Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 66

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza War (2008–2009). 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 60

←

Archive 64

→

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 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)

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)

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 [1] :

"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-statement}} for an individual statement

^{[neutrality is disputed]}

--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.[2] 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)

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.--brew crewer (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.[3]

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.--brew crewer (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.[4] 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 incident Cptnono (talk) 09:30, 28 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.[5][6][7] It was originally misreported that the attack was on the school.[8]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No. It is not acceptable to discuss what you perceive as motivation on this talk page. I have found out the hard way before and you surely will if you continue. Take your comments to a more appropriate forum. Options include: providing sources and actual lines you want adjusted, going to the neutrality noticeboard, or going to the article issues page of the Israel-Palestine Collaboration group.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are huge sections of the most important information missing from this article - eg "The Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza to the League of Arab States (the Committee) was established in February 2009 with the tasks of investigating and reporting on violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law during the Israeli military offensive (hereinafter operation Cast Lead) against Gaza from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009 and collecting information on the responsibility for the commission of international crimes during the operation. The Committee comprised Professor John Dugard (South Africa: Chairman), Professor Paul de Waart (Netherlands), Judge Finn Lynghjem (Norway), Advocate Gonzalo Boye (Chile/Germany), Professor Francisco Corte-Real (Portugal: forensic body damage evaluator) and Ms Raelene Sharp, solicitor (Australia: Rapporteur)." which is at http://www.dagbladet.no/download/israelpdf.pdf

How can you leave out such an important document, reported all over the Middle East? In the 254 pages of the report there are all kinds of very illegal things explained, such as the mass destruction of even small minarets that couldn't have held snipers. This is important to many people and you've ignored it. This Committee spent 5 days in Gaza - you ignore their findings but use lots of information from people who never visited, and were not independent. It is very, very obovious you've banned all the people who would edit honorably. You've said nothing about the particularly severe and clearly deliberate targeting of the al-Wafa hospital, which is in an open area near to the border with Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.56.112 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't like something ? Do something about it. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. All you have to do is follow the policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Waste of time - it's obviously edited and controlled by very, very biased people. How can anyone but the most evil write "On January 5, IDF forces began operating in the densely populated urban centers of Gaza. Throughout the following week, Israel mostly hit targets it had damaged previously and struck Palestinian rocket-launching units."?

It's deliberately ignoring reports such as that of Amnesty, that "In the early morning of 6 January 2009, just before 6am, 22 members of the al-Daya family, most of them children and women, were killed when their home was bombed by an F-16 aircraft. The large house, in the al-Zaytoun district of Gaza City, which contained seven apartments on five floors, was reduced to a pile of rubble. At the time of the attack Israeli soldiers were present at the opposite end of the al- Zaytoun district, several kilometres away. The previous day, following rumours that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had informed local residents that the Israeli army was going to bomb the house of a neighbour nearby, the family and other neighbours left their homes for fear that their homes would be damaged, given that the street is densely built up. However, residents reportedly contacted the ICRC, which denied having any information about any impending bombardments of targets in the street. Reassured, residents, including the al-Daya family, returned to their homes. Before dawn the father and one of the sons, Mohammed, went to pray at the nearby mosque and at about 5.30am returned home as Israeli air strikes had once again resumed. The father entered the house shortly before the strike. Mohammed was trailing behind and was approaching the house when it was struck. His pregnant wife, Tazal, and their three daughters and one son, all aged less than seven, were killed, along with his parents, Fayez and Kawkab; his brother Iyad and his wife Rawda and their three daughters and three sons, all aged less than 10 years; his brother Ramez and his wife Safa and their six-month-old daughter and two-year-old son; his two sisters, Raghda and Sabrine, and his brother Radwan. When Amnesty International delegates first visited the family, on 20 January, nine of the 22 bodies were still under the rubble"

How can you ignore the wanton massacre of 22 people like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.56.112 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The pertinent question is how can you ignore what you regard as the wanton massacre of 22 people like this and expect other people to do something when you won't ? That doesn't make any sense. No individual has any more control over the content of this article than anyone else. Nothing is stopping you from editing the article except you thinking it is a waste of time. You can propose specific changes/additions to the article based on reliable sources or you can make WP:BOLD edits as long as they follow wiki policies and see what happens or you can keep compaining. It's up to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Throughout the following week, Israel mostly hit targets it had damaged previously and struck Palestinian rocket-launching units." Fixed. It was supposed to be read as the week of Jan 5 then the week after that but came across incorrectly. For al-Zaytoun, many incidents were moved to an incident article. If you can think of a couple lines to summarize it here then feel free to say so.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I can see where the problem lies - there are no separate sections for the different reports. The Goldstone report (surely the major source of real information, amongst the only people who did any investigation) gets a few mentions, but it is always preceeded by "controversial" or "criticised by Israel" or "accepted that willie pete was not illegal" or "not in a position to state that DIME was used". It's only in the references in position number 302, it's only linked 3 times, behind dozens of pathetic reports from reporters who either weren't there or had only a few hours to check anything. Whereas "New Tactics Yield Solid Victory in Gaza" is in 1st position and linked 7 times. If I could write a section on the Arab League report I'd put it in but it's obvious nobody's going to let that happen. And I'm not going to do it because it's far less important than properly describing the contents of the Goldstone Report, which I'm sure people have tried to do and been stopped from doing.l —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.56.112 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an entire article about the Goldstone report although it's not in a good shape. You can guess why. It's linked via the Gaza_War#International_law section which you may have noticed already. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you've got quite detailed observations but you're not using them as sources in the article, prefering to use people who are obviously not speaking from knowledge. So you end up with an article that looks like propaganda. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Length

Reducing the background section was rejected last time it came up. However, we have a length tag and that background section is too long. It should be summary style and wikilinks should be used to go to the main articles. We don't need to list events between 2005 and 2008. Would anyone care to list items that could be considered for removal or summarized in a more concise manner? We could also keep it super long but I think that negatively impacts the readability.Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "We could also keep it super long but I think that negatively impacts the readability." - That's for sure. Maybe it's become a self-indulgence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I created a number of sub-articles in the past , and replaced them with a shorter summary , but for some reason the material was later re-added in their entirety to this article. The main articles include: Controversial tactics in the Gaza War and Casualties of the Gaza War. I would endorse any proposal for replacing these sections with their shorter summaries. Marokwitz (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest deleting the last two paragraphs of Reactions that give too much space to the reactions/opinions of three people that aren't sufficiently notable with regard to the Gaza War, compared to the reactions of other people, organizations, and countries in the section. Here's a list from the section: Israel, a member of the Palestinian parliament, a senior member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Rafat Masri (a Palestinian living in Gaza), Ziad Amra (spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Lebanese-American professor of political science, Uri Avnery (Israeli peace activist), United Nations Security Council, the European Union, Hamas, Organization of the Islamic Conference, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Panama, the United States, Bolivia, Jordan, Mauritania, Venezuela, Egypt, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, 70,000 Iranian student volunteers, British government, the Arab world, Khaled Meshaal (Hamas leader in Damascus), Ismail Haniyeh (PM of Hamas government of the Gaza Strip), West Bank Palestinian youths, Hatem Abdel Al-Qader (an adviser to PM of Fatah government in Ramallah). --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I made that edit. I don't exactly agree with it but seeing it being needed with the length tag and am sick of seeing people not liking it. Hopefully now it is OK.

I also made a large deletion of material in the background section. We have wikilinks and header tags used in abundance and summary style is fine. More removal is still needed. Is there anyhting removed that people need to see in? 1/rr was technically followed (I hate that but that is the way it is) and there was silence on the talk page (again hate it but such is life).Cptnono (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Prunesqualer's edit

We have discussed buildings before. We have discussed in in the lead several times. Prunesqualer has made a controversial edit regardless of the request to not make such edits to the lead without first seeking consensus.[9] He then did it again.[10] Thse make the addition of "Israeli forces attacked... United Nations relief centres, schools, mosques, and civilian homes." This is completely imbalanced and has been removed before. Such information requires further information such as one of the schools not actually being attacked although it was misreported that it was, civilian homes receiving warnings and being hit when they were allegedly used by Hamas, mosques being allegedly used to stockpile weapons, and so on. That information could be a lot to and and turns the lead back into finger pointing. "Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations, government buildings." summarized it fine. I don't not mind a line discussing the scope of destruction (recently rejected by the way). Further more, Prunesqualer is in breech of 1/rr since those buildings were previously in the lead and removed. He knows about arbitration from his message on my talk page so he will need to self revert. Cptnono (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and he is in violation of 1R per[11] and [12]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The first edit is an edit, not a revert. nableezy - 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The introductory section of this article, before my contribution, listed only "military targets, police stations and government buildings" as having been attacked by Israeli forces. Surly no-one is denying that other facilities including "United Nations relief centres, schools, mosques, and civilian homes" came under attack from Israeli forces (whether or not they where deliberately targeted is a separate issue). Listing, in the introduction, only "military targets, police stations and government buildings" as having been attacked presents a selective and sanitised impression of what actually occurred in Gaza.Prunesqualer (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A systematic cleansing of the lead of any material that is not favorable to Israel has been ongoing in this article. Material on Israel attacking civilian targets is routinely removed. Material on the use of human shields by Israel, something that Israel has now admitted to doing, is removed, while we include Dershowitz's bizarre logic about Hamas being guilty of war crimes and being responsible for the civilians killed by Israel. nableezy - 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using the talk page, Prunesqualer. The addition of material was discussed previously:[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. The information was also included in October and September of 2009. So yes, you are in violation of 1/rr for going back to something very similar ("reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously") and you disregarded WP:BRD. There was also discussion on what targets to include. I am still searching for the most recent one. If this information is to be included we also need to detail the specifics because it has gone from what you see as a sanitized version to a version that is overtly critical of Israel. There are many ways to fix the problem including:

Going back to a version that does not discuss mosques and homes
adding a line that discusses the controversial tactics employed by Hamas and Israels provided reasoning
Adding a line that clearly states that civilian buildings and collateral damage were significant without details
Any other suggestions?

Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How about, after "military targets, police stations and government buildings." I insert;

"However, United Nations relief centres, schools, mosques, and civilian homes, where also hit during Israeli attacks."

This removes any ambiguity re. implying the attacks where deliberate, but answers my objections to the previous "sanitised" version. Prunesqualer (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:HOWEVER (asserts that they were not military targets) and does not provide Israel's reasoning. A previous version said "Mosques, private homes and schools, which Israel maintains were utilized by Hamas as platforms to attack Israel and as weapons storage depots, were also hit." My only problem with that version was that it does not address collateral damage.Cptnono (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My suggested wording, lists only uncontested historical events. You say my wording "does not provide Israel's reasoning". Israel's government, or other organisations within Israel eg the IDF, have made claims about their intentions or "reasoning", which are dealt with later on in the article. Are we to expunge from every WP article, any statement that dose not include detailed examination of motivation, intentions and reasoning in the immediate vicinity of that statement, even when such concerns are dealt with elsewhere in the article? What a mess that would leave. I maintain that my brief listing of events, which are dealt with more fully later in the article, is appropriate for the introductory section.Prunesqualer (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If brevity is your concern then remove your edit. The reasoning is important and will need to be provided if you refuse.Cptnono (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Brevity will always be a concern when dealing with the introductory section of an article. However giving a balanced overview of the subject is vital. In this instance, only listing the uncontroversial targets of Israels strikes, without mentioning significant destruction elsewhere, leaves an incomplete and unbalanced impression of this important aspect of the Gaza War. My proposal addresses this without sacrificing brevity. Prunesqualer (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal disregards why it is controversial which adds POV. This has been discussed multiple times and changed multiple times. So far, your addition is the worst of them balance wise.

Also, was it schools or a school? And was it UN relief centres or UN facilities (later in the article). It will also need to be two lines since a house that a rocket was fired from or a mosque that stored weapons could be considered "military targets" which makes the addition to the line redundant. "Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations, government buildings. United Nations facilities, schools, mosques, and homes, which Israel maintains were used by Hamas as platforms to attack Israel and as weapons storage depots, were also hit."Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a chronological concern. Weren't many of those places damaged not done in the opening strike but later in the ground invasion? Those might need to be moved to a later part of the lead discussing the high amount of damage. When something similar was in another editor wanted to add that Hamas was using the civilian populace as a shield. It is clear that it is problematic for multiple reasons which is why th talk page should have been used originally.Cptnono (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "controversial" in saying “United Nations relief centres, schools, mosques, and civilian homes, where also hit during Israeli attacks." These are well established and uncontested facts. I believe that most reasonable people would agree that these facts are significant in terms of, the human suffering, and the political fallout resulting from the Gaza War. To omit such significant facts from the introductory section on this subject would in my opinion be unacceptable. I have offered what I feel is a reasonable compromise regarding wording. You have rejected this. I do not accept your grounds for rejecting the altered version and shall therefor go ahead with contributing the compromise wording. If you feel obliged to add context to these facts in the introductory section, instead of leaving such detailed commentary to later sections of the article, then providing this commentary is balanced and accurate I will be content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You were reverted earlier. I would stick to attempting to find consensus on the talk page over inserting whatever you feel is best. It is not about compromise it is about consensus. Please also address all of the issues mentioned. Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that I will find consensus with you on this issue. I have therefor decided to proceed anyway, and hope that the adjudicators will accept my case on the strength of its merits.Prunesqualer (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Even with Prunesqualer temporarily blocked I don't want to just revert. The additional places hit would work very well in the third paragraph with a mention of Israel's claimed reasoning and some tinkering with the words. Three editors have reverted him so I doubt there is consensus for it to stay where it is but some inclusion should not be off the table.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this addresses everything discussed. Let me know if it doesn't and I can self-revert. Also, by used I mean:

Booby-trapped
Platforms from which to make attacks
Weapons manufacture and storage
Shelter (by those fighting not civilians)

I could not figure out a way to convey this without being wordy. Let me know if "used by militants" is not sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono- Your version is certainly an improvement on the previous "elephant in the room" failure to address those highly controversial IDF "hits". My remaining problem is that you give only Israel's response/justification, which is contended in some quarters. If you would change the phase "Israel maintains" to "Israel contends" this would at least tacitly acknowledge the existence of other view points (without compromising brevity). Prunesqualer (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"accuse" v "noted" Bias in Intro?

Paragraph 3, sentence 4; "…critics to accuse Israel of committing a massacre." Next sentence; "Others noted that Israel went to great lengths …" The word "accuse" implies doubt, whereas "noted" implies certainty. The claims in both of these sentences are contentious. Why not change "noted" to something less unequivocal eg "claimed" or "contended"? Prunesqualer (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."
"To write that someone noted... can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable."
"To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence."

So no, claim would be inappropriate. Noted is also no good. Contend would be almost as bad. "Accuse" seems to be the correct usage. "Say/said" would be fine with me. We can;t swap one POV for another. WP:WORDS. Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono - My problem was not with using the equivocal "accuse" (I stated that "The claims in both of these sentences are contentious"). I was drawing attention to the different treatment given to claims which are critical of Israel, and those which are favourable. You stated that "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined" yet you do not apply those standards to the second of these sentences which says "civilian deaths resulted from the way Hamas chose to deploy its forces". Hence I repeat; Why not change "noted" to something less unequivocal eg "claimed" or "contended"? Prunesqualer (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with changing "noted" per the MoS so we are kind of on the same page then.Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So would you accept replacing "noted" with a word which reflects the contentious nature of the claims (eg "claimed" or "contended")? Prunesqualer (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Again based on the MoS.Cptnono (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't follow your logic. You seem to be saying that an equivocal word ("accuse") is appropriate for the wrongdoing "asserted but undetermined" against Israel, but not for the wrongdoing "asserted but undetermined" against Hamas? Isn't this is a case of double standards? Prunesqualer (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see what you are getting at. It does look like it could be an appropriate use of "accuse" but still could be read as asserting some doubt which makes it an issue (akin to "claim"). Swapping both is cool with me.Cptnono (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot figure out an alternative wording. Also, if "accuse" is an issue I recommend ctrl+f through the article since it is in multiple times (twice in the lead). This is a rough one.Cptnono (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand your objection to using the words "claimed" or "contended" in the second sentence. We are not even dealing with explicitly named persons, merely unspecified "others". The claims of these "others" are contentious (as are the claims of the unnamed "critics" in the first sentence) therefor it is not only appropriate to use a word which "could be read as asserting some doubt", it is essential. Prunesqualer (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you backtracking?Cptnono (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you explain yourself? I have consistently accepted the equivocal word "accuse" in the first sentence. I have consistently called for the use of the words "claimed" or "contended" or some equivalent non equivocal term in the second sentence. In what sense am I "backtracking"? Prunesqualer (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Miscomunication, then. I did not realize you wanted both to be in potential violation of WP:WORDS. Other synonyms for said are needed not tinkering with both lines to make them equally in violation. If you want to fix both then I am all for his conversation but if you want to add something like "claim" (which is typically frowned upon across the project with the MoS to back it up) then there is no need to even consider it.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I can find nothing in "WP:WORDS" (Wikipedia: Manual of Style (words to watch)) or "Mos" (Manual of style) to back up your statement that the word "claimed" or "contended" would be frowned on in this context. Prehaps you could point me to the right page and give me the relevant quote? Prunesqualer (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't look hard enough. See: "Synonyms for said" for claim. And contend is not specifically mentioned but it appears that you understand that it is similar. I already changed it to "said" though. Said is 100% neutral. It is not appropriate to cast doubt.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have quoted the full guideline below:

"Said, stated, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasising any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter."

It is clear from the phrases: "a person revealed …" and: "To write that someone noted …" that these guidelines address the assertions of named parties and are not relevant to bodies of opinion, or the un-attributed "others" that we are dealing with here. Prunesqualer (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with it. That is why I removed "noted" over an hour ago.Cptnono (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not fully addressed my concerns; the statements in both of these sentences are contentious. The word "accuse" in the first of these sentences implicitly acknowledges that the label "massacre" is "asserted but undetermined". I fully approve of this. The "said" in the second sentence dose not accurately reflect the contentious nature of the claims within that sentence. "claimed" or "contended" would be far more appropriate. Prunesqualer (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have. Claim is not acceptable per the MoS. Accuse may also not be. If you can think of an alternative to accuse please say so.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Prehaps you did not read my earlier remarks on "Mos" "Synonyms for said". Please reread the relevant section (I have quoted it in full above) and note the context. I have re-quoted the relevant clauses below;

"to write that a person revealed… might preclude such an endorsement "
"To write that someone noted, observed, insisted…"
"To write that someone claimed or…"
" be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people …"

Please allow me to repeat: "These guidelines address the assertions of named parties and are not relevant to bodies of opinion or, the un-attributed "others" that we are dealing with here. Prunesqualer (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it say "These guidelines address the assertions of named parties and are not relevant to bodies of opinion or, the un-attributed "others" that we are dealing with here"? The word "someone" should not preclude the spirit of the MoS. "Claim" is not acceptable. You should know that and make sure you are not trying to find a way to sneak around the MoS. If that is your sole argument then there is nothing left to say. If you wish to actually discuss neuteral wording then I would be interested.Cptnono (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you examine this guideline carefully you will find that every single clause refers to named/specified parties: "a person" : "someone" : "someone" (again) : "living people". This guideline has nothing to say about un-attributed bodies of opinion. So, no, I am not trying to "sneak" around the MoS. I just disagree strongly with your interpretation of "spirit of the MoS" on this issue. Prunesqualer (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You are disregarding the principle of the MoS.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Both side accused each other in their narrative. I changed the text to use "accused" for both sides, to ensure neutrality. Marokwitz (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even think of that. "Accuse" might be a problem throughout the article but I am not sure and am hesitant to start changing them all. Good fix.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Accuse" is sometimes a proper word, and should be used in general when the reliable sources describe it as "accuse". According to MoS, alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. Marokwitz (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Marokwitz, your edit fully addresses my original concern. Prunesqualer (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent!

Done Marokwitz (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In the lead: Israel hit X controversial target(s)

So what about Hamas rockets hitting controversial targets? Lets add into the lead that Hamas rockets hit Israeli kindergarten classrooms [20]. Kinetochore (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this request hinge on the discussion up above?

Currently the article says: "Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Southern Israel, reaching the major cities of Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time during the conflict." That isn't very much information about Palestinian activity. Maybe adding another line saying ho many rockets were fired and a mention of civilians being hit could be added to that.Cptnono (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: "...rockets and, to a lesser extent, mortars, fired by the

Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and were fired into areas where civilian populations are based." is in one source we already use.[21] Should be pretty easy to add a line saying the civilian population was attacked. We could detail the three (last number I saw) schools hit but that seems like it would kick off another "oh yeah, well..." finger pointing contest.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with "Hamas hit Israeli homes and schools". Reads like finger pointing and deflection. I agree that a line is needed sating that Hamas struck civilians (even Goldstone said so) but this is not the best ay to go about it.Cptnono (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And this disregards sourced lines already in the article.Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how the previous version could be imaginably conceived to be policy compliant. It is non neutral to summarize the article by saying that Israel hit X controversial target while ignoring that Hamas hit Y controversial targets too. Both are covered in the article, both should be covered. Or if it is not notable enough, both sides controversial target(s) should be omitted. All statements should be balanced. Regarding the UN facilities, which UN facility was hit? I searched the article and found none, and there is no citation either. Marokwitz (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Disregard my latest comment, I found the facilities discussed. But it is still very vague, citation is certainly needed to assist the reader, this is a very long article.Marokwitz (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if people used the talk page. Per above, I have concerns with "Rockets fired by Hamas hit Israeli homes, a kindergarten[45], and schools[46]" I this fingerprinting that isn't needed. The lead used to list every possible emotion-grabbing target (even greenhouses). A single kindergarten deserves prominence? I believe the best way to address the rockets is clearly stating that they were fired into civilian populatins. We don't need to do it as a rebuttal.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Best option is to take "X group hit Y controversial target(s) because of Z reason(s)" out of the lead entirely. Otherwise this list will keep growing. And, yes, if we include that Israel hit mosques in the lead, then we should also include that Hamas hit kindergartens in the lead. They are both (emotive) instances of collateral damage (except some mosques which Israel specifically targeted i.e. mosques they said were storing weapons)Kinetochore (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation overkill

"The IDF hit mosques, homes, and UN facilities.[44][45][46][47]" is unnecessary. The information is already available in the article and it only serves to distract the reader from reading this article and instead go to the links. It comes across like an attempt to make a point (even if it isn't) and adds clutter. Is there a single source that can be used to verify all this? If so, it needs to be formatted correctly. Also, we could be trimming multiple sources throughout the lead per WP:LEAD. I'm fine with removing citation needed tags since all of the information is verified in the body. Such action would increase the article's chances of getting higher on the assessment scale. Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wiki articles which deal with the Middle East conflict tend to be controversial. Information which is not well cited is speedily challenged, and often summarily removed. In this instance my original citation (a link to the Goldstone Report) was left out when you moved, and re-edited my contribution. I reinserted the citation, but it was promptly removed. I'm still not sure why since, to the best of my knowledge, my partial list of buildings/facilities "hit by the IDF", where not among the challenged findings of the G.R. Rather than entering another dispute about reversions, and the merits of Goldstone's report, I decided to seek another citation. However I could not find a source which, on it's own, would lend sufficient weight, and cover all the items listed. Given the rather aggressive editing/reverting I have encountered in this article, I felt these four citations where necessary to strongly support the "Israel hits" list. Incidentally, a great many other facilities hit by Israel are mentioned in these sources. I certainly don't think they should all be mentioned in the intro, however I would like to add schools, and hospitals to those listed in the intro, since these where of high significance in terms of human suffering and political fallout re the Gaza war (this would involve adding only two words). I would be very grateful for feedback on this. Prunesqualer (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a very long article, I think that the citations are necessary to assist the reader to verify the text. For a more tidy look, they can be easily unified into a single reference with internal bullets. Marokwitz (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz- Advise on citations followed. Thanks. Prunesqualer (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even consider that. Works for me.Cptnono (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note: Edits by Prunesqualer can be reverted since he was banned. A couple of them culminated in this edit.[22] I am on the fence with this edit since I didn't like it to begin with but warmed up to it. However, "schools" seems incorrect since it implies that they targeted more than one school. I am under the impression that one school was targeted while the other was barely hit while hitting militants next to it (although it was originally reported incorrectly). Straight revert or let it stand? Any oppose should mean it goes. But it might be fine as is.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

About 280 schools and kindergartens in the Gaza Strip were destroyed or damaged during OCL. See the Goldstone report, page 271. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Learn something new everyday! Procedural note still stands but I am OK with it.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits of banned user

Per my discussion with User:CIreland on his talk page[23] I have reverted this edit of banned editorPrunesqualer who was under an article ban when he made the edit. I am open to suggestions as to how to proceed from here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Didnt you agree to removing this from the lead? nableezy - 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did in the hope that a good-faith gesture would be reciprocated and foster further cooperation between opposing camps in the general Israel-Arab topic area. But the edit came from a banned user and per my discussion with the banning admin, I took appropriate action consistent with the imposed sanction. However, I won't reinsert it in the Lead if you revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead - Misleading

The article states quite clearly that "Israel's aim was to stop rocket fire." Ok - so how can it be said right before this that "Israel began the offensive"? FlaviaR (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a suggestion for a new draft?Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing off the top of my head. This isn't something I want to just play around with - I'd have to give it some actual thought. I was hoping someone else could at least come up with something I could work on - if people wanted the change to be faster.FlaviaR (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you like "In the latest escalation of the ongoing conflict, Israel responded to rocket fire and arms importation with military force." ? In this, I try to incorporate what's there already.FlaviaR (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt my feelings. I have a feeling that that may kick off another finger pointing contest, though. I would let that suggestion sit here just\ for a little bit to see if there are any objections or modifications then go for it.Cptnono (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

obama and congress in the lead

Could Jiujitsuguy please explain why what the US administration and Congress said about the Goldstone report belongs in the lead? The text includes that Israel rejected the findings, why does the view of a state not involved in the conflict belong? Should I include the large number of states that said the findings were accurate and that Israeli officials should charged with war crimes to the lead? nableezy - 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the few times I agree with Nableezy.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

don't agree. the US's opinion on something important in the I-A conflict is more important then Mongolia's opinion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Egypt's? Or Syria's? Or any number of other states? Why is the US position "more important" and how is that not a straightforward example of bias? nableezy - 19:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does The UNHRC's endorsement of a biased one-sided report belong in the lead? And why not give equal credence to notable detractors like the President of the United States and the US House of Representatives? It is well known that the UNHRC is a body dominated by Islamic countries and their allies[24]. Moreover, I see that you are extremely selective about what goes in the lead. You have completely ignored the edits made by Prunesqualer (which incidentally violate 1R). That issue had already been discussed at length and it was already agreed that it would not be included in the lead.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably because this was a commission of the UNHRC? And the UNHRC is not a single state? But if it makes you feel better cut that part as well. And please, please, please, dont make me go to the trouble of demonstrating what is selective about your edits. I wont finish typing for weeks if you make me do so. Prunesqualer's edits may be overly detailed for the lead, but so is the parts about "new technologies" and "going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties" and much of the other garbage in the lead. You have a problem with that text there is a section above to discuss that in. I have a problem with including only the US's view, which unsurprisingly was only included because you and a few other users agreed with them. If you dont have a problem with me including the views of other states that said that Israel is guilty of war-crimes I can add that. nableezy - 20:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The first two churn out predictable propaganda. The position of the US, which has been the most important mediator between Israel and all her enemies, is newsworthy and notable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Both the US and Israel have brought us much more propaganda than nearly all of the Arab world as a whole. But I cant be bothered to give any more of a response to such a spurious reason as "they give us propaganda while the US gives us the truth". nableezy - 20:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course Israel produces its propaganda, but they are a party to the report. And what's nonsense is equating the US (the country with the strongest media rights ever) with two countries who have jokes of government-run media.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Who said one word about the media of Egypt or Syria? None of this is about the media. This is about what the state itself says. Put your flag away, I am not here to argue about who has "stronger media rights". This is about why what the US government says about a report on something it was not party to should be in the lead. nableezy - 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are connected. Governments with strong media rights will not announce propaganda crap knowing that it will be mocked.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What are talking about? That the US has a free press is not at all relevant to whether or not proclamations by the US government on a report about an event it was not involved in belongs in the lead of the article on that event. nableezy - 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The logic is quite easy to follow. Governments of countries that do not have a free press have a greater tendency to issue proclamations that are predictable propaganda nonsense. Compare for example to heads of state of France and Iran. Which one has a head of state involved in Holocaust denialism?

This most logical explanation for this discrepancy is that where there is no free press to call out the heads of state nothing inhibits them from making asinine proclamations. Thus, in general we give greater credence to the proclamations of heads of state with a free press then heads of state without a free press. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your personal views on the merits of a free press are irrelevant in this discussion and is a straw man argument. Can you please try to keep to the topic under discussion? Why should the views of the United States administration and Congress be included in the lead of an article that has nothing to do with the United States? nableezy - 00:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal views are exactly what we do here, when making editorial decisions. I don't know what you're referring to with "straw man argument", and it appears that you just said it for the heck of it, as in, say.....a straw man. I made a reasonable point as to why the US's position is more notable then others (greater reliability and important player), but you have responded with everything possible except to the points raised.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense, and in fact you know it is nonsense. I think you are intentionally trying to get me to say something I shouldnt, and I am trying very hard to restrain the urge to click save page after typing my first response to you. Your argument, that the US having a more free press than Egypt or Syria, is a straw man because nobody made any argument about the freedom of press in any country. Ill respond to the actual argument, which you have so far avoided. nableezy - 06:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 06:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I made the argument. I never claimed anyone else did.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Following the Gaza War, Judge Goldstone's mission spent several weeks in the Gaza strip examining evidence first hand. To the best of my knowledge neither "the President of the United States" or "the US House of Representatives" had access to such a wealth of first hand evidence. The Idea that their pronouncements are more valid than those of Judge Goldstone (who is Jewish and an avowed Zionist and therefor unlikely to be biased against Israel) doesn’t hold water.Prunesqualer (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea that someone is Jewish & says he's a Zionist as a defense against any possible bias is laughable. I can dig up hundreds of Jews who are Zionists who say he's a liar out to destroy Israel - & Jews who are also in the area who know what goes on there (Shades of Jenin!). So please stop using this as any sort of defense - just the facts, please. FlaviaR (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

<- I agree that there's no reason to single out the views of the US administration and Congress (or the EU, Russia, China, India, Arab League etc) in the lead and to do so is a very straightforward example of bias. Also, for what it is worth, Oct 20th is the day Reporters Without Borders publish their (admittedly non-deterministic but better than nothing) press freedom metrics each year. The US is 20th again although it's rating has dropped. Northern Europe leads as always. The notion that media rights in the US means that the government can't get nonsense published is a strange thought given what happened in Iraq about WMD...in addition to being irrelevant to the question at hand. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BIAS is the best argument against it. Of course, since editors can do whatever they want in the topic area I am leaning towards including it now.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

May I propose a compromise solution whereby part of the edit is reverted while part stands. For example, I can remove the House portion of the edit while leaving Obama or the reverse. Would that be acceptable?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Obama's would be more notable so I would go with that.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything is to be included I think it would be much better for it to be a reactions summary statement like the one in the main article e.g. The controversial report received wide support among developing countries in the United Nations, while Western countries were split between supporters and opponents of the resolutions endorsing the report......or thereabouts with or without the 'controversial'. Something along those lines anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither of them should be included. If it makes you feel that much better you can also remove the UNHRC vote on it. Or better yet, tie in the American opposition, and European endorsement, to the adoption of the report into the line on the UNHRC vote. Why exactly should we not include a line on the EU endorsing the report in the lead? The only reason to favor this government over any other is a personal liking for the view. Brewcrewer makes a (Im having a real difficult time calling what he wrote an "argument", so we'll have to go with "comment") that the freedom of the press of the US somehow magically gives credence to the views of the government of the US. Even if I were to lose control of my facilities and accept that this was a valid argument, Sweden has a free press. As do many of the countries who voted in favor of the adoption of the report. So here is what I can accept, and they both involve removing both Obama and the Congress from the lead of the article. Write who voted for/against/abstained in the ref or something, or also remove the line on Obama and the Congress. However, if either of those lines stay there will be no defense against including whatever other government said about the report in the lead of the article. Understand that you are not just arguing for including this particular statement; if you want to even pretend that NPOV means anything at all you will have to accept any other state's views being placed alongside the US's. Or you can just restrict the lead of the article to what the involved parties had to say about it. Let me know how you decide, I dont want to have to start looking for what the Nigerian Foreign Minister said about the report unless I have to. nableezy - 06:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. This discussion is about those particular lines. If you want others in you will need to start those discussions.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, you dont get to decide what happens here. Unless people are willing to flat out say that NPOV does not mean anything at all, if they support including Obama they will have to accept including the EU, Sweden, Egypt, Iran, China, and any other state that had their views published in the media. You can make one of two arguments in good faith, either the views on the report of individual states not party to the conflict should go in the lead, or the views of individual states should not go in the lead. An argument that only this particular state's views should go in the lead cannot be made in good faith as it patently violates WP:NPOV, a core policy of this website, and further violates the discretionary sanctions in place in this topic area. If Obama's view goes in the lead, so do other third party state's views. Just the US is not an option here. nableezy - 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I don't. However, you have just recently returned to this article and are already screwing it up. If you want to add things in simply to make a point since you don't like that particular line you will find yourself subject of yet another AE. How many would that be now? You are going to add in the thoughts of Sweden and others? Go ahead since you really should be done here. Or instead you could not make a weird temper tantrum threat and simply base your argument off of WP:BIAS.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It isnt a "temper tantrum" or a "threat". If you want to take me or anybody else to AE you are free to do so. You have already admitted to violating POINT above (you initially say you agree that these sentences should not be in the lead, but when you are unsuccessful in asking for another user to be blocked you say you are now "leaning towards including it", you essentially admit to supporting the material because you didnt get your way somewhere else [I think the word for that is "temper tantrum"]), so if you want to go to AE we can do that. My argument is simple. I say that the views of individual states should not be included. If however certain users are able to force into the lead of the article the views of this one specific state then clearly the views of individual states should be in the lead of the article, and because of this I will then add the views of other states. The only two possible options that are consistent with NPOV are no 3rd party states or many 3rd party states. Selecting one that certain users like and only including that is not an option. nableezy - 14:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's all calm down and take a deep breath. I'm sure this can be worked out. Nab, do you not think that the views of the United States are notable? More notable than say, the views of that thriving republic, Djibouti? I'm not trying to mock. I'm merely making the point that the views of the world's only superpower should count for something, no?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not more notable than the EU, or Egypt, or Turkey, or ... . And certainly not so notable that they should be in the lead of the article. nableezy - 15:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your confusing the European parliament with Europe as a whole. While the European parliament endorsed the report (and by a very slim margin), individual European nations adopted contrary positions vis a vis the Goldstone report. For example Italy, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, (just to name a few) all EU members, rejected Goldstone as did Canada and Australia. The view of democracies should be accorded more weight than those of repressive regimes with abysmal human rights records. The UNHRC is composed of members such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Pakistan, Algeria, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritania, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, Malaysia and Qatar. Do you think that these states have the moral authority to judge others? Can you actually equate the views of these regimes with those of the United States, Canada or Australia? --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean I shouldnt compare states who have recently been shown to have repeatedly committed torture with other states that commit torture? 335-287 is not "very slim", and votes by the EUP represent the position of the EU as a whole, if not each specific member state. A number of democratic states also supported the report (Turkey is a democracy, and in the not so distant past one of the more important allies that Israel had). But back to the point, is there a reason why Congress should be included but the EU Parliament should not? Or why Obama should be included but Sweden's views should not? Is Sweden not "democratic" enough? Finally, I said you could also remove the line on the UNHRC vote as well, it isnt so important that it needs to be in the lead. But there is no reason at all to include the US view, and only the US view, in the lead. nableezy - 17:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A number of states, groups and individuals took differing stances regarding the Goldstone report. However in the introductory section of this article undue weight is given to parties who opposed the report. Initially the UN's endorsement of the report is Cited but without including any context or justification for this decision. Then the Obama administration' rejection of the report is cited which is followed by a quoted justification, critical of the report. Then the U.S. House of Representatives rejection of the report is alluded to, followed by a further quoted damning of the report. This is followed by a reference to Israels "criticising" the Report and "disputing" its findings. In my opinion this level of bias is unacceptable.Prunesqualer (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab, If all references to Goldstone and the UNHRC are removed from the Lead, there is no need to mention the U.S. position. Would you object to this compromise solution?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd like to point out just one of the many hypocrisies of the UNHRC and why it is a disingenuous body, unworthy of any consideration. It was the UNHRC, on its own initiative, that sanctioned the commission of an investigative group, headed by Goldstone. Goldstone's flawed report, almost as an afterthought, included crimes committed by Hamas. The UNHRC adopted Goldstone's findings but only to the extent of those portions critical of Israel. Hamas violations were completely ignored. The UNHRC doesn't even pretend to be unbiased. It is a worthless body whose sole purpose is to vilify one nation on this planet. I would propose that whenever we cite or reference the UNHRC, it is accompanied by a qualification detailing its blatant biases.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to remove Goldstone from the lead????? How about whenever we cite any AIPAC, JVL, or other such source we include a qualification detailing its blatant biases? How about whenever we cite the Congress we include a qualification on its blatant bias? Get off it. You have two choices here, remove Obama and the Congress or watch as I add every state that said the Goldstone report was accurate and that Israel is guilty of crimes against humanity. I leave it to you. nableezy - 15:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

AIPAC is a lobbying group. It is expected to have biases in favor of its interests. The UNHRC purports to be a nonpartisan group and the champion of human rights but remains blind to the suffering of Christians in Darfur, the plight of the Kurds in Turkey, the occupation of Northern Cyprus, the repression in Iran, etc... But I don't want to get off track. Can you propose an alternative solution that is acceptable to all sides so stability can return to the article. I am willing to work with you on this.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I already gave an option that has seemingly been ignored. Remove the UNHRC vote along with Obama and Congress if that really bothers you. But removing Goldstone, cmon you cant be serious. nableezy - 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been ignored. While I can't speak for others, I'm certainly giving it due consideration, possibly incorporating some other ideas and suggestions. What I'm trying to convey is that Goldstone has not been universally accepted and has in fact, been rejected by many democracies. People tend to think that because the UNHRC incorporates the letters "UN," it must be legit when in fact, its predecessor body was dissolved by Kofi Anan precisely because of the same biases that run rampant within the organization today.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont care about the UNHRC or what you or anybody else thinks about its biases or anything like that. We already say that Israel said the report is biased, why is that not enough? Why would it matter if Congress passed a resolution about the report? That shouldnt even be in the lead of the article on the report much less in the lead of this article. nableezy - 18:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I could get behind removing Goldstone from the lead. Maybe the best way to summarize intl reaction in the lead is not through that report.Cptnono (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is one of the worse suggestions that has been made in the years I have been working on this article. The report itself has been given a huge amount of weight by sources, ignoring it because you and a few other partisans dont like it is not compliant with mandatory policies of this website. nableezy - 18:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like it, did I?

The report is looking like it needs some more background. This has come up before with editors wanting to preface it with "controversial" and now all these rebuttals. It would be more efficient and get the point across better by simply saying that "Israel was widely criticized by the intl community" or something along those lines. No one is suggesting removing the report from the article. Just the lead. Cptnono (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, how about we remove Hamas rockets from the lead.? That makes as much sense as this. If you havent noticed, "controversial" does currently preface mention of the report. This was as important and as widely covered as any other aspect of the conflict. Suggestions to remove mention of it from the lead of a supposed encyclopedia article are asinine. nableezy - 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comments about rockets doesn't deserve a response.

That is nice that controversial is still in. However, there was some back and forth on it. It also isn't necessary since we already state that there was opposition to it. It is clear that any use of the report in the lead will require rebuttals and multiple lines. It doesn;t deserve that much weight.

Since we can't figure out a way to add the report then why use it? We can make it clear that there was criticism without it. Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First three things. I have NOT read peoples input above. I have read and re-read the lede and as some of you already know I do TRY and take a NPOV with this article. (And fourth I would love one day for this to get GA status...I dream). My observation is that the Goldstone report just gets too much of the lede and should be cut down. He said this, he endorsed that, he rejected and so did he! What has that got to do with the war? Cptnono I am sure that you can come up with something that is better :-) Bjmullan (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment makes me think you havent even read the lead. There is one line about Goldstone, another sentence about a UNHRC vote, and one sentence each about Obama and Congress saying they dont like the report and then finally one line on an Israeli response. nableezy - 20:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the US rebuttal. But I also understand that some editors feel that the mention of the report without spelling out how controversial it actually was is necessary. I have a habit of fixing things with a sledgehammer and in this case conveying the intl criticism can be done without the report. I know it sounds out there but the line has been nothing but trouble.Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The report itself, not just "international reaction", is a major topic in the conflict. It is as important and relevant as rocket attacks by Hamas. You have already neutered the lead from including anything wrong or illegal that Israel has done, removing that the well sourced line on it being called a massacre, removing the well sourced material on the civilian structures hit by Israel, and now you want to remove the official record of a UN fact finding mission because ultra-nationalistic editors dont like that somebody dared to document the war crimes Israel has committed? nableezy - 20:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy sorry for the confusion. I meant the whole bit about the report and the response by others. I think you recent edit has helped to addressed this. Bjmullan (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But now your edit has been reverted by Brewcrewer. I would support your version of the final paragraph and not the current one. If we mention the USA here we should mention the UK, EU, USSR (showing my ages) and any number of countries response to the report. Bjmullan (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I did nothing of the sort, Nableezy. I removed stuff on civilian structures after someone else removed it sometime ago. I actually readded a new version of it before seeing this. Massacre is still in. But yes, I would be happy to neuter the report. As I have said twice already, I don't like the rebuttals and if those rebuttals are needed then maybe it should go. I am on the fence with the report but would be happy to see it gone or happy to see it stay if consensus deems it appropriate and manageable.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

<- Removing all references to the Goldstone report in the lead seems like a step too far. Whatever we do we can't single out the US response there on its own. It would be difficult to describe how biased that looks from where I'm sitting. Even the Communist Party of China do better than that in their state run newspapers e.g. this China Daily report all about the EU. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As things stand we have;

half a line noting that the UNHCR endorsed the Goldstone report, -verses- two lines of negative responses to the report.
UNHCR endorsement of the G.R -verses- US Presidential + US Congress + Israeli Government condemnation.
No quotes or editorial supporting the G.R -verses- significant quotes and editorial condemning it.

Dose anybody have a credible defence for this imbalance? If not, I would recommend we go with Nableezy's version which fully addresses this problem. Prunesqualer (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't have and also suggest we adopt Nableezy's version. Bjmullan (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Prunesqualer should address JJG and BCs concerns instead of relying on them not providing "credible defence for this imbalance". Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, you asked me to "address JJG and BCs concerns". Nableezy, and others have already addressed most of them, but I'll do my best;

concern; US opinion is more important, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, that that of other states. Answer; Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, The Russian Federation, and South Africa, and many others including most of the Middle East and the EU, endorsed the report. These are among the most populous and significant states on earth. Singling out the opinions of only Israel and the US as worthy of mention is, in my opinion, inappropriate.
concern; The US is the most important mediator between Israel and all her enemies therefore its views are "newsworthy and notable" Answer; The US is Israel's most important ally and has a long track record of supporting Israel's causes. It's support for Israel on this issue is therefor not "newsworthy" or "notable".
concern; Many countries who supported the report don't have a free press and have "a greater tendency to issue proclamations that are predictable propaganda nonsense." eg Egypt and Syria "churn out predictable propaganda." Answer; Israel has been on a war footing for decades, and exercises a greater control over it's media than most democracies (the Lavon Affair is a good example). Some would say Israel churns out predictable propaganda. Should we therefor remove Israel's opinions from the article? Also note that the EU parliament (which voted to endorse the report) is entirely made up of states who have a free press.
concern; The report shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction at all because it is biased, flawed etc Answer; As for bias, that's disputed. If we exclude every report or statement that has been labelled "biased" by one party or another we wouldn’t be left with much of an article. The report may indeed contain some flaws (what 575 page report doesn’t?), but the G.R. is too significant, and widely supported, to leave out of the intro, simply because some consider it "flawed".

In summery

The Goldstone Report is too significant to leave out of the intro.
World opinion on the G.R. was mixed. If opinions on the G.R. are to be included in the intro, they should be representative and proportional/balanced.

Nableezy's last edit answers these conditions, the current version dose not. Prunesqualer (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

With the recent conversation on Nableezy's page and the lack of a rebuttal this is probably good to go.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note: Edits by Prunesqualer can be reverted since he was banned. This was one of them.[25] This one looks good but wanted to mention it. Straight revert or let it stand? Any oppose should mean it goes. But it might be fine as is.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I still think the edit was acceptable. Anyone else?Cptnono (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Title of this article

I dare say I'm not the first person to raise this issue (and probably won't be the last), but I have a problem with the title "The Gaza War" for this article. Can this series of events really be described as a war? Firstly, I would point out that it represents only a period of increased activity, within a long standing conflict. Secondly, the protagonists where so unevenly matched that the term "war" seems inappropriate. Gaza/Hamas had not one tank, aircraft or warship to their name, whereas Israel had the 4th most powerful military force on earth. Surly, if this is to be described as war then a trained boxer pummelling a five year old should be described as a fight? Prunesqualer (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See the archives. It has come up plenty. "War" is used in the sources and the disparity between their arsenal doesn't change that. If you can provide sources tha thsow "conflict" or something similar being used to a greater extent and can come up with a good title based on it then please present it.

I personally prefer "conflict (season year - season year) but it is to wordy.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would acknowledge that Wiki gives precedence to sources that are "used to a greater extent", even if those sources claim that black is white (it's a crap system, but I admit, I can't think of a better alternative). My impression is that the term; "Operation Cast Lead" is more commonly used to describe this episode than; "The Gaza War". Do I have to perform a statistical analysis on, all of the press reports and historical papers on this subject to get this passed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would help make such a case. However, I highly doubt it will be changed to that due to the previous concerns of being POV by giving prominence to Israel's classification of it. I personally have leaned towards that title but it met with mostly resistence. Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If both sides of the conflict, and the reliable sources, describe it as a war, then why shouldn't we? Marokwitz (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Prunesqualer, have you ever heard of the term asymmetrical warfare? This was a war in every sense of the word. In some ways it was more difficult than a conventional war because IDF had to operate in dense urban, booby trapped terrain that Hamas was intimately familaier with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Listening to some of Israel's supporters describing conditions in Gaza, one sometimes gets the impression that every home, hospital, school, and mosque, was infested with Hamas gunman/snipers and rigged with booby traps. One wonders how Israel managed to only lose six combatants (that's taking off the four friendly fire incidents) to enemy fire? Something doesn’t add up here. Prunesqualer (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a forum.Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Prunesqualer - you need to know what's going on here, the article must portray the inmates of the ghetto as the aggressors. The final scandal over neutrality happened when MeteorMaker proved, according to every reliable source there is, that the term "Judea and Samaria" is exclusively used by right-wing Israelis (or their absolute supporters elsewhere). He even found 80 or so secondary sources noting this to be the case - the ArbCom banned him and two of the very last honest editors. The highly partisan "J&S" phrase has now been inserted everywhere, used as if it was the "neutral narrative" of the encyclopedia. It's shocking, but that's the way it's been at Wikipedia for a while. 94.116.26.2 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

When was the name of this article changed? When the conflict was ongoing the page was called "Operation Cast Lead" and I haven't read the page since then. I find the current name is confusing/incorrect. All media reports from the conflict referred to it as Operation Cast Lead, and I never saw it called "The Gaza War." The opening paragraph doesn't even say "also known as" or reference "Operation Cast Lead." While I will make no judgment I don't really think this was a war so much a series of Israeli offensives. There is nothing on the Talk Page here about the changing of the article's name, but I don't think it was the correct move. I'd suggest it be changed back to Operation Cast Lead or to something along the lines of the previous title I found in the archives, "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict". To call this the Gaza War is incorrect because Operation Cast Lead was just one Israeli Operation of many. Israel have performed air-raids and bombing offensives on Gaza since then, and performed many before then - each one does not represent a war (if they did this would be "Gaza War 126" or something). Cast Lead was just one in a series of conflicts in a troubled region. The current title seems overly political, misleading, and a misrepresentation of the nature of the operation it relates to. I see from the archives that it is very frequently discussed what this article should be called - yet I didn't find anything explaining why it was deemed reasonable to call it "Gaza War." 124.148.175.199 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Searching the archives for "WP:NAME" will find most of the discussions but I think the important one was Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_47#Requested_move. Not sure why Operation Cast Lead isn't in the lead anymore but it redirects to this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The rationale in that discussion seemed to be that some cited articles referred to it as the Gaza War - but that was press covering a current event. We have articles called 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict and 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, so why isn't this one called "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" for consistency? It is no more a war than either of those articles, and the press at the time for the most part in fact referred to "Operation Cast Lead" despite the articles linked in the discussion archive you referred to. 124.148.175.199 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to that - even if there's disagreement on changing the title to something closer to describing it, I think we need to go back to saying "also known as Operation Cast Lead" or at the very least using the operation name in the opening of the article. 124.148.175.199 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#NAME may have played a role in it not being called Operation Cast Lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I am then of the opinion that 1) the opening of the article should say "also known as Operation Cast Lead" or reference it, and that 2) a more in depth discussion may be necessary but that the article be named "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" for the reasons I've stated above. I don't participate in Wikipedia much - what is the process for suggesting this title change or bringing it about? 124.148.175.199 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

from what i understand, "Cast Lead" was removed from the lede as a compromise with other editors who insisted on adding the (untruthful) "gaza massacre" name, claiming (untruthfully) that the term was used by reliable sources.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And now that even Hamas acknowledges that at least half of those killed were combatants[26] the (untruthful) claim of massacre can finally be put to pasture.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's quite irrelevant. The term "Gaza Massacre" may have been used by some media organisations, but is too inflammatory for such a controversial page. That's a separate issue to naming the article "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" and referencing Cast Lead at the beginning of the article so people know what the article is about. 124.148.175.199 (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The name of the Gaza operation should be noted. If there are no objections, I'll add it in the Lead--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Its removal was based on an RfC Primarily that was focused on the massacre line. I would prefer the operation name be mentioned but not at the cost of asserting that massacre was a common title. Yes there were three sources for massacre but each one was problematic. Removing of OCL was kind of a sledgehammer/IAR/overly focus on one portion of MoS way of handling it. Do we need to bold it to be inline with th MoS?

There is absolutely zero dispute about what the operational name was. And we do already make it clear that massacre was a common enough description. I also could support "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" as the article's title. It looks like the Goldstone report made a deliberate effort to call it a conflict instead of a war. I don't mind war though.Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

okay so I gather that there is a consensus for inclusion of Operation Cast Lead in the lead.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is the consensus here. And I agree with it too. As for the name, I think Gaza War has been demonstrated to be the widely used common name for this event. There is no call to replace it with a descriptive title because we don't agree with a connotation that it suggests. That's why we have articles on the Cod Wars, Crab Wars, and Turbot War (we won!) for example. Around these parts we had the non-war Pig War and they also had one in Europe. Or the Jerusalem artichoke for an I/P example. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I edited it to insert " (also known as Operation Cast Lead) " and if anyone else has an opinion on renaming the article let's hear it. Gaza War is fairly inaccurate in my opinion and I have no objections to "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict". 120.19.208.220 (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems someone removed that bit after I posted it. I'm quite new to wikipedia - what do I do? Just put it back in? The removal hasn't been mentioned by anyone in the discussion page, even though I put a comment next to the edit referring future editors to this part of the discussion. 120.18.141.117 (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it was removed unintentionally when Jiujitsuguy reverted a bunch of edits. I'd say just put it back. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hamas "Gunmen"

Hamas "gunmen" ??? I thought Hamas was a political organisation who won the last democratic election in Gaza. I guess that makes half the male population of Gaza automatically become "Hamas 'Gunmen' ", but with 240 women dead and 300 Children murdered, how did the accuracy on the 700 "Hamas 'gunmen' " suddenly become so painstakingly accurate??? This is beyond Chuthzpa. It's downright sickening Hitleresque propaganda. Who are the admins here??? May I suggest that people who are of Palestinian, Arab or Jewish descent excuse themselves and refrain from being admins here and that other wikipedia admins see to it that that happens so that this farce does not completely discredit wikipedia for the foreseeable future? No? Why will noone be surprised? Iguess we'll only invent new "guidlines" that support the loudest Orwellians around? And please, don't bother warning me with any of the courtesy crap after the endless series of complete intellectual dishonesty being supported and turned a blind eye to here. Even the term "War" is an insult to any thinking human beings' intelligence. As if the people of Guernika should be thought of as considering themselves at "war" with the pilots in the Nazi-germany bombers.. The level of ridiculousness becomes even more apparent if one ever were to expand the "google hits / search term numbers" argument into almost any other category, but I guess thats a level of abstarction that is lost on more than half of the species so I'll refrain from trying to teach any more reactionaries to make any more efforts 84.215.40.40 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the revert. I completely read my watchlist wrong.

If you don't like "gunmen" then simply change it. The rest of your paragraph is shit that doesn't even warrant a response.Cptnono (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing. I can bring up ten different valid points and not a single person bothers to discuss cases point by point in _any_ serious fashion. It's like staring into empty catatonic eyes that dont bat an eyelid when you point out the most glaringly obvious dishonesties. Instead I am met with threats on my userpage, personal attacks, anger and all kinds of bullshit concievable under the sky. Have you guys gone batshit insane? What does it take to get people to utilize their honesty? Pandering and groveling with niceties and begging? Well you can all forget that shit until the common decency of adressing the ISSUES and NOT, language, NOT person, NOT style, prose, courtesy, or any other infantile excuse to avoid the ISSUES. Is there anyone alive in here or is this page administered by the Israeli defense department and a "republican campaign committe to reelect"?? This is for posterity. I dont give a rats ass about your comments and complaints. Just start looking at the ISSUES. 84.215.40.40 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're not familiar with Wikipedia but nobody is on call to answer your questions. Sometimes questions are answered quickly but others take days, weeks or months. Sometimes they are never answered. It also helps if you just ask questions. If you throw around insults and allegations of Nazi-like bevahiour you make yourself look like a troll and most users won't bother with you. Wikipedia is a lot like real life that way.

Your questions also may not have been answered because the answers are mostly in the section above. But if you need some help with that: The 700 figure is not exact and should actually read 6-700. The numbers come from Fathi Hamad, the Interior Minister of Hamas/Gaza/Palestine. As I noted in that section Hamad broke down the numbers between police/security forces (400) and Al-Qassam fighters (2-300) and they shouldn't be lumped together. There are no admins assigned here, they all have general jurisdiction. They are unlikely to ban users from this article based on race. Though I'd be curious to see what happens if you ask. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Who?

Why was this tag added to one line but not the one right after it that logically has the same potential concern?[27]
Critics include some bloggers, some leaders in Hamas, some writers, and so on and so on. Should we list everyone or is "critics" sufficient in an effort to not overbloat the lead?

Cptnono (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the second 'critic' was quoted from as sorce "Colonel Richard Kemp". The first one only had "some critics". "Some" bloggers, "some" writers, etc, is not a reliable source. If you have a Hamas critic for that statement, then cite it and put it in. Dinkytown talk 21:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But if I provide the sources for the bloggers and writers then that should logically go in as well, correct? We also do have sources in the body instead of the lead which is acceptable per WP:LEAD. Since the line has been so problematic with sources that are questionable "critics" is an easy and correct fix. Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that someone could find a quote from someone in the New York Times (or other venue) using the term "massacre". If that person is not a 'reliable' critic, then that could be hashed out later. "some critics" is WP:WEASEL. It would be easy enough to find that source. Dinkytown talk 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And they are in the body per WP:LEAD. But fine, lets remove the line. I hate it anyways.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

But we can instead do this. LMFAO.Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hamas casualties

This article[28] is interesting and sheds further light on Hamas' casualties. In an interview with al-Hayat, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad acknowledged that on the first day of war, Hamas lost 250 personnel. He further states that during the course of the war, as many as 300 additional members of the al Qassam brigades were killed and 150 other "security personnel" were killed as well. By Hamas' own acknowledgement, some 700 of its fighters were killed. This is in line with Israeli estimates. Israel confirmed that of those killed in Cast Lead, at least 709 were confirmed guerillas. I think we need to update the casualty figures to reflect the belated Hamas admission.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Haaretz source reporting the same. It would be great to get that Hayat source. "History will vindicate" us?--Metallurgist (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Found it: Google Translate and original will need a formal translation. --Metallurgist (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the sources, not only do they now admit to losing many more fighters than they previously acknowledged, they now acknowledge that the so-called policemen who were killed on the first day were actually Hamas gunmen. The article now requires a major overhaul to reflect these new developments and blows some serious holes in the Goldstone report--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

here is another useful one from AFP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Will this give more fuel to those who claim that casualties were not proportional? --Shuki (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent sources, particularly the one supplied by NMMNG from AFP. According to AFP the recent numbers supplied by Hamas roughly match the 709 "terror operatives" the Israeli military said it had killed during the fighting, which included members of the Hamas-run police force that has patrolled Gaza since the group seized power in 2007.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maan News joins the fray. This is becoming a comedy.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should we be using the Jerusalem Post quoting another newspaper. Furthermore, even there the Hamas leader is quoted as saying "On the first day of the war, Israel targeted police stations and 250 martyrs who were part of Hamas and the various factions fell", which does not support Israel's case that they were legitimate targets - or even militants in their spare time. Very noticeable is that the POV tag has been removed from this article, when the whole thing is very POV indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.15.200 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All the sources quote almost, if not, exactly the same thing. I have provided the original article and a Google translation that appears to confirm what Israeli, Foreign, and PA sources say. What has been admitted is that the police were in fact part of Hamas and other terrorist/militant/whatever groups and thus legitimate targets.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding in a paraphrased quote from the Hamas official should be easy enough. I was thinking about adding it to the Police subsection of disputed figures then realized that section was very long for what it was. It would get lost there. Should we trim that section? We could also simply add it to the end of it.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be added in any section that discusses casualties. It is very notable for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that IDF figures were accurate, per the AFP source. Second, it demonstrates that little if nothing Hamas says can be taken seriously. Remember, that after the fighting, Hamas acknowledged the deaths of only 48 of its personnel and now, is admitting that the figure was well over 10x that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First point is what I was getting at. Section 5.3.3?Cptnono (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the section you were referring to. I leave it to your capable hands.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to amend anything else (tables, other lines in the body, and so on)?Cptnono (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox and maybe a quick mention in the lead, if you're so inclined.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Metal, I read the articles but I don't see where Hamad admitted the police were legitimate targets. All I saw was that he said the police were "affiliated with" (Ma'an) "part of" (JPost) or "from" (AFP) Hamas and other groups. Only Haaretz, the only one which doesn't quote the man directly, says that Hamad said the police officers were "fighters". We've known that most members of the police were Hamas types since the start; the question is what their combatant status was. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do these two lines work?[29] I didn't really do it with much discussion so please feel free to ask if you want me to self revert.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We also need a line mentioning that he (and others if I recall correctly) say that 50 Israelis were killed.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not bad as a start but AFP broke it down this way. 250 "security personnel" identified as "martyrs" plus an additional 300 members of the al-Qassam Brigades, plus another 150 affiliated terrorist/militant groups for a grand total of 700. AFP stressed that this figure was more in line with the IDF figure of 709.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit concerning recent Hamas admission:

Following the war, Hamas acknowledged the deaths of only 48 of its fighters. However, in November 2010, Hamas interior minister Fathi Hammad acknowledged that as many as 700 gunmen belonging to Hamas and affiliated factions were killed. His admission was consistent with Israeli estimates of at least 709 “terror operatives” killed during the operation. He also claimed that 50 Israelis were killed but offered no proof of the latter claim.

Comments and critiques are welcome--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That version suggests that Hamad conflated the police with fighters (or "gunmen") whereas he actually listed them seperately and just notes that they were Hamas people who were killed. Otherwise it is good. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the input fellas. I've also incorporated the figure into the casualty chart and noted that the figure includes all gunmen, including members of the Hamas affiliated Internal Security Service--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of me wants to remove this from the lead. It appears to be pointing fingers and WP:WORDS violation. Of course, I kind of like it since there are no rules in the I-P area regardless of the arbitration. Anyone want it to go or be reworded? If not, then sweet.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Slim it maybe, but this is crucial to have. The whole article needs to be slimmed down. The problem is that we have two articles in one. But the Hamas confirmation of casualties should force us to reexamine the reliability of parts accusing Israel of atrocities and such. Even without that tho, a lot could be cut down or split off into subarticles.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Casualties table nb

Gaza_war#Casualties Can someone change the asterisks to nb tags or something? It looks clunky with the asterisks. I tried to do it myself, but it doesnt allow ref tags within the nb tags. Perhaps just remove the refs outright?--Metallurgist (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

neermind, got it :) --Metallurgist (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Grad" Rockets?

"Hamas and other militants have no BM-21 Grad launchers, but use 122 mm ammunition in small launchers."
From the Wiki page on Grad : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad
84.215.40.40 (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a mistake in the grad page. Marokwitz (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is. Sheeeesh.... 84.215.40.40 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you explain this:

Please don't count other launchers in the operators list of the article “BM-21”, and please don't enter figures based on speculation at all. And sure as heck don't pull a number out of the air, and remove a “citation needed” tag from an article, as you did here. This is an encyclopedia based on verifiability, not a rumour mill. —Michael Z. 2009-01-08 20:18 z

This is getting out of hand. We now have several articles coming up in Google news searches which completely confound the BM-21 launcher with 122-mm ammunition (like this one which states that the 13-tonne “BM-21s weigh 150 pounds and are nine feet long”). It's important that we clarify, and not contribute to this confusion. Let's keep the article's nomenclature unambiguous.

* BM-21 and Grad are names for this mobile launcher

* 122-mm rockets are the ammunition fired from this and many other launchers, despite how sloppy the news writers are

Please avoid referring to “Grad rockets”, which confuses the two. —Michael Z. 2009-01-12 21:18 z

Did you just go to the wiki page on the Grad and change the information without citing a single accurate reference??? How dishonest is that? 84.215.40.40 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The message by Michael Z. is incorrect. BM-21 and Grad are names of the mobile launcher AND the series of associated 122mm rockets. Feel free to read the sources that were added, and especially [30]. Marokwitz (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just what Michael Z is saying here. It seems like you hold some opinions that is clouding your vision / ability to interpret his text correctly. But the joker above has still not cited his sources for Hamas having Grad's in _either_ article. But I'm already too sick and disgusted with the level of dishoesty and threats around here. See you all next year. If I can stomach it.84.215.40.40 (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is the "joker" you are referring to, but as the provided sources show, the name Grad refers to either the Grad truck based multi missile launcher (which Hamas apparently *don't* have) or the Grad rocket ammunition (which they *do* have and did use, possibly launched by the 9K132 "Grad-P" Single-round man-portable launcher, or a Chinese equivalent). There are reliable citations in the Grad article for Hamas having and using Chinese made Grad rockets. Marokwitz (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that. While "Grad" might be the name for the weapon system, the components of it might also be called Grad. This is what most of the sources do as well. As long as we say they are Grad rockets and not a Grad launcher, I think that's fine. I suppose we could say "Grad type rockets" or "122 mm rockets" but I don't think the distinction is that important here. The Chinese part was speculation as I recall. I'm more upset that we still say Israel has "Nagmash" APCs (linked to the M113) even though I found out quite a while ago and mentioned here that Nagmash is just the Hebrew word for APC. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese rockets are actually not a speculation, refer to the sources in the Grad article.Marokwitz (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Incident

This was problematic enough that I removed it. Changing rank while ignoring the source, grammar, focus on one incident, and so on were the deciding factors. Propose a draft or take it to another article. Furthermore, there are a handful of incidents in and not in that could be mentioned but they need to be handled with care since it is obvious that only some are in while others are ignored.Cptnono (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

--I have reverted the article back to my edit. This is due to the fact that the information deleted by you was already present in the article but was outdated. The information stated before my edit that the soldiers were charged but gave no details. I added information detailing the incident, the names of the victims the charges and the conviction. The article also stated they were demoted from First sergeant to sergeant. Unless you have some evidence by credible link that any of this information is incorrect or that this is not the case or the citations are incorrect please stop your biased moderation and what I consider Vandalism. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---It further really looks like you just attempted to delete some information you didn't like. I also added information about the judge charging the IDF with manslaughter. This is current information and updated the section with factual, current information. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the comments about bias and vandalism, I don't think this material qualifies for inclusion unless it is made clear why it's important. Here are some sources that might help to show why these cases are notable within the context of OCL and beyond.

JPost
- "one of the most high-profile criminal cases from Operation Cast Lead"
- "Military prosecutors had requested that the court impose lengthy prison sentences and demote them to the rank of private for violating the boy’s human rights and the IDF’s code of “purity of arms.”"
- "The IDF probe was opened based on information in a report compiled by a special UN representative appointed to investigate matters involving children and armed conflict"
BBC "It was reportedly the first such conviction in Israel, where the use of civilians as human shields is banned."
Bloomberg Comment by HRW "“Under the laws of war, using civilians as human shields is a war crime,” Bill Van Esveld, an Israel-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, said in a phone interview. “It is hard to see how a demotion and a short suspended sentence are adequate to the gravity of that offense.”"

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also Da'oud, be careful about the 1RR restriction on this article described at the top of the talk page. You've made one revert so that is your limit for 24 hours. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Sean. I want to make clear that this information was already in the article. I only added recent facts detailing the convictions and the sentencing and in the second matter (manslaughter charges for the two deaths) I detailed that the investigation and question had in fact turned into manslaughter charges. I will follow the rules of Wikipedia and the community of course. I will edit the information to show its notability.Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

On another matter. Several of the sources differ as to the actual rank of the Israeli soldiers. Bloomberg for instance states they were Staff sergeants while Al Jezeera states they were First sergeants. I notice Israel Defense Forces states the rank as First Sergeant so I will go with Al Jezeera as correct. I am not sure on this so if anyone has additional insight...Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You classified a rather substantive edit as "minor" and that's not only misleading and disingenuous, it's disrespectful to other editors who assume that the edit involves a spelling mistake or some other minor correction. In addition, your edit can be substantially shortened. This article is large enough as is without additional fluff that can be summed up with one brief sentence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest that someone propose a draft that's brief, concise and with a neutral dispassionate tone that one would expect from an encyclopedia.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. A simple draft was all that as needed instead of accusations of IDONTLIKEIT. In regards to rank, if sources contradict just use "soldiers" or "NCOs", or something. And of course: WP:BRD.Cptnono (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not going to remove the section. Especially considering that this info is in a section of the article on Accusations of Misconduct by the IDF. This is the conviction of two IDF soldiers of a war crime. It is the first conviction of its kind in Israeli history, the highest profile trial of its kind and this information was already present in the section with outdated information saying they were charged before I added the facts of conviction and sentencing.

You are not removing the facts which as they now stand are absolutely relevant and NPOV. Two IDF soldiers being convicted of a war crime is certainly more relevant then the preceding paragraph where there is an entire paragraph with a IDF soldiers saying the only Gazan human shields were those used by Hamas. That is probably why this information was present in the article to begin with. Sorry you don't like the facts but they are facts. It further balances all the claims throughout the article that the IDF are completely innocent and devoid of any type of misconduct. If you want to condense the article you should start with some of that.

In the last section I corrected that. It was two deaths not one. Also the soldier charged admitted to firing on a woman so this statement that the investigators couldn't determine... is false and misleading. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So I assume this is your proposal?[31] Seems too long to me. Can you trim a couple lines? Cptnono (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I condensed it with the help of another editor and added to article. The last third paragraph was returned per my draft so it matched the source which stated two women were killed and that the soldier admitted shooting at one woman. I have found some spelling and grammar errors in other parts of the article, which I am working on Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But you did something similar anyways. I was going to mention this last night but assumed it was done since another editor picked up where you left off but didn;t go overboard: [32]. I have not gone through the other editor's edit completely but I did see that a mention of the concern you bring up is in. If you want even more details to go in please consider a more specific article. Or, try a draft here and seeking consensus.Cptnono (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

None of you are talking before making changes plus you added without discussion information that is not backed by the source and is misleading. You simply reverting because you are edit warring at this point. There is zero reason for you to have changed the page. Per your request it was condensed by me and another editor User: Utahraptor. This it has been restored. Discuss the current version before you change it. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

BRD stipulates that I do not have to but that is only an essay. What I did do was request a draft from you. You failed to provide one that received consensus (your burden not mine) while another editor addded some information you were looking for. I am reporting you for edit warring. You just had your AE closed out for this. You should not have been so hasty. If you are blocked, please return and discuss how to move forward.Cptnono (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dnkrumah has just been indefinitely blocked based on this situation (or his reaction to it). I am not saying that Reneem's version is perfect or shouldn't be adjusted. Please propose some changes if it does not look sufficient. You can also be bold and just do it but that might cause ruckus.Cptnono (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

to section implementation?

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/10/08STATE116392.html Collecting info on vehicles used by Palestinian leadership may not have any relation with subsequent targeting vehicles from air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To admins.

Who are the active admins here? Question to all admins really: I'd like to know how one can seriously list Hamas traffic police as military commanders, how what Israel and the US classifies as terrorists, suddenly become considered regular army and soldiers actively pursuing a war instead of "merely" being resistance fighters in their own territory while a civilian area is massively bombarded, and how this is justified in any meaningful sense as a "War". I get and agree that the mainstream uses the term "Gaza War", but I would put it to reasonable and intellectually honest adults that another more fitting title with (The "Gaza War") as a redirect and put in brackets as a subtitle (even under a sub-heading if needed) would do the generations alive to day a greater service than the current pretences that attacking a heavily populated civilian area with massive numbers of bomber attacks is anything other than a crime against humanity, as is pretty clearly defined in any number of articles on the term. (If you are not an admin, I suggest you leave this specific criticism alone, and I equally ask you to refrain from issuing any personal "warnings" as such will be not only ignored, but merely considered personal attacks and reported as such until they cease. If discussions here are supposed to serve any meaningful purpose I suggest people stick to the issues, and start take heed as to what they are actually being criticised for when intellectual dishonesty is pointed out in their _words_, sentences, topic and issues and refrain from thinking it's a personal battle they have to win. I will concede to any factual flaws in my argument but wont take anymore of the bullshit "warnings" on courtesy as none such are afforded whenever one criticises the _topic_ but are constantly met with a flood of personal attacks, threats and "warnings" from non-admins and admins alike. If people can stay on topic and off speculation about my persona, intentions, and their own straw-man interpretation of my criticism, courtesy will be the order of the day, if not you will be met with the same level of negativity in criticism of flaws that you have applied in your inability to stay off invalid side-topics attacking my persona, perceived "intentions or your personal favourite interpretation of any number of straw man arguments you can construct. Again, if you are not an admin, you should seriously consider refraining from replying to this topic until you are reasonably sure you understand what you are replying to and what your reply contains and entails. Sincerely.Nunamiut (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments are not and should not be limited to admins on talk pages. They are janitors not schoolteachers. Cptnono (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, janitors, ouch. I'd say closer to mental ward attendants. Sol (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The real question you should be asking is how many admins at this article might have taken part in the events described and might have an interest in covering up matters widely described as war-crimes.

Or look at it another way - would a potential Hamas member be allowed to edit? Why of course not, and not just because the organisation of which he's a member is labelled terrorist, but because of a clear conflict of interest. Many admins make their bias plain for all to see. 212.183.140.20 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what an admin is ? See WP:ADMIN. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And someone from Hamas can edit. There is not ban on editing with a conflict of interest unless it negatively impacts their editing (which is often the case). So you will need to start proposing lines and presenting sources since any further cries of cover up, bias, or the like will be frowned upon.Cptnono (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

casualty reassessment

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1738/finally-a-hamas-leader-admits-that-israel-killed http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e133.htm corroborates the israeli casualty figures, they need to be reassessed slightly and changed on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.175.177 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This was already done. Can you point to what line(s) need to eb adjusted further?Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Gaza "War"

This article should be called 'Operation Cast Lead' and anyone who searches 'Gaza War' be redirected to it. Calling this a "war" is not NPOV, as some commentators (e.g. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-war-that-wasn-t-1.268794 http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/finkelstein-at-harvard-gaza-wasnt-a-war.html http://www.zcommunications.org/no-war-in-gaza-by-margaret-mayer) insist that there was no "war". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadaveri (talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This has come up before and I have warmed up to it. Unfortunately, some have said that calling it OCL would be POV.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

casualty reassessment

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1738/finally-a-hamas-leader-admits-that-israel-killed http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e133.htm corroborates the israeli casualty figures, they need to be reassessed slightly and changed on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.175.177 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This was already done. Can you point to what line(s) need to eb adjusted further?Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

White Phosphorus

The WP section seems quite bias to me...the first 4 short paragraphs are on the use of WP, the rest is all in defense of Israels use of WP. While it talks about how its not illegal in multiple instances, there is no room actually given to those who were claiming the practice was illegal! its hillariously pathetic. There is space given for the response but non given for the question? Can I not add a segment from the 'main page' which does say the use is illegal?

Also, I was told the main article is a part of the WP page, I'm thinking that this situation is kinda odd that a subject with a 'summary' as long as it is on this page, does not have its own article. Passionless (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors have complained that this article is too long. Consensus has been to split off the details (although there are still many of them) into related articles with summary style here. Focusing on one particular source that is biased is not summary style. So some mention as you suggest would be fine but not in such a manner that appears so one-sided that a rebuttal is necessary. Yet another article is something that is possible but going to the legal issues or the indecent articles (or even both of those) instead of the block qoute would be more appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this summary be much better?

"On January 5 the Times reported that telltale smoke associated with white phosphorus had been seen in areas of a shelling. On January 12 it was reported that more than 50 phosphorus burns victims were in Nasser Hospital. On January 16 the UNRWA headquarters was hit with phosphorus munitions.[281] As a result of the hit, the compound was set ablaze.[282]

Israel initially denied using white phosphorus. On completion of the three-day Israeli withdrawal (January 21) an Israeli military spokeswoman said that shells containing phosphorus had been used in Gaza but said that they were used legally as a method to provide a smokescreen.[281]

Many other observers, including HRW military expert, reported seeing white phosphorus air bursts over Gaza City and the Jabalya refugee camp.[283] The BBC published a photograph of two shells exploding over a densely populated area on 11 January.[284]

On March 25, 2009, USA Based Human Rights Organization Human Rights Watch published a 71 page report titled Rain of Fire, Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and said that Israel's usage of the weapon was illegal.

The IDF stated on January 13 that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."[285]

The Goldstone report accepted that white phosphorus is not illegal under international law but did find that the Israelis were "systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas". It also call for serious consideration to be given to the banning of its use as an obscurant.[286]"

It contains:

1)intial report of use of WP
2)Denial, than affirmation-and that the use was for legal smokescreens
3)more reports of use-in highly populated areas
4)a group claiming Israel's use of WP illegal
5)IDF defending its use as legal
6)UN defending the use of WP in the war as legal

I don't think I'm missing anything important, yet this is much shorter, and I believe more neutral than what is there presently. The differences are that Israel is only defended twice instead of four times, the claim of illegality which produced the defense is included and the alledged attack by Palestinians against Israel is removed as the title of the section is 'Controversial tactics allegedly used by Israel' with a similar section for Hamas above- and this duplication is really just a variation of a fifth defense. Passionless (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As no one has replied, I went ahead with my proposed changes, maybe now people will discuss it, though I'm fine if it just stays how it is :p. Passionless (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I like that is shorter but it is still full of fluff. Who cares about a specific report from the Times or BBC? That was recentism and news stories making there ways in originally. And the block quote is not needed still since it takes up so much space. Paraphrase is fine. "It also call for serious consideration to be given to the banning of its use as an obscurant.[286]" Isn't really needed in this article. If something actually happened from the suggestion than it would be worthy of note. I chopped more.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The main template is also misused. The main article is not about the munitions but the articles such as [[

Controversial tactics in the Gaza War]] and Incidents in the Gaza War Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The re-write is fine, I just hate re-writing so I didn't do it myself, but the reason I added that portion of the blockquote was to point out what law of war they were breaking during the war, and that was about "taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks".

For the main article, there clearly is a need for a link to it, but there obvously was a lack of communication while these pages were being written, but the section in White phosphorus is currently the largest, so unless we make a new article on the subject of WP use during the gaza war, I think it should be linked back to White Phosphorus' section.

Also, the section on WP in Controversial tactics in the Gaza War is the same as the old 'summary' was on this page, so shall we just copy and paste the new summary onto that page as well? Passionless (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Outcome revert

Hi all. I just wanted to let everyone know I had reverted edit [33] (actually, two in a row) by Zionist1995. I'm not fully up-to-date with the consensus about the outcome, but the claims seemed quite strong (and largely unsubstantiated) to me to be edited in without previous discussion. Also, editor's user name "smells like" (no offense! :D) possible POV issues. Peasantwarrior (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Although I might personally agree with the content this user added, I see the importance of representing a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an interest organization. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits re goldstone report and Channel 4 report

I see we have a small edit war going on, could someone explain what they see as problematic with the material removed here? u n☯mi 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A single revert is not an edit war or even a minor edit war.

Reasons for removal

"The order of cleansing" does not need a separate subsection. We already have a section titled "Controversial tactics allegedly used by Israel"
The information was used from the Telegraph piece without a rebuttal which was provided in the source
There are also separate articles for details and expanded quotes (especially from a single soldier) might be better there since this article is already long. Any rebuttal would make it even longer.
There is already information about the Goldstone report in this article. I do not see a problem with a single line in the Controversial tactics allegedly used by Israel section but allegations of disproportionality should receive a rebuttal. "The order of cleaning" would not be a clear or POV title for a subsection discussing such claims and it would also limit the scope to one quote instead of the overall issue.
Minor issues such as Israel not being capped

Since I was asked what standards the edit violated on my talk page, the following can be read for clarity:

WP:WEIGHT (one viewpoint was given prominence while the other was ignored)
Related subsections of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality include "Balance" and "Impartial tone"Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY since there are other articles for expansion on quotes and individual allegations of a broader concern

Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But maybe an edit war is now starting. NPz1 has reinserted the majority of the edit while ignoring this discussion and doing nothing to address the concern of overly detailed quotes in an already too long article while still not adding any necessary balance. Probably time for another revert.Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What balance do you propose? Would you find information from that source as fitting within "Controversial tactics"? u n☯mi 06:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is actually in the sources used already. Basically "The Goldstone report (also known as the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict) came to the conclusion that the israeli soldiers had deliberately targeted civilians during the war." + "Israel has said its operational orders during the war emphasised "proportionality" and "humanity". The importance of minimising harm to civilians was made clear to soldiers, it said at the time. " or "Israel has been widely criticised by human rights groups for using heavy firepower and causing hundreds of civilian casualties." + "It says it was targeting the Islamic movement Hamas... in response to continued rocket fire at Israeli towns." or we can cherry pick and just start throwing in "'The Goldstone report is distorted, falsified and not balanced,' said Defence Minister Ehud Barak." SO the Goldstone report is easy to handle and already has some info in. In regards to the accusations, there was an NGO that released allegations and this filmmaker has some now. How many are we going to list quotes for. Listing every quote as they become available is at least problematic as RECENTISM but it is also too much space given to individual claims. Cptnono (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth are you censoring this new information inregards to israel's war crimes and ethnic clensing?? reading the entire article, it is clear there is a huge bias towards israel. either the entire article needs to be re written or jewish and palestinian editors should be banned from editing due to bias. 92.238.248.225 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you are accusing editors of censoring I am not going to respond. Feel free to redact your comment and try again and I will be happy to. Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2011

What looks like? Maybe but since the editor failed to use the talk page I do plan on reverting this unless a valid objection is presented. But yes. It is now an edit war. wah wah waaaaaah.[34]Cptnono (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice warning you sent me "Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia." How on earth can anyone assume good faith when you are covering up war crimes...92.238.248.225 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

People, please try to not claim censorship, it just doesn't help move the discussion forward. Anyways, I believe that the added content is important, though the very original addition had a POV tone to it, this has since been removed. If there is a rebuttal fine add it, but if there is no rebuttal that fact does not mean it would than be UNDUE to still add the section on "cleansing". Passionless -Talk 21:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The POV tone and recentism were still there. So I have altered it significantly. More important, I added a section devoted to the claims of disproportionate using existing sources. I am surprised that wasn't in there already since that was claimed jusr as much if not more than WP and DIME. I used some harsh language per the report. The Telegraph piece was given too much prominence (one soldier making one claim that even said it was for the sake of psyching up troops) but I made sure to keep in the mention of the Channel 4 special and its allegations of violence and misconduct. If people think my change was too large I suppose it can be reverted but I will make sure to still trim out the problematic line afterward. Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"This is in contrast to statement by former IDF soldiers who claim commanders told soldiers that the attack on Gaza were to be "disproportionate", and that neighbourhoods were to be "cleansed"." is an incorrect statement. A single soldier made this accusation. A single unverified quote does not deserve prominence. It is also not clear if the commander was saying it in a manner not nearly as bad as assumed with soldiers (crass and bloodthirsty but motivational) or common with those doing genocide (cleansing a population literally as was done in Germany). One headline from a source that does not have to follow our neutrality standards picked up on the juiciest quote. We are not here to spin juicy quotes to sell newspapers. This line needs to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed it slightly so that the cleansed part is just from a single soldier. "We needed to cleanse the neighbourhoods, the buildings, the area. It sounds really terrible to say 'cleanse', but those were the orders....I don't want to make a mistake with the words." - this quote does not give me the impression of cleanse being used in a normal/acceptable manner, like 'lets cleanse the area of bad guys', it seems more like it must have been used like 'lets cleanse out Everyone!' Maybe the problem here is that to 'cleanse the area' could be taken as 'kill everyone in the area' or 'move everyone out of the area'... Passionless -Talk 06:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be taken many different ways. Since it is open to interpretation and is a statement made by only one person then what is the point in having it. Also, where is the line? Before you made the edit there was a good balance. Now the balance is shot. We do not need to have both viewpoints given equal space but the pendulum has swung to far. So now maybe I should add a rebuttal to that line. And then maybe you should add a rebuttal to that. No. we should instead not focus on new and interesting quotes and instead focus on what has meat. There is little doubt in my ind that this "cleanse" comment will hmean anything to anybody in 50 years when compared to the Goldstone report. It is sensationalism that is not needed.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I will settle for the removal of the 'cleanse part' and the part of "former IDF soldiers who claim commanders told soldiers that the attack on Gaza were to be "disproportionate"" can be mixed in with the UN part. It makes a lot of difference that not only the UN, but also IDF soldiers are saying Israel was desiring a disproportionate response. Passionless -Talk 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

and you tell us not to call out cencorship passionless, now it's just going to end up like the rest of the article and be heavily pro israel again... this place is fail94.168.210.8 (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)