not shown).
Thoughts on the search parameters, additional names to search for, and comments on whether to wait some more or start a new RM are appreciated. Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice work Skäpperöd! If I can build on this a bit, Google News doesn't really require the "2009", since it only holds articles from the past month. Without 2009, the numbers are:
In this case, Operation Cast Lead takes the lead (due to articles from the 27-31 December being more likely to use the Israeli codename, perhaps?) Other than that, the numbers are pretty similar to Skäpperöd's searches.
Google news also allows you to confine searches to the titles, which may do a better job of representing what newspapers are calling the conflict, versus just mentioning the phrase somewhere in the story.
Confining the search to the titles, Gaza War and Gaza Conflict emerge as the clear leaders. Operation Cast Lead and Invasion of Gaza drop out almost entirely.
Blackeagle ( talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Another possibility is "Gaza Campaign"
Blackeagle ( talk) 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually "Gaza campaign" was one of my favorite titles, because it is more war-like than "conflict" but not as outright as "gaza war" (putting this skirmish in a line with eg the Thirty Years' War and WWII). Yet google search turned out only a few results so I struck it out my list, but I added a line on the campaign search in the first list of this section now for illustration.
I think the searches have shown well what titles must be dropped, and we now may consider the consistency in naming the I-P / I-Gaza conflicts. Many articles are named after the corresponding Israeli operation codename, and "conflict" seems to be rather used for coverage of a longer period:
We have only 3 articles titled with "war": 1948, 6day and Yom Kippur. "Gaza War" seems not to be in line with that. Skäpperöd ( talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose following addition as first paragraph:
Democratically elected Hamas Governance of the Gaza Strip is considered terrorist organization by many countries. In such countries Hamas officials are "not welcome" [1] and expected to be prosecuted by law. Egypt authorities closed Rafah crossing in June 2007 [2] after Hamas took control of Gaza Strip, de-facto imposing a blockade.
Please no edit wars. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
RomaC, Already agreed to it. Egypt authorities closed Rafah crossing in June 2007 [2] after Hamas took control of Gaza Strip. It just an example of International law problem during this conflict. Fair enough? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, let's strike many and replace it with neutral some. It is notable fact about this conflict. Let's aim for encyclopedic value. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The tone here is getting a bit pointy; I would suggest that editors tone it down a bit. Thanks. As for the substantive issue, I basically agree with AgadaUrbanit. I can't imagine there's any sort of neutral and npov rational for censoring basic information about Hamas. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We have multiple articles to which we can wikilink for further information on a whole range of topics, which is why the background section has so many "see also", and hence could be shorter. We do not have to mention in every article about the I-P conflict that Israel was founded in 1948, for example. The issue is not that the information is not relevant - it is relevant. The issue is that this article is not about the bellingerents and it is not a standalone journalistic article - it is an article in a wikilinked encyclopedia, the whole purpose of wikilinking is to subdivide information into discrete articles that are then linked for context.
Try to imagine, for example, if in every wikipedia article on Mammals, such as say Dog or Platypus, mentioned what a mammal is, instead of wikilinking to Mammal? It would make for an ugly, repetitive, and in fact boring encyclopedia.
This is a total n00b error ( please, I am lamely attempting being humorous), which is assuming each article must include all information relevant to it, without consideration to other articles, and to the fact that encyclopedias - including paper encyclopedias - are never written as stand-alone essays, but as part of a compendium of information, interlinked and cross-referenced.
I agree that we should not edit war, but the best way to not edit war is to carefully evaluate, in the context of a given article, if a piece of information actually belongs in a given article, if it adds to its encyclopedic value, and if it meets our content policies and stylistic guidelines.
Certainly in controversial article one should also use common sense, and try to concentrate on what are the main pieces of information, the ones were consensus can be reached without controversy - and measure the impact a given edit or opposition to a given edit will give to the editing environment - suggesting changes that will stir crap up without resulting in increased encyclopedic value (such as bringing previously unknown information or highligthing specific threads the reliable sources are exploring) is in my opinion a lack of judgement. For example, we would have to shoot down anyone who suggested we call Israel, the Zionist Entity on grounds of NPOV, because that is what Israel is verifiably called by many involved in this conflict - not only is a suggestion bound to irritate a number of editors, but it borders on WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:BATTLE - even if at face value it is a civil request to discuss a possible edit. Both sides of the POV divide have done this: some very salient ones are "Babycue" on the part of the pro-Palestinians (when it became obvious that other casualty picture were available, and that the ISM was iffy for this), and with "Gaza massacre" on the pro-Israelis (when the verifiability was 25% of the sourcing in the lede).
We should also assume intelligent readers, who if given a wikilink to Hamas, and not knowing anythign about Hamas, would seek to learn by reading about it in that article.
Long story short, I do not support inclussion of an WP:SYNTH discussion on why the blockade on the part of egypt happened, which what I feel AgadaUrbanit is unwittingly doing - but I do support saying, in the background, that Egypt is part of the blockade, and any RS material with the reasons why. The blockade is a significant part of Hamas' argument for the rockets, and any key facts around it deserve a sentence or two in the background. At least until a better background consensus develops, because as I have stated before, the background section has a disproportionate weight in this article, and should be shorter, cover only the events between the Operation Hot Winter (which should be renamed as per WP:MILMOS) and the end of the ceasefire, and material moved to the corresponding articles. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I hear you guys. Thank you for making it clear. How about such addition:
Former Canadian justice minister and McGill University law professor Irwin Cotler, a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, wrote that there is “almost no comparable example†anywhere in the world today of a group that so systematically violates international agreements regulating armed conflict as Hamas. “In general when you’re talking about international law enforcement, measures are weak and uneven,†said Executive Director of B'Tselem. [3]
Is it relevant? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, thank you for being balanced. What do you think is relevant section in this article for "UN has not recognized the government of Hamas in Gaza."? AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, it looks I rushed it, sorry.I performed following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267478739&oldid=267459716 I tried to make it balanced. Let me know if you agree. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has 349 footnotes as of now, double of what the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has! Some of the statements in the (too long) intro are backed up by up to 9 notes. Is this necessary? A shorter article with a single reliable source per statement would look much nicer.-- 84.190.37.235 ( talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit had no consensus and removed large amounts of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=267618629&oldid=267617910
Can the page be protected again?
Jandrews23jandrews23 (
talk)
14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
i don't think, the "global news service for jewish people" meets the demands of WP:RS. excerpts from their self concept ( http://jta.org/about):
JTA is driven by the belief that knowledge is power, and that only by being better informed can the Jewish community be better connected.
Over the years, the Jewish community has come to rely on JTA as the single most credible source of news and analysis available about events and issues of Jewish interest anywhere in the world.
-- Severino ( talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context". if, for example, serbia is at war with croatia and a serbian news agency/news platform says something analogous about itself (to deal with THIS parameter), that would raise doubts about their reliability/impartiality as a source in this war, yes. btw, does your recitation have the purpose to impress somebody?-- Severino ( talk) 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
—This is part of a comment by Cerejota (of 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
Cerejota, with misleading (see above) and uncivil ("not only is it a dick move")and threatening edits here, I suspect it is far more likely that you will be blocked. Again, false claims and contradictory arguments do not help the project. Doright ( talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
please don't split user comments, doright. new comments on the bottom.-- Severino ( talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to a recent discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard in regard to the JTA. [26] The way I interpret the discussion was it is considered reliable. The only difference between it and any other RS is that it "collect(s)and disseminat(es) news among and affecting the Jewish communities of the diaspora as well as Israel." It does not skew it, it collects and disseminates news of interest to Jews worldwide, and has for 90 years. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in knowing what is the edit that Severino objects to which references the JTA? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ceasefire is not official end. Casualties must be changed to 15 one soldier and another will b taken from life support! Total 12 soldiers! ALWAYS ADD IF SOLDIER GETS KILLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)