Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:18, 6 January 2009

Template:Moveoptions

The move debate is at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009

Discussions related to the introduction/lead are happening at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2008.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Belén Fernández (12/28/2008). "Hanukkah Games in Gaza". The Palestine Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY DONE BY A BOT!

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Please help

I've added a picture of palestinian deaths after the first air-strike please help me with the copyright stuff. The image is free for use. Also, please add a box around the image, i don't know how to do it. thank you

Requested move

This template must be substituted.

Please add your votes and comments only at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009. The move discussion has become fairly large (currently >70 kB) and thus seriously impacts the accessibility of this high traffic site. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

INFORMATION REQUEST

I want to add more pictures om the devastation in Gaza.Before tonight,when one was added,there was none,only pictures showing the much more limited Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.How do I do this?I can not see the normal guides for editing.

Introduction/lead section

This template must be substituted.

Please have all related discussions at that subpage. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

scratch this article proposal

Re the ongoing move/intro debate, the current article as is doesn't make sense. There should be an israeli military operation sub article devoted to operation cast lead. current article is supposedly a more generalized context of the ongoing I-P and A-I situation. this is clearly seen from article title which is a generalized conflict, rather than specific operation/offensive. If a new operation cast lead article is created, a is warranted since current article is NOT about the operation, than what is the raison d'tat of current article? a broader I-P article already exists. The current article, IMO, has no basis and should be scratched, with sections merged into operation cast lead and Israeli–Palestinian conflict respectively. regards --84.109.19.88 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:POVFORK. What you propose is not accepted by the wider Misplaced Pages community. Whenever possible, we should combine topics that are related into a single article, and if a WP:SUMMARY forking is to be done, it should be done around the general topics of the main article, not around a specific aspect or point of view on a subject. For a great example of how to do WP:SUMMARY, see 2008 Mumbai attacks. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue on Alleged violations of international law

It shouldn't have more from a pro-attack Israeli think tank than from the United Nations special Rapporteur. The material should be a short summary after a fuller statement of what Falk says. This is just extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. (And I see it's being reverted already.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please can the repeated removal of Falk's quoted statement stop. It's an important statement by the UNHRC on the situation. 125.27.27.190 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've hit my revert limit here. Feel free to change second section back to something like this, and directly below, slightly improved - just make sure ref is properly formatted:

The UNHRC statement by Falk also noted: "Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response." Weiner and Bell concur and also call the rocket attacks "terrorist in nature." CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have put the direct quote of the UN statement back.

"severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."

If anyone thinks there is a reason why this important UN statement should not be directly quoted please discuss it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Falk's full quotation deserves to be in there. But please don't bullet what he has to say. That just takes up space unnecessarily. Also, it isn't enough to say Bell and Weiner counter his points; their arguments must be mentioned. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to directly quote Falk. We should briefly summarize him. Similarly, we should very briefly summarize Bell and Weiner, or whoever else we ues in the section.VR _talk 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just put a POV tag on the section, it's getting so bad. Perhaps some consensus agreements?

1. What Falk says should be correctly reflected, which is not currently true; deleting what he says and replacing it with long rationales for Israel's actions unacceptably POV and can lead to sanctions against the editor under the Arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles
2. If the Israel govt has countered anything UN charges that should have higher priority than Israel's Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs writers
3. A couple sentences listing Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs analysis is acceptable; with all the back and forth editing I just did a quicky shorty myself. But it's actual length should not be MORE than what Falk/UN said on this.
4. If Israeli's can come up with legal rationales for Israel's actions, any WP:RS citing the most credible Palestinian legal arguments for rocket attacks also can be used, should such exist.

Hmm. I wondering if anyone's keep track of possible 3rrs in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree with you, Carolmooredc. But when are his words replaced with Israeli rationale?
2. Again, I agree with you, but until such time as responses from the Israeli government are found, there can't be any wrongdoing in not using them.
3. In the "Israel" section, Falk's position is expounded in 167 words (1108 characters), whereas Weiner's and Bell's is expounded in 139 words (923 character). So in this section, they're quite balanced. In the "Palestinian militants" section, they do not need to be balanced (a) because the two sources are in agreement, and (b) because the authority of the Special Rapporteur is to oversee violations of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories, and he has no authority whatsoever to comment on the acts of Palestinian militants. Of course, this also means he has no authority to write about the no-longer-occupied Gaza, but that didn't stop him.
4. If you can find a RS that defends the legality Hamas rocket fire, then add it. I can't find one, and I doubt there is one, because the rocket fire from Gaza is in blatant violation of international law. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be mentioned that Gary Grant, a barrister specializing in international law, expressed his legal opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense in his interview on English Al Jazeera. Here is link for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjSoUEysQ4
01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

No, please let's not get too detailed with this barrister here, that barrister there etc. It's a minefield. Keep it simple, the UN and the Israeli postions. And the statement is an official UN statement not merely the opinion of a lawyer. Any attempt tto detract from that and try to frame it as if it's just Falk being Falk etc is very likely to be politically motivated and therefore has no place here.

I bulleted the points for reasons of clarity. This is an encyclopedia after all. I don't have strong views on whether to bullet or not to bullet but whatever we do can we please make sure that all 3 points are retained and that the links to the relevant Wiki articles explaining those terms are retained ? We mustn't water down what the UN said and we mustn't distort/interpret the exact words the UN used. They are significant. Rewriting them will inevitably result in people breaking WP rules because they just don't like the words used. We just can't have that. For example, the Occupying Power term will vanish simply because some people don't like it or they think it's wrong which is of course neither here nor there. The full quote is the simplest and safest approach as far as I'm concerned.

I think the part of Falk's statement shown below in the Palestinian militants section isn't really necessary as it's restating points already covered. It's enough that the UN explicitly state that the rocket attacks are in their view, against international law. That is a crucial point of course and we mustn't lose that.

"...But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response."

Let's not count words. Statements by the UNHRC have orders of magnitude more weight than Weiner's and Bell for an encyclopedia. I don't think it really merits lengthy discussion but we must have something there that summarises the official Israeli position on these kind of statements with a ref so that people can get further details. I thought the sentence that was there before that mentioned point be point countering was fine.

Saepe, can you quit the legal/authority interpretations please. :) Gaza is occupied as far as the UN (and pretty much everyone else) is concerned and Israel's obligations follow from that according to the statements/sources. It would be much better if we could link the Occupying Power term in the UN statement to a good Wiki article spelling out why Israel thinks this term is nonsense. Maybe it's somewhere in the Gaza Strip article. I haven't looked but we must have something in the IDF section to counter the UN statement or else people will get all worked up about the words the UN used, forget that this is an encyclopedia and not a battleground in a propaganda war and trash the section ignoring WP guidelines on undue weight, fringe theories, soapboxing etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense and within international law framework rights is not expressed. As a matter of fact Self-Defense as a legal term is missing entirely from this article. Gary Grant opinion quote in violations of international law section would reflect this point of view to situation in hand.
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you but I just wish it was an official statement from the Israeli administration. They must have said something..anyone up for looking for that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Israel's action represent "a legitimate right to self-defense" http://www.wowowow.com/post/tzipi-livni-defends-attacks-legitimate-right-self-defense-bloomberg-ehud-barak166622

Here is an analysis by Dr. Avi Bell which is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Before this edit, the weight given to each POV was about 50%-50%. Some editors seem to think this is undue weight, given Falk's position as UN Rapporteur. I disagree with this, but that's inconsequential right now. there should be no question that the 100%-0% distribution currently used is undue weight in the reverse direction.

I don't really care whether the distribution is 50%-50% or 70%-30%. But, given that every point that Falk makes is refuted by Weiner and Bell, it is important that all of their refutations be mentioned. If Falk's argument is represented without their counter-argument, that is showing a POV.

Let's not forget that we're not dealing with two quacks out of nowhere. These are people with esteemed credentials, who make their arguments based on international law, precedent and very sound logic.

As for the position that Gaza is occupied territory, I think this shows the POV of the UN. Think about it: how can a country invade territory that it occupies? But I digress. WP policy tells us that "all sources have biases," but we must combine them in such a way that all POV's are represented. So the argument that Weiner and Bell are biased cannot stand, because their POV must be represented, too.

Right now, I'm tired of back-and-forth edits on this section. I'll await comment (or prolonged lack thereof) before moving forward on giving due weight to Weiner and Bell. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If Weiner/Bell from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs can be used to excuse Israel's attacks then the two WP:RS that describe Hamas' rationale of self-defense I found can be used. And, again, more than a couple sentence summary of Weiner/Bell remains WP:Undue. So going in soon to make relevant changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Carol, I must have missed the two sources. Could you post them here please? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've changed the section to conform with your suggestions as well as I could. Though I think Weiner and Bell are not being given due weight, let's work on first getting a version we can agree on as a springboard, and take it from there. What are your thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Return to "Alleged" Violations of International Law

Someone snuck in the title "Potential" Violations of International law which is not accurate and POV since obviously Israel's violations are worst, since they are the occupying power which isn't supposed to do massive military invasions of occupied territory. The definition in first paragraph also may be questionable and needs a look see. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed back to "Alleged," though for a different reason. "Potential" seems to imply that they could happen, whereas "alleged" implies there's a claim that they've already happened.

As for the first paragraph, I think it's fine, except in that it may be too vague. For example, what does it mean that they have to be "proportional"? But it is definitely necessary if these terms of international law are going to be used farther down in the section. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Charts for numbers of dead and wounded

File:Gaza-Israel war deaths.png

I will hopefully update this chart daily, or more frequently. The chart may be useful somewhere in the article. I will let others decide about sizing and placement. Click the chart to see the largest size.

I list my current data sources on the image page. Please leave later data sources on the image talk page:

• commons:File talk:Gaza-Israel war deaths.png

I hope to create a chart for the number of wounded too. I need a mainstream news source for the number of Israeli wounded. I may create a chart for both the dead and the wounded, too.

Feel free to create other charts and upload them with new names. I use this online charting site:

• http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph

The category is:

• commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Add it in the casualties section.VR _talk 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Superb. I wholly commend the inclusion.Chikamatsu (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a chart is really necessary when there are only 2 data points. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the chart is excellent. It neatly sums up the most important issue in this conflict.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If only two data points is the primary objection, respective casualties could be added giving four. We could also use a linear timeline graph to show casualities by day.Chikamatsu (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the point? We have the numbers. This graphs adds nothing, and is nothing but a way to imply to the reader - "look, the Palestinians have so many more dead, they must be the poor, righteous side here." Why don't we add a graphs of all of Hamas's rockets attacks every day? About percentage of civilian targets hit by both sides (Oh, Hamas would look just great in that. Despite having multiple army bases within range of its rockets, it always chooses to fire at the civilian population, instead of, say, Airforce bases). Oh, we can have such fun with these graphs! okedem (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you need to go read WP:AGF. Discussion gets nowhere when we assume bad faith. We add a percentage of civilians killed on both sides, except the Palestinian numbers aren't really clear (its about 150-200 out of 537). Also there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not.VR _talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

VR, I know when to AGF, though your concern is certainly appropriate.

"there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not." - What kind of strange claim is that? We know for certain that Hamas can hit targets at least as far as 40 km away, since their rockets hit Beersheba, which is 40 km away. We also know that there are many army bases within that range. For instance, the Air-force alone has two bases closer than that, Hatzor and Hatzerim, maybe even a third one, Tel-Nof (see map on IAF website). okedem (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Okedem. Graphs are supposed to be used to represent data that are difficult to process without visual aid. Comparing 5 to 507 doesn't qualify. It would detract from the serious nature of the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another map of rocket range: . And then you could graph this: No. of wounded in attacks from Gaza more than doubled in '08 --"Shootings, stabbings, rocket and missile fire, and a bulldozer attack by Palestinian and Arab terrorists killed 36 Israelis and tourists in Israel in 2008, compared to 12 in 2007 and 29 in 2006, according to a report by Hatzalah Judea and Samaria released over the weekend. Jerusalem Post ] Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is, most I/P articles have this kind of chart, as it sums up a swathe of data in an instant. It has yet to include a graph of the wounded, but I've no doubt Timeshifter will look to that. I see an official figure of 537 dead so far, so it needs to be adjusted. If you want to add a graph for Hamas rocket launches over the period, add one. But it is already available at List of Qassam rocket attacks. Do you object to that page's use of a graph? Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the latest numbers? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a chart of rocket attacks by day. If you provide me the numbers I will make it when I get a chance. Or someone else can. I am pretty busy. I think I heard on NPR that there have been thousands of rocket attacks in the last year. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Suggestion: why don't we add a line graph charting the number of casualties day to day of the conflict? We could also start the conflict from December 19, when Hamas intensified rocket attacks, as opposed to December 27.VR _talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The 537 is the Palestinian reckoning, widely reported, so I suppose we shall have to wait for a more independent source. As to graphs, we need a timeline. Not from an arbitrary date. What is desperately needed here is a timeline of attacks over the period of the truce or lull. Hamas argues, exactly as Israel, that its attacks are timed responsively to aggression from the other side, and we are obliged to be neutral here. Many sources place major emphasis on the November killing of 6 militants by the IDF as a key factor in the rocket surge. etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All that chart says is that the IDF has been more successful in its military actions. Namely, that it is winning the ground war. Also, I don't think a graph is needed to illustrate that. Hamas is taking disproportionate casualties... but that is not a moral victory but a strategic defeat. Consider wikipedia's article on the Easter Rising. Even though the long-term results of the battle was the success of Irish republicanism, it was still a defeat on the ground for the Republicans/Rebels. What the long term results of this battle/war/conflict is yet to be seen... as are the short term effects V. Joe (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The graph says nothing. It supplies data, and the reader interprets it according to his inclinations. You've taken it one way, Okedem another. The graph however says none of these things.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a more recent number and updated the chart. The latest data source is linked on the image page. I also clarified the period covered in the chart title.--Timeshifter (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding the chart may be premature; we don't have consensus yet. Please tell me: what advantage does this graphic have over the information summarized in the summary table? I just don't see the benefit of this graphic, and I think it serves more to degrade the article than improve it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking at the chart below? It is a lot easier to get the basic overview from this chart than to wade through the old out-of-date info in the casualties section of the article. It is even easier to get the main numbers from this chart than to pull them out of the summary table in the infobox. The readers can read further there and in the casualties section to learn more. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed looking at the chart below. The solution to the first problem you mention is to streamline the casualties section. But I must dispute the claim that it is easier to read the graphic than the infobox. The graphic doesn't make sense to my eyes, but maybe that's just because one does not often see such graphics. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one in Second Intifada in the Casualties section there. Others seem to appreciate this chart here. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? It seems like I'm the minority. Let's move on to the next subject of controversy... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chart for both dead and wounded

File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png

I found some more numbers for Israeli wounded, and this allowed me to make this chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is looking better than the terrible two-bar chart, but it also needs to show what day/time the statistics ended at. Leaving the original chart on the article hoping that the correctly dated chart comes along soon. ;) FFLaguna (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I added the end date to the title of the chart. You may have to purge the page or cache to see it. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps -Timeshifter, in an effort to be NPOV, will include these numbers in his chart:

• The organization, which provides rapid response first aid in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza border area, also reported a sharp rise in the number of injuries by Kassam rockets, Grads and mortar fire compared to the past two years.
• These attacks on Jewish settlements within firing range of Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, wounded 947 in 2008. A total of 464 were wounded in 2007 and 227 in 2006.
• A total of 1,683 Kassam rockets fell in Israel near Gaza and another 108 shot from Gaza fell back into Palestinian areas.
• In Israel, eight people were killed in 2008 by rocket attacks, 19 were killed in shootings, one person was stabbed to death, one was killed in a suicide bombing, one in a bulldozer attack, and an additional eight soldiers were killed in battle. Jerusalem Post Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide protests

It may be misleading (and is definitely ambiguous) to say protests happened worldwide. It is better to list the cities in which large protests (say, those that attracted 2,000 or more) happened.VR _talk 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll excuse me, but you don't know how to read English. I said "in several cities worldwide", wich is not the same as just plain "worldwide". Debresser (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're starting to see, what I am talking about? You read and write through the spectacles of your bias. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that, you're again ignoring the argument that listing cities should take place in the main article on civil protests. I don't say that's a must, but you're again ignoring previously made arguments. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And why mention just large protests? I acused you yesterday of being impressed by numbers, and I repeat it now. You can't repress the fact of a demonstration, just because it didn't meet your arbitrary border of 2000 people. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially since the minority is proverbialy noisy. :) Debresser (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith as you're required to? Generally larger protest are more notable than smaller ones. For example a protest with 200,000 people is more notable than one with 500.

"why mention just large protests" Because we can't mention every protest that has happened. From the main article we see that more than a 100 have happened. Clearly we need some sort of criterion.

Regarding "several" protests. The only only notable non-American, non-Israeli demonstrations were in Paris and Melbourne.VR _talk 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I asume good faith until proven otherwise.

I see. So it is you who decides what is 'notable'?

So actually we agree, that saying just generally "several cities worldwide" is better than mention all protests including small ones. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said mention all protests, but just give example of the largest ones. And, you can help decide what is notable and what is not.VR _talk 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that such general language (throughout Africa, the Arab world, global isolated attacks, several American cities) is used another four times in this subsection. And I wouldn't be surprised if you were the editor of at least one of them. But the truth is that general language is a good thing in such a large article, to avoid too much detail. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For Arab world see below. Globally isolated was not put in there by me.VR _talk 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the mention of demonstrations in the Arab world stands without sources already more than 24 hours. Which I find pretty ridiculous in such a wide covered and actual subject. Perhaps remove it? Debresser (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure remove it if you want, we already have Egypt there.VR _talk 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And Iran. Consider it done. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Iran isn't part of the Arab world.VR _talk 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please enlighten me. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Debresser: You need to tone it down bit. Before clicking the Save Page tab, please make sure your comments comply with WP:CIVIL. As for the "enlightment", although Iranians are considered part of the "Arab world" for political purposes, they aren't ethnic Arabs but Persians. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well they are politically, as you say, which would be the main point IMHO. I disdain to comment on your remark about 'toning down'. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Logoprc.jpg

The image File:Logoprc.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support or oppose chart inclusion

Comment. I am trying to figure out what needs to be improved (if anything) concerning this chart to the right. So please say whether you support or oppose its inclusion in the right side of the casualties section of the article. See Second Intifada#Casualties and its subsection Second Intifada#Combatant versus noncombatant deaths for an example of another casualties chart in a related article. Also, please make suggestions for improvement of this chart. Feel free to comment with your support or oppose opinion. Or just make a "Comment". --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It is a quick way for readers to see the main points about casualties; the numbers of dead and wounded on all sides. It also lists the sources on the bottom of the chart (which are changed as the chart is updated from various sources). It is instant updating for returning readers. I am wondering if I should add a breakdown for civilians/combatants/unknown as at Second Intifada#Casualties? --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting section regarding casualty reporting. The details I mention need to be included somewhere. Where are you suggesting posting the chart and are you suggesting removing the infobox? If you want to replace the infobox and other wikipedians agree with the change you might provide a detailed subscript to the chart along the format I suggested. - Thrylos000 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to remove the infobox. I want to put the chart here: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties. As the talk section you mentioned noted it would be difficult to decide on a number of civilians killed. That is not good to put in the chart in my opinion. That requires a subsection of the article. Please see this Jan 5 2009 BBC article also: "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7811386.stm --Timeshifter (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I support its placement in the casualties section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment would you be able to draw a chart documenting casualties on a daily basis? Do you need help in gathering such sources (because I may be able to help you).VR _talk 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will be updating daily, or more often. Please see commons:File talk:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png about sources, and #At least a quarter are civilians. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Standard sources are easily accessible and I mention them in my extended criticism of casualty accounting in the section At least a quarter are civilians. I ask that everyone refer to that discussion first before considering the proposal to include a chart as it is highly relevant and I do not think I need to repost in this section. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Support. Very helpful for those skimming the article. I would leave it as it is and not overcomplicate it, especially while more detailed information such as breakdown of civilians vs combatant casualties is still unreliable.--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support The graph is a very clear and fair represintation of the facts, as long as it is kept to date. This would be a great addition. MathewDill (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with MathewDill, but it is a bit brief. To make it more relevant, more information should be added (but not too much). Things such as comparison between different sources or causes of death. Maxipuchi (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - As long as the data for the chart remains fairly recent and well sourced throughout its use, I see no problem with it. It certainly makes it easier for the casual viewer. SwedishPsycho (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. If it weren't such a dead-serious subject the 1:100 relation in kills were really enough to be funny. Not to mention 1:10 in wounded. I realised this before, so I won't use it as an argument. To either side. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The chart would be somewhat relevant (if people look at this like score-keeping) if they were both only firing missiles at each other. Now that Israeli troops are operating in Gaza, but not vice versa, the civilian deaths will obviously be significantly higher on the Palestinian side then the Israeli side. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the casualties are going to be unbalanced during a one-sided incursion. Per your argument we shouldn't have casualty numbers in the article at all. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this score-keeping is silly. They're both fighting two different types of wars. The chart is a way of dumbing down the whole issue for people who choose sides based on who is winning the dead-civilian count. That being said, we obviously can't stop people from adding the civilian count to the article, but we can focus the article on more important and relevant aspects of conflict. If we're gonna add graphs and charts to the article we should focus on other aspects. A better idea for a chart that comes to mind, is a chart of the number of missiles fired by both Hamas and Israel prior to December 23. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A timeline chart of violent actions by both sides during the preceding months would be a good idea, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike myself, you're obviously a competent "chart-maker." So why don't you go ahead and make said chart. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am an amateur. I use this online tool: http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph

The hard part is finding the data. If you can layout a timeline with dates and numbers of rockets you or I could plug it in to one of the chart formats there maybe. No guarantees. I am fairly busy. There are more tools here:

commons:Commons:Chart and graph resources --Timeshifter (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess List of Qassam rocket attacks would be a good start for the data. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The chart doesn't complicate things with the diversionary "civilian" issue -- though CNN (Anderson Cooper) just reported that 100% of the people being killed now are "civilians".

In answer to Jan Hofmann, the kill ratio prior to the Israeli invasion was FORTY-to-one. E.g.: "Israeli soldiers killed twice as many Palestinians last week alone -- both of them children -- as the number of Israelis killed by Hamas all last year." -- "Israel's shooting of young girl highlights international hypocrisy, say Palestinians", 30 Jan 2006. Now, it's a hundred to one. So the high number of Palestinians being murdered cannot be explained away simply by the current invasion. Israel has been operating in Gaza all along, raiding, bombing, shelling, starving the populace. What happened on Dec 27 was merely an ESCALATION in an existing Israeli presence.

I looked at List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 earlier today, and I was amazed by how FEW rockets were fired during the truce period -- and some of those were launched by Fatah, which has been known to collaborate with Israel. Obviously, these ineffectual rockets are being used merely as a pretext for a long-planned genocidal assault, and Hamas has been set up. Here are two articles that present the WHOLE story: Margolis, "Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza", 05 Jan 2009 and Raimondo, "Rationalizing Gaza", 05 Jan 2009. NonZionist (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

genocidal assault??? Israel has killed 600 Palestinians in 11 days. Based on this calculation it should only take them 800 years or so to complete this 'genocide' of Palestinians living in Gaza. I guess those Israelis are not very effective in commiting genocide... especially seeing how they've been planning this for so long...lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.182.192 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Genocidal" refers to the nature of the operation and the deranged and ultimately self-destructive attitudes that motivate it. It implies that a country is heading TOWARDS genocide, not that genocide has been completed. My use of the term is admonitory, not derogatory: I believe that massively violent attacks on ethnic groups are a path to a dead-end, and I do not wish to see Israel proceed further along this self-defeating self-destructive path. I seek to save Israel from itself. Those who have "no problem" with genocidal behavior are not true friends of Israel. NonZionist (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support as a service for the lazy or mathematically inept readers. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (yada, yada) actually mentions one reason in oposition. That it would be a little childish to stress score-keeping. But his second argument (which he intended to be in oposition) is a non-argument, since there is no reason to asume equal figures. The whole purpose of the table is showing the figures in an easy and intuitive way. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak-Oppose This graph is better than the 2 data point version but I still think, as others have pointed out, that charting is for more complex data than this. Separation of figures for combatants and non-combatants would be much better. I would support it in that case. Nice work though. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Can someone besides me add the chart to the casualties section? 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties. Here is the code to add to the top of that section:

]

The chart will be on the top right side of the casualties section. Just like it is in this talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. How does the chart get updated? NonZionist (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support so long as someone can update this regularly through the duration of the conflict. Joshdboz (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. As I stated below (by mistake), there's not much that the graphical illustration of the numbers show that isn't already in the infobox. On top of that, the numbers will be constantly changing from day to day- does that mean a new picture every day? Seems unnecessary. Most importantly, if the graph is merely there to show the "disproportionate" nature of the casualties (I have my own opinions on that term, but I'll leave them to myself, unlike a few above me... remember this? WP:Soapbox), then it is undoubtedly not NPOV. Trying to say "See? Clearly Israel is targeting civilians etc etc." has no place in an encyclopaedia. Either way, it's redundant, unprofessional and difficult to maintain. I say it should be deleted ASAP. Jeztah (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Support. I don't even see any solid reasons to challenge this. As argued elsewhere, graphs like this, which cover both sides, give statistics, not a POV. Everyone may infer from the statistics whatever they like. Unlike the abusive qassam rocket graph tendentiously posted top of page, which is unilateral, and therefore violates NPOV, this graph covers both sides.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: I think the charge would be a mistake on both point-of-view grounds, (Namely: the purpose of it seems to be to make the Israelis the villains) and aesthetic grounds. Simply put, the chart would additional disrupt the flow of the article and would not clarify the obvious point that the Israelis are giving more casualties then they receive. V. Joe (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Casualty figures, while interesting, should not be given such a prominent place. This is simply an attempt to bias the reader against Israel, by highlighting a certain property above the rest (say, attacks on civilian communities, intended to kill civilians - Hamas's specialty). Right or wrong is not determined by who has more deaths. okedem (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

dont assume bad faith, nothings wrong with the chart and its reliable as long as updated.Lord Archivo (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Those voting oppose are assuming bad faith on the part of those who support this chart's inclusion, attributing all kinds of nefarious motives to that support. It's a simple visual, it includes the casualties sustained by both sides. That the casualty count is wholly unbalanced is a function of the reality on the ground and not POV reporting by wiki editors. Sorry, but the facts are the facts. Tiamut 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weakly support - Only if it gets updated frequently (once a day or at most twice a day). Also, I would reformat to make it smaller. Arguments regarding POV in this case are not convincing: this is a visualization of undisputed facts - I do understand that people might see it as portraying Israel in a bad light, but there is not editorializing here, there are simply facts; that said neutrality is not best served by hiding a fact that sheds a bad light on one side by providing a due weigth voice to the explanation of the facts - same goes, for example, with the attacks on Mosques,which Israel sees as legitimate targets under the circumstances. Arguments on the prominence of the information are also unconvincing: we are encouraged by the MoS to provide visualization of data and images whenever possible. However, I am not strongly supporting the inclusion because I think these types of charts should be done after the conflict is over, when the fog of war lifts, and the figures can be stable. --Cerejota (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the emphasis of a certain aspect, over others. While the facts are not in dispute, this is akin to the question of what pictures we use, or how much we write about a specific subject. Visualization is another editorial question, and placing this graph is like placing a huge headline, saying - "There are many many more dead Palestinians than Israelis!". It's the same thing, only in different packaging. If we had a whole bunch of graphs, detailing attacks, etc - then maybe. But by itself - no. okedem (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting

As of this posting on 1/5/2009 the info box keeping track of Palestinian casualties does not report the most accurate information available nor does it cite the most appropriate sources for the data it provides. It reads

Killed: 537 (~100 civilians; ~138 policemen) Wounded: 2,600 (mostly civilians)

While the death count is accurate the civilain count is misleading and the police count is severely outdated. The accounting of Palestinian deaths should be standardized. There are two sources for daily updates on death counts from which major media outlets routinely draw their data.

1. UN OCHA: http://www.ochaopt.org/ 2. Al-Mezan CHR: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php (Al-Mezan has been used by the UN for death estimates see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf)

There is no reason to use the NYT or any other news outlet for this data, since the primary source (UN OCHA) is readily available. I propose we use this for data on total deaths and total injuries.

I have previously stated that no organization has developed a comprehensive estimate of civilian deaths. The most accurate and explicit current estimates reflect the number of women and children killed. Our data should reflect the precision available. I propose we report deaths in the following categories: Total, Women and children. Men are systematically excluded from this count and wikipedia needs to make this important point explicit instead of confusing accounting categories. News outlets are often making this mistake despite the UN sources contradicting this in their most recent accounting which makes NO mention of total civilian casualties (SEE: note cites below and comments by John Holmes at http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/detail/10624.html).

Summarized, my proposals are the following:

1. Report fatalities as Total deaths with the proportion of women and children reported in parenthesis for UN estimates and separate women and children estimates from Al-Mezan. Use the same format for injuries.

will look like
Killed: 489-534 (UN reports 20% of casualties are women and children, Al-Mezan reports 89 Children and 30 Women have been killed)
Injured: 2,470 (40% are estimated to be women and children )

 is http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=937
 is http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_05_english.pdf

This format will allow wiki to report the most accurate, explicit and up to date information on Palestinian casualties.

2. Use OCHA and only OCHA as a standard source for upper limit Total Death Counts and Al-Mezan for lower limit death count.

3. USe most recently reported OCHA estimates for proportion of deaths in the categories of women and children (at least 20% of total deaths and 40% of total injuries (see: OCHA 04) and Al-Mezan for disggregated count.

4. Discard speculative attempt to account for "civilian" deaths recognizing that no organization has made this estimate as of this post and that the most current press releases and situation reports refer only to total deaths, and women and children killed.

5. Change or discard accounting of police deaths in its current form. We could report that "at least 138 policemen killed (as of 12/30)" to note that this information is outdated and as a result is an underestimate of police casualties (many have been reported since 12/30). Someone can try to find a good up to date source for how many have been killed in total. I believe it is an important point that a significant portion of the dead are police but I have not seen good estimates of how many police have been killed.

I will be happy to make these edits and monitor the infobox to make sure they remain standardized once my account becomes autoconfirmed. Until then I ask that some one take the lead and makes sure these changes are implemented and maintained.

In addition to making these changes to the info box they need to be implement in the "Casualties" subsection. Where citation 17 and 216 are not the most appropriate sources for the claims being made. It is very easy to standardized our accounting practices and using the sources I've mentioned will guarantee that we are as up to date as possible and the least controversial. Thrylos000 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Thrylos000. In the UN Press Release from a few days ago it acknowledges it's own shortcomings in determining 'civilian' deaths. Instead of misrepresenting their numbers as 'civilian' deaths it would make far more sense to represent them as 'women and children dead' as at the current time this is far more verifiable.--SomeStranger 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also agree. This from today's JP: "The security cabinet was also told that of the 390 Palestinians killed since the start of the operation, 40 have been identified as civilians. Two hundred and twenty others have been clearly identified as Hamas activists, and the identity of the other 130 still needed to be clarified.

• Agree strongly. Counting "civilians" separately is grossly misleading. It is neither helpful nor tenable. If my home is invaded and I attempt to defend my family, do I lose my civilian status? International law recognizes the right of people under occupation to RESIST, and victims of aggression have a right of self-defense. Thus, the distinction between civilian and combatant is legally meaningless. The important distinction -- as recognized at Nuremberg -- is that between the aggressor and the victim of aggression, and that is the distinction the artificial "civilian" debate obfuscates. CNN (Anderson Cooper) just reported that "100%" of the people now being killed are "civilians". Whether or not this is accurate, it is grossly misleading to pretend that people who wear police uniforms or throw stones at tanks are "combatants". NonZionist (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The cabinet was also told that the IDF has made some 100,000 phone calls to Gaza residents since the beginning of the operation, warning them to leave their apartments or homes before an impending attack." Of course those phone calls are mentioned in this long beastly article somewhere right? Is that a first in the history of warfare? When's the last time Hamas called up the Israelis to warn them of incoming missiles? Further, Israel has allowed foreign nationals to leave, and has treated Gaza civilian wounded. Of course there must be a place in the article for these things? Did I miss something? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

These are definately very important facts. I remember they were mentioned somewhere. Perhaps on other sites. Somebody really should take care of that. But what it has to do with the present talk subject, eludes me. Debresser (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well this section was about Palestinian casualties and accounting. Without those 100,000 phone calls, just imagine what the casualty count might have been. As to the civilian count, I would be interested in what is typical in war in relation to ratios of civilians vs a vs "military." I would guess that the ratio is considerably better than in most contemporary wars. It is certainly a better ratio than Hamas to Israel. They can only hit military targets by accident as opposed to on purpose, just another thing that is strictly against "international law." Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion to the factual matters of my original post and whether my suggested proposals are suitable or not. (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for the good work last night and today, User Thrylos000:Thrylos000. Hardly a 'babble of voices' as your handle suggests. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Information about IDF warnings, leaflets, calls etc in the article must be placed within the context of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law or else it is misrepresentation. It is a legal requirement, they usually do it and the UNHRC has issued a statement about it saying that they are not complying with the laws of war. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox blaming

Apparently 3 Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire, not by Hamas or any other Palestinian militants. Should we identify this in the infobox (by saying killed in friendly fire)? Probably not, as it is a bit too much detail. However, similarly I don't think we should also identify who killed the Egyptian border guard. These details are best left to the casualties section.VR _talk 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I second. --Omrim (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• I third. :) Debresser (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Friendly fire deaths are sometimes differentiated, here we do have a precedent against that in that a Hamas rocket hit Gaza last week and we don't count the deaths differently in the infobox. So I agree with VR, Omrim and Debrasser. Keep these details in the article. RomaC (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the "(by Hamas)" attribution after Egyptian casualties. This is necessary given the ambiguous design of the infobox, which splits the conflict into two sides. The box is divided down the middle, and the Egyptian line is ambiguously placed inbetween the two. Since, it's only two words, which hardly over-clutters the box, the gain in clarity outweighs the cost in space Avaya1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Avaya1, I wish you'd respect consensus here. Two words are required to blame Hamas, but more are required to show that Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire, Hamas attacks or in fighting in Gaza. This discussion should not happen in the infobox.VR _talk 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Figures

Also I think that we should only quote figures in the infobox that have been independently verified. Thus if one side claims to have killed or captured some, we shouldn't jump to put it in the infobox, though we can certainly place it in the article with proper attribution. We should wait until reliable sources begin to treat it as fact.VR _talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. In Israel, for example, I believe that all news agencies and newspapers rely on IDF and MOH figures. No one counts the bodies by himself (like the UN in the Gaza Strip). Also, it is not a common practice in Israel to exaggerate in the number of deaths as it may cause public outcry. Israeli public has only a certain amount of IDF casualites it may endure before starting to criticize the government and the opertation (ex: 2006 Lebanon War), so governments want to show AS LITTLE IDF casualties as possible to the Israeli public. The situation is a bit different of course with injuries (where Israeli figures many times include non-physical injuries, which I think to be somewhat misleading). I think that at least in terms of IDF deaths, we can count on Israeli media to be reliable. Usually they also name the casualties within 36 hours.--Omrim (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well ok, but I don't think we should use the IDF's statements on Palestinian casualties in the infobox, if it hasn't been independently verified. Currently, there's a statement about 100 Hamas being captured. I think if that were independently verified, it would have been all over the media by now.VR _talk 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the Israeli Foreign Ministry an independent source? It is referenced in the article.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with respect to the captured. It should only be mentioned within the article as a statement by the IDF, and not in the infobox.--Omrim (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest similarly with Israel's claims on Hamas casualties, and Hamas claims on Israeli casualties. For example, "Israel says it has killed 130 Hamas fighters and has denied claims that Hamas has killed 10 of its soldiers." Neither of the two claims should be in the infobox, but both should be mentioned later in the article.VR _talk 18:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis

Does somebody else besides me think this section is a little too big? Perhaps we should create an article called "2008-2009 Gaza humanitarian crisis"?VR _talk 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We must take WP:UNDUE into account. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. If we compare 2 sides in terms of humanitarian problems, and one side is completely blown off by the other, you will still create two equal sized articles describing both, though the second side has x10 the amount of humanitarian crisis and thus, humanitarian details? I've added a subsection "Humanitarian Situation in Southern Israel" and people deleted it. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

me three. Does Darfur's "humanitarian crisis" get equal time? How about Haiti and its mud cookies? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the Haiti and Darfur articles on their respective talk pages. RomaC (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what RomaC said.VR _talk 03:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• RomaC& Vice regent-- please try to understand the concept of WP:UNDUE that is being illustrated here. We are using analogies to appreciate the wiki concept in relation to the Gaza-Israel conflict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ofcourse, aren't I the one who raised this point in the first place? But Tundrabuggy your "analogies", both here and elsewhere, seem to be inappropriate. Let's constructively discuss which section, and what content can be better summarized. Personally, if we can retain the same content, only with less space and details, that creates a win-win situation.VR _talk 04:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see that the section is that big. This crisis is a core part of the war, and is as important as the "Development" section but less than 1/5 its size. Every section point has only two paragraphs, with one having only a small one. You're going to summarize what? --Darwish07 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that humanitarian aid has got through. According to the IDF, injured Palestinian civilians have receive medical care in Israel. Besides the 100,000 warning phone calls, injured people have been transferred from Gaza to Israel for medical treatment at Israeli hospitals. As of December 31st, approximately 20 chronically ill were transferred from the Shifa Hospital in the Gaza Strip to Israeli hospitals. From the article:

Despite the continuous and extensive rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip, the largest humanitarian aid transfer since the beginning of this operation took place on Tuesday afternoon (Dec. 30). 93 trucks containing humanitarian aid donations such as food and medical supplies from several different countries and international organizations were transferred through Israel into the Gaza Strip. The World Food Programme (WFP) transferred flour; CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere) provided medical supplies; UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) transferred powdered milk, sugar, rice and cooking oil; the World Health Organization (WHO) transferred medical supplies and medication; and the Health Ministry of the Palestinian National Authority in Ramallah sent, among other things, basic food and supplies.

Not to mention all of the cash that is being sent by everybody and his brother. With all that powdered milk and sugar, all that they will need to buy with the cash is more ammunition. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You were serious and then began to troll at the end. I can reply to your trolling claims, but this is not Misplaced Pages Talk page business, so I'll respect policies and ignore them. First, this '20' number is ridiculous. There are 2000 injured and the hospital system is collapsing. Read the "Health", "Water" and "Electricity" subsections and the cited UN reports, especially today's January 5 one. And EVEN if your claims are true and things are fine, though they are absolutely completely miserably not, the section describes 10 days of history that shouldn't be removed. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no bank notes in Gaza. Check the cash section and the cited UN 5 consecutive papers that is trying to make appeals since 18 December to let banknotes in. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As I learned today, the "continuous and extensive" rocket attacks mentioned in the Israeli propaganda piece above were neither. See List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. Moreover, as Uri Avnery and others point out, Israel had the power to stop these attacks at any time, simply by agreeing to truce terms. E.g.: "What is being hidden from the embittered public is that the launching of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning." -- Uri Avnery, "Worse Than a Crime", 26 Jan 2008. The rockets were a response to Israel's frequent and deadly raids, and to Israel's closing of the border (an act of war) -- but we dumbed-down Americans are not supposed to know about things like that. Anyway, Tundrabuggy, I don't see any Israelis lining up to trade places with the perpetually occupied Palestinians, so things in Gaza can;'t possibly abe as wonderful as the Israeli propaganda suggests. Here are two articles that attempt to tell the WHOLE story: Margolis, "Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza", 05 Jan 2009 and Raimondo, "Rationalizing Gaza", 05 Jan 2009. NonZionist (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding money... "100 billion" should be "100 million" (MAJOR ERROR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.11.104 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

About the "non-continuous" and "non-extensive" bombardment. I don't know about you, NZ, I wouldn't want to sit in what amounts to an occasionally used Mortar range, even if the range is only used once a week, with a single random shell. That sort of thing isn't acceptable to any Sovereign state either (just one 81mm mortar can destroy your home) and no Democratically elected government will stay in power if that is permitted by that Government (even some dictatorships have been brought down by far less). V. Joe (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel intelligence claims Hamas using hospitals and mosques

"Hamas operatives are in the hospital and have disguised themselves as nurses and doctors," one official said.

OC Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet that Hamas was using mosques, public institutions and private homes as ammunition stores.

hmmm...perhaps that explains some hits on mosques as well as hospitals. Could Hamas militants be giving us their own casualty figures from inside hospitals? hmmm Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, please don't do things like this. There's too much chaos on the talk page and in the article already. It doesn't help. Stick to comments about the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Things like this? We have Israel supposedly attacking ambulances and that's big anti-Israel news. What if Hamas operatives, dressed as emergency personnel, (doctors and nurses) are using ambulances to transport weapons and rockets? It has been done before. Do I need to bring in references? Israeli intelligence told the Israeli cabinet. It is highly relevant. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 4th january report states the following:

""This morning, an ambulance of Al Awda hospital in the north was shelled, seriously injuring 4 medical staff""

So if you're going to say IDF said that and tat, clearly mention that the information is reported by the UN. The most accurate and neutral reporter in such matters. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 5th january report states the following:

"A paramedic working for the UHWC,an Oxfam-funded organisation, was killed when an Israeli shell struck an ambulance trying to evacuate an injured person in the Beit Lahiya area; another paramedic lost his foot and a driver was injured in the same incident." There are lots of similar facts on all those netural reports, without mentioning Hamas. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with all these huge number of IDF statements and 0 number of Hamas statements in the whole article. Things need be way more balanced up. I remember I've read many times Hamas saying that those are false Israeli claims. I'll search where I read them and put them beside this IDF quote to fairly balance matters --Darwish07 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith on Sean's behalf, I don't think he realized your intention was to add the information into the article. I think he thought you were just stating it as a matter of fact. In any case, I do agree. This is something that should be added to the article. These tricks are old ones and I'm surprised it has yet to be mentioned in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I read somewhere in the past 48hrs that the palestinian MOH gave Hamas a direct order not to use ambulances THIS TIME, as they are needed to evacuate the injured. This "exception" clearly demonstrates the rule...--Omrim (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apologies if I wasn't clear. I meant 'things like this' in the sense of statements that don't directly address proposed improvements to the article. I'm not challenging the importance of your information but I will say that information like this should be set in the context of what is required by both sides under international law/the rules of war or else people won't know what is and isn't allowed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If its added it must be attributed to the Israeli government due it being very controversial. They were probably just paramedics killed by accident. No one really knows (yet) why they were killed or if they were allegedly Hamas militiamen in disguise, but we do know according to sources that "four paramedics were killed on their way to rescue injured civilians". Until we get a neutral source (not Hamas nor the Israeli government/military) this is what should be stated. You can't keep on accusing Hamas as basically being a terrorist group that uses human shields or disguises as paramedics, unless you want accusations of the IDF of being gruesome terrorists who kill entire families because they are personal point of views and not reliably sourced facts. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree wih Al Ameer regarding attribution of the claims. Until reliable sources make these claims independently, the claims should be attributed to the Israeli government. However, there are reliable sources asserting that in the past Hamas has resorted to using Human shield's and similar schemes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the past, Israel has used human shields - in the West Bank city of Nablus during raids on houses and in other localities to deflect stone-throwers. We could do this all day (sorry if I'm getting carried away), but just because Hamas did in the past doesn't mean they're doing it now, especially since I think Gaza's hospitals need every ambulance they have and additional ones too. Omrim backs this by saying the Ministry of Health ordered Hamas not to use ambulances, but we need a source to verify this. Anyhow, this is all blabber. What Hamas has done in the past has no room in the timeline since its strictly about the current conflict. --04:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Al Ameer son (talk)

When the Israeli military goes on their raids they don't intend to kill, but to take prisoners (use them as bargaining chips or to get information). So there's a fundamental difference between using shields as a defensive mechanism and using shields to kill. But I agree with Al Ameer, this is all blabber. Past actions don't have a place here unless reliable sources or the Israeli government uses past actions as an analogy or comparison to current actions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UT=C)

You are editing now as an advocate for Israel. The Supreme Court of Israel has twice ruled that the IDF in ther past has consistently roped in Palestinians, especially adolescents, to use as shields in their urban warfare operations. Your first sentence mirrors exactly the language Hezbollah used in seizing IDF soldiers not to kill them but to use them as bargaining chips in 2006.Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is all inconsistent with this article goal. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Israelis "don't intend to kill" and have weapons that are a thousand times more precise than the primitive rockets available to Hamas and Hezbollah, why is it that Israel is killing forty to a hundred times as many people? The ratios for children killed are even worse. See: Gideon Levy, "Twilight Zone / The children of 5767", 28 Sep 2007 and Jan 2006 to June 2007: 172 Palestinian children murdered, 1 Israeli child murdered and children killed, numbers, graphs. We don't need to rely on "blabber" (black propaganda): We have facts, tons of them, and these astonishing facts will not stay buried forever. NonZionist (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The number of civilian casualties, several hundred, is about the population of a single Gaza apartment building. Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes, fired artillery, etc. But there are only several hundred civilians dead. With the number of strikes launched, had Israel wanted to kill civilians, there would be hundreds of thousand dead, not hundreds. okedem (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The dead has been scattered across several apartment buildings...you are correct...

Opening Paragraph

Needs to be re-written. Nothing wrong with the content, but the grammer is quite poor to the opint of being unsuitable for wikipedia. I would re-write it myself, but admittedly, by english ain't that great either ;) and the article desrves something a little more polished. Just my 2 cents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.61.95 (talk • contribs)

Wounded Israelis

Does "shock" count as being wounded? Surely not. I think the figure in the infobox needs to be clarified because I doubt 119 Israelis were physically injured by Hamas rockets. I could be wrong. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism as I've seen accounts of "light wounds" and "slight injuries" as well a shock being reported. I'm uncomfortable with the injury accounting in South Israel and this number of 119 injured which derives directly from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Their reports are extremely lacking in detail and I've not seen them differentiate the injured at all (into critical, light, shock etc). As of now I can only say that the number probably includes many light injuries and possibly "shock victims" due to past accounting practices in this conflict (I think the BBC has made a point of referring to some of the injuries as light or slight). As it stands though there is no basis to change this number. Someone would have to find a reliable source differentiating the injury victims. I think its a significant issue becuase very few if any of the Israeli injuries will turn into deaths given the fact that most that have been reported with any detail have not been severe and the fact that South Israel has an intact medical system. Obviously neither applies in the case of Gaza.

Thrylos000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

I actually tried really hard yesterday, but I couldn't find a single source reporting the total number of Israeli wounded.VR _talk 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

An example of recent accounting practices of the Israel Ministry of foreing affairs (from the 2006 war with Hizbullah):

"Since July 12, 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Hizbullah+attack+in+northern+Israel+and+Israels+response+12-Jul-2006.htm)."

Only 101 people were wounded moderately or severely (2.4% of the total figure!) while 65% of the "injured" were victims of shock and anxiety. Unfortunately, the MFA has not provided a similar breakdown for the injuries in the current conflict. They are only reporting an undifferentiated count of injuries, currently totalling 119: "Since December 27, 480 rockets and mortars have landed in Israel. 900,000 Israeli residents are under immediate threat. Three Israeli civilians have been killed and 119 wounded (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA)."

Thrylos000 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that those Israeli injuries seriousness are .0001 of the Palestinian ones dangers, but it's not my job to say this statement in here anyway :) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the 3 sources cited for the 119 injuries and, though I may have overlooked something, I couldn't find any support for the figure. So I have removed 119 for the time being and changed civilian casualties to ~10 which is just until someone can find a definitive figure. I can't expect there are many injuries, from what I've heard most of the rockets have missed.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I saw the figure there. The google cached version shows it. Maybe the moved it or revised it.VR _talk 09:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has put the 120 figure back in, citing the israeli govt. I won't remove it in case i'm being blind but i've looked through the page and can't find the 120 figure in it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of you have raised valid considerations. It does seem to be Israeli policy to bring in shock-victims to hospitals. Frankly, I suppose having a sudden rocket explode next to you, deafening you, destroying your car/house/surroundings, and possibly killing your dog/friend/husband may be a little shocking. I wouldn't wish it on any of you. This policy being as it is, I doubt it is feasible to not include shock victims in the count. Perhaps we should make separate mention that "shock-victims constitute a significant part of injured civilians". Debresser (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Of course no one is suggesting, I don't think, that shock or other psychological trauma doesn't result from events during this conflict. The problem is however that no one is even going to try to estimate who has suffered "shock" in Gaza. If they included this categories, undifferentiated, in the injury counts in Gaza I would venture to say the number of injuried would be close to 1.5 M. :)

For the time being I am supportive of using the Israel MFA figure with a note saying that "shock-victims constitute a significant part of injured civilians" and perhaps linking to the example I mentioned above: "Since July 12, 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Hizbullah+attack+in+northern+Israel+and+Israels+response+12-Jul-2006.htm)."

Thrylos000 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The 120 number I can find on the mfa.gov site is here (site dosnt work properly for me at least, you have to scroll way, way down) Now the figures are from the 4th — chandler — 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is probably not directly relevant but the Israel MFA is now reporting casualties of family pets on their website: "Jan 6: A 3-month-old baby girl was injured by shrapnel when a Grad rocket fired from north Gaza Tuesday morning exploded in the city of Gedera, between Ashdod and Rehovot. Twelve-year-old Shir was in a ground floor room in her home when the siren sounded. She ran to the shelter and was saved when the rocket struck the room she had just left. The family's dog Sili was killed by shrapnel in the yard. Since December 27, over 500 rockets and mortars have landed in Israel. Almost one million Israeli residents are under immediate threat."

Thrylos000 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging other wikis

I think this edit is not ppropriate. We can't judge what other wikis say, and therefore refuse to link to them.VR _talk 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already been discussed. It doesn't matter what any other wiki says. The action must be reverted. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rocket fire chart

The rocket fire chart added is a good start ("File:Qasam graph2002-2007.svg"). However, it documents the rocket fire from 2002-2007, thus quite irrelevant for this article. If someone can find or create a chart documenting rocket fire in the past 10 days, or since December 19, or even in the past 6 months, that'd be great.VR _talk 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2002-2007 rocket fire is actually quite relevant to the article. It's Israel's reason for going into Gaza. However, I'm not surprised that you were unaware of this background. After all, this information keeps on getting deleted from the lead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The chart's timeline entirely precedes the event covered in this article. On a related note, the words "Qassam" and " rocket" now appear a total of 97 times in the article. The word "blockade": 16 times. This makes the article's discussion of the opposing sides' reasoning for their aggression unbalanced. RomaC (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The article conveniently ignores preceding events which led up to the current event. An argument to delete a chart of rocket fire because the article does not have this background information perpetuates the vicious circle of this WP:POV riddled article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with rocket fire stats (unlike casualty stats) is that by themselves they are one sided and lack context. This is a general problem with the articles on rocket attacks in WP in my view. Both sides take certain actions, fire rockets, blockade, carry out incursions/assaults in each others territories tit-for-tat and so on endlessly. Rocket attack stats present one dimension of the data but there are other dependant variables as RomaC highlights that are directly relevant to those stats. Rockets are being fired for reasons and Israel is attacking Gaza for reasons. It's a problematic area and it's bound to cause instability in the article as people press for those other dependant variables to be included. You'll end up with someone trying to graph the relationship between rocket attack frequency and Israeli incursions into Gaza/blockade status/number of lorries allowed in and so one endlessly. It's a minefield. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why the chart should be limited to attacks prior to December 27, where there are very little of these variables. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The period in the couple of months before the assault started was really bad for both sides pretty much whatever statistic you look at. That's kind of my point. Just looking at rocket attack stats by themselves doesn't really help a person who wants to use an encyclopedia to find neutral, factual information understand what actually happened. It's like describing a crash between two cars but only mentioning one of the cars. Anyway, I'll leave you all alone to carry on discussing because you probably have better ideas than me on how to handle this e.g. just below. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The ineffectual rocket fire (12 Israelis killed over a six year period) is Israel's STATED reason for slaughtering hundreds of Palestinians, Brewcrewer -- much as WMD's are Bush's STATED reason for butchering Iraq. Please don't confuse the STATED reason for starting a war with the real reason: The two are rarely the same. NonZionist (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

i see both sides of this argument. the main problem with citing the invasions as a response to hamas rockets and citing those figures is that then there is an argument for saying "which was in response to the gaza blockade which was in response to suicide bombers..." and statistics accompanying these assertions ad infinitum. This article should probably be renamed "dec 2008 israel offensive on gaza" or something to that effect and then describe events on both sides that occur from the date of the airstrike onward. there should definitely be links to articles dealing with hamas rocket fire, the gaza blockade and the 6 month truce. that is, unless i'm incorrect in thinking this page is specifically about the conflict that began in december Untwirl (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brew, seriously -- and think we should make this entire article about events prior to December 27. Then make a new article actually about the December 27~ Israeli assault on Gaza. RomaC (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: I highly doubt Israel is going to war with Hamas for rockets that were fired more than a year ago. The Israeli action is in response to the more recent attacks, i.e. those between December 19-27.VR _talk 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources say instead Israel has prepared for this for several months, with a mock up town like key points in Gaza where troops have been intensively trained for several months in urban warfare. One must distinguish between formal (often pretextual) reason and strategic longterm calculations. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your doubt shows a genuine lack of knowledge, then. Israel is going to war for the rockets which Hamas (and the other organizations) have been firing for eight years now. It's finally fed up with these attacks, which became even more frequent after Israel evacuated the entire strip. Life in Israel's south has become a constant state of terror, with people running for cover, and everyone suffering PTSD.

The more recent attacks, at the end of the truce, were just a trigger, not a cause. Israel didn't go to full-out war over 60 rockets. okedem (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It went to war over the capture of two soldiers and a few skirmishes in 2006 with Hezbollah. It invaded Lebanon in 1982 despite a UN-negotiated truce with the PLO in South Lebanon that the PLO observed for the preceding 6 months. Not to know this is to demonstrate a genuine lack of knowledge.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As is so typical of you, Nishidani, you attack me over something I never said or claimed. The casual reader will read your comment and assume I said something like "Israel would never go to war for anything less than...", whereas all I said concerned the Gaza issue, and nothing else. Only the more careful reader will notice how misleading your response is. okedem (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't attack you. I didn't even mention you. I extrapolated from the premise in your remark 'Israel didn't go to full-out war over 60 rockets' which, in any normal reader's mind, implies strongly that Israel goes to war over more than just a 'trigger'ing incident. It's a reasonable inference, particularly since I refrained from commenting on the way you and others think there is something peculiarly Israeli about living 'ion a constant state of terror' and suffering from PTSD. Half the children of Gaza are anaemic, 75% of the population is on a bare subsistance level of malnourishment, most children suffer from chronic trauma, and Israel has been shooting into the fishbowl for three years, while tightening its blockade since Hamas was legitimated by a plebiscite, and, yes, those infamous night-runs by the IAF that from one o'clock onward for years repeatedly cruise above the Strip to make successive sonic booms throughout the night and deny these people even the right to sleep. Less whingeing about being a victim, from denizens of the 4th most powerful military force in the world and an otherwise thriving modern state, would help keeping editors' eyes fixed on the many problems with this narrative, Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Nishidani. You replied to me, and implied I said things that I never said. Anyone trying to "extrapolate" from your words would have been summarily attacked on various levels. You, as one who is so keen of verbal accuracy, should not engage in such activities.

Your speech about Gaza is irrelevant. I spoke of Israel's motives and history. But if you open this up, I'll just say this: Palestinians voted for the organization which doesn't recognize Israel, vows to destroy it, and doesn't accept the previous agreements or the two-state solution. They voted for the organization which has been firing rockets for years. Whereas Israel made the strongest show of good-will by leaving the entire strip, showing it can evacuate settlements and give back land, Palestinians chose to show they cannot live in peace, and continued attacking.

But that's enough. A long time ago I told myself I wouldn't get into discussions with you, as you are so fond of twisting other people's words, replying out of context, and bedazzling participants with lots of comments, which usually say nothing. C'ya! okedem (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I caught the allusion, 'full of sound and fury and signifying nothing'. Well, I am a windbag, but the sounds I make, and the fury, are small change in the arsenal exploding over Gaza these days. Since when has recognizing Israel been a passport for survival for Palestinians. In any case, let's leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

come on guys, it's not our business to postulate about motives etc here. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the rocket fire chart from years back to motivate Israel's actions and you elicit a chart that would show why Hamas considers its rocket actions defensive responses to the IDF's repeated demonstration of its intent to systematically assassinate, kill, rocket anyone in the Strip its mysterious Secret Service allies consider a terrrorist. I.e.

Barak Ravid Haaretz probe, Half of Gazans killed by IDF not involved in terror 'Israeli security forces killed 810 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in 2006 and 2007, Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin reported Sunday at the weekly cabinet briefing in Jerusalem. He estimated that some 200 of those killed were not clearly linked to terrorist organizations. However, an examination by Haaretz reveals that the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces stands at 816 during those two years, and that of them, 360 were civilians who were not affiliated with any armed organizations. Data from B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, show that 152 of the casualties were under age 18, and 48 were under the age of 14.

Hamas considers its duty to respond to fire, especially since the civilian population has over the past few years been consistently slaughtered by these actions. Its motivations mirror those of the Israeli government, which justifies its actions as those of defending the security of Israel's civilians. There is no room in wikipedia for editors pushing to plant their own personal convictions about who started it. At least one should simply note that there are authoritative sources blaming alternatively Hamas, and the Israeli government.Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are free graphs comparing casualties, children, political prisoners, demolitions, even U.N. resolutions. Comparison: Children killed ... Numerous comparisons: casualties, demolitions, tax dollars, etc.. ... Comparison: Casualties by year The latter site also graphs casualties day by day. (An interesting pattern emerges: We see that Israel is killing Palestinians almost every day. Then suddenly a Palestinian goes berserk and kills several Israelis. Then Israel has a pretext for continuing its steady day-by-day killing.) It would be interesting to superimpose some of these on top of the graph of rockets. "What is being hidden from the embittered public is that the launching of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning." -- Uri Avnery, "Worse Than a Crime", 26 Jan 2008. Unfortunately, many here treat Israeli propaganda as Holy Gospel Truth -- just as many politically naive Americans take every word the president utters as Holy Gospel. NonZionist (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The plunking of a version of the Qassam rocket attacks 2001-2008 at the top of the page does (a) repeat as a graph one that already has a whole wiki page dedicated to the argument (List of Qassam rocket attacks) and (b) strongly tilts the opening presentation of the conflict towards an Israeli POV. Either one removes it as pleonastic or one provides a balancing graph showing the number of IDF attacks on the Gaza strip over that same period. This is the standard criterion for an NPOV presentation, which at the moment has been violated in a very heavy-handed fashion. Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors must get a consensus here on talk when adding controversial content. There are already photos or Qassam rockets and a photo of a man (supposedly, how can we know this?) inspecting Qassam rocket damage and now a chart we would need strong consensus and even then it would violate undue weight as the article has not a single image from Gaza. RomaC (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Until a specific graph detailing the continual IDF operations in the Gaza Strip since 2005 is produced, counterbalancing the plethoric qassam graph up top is available, the latter should be removed and placed in the talk section. As it stands it completely unhinges any respect for NPOV balance.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary of rocket fire and mortar shelling in 2008

English: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf

Hebrew: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/Hebrew/heb_n/pdf/ipc_007.pdf

Flayer (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to list all the rockets in 2008, then we should list all the Israeli abusive actions to the Palestinians in 2008 by then including several UN reports about the 33 illegal settlements in the West Bank, UN reports about abusive actions of settlers to Palestinians, details about the blockade of Gaza strip and the crisis suffered from it before the war. I can go on and on. Really, original research will drive us to endless debates. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

...see what just happened ? Minefield. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What has the West Bank to do with it? This is Israel vs. Hamas in Gaza article. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You call it Hamas against Israel overthere, we call it Israel vs. Palestine in here :). --Darwish07 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, but this article has nothing to do with the West Bank. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WE call it an Israel-Gaza conflict. See main title of article. Calling it Israel-Palestine would be imposible if only for there not existing any such political entity as Palestine. So please... Debresser (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat to Misplaced Pages?

The State of Israel has deployed a world-class arsenal of fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, gunboats, tanks and troops against a densely-populated, impoverished and blockaded area small enough to cycle across in an afternoon.

And after ten days, close to 700 Gazans are dead and several thousand more are injured or maimed. Meanwhile on the Israeli side, maybe a dozen have died (about half from friendly fire).

Yet Misplaced Pages still won't call this event an "attack" or "assault" or "invasion," because a number of highly-committed editors are arguing every which way that it wouldn't be neutral to make Israeli look bad.

Instead, we've made Misplaced Pages look bad.

What is to be done? RomaC (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered building a concrete wall around Misplaced Pages, blockading it, occasionally carrying out random deletions of articles, cutting off power to the servers and so forth. I mean, what could possibly go wrong ? Seriously though, I don't know what to say. People are idiots and I include myself in that. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The mix of our idiocies is what build up Misplaced Pages ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FUCKING GENIUS DARWISH, FUCKING GENIUS!!!--Cerejota (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you'd be an Internet Security company, or an ISP, and Misplaced Pages servers would have been used to DoS attack you... Then you'd talk to Misplaced Pages owners/admins and they'd respond with "MUWAHAHAHA! WE WILL DOS YOU UNTIL YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR SERVERS FARM! DIE!", I guess you'd take them down, no? Especially, when the Police can only tell them "We condemn your DOS attacks" ;) -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, there are about 550 deaths, not "close to 700". That's a big difference. And Israel attacked/assaulted Hamas, who are hiding in Gaza's residential areas, thus so many civilian deaths. So saying Israel attacked/assaulted Gaza seems to me very wrong, even if Hamas and BBC consider it so. Invasion, perhaps, but it's a tempporary thing because IDF doesn't plan to stay in Gaza after the operation (and everybody said it MANY times over and over again), so you could say that Israel invaded Gaza to "deal with Hamas", but you can't really call this war/operation as an Invasion. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is an Israeli attack on Hamas and not Gaza. Just today 20 potential members of Hamas were killed, yes they were children, but let's face it they could become Hamas members.*sarcasm intended* the facts are civilians area have been hit, the civilian casualties make up a significant portion of the death toll, the Israelis have invaded the area. So if it talks like a duck, walks and quacks like one, then it is one. So saying Israel attacked/assaulted Gaza seems to me very accurate. --Learsi si natas (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(my ORIGINAL RESEARCH and BIAS not related to article). I'll tell you a funny fact by the way, ofcourse I'm biased but as mentioned I'm not saying this for the sake of the main article at all. The IDF and the Israeli media really love to make a distinction between Hamas and "non-Hamas", but here's the catch that the Israeli Intelligence knows very well. All people on Gaza support Hamas cause it's the one (on the opposite of Fatah) which calls for opposition against the "occupying force". We were not really originally from Gaza, we were withdrawn by force from the land that's above Gaza (Ashdood, Asklan, ..) in the 1948 war. So all the Gazans believe that Israel is an occupying force and what they are doing is legal opposition against an occupying force, whether this force is on Gaza or not. That's why every home helps Hamas over there and every one there prays for them. There's no difference between who's Hamas and who's not. And that's why Israel are doing all those killings and infrastructure destruction. It knows very well that she's not fighting Hamas, she's fighting 1.5 million population. And from here, and because all those wars, hatred over hatred continue. and sadly, here we are :-(. (End of ORIGINAL RESEARCH /) --Darwish07 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My response, unrelated to the articles as well, just stating my real honst opinion. Sorry mate, but this isn't "original research". That's the "common propaganda". Not all Gazans support Hamas. And the propaganda part is saying that Israel is targeting 1.5 mil population. Fatah used to fight Israel too, but looking at reality on the ground - the situation is that there is the Gaza strip (where there isn't any Israeli presence since 2005), there is the West Bank (where there are Israeli soldiers and police checkpoints and etc., for now, until we can pull out of there and a Palestinian state will be founded), and there is Israel. The 1967 borders (pretty much the same meaning as the 1949 Armistice Lines) are widely accepted as the sanest way to make this work for both of the peoples. Of course there are problems like Jerusalem and the "right of return", and both sides have both support and oposition on every issue. This can be solved by negotiations. And it will, when weapons will not be used against eachother. And I believe that many in Gaza know that too, and want that to happen. But for now, we have Hamas, who is terrorizing Israel, and Israel cannot let it happen. Of course there are controvercies about Israel's actions and Hamas' actions. Imagine what would happen if Israel was not imposing any kind of blockage on Gaza, and leaving the borders widely open? Hamas would get plenty of long-range missiles, Hamas will launch suicide bombers again, and etc. Yes, it might improve the living standards of the Gazans, but no sovereign country will accept improving the lives of a neighbouring area a little bit, in the cost of bloody terror against them. Imagine Burma attacking China. Burma would be flattened if it'd happen. Israel, on the other hand, tries to help the citizens. Before the military operation, Israel opened the border, and let supplies in, for several days. Hamas kept on firing. There is no peaceful solution against an organization who vows to kill you. Anyway, sorry for the offtopic. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, perhaps not everything you don't like is "a threat to Misplaced Pages"? Your comment is very dramatic, but doesn't mesh with the facts. Thus far Israel has performed hundreds of airstrikes, fired artillery shells, etc. How many civilians died? 200-300? That's the number of people living in a single Gaza-city apartment building. The very fact that Israel has carried out so many strikes, with so few civilian casualties, shows beyond doubt that Israel is making great efforts to avoid hurting civilians. In contrast, Hamas targets civilians. They can fire their rockets at military targets. Lots of those in range. They might get lucky and kill a soldier, hit an aircraft, or at least damage some runway. But no. They choose to kill civilians. The Palestinians elected Hamas, fully knowing that Hamas does not recognize Israel, the peace process, etc. Fully knowing that Hamas will continue its attacks on Israel. They do this even after Israel left Gaza, evacuated settlements, gave back the land. Palestinians chose to attack Israel and elect Hamas, instead of trying to continue the peace process. When civilians die, it's always a shame, be them Israeli or Palestinian. But this happens in war, and if Hamas (again, the folks Palestinians elected and support) hadn't fired, if they didn't hide in the middle of cities - none of this would have happened. So your pity drive doesn't impress me. And right or wrong have nothing to do with casualty figures. okedem (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The WAR started a long time ago, and there has not been an 'official' cease-fire or end to this war. You could call this a battle, or better yet, another Israeli military excurion into Palestinian territory. Calling it an invasion would mean the start of 'another' war, but this is the same war, and the latest action is an additional confrontation.

Please, we can't blame Israel for having the superior firepower, it should use it as it sees fit. Just like we can't blame Hamas/Palestine for defending itself as it sees fit. The best we can do is to continue updating the casualties, as many Iraq war objectors have been doing with US military deaths.

Also, i would like to know what Israeli military base is within reach of Hamas rockets.

And, would Israel allow Hamas to build 'official' military bases away from the population in order to have a 'morally' responsible war against it? What is the problem having MILITIANS firing rockets from their background? Yet, with all the videos Israel has published, i've yet to see any of those militians using civilians as shields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.165.14 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bases - for the airforce alone - Hatzor and Hatzrim, maybe also Tel Nof (very close to Gedera, which was hit today) (see the map of the IAF website). There are many ground forces bases in the area as well.

Hamas has military installations, mostly from the time of Abu-Mazen's control. But they fire from civilian areas, from schools, from between houses. They use homes and mosques as weapons stores. See the videos. There's an incredible amount of evidence for this conduct. okedem (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles

In 2008 there was a Request for arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles. The page includes user descriptions of the problems and arbitrators' final decisions regarding the conflict: remedies (discretionary sanctions of blocks, bans, etc. by uninvolved administrators, a working group and reminding and counseling editors) and enforcement (logging of notifications, blocks and bans on users who have engaged in problematic editing on Israel-Palestine issues). Read the whole arbitration for an in depth understanding of the issues and remedies involved. Therefore issues can be brought directly to Misplaced Pages Arbitration Enforcement.

There is a WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration which has some tips on how to resolve disputes, including up to arbitration and a Current Article Issues Discussion page for reporting or discussing issues with specific articles. Check them out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problems I think RomaC's highlighting are a consequence of the title changing from "2008-2009 Gaza Strip Airstrikes" to its present one. I came here (initially commenting as unsigned) to read about that story, but when the ground incursion / invasion loomed, it was inevitable that the title would have to be changed.

However, it seems to me that under the auspices of changing the title to something neutral sounding that also reflected events, the article has been re-cast in such a way as to be broadened beyond coverage of the current events and their immediate strategic context -- which are after all what most readers are interested in, and are what is keeping the article on the front page as a Current Event! At the moment there is just about a reasonable balance between events and context - it's reasonable to mention the rocket attacks - but only insofar as they are a stated reason for the conflict. If there's too much detail about them, pro-Palestinians will want the blockade discussed in detail, and we enter into an infinite chain of causality (or rather, recrimination).

This broadening of scope inevitably serves a pro-Israeli agenda, which clearly is to frame the assault in the wider context of Hamas rocket attacks. However, to some extent this *is* appropriate. Whether the rocket attacks are the true reason for the attacks or as I believe, a pretext, should be left up to the reader to decide. I say we should change the title to "Israeli offensive" -- which is the notable event this article arose to cover -- concentrate on reporting the atrocities in Gaza, and let the pro-Israelis have their justification about rockets but not in detail - let them refer readers to the list of Qassam attacks that already exists. Don't let the article grow beyond reason, become broken up and edited as a number of cheesy and obviously partisan "counter articles", where credibility will be lost as a whole.--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you leave no doubt as to your own sympathies. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The point it is it is a remedy if the article gets too partisan and there are numbers being pulled, especially as a result of tag teaming and canvassing. They don't have to be proved; the resultant POV will be the issue, of course. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN biased?

This edit, alleges that CNN is biased. I don't think the edit has merit because the sources are not reliable, but would like to hear what others think.

Previous messages that I left the user on his talk page have been blanked without response.VR _talk 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I also left a message for this user about repeated disruptive very pro-Israeli (but probably good faith from his perspective)edits. Someone else did too. It's getting to the point where further action might be required in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Yahoo Answers? Who is he trying to kid... Remove it. I've been watching alot of CNN and can't see a bias. I mean he claims they don't cover Israeli deaths, from what this article states, there are 9 israeli deaths and 560 palestinian deaths, if anything it would be a pro-Israel bias to report the deaths as equals. And they are obviously showing injured Palestinians because there are many more than injured Israelis — chandler — 09:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

VR and others.In these cases, where the narrative assumes a personal voice, and editorializes, one does well just to note this on the talk page, and erase the edit. Feel free to delete that section, since it is both poorly sourced and editorializes. Anyone here may remove it without objection, since removing this kind of abuse does not require consensus. It violates core policy.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it for now, If someone comes with a RS criticising CNN it can be re-introduced (but re-phrased I guess) — chandler — 09:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a wise move to find an RS to jusatify its reinclusion. It only opens up a battle to stick in many sources saying Israeli official or unofficial but mainstream sources are biased. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Ok, meant if a credible source really, in that it probably should be mentioned if the BBC ran something about it, but not if the Sun came out with "CNN hates Israel" — chandler — 10:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the claim that CNN is biased should be removed. From what I've read from international media the coverage on CNN seem quite balanced. --user from Finland.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.66.153 (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the claim should not be reinserted, even if someone finds a reasonable source for it. Otherwise we'll end up in circles, with someone then finding a source that says that the critical source is biased against CNN, and on and on until we have an absurdly qualified piece of text. All media in this area are accused of bias one way or the other, sometimes of bias both ways. CNN as it happens seems to get a lot of stick from the other side as well. Note as well that the editor including this seems to have made a habit of dumping extended commentary into this article over the past few days. It's hard enough to produce a decent, readable and accurate article about an event which is both in the news and part of such a controversial topic area, without that sort of constant interruption. --Nickhh (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have written on the subject of a possible CNN bias before, see Archive. I personally have found the CNN to be slightly anti-Israel biased in comparison with the BBC. Accusations of a pro-Palestinian CNN bias are also mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article on CNN. Honest_Reporting, an organization monitoring the media for anti-Israel biases, in it’s Year Analysis of CNN has come to the conclusion that “anti-Israel bias has crept back into CNN’s coverage”. Furthermore, fear of possible anti-Israel bias by media in general, has been stated to be one of the reasons for Israel to actively engage in an online media propaganda. SOTT net Information Warfare Monitor Frankly speaking, “where there is smoke, there is fire”, has been a proverb probably for as long as mankind uses fire...
In this article, however, mention of a possible CNN anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian bias should not be made unless it appears in sources pertaining to the present conflict. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because "Reality has a well known liberal bias." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, VERY unbiased. I just watched a report in its front page showing the borders of Israel encompassing all Palestinian territories. Go back into your Hebrew fanaticism close circle cause here you're only being ridiculed publicly. Leladax (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Leladax. I find your language insulting. Please consider changing part of your last comment. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of "Gaza-Israel war casualties.png"

I'm not sure what the purpose of File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png () is. There's not much that the graphical illustration of the numbers show that isn't already in the infobox. On top of that, the numbers will be constantly changing from day to day- does that mean a new picture every day? Seems unnecessary. And if the graph is merely there to show the "disproportionate" nature of the casualties (I have my own opinions on that term, but I'll leave them to myself), then it is undoubtedly not NPOV. Either way, it's redundant and difficult to maintain. I say it should be deleted ASAP. Jeztah (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I see that it's already being discussed. Meet you up there. Jeztah (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactions: Seperate UN section?

The UN is the largest international body, representing more countries than all other organisations. Therefore I'd suggest it should have a seperate section within Reactions, so that its reaction can be described in greater detail.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to ruin your party but UN: 192, FIVB: 220, FIBA 213, FIFA 208. — chandler — 09:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. Let me clarify - largest political organisation? That shows the power of sportJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Back from the joke, now I won't be against it, but is there enough stuff so a separate section is needed? — chandler — 09:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support the UN having a unique section as they represent many countries. RomaC (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Troops Deployed

i have heard on the news that IDF officials announced the number of israeli troops deployed was 30,000 rather than 10,000 but i dont have a link for that, if any of the registered users have the information kindly change the figure in the battle box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Impossible, yet. Only number of brigades deployed, not a number of divisions. Flayer (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yossef Muadi, a Arab citizens of Israel#Druze was killed fighting along with the Israeli army

He is from Yirka village

mentioning?

--212.117.137.193 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"fighting along with the Israeli army" you mean he's not a member of the army, and went down to Gaza himself to fight against Hamas or what? — chandler — 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He was corporal Yossef Muadi , a corporal in the Israeli army (read the inter-wikipedia-link in the title above on Israeli Druze, they align themselves with the Jews since Israel's creation and as opposed to Israeli Muslims fight in the Israeli army, many of them are high ranking officers --212.117.137.193 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the article should avoid mentioning single combatants. It creates a precedent for both sides to stack the place with a mortuary list (of which the Palestinians have, according to Israeli sources on Hamas fatalities, hundreds, who would be have to be named if Yossef Muadi were named).Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nishi, that Maudi is an Arab that is not enough reason to get into naming combatants. RomaC (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Agree. This is simply a bad phrasing by the source. Druze soldiers are like any other soldiers in the Israeli army (if only they were the same as all Israeli civilians, but never mind that now, that's for another discussion). Simply put, he is an Israeli soldier. period.--Omrim (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

t Its always bad when people die, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL: No inclusion, unless his death is particularly notable due to other circumstances. There is a significant Arab Israeli population and the Druze in particular are subjected to the draft - so this Corporal was just doign his job as a citizen. Perhaps commendable, but not notable as millions upon told millions have died under exactly the same circumstances for many nations, including Israel, since the invention of modern conscription. He is neither the first, nor (unfortunately) the last, Arab or Non-Jewish IDF soldier to die in combat. Of course, if significant (as in more than one or two articles or mentions) coverage is given to this soldier, then perhaps he deserves a separate page, which we could link form here. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why all the Hamas qualifications?

From the first lines of the article: "conflict between Israel and Palestinian Islamist group Hamas" -- Like them or not, shouldn't Hamas be more accurately described here in Wiki as the "Gaza government"? Soon after we see: "This Israeli-Gaza conflict is the deadliest conflict since Hamas established political control of Gaza in early 2006 and forced out Fatah in the 2007 Battle of Gaza" How is this germane to the article? Hamas won the 2006 elections, a Fatah coup failed. Why not "...since Hamas was elected in 2006"? Wiki uses neutral descriptors, why doesn't this article? RomaC (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the text should read for economy 'the conflict between Israel and Hamas'. Links can clarify what Hamas is about. 'Islamicist' says nothing other than flag the usually red rag to a POV bull. It is, as you say, the duly elected authority of the Gaza Strip. The phrase 'deadliest conflict' should be eliminated as irrelevant especially in a lead, and is notoriously poorly phrased and badly sourced.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. we would have to discuss the differing political factions in israel with regard to who has currently "established political control" and that all belongs in a different article. Untwirl (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is only the government of Gaza in a defacto sense, describing it as just the government of Gaza is too simplistic. Its not entirely clear the Hamas takeover was a response to an actual coup attempt. This article should not seek to answer that issue. Writing should recognise Hamas's electoral victory, but also its ejection of Fatah from the strip, its the only manner fair. I agree the wording needs to be altered. Superpie (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a neutral title would be "Gaza's Hamas regime" (since Israel's talking about regime change), although others have called it "Gaza's democratically elected Hamas government".VR _talk 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Superpie What's not entirely clear? It was elected, and a coup was staged, and repressed, as we learnt in April from a well-documented study in Vanity Fair The Gaza bombshell. Israel again may seek 'regime-change', but an unadorned 'Hamas' (linked) is perhaps the best way to go, NPOV-wise. 'Hamas government', like 'Hamas regime' are POV or question-begging, the former because it is a regional administration and stateless, the latter because it is a term of political abuse by Hamas's adversaries. Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Split

Hate to interrupt the fun here but this article needs to be badly split. At this point the article takes almost 20 seconds to load, which is horrible from a usability standpoint and makes editing extremely difficult. I see there is a proposed split for the development section to "Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". Is there any opposition to this or better split strategies? If not I'm inclined to go ahead and do it. BJ 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have started a more formalised 'Discussion' about this below and I will copy your comment into it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Background again

(1)The background section referred to "The first violation of the ceasefire", on June 23, via a "single mortar shell" for which "no one claimed responsibility". I have been unable to find too many references for this event. The Misplaced Pages page on the list of mortar attacks lists a single RIA Novosti source that quotes an IDF commander. I was unable to find a reference to this event in most other mainstream media sources. In contrast, the Israeli raid on Nablus, on June 24, and the response by Islamic Jihad is well documented. So, I have removed the mention of the "single mortar fire" pending other reliable sources. (2)Second, we really need to avoid language like "first violation of the ceasefire". The ceasefire was uneasy at best and who violated it "first" is a question we really cant go into here. What we can do is list the notable violations of the ceasefire. Jacob2718 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Interwiki

I can say it a thousand times - the Arabic article "the Massacre of Gaza" cannot be regarded as an equivalent to this article. There was a short period of time when the Arab Misplaced Pages had indeed a relatively fair article about the events in Gaza, but they moved it again to this provocative title, and made that article once again into an anti-Israeli propaganda. They also created "a series of articles about Israeli massacres" which includes that "massacre" article with "The Gaza Holocaust" and other despicable materials like this. The fact that the Arabic Misplaced Pages users breached any possible Wikipedian rule is one thing, the fact that the English Misplaced Pages cooperate with this approach by considering this article equivalent to that "massacre" article is another. They are not equivalent, and shouldn't be regarded as such. DrorK (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide. if Gaza Massacre is the common name of the attack in arabic, that's the name they should use. If anything this only sounds like a pro-Israel move for removal of the view of the arabic world. — chandler — 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't really understand the concept of conveying knowledge. Calling someone "a murderer" is not okay just because many people say so, whether it is in Arabic or in English. The Arabic Misplaced Pages users are trying to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for propaganda counting on the fact that there aren't too many foreigners who speak their language. In any case, such a propaganda cannot be said to be equivalent to this article. DrorK (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can restate your position a million times DrorK. It won't make it any more valid. Arabic sources use "Gaza massacre", "War on Gaza" and "Gaza Under Fire" to describe the events we are describing here. It's up to editors of the Arabic article to debate their name choices based on an assessment of reliable sources, much as we are here. (And you should take your debate there, since as you said earlier, you are fluent in Arabic). I'm quite sure they are as offended by our title, which creates a false parity where there is none, as you are by theirs. Should they refuse to link to en-wiki citing our bias? Tiamut 13:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesnt mean it shouldn't be included. The Hebrew wp probably is just as biased, and from what I can see it links to the arabic one, therefore we have to remove the hebrew one and all other languages who link and think themself the equivalent to the arabic article. And again, it has already been discussed to leave it in. The article is covering the same thing. And why wouldn't it be ok to call someone a murderer, there are murderers you know. — chandler — 13:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the Hebrew Misplaced Pages article is not biased and you are invited to check it. Actually, the Arabic Misplaced Pages article is the only one among the different Wikipedias which manipulates facts and terminology. The debate in the Arabic Misplaced Pages is full of slandars towards those who try to change this state of affairs. This is a disturbing issue for itself, but it is not relevant here. What is relevant is that we cannot link this article to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". Sorry, we are not here to make anti-Israeli propaganda, even if it is only through an interwiki. DrorK (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the common name in the arab world. It is not about pro/anti-Israel. And again, just because you dont like what the common name in, doesn't mean it should be removed. — chandler — 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, the arab point of view should be shown as interwiki or something. Hide a link to simply state "provocative" it's your opinion and POV measurement. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, who cares Arabic wiki? ;).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.22.58 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me assure you that I would ask to remove the he-wp interwiki as well had it been linking to an article titled "The Glorious Victory over Hamas", or even "The Israeli War against Terrorism". All articles in all Wikipedias describing these events titled their articles either with the meaningless code-name given by the Israeli army, with a fairly neutral title such as "The Attack on Gaza", "The Israeli-Gazan Conflict" etc. All but the Arabic Misplaced Pages in which some users are trying to push propaganda, and by linking to their article we bring this propaganda here through the back door. Sorry, this is not why we're here. DrorK (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arab Misplaced Pages bias is not our point. Interwiki is to link and integrate all other Wikipedias with the same content, biased or not, well worked or not. You're disrupting an Misplaced Pages feature. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave it DrorK, or you could participate in the editing of the arabic wiki if you like. RomaC (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedians actually prevent people from editing this articles, by putting all kind of pressure on people who wish to balance the article. The interwiki should go immediately because "Gaza massacre" cannot be a title for an article which describes these events. DrorK (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DrorK that's not for you to decide, you've been warned for vandalism there is no consensus for your repeated deletions of the interwiki link to the arabic article. RomaC (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DrorK: I agree the Arabic wikipedia is mistaken in naming their article "massacre", but their mistake is their mistake: this is EnWiki... don't inter-wiki forum shop :D.

Your argument on "murdering" is compelling, but ultimately falicious in this context: no one (serious) here is saying that we call these events "massacre". In an article about someone charged with murder, we ar enot allowed to call the person a "murderer" that is true. But we are allowed to say that the prosecutor called the subject a "murderer". It doesn't make it true or biased, it simply describes accurately the views of the prosecutor.

Likewise, this article describes these events as "Operation Cast Lead", a description not accepted by one side of the events, but significant nevertheless and we must mention it in the lead/lede/intro because it is the the description given by one side. We must give due weight consideration to the "massacre" name, provided it is well sourced and verifiably an official claim - we had some issue with false sourcing - and will accept sources in any language provided they verify (it is trivial to find verification in other languages, even rough online translations are enough). Nuetrality requires that we do, as it would be like the prosecutor's description of a person accused of murder, but whose guilt has not been proven.--Cerejota (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic Misplaced Pages, as any Misplaced Pages, is not a source - it relies on sources. It doesn't suppose to have an opinion or express an opinion of its own. By calling the events in Gaza "massacre" they breach the basic rules of Misplaced Pages in any language. The fact that many Arab sources use this terminology doesn't make it okay to call the Arabic article "the Gaza Massacre". By having an interwiki to this Arabic article we (indirectly) acknowledge the Arabic Misplaced Pages improper judgment. While I don't expect English speaking Wikipedians to get involved in the Arabic Misplaced Pages, I do expect them to say: we will not link the article "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". We cannot suggest that these two articles are equivalent. We could mention in the body of the English article that there are Arab source that use this terminology, but our message to our Arabic speaking colleagues is: write a real equivalent article, and then we will interlink. You are part of the Misplaced Pages project and not another Arab source. DrorK (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to DroK,I note that linking to all Misplaced Pages articles is vital to indicate various approaches to covering an issue. The best that the English Misplaced Pages can do is indicate the questions arising in relation to the Arabic version. Not to link would be to close a door on an information source .Any item that provides information, whatever the origin of that information,is a source, even if only a source at a third or fourth remove.

We need more information on the different Palestinian factions involved in the fighting

The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source, , the factions involved include:

• the Qassam Brigades, affiliated with Hamas
• the Abu Ali Mustapha Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with the (secular, leftist) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Other sources: )
• the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with (secular) Fatah
• Saraya al-Quds, affiliated with Islamic Jihad

The author, a Palestinian in Gaza, notes that news is disseminated through these armed wings of the various political parties and states that "One thing is widely recognised - the attack on Gaza has brought all armed resistance groups together."

According to this source, , in addition to hose listed above, other groups involved in the fighting include:

• The "An-Nasser Salah Addin Brigades"
• The "National Resistance Brigades", affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
• the Popular Resistance Committees
• a previously unknown group called the "Eagles of Palestine"

I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article. Tiamut 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing. Even though they are considered under Hamas, I am not entirely sure that they aren't a separate entity. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom sees them as separate, List of designated terrorist organizations, so does Hamas itself, and so does the RS consensus as per wikipedia having a separate article. The United States sees them as the same, as do some other countries.--Cerejota (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

cash

Very minor edit needed in cash section - 400 mil NIS is approx. $100 mil , and not bil (as currently stated). the source also claims $100 mil, not bil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.19.88 (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed itJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: Shall we split 'Development' into a new section?

Someone has proposed 'Timeline of the conflict'. I would propose something like 'Military action in the 2008-2009 Conflict'

Anyway lets get a consensus here about whether it should be moved. I think it would be best because(as mentioned in another post above)the article is now simply too long. Also, it could go on for some time.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

From above: Hate to interrupt the fun here but this article needs to be badly split. At this point the article takes almost 20 seconds to load, which is horrible from a usability standpoint and makes editing extremely difficult. I see there is a proposed split for the development section to "Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". Is there any opposition to this or better split strategies? If not I'm inclined to go ahead and do it. BJ 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs)

I support "Timeline of the " per Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war and others. BJ 14:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got the timeline template ready to go once a few people comment on this. BJ 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with lead section

(1) 'This is the deadliest conflict since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election in 2006.'

This is wrong for all sorts of reasons. The deadliest conflict in the world? The deadliest conflict between the two. Well, yes. But 'deadliest' is a superlative, implying a series of conflicts: Israel killed 830 odd Gazans by individual missile strikes and targeted assasinations from 2006 to 2007. That was an ongoing conflict culminating in the invasion now underway, and that was, so far, more deadly. This one is certainly more destructive. Whatever, it is just an ugly sentence, adds nothing to the text, and pads the lead with dull, pointless prose. I suggest it be considered for removal. Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I tried to take out all the adjectives in front of Hamas and must have messed up the already messed-up phrasing. I agree and removed "deadliest conflict" as we have figures in graph three that illustrate that. RomaC (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(2) We read.'A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008. Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and Israel blamed Hamas for increased rocket fire directed at southern Israeli towns and communities.' ref.21 reads:

'Humanitarian aid. Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire on Friday, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the blockade under which little more than humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza'.

Our text limits this to the blockade. The source says the blockade lifting was one of the terms of the truce, among others which Israel, according to Hamas, had not respected. The nuance is important.

We need also an article on the terms of the truce brokered between Hamas and Israel. Anyone?Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(3) 'Hamas-operated security installations' is repeated twice. The 'Hamas-operated' is a rather unsubtle attempt to condition the reader's negative associations of Hamas with some shady illegal terrorist group, and is in any case pleonastic. All of the administration of Gaza is operated by Hamas, since that body was elected to govern ther territory by the Gazan population in free elections. We know that, and harping on 'Hamas-operated' is rather ridiculous. All areas hit by Qassams are 'Israel-operated', but we don't say that, as we shouldn't qualify the infrastructure hit as 'Hamas-operated'. The adjective therefore is redundant, and insinuates an image of irregularity where there was none. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(4)'Hamas had decreased the amount of rocket and mortar attacks during the cease-fire period, and has renewed them, increasing the distance of attacks to as far away as 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Gaza border.'

- Who's the clunk responsible for this? Each sentence should be sourced precisely. This one isn't. 'Decreased the amount'? is question begging. Hamas has consistently asserted, rightly or wrongly, that it withheld rocket and mortar attacks when the truce was made, and those that did occur either were launched by non-Hamas elements, or by Hamas as a retaliation for an Israeli violation of that truce. 'Decrease' is editorializing. It suspended mortar and rocket attacks after the truce came into effect. It 'resumed' them (we require a precise time line for the truce period, with Israeli and Hamas shootings in chronological order). In any case, the passage is an editorial construction, since it is not directly sourced, and no evidence therefore exists, until 'decreased the amount' type of phrasing is given for the passage. If no RS source is available to underline the text, it should be elided as padding.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(5)'The IDF started massing infantry and armor units near the Gaza border and engaged in an active blockade of Gaza.[41).

If you read the source, the China News note 41, there is no mention of an 'active blockade', which thus emerges as another editorial intrusion. In any case, this is also false since Gaza had been actively blockaded long before the military assault began. The words therefore should be removed. Indeed the source should be substituted, as marginal. Many of the previous sources note the massing of infantry units. There is, as per Occam's razor, no need to multiply sources uselessly.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(6)'On 3 January 2009, a ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.'

As per notes 42, and 43, that should be 'entering the Gaza Strip'. The city of Gaza, like Khan Younis, has not yet been breeched, but these places are surrounded. One must distinguish Gaza the town, from Gaza the strip, invariably. Otherwise one misdescribes the battle by confusing an area with a point in that area.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(7) The quote from Livni (that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is "completely as it should be".) is unsourced, either by the preceding note 51 or the following note 52. In the interi,m, the wording has toned her comment down. Livni said Israel keeps the 'humanitarian situation (crisis) as it should be', she didn't note that 'oh, this is how it happens to be, and we approve'). She said on the 2 Jan.'"In this operation, Israel distinguishes (between) the war against terror, against Hamas members, from the civilian population. In doing so, we keep the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip completely as it should be."

That is the precise wording, 'we keep' has dropped out, and the source has been lost. An RS for the statement is James Hider, Hamas rockets threaten Israel's N-plan, The Australian January 03, 2009 Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead discussions are supposed to happen at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead.VR _talk 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off. I'll repost it there.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

I have no experience finding and uploading photographs that are acceptable for use on Wiki, but I would imagine by now someone would have made some "copyleft" images available from inside Gaza. We have two pics from inside Israel, I'd hope we could add pictures from Gaza. Can anyone help get some, or point me in the right direction? RomaC (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

flirck search for "gaza" CC only, taken after Dec 1st, mostly protests. BJ 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but the problem with those is most are not really creative commons, as was discovered a couple of days ago when an editor here removed several soon after they were posted, citing news stories where they'd run with photo credits different from the flickr credits. RomaC (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. flickr is the source of a great deal of our images, Misplaced Pages editors being the next largest. I wouldn't expect internet access to be great there at the moment, except for foreigners and journalists. BJ 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be introducing a systemic bias into the article not to rigorously maintain a balance in the picture counts - even if that means a balance of zero. The nature of the assault means that royalty free images are much more likely to come from Israel than Gaza because of the much greater danger and friction of war in Gaza. Simply including images on an impromptu basis is a bad policy because we're not at all guaranteed to ever find an appropriate copyleft image from Gaza.--Chikamatsu (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest we delete the two Israeli photographs? I generally don't favor deleting content and prefer adding or editing but I don't have a lot of experience with photographs, and I see your point. I did notice the French and German Wikis are not using the Israeli damage pictures that we are, even the Hebrew Wiki isn't. RomaC (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the one of the man inspecting rocket damage should perhaps be removed because it doesn't add much value and it might alleviate concerns of imbalance a little bit. The other one seems okay to me. We do desperately need some images that actually show what's happening on both sides. I wonder if screenshots from news reports might be okay under these restrictive circumstances. Perhaps someone knows ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Even better, perhaps one of the Israeli editors here could pop across the border, take some photos, make some friends/build-bridges while you're there and send us the photos. It's win-win.Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're a funny guy, Sean. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

new section: Media Coverage and War Propaganda

I am gathering information and references about the media coverage of the conflict. I would like to review this new section outline with you before posting it:

1. Coverage by Region
   1. Arab World
   2. Europe
   3. Israel
   4. United States
2. War Propaganda
   1. Israel
   2. Hamas
   3. Others (if any of course)

I am not sure about employing the term Propaganda (at the same time it is the most used term among the majority of sources), is there other alternatives? Bestofmed (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Be careful with OR and synthesis bias. I am not opposed to this, but I think this is something that is not being significantly being covered by any reliable news sources, and mostly the purvey of partisan blogs and publications. I think we should concentrated on the medular affairs of the conflict, at least until it is over and the fog of war lifts, and academic sources emerge that provide appropiate RS synthesis. Otherwise, we would be pulling this out of our asses. And when you pull out something from your ass, it usually stinks. :D --Cerejota (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gathering is different from contribution, in other words no OR. The sources which I am relying on are not of bloggers or partisans. I am making sure each source respects the Verifiability policy. I relatively agree with you on waiting until the fog of war lifts (valid sources are still scarce about this topic at the time of writing) but that does not mean if any fact (supported by figures and/or agreed sources) cannot be included for the moment. Anyway, I am not in harry, that is why I started this talk section. I will include any possible edits here to reach a preconsensus before posting them to avoid anything that stinks ;). Bestofmed (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Well... That's going to be a difficult one. I would advise you to unite the two subsections. That should make it more organised, and have the additional bounty of avoiding the word 'propaganda'. You might want to use a bit of the information I posted on this Talk page, section on CNN. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article that would be useful to this kind of discussion.Israel waging battle to control information:

"And so for an 11th day of Israel's war in Gaza, the several hundred journalists here to cover it wait in clusters away from direct contact with any fighting or Palestinian suffering but with full access to Israeli political and military commentators eager to show them around southern Israel where Hamas rockets have been terrorizing civilians. A slew of private groups funded mostly by Americans are helping guide the press around Israel.

Like all wars, this one is partly about public relations. But unlike any war in Israel's history, in this one, the government is seeking to control entirely the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy." Tiamut 17:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Another good source is Propaganda war: trusting what we see?:

"Israel released video of an air attack on 28 December, which appeared to show rockets being loaded onto a truck. The truck and those close to it were then destroyed by a missile.

...

It turned out, however, that a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur, claimed that the truck was his and that he and members of his family and his workers were moving oxygen cylinders from his workshop." Tiamut 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I *strongly* recommend using the current media section for such content (we don't want multiple sections on the same content in an already long article). I also suggest that this should be kept as brief as possible, not going into unnecessarily detail. If you feel more needs to be covered, then you can always create an article on the matter.VR _talk 18:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I second. Which is why I proposed to not make subsections. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Individual casualties

Are we still listing individual non-notable casualties, I.E.Staff Sergeant Dvir Emmanueloff, or did we decide notable only?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable, as in Ariel Sharon?

By the way, I hold no names should be mentioned. While he was still the only one, naming was still excusable, but not any more. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No disrespect intended. I mean we need to not start listing all the casualties as it will soon get out hand.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But actually yes, as we mentioned Muhammad Hilou and Mohammed Shalpokh who were Hamas commanders, as oppossed to listing Hamas rank-and-file. Should that not pertain to IDF personnel also?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And Tawfiq Jabber, the head of Hamas’ security and protection unit--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a big difference between naming casualties when they are high ranking officers, or when they are just soldiers or even citizens. If an Israeli high ranking commander would be killed, it might be worth noting his name, but anyone ranking under Colonel, should probably not be mentioned by name. I don't know how are the Hamas/brigades ranks work, but I think that when both Israeli and international media report names, it means they were high ranked officers (or whatever their equivalent is). -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the argument of the previous user most persuasive. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is especially because Gaza officials have released names for 187 casualties.VR _talk 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What about naming those who have unfortunally lost limbs or suffer trauma. Surely they are more important. They have to live in suffering. Those who are dead are gone. Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Counting the Women and Children Killed

Refer to #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting for background on my criticisms. We have figures available for women and children dead (Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=940). They currently stand at 101 children and 37 women. This is not being reported in the info box or in the casualty section (which still has the child death count at 75 with no mention of women killed). For the first time we have a source that ventures a "civilian" estimate that I assume includes men, though this is not clear. This is apparently from the Palestinian MOH according to press articles.

There needs to be a footnote or a section in the casualties stating that the accounting practices have systematically excluded men in civilian counts to establish the proper context of ALL civilian death counts that don't explicitly state they are including men. Up until the MOH claiming "200 civilians dead" no one had made a total estimate of civilian deaths, the UN in fact was referring simply to women and children killed. It's not clear to me that the MOH is doing anything different as I cannot read arabic and I cannot check their own words. The UN, has not yet released its situation report for the day but as of 1/05 they were only citing figures of Total deaths and women and children deaths.

I've been arguing this for days and despite strong support in the above section on Casualty Accounting the Article page does not reflect these suggestions. An autoconfirmed member needs to take the lead and clarify the situation on casualty accounting. Again the two main primary sources for casualties are:

UN: http://www.ochaopt.org/ (check most current situation report PDF) Al-Mezan: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php

And #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting contains my full criticism of our presentation of casualty figures.

Thrylos000 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox edit

Wandersage made this edit in the infobox. He removed a source, as well as combined "military and police", which is not appropriate. He also changed "Gaza officials" (more precise) to the more ambiguous "Palestinian estimate". I disagree with all of the above edits.VR _talk 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The question whether or not military and police should be united, has been debated before. I do not remember if any consensus was reached.
I could argue that such a decision might depend on their actual function in Gaza. I mean to say that if police takes part in the struggle against the Israeli army, they should be for all purposes considered as combatants.
A more compelling argument might be the convention used by sources. If they take police and military together, we don't really have that much choice.

As to whether to use "Gaza officials" or "Palestinian estimate" I have no real argument. In this case I would favor "Palestinian estimate", since Gaza is not a political entity in itself. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The official source for "Palestinian estimate" is the Palestinian Ministry of Health and should be cited formally as such. It is not a general "Palestinian estimate" but a number directly from the Ministry of Health. It is cited as such in all UN documents. Also the fact that Israeli injured includes shock victims was edited out. I implore everyone to review my general criticisms of casualty accounting for Palestinians and implement the changes I have argued for as not a single person has argued against them. We have good numbers for women and children killed, they should be included, we have good sources indicating that civilian counts only included women and children this should be noted.

Thrylos000 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed to mention that 'wounded' included shock-victims.
So now the question is, should the Palestinian Ministry of Health be qouted as 'Gaza officials' or as 'Palestinian sources'. I still prefer the second. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We agreed, and yet it had been edited out of the article. The Palestinian Ministry of Health should be quoted as the Palestinian Ministry of Health and nothing more or less. No reason to be more ambiguous that necessary. We have an explicit source, so our citing of that source should be explicit. Someone needs to edit the infobox and casualty sections to restore the note on shock victims and to update the number of women and children killed. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Go with my blessing, my son. :) Debresser (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Waiting to be autoconfirmed, in the mean time it would be good for someone with sufficient user access to take initiative here... Thrylos000 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok how about "Ministry of Health (Palestinian)". I linked it as "MoH" a very common abbreviation, and linked it to Ministry of Health (Palestinian).VR _talk 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding policemen and military, they are coming from two different sources. I wouldn't combine them, just as I wouldn't combine policemen (often considered 'civil servants') with civilians. The policemen, according to the source, were killed the first day of strikes, mostly while in the police station, so they were not KIA. I'll separate them.VR _talk 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• The military figure is not by MoH, nor the UN or media sources, but rather claimed by IDF. I'm wondering if you should quote it in the infobox at all, given that Hamas has made parallel claims as to how many IDF soldiers it has killed. Hamas has also claimed that a lot less of its soldiers (around 10) have been killed.VR _talk 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian legislative council building in Ramallah

Please remove archive picture from (undamaged) palestinian building. This building is not located in the Gaza strip but in the West Bank (see mogamma (Mogamma (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Palestinian school massacre by Israelis

Can someone add that the people in the school were families taking refuge and many of the targeted massacred people were children?? The article is locked to me, otherwise I would add this information myself. --Learsi si natas (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is already in (unless someone removed it, and apart from the word "massacre") as well as the IDF arguments that Palestinian militants were firing mortars from within the school grounds.--Omrim (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the people being families and no mention that many of the victims are children.--Learsi si natas (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not call things massacre here. That language is uncalled for.VR _talk 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion precisely. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? An American student walks into an American school and shoots dead 15 people, and that event is called a massacre. This slaughtering of families in this school is a massacre. The obvious doesn't need to be stated, everyone knows what it is without me telling them. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Another point for you Mr. I got to be a politically correct Muslim so people can tolerate me, the phrase "That language is uncalled for" can be used if I had said the Israelis are Satanist, not when I call their butchering of families a massacre. It is a suitable name. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that yours does not seem to be the majority opinion, from muslims and jews alike. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My arguments would be that 1. The IDF has consistently claimed Hamas combatants were in hiding in that building, so that any non-combatants killed would have to be considered 'collateral damage'. 2. A 'massacre' implies the intend to massacre. We're talking about war here, my friend. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that the an IDF sergeant getting killed from that building indicates it to be something else besides just a place of learning. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A point worth mentioning is that according to the 4th Geneva Convention, the presence of a protected person (civilian) does not lend protection to a place used for any military activity - the presence of a protected person in such a place does not prevent an attack on said place, and the protected person is no longer protected. Meaning - if the school was used for military activity (firing at Israeli forces) - it's fair game, regardless of civilians there. Usually the Geneva conventions are mentioned when criticizing Israel. Somehow, I don't see people talking about the conventions now... okedem (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The strike on the UN school is obviously and extremely significant event, since it is the major news item on most news outlets. Earlier it had it's own sub-heading in the Jan 6th heading, but that has been deleted. I think that is likely to be people trying to de-emphasise the event, probably for POV reasons. I suggest the sub-heading goes back in. Fig (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put the subheading back in. I think this is worthy of its own section, if the Dignity incident is.217.43.237.159 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They were sacrificed for the greater good. It is impossible to conduct a war without civilian deaths. We have to just accept that these tradegies happen. Chesdovi (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

French TV airs photos billed as damage from Cast Lead, actually from 2005

I think it should have a room somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? suggestions? --Omrim (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a mistake to me, one that should not be repeated here.VR _talk 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I second. This is just too small of a detail IMHO. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference UN_RFalk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Weiner, Justus Reid (2008-12-25). "International Law and the Fighting in Gaza". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-01-03. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. Desperate Haitians Survive on Mud Cookies, CBS News

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press