Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 17

Smiley Face in Protest Photo Still POV
I still think that dual photo with the Israel rally and big smiley face is just a making fun of the death and destruction Israel is engaged in and therefore highly POV. (Remember the original caption was extremely POV and had to be removed.) There already are a number of good rally photos on wikimedia here. I just added a couple more general ones without "unverified" shots. 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow what you mean. The photos show an actual event and both sides seem to be expressing their own POV. e.g. smiley face vs facist state ? It seems balanced to me. I will say though that the image is way to big for most people with a internet connection on this planet to be able look at in a sensible download time.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with anon. It's not appropriate for the same reason that pretending that a bearded man with a poster 'Kill all Juice' is suitable to represent protestors. Let's only cite mainstream representations of each side. The Squicks (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sean.hoyland. I think the photo pair does a good job of presenting the disparity of views.  This is one time when I cannot agree with Carolmooredc: I see no attempt by either party to make fun of death and destruction.  The smiley face reads "Israel wishes you a terror-free day".  This states succinctly exactly what the Israel supporters believe -- that Operation Cast Lead is well-intentioned part of a noble "War on Terror". NonZionist (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas military activity" section
Who on earth has been editing the "Hamas military activity" section? It is dreadful - it reads like it was written by a 7 year-old and is full of garbage. Is it really worth suggesting that Hamas's military tactics include: "Hamas' tactics to confuse the Israeli military include [...], not walking about in groups, and spreading false informations."[sic]. Come on guys, sort this out. This article improves and deteriorates like the ebb and flow of the tide right now... Fig (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm quite poetic. nice. we do seem to have a problem with 7 year old apocalypse now fans so your comment is duly noted.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fig, you're referring to a subsection being worked on, I believe, by Skapperod. While I agree to a certain extent with your criticism, I strongly urge you to be civil and avoid throwing around words like "garbage". If you want to make edits, make them. If you want to offer specific criticism, make it. I created the subsections "Rocket attacks" and "internecine warfare", also included in this section. If you have any constructive criticism on how to improve these subsections, I will be happy to hear them. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can it be prepared in a sandbox and reviewed on the talk page before adding to the article please ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Internecine conflict subsection: the one reference is fine for now, since the reporter cites multiple sources for her information. Haaretz is a perfectly good reliable source, and Amira Hass in particular has a long history of reporting the affairs in Gaza from the Palestinian perspective, so I wouldn't worry about the accuracy. Nevertheless, I will look for other sources. I will also drastically edit the other subsections, and then if anyone has a problem with the result they can take it up here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am sorry but the entire section is written poorly and is neither neutral nor properly sourced. For example, the subsection on internecine conflict was earlier removed after discussions. It contains the allegation that Hamas executed 40-80 Fatah 'collaborators'. Now, this is an extremely strong claim and there is no source for this claim except for a couple of Israeli media reports that quote unnamed sources and themselves state that this figure cannot be verified. The Haaretz journalist who wrote this report is herself reported to have said the editors sensationalized her headline. see here. Now, strong claims like this (40-80 fatalities is a very large number between 4-8% of the entire fatalities) require multiple strong and neutral sources. User:Jalapenos do exist seems not to have attempted to do that at all. In addition, there is text like "Gruesome television pictures have also been part of the plan, as Hamas hopes the West will take it seriously as a negotiating partner after the current escalation of violence" and then this prominent quote from an Israeli soldier which starts with "Hamas was playing cat and mouse ..."
 * I think the entire section should be removed and, as Sean says, discussed first on the talk page, improved and only then be put back on the article. I'll do this in a little while unless there are strong objections here. (At the very least the section on internecine conflict can go, unless the editor who put that in can provide multiple neutral reliable sources for it here. Since, such sources have not been produced in the past, I doubt they'll turn up now). Jacob2718 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to removing the entire section, since (a) it's obvious that a section on the military activity of a side in a conflict is necessary, and (b) such a move falsely lumps an entire section together and risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
 * Please look for other sources. Pending that, please remove the section on internecine conflict. The article you refers to provides the 40-80 figure with the following text:

Estimates of the number of suspects executed range from 40 to 80, but amid the prevailing conditions shelling, fear of walking the streets and media blackouts it is virtually impossible to verify the numbers or identities of the dead.
 * In addition, the journalist who wrote this story seems to have herself complained that the editors distorted it. I re-iterate that the claim that Hamas executed 40-80 people is an extremely strong claim; one would expect such an event to receive widespread publicity. To include it in the article, we need  multiple, neutral and reliable sources. The source here, published only in the Israeli media by a journalist who disclaims her story and relies on unnamed witnesses, claims the toll cannot be verified meets none of those criteria. Please remove this section for now and later, if the requisite references turn up, it can go back in. thanks, Jacob2718 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, the journalist who wrote this story seems to have herself complained that the editors distorted it. I re-iterate that the claim that Hamas executed 40-80 people is an extremely strong claim; one would expect such an event to receive widespread publicity. To include it in the article, we need  multiple, neutral and reliable sources. The source here, published only in the Israeli media by a journalist who disclaims her story and relies on unnamed witnesses, claims the toll cannot be verified meets none of those criteria. Please remove this section for now and later, if the requisite references turn up, it can go back in. thanks, Jacob2718 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I drastically edited the problematic subsections mentioned by Fig and Sean, but the original version was restored by Jake Wartenberg without discussion, and now it's sitting alongside my version, so it's now redundant besides its other problems. I will presently revert once, but will not be dragged into an edit war. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jalapenos do exist. If so, (edited as agreed here, only to find the original reverted), I think that it would be better to adopt the original suggestion, remove it wholly, since several editors have remarked on its inadequacy, and paste it here. We can do a quick review of it, co-edit, and, since this would be a consensual version, it could then be reposted on that basis, and thus not subject to wild reverts. Just a suggestion Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone has problems with the wording/grammar, please improve and do not delete. The sources are good (The Times and Der Spiegel), and a section about Hamas military actions and war aims is badly needed. Expand/improve. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. Why should we segregate information about war aims into its own neat little section? Why can't that info go into the already ready sections such as 'Background' and so on? Let's fine the comments by the two source, which I think should be citied somewhere, in the already existing sections. The Squicks (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to restore my version in two edits, but in the middle was reverted by Skapperod. As I said, I will not make any further revert so as not to get into what could look like an edit war. As for what needs to be done. This section has three parts, let's deal with them one by one. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Rocket attacks: nobody in this discussion or anywhere else has raised any complaint about it, so there's no reason to do anything to it. Terrific, thanks.
 * 2) Internecine fighting: Jacob has argued that it should be removed until further sources can be found, as it currently is based on a single source. I disagreed in principle, and separately from that, am now looking for furhter sources. We can discuss this and reach consensus, but by that time I may have simply found additional sources and everyone will be happy.
 * 3) Everything else: several editors have said that this is badly written and partially irrelevant, and I agree. I have an alternate version ready, but I can't put it in because of reverts.

In the "Israeli offense" section, we have a subsection "Objectives". Why shouldn't we have something similar in the Hamas section? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's more along the line of what I'm thinking. The Squicks (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been asking for help in drafting such a section on Palestinian militants and their tactics. We to cover the different factions involved in the fighting too, as listed here. There's also a section on tunneling on that page, which should definitely be part of the tactics section. I was waiting for people to respond before adding more info. Maybe we should do it all in sandbox? before adding it here?  T i a m u t talk 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any inherent problem with adding in sources piece-by-piece, incrementally. The Squicks (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the end I replaced the "urban warfare tactics" subsection with my ready-made "Engagement with IDF ground forces" subsection. The content is practically the same, but I think my version is a bit clearer. I hope this is acceptable to you, Skapperod, and to the others in this discussion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I would like to go ahead and remove the section on internecine fighting. If you find additional sources, please put it back in. I remember this discussion from a few days ago. The Jerusalem Post published a similar story which, if my memory serves me right, relied on an unnamed source said to be close to Hamas! This story has simply not been repeated by neutral mainstream media outlets that are covering the story in detail and while it may or may not be true, it involves too serious an allegation to be included without multiple neutral sources. Second, the section on war aims is ridiculous. The section reads: "Gruesome television pictures have also been part of the plan". On what basis did the writer in Der Spiegel make this inference? No justification is provided. The writer is entitled to his/her personal opinion but this is hardly verifiable content. The Times article that is cited includes the line:"With an easy smile that masks his fanaticism", which gives away its lack of neutrality. Moreover, this article gives no justification for claiming that the capture of a soldier is a top priority. Once again, if we want to make statements about "top priorities" of Hamas, we need better sources ... preferably sources that report on what Hamas has to say directly. For all these reasons, I'm about to remove subsection 3.3 and 3.4. If they are better sourced and rewritten they can go back in. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly support the removals. I also found the content under the sub-headings to be mismatched. We also need to list the different factions involved, their forces and capabilities, aims, tactics, etc. It's hard to find this information. I'm still looking. This site for the Qassam brigades provides their aims in their words . Can we use such sources?  T i a m u t talk 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done - the re-organisation is a big improvement! :-) Fig (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright with me, though of course still in need of further expansion. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we really use the term "truce" for Israel's 3 hours a day of one-sided non-agression?
Hi, I am curious if it is OK for us to copy and paste the word "truce" that the IDF uses for the 3 hours a day. I think a truce has to be an agreement from both sides, not just one side deciding not to attack. Am I correct? Would there be better terms to use instead? I think it might be better to re-write the 3 hour truce sub-section by specifying the difference between what the IDF is offering (a 3 hour pause in hostility from their side for humanitarian purposes), and what they are calling it (a truce, a 2-sided agreement).althena (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A truce is, well, whatever someone labels a truce. If Hamas had completely fought back, that would not make it 'not a truce'. That would make it a 'failed truce'. As such, Hamas hardly did anything during that period- which makes it a 'partly failed and partly successful truce'. The Squicks (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Squicks, although a it is hard to label it a truce exactly, since neither party is directly talking to the other. V. Joe (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Althena. If we're going to use "truce" it should be clear that's the IDF name for it. Israel announcing a 3-hour suspension of its strikes after it was heavily criticized by human rights organizations for failing to provide them with safe access to the dead and wounded, isn't a truce.  T i a m u t talk 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Israel's reasons or motives change nothing with regards to the name of those events. It seems news sources happily use the word "truce" for it, and it is appropriate, so there's no reason not to use it. okedem (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree - truce, according to m-w, is "a suspension of fighting especially of considerable duration by agreement of opposing forces"

this was simply a suspension of bombing by israel and should be stated as such. Untwirl (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to waltz in, but, erm, may I suggest, you know, we chack, what the sources say? I mean, "V" around here is not for vendetta... :D--Cerejota (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "pause in fighting" seems to be pretty popular. "truce" is being used to refer to the proposals to put an end to the fighting and not the "three-hour lull", as it is also being commonly called.
 * And by the way, the "lull" seems to apply only to Gaza City. See this source: Gaza: Medical Personnel Unable to Enter  T i a m u t talk 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the most logical choice be the word "pause"? That seems like the most accurate term. Neither side really agreed to anything or really changed anything. It was like listening to CD playing that suddenly skips. The Squicks (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Israeli news channels and websites it was called "opening a humanitarian corridor". --62.0.136.146 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier, I've altered the wording slightly to reflect the concensus here that truce is inaccurate. Props to whoever noted the definition of truce in the first para. Superpie (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can the Arabs call it The Gaza Massacre, based on Arabic from one member here, the we can say "What Israel calls 'opening a humanitarian corridor." You can see several (reliable0 references to that expression here   From the Jerusalem Post, Voice of America and AFP for starters.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a three hour ceasefire on the Israeli side because of pressure from humanitarian perspectives. In this sense, its undoubtedly a humanitarian ceasefire. It is not POV to describe it as such. Superpie (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli attempts to reduce Gazan civilian casualties
How about by stopping to bomb and shell Palestinian neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals! I really have a problem with this section since it is very similar to the psychological warfare section present here previously. Is this section neutral?--23prootie (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that numerous reliable sources have alleged that Hamas is hiding in civilian areas/buildings/clothes/etc is notable while Israel is taking care to seperate them out rather than doing what usually happens in total war is notable and thus must be mentioned. This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report. The Squicks (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are we depending on IDF sources for civilian count on the Gaza side? They are not counting Gazan bodies, they are too busy running them over with tanks . --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why stop bombing? If anything more bombs show be dropped in Palestinian neighborhoods, true victory will not be reached until one side is completely destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.58.203.31 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Who are these people who hang around Wikipedia talk pages and every once in a while anonymously grace us with their opinions? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand you may not agree with me, but I have every right to voice my option as you do!!!!


 * wikipedia is not a forum. helohe (talk)  20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It sure looks like a forum to me!

Reverse the renaming of "Gaza Humanitarian Crisis" section to "Effects on Gazans"
We have 20 UN OCHA reports, 2 UN security council meetings, several Amnesty International reports, Human Rights Watch reports, and the International Red Cross reports, all of them calling it a "humanitarian crisis". Renaming this section is not acceptable. There's no room to debate something reported by about 30 official reports. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was the one who changed it to "Effects on Gazans". As I said in my edit summary at the time, I agree that the situation is widely considered a humanitarian crisis; I think that fact is evident from the content in the beginning of the section; my problem is that much of the content in the section does not deal with a humanitarian crisis, and putting the title "humanitarian crisis" before it all falsely implies that everything that follows constitutes elements of a humanitarian crisis. (Yes, I actually said all this, briefly, in the edit summary! It's amazing what you can cram in there.) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The only section that might not seem humanitarian is money, but then that's what people need for food and water... CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 17 UN OCHA reports include the banknotes shortage as a crisis. OCHA = Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with a broad focus? Calling it "effects on Gazans' means that we can include information about money supplies, about the disruption of the normal lives of Gazans, about recruitment of people to fight, and so on. The Squicks (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Squirks, This is not broader focus, this is understating a situation widely and internationally and formally reported. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not debating the nature of the situation. I'm just asking why, in the purposes of categorization, we can't have a section about all effects on Gaza residents- including non-humanitarian related effects. The Squicks (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm thinking, too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "humanitarian crisis" is one of the most reported facts of the war in all the world organizations. It shall not be understated under a section named "effects". --Darwish07 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darwish. "Effects" is a weasel-word -- an abstract euphemistic evasion.  "Effects" can be positive or negative, but since there are no positive effects, the term fails to summarize the situation appropriately.  Call it what it is: a "humanitarian catastrophe".  Let's not mince words. NonZionist (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * NonZionist: stop poisoning the well, please. There is not a snowball's chance in hell it will ever be named "humanitarian catastrophe", and you mentioning it is a way to troll pro-Israeli editors. Many of us are tired of such blatant soapboxing. Its not cute, and its against house rules. --Cerejota (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "humanitarian catastrophe" is Original research. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and getting back to the issue at hand. Darwish, let me reassure you that nobody is denying, debating or seeking to sweep under the carpet the fact that the situation in Gaza is widely held to be a humanitarian crisis. Nor has anyone challenged the ample sources attesting to that fact in the beginning of the section. The issue is that naming the entire section "humanitarian crisis" restricts that section to dealing only with elements of a humanitarian crisis, and not with other significant effects that do not constitute part of the HC. Carol has mentioned the issue of cash; I would add the danger to medical personnel and psychological issues, which do not per se constitute elements of a HC. Even if you disagree and consider everything currently in the section to be elements of a HC, surely you would agree that there are other things that we may want to add to the section in the future that would not fall in that category. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jalapenos, first sorry for the late reply. The whole point of HC getting a whole section is noticeability. If we're going to name the sections "Effects on Gaza", "Effects on Southern Israeli", "Effect on Forigners", then we're implying that the problems are of similar severities nature. I understand the suffering of Southern Israelis but it's not comparable to the situation in Gaza, irrespective of who's responsible about that, I'm not talking about politics. The crisis in Gaza is overwhelmingly reported by media and the UN that it undeniably needs its own section. If there's a lot of data that needs to be added which is not related to HC, let's create new sections for them. I really assume AGF from your side, but I believe renaming the section from "crisis" to "effects" is a severe underestimation and something that does not correctly sample the media we're supposedly reflecting (namely; the UN reports in such case). --Darwish07 (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * About the "cash" paragraph, and as I said before, it's reported as part of the humanitarian crisis in 17 UN humanitarian reports. This undeniably proves that the UN considers it a part of the humanitarian crisis. I think this should not be debated anymore as we're supposed to reflect the media, not to reflect our own deductions and theories. The primary media that describes the Humanitarian Crisis to all the world news agencies has included the banknotes shortage as part of the humanitarian crisis on 18 consecutive days. This is enough support. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, Darwish, this is clearly a pretty sensitive issue for you, so I'd rather not stay invloved. Let me just reaffirm that this was only ever a pure issue of categorization, not of semantics. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unusual call for you Cerejota, and Darwish07, 'humanitarian catastrophe' is not an infraction of WP:OR. It's quite an acceptable term, used by government officials, UN reps to describe conditions there at least since 2006, when Jan Egeland and Jan Eliasson, in their article,'La catastrophe humaine de Gaza est une bombe à retardement', was carried in Le Figaro,(Paris) 28 September 2006. Egeland is the the UN Assistant Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs and Coordinator of Emergency Aid. Jan Eliasson is Sweden's Foreign Affairs Minister and former (1992-1994) UN Assistant Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs. It was picked up by Mearsheimer and Walt in their controversial work, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), who cite this paper ( p.383). Even Tony Blair's used it, according to Hasard, though he tried to fob it off, in his usual Bushy-eyed blathering style, on Hamas, as though they were the only ones to see things as they are. NonZionist was not bloviating (this time!), but sticking to an accredited term among international observers of distinction.Nishidani (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Humanitarian crisis" is more widely used, but "humanitarian disaster" and "humanitarian catastrophe" are also quite common. (Check google news with "gaza" + one of the aforementioned).


 * During the siege there was a "humanitarian crisis", now it's an unequivocal disaster. But since "crisis" is still more widely used, we should probably stick with it.  T i a m u t talk 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, I've always stressed throughout my whole involvement in this article that we should not touch any info outside of the war circle or we will enter a endless loop of debates (how far can we return back?, why pick A but not B?, "A" pro-Israeli fact in 1999 will need a "B" pro-Palestinian fact in 1999, what about "C", is it realated?? and so on). I have a big repository of reports and Press releases in here (~35 files) that call it a crisis. If it was me, I'll call it a "black catastrophe" but I have to stick to the time limit (post 27 December) and the reputable reports within such time limit. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If the name of the section is "Effects on Gazans," could the section be expanded to include other impacts on ordinary Gazans? PinkWorld (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Death-seeking culture
The section on international law included the following paragraph that I have removed In March 2008, a Hamas parliamentarian spoke of a "death-seeking" culture that uses women, children and the elderly as human shields against Israeli military attacks. "The enemies of God do not know that the Palestinian people have developed methods of death and death-seeking," Fathi Hammad said in a speech televised on Hamas' Al-Aqsa television station. "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children," Hammad said. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life,'" he said.[526]

First, as far as I understand this speech doesn't constitute a violation of international law, so I don't know what it was doing in that section. In fact, I know of no section in this article where this will fit in. This article is not a forum for general discussions of the ideology of Hamas or Israel or any of the other groups involved. I hope the editor who inserted this will refrain from edits like this. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This information belongs in the main article for 'Hamas', in my opinion, since it is not specifically related to this conflict and since its well sourced info about the political ideology of a political party. The Squicks (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree it belongs in Hamas or perhaps in Fathi Hammad (if he is notable enough). But not here. I mean, it happened a full 9 months before the events chronicled here. I really dislike these egregious examples of SYNTH popping up. They should be removed on sight, and a note made of why.
 * On the other hand, these are obviously trolling, intended to deviate discussion and irritate pro-Palestinian editors, and bait them into a counter-attack, and then used as justification for further disruption, and on and on. So please do not over react or go all dram when seen. Just remove and explain. Contrary to the real world conflict, no one dies if Wikipedia gets edited, and you can always revert. If the behavior continues, report it as vandalism. --Cerejota (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong here, and it almost certainly doesn't belong in the Hamas article either. We have one very angry MP making claims about the intentions of others - so? It's not so unusual to have this even in established democracies, let alone someone serving for probably the first and only time in a brand new democracy. It's inclusion as if "this is the ideology of Hamas" makes it appear as if this article is being edited by ultra-partisans. The deputy Prime Minister of Israel said he'd find the buses to transport 1000s of Palestinians to the Dead Sea and drown them there - is that the policy of Israel? He said that 90 percent of Israel's one million Arabs would "have to find a new Arab entity" in which to live beyond Israel's borders - do we include that when discussing Israel's many wars? He's been quoted saying "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers ...at noon we'll bomb their gas stations...at two we'll bomb their banks...." - why's that not in this article? It's all much, much more relevant than what Fathi Hammad said! PRtalk 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Avigdor Lieberman has the buses info as cite #21, and Indepedent and cite #16. I understand your wider point, but it is irrelevant to wikipedia: the fact is a Hamas legislator said these things, they are notable, but the legislator has not article in wikipedia, so Hamas is the natural, and logical place to put the info. Not this article. --Cerejota (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no clue what PR is talking about. Clearly, the most reasonable thing to do is to include all fair criticism of all political parties in the fertile cresent area. The Squicks (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

rocket attacks (again)
jalepenos do exist (btw - great name) stated that no one has a problem with that section - actually, i created a section that stated some problems with it. please refer to the section above (re: rocket attacks) to see those issues.

1. the word 'notable'

2. dead links

3. no mention of wounded or casualties

Untwirl (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, and sorry I missed your earlier comments. 1. I agree with you, good call. 2. I'll see what I can do. 3. I didn't want to put that in because it should be covered in the casualties section, but I could be convinced otherwise. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

this page moves so fast i'm surprised anyone can keep up. just think what we could do if we all put all this effort into something useful! ;) the totals do belong in casualties section, but if you look at the sections on israeli offensive, casualty numbers do appear there for individual strikes.  Untwirl (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you just convinced me. You want to add the info? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

not really. :)

the links are dead so i couldn't even if i wanted to. that is actually the first thing that should be fixed or we should probably take this out. i'd like for it to be in if properly sourced. Untwirl (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the content needs to be removed because the link is dead. It's like using books or journals as sources. The source exists, it's just not currently accessible via the internet. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium Shells
For such a claim, we need more (reliable) sources than the Iranian TV. Rabend (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard a lot about this claim in Aljazeera English (TV, not webpages). I'll search for more references. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's Iranian TV doesn't automatically mean it's false. Also I clearly indicated that it was Iranian Government TV to let the reader judge the possible bias of the source. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, yet for such a strong claim, we still need confirmation. Rabend (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Need for sourcing is key, and for V too. But why is this controversial? Depleted uranium is standard munitions of any modern army in the world, and is widely used in armor too. Protestations that it is radioactive are unfounded, and its real harm is as a heavy metal, with similar health effects as lead etc. It is more dangerous than lead because it shatters (being a crystal) and becomes a fine particulate that aerosols and hence its easier to breath than lead... Depleted uranium. And in terms of international law, it is completely legal.

Its mention on this article is as irrelevant as mentioning that "F-16s" or "Apaches" were used: these are things that are assumed of any regular combat using modern military forces. I see nothing interesting in its mention, even if well sourced, and can confused readers who do not know what DU is. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think everybody is as comfortable with depleted uranium being spread around the neighborhood as you are, see for example Campaign Against Depleted Uranium. Erxnmedia (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think DU should be mentioned when it is reported on by reliable sources. While I think Iranian sources are just as good as any others, others here don't. I'll see what I can find on the subject too.  T i a m u t talk 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * www.prisonplanet.com/israel-using-depleted-uranium-against-gaza-victims.html


 * Ha-ha-ha-ha... No. What about Middle East: Israel may be using 'banned' weapons in Gaza from Adnkronos International? The Squicks (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * and what about that: http://newsfrommiddleeast.com/?xstart=b&new=50593 ?


 * This is better http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10274628.html it also mentions DIME. (Hypnosadist )  00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also this from Canada http://www.mcgilldaily.com/article/6491-hyde-park-israel-s-moral-high . (Hypnosadist ) 00:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we avoid using Op-Ed articles as sources? I could easily find dozens of editorials from pro-Isreali people and clog this article with allegations about Hamas. The Squicks (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is shameful really. These people know better. They are using the talk pages as a forum to spread (not, as suggested earlier, "pro-Palestinian", but staightforward "anti-Israel") propaganda. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's shameful is your lack of good faith and you WP:BITE attitude. Some new users are not familiar with WP:RS. Please WP:AGF.  T i a m u t talk 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I half-agree with you TB, I think that you should assume good faith a bit more as Tiamut has said, but AGIF can only go so far with single issue wikipedians who always push the same viewpoint. (No specifics, but some of them are more obvious than always others). V. Joe (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Targeting of medical facilities and personnel
BBC and The Independent both claim that the IDF called a clinic operated by Christian Aid and told them to evacuate in 15 minutes. They then blew it up. Unless someone can prove that they are wrong or are unreliable sources, we must assume that the IDF is targeting medical facilities. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The page is unlocked, read discussions on this matter that are archived and edit accordingly. BTW, there is nothing on this under 'BY ISRAELI FORCES'.  Cryptonio (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC is obviously reliable; I'm not familiar with The Independent, but I have no reason to doubt its reliability. The issue is that what it says in the articles is that (a) the occupants were called and told to leave the building; (b) the building was struck with a missile; (c) the military said that there was terrorist activity nearby. It is not at all clear what exactly happened. To me it seems most likely that the "terrorist activity nearby" was being targeted by missiles, that occupants of surrounding buildings, including the clinic, were warned to leave for fear of an inaccurately fired missile, and that an inaccurately fired missile indeed hit the clinic. To NonZionist another scenario might seem more likely. But none of us can say that the cited articles are claiming that the clinic was targeted. If they were, they would say something along the lines of "the clinic was targeted". That's how reliable sources claim things, and whenever we cite them we are cautious not to ascribe to them things they didn't say. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Section 'Palestinian offensive' poorly named?
This article seems fairly reasonable. I was able to get a synopsis of this conflict by going to the sections I was interested in etc. But there was 1 section that didn't seem correctly labelled. Under 'Palestinian offensives' there is a section labelled "Engagement with IDF ground forces". Unless this is outside Gaza or specifically a counter-attack with the strategic capacity to get outside Gaza I wouldn't consider it much of an offensive. Offensive's are not 'attacks' but attacks where you go towards or into enemy territory.

The rocket attacks are to a degree offensives and perhaps Iran does have designs to push into Israel's borders so those sections are fine. But I just don't think a ragtag bunch of militia, fighting a professional army house to house in the cities and towns they live in can be considered an offensive. Perhaps this needs to be relabelled defensive actions or put under the section for the Israeli ground offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.107 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Iran intends to "push into Israel's borders"?! Exactly how is that going to happen? Get a map. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas using human shields
I believe an emphasis should be placed on the fact that the terrorist group Hamas is using human shields. For example, firing rockets near schools, storing weapons in civilian apartments, firing rockets in residential areas.WacoJacko (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know about NPOV. If you want to add reliably sourced facts concerning this aspect of the conflict, please do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both Hamas and the IDF are using human shields. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We include those allegations in the article already. The Squicks (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is hardly mentioned in the section about violations of internation laws. This section is also poorly referenced so far. I'm going to look more closely into that, particularly acknowledging the human shields issue, the firing from within populated areas, and the targeting of civilians. Rabend (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Gaza War? Operation Cast Lead? There seemed to be concensus above about moving the article to a new name, but which one is better? Squash Racket (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * gaza war - much more widely used Untwirl (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the country. "Massacre" and "Holocaust" are other words people use too often to describe acts of countries (Israel included). Wikipedia is here to state facts so leaving it currently as a "conflict" seems the best option. It's a country versus the Hamas and I don't feel too good about calling it a war since it's an organization and not a country, and the war against terrorist organizations was started a while ago and this is another part in that war.--62.0.136.146 (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)--62.0.136.146 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Only some Muslims call it a "massacre" and nobody in their right mind calls it "Holocaust". The current title (conflict) doesn't match the lead well. The conflict didn't start with Operation Cast Lead as the first paragraph now suggests. Squash Racket (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, as it's not really a war between two countries, but rather an extensive operation against militants. Rabend (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good that the lead includes alternative titles assigned to this conflict, but the name of the article itself should probably remain what it is, at least for now. Once the hostilities subside and the world starts referring to the event primarily in one manner or another, then maybe the article title will changed. However, at this point in time, "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" seems to be the most appropriate way to refer to the event in question. This is a relatively neutral way of reference and the term has been used by reliable sources. ~ Homologeo (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, seriously that article is not worth reading, deleting it would be much easier than trying to stitch it, would it be possible to create 2 articles, israeli & palestinian POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe separate articles can potentially be formed that focus on the positions and/or arguments of each side, but there really does need to be a single article that deals with the conflict itself. Wikipedia has to adhere to neutrality as much as possible, and a conflict of this nature cannot be described exclusively from any particular POV. ~ Homologeo (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium?
This is how the section on Depleted Uranium now appears.

Depleted Uranium Shells
The Iranian Government TV news channel Press TV claimed on January 4, 2009, that evidence of Depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

An ISM activist named Eva who is in Gaza also saw a reference to that same doctor and that same statement on a BBC news TV broadcast. However, there are other quotations from that same medic in which he has said that he does not have further information on DU. He offered information on DIMEs instead. It is possible that what he initially thought to be wounds caused by suspected DU had actually been caused by suspected DIMEs. I feel terribly dimwitted at the moment, though: I did not save a copy of any of those "switch" interviews. If anyone wants one, I could try to find one. PinkWorld (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink


 * This was discussed above, with the added info that there's nothing too shocking about DU. As such, I'm going to remove that section altogether. Rabend (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on. I think the use of DU in a densely populated civilian area is quite notable (assuming it's reliably source). It's true that it's commonplace as a munition but it's still notable just like landmines, cluster bombs and so forth. If this was occuring in the Rub al Khali then maybe it's not notable but in the middle of Washington DC maybe it is. See what I mean ?Anyway, I'll defer to the consensus if one is ever reached.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ..or imagine this. A bomb explodes in downtown Seattle constructed from DU casings. No one is injured in the explosion. Notable or not notable ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and without wishing to launch into a soapy rant about double standards I would challenge editors to try to apply the same notability criteria to events in Gaza as they would if these events were occuring in their backyard before coming to any decisions about what to remove if the reports are supported by reliable sources. It's a simple, practical test is it not ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone above remarked that these are legal and with even less side effects or something to that effect, in which case this is not notable enough for a dedicated subsection, in my opinion. This article is long, and I think we need to have a higher threshold for inclusion of special incidents. Rabend (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's too long and it doesn't merit a subsection. Maybe a brief sentence somewhere if and only if reliably sourced.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rabend (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rabend, you missed what I was trying to say. I was trying to point out that the medic himself seemed to have left aside mention of DU and has said that it appears that DIMEs have been used. I do not mind the DU section being removed. If tehre are other refernces to DIMEs, though, it might validate a section on DIMEs. PinkWorld (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink (feeling overly redundant now)


 * I think all of these things like DU, DIMEs etc should be lumped together as far as possible to save space. They're notable for me because they're in a civilian area and healthwise they're controversial. Statements like 'These explosives have a small but very effective blast radius and can be used to reduce collateral damage.' are unhelpful because it ignores the potential long term effects of the presence of the material. I think this is a section where less is more. Simple statements of notable reports with RS if any might be better.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I tried lumping them together, but someone reverted that without explanation. I'll try again. Rabend (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we? Please?--Cerejota (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilian protests image
I have replaced the image about the protesters with a Featured picture which previously was the sole image before being replaced. Any change of image should be first discussed as the File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG has been deemed to most encyclopedic and good quality image by the wikipedia featured picture participants Muhammad (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But Muhammad, haven't you replaced an image that showed protesters on both sides of this issue with one that only shows one side ? I think there was consensus to have a balance (not that I liked the photo that was being used because it was too large since most people in the world don't have superfast broadband).  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The main article International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict shows images that show support for both sides. I agree that most people don't have fast internet including me and in my opinion one great image would suffice and if readers were interested, they could always visit the main article where most of the images are present. Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing
This text is as dishevelled as the average high-school paper, if indeed those are still written. We need correction of gross mispellings, as well as redrafting towards normal syntax, and adjustments for narrative coherence on chronological lines, etc.etc. This can be done without significant challenges to the body of material as plunked, stuffed, crammed in all over the place by editors who are too busy to attend to the overall quality of the article. I've done a little, while not touching in any substantive way material than still looks out of place, or inadequately organized. A little time spent on house-cleaning or 'napkin changing' would not be amiss by editors with some experience, and there are many, in copywriting.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A worthy initiative indeed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I nominate youse guys. RomaC (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I gather this task is better pursued once the article has calmed down. Superpie (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sectioning
Somebody resectioned the article, giving an entire section to "Israeli planning". I restored the original sectioning. The logical place for Israeli planning is in the section on the Israeli offensive, and besides, this type of thing would lead to someone creating an entire section on Palestinian planning, and so on. I think almost everybody would agree with me on this one, but you never know. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas raids on humanitarian aid deliveries
so wikipedia are using Israeli views to describe the incidents

i think the article needs to be re-written from the beggining, its really not worth reading

or maybe 2 seperate articles, 1 from israeli POV (using CNN as the main source) & another from a Palestinian POV (using Al Jazeera as main source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 January 2009


 * We don't do that.--Cerejota (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on, I thought CNN was meant to be pro-Palestinian. Wow, it's getting harder everyday to maintain partisan viewing habits.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of Lead
Hi, I'm posting here because this merits broader discussion. The second paragraph of the lead has changed. It includes grammatically incorrect sentences, factually incorrect information and is not NPOV. The second paragraph currently reads A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008.[52][53][54] Hamas declined to extend the truce, contending that Israel did not lift the Gaza Strip blockade and for did not halt raids in Gaza[55] and resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.[56] On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation in response with the stated objective to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[57] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[58] This is factually incorrect as explained in our background section because rocket fire had increased after the Nov 4 incident. It is quite incorrect to state that Hamas 'resumed it rocket and mortar attacks' .. there was a background low level of conflict persisting from Nov 4 and this escalated on December 27. Second, the word "in response" is also incorrect. For one, as we ourselves explain later in the article there were complex factors that led to this war; the current sentence suggests that this was an immediate response to increased rocket fire.

Third, this paragraph is written to suggest that Hamas did something and only in response did the IDF do something. We've discussed this extensively and come to the consensus and sentences like this can be extended in the past without end; Hamas could say that the IDF did something else which is why they did what they did .. etc. We agreed not to include such statements in the lead. These allegations are dealt with later in the article.

I did notice a talk page comment from Pedrito on the Lead talk page but it does not seem to have attracted much attention or debate at all. It was inserted in the middle of an old discussion with the comment: "Well, then it's not the reason Israel ended the truce... My understanding was that Israel wanted the truce extended and Hamas not. The whole formulation is kind of shaky and confusing. May I suggest the following? ". Indeed, the current version of the second paragraph is written to reflect this viewpoint. This is not NPOV. Once again, referring to our article, there is dispute about who wanted to extend the ceasefire and who didn't.

For these reasons, I'm going to change the paragraph back to what it was about 12 hours ago. The previous version which was far more neutral and did not take sides read: A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008,[50][51][52] after Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade and for continuing raids in Gaza[53], and Israel blamed Hamas for the rocket and mortar attacks directed at its southern cities.[54] Israel's stated objectives in this conflict are to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[55] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[56]

I'm posting this comment here, because the Lead discussion page seems increasingly defunct which is why this edit seems to have gone through without discussion. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, then let's keep working on it because the current version is neither correct nor makes any sense: The truce was over before it ended, nobody blamed anybody for it ending since it expired, no mention is made of November 4 2008 as a tipping point, the starting day of the Israeli offensive is not mentioned.
 * I've re-worked it a bit and this is what it stands at
 * A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel had been in effect since June 19 2008. Contending that Israel did not lift the Gaza Strip blockade and following an Israeli raid into the Gaza Strip on November 4, Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and announced that it would not extend the truce. On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade. 
 * I think this addresses most (all?) of the points you made above. Can we try to work on this instead of reverting it wholesale? If there are still parts you disagree with, please say where and how, and we can work on it.
 * Cheers and thanks, pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 15.01.2009 14:33
 * Pedrito, you current version adds no information and violates NPOV. The only additional information it adds to the previous version of the lead is to suggest that Hamas unilaterally ended the truce. Please look at the detailed background section that we have in our article, which points out that the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the truce were far more complex. A more neutral phrasing would be to say that "the truce broke down", without putting the blame on either side. I understand that your personal view, as you stated above, is that Hamas was responsible for the end of the truce. However the lead, at least, has to be read more neutrally. Currently, it does not. Anyway, I'll wait for other editors to weigh in on this. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacob, please read more carefully: Hamas ended the truce after Israel broke it with a raid on November 4. There is no blame-storming there. This is also all contained in the background section, to which I myself also contributed.
 * Anyway, lets see what others think... Cheers and thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 15.01.2009 14:58


 * Pedrito, the above rewrite gives an impression that Israel violated the truce first (by not lifting the blockade, and by making attacks on November 4) and that Hamas responded with rockets and a decision not to extend the truce. I think this paragraph rather should present both sides' accusations/reasons/excuses without overarching causality forms -- I mean, we should avoid X did this because Y did that as a given, instead say X or Y says it did this because ....RomaC (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but Israel never gave a reason (or blame) for breaking the truce... Israel even wanted to extend the truce. The Israeli military response to the rockets only came after the truce, which makes it a pretty lame (i.e. impossible) reason for breaking it. This chronology is what is explained in the "Background" section, so I don't see why it should be so inappropriate in the lead...
 * Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 15.01.2009 15:14

Hi Pedrito, thanks for your message. I still feel the second paragraph suggests that Hamas did not want to renew the truce whereas Israel did. I think neutral sources around the world reveal a far more complex story. For example, here are six sources that claim that Hamas was willing to renew the truce with Israel:

Reuters:"Hamas offers to study fresh Gaza truce with Israel"

Ynet: "Hamas: Willing to renew truce"

BBC: Hamas 'might renew' truce in Gaza

Star(Malaysia): Hamas offers to study fresh Gaza truce with Israel

Nation(Pakistan) Hamas leader willing to renew truce with Israel

Huffington Post: "Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer In December"(this appears to refer to a separate proposal in mid-December)

It is evident that the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the truce were far more complex than "Hamas ... announced that it would not extend the truce". The wording of the second paragraph should be changed in accordance. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to use the passive voice for the breakdown of the truce, without assigning blame to either Hamas or to Israel. best, Jacob2718 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacob, the second paragraph suggests that Hamas did not want to renew the truce whereas Israel did because that's exactly what happened... It also says that Hamas didn't want to renew the truce because Israel was not abiding by it.
 * I seriously do not see how that casts a bad light on Hamas. as a usual editor of Israeli-Palestinian articles I was expecting more resistance from people wanting less blame on Israel, not the other way around.
 * The links you give are all after the truce was over. Some of them are even quite explicit in mentioning that Hamas initially did not want to extend it. I would be all for adding
 * On 27 December 2008, after failed attempts to establish a new truce [sources], Israel launched its military operation [..]
 * (added text in bold) as this emphasises the diplomacy between the 19th and the 27th, specifically addressing your point. If you want to be more explicit, we could try to add language saying that it failed because of Israel. What do you think?
 * Cheers and thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 15.01.2009 16:22

Thanks pedrito. I improved the second paragraph to

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19 2008.[52][53][54] Earlier, contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade and following an Israeli raid into the Gaza Strip on November 4,[55] Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. After initially announcing, on December 19, that the truce was "over",[56] Hamas offered to extend the truce on December 23.[57][58][59][60][61][62] On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of defending itself from Hamas rocket fire[63] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[64]

I don't want to put more or less blame on either party. I just feel that, if we go by our reliable sources, the breakdown of the truce is a complicated event. I don't think the article should shy away from examining this event; just that I feel that the second paragraph of the lead is not the appropriate place to do it. The current version does work in the revised truce offer, but I feel its only a matter of time before this gets attacked by other editors who want to insert even more background. I'm wary of opening a can of worms but I hope the current version is satisfactory to the two of us at least! Jacob2718 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I like it as it stands. 6 refs may be a bit too much for the extended truce -- could you reduce it to the most significant two or three (e.g. the first few)? Cheers and thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 15.01.2009 17:05

dead links
could someone let me know whether dead links need to be removed or not? see section above (rocket attacks (again)).

i am relatively new so i could be wrong, but i thought for verifiability we needed live links. thanks Untwirl (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Making the article shorter
Since our article is extremely long, we should be working on making it more succinct.

I've been joining some specific subsections (eg, DIME and DU), since each is about 2 lines long and their both about basically the same thing, as well as cutting short all sorts of obviously personal stories and other info that is strictly non-encyclopedic (I'm not touching canonical things, obviously). Yet someone keeps reverting back these changes, presumably from the pro-P side.

Please, all editors, let's try to keep this article as straight and to the point as possible. Rabend (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arion incident
Hi all: I'm going to edit this section as posted for English usage. As it is currently written, it is riddled with errors of both style and some grammar. I do not intend to change the meaning of the paragraph, but only its formatting, etc. The Arion ship which headed to Gaza with a Greek flag in order to offer humanitarian aid, reported it had to return back to Larnaka, Cyprus on 15th of January. According to its crew, the captain had to make that decision after the ship was threatened by an Israeli line in a distance of 92 sea miles from the Cavo Greko foreland, while at international waters. According to the captain, five Israeli ships approached Arion and blocked its sight with lights, while threatening at the same time that it would be attacked if continued on its caurse. At the ship there were twelve Greek activists and nine of other nationality who were doctors and journalists. Although the ship tried to shift to Egypt or Lebanon, according to the journalists aboard it avoided a deliberate embolism and returned to Larnaka as the orders commanded.

Greece had informed the Israeli part on its transfer of humanitarian aid days ago.[537][538]

The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs made representations towards the Israeli authorities, as soon as the incident of the Arion blockage was made known. [539]( V. Joe (talk)) Cheers V. Joe (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arion incident, new version
=== The Arion Incident === The Arion merchant vessel, which was headed to Gaza under a Greek Merchant Ensign in order to offer humanitarian aid, returned to Larnaca, Cyprus on January 15th. According to the crew, the Captain decided to return to Larnaca after an encounter with a Israeli warships at a distance of 92 nautical miles for the Cape Greco off Cyprus in Famagusta Bay, which is in International Waters. According to the Captain, 5 Israeli ships approached the Arion and ordered her to heave to or to be fired upon. Aboard the Arion there were twelve Greek nationals and activists aboard as well as journalists and doctors of other nationalities. Although the ship tried to drift to Egyptian or Lebanese waters, the vessel avoided a deliberate rupture and returned to Larnaca as ordered.

Greece had informed the Israeli government on its transfer of humanitarian aid days ago.

The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs made protested towards the Israeli government, as soon as informed of the Arion incident.

I believe that this a substanital improvement in usuage, although I fear I may have treaded too heavily with sea going terms. Please let me know what you think (civilly) while I attempt to find English language sources about this incident. V. Joe (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also added a much more even handed response from the Greek government than previously reported. I translated that from diplo-speak as "we told them not to go, we warned the Israelis about the Arion coming, and we washed our hands of the matter." The reader can determine that on his (her) own since I used a direct quote from the Greek Foreign Ministry. I have not seen a press release from either the NGO involved OR the Israeli Diplomatic Service or Navy. V. Joe (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is another interesting source, but seems to be dated from before the vessel sailed.
 * Some style notes about above. The brief information I found has said (1) Arion is a Greek Merchant vessel (freighter), not an official warship of the Hellenic Navy. The ship was not "attacked," but rather told to "heave to"(reduce speed, turn and wait for instructions)" or to risk being fired on as a blockade runner. The nature of the foreign ministry's statement suggests to me that the Arion's position Might have been reported to the Israeli Navy to prevent damage to the Arion and injury to her crew or passengers. V. Joe (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead proposals

 * Proposals

I support version two for the reasons I already gave here. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Not a comment on the proposal, but that division was slick, hope I added the other suggestion correctly :) Nableezy (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We might not always agree on things, but I look forward to discussing the issues with you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And I support version 3 for reasons given here. Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. How about we hash out the start date, first? As I have stated on the other page, I think placing the start date at December 27 is unfair, since the first bout of violence began on December 19, the day the truce ended, and to place the start date at December 27 portrays the events as "Israel attacks Hamas/Gaza. Period.", ignoring Hamas's contributions to the violence. Also, since there is a significant section about the ceasefire ending and the events immediately after the end of the ceasefire, the later date of December 27 seems inconsistent with the article. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

the first one seems cut and dry, as a lead should be. the third one seems neutral also. the second one reads like an israeli pr piece. i don't think even the most biased pro-palestinian editor would suggest we put "hamas warned israel they would keep sending rockets if the blockade wasn't lifted and raids stopped. with no end to the blockade or attacks, hamas launched its counteroffensive . . ." Untwirl (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you call it a counteroffensive and a "massacre" in the same breath? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As Goldilocks said, version 1 is too short while version 2 is too long.--23prootie (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving support to version 1, which has become more detailed.--23prootie (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support 1 -- except for the "targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas". Israel states that it is targeting Hamas, but in reality, it is targeting all of the Gaza Strip.  It has targeted Christian-sponsored medical facilities, for example: Are these facilities part of "Hamas"?  NonZionist (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 3.

I do think that the info in V2 is very important, but should be in the 2nd paragraph. However, one suggestion: "targeting militant Hamas members and infrastructure". In the following sentence you mention that Hamas is the government of Gaza (which is kind of an awkward statement, I think), so it looks like Israel is going after just members of a government. We all know that Hamas doubles as both the governemnt and a militant organization, and I think the emphasis regrding military activity here should be on the militant side of Hamas. This is truly how things are from the Israeli point of view. Rabend (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the primary functions of governments is defense. Thus, most governments have a militant or military component.  Why should the Hamas government be treated differently, here?  What's more, in most cases, a military attack on a country would not be characterized as an attack on the country's government!  If France were to start bombing Germany, would we say "France is targeting the Merkle government" or "France is targeting Germany"?  Why twist things in a special way when speaking of Hamas?  Is that not our systemic POV showing? NonZionist (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support version 2. The other versions suggest Israel launched the attack with no special reason at the moment the truce expired. Squash Racket (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose version two which uses a novel framing device to assign responsibility for Palestinian deaths on the Palestinians themselves. The lead has been discussed a lot before this thread, check archives. Reverting to the previous version that has a consensus. RomaC (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not equivocate. There is no consensus for the previous version.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are reading into it. Hamas was "warned" and frankly they have said "bring it on." Would remind RomaC that this action is not against the Palestinians but against Hamas in Gaza.  West Bank Palestinians are not being "targeted."  The Palestinian "people" are not being targeted. This neeeds to be clear in the introduction. In fact, Hamas could bring this to a close anytime they wish.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"assign responsibility for Palestinian deaths on the Palestinians themselves" - hmm...and they are not responsible? And both sides agreed to the current version which would be a REAL concensus? Squash Racket (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Squash, that's a matter of synthesis and interpretation. Maybe the Nazis brought the Bombing of Dresden on themselves, but the Wiki article is about the bombing of Dresden, and the lead doesn't mention Nazi aggressions at all. RomaC (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talking about the Dresden bombing without the context of Nazi aggression in the lead is wrong, in my opinion. If you don't include the context when describing events, you can completely change the picture around. For instance, making the Brits look like blood-thirsty aggressors using disproportionate force on the poor Nazis. Not every reader will read the entire article all the way thru to really understand the context. Rabend (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support version 3 (and strongly oppose version 2). I'd be okay with cutting the exact time too. hmmm...I thought most outlets were calling it an offensive rather than a campaign...never mind. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I see your point regarding version 3, what I wonder is if "The Arab and Israeli media have widely termed it the Gaza War ", why is Wiki terming it something else? RomaC (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ..once again, we're on the canvas after a knockout blow. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the Arab media calling it the "Gaza War" or the "War on Gaza"? There is a difference.  The first connotes two belligerents, and the second, one.  The two denotations should be counted separately when assessing frequency of use.  I'm opposed to both terms for another reason: I see war as a "weasel word" -- a deliberately ambiguous term that is used by editors who are too timid to say anything definite.  "War", like "jihad", can mean anything from a motivational campaign to armageddon. NonZionist (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support version 1 (and renaming the article Gaza War). RomaC (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Version 2 is totally unacceptable, and wouldn't even warrant consideration, in my own view, were there not those who take it seriously. That leaves 1 and 3. I still think it premature to have a definitive vote on this, because it appears from the discussion on the other page that newspaper use of terms is evolving. I can, for the moment, accept that versions 1 and 3 are acceptable interim solutions. Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have given not one "reason" for your rejection of two.Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishi, just above, do you mean "...I can, for the moment, accept that versions 1 and 3 are acceptable interim solutions."? RomaC (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ba'u fatigue,guv, as the Cockneys'd say with their variation of the glottal stop. I've adjusted (well actually I've never quite been adjusted to the world but . .)Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i'll translate as i'm au fait with the lingo. 'battle'. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fanks, Shorn.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support version 1 I thought multiple sources were being used to establish the common usage of the term "Gaza Massacre" in the media, not only in the Arab world, but also in other countries like Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. Why are we backtracking on this, merely due to the insistence of some editors who refuse to accept this evidence. Here is an updated Google News search. And here is an article in a prominent Pakistani newspaper which has the same title. As far as I can see here, there is a set of editors who accept that the term "Gaza Massacre" is in common use but are uncomfortable with the term because they feel that it will mislead readers; hence the desire to attribute this term entirely to Hamas which is what Version 3 does. Moreover, Version 3 speaks of the "Gaza war". As a quick google search, this term is far less commonly used than "Gaza massacre". So, I think Version 3 is inaccurate as well. Version 2, of course, is not neutral at all. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacob2718. Well, if Turkish, Pakistani and Iranian sources qualify as constituting with Arab sources one category, then we have to say 'Islamic world', since those three nations are not Arab. Again, Turkey is not an 'Islamic' state. 'Islamic' again however generally is a covert synonym for 'terrorist'. Things are complicated.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i guess to a first approximation the islamic world is s.e. and s. asian, indonesia, india, pakistan and bangladesh so if the term is being used there... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You used quotation marks for "Gaza War", but "forgot" to add these for Gaza Massacre.
 * Google News:
 * "Gaza War":2367 hits
 * "Gaza Massacre":217 hits
 * Thank you for your explanation. Squash Racket (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake (although I've been very particular about quotes in previous posts on this subject :-) ). However, I think your post misrepresents the results. The number you quote comprise distinct results, as classified by Google News. When I did the search, the first two results for "Gaza Massacre" ended up with about 45,000 related articles compared to about 25,000 for "Gaza War". (of course, this is tricky, because it involves the algorithm that Google uses to decide what is "related" and what is not) Jacob2718 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted.
 * Second part of your comment: I don't know how on Earth you got your results. At this moment Gaza War without quotation marks yields around 71000 hits, while Gaza Massacre yields around 7700 hits. Either way Gaza War has around 10 times more hits than Gaza Massacre.
 * I hope you explain how you got your results. Squash Racket (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look at the search results carefully. I'm not interested in having a long discussion on this. Google tends to club results that it thinks are similar in one group. That is what accounts for the low figures for both results ... most results have been clubbed into groups of "similar results". In fact, if you think about the search results for a moment, you'll see that both figures you quote are unusually low for something that has received so much media attention. The reason is Google's grouping, as I explained above. 45,000 is the approximate figure I get by counting the number of distinct elements in each group (as reported by Google) and about 25,000 is the corresponding figure for the "Gaza war" (both within quotes). As you can see "Gaza massacre" receives about twice as many results as "Gaza war". In any case, further discussion on this is futile; the links and results are clear and everyone can make up their minds. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, no need to talk about that any longer. Results yield 10 times more relevant Google news hits for "Gaza War" than "Gaza Massacre". That's the bottomline. BTW the numbers given above are NOT low I suppose. Squash Racket (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacob appears to be counting the "all X news articles" numbers (they appear in green under a group of stories. I don't think that is helpful for us because if I type in, say, "Khaled Meshal" (that spelling) gives me 559 results.  But the first grouping has 20,821 articles.  If I type in "Hamas" it gives me 293,634 results.  But the first group of articles has 20,821 results.  Because those are the same grouping.  It is a group of articles that google thinks are related to what I'm looking for, not ones where my exact search terms necessarily occur.  For that I have to look at the other numbers.  At least that's my understanding of what's going on.  --JGGardiner (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm talking about relevant Google News hits. First he acknowledged his mistake, now he tries to talk himself out of it. Let's move on. Squash Racket (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * JGGardiner is right that from the search results themselves its hard to count how many times the exact search term occurs. I noted this explicitly in my post above. Equally, it is incorrect to count by grouping all distinct results (several of which do contain the exact search term) in one group. Indeed the number that Google shows on top -- "2400" results for the Gaza war -- is obviously not the relevant number; the actual number of news articles on this issue is much larger. How do we count correctly. I think disaggregating the results gives you a far better number. That way you get about 45,000 for the Gaza massacre and about 25,000 for the Gaza war. I reiterate that this is figure is sensitive to the algorithm google uses. But this is the best figure we have: so, Gaza massacre is used by about twice as many sources as Gaza War.


 * By writing 10 times in bold, Squash persists in disingenuous editing. The facts are simple, Squash; you don't have to shout! Jacob2718 (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * JGGardiner did NOT agree with your position:"I don't think that is helpful for us"
 * You keep repeating a number that can not be correct as doesn't focus on the exact phrases that we were looking for. That's why I think the 10 times more is close to the truth. We can write "multiple times more" if you're sensitive.
 * Talking about disingenuous editing: we were talking about Jacob2718's "mistake" all along, nobody assumed that he was intentionally misrepresenting the facts to influence the outcome. I think I was very kind there. Squash Racket (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Squash. I advise you not to get agitated. If I wanted to misrepresent facts, I wouldn't do it by putting clear links next to my claims, as I did :-) Lamentably, your lack of attention to detail is evident. For one, it leads to this conversation since you didn't initially notice that Google tends to aggregate results. Example 2: "we were talking about .. mistake .. all along". No dear, we agreed that one should place quotation marks around both phrases and then we were talking about something else i.e. what is the relative frequency with which each phrase is used. Example 3: I said "JGGardiner is right ...[about something]" I didn't say that he agreed with my position. You really need to read more carefully, if we are to engage in a discussion! Now, I suggest you look at my posts calmly. The aggregated results do contain results that contain the exact phrase as well as results that don't. The question I was asking is how does one count the number of results that contain the exact phrase given that Google aggregates results. Your answer is to count the number that appears on top of the page. I think its evident that your answer is wrong, for reasons I've given above (it yields too small a number). So, we need to come up with a better method. I suggested disaggregating the results, and as an argument for that, I explained that this gave us numbers that match better with our intuitive expectation of what the total number of results should be. Counted using this method the phrase Gaza massacre appears twice as many times. I've repeated my arguments multiple times here and while I would welcome constructive criticism of these arguments, I'm not interested in the irrelevant and excited claims you have persisted in making. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You made the "mistake" in a fashion that supported your vision of the war and I was very kind not to bring this up as an intentional misleading move from you.
 * Yes, also the so far uninvolved editor agreed that your calculation is wrong and mine is right as yours contains an awful lot of irrelevant hits too instead of the actual phrase we were looking for as I and another editor pointed out above. Squash Racket (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support version 2. I cannot accept anything that includes pretending that there is equality between calling something "Operation Cast Lead" and calling it "The Gaza Massacre" . Even if the whole world were to see it that way, the facts are as Version 2 puts it. It is not terribly long and it could be shortened (since someone above complained of its length). By having that material in the beginning, the next couple of paragraphs could easily be shortened and much of it reduced to the body of the article. So far I have not seen complaints that anything is wrong or mistaken in #2. It is accurate and far less POV than others. It balances the accusationn of "Massacre." Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support version 3. In my opinion it is the best proposal. But more importantly I think it is one which is most able to achieve consensus status. It already has support or approval from a group of editors with pretty diverse perspectives (or "POVs"). I think it is a descriptive, reasonable, NPOV edit. It isn't just a fair comment but as if it was literally written from a neutral point of view.

I realize this version it isn't everyone's idea of perfection. But we have here the chance here to create a paragraph that upsets very few people. And that's as close to perfect as we're going to get on this article. So let's not pass that up, okay? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am also very wary of marginalizing the term "Gaza Massacre" by ignoring our Arabic sources and associating it exclusively with Hamas, which, as Jacob pointed out, is what version 3 seems to do. And so I stick with the minimalist version 1, at least until the title changes. RomaC (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How about

I think this is probably as accurate as we can get given limited space. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss the individual aspects of each proposal so that we can arrive at a lead by consensus with which all are satisfied. Also, I am willing to make change the phrasing of my proposal. I dislike the version which you have proposed for some of the reasons I have previously stated. For example, I think December 19 should be listed as the start date. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the start date of December 19. The article already acknowledges a prior conflict by using 'intensified'. The conflict evidently intensified greatly on December 27 on not on December 19; that much is undeniable. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It also intensified on the 19th, given the relative calm of the truce. It intensified further on the 24th, and it intensified further on the 27th. All three are important starting dates, but as I see it, while the 27th is an appropriate start date for "Operation Cast Lead," it is not an appropriate start date for the "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" since that completely skips over the Gaza=>Israel part of the conflict and jumps right to the Israel=>Gaza part of the conflict. Whatever the periodization, it seems unbalanced to omit the 24th attack from the lead. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to be covering what is notable. In that context, look at these Google Trends results. Not even a question that the relevant date is the 27th. Jacob2718 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding this version 4, a problem I see is that if it is placed, as much as I try to AGF, I think arguments could be made as follows: ...Since the "Arab World" and the "rest of the world" sources overlap, there is confusion. Also, we now no longer have the name one side is calling the event and the name the other is calling the event, instead we have three different names, and only one reflects Israel's POV. That's unbalanced"
 * I can see this situation resulting in calls for a vote on including only one of "Gaza Massacre" or "Gaza War." The second option would likely prevail if a vote were framed on this false dilemma. So, believe that "Gaza War" would be more properly assigned as the title for this article, and keep the two sides' names in the lead. RomaC (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, I changed the wording as you were writing this. Is the current version better? Your suggestion would also be acceptable to me. However, I think, version 3, where one name is attributed solely to Hamas leaders, in direct contradiction with the multiple sources we have, is problematic. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's yet another proposal, which I think is brief while describing the main events and avoiding POV. The question of what to name the article is a separate issue, and I agree with several editors above that we are approaching the point - if we haven't already reached it - where we can call this Gaza War or 2008-2009 Gaza War. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I already said this above, but I'll repeat myself. We are supposed to cover what is notable. How do we decide what marks a sharp break from the past? The most objective way to do that is to see when news coverage and attention exploded. In that context, look at the relevant Google trend. There is a very dramatic rise in news and attention around the 27th and nothing like that either on the 19th or the 24th. Hence, the 27th marks a clear break which neither the 19th or the 24th do. This data is essentially conclusive and it rules out version 5; in my mind now, this issue of the start date is not even a question. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This version is also good, although I liked the addition of "The Gaza War" by Arab and Israeli media (no need for Arab and Hebrew translation). Rabend (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but I still have a hard time accept ting the references actually refer to it as The Gaza Massacre only as "a massacre" that is taking place in Gaza. It may make for consensus but it will still be wrong.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We had some long discussions about that, and I doubted that it's really "the" massacre (obviously it's not really a massacre at all), or that the name is of equal importance to the official Israeli name, but I believe Nableezy if he says that this is the official name used in Arabic, and I'm willing to accept it in certain wording, and if "The Gaza War" is also mentioned. Rabend (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical of Jacob's assumption that a spike in google searches exactly corresponds with the beginning of an event. I would imagine that there would be a delay since people need time to hear about it and develop a curiosity about it. But as I said in the lede talk page, if we define Cast Lead as the beginning of the conflict/war/whatever dealt with by this article (as he suggests), then there has to be a statement of context in the first paragraph. We cannot begin an article "X commenced a military operation against Y" without including either the stated aim or the main RS explanation of motivation for the operation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "statement of context" statment. Rabend (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I request you to take a step back and look at this from a neutral position. If you try and provide context that "Hamas escalated rocket fire", you will have to provide context for that as well -- why did Hamas escalate rocket fire. The background to this war is not so simple. We have an entire section devoted to explaining the background. Second, the stated aims of each party are stated very clearly immediately after the name and the factual context. Third, Jalapenos, it is obvious that the spike in attention and news is directly correlated with the start of the Israeli attack; you can't get out of that! Now, you may believe that the war truly started on December 19, but clearly the rest of the world started paying attention (and the phase-transition is dramatic) on December 27. We clearly have to go along with the latter position. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

None
Current its fine, and "intensified" is not what thsi article is about. The events this article coveres started on Dec 27, not intensified. That we are unable to agree on calling this the Gaza War which is how all the Israeli Media is calling it and how almost all other media is calling it speaks badly of us, but lets not make it worse by POVFORKING this article into being about something else. Next thing you know, people are re-creating Operation Cast Lead because "there is no article that covers it". Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Cerejota, this article covers events that started with the Dec 27 airstrikes, not ongoing rockets or indeterminate ceasefire violations or accusations of incursions or targeted killings or blockades or suicide bombings etc. etc. The article could and should be called "Gaza War (w/date ref)". We got stuck with this title after early discussions ran into a wall because some editors wanted to use "Operation Cast Lead" and others wanted to avoid the official IDF term. Is it time to set up new discussions on the article title? RomaC (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * also, agree with Cerejota and RomaC. If we are going to keep going back into events that preceded this offensive in the intro, where do we draw the line? Keep it simple and discuss preceding events in the background section, not the intro.  T i a m u t talk 14:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Cerejota, RomaC and Tiamut. See note above. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Once more, Cerejota is spot on. Ditto. However, I think Gardiner's original points, elegantly argued, are to be born in mind, as Nableezy's refinements. I think these will have to be taken up in serener times, when the whole article can be reviewed with the melancholy wisdom of hindsight. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Christmas Day was an intensification of the pre-Christmas shoping, decorating and cooking preparations. Doesn't work. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * agree with 27th as start date, as well as changing the title to "Gaza War." the current title is too cumbersome and non-specific.  it actually gives a reason to argue for the inclusion of events before/during/after the ceasefire. Untwirl (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's what I've been talking about from the start in the Lead page, I swear. Let's keep it simple. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also joining the "Support Cerejota Movement".--Omrim (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too, this article from its very start was about the current hostilities that started with the launch of 'Operation Cast Lead'. If the title doesnt reflect that then I think that is cause to change the title, not the entire article, which you can see started on 27 December 2008, so obviously some people thought it important to have an article specifcally about this, not about the ceasefire, not about the end of the ceasefire, not about why the ceasefire ended. This was the topic of the article from the very start. Nableezy (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to calling this the Gaza War but I would remind people that that would not mean that one can ignore everything that went before. However, evn if it is called The Gaza War by mainstream media, we would still be required for NPOV's sake to give the leadup as indicated in Version 2. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please think before writing. We are not required for NPOV to give the 'leadup as indicated' in any version, let alone 2, which you may as well drop. It is wholly partisan, blames Hamas,i.e. reflects the Israeli POV,Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC) and only partisans will support it.


 * When it was originally created this article was titled 'Operation Cast Lead' and was intended (as far as I can tell) to document those events that began on 27th December when Israel began its current offensive. There is, of course, a background to these events which should be detailed in the article (though not necessarily in the lead), but a military operation of this size does not happen without weeks or months of preparation and considerable political will. I can't help thinking that some of the discussions about the commencement date are little more than childish bickering over 'who started it'. My support would go to version 4 of the lead as the most neutral and encyclopædic in tone and content so far. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Initially, I opposed calling the article "Operation Cast Lead", but now, I think that this is the most appropriate title. This disaster is Israel's baby: Israel alone gets to name it.  Calling the article OCL will enable us to focus more clearly on the nature of the operation.  We will become free to distinguish between aggressor and victim. NonZionist (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with people yelling NPOV is they seem to misunderstand what NPOV means. It does not mean that every word is completely neutral or that the words have to balance each other out. Presenting the information that Israel calls is 'Operation Cast Lead' and the Arabs call it 'The Gaza Massacre' is by definition NPOV, the narrative voice takes no POV on the matter, it just presents what both sides call the conflict. Also, NPOV does not mean it has to agree with your POV. If the article presents accusations, to be NPOV it would need to present accusations on both sides and responses on both sides. The lead paragraph does not present any accusations, and thus does not need any rebuttals. Some editors are going to insist that because some have named it the 'Gaza Massacre', then there has to be a response to that. Im sorry, but the response to that is the Israeli government has named it 'Operation Cast Lead'. The titles given do not have to balance each other, they just both need to be there. Nableezy (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Has anyone heard the saying "less is more"? I still think the best proposal is version 1 since pretty much every info there is found in all other versions and is probable the only neutral one.--23prootie (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Elaboration of what caused this event is for the background section. No reliable source is reporting as fact any reason (Al-Jazz and JP/Ynet/Haa not RS in this case, as they are pushing narratives even if the rest of their reporting verifies). There is no deadline, and in the name of article quality, I think eshould stick to uncontrovertible facts for the intro, provide information on the constracting view on the causes in the background. Pretty much any reliable source is saying what we are saying: "Israel says it wants the rockets to stop", "Hamas says the blockade is the cause of the rockets", and that "this part of the ongoing, wider I-P conflict". All of these are factual, uncontroversial, and well sourced. NPOV is served. In fact, no one has proven this otherwise to me or anyone else.

Of course this is all about the intro. In the background section we should eleaborate the narratives with an eye to not overlap other articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota’s point as well. But I’d like to point out that is compatible with Version 3. That draft was really about addressing the conflicts regarding the naming disputes that had been occurring. So it modified the third sentence and added the fourth. But it works with or without “intensified”. I personally prefer it without.

I’d also like to say that is important that we learn to achieve change through dialogue and compromise and to not just accept the rough de facto version that is created from back and forth editing conflicts. Right now we are acting too much like the subjects we write about. And that strategy hasn’t worked out well for them. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with defining the article's subject as December 27 and onwards. I'm also fine with naming the article Gaza War, or conflict, or whatever. I also don't care about the focus of that stupefyingly long argument, about the name "Gaza Massacre" in the first paragraph. However, I strongly believe that we cannot begin an article saying "X attacked Y. X has its point of view, and Y has its point of view. Then a bunch of stuff happened. X and Y also have a long history of hating each other." If we begin "X attacked Y", we are unintentionally (and perhaps unavoidably) implying that X "started it". To cancel that, we must immediately add the stated or the plausible reason for that attack. After that we can talk about points of view. I've checked some other WP articles on "X attacked Y, marking the beginning of a conflict" situations (far from exhaustively), and in all the ones I saw, the reason was either stated in the first paragraph or was the sole subject of the second paragraph. I think we should do the same here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jalapeno, I think I agree with you but I have read this para several times and am still not clear. How about some kind of draft to illustrate your point?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you would also include the reason for the "plausible" reason for the attack, and then you would want to include the reason for the reason for the "plausible" reason for the attack. You see how this spirals? Nableezy (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[37] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas, following an escalation of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.[38][39][40] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] Option 2: First paragraph as it currently stands in the article; second paragraph dealing solely with the stated and/or plausible (according to reliable sources) reasons for Cast Lead. Reply to Nableezy. You're assuming a symmetry that doesn't exist. We broke the symmetry once we said "the conflict started when Israel did this and this". We did that because it was unavoidable: the article has to start at some point in time, and the two sides aren't considerate enough to coordinate the timing of their actions with each other for our convenience. If we said the conflict started when Gazans launched rockets, we would be equally obliged to state right at the beginning the stated and/or plausible reasons for that. Like I said before, that is what's done in the similar articles that I checked. I also think you're being overly skeptical about the term "plausible". I mean plausible in a definite sense, namely: the main reason(s) cited by reliable sources. Further, in this particular case, the plausible reason seems to match the stated reason, namely that Cast Lead is fundamentally a response to Hamas rocket attacks. This says nothing about whether the response is moral, justifiable, proportionate or effective, merely that it is a response. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Tundrabuggy. Option 1:


 * I agree that the current lead is better than all the proposed alternatives, but I think it could be better still. "Version 2" is obnoxiously partisan, though I do think the rocket attacks deserve a mention.  I like Gaza War for the title.  How about this:


 * I have intentionally left the "w" in "Gaza war" and "m" in "Gaza massacre" lowercase. I have not (yet) seen either of these phrases used as proper nouns.  Arguing over the "symmetry" of each side's justification is tantamount to fighting the war itself... we cannot and will not achieve consensus.  Per User:Jalapenos do exist's arguments above, I only mentioned the Israeli action, which was to launch a military campaign with a stated objective and motive.  Thanks, dbw (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Version Two with minor alteration  "following the expiration of the truce and citing Israel's refusual to lift its economic blockade, Hamas fired a barrage of rockets into Israel.[15][16][17][18] "

I think version two with the above edit is fair :D. Superpie (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont, and I am quite certain a large number of other editors would say the same. It still reads like an Israeli PR piece. Nableezy (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)'
 * What, no support cerejota movement? :...(. BTW, don't take it personal on the WP:POINT, or at least too personal :D.--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I jizz in my pants... This is not the first line, thats about the only intro we need. I would use the Capital War, but lets just all fall behind this version, regardless of title. It is NPOV, balanced, truthful and backed by moar sauce than all the BBQ in Texas. Opposing this is borderline WP:POINT. Shit, and it came from a new SPA, take that wikipedians, a noob pwnd us all! --Cerejota (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The conflict has been described as the Gaza massacre... in much of the Arab World." Most sources (even Al Jazeera) do not title it "The Gaza Massacre"Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither does, for that matter, the proposal above.--Cerejota (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)