Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Cptnono's new lede

Cptnono I think you have done an excellent job. The lede looks professional and is npov. Maybe this could be a new start? Bjmullan (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll see if it lasts. There are some other aspects that could go in to make it a proper summary but I certainly hope it is a good start. And of course, it isn't my lead sine there has been tons of feedback on how to address a few different issues over a long time :) Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just seemed like a suitable heading as we've had some many lede topics! Just one suggestion. I think the first para could be spilt at "An Israeli ground invasion began on January 3....." What do you think? Bjmullan (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It looked a little bulky to me too. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the section below before any knee-jerk reverting. I am assuming that if the massacre line goes then it will have to return to its previous state. The other line in question isn't a big deal to me though.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

New user WatanYaHabibi has revered. No discussion and it is hard to assume good faith so I might be reverting this if he doesn't state reasoning here.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing a piece of the background was done based on a conversation below. I still think some background could be presented in the lead but don;t see how it can realistically be done. That is a defeatist attitude though.

So in relation, "Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Southern Israel, reaching the major cities of Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time.[41][42][43]" seems out of place in the first paragraph now. It almost feels like it is given too much prominence by being in the first paragraph and is not inline with the context. Any objections to moving it into a later paragraph and saying "During the conflict..."11:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This will be going through unless there is any response.Cptnono (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everything is still going smoother than expected. One editor has expressed concerns about massacre (being handled below) and another is requesting some modifications which is also now being discussed below. As long as we don't start reverting eachother we should be good. Hooray for improvement Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Disparity in resources

For some reason, this keep returning to the lead: "There was a large disparity between the military resources available to Israel and the Palestinian factions. The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre."

Some problems: 1. Neither statement is sourced, a big nono for claims in an I-P conflict article lead. 2. The first sentence is irrelevant to this particular conflict. Consider that the Tamal Tigers probably didn't have the same resources as did Singapore. Or that that Iraq/Afghanistan probably didnt have the same resources as did the US. Most wars do not occur between nations of perfectly equal resources (the term resources is also unclear -does it mean weapons? money? firepower?). Also I highly doubt that any RS would mention this in articles which also discussed the war. 3. The second sentence may be true, but it needs both sourcing and crystal clear attribution. Kinetochore (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Massacre is referenced later in the article. The disparity bit is referenced in the PDF previously discussed. The lead does not always need inline citations per the guidelines but I can add them. I like the disparity line but it isn;t nearly as important as the massacre line is to some people if we are running with the new lead.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the use of massacre as a description is referenced later in the article, but is the reason that it was described as a massacre clear across the sources? Perhaps different people described it as a massacre for different reasons (keeping in mind that massacre has a loose definition). I was not aware of the source you provided, and I concede it does say that. I still maintain that its not very useful information (I don't think readers would learn anything from including it). But I'm not vehemently opposed to its inclusion.Kinetochore (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can totally understand not using the disparity line. I personally like it but it is much less of a concern then removing the massacre line. It has been described as a massacre in multiple and different types of sources. There is no doubt to that. And what you ask is exactly what the body is for. The line isn't confirming that it was a massacre just that it has been described as one.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood my concern - I agree we should mention that it has been described as a massacre - but I'm not sure if sources agree that it was described as a massacre because of X reason. First of all, lots of damage does not equal massacre description, unless sources said that the war was a 'massacre of infrastructure', or something. If editors want to say there was lots of damage caused by the war, it should be a separate, unrelated sentence. Second, the high civilian toll is just one reason why people might have described it as a massacre. Another reason could be perceived cruelty in the way some people were killed, or the killing of innocents if the people who used the term felt the war was unjust. What constitutes a massacre can be different to different people/sources.Kinetochore (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. So will not using the disparity line but using the massacre line work for you? The disparity line pulls it away from a hardware issue and into a massacre issue (although that might meet the summary of that particular source) Unfortunately, going into detail as to why it was called a massacre would give it so much weight. I was hoping that simply saying "high amounts of damage + death toll" was sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono could you put a sentence here that we could comment on and if we can reach a consensus we can include it in the lede. So far the changes you made have held up and I for one would be keen to get a lede which has consensus and is stable. Bjmullan (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph was (removed lines bolded): "The conflict resulted in between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths.

There was a large disparity between the military resources available to Israel and the Palestinian factions. The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre. In September 2009, a UN special mission, headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, produced a controversial report accusing both Palestinian militants and Israeli Defense Forces of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended bringing those responsible to justice.The UN Human Rights Council later passed a resolution endorsing the report. In January 2010, the Israeli government released a response criticizing the Goldstone Report and disputing its findings."(diff)

I can live without the disparity line but think the massacre line should be in.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree Cptnono but it would be good to get others input. I would be keen as I said above to get a stable lede and keep it that way. Bjmullan (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For sure. At this time I am thinking keep the massacre line and drop the disparity line but more input would be great. I think everyone is sick of the issue causing so much back and forth so hopefully we can put it to rest.Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No one wishing to add their comments? Bjmullan (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"There was a large disparity between the military resources available to Israel and the Palestinian factions. The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre."

In reply for the request for comment: Kinetochore objected that this is not sourced. It doesn't need to be. Who would challenge that Israel's military might vastly outweighs Hamas'? Who would challenge that the brunt of the damage was born by Gaza? Who would challenge that the conflict has been described as a massacre? None of these statements is controversial. Sources could easily be found, but they aren't necessary. Kinetochore acknowledges its description as a massacre is sourced elsewhere in the article.

Kinetochore objected that the disparity in military might is "irrelevant". I fail to see how so, and this doesn't follow from the observations about Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, etc.

Kinetochore clarified his concern is that we don't know the precise reasons its been described as a massacre. Granted, there are numerous reasons for this. The fact that it was the region's most powerful military against a people with no army, no air force, no navy, etc. The fact that Israel targeted civilians and civilian objects. The fact that Israel employed indiscriminate weaponry such as white phosphorus. The fact that around 1,400 Palestinians were killed compared to 13 Israelis. The fact that enormous amounts of Gaza were totally destroyed. And so on. Shall we include all of these reasons for why it was described as a massacre to satisfy Kinetochore's objection on this grounds?! Do we, as Cptnono alluded, want to lend even more weight to this? (I have no problem in doing so, but I know others here would). I cannot fathom that anyone would seriously challenge that it was called a massacre for the stated reasons, above, which pretty much summarizes the situation neatly and covers the reasons very well.

That said, I think the point could be written better. Propose a single sentence: "The disproportionate military strength between Israel and Palestinian militant groups, the scale of the damage in Gaza, and the high number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre."

I object to the adjective "controversial" being used to describe the Goldstone Report. That would require discussion, because there was no real controversy about it beyond the fact that the U.S. supported Israel in its rejection of it and did what it could to squash it. Without that discussion and explanation as to the so called "controversy", the description should be dropped. It's enough to note Israel rejected the report and its findings. JRHammond (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does need to be sourced. Not doing so is OR and verification is required since an editor challenged it. It does not necessarily need an inline citation being in the lead though. The disparity line might have been a little synthy on my part but I like it since the hardware interests me. I'm fine dropping it. Scale of damage and casualty ratio is certainly sourced in relation to the description massacre. Type of weaponry used might be sourced but we will need to find a specific one to present on this talk page if that aspect should be added to any line discussing massacre. I have no problem with "controversial" but it may not be needed since it is already stated that Israel did not agree. Please also watch out for long statements that have resulted in tl;dr before.Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Kinetochore deny that the military strength of Israel is vastly superior to that of the Palestinians (which is nonexistent? Seriously? BTW, what's "tl;dr"? JRHammond (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

too long; didn't read.

It doesn't matter if/how you think he will dispute it. Provide some good sources and we can go forward.

And disregarding that (for now at least but without ignoring the possibility). Are we good to go on adding the massacre description back in?Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What does tl;dr have to do with anything? It does matter. If nobody questions or disputes that Israel's military force vastly outmatches the Palestinians' military force, no source is necessary. This perfectly elementary and uncontroversial observation is not likely to be challenged. Therefore, no source is necessary. It seems to me Kinetochore's objection on the basis, though I don't doubt was made in good faith, is due to his misunderstanding of that policy. See WP:VERIFY. On your question, good to go as far as I'm concerned, yes. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr was some advice that you have already recieved so I thought I would mention it.

Content wise (1000x more important): What you think nobody questions has been challenged and therefore needs a source. Period.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And I am about to burn my 1/rr fr the day and don't want to do it at all if there is any question. So far, the original massacre line (without the disparity line) looks good to go. JRHammond, Bjmullan, and SILENCE makes it look OK. I would have liked a couple others but trealistically this isn't in the news so less people is less people. I also would have liked Kinetochore's blessing but it realistically isn't needed. If he does revert then I am completely OK with more discussion since I know how volatile this article is and he does have some reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What does tl;dr have to do with advice? I cannot believe that Kinetochore seriously disputes that sentence. If he does, I'll have to hear that from him. As for making an edit, if you're talking about inserting/reinstering the above discussed info into the article, just to reiterate, that's fine with me. JRHammond (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When your statements are that long people stop reading them is all.

Kinetochore did challenge it at the top of this section and now I am challenging it so instead of arguing find a source.

I did add the massacre it in partially based on you syaing you were OK with it. I hope it sticks around this time. I think the led is turning out OK.Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you are seriously challenging that Israel's military might is vastly superior to the Palestinians'. I cannot believe that you could possibly seriously question that not to be true. JRHammond (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not challenging that. I am challenging that it is why it was described as a massacre. Why haven;t you provided a source yet? I already provided one for the disparity so it would be appreciated if you also did some leg work. I am open to the edit if it is verifiable.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. i don't think that is controversial, either, but here are some sources describing the massacre as a "massacre", "catastrophe", "mass slaughter", "war crimes", etc. and describing the disparity between Israel's U.S.-backed military might against a defenseless civilian population, etc.: [1][2][3][4][5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"catastrophe", "mass slaughter", "war crimes" are not in question. Do any of those clearly say that the "disparity of resources available" (the original line), "The disproportionate military strength between Israel and Palestinian militant groups" or something similar was why it was called a massacre? Not your interpretation and try not to use things like normanfinkelstein.com or zcommunications.org. We are already saying it was described as a massacre (as we should) but is the uneven strength of the combatants an aspect that led to it being described as such? And disproportionate might be a keyword to look for since that was a cry often heard. I would look into that more. You could also just be satisfied that massacre is staying in the lead after so many have called for its altogether removal.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky are perfectly good sources. I'm not interested in splitting hairs or debating semantics, and if it's going to come to that, it's not worth my time to argue any further for the inclusion of the line. JRHammond (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Guy's I for one is really pleased that we have gotten to a point where not only do we have a good lede but it has consensus. The next step in my opinion is for an editors note added to the lede to say that any changes should first be discussed at the talk page. Bjmullan (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. JRHammond (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The sunshine and rainbows didn't last long. AN editor removed it. Use the talk page, dude.Cptnono (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If Wikifan won't do it I will. We could also jst go back to edit warring over and over and over again. We all know what this article would look like if multiple editors suddenly came back from bans to spread havoc. So the edit summary was: "irrelevant. every conflict israel has fought is described as a massacre. no international organization or mainstream supports)" So how do you want to reword it? "...has been described as a massacre by critics"? Will that work? It has been described as a massacre by more people (some of them disputed) then we can list in the lead so does "critics" cover it or do we need more junk crammed into the lead?Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And Wikifan has still ignored the request to come mention it here so does anyone care if I revert? Also, if the line does need adjustment please say so now so that we don;t go down the same edit warring path so many other editors have on this page.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sentence is back in and I have left a comment at Wikifan's talkpage. Bjmullan (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And you were reverted. I wish people would use the talk page. This has been gone over and the line is not that inflammatory. I suppose we can say forget it and let the line go. Not sure what the best move would be on it.Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And if "by whom" is the problem: Again, "by critics"? This was already suggested but it is easy to miss in all the text. Or we could just remove it. Enough people want it out that it no longer hurts my feelings that bad. Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, people are disregarding 1/rr. People need to self revert now or else it will lead to blocks.Cptnono (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks

Resolved

JRHammond (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel began a military offensive with a surprise opening air strike against the Gaza Strip on Dec. 27,[37] following Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks when a six-month truce ran out on Dec. 19.

This sentence is misleading. The truce didn't "run out" on Dec. 19 leading to rocket attacks. The truce effectively ended on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an airstrike against and invaded Gaza. Hamas has until that time been scrupulously observing the cease fire and it was in response to that attack that rocket fire resumed. Also, Hamas offered to renew the truce, and Israel rejected their offer. The lede should more accurately reflect the facts and circumstances leading to the "war". The rest of the lede seems quite good (neutral and accurate) to me, but this needs attention. JRHammond (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

More WP:OR this is not a forum, thanks. And for your record since you already made this a rant, I will correct you. There were rockets fired by terrorists into Israel days after the ceasefire started, so when you claim that it is Israel who ended the truce on November 4, you are making a mistake. The truce was violated by the Palestinian terrorists in July. Forget November. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR? No more than your own statements. I'll give you sources for everything I say here. The facts are as I stated them. Hamas fired no rockets prior to Israel's violation of the cease-fire on Nov. 4. Islamic Jihad did do so, in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Jihad members in the West Bank, but Hamas actively tried to prevent other militant groups who were not a party to the truce from launching such attacks. Moreover, if you want to get detailed about it, Israeli in just the first two weeks of the truce repeatedly violated it, firing numerous times across the border at Gazans trying to reach their own land, resulting in a couple injuries. In July, Israeli soldiers shot across the border and killed an 18 year old. Israel never lifted the siege, as per the cease-fire agreement. Now, all the details needn't be in the lede. But the fact is this suggests the rocket fire only resumed after the truce expired on Dec. 19, which is untrue (as you just acknowledged), and it also completely ignores the fact that it was Israel, and not Hamas, that violated the truce, resulting in it's effective end the month before. This is very misleading, and therefore needs to be addressed and corrected to more accurately reflect the documentary record. JRHammond (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Hamas is the ruler of Gaza Strip. If Palestinian terorrists in Gaza Strip fires rockets into Israel, Hamas is responsible to make sure they do not do this. Since it happened (as you just acknowledged) it means the Palestinians (under Hamas rule) broke a ceasefire. Otherwise, it can just as easy be said that Israel did not break the truce by firing into Gaza, because it was just one soldier who fired in, not Likud government. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To make a proper summary foe the background we can always go "Ceasefire ended. Some rocket attacks. Strike on a tunnel Israel said was to be used for malicious purposes. Substantial increase in rocket attacks." It should be easy enough to add a couple lines if we show some restraint and let the background section do most of the talking.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The truce is mentioned here in passing. I think it deserves/requires more emphasis. Tentative suggestion: On June 19, a six-month cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas went into effect. On November 4, Israel launched an attack on Gaza, claiming that militants were digging a tunnel in order to cross over into Israel. The truce effectively ended as Hamas resumed the launching of rockets into Israel, and Israel continued to launch attacks into Gaza. Following the official expiration of the truce on December 19, Israel launched a military offensive against Gaza code named "Operation Cast Lead", beginning with airstrikes on December 27. Just an initial proposed draft. JRHammond (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You just cherry picked some information. You mention a paragraph or so up that there were rockets from factions not related to Hamas. That was still a concern. And then you mention that there were other attacks from Israel. You also effectively assigned blame which is my biggest concern with your proposal. When you do that then counter lines need to be presented which turns it into a mess. Maybe reduction is the best answer if we can't do a proper summary at this time. 1 line: "Cease fire-> Minor skirmishes. War->." You also included OCL which means we would have to insert all of the alternative names again according to some editors.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Disregard my suggestion above. How about we just remove the problematic line before it becomes more problematic:

The Gaza War was a three-week armed conflict that took place in the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel during the winter of 2008–2009. Israel began a military offensive with a surprise opening air strike against the Gaza Strip on Dec. 27.[37] following Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks when a six-month truce ran out on Dec. 19.[38] Israel's stated aim was to stop rocket fire[39] from and arms import into the territory.[40][41]

Easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Fuller discussion can be included in the body. I'll support that edit. JRHammond (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I'll make that edit. JRHammond (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I did it last night.Cptnono (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Sorry for not having noticed. JRHammond (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

External link trimming again

• This and This are not specific to the conflict. Does anyone know if qassam.ps has an area on their site devoted to this event? We already have Al Jazeera's.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2008/news/gaza/ This] and this too probably (I might be misreading them though)
• This is better as an inline source and is only related to the background anyways.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to request that 1/rr be lifted if people don't start responding. I would prefer if it stayed in place but realisticall this should be open and shut.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.Cptnono (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed?

So the next stage is to get the neutrality tag removed from this article. I think that now we have a general consensus on the lede and disruptive editing is at a minimum that the tag could go but it would be good to get others input. Bjmullan (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a tough one. I'll admit right now that I have not gone through and really dissected it in a long time. If an editor wants to do that th it would be super sweet. I assume there has got to be issues but if noone is willing to go through with the process then I am fine ditching the tag. Off the top of my head, I think the "massacre narrative" section needs to be integrated into the "response" section but that is a discussion that should be on its own. Things I would look out for include synth, over doing certain aspects (historically for this article it has been piling on Israels transgression's t the point of undue), and terms (WP:CLAIM might need a run through). I am happy with the lead (sure some tweaking might be needed), images, and some other minor bits that have always popped up. If an editor wants to make a push through it an compile a massive list then awesome.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going through it. Immediately, I have a concern about the statement that Hamas overthrew Fatah. If this history is relevant, so is the fact that the U.S. had conspired with Abbas to overthrow the Hamas government, which is what led to the factional fighting and eventual defeat of Fatah in Gaza. Context is crucial, and omitting it is misleading. If Hamas' capture of Shalit is relevant, so is the fact that Israel had kidnapped two civilians the day before. It says the truce "collapsed", but that's misleading, too. It was a six-month truce, and the six months ended. Prior to that, it hadn't simply "collapsed" in a vacuum, but ended because Israel violated it on November 4. The statement "Hamas said all the Gaza's militant groups would abide by the truce" is false. On the contrary, as the source actually notes, Israel simply declared that it would hold Hamas responsible for the actions of other groups. Hamas did agree to try to pressure others to abide by the agreement, and did in fact do so, but never agreed to be held responsible for the actions of others as falsely implied here. Under the section entitled "Hamas compliance", it notes that there were rockets/mortars were fired at Israel in July, August, and September. But Hamas was not responsible for a single one of them! Anyone who read the first paragraph but not the second could reasonably conclude Hamas was responsible for those, so this is misleading. Those are some immediate concerns, just under the "Background" section. JRHammond (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

JRHammond, you have a tendency to screw up talk pages. I am begging you. Please go through it. Please find issues. BUT, put it in a bulleted short form instead of an argumentative and point making paragraph form that no one is going to read. I would love to get onboard with anything you find but please keep it in a more easily readable format.Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is a paragraph hard for you to read? JRHammond (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The above paragraph was fine but you have a tendency to write several paragraphs. People have commented on this in multiple venues. I'm just asking. Everything will go smoother if you do a concise list of issues with limited commentary. So have you gone through it yet and found the issues you are concerned with? If it is only the ones above then we can address them and be done with it.Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree my above paragraph is fine. As I said, those are the concerns I had after going through the "Background" section. One thing at a time. Time constraints. JRHammond (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine as in it is readable not fine I agree with you. Do you want rebuttals to those or do you want to wait until you have composed a complete list?Cptnono (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sentence in lead is not policy compliant

• The sentence "The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to it being described as a massacre" is incompatible with Wikipedia policies. According to WP:MOS "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed." If kept in the lead, the sentence should be changed to clarify WHO described the Gaza War as a massacre. Marokwitz (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussions above. This is sourced in the section titled "Massacre narrative". It would be appreciated if you commented up there since it is ongoing and we don;t need a third conversation taking place.Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK this is a different topic. I'm not talking about missing source, the article contains citations lower down and that's easy to fix. I'm talking about clear attribution of opinions to whoever holds them as we are clearly instructed to do by WP:MOS. Marokwitz (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And as suggested up there twice now: "... by critics"? It is not reasonable and it would be undue weight to list every single mention. So is that a solution you would accept.Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's slightly better but I still don't think it is is a sufficiently clear attribution. Marokwitz (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The only other options I see are listing every single mention (not really an option) or removing it. Removing it might upset the lead to the point that ti has to go back to its previous state which many editors were against. But if people are OK with not having massacre mentioned in the lead at all I would be OK with it. I think that might upset the neutrality by not presenting that aspect though.Cptnono (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence can be made more neutral by adding that Israel denied targeting civilians. Otherwise it is not at all clear that this is not a universally held position. Marokwitz (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I still would prefer as has been agreed to include massacre in the lede so the easiest solution would to pick one of the many references and quote that directly and attributed in the lede. Bjmullan (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Saying "by critics" would make it clear that it is not universally described as such. I almost like the idea of adding a line saying that Israel denied targeting civilians but I fear that would lead to more and more lines being added to seek some sort of unattainable balance. If the line jst needs to go it needs to go but I am still hoping that is one of the last reasonable options considered.

(not ec) but what quote? Do any of those sources deserve prominence on their own?Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looked Cptono and I don't think so. What about - The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led critics of the conflict to describe it as a massacre. Bjmullan (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I assume you meant "critics of Israel", not "critics of the conflict". And, I think it is not sufficient since there are many critics which do not hold this position. A better phrasing would be "some critics of Israel". How about : "The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led some critics of Israel to described it as a massacre. Israel denied having targeted civilians and blamed Hamas for methodically blending into or hiding among civilian population." I think this addition also better summarizes the article per the requirements of WP:LEDE. Marokwitz (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you will get agreement for this addition and as Cptnono says if we can't get consensus then the sentence will be removed. Bjmullan (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't block constructive edits just by saying you disagree. Agreement is irrelevant, consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments and you gave none. Marokwitz (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to keep it all polite and open, keeping massacre in one for or another seems important to me and others as discussed. Marokwitz brings up a point that it could be read the wrong way. I think Bjmullan's wording addresses this while adding an additional line on the civilian targeting adds a whole new dimenesion that is too wordy and disputed to fit. I think Bjmullan's wording would be preferred by editors over removal but am not sure. We can try it out Bjmullan's wording and see if people keep on randomly dropping by and hating it. Surprisingly that might be a good measuring stick since then we know how readers look at it who may not be other thinking it.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"critics of the conflict" does not mean "critics of Israeli". My words were chosen to be balanced and I think that it would be more acceptable to other editors. It would be good to here from other editors. Bjmullan (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with "some critics of the conflict". Without clarification along those lines the whole sentence would need deleting. Looking at other parts of the introduction, i can see why there are neutrality concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's plain whitewashing. Israel has been accused of performing a massacre . Nobody accused Hamas of a massacre. they were accused of hiding among civilians and targeting civilians. The words "critics of the conflict" are absolutely nonesense, what the he** does it even mean? Is there anyone who isn't critical of the conflict? 08:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where WP:MOS says what its claimed to say above. Not arguing the point, just noting that I've searched the page for it, and it's not there. As to points made in this discussion, Bjmullan offers a good solution, and "critics of the conflict" is perfectly reasonable, as opposed to "critics of Israel", which implies bias on the part of those making the criticism. To illustrate the point, take Richard Goldstone, himself a Zionist and self-declared supporter of Israel, who concluded that Israel committed war crimes. "...critics of the Israeli actions..." or something to that effect would be equally reasonable, but "critics of Israel" is not. JRHammond (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IF JRHammond and I are agreed then it might point to something good. Let's do it.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's three people in clear agreement. Perhaps Marokwitz could point out the in the MOS the bit he opened this discussion with? Bjmullan (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) : "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed.". Marokwitz (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Markowitz. I've found it now. JRHammond (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we use wording that implies that Hamas was involved in a massacre?

• Israel was criticized for allegedly performing a massacre on Palestinian civilians or more widely, for using disproportionate amount of force . Nobody accused Hamas of a massacre, in the course of the conflict the managed to kill only 12 Israelis (not for the lack of trying), so it doesn't make sense to try to balance things in a way that incorrectly implies that their actions were described as a massacre. This is unfair to Hamas, since it is a pretty serious accusation. Hamas were criticized for something altogether different - hiding among Palestinian civilians and targeting Israeli civilians. The words "critics of the conflict" are absolutely nonesense, what the he** does that even mean? Is there anyone who isn't critical of the conflict? WP:LEDE clearly states, "The lead should ... include mention of notable criticism ". If we mention that "Israel was accused by X of a massacre" then we must say also "Hamas was accused by Y for hiding among Palestinian civilians and targeting Israeli civilians". The lead should mention all notable criticisms and these are the most notable ones from both sides of the fence. Marokwitz (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SO "Israel was criticized for allegedly performing a massacre on Palestinian civilians" is your preferred wording?Cptnono (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Oh shit, my bad. The massacre discussion is still up above. Take it up there please.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Thank you for moving it. I doubt anyone would realistically read it that way as it is currently worded or with the proposed line.Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think 13 Israelis were killed. 3 of them were civilians killed by rocket fire. 4 of them were soldiers killed by friendly-fire. The rest soldiers. But the point remains that it doesn't make sense to try to "balance" things the above mentioned way, as Marokwitz noted. It would be fine and accurate to say that Hamas was accused of "war crimes", but not of a "massacre". JRHammond (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede already mentions that both Israel and Hamas were accused of war crimes, so we do have balance. But as JRH has pointed out balancing 13 against 1,417 is difficult. If we can't then we remove the sentence. I still have the dream of getting this article to GA but that will not happen as long as we have the tags at the top. Bjmullan (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led critics of the conflict to describe it as a massacre." presented above. Slight modification to "The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip led critics of the conflict to describe it as a massacre." This would make it clear that it was not Israeli civilians and that it was criticts of the conflict. As discussed, attribution to a single source isn't feasible but this is pretty close and is neuteral enough I think. Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.JRHammond (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Other concerns about the introduction

• continued from above post. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(off topic) That sucks! Would you mind commenting on the other parts you think need touching up in a new section or one of those above?

Well my main concern with the intro is the failure to explain the cause of the war. At present the only explanation for the whole conflict is one line "Israel's stated aim was to stop rocket fire from and arms import into the territory.", and its weakened by calling it "Israels stated aim", making it sound like its just their opinion, i also do not think its as clear as it could be. Should we not describe the Rocket fire in a bit more detail? For all we know from that intro they could be responding to one rocket attack, where as it was in response to a long period of rocket fire since Israels withdrawal from the territory, 1000s of rocket hit Israel in 2008, and 8 people were killed. It seems strange to me we give cause of the war just that short line, yet mention things like "Infantry commanders were given an unprecedented level of access to coordinate with air, naval, artillery, intelligence, and combat engineering units during this second phase.", very interesting but not vital for the summary of this war surely? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, rockets is not a good place to start. Have a look at the main article and the graph that shows that rocket attacks had reduced to near zero just before the conflict. If you also look at the information release by Israel that was there stated aim. Please take time to both read the article and also the talk page archive. Bjmullan (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It was their stated aim and for obvious reasons, but that being the only line in the introduction that mentions the cause of the war, and watering it down by saying it was Israels stated aim is problematic. Another issue is who won? The infobox and the article itself rightly tells the reader Israel won in military terms. All the info tells me is both sides declared their own ceasefires and then they both got condemned by the international community for the loss of life. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind moving your comment to #Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks BritishWatcher? I really want to see this massacre thing straightened out and am afraid that addressing that issue will unintentionally derail the conversation. I agree that it could use some touch up but we just removed info because it was about to get to nutty it looked like. And I completely disagree with your thoughts on the "nfantry commanders were given an unprecedented level of access to coordinate with air, naval, artillery, intelligence, and combat engineering units during this second phase." That was common enough in multiple sources and the article is about fighting so we need some fighting in the lead. Want to open a new discussion on the line below though?Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think such a long sentence is needed when we are missing core issues like the cause of the war and the outcome of the war. My point is more that if there is room for that sentence, we should have room for more details on the cause / outcome. However either way i think that sentence could be shortened, just to talk in general terms about coordination between Israeli forces.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a single sentence based on a theme seen in multiple sources. The military based aspects of the conflict deserve substantial weight.Cptnono (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So back on track (other issues to the right place). Comments pleased on the proposed line which is The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led critics of the conflict to describe it as a massacre. Bjmullan (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It was also an aspect people requested. So far, any lead you are suggesting focuses on the background and result while lacking content on the fighting.Cptnono (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The fighting is explained already, im concerned about what is missing. 1 paragraph on the cause, 1 paragraph on the outcome, leaving two paragraphs for the actual fighting details would be reasonable. At present we have a short sentence on the cause in the first paragraph. Then in the final paragraph a sentence on the deaths and then the rest is international response, condemnation. No other explanations of the outcome on the ground. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See my recent comment below.Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead is clear that Israel whomped them. Do you have any suggestions on how to word it?Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the death toll which has little relation to Israels military objectives, the introduction in no way explains who won or what was accomplished. Some of the stuff in the Post War Military Assessment section seems very useful. Talking about the outcome, reduction in rocket fire etc. The fact that the only "outcome" stated in the intro is the deaths is why i see it as a neutrality issue. People could just read the intro as "so Israel killed so many Palestinians per Israeli then declared a ceasefire and withdrew", it must state accomplishments, it should also probably mention the fall out (which i presume increased support for HAMAS). BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Can you draft a line or two to be included?Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Will have to think about the wording itself overnight. But in my opinion the introductions final paragraph should mention the following things (doesnt have to be in this order, although it sort of flows in my opinion with (military victory, death tolls, and international response).

• Israeli tactical military victory and represented a tactical defeat for Hamas.
• Number of rockets being fired from Gaza reduced drastically.
• Many of the tunnels used to smuggle weapons between Gaza an Egypt destroyed.
• Some senior HAMAS killed and explosives experts/paramilitary.
• Number of over all deaths, including a mention many were civilians because of the urban warfare.
• Sentence on the "massacre" description provided its with "by critics of the war".
• Israel damaged internationally because of many saw it as disproportionate use of force.
• UN report into the war condemning both sides, endorsed by the council, but disputed by some.

Anyway off to bed now. Will think more about potential wording of a sentence or two, but reorganising the last paragraph entirely may be better depending on what others think. All of the above was based on stuff in this article, im presuming the sources are legit to back up each. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I am off drinking for a bit anyways. Redoing the final paragraph sounds like it could work. I believe you may be going a little overboard but if you come up with a draft we can go from there. And I am also under the impression that all of that info is sourced so that shouldn't be an issue.Cptnono (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono in that you may be looking to do too much in the final para but lets see what a draft would look like. BTW BW any chance of include BI as well ;-) Bjmullan (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We could mention there were some protests against the war in the British Isles ;) lol BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you from Qatar! (screwing with you) There were protests and of plentyinternational condemnation. Lets see what the draft looks like. Cptnono (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have big problems with any editor who says "I think the lead is clear that Israel whomped them" - are you writing on the behalf of the IDF? Shouldn't we have someone from Hamas challenging your bias, pointing out that survival against such odds looks like Hamas's "war-aim" and quite a significant achievement? 86.156.64.69 (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

86.156.64.69 try making a sentence up with the words cheek and tongue in it :-) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Boohoo 86.156.64.69. Do you have a suggestion on how o draft it or not? All this discussion and I still don't see a draft.Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

All i am basically going to do is take the points i listed above and put them in a paragraph, however it is not at the top of my list so will probably be a couple of days. It would be helpful if we actually debated if people think each of the things i mentioned belong in the final paragraph of the introduction or not, because theres no point putting forward a full paragraph if people disagree on the contents. We also still have to address the first paragraph. The reasons for the war clearly need to be explained. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. The only thing that jumps out as being inaccurate might be the tunnel thing. I remember reading a source (I have to track it down) where people in the Gaza Strip were disputing Israel's claim that the got them or that it was easy to clear them and open them back up. ANyone remember seeing this? It was a better than decent source if I recall correctly. Everything else looks good. I'm just worried about how much space it gets. Realistically, it might be worth trying. Add a couple lines to the background (which has historically been a challenge here) and we might have a proper summary.Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a possible problem with the tunnel thing, i think it should be mentioned but i certainly would not include the 80% claim, which makes little sense. I dont know how the IDF can say they destroyed 80% of tunnels, surely they destroyed all tunnels they found so how do they know they did not find 20% lol. As i said before, ive not looked into the sources or full details of all of this, im just going by points i see in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Truth

Hamas can deny breaking the ceasefires all it wants, it's clear they are lying. Every time a ceasefire was called, more rockets were fired once Israeli airstrikes stopped. And this is one of many articles like it on Wiki that makes Israel look bad by making it look like they are indiscriminately killing civilians instead of telling the truth, that terror organizations like Hamas intentionally put civilians in danger. A whole lot fewer civilians would die if terrorist enemies like Hamas and Hezbollah didn't fight the way they do. They wear civilian clothes, use civilian vehicles as technicals and car bombs, use women and children as human shields, and fight from inside UN buildings, hospitals, schools and mosques. They do this so casualty figures will be high and people who don't know anything about the war will yell at Israel to pull out. Terrorist groups all over the world do this. They do it to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just here. Anyone knowing actual facts from the front would recognize that. And articles like this misrepresent the fighting enough that they are getting what they want. Wikipedia is just about as far-left on this as the rest of the media. There's really nothing neutral about this article. It goes into huge length saying Israel turned the Gaza strip into rubble and killing civilians and spends about a fifth of that time describing Hamas' hiding behind civilians, not mentioning calling since its inception for the Jewish race and Israel's destruction, and barely anything on Hamas getting weapons snuck into Gaza in the guise of humanitarian supplies and stealing the legit supplies like food and water. And does anybody posting care that Hamas started the war by firing rockets into Israel? What do you expect Israel to do, let the rockets keep falling and killing civilians? No. If any other country were in Israel's position, 1 hour's flying distance to enemies and being hit by rockets, that country would do the same thing. I like how nobody waves signs when Israel is attacked but when they hit back leftists come out of the woodwork and start their sales pitch on how nobody has the right to make war on anyone for any reason. It's double standards, it's ridiculous, and I can't believe people haven't figured it out yet. It would be good for the neutrality of the article if it included reports from embedded journalists, not editorials from only left-leaning journalists who were never anywhere near the fighting and didn't read first-hand reports from the field themselves. And I think it's funny how that one guy said Wiki is full of pro-Israel propaganda, in fact most articles about Israel on Wiki will go way out of their way to criticize Israel, or Western countries for that matter, while leaving their enemies alone and using less strong language and message as much as possible. The massacre thing is also a lie, Hamas inflated the casualty figure beyond what was possible for the operation. The reason casualties were so one-sided is because unlike Hamas Israel puts all possible effort to keep its civies in as little danger as possible and to rescue and evac their casualties. Israel was prepared for the rockets, so mostly only property was damaged. Hamas made sure to fire from places that put civilians at risk, so they could claim Israel was slaughtering them. Come on, terrorists use this tactic all the time and articles like this are proof that it works. More people need to post to articles like this, or else this is just another GazaFlotilla.com web page, one-sided, characteristic ammunition that plays into the hands of terrorists, whether you like it or not. This article and many like it need an overhaul, especially on objectives of both sides and tactics of terrorist organizations because in their current form they are one sided and leave stuff out when it's convenient for them. It should also spend much less space on editorials by people known not as experts but as people who make a living by editorializing situations. And all the people quoted in the massacre narrative section are anti-Israel, nothing in that section or after it repudiates what it says. Just do the right thing, report the facts, not people's opinions, frontline facts, and don't leave stuff out. That's how you will get people's trust in Wikipedia back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.248.179 (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is more likely to produce the kind of changes you want if you comply with WP:SOAP and WP:TALK and just stick to specific article content related issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is so much article content missing that it's difficult to know where to start - how about the 10 IDF shells (7 phosphorus indendiaries and 3 high-explosive) falling on the UNRWA compound, then packed with 600 to 700 refugees and large stocks of fuel? Only a miracle prevented a huge disaster. The firing continued after Israeli forces (including those within Gaza) were informed of their target, the exact location of which they'd long known in any case. The Israeli excuses/denials of this attack is given more space than the mention of it - while their cynical and repeated and false denial of using any white phosphorus is barely mentioned.

It's not as if we don't have Israeli-friendly observers reporting this attack and at least two other attacks that seem to have been targetted on the defenceless. 86.182.82.10 (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So use some sources and write up a draft.Cptnono (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably the lying Goldstone talks about this at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf para 543 on. Why is Richard Kemp's quote used with no mention that he's admitted useing white phosphorus on civilian populations himself? No mention that he was speaking for the very pro-Israel UN Watch - so what goes? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtl3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.171.96 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to talk pages. And the three IPs need to start providing concrete requests for edits because right now it is soapboxing. The talk page guideline states "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material". So stop adding commentary and start focusing on objective comments to improve the article. If this is not possible for you, I think it is time for an admin to close or blank this section and issue the appropriate warnings and/or blocks to encourage a quicker understanding of what is and what is not appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Massacre narrative

Strikes me as odd that an entire section is devoted the “Massacre narrative.” If ever there was an example of WP:UNDUE, it’s this. This particular section simply represents a sordid collection of pre-selected views espoused by extremists. There is no place for this in an encyclopedia. This article will never attain FA status with this section, which clearly represents the indefatigable efforts of a single “editor.”--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I mentioned integrating the lines and sources into the reaction section up above. It looks to me that it was an attempt to get the point across without it being overdone in the lead. Does anyone object to merging the info the reactions section? Is there anything people object to being in at all? I have qualms with a few of the sources but understand it is a losing battle and will happily concede those points if it leads to a more stable article.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging it with the reaction section seems like a good idea. the section does seem a bit overkill, if not violative of WP:SYNTH.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I say lets go for it. I think a merge into response would be awesome but didn't realize there were other options for a few of the lines. A couple quick thoughts:

• Something likethis source describing it as a massacre and calling for suicide bombings would work really well in the earlier parts of the article discussing the opening wave of strikes or the response (combat wise) from Hamas.
• Something like this would be perfect in the "Controversies regarding tactics" section. Just a quick note: This looks to be a perfect use of YouTube but the interview could try your patience due to its pace.
• And who are John Docker and Ned Curthoys? Is their opinion worthy of mention? This might be better of deleted.[6]

Anyone else? A moe like this is bound to be controversial so please chime in now.Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with merging it into the response section. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Anything would be an improvement over the current situation. You've got my full backing, Cptnono. Go for it--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I merged the content into the Reaction section. Further trimming consistent with this discussion is welcome.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good start Brew but as Cptnono said, who are John Docker and Ned Curthoys? Is their opinion worthy of mention in an enyclopedia?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just check Docker & Curthoys and they come from the Australian National University. I certainly would have no objections for the removal of that section. Bjmullan (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting one is the Al-Fakhura school incident. In the ground invasion section, the article currently says that the school was shelled which was not correct. I recommend clarifying that line and if Fisk's comment is needed it should go with that line.

Also, I like the piece from Ethan Bronner but it really isn't summarized well and is out of place. Any thoughts on what, if anything, is needed form this source.[7] Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed Australians and NY Times piece (sould be used somewhere in the article still). Tweaks to last two parts. I was going to adjust the Al-Fakhura school incident but thought a draft first would be better since that is another hot button issue. See #Al-Fakhura school incidentCptnono (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

On the article page is the following tag.

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

#The neutrality of this article is disputed?Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. I have concerns about the present introduction. It fails to mention properly the causes of the war. Only giving it one line "Israel's stated aim was to stop rocket fire[36] from and arms import into the territory." and by saying it was Israels stated aim we discredit it as though it was just their excuse. We need to explain that 1000s of rockets were fired killing a number of Israels in 2008 and had been fired repeatedly since Israel withdrew from Gaza. We also need to sort the final paragraph out to explain the outcome of the war, im meant to be proposing a draft wording but ive been rather distracted. The points i believe should be mentioned are above in the Other concerns about the introduction section BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we just change it to "aim" instead of "stated aim"? Sol (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a stated aim just like the stated aims of the rocket attacks are to protest, resist etc. If there is explaining to be done then be neutral and explain both belligerent's narratives. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying "stated aim" is neutral. I do agree, though, with the other points raised by BritishWatcher.

There is another serious POV problem with the lead which I earlier noted: Saying "The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to it being described as a massacre" doesn't faithfully represent the main criticisms. It should say something such as: "The high number of civilian casualties has led critics to accuse Israel of committing a massacre. Israel said that it did not deliberately target civilians, and accused Hamas for hiding among Palestinian civilians and for intentionally targeting Israeli civilians."Marokwitz (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless the sources are tying the massacre description and militants hiding among civilians and targeting civilians it reads like forced balance/deflection. I'm fine with the first part of the line though. A similar draft was proposed above but it was ignored for whatever reason. However, if you provide a source linking the two then I am completely fine with it. As it stands I'm getting a little bored and pissey over the line.Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, there are definitely sources linking and contrasting the two narratives, for example [8] :

"charged that the Israel Defense Forces killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians and destroyed thousands of Gaza Strip homes in attacks that amounted to war crimes, and denounced Hamas for firing rockets into civilian areas of southern Israel. [Israel argued that] Hamas acted in a cowardly fashion while taking advantage of the civilian Palestinian population [and mentioned] the unbearable reality of nine years of incessant and indiscriminate rocket fire on the citizens of Israel.""

Marokwitz (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I did have your line. Feel free to bring up that source if you have it and expand on it. Also, I agree that "stated aim" is appropriate since some have accused Israel of other motives.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Added "some", it may not be ideal wording but not all critics of the war described it as a massacre, we need that to be clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive no problem with it being described as their stated aim, as long as the actual issue is explained in more detail. The first paragraph should include more detail of the lead up to the war. 2 Paragraphs for the actual conflict. And final paragraph should be the outcome, including most of the points i mentioned in the discussion above. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It was reduced after it became unruley. I of course agree that something should be in. Unfortunately, it will not be nearly as easy as we would wish. See the above discussion on what certain editors believe the starting point of the background section is and what incidents should be included. Go for it though. Stop talking here and write up some drafts on both paragraphs :) I also do not believe this is a neutrality issue exactly. Lack of content sure.Cptnono (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Failure to detail the cause of the war and the outcome in the introduction is a neutrality issue. The tags been there for some time so a few more days wont hurt, thats if it can be removed after those concerns are addressed anyway. There may be other problems too. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So far no one has checked and listed anything but the lead and the background sections so I agree that there is likely to be other issues. It also will not be just a few more days at the pace it is going. I don't mind having the tags on too much but I still do not believe lack of content is a problem unless people are seeing a balance issue (which I do not believe has been brought up). SO keep the tags up but editors need to start citing direct lines and ow they directly contradict the WP:NPOV policy or the tag isn't serving anyother purpose but to complain and show that we can't fix it.Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's something. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) is part of NPOV and MoS. Ctrl+f shows way too much misuse of "claim". Anyone feel like going through and replacing words such as "claim" and other loaded words? Some instance do appear appropriate of course.Cptnono (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

<- As a general comment, focusing on details is fun but the lead has a dependency on the content and the content has a dependency on the split off/main articles or at least it should. Much of the content of this article needs to be moved into the main articles so that we only have the leads of those articles here. Of course, that's easy to say... Sean.hoyland - talk 10:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful to review the usage notes for the above template. An alternative template is {{POV-check}}. Is the neutrality of the article as a whole being disputed or is it parts? Here are a few templates which might focus efforts for improving neutrality on specific parts of the article. One approach is to work and place a template on one part at a time and then move it to another part of the article after editors are satisfied with the neutrality of a part.

{{POV-lead}}

{{POV-section}}

{{POV-check-section}}

{{POV-statement}} for an individual statement

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not add the POV tag, but i do not believe it should be removed until the introduction is sorted out at the very least, it may not be the only problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the larger hurdles are taken care of now (massacre and lack of actual combat). Get those drafts up when you have a chance. An editor up above already listed concerns with the background sections which should also be addressed. If we bang those two setions out we are well on our way.Cptnono (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, perhaps you didn't notice my answer above regarding reliable sources linking and contrasting the two narratives. Marokwitz (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't. Time stamp?Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

09:02, 27 September 2010 (my bad, it was added above other comments)? Does that line address massacre? No. That line needs to be taken on its own merits. Does anyone object ot the line "Israel said that it did not deliberately target civilians, and accused Hamas for hiding among Palestinian civilians and for intentionally targeting Israeli civilians." and if not, where should it go? It does not directly dispute the massacre line (critics described it as a massacre) so I don't think it should be added in an attempt to achieve balance but if it belongs somewhere in the lead it is a fine option.Cptnono (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Right after "The conflict resulted in between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths." and right before the massacre line would not be SYNTH.Cptnono (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to placing it there. It is a matter of presenting both narratives in a neutral and balanced way. According to WP:LEDE, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article ... [and] include mention of notable criticism or controversies". Marokwitz (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea suggested by Bob K31416 to breakdown and tag the actual disputed sections as I'm unsure what is currently in dispute. Bjmullan (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bold!

I like this edit.[9] The list could go on for quite awhile and media discussing more recent incidents still talk about this subject so it could stretch too long. If anyone wants to take that diff and make sure the info is merged into the appropriate article it would be sweet.Cptnono (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This article is hundreds of KB long, a list of minor events that happened after the war is really not so relevant. Marokwitz (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Al-Fakhura school incident

As mentioned above, the current line on the Al-Fakhura school incident is not accurate. This has been a big issue here in the past and keeping it light with a Wikilink was the preferred solution. However, I feel that clarification is desperately needed. Propose:

Israeli mortars shelled near the Al Fakhura school. Reports on the number of deaths and if militants were among the casualties have varied.[10][11][12] It was originally misreported that the attack was on the school.[13]

All sources were from the other article except the BBC update since the one at the main article is dead.Cptnono (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

"Heading 1 (=Heading 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the article, and is never appropriate within the body of articles." I assume I am not in violation of 1rr since this isn't contentious and is consecutive. Thought I would mention it though since it is technically a "revert". Also, can someone double check the ToC and section headings to make sure that it is correct? "Propaganda and psychological warfare" shouldn't be under "Aftermath" should it?Cptnono (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ground invasion section

The chronology is a little screwy. Assume it is not a hot button issue but don;t want to make too many unanswered changes. Anyone mind taking a look at the paragraphs discussing Jan 4-6 to make sure there are no contentious issues involved in moving a few lines around?Cptnono (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

about The Truth

I am the man who wrote The Truth section earlier. I just want to say that I'm not soapboxing at all. I'm going after soapboxing with the truth. This article was heavily opinionated from the start. And it was written by people who just plain dislike everything Israel has ever stood for or done. They won't come out and say that, or we wouldn't be discussing the neutrality of this article. But I guarantee you they are. I've been to anti-Israel sites like GazaFlotilla.org and others, and in several sections this article degenerates into that kind of stuff while implicitly making Israel's replies to accusations look stupid. I said that large piece called The Truth because I've been all over Wiki and any War on Terror article or Israel/Arabia war article is just like this one. I think it's important to hear the other side, the one with the most facts and fewest activists claiming to be experts. The party that writes these articles has a huge lack of hard facts and actual accounts of battle from the front line. Don't like my politics, fine, I'm not asking to rewrite these myself and spin it my way. But the edits so far have not been enough. You guys are stuck in very small details like using white phosphorus shells (not the best choice, I realize, but Hamas was hiding in and around that building) but missing the big picture, about the perspective being first person from the terrorist's point of view and not a third person point of view, which is what embedded journalists do. What I said was facts, not soapboxing. We seem to have forgotten the difference. This article has a huge lack of facts. I'm just plugging up the gaps. All these Middle East and War on Terror articles need overhauls. The main viewpoint, not merely and only the details, should be what gives the stuff away. Don't blow me off. Take a look at the other articles like this. The NPOV doesn't exist for them.