Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 6

Casualties
the only source for Israeli casualties is a Hamas source, we should wait for the IDF report or a more natural one and not be used as a tool in the Hamas's psychological warfare. --217.132.189.80 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why were Israeli injured civilians (from rockect attacks, about 60 if I rememeber correctly) removed form the casualties figures?--Omrim (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

30 Israeli soldiers were injured
can someone add it to the table? here is the source  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.189.80 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would, but the site you indicate, does not mention such information. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct sources are Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post I have added them. Debresser (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Legislative Council building
The photo for the Palestinian Legislative Council building in the article in Rmallah in West Bank not in Gaza, Please can some one add that--84.13.120.243 (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and resolution of bias in introduction
We have to get a grip on the introduction. It is going from bad to worse. It now reads like a pice of Israeli propaganda. Almost all mention of the fact that there have been significant civilian casualties in Gaza - which is one of the most important aspects of this conflict - have been removed. I have just reinstated mention of the first day casualties but there is systematic editing of it going on, so that will probably be removed before long.

The intro reads like a list of Israeli military accomplishments.

Could even suggest that the Israeli government has been editing the article (after all, it is known that the CIA edits wikipedia)!

I suggest that an intro is agreed here, possibly based on the version from a couple of days ago. Agree it here, agree any subsequent changes here and if people edit the intro without discussion, agree that such edits should be immediately undone.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No we cannot agree that Israeli foreign signals intelligence service is editing the article. I'm sure they have more productive uses of their time. As for CIA, I would love to see a citation proving that it was anything more than a bored staffer with time on his (her) hands. V. Joe (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The introduction has become a bit better, but Jandrews is right, there is not enough focus on the humanitarian aspect of the war. For example a detailed description of the exact amount of explosives delivered is better suited to a description of a video game. I think the focus on military maneuvers needs to be replaced with a focus on the political and historical causes and humanitarian consequences of the assault. The details about military maneuvers can come later, not in the introduction. Also, please see the discussion in the section above. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've moved the discussion of humanitarian effects ahead of what, in my opinion, are less important military details. I dont think the exact tonnage of explosives dropped by the IAF on Day 1 is important enough to merit a place in the introduction at all. However, for now, I've just reordered the text.Jacob2718 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited editing?
This article has been edited too much. Editors are editing and reversing it faster and faster. Why not limit the editing of this article and update every 24 hours (or 12, 36 etc.)or after a major event? I think neutrality and stability is more important than timeliness, especially when this article is EXTREMELY sensitive. Also this seems to be the only way to stop an assumed-not-neutral edit (i.e. editors from the belligerents) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhieaanm (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Omrim (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with Wiki's popularity (and I experienced this with the Mumbai bombing article), is that Edit Conflicts become incredibly more common when the events are happening right there and then in the real world. There is no way round it, really, given the nature of Wiki. I can only suggest keeping small grammatical edits to a minimum. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, hai. We have such a rule: WP:3RR. What happens is, next to everyone has violated the rule, so people are afraid of reporting others. Thanks! :D --Cerejota (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not one of those "everyone" who violated the rule. Now tell me who do you want me to report? ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see the problem. Just because of an ocasional edit-conflic? Apart from that, I can't imagine any workable definition of "too much editing". Debresser (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture bias?
Isn't the "man holding a civilian injured by the airstrikes" picture a bit too much? It clearly shows blood and is quite 'horrifying'. Maybe that wasn't the uploader's intention, yet I still believe that the article doesn't benefit from those kinds of pictures. either way, I suggest that the picture be removed. What do you think? That'll be much better than using an Israeli wounded picture as a counter-weight, as some would probably suggest.--212.235.85.149 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this article would benefit enormously by including one or more graphic images of the dead/wounded from either or both sides of the conflict if


 * the image genuinely meets the legal inclusion criteria.
 * it was taken in a public place
 * it complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.


 * Surely it's the most important aspect of this conflict which is presumably why TV screens around much of the world (with notable sanitised exceptions) are full of such graphic images right now. Why is it biased ? As the aption said, they're civilians.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I absolutely don't agree. These sorts of pictures are de riguer in news coverage, and as the previous commenter said, such a graphic image  illustrates precisely why the Israeli assault is drawing international attention in most quarters of the world (ie. excluding the Zionist and anti-Muslim parts of the West).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

91.105.255.98, You may disagree but unless they are free pics they cannot be posted.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Falk in Official Capacity
No surprise, the "Alleged violations of international law" section has been the subject of much editing recently. One recent edit has quoted Falk in his official capacity as Special Rapporteur. Let me clarify something right off the bat: I am in no way objected to quoting Falk as a WP:RS. But I do have several objections to the way he is quoted:


 * 1) He's quoted out of a webblog. If we're going to quote him at all--and especially in his official capacity--we really ought to be quoting a press release, a news article, a page in the UN website, or some other type of official publication. A blog page is not in his official capacity.
 * 2) His official capacity is to oversee violations of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories. Gaza hasn't been occupied territory since 2005, so he has no authority to write about Gaza as Rapporteur. See Weiner and Bell.

While we're at it, there's one man who's quoted as saying Israel has used fuel bombs and depleted uranium. I'm removing the reference until there's some sort of serious substantiation. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry. My fault. I didn't notice that the existing ref wasn't from the UN. I'll fix if someone doesn't beat me to it. I already removed the fuel bomb/depleted U line that someone added. If a RS comes up that states/alleges that it's a violation then we can add it back with the new ref.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot to respond about occupying power status and the Gaza strip. Your statement isn't about improving the article. If you can find a some RS's that support the view that the United Nations Human Rights Council have got it wrong by allowing their Special Rapporteur to issue such a statement please go ahead and add it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, Sean. Thank you for finding that source. You'll notice I made a few changes to the section, including the status of the Rapporteur. If you find them objectionable, feel free to edit/discuss. I won't be hurt. :-) Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * actually i thought my version was more encyclopedic and clearer in the sense that it more closely followed the original source, included all 3 notable allegations and linked to the appropriate WP pages if people didn't understand what the UN statement was talking about....but then i would, wouldn't i. i have no interest in advancing any political agendas here. the UN statement, whatever anyone thinks of falk or the UNHRC is significant and notable. it deserves to be treated respectfully (in the sense of not watering it down) and with appropriate weight in this article. anyway, the article is pretty unstable at the moment so there's little point in me spending time on it until things calm down a bit. i'm sure i'm not alone in that view.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, forgot to mention that I think it is important to not introduce systemic bias accidentally. We need to acknowledge that the Israeli/US admin's views on Falk and the UN are pretty skewed compared to other member states and try to avoid giving them undue weight in this article if possible. Not easy I appreciate given that most editors probably have strong feelings on these matters and may not even be aware of their own systemic bias.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merger
Merge Black Saturday massacre into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, it is a short article with little information, and I'm sure some in Israel would object to the title's neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassfire (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Its been done already as Black Saturday massacre title is one sided and thus POV--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Online petition
Unless an online petition receives serious media coverage it is not notable enough to be in this article, please move it to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I have left the current one in there for now, hoping someone will come up with some independent sources.VR talk  17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok it has now been removed.VR talk  20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of man killed
If it is notable enough to mention violent protests in London, Greece etc, why can't we mention that a Palestinian man was shot dead during these violent protests. I don't understand why this fact was removed?VR talk  17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You should move it to the inevitably created International Reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict article. Yes, it's the Wikipedia "divide and conquer" tactic.  Very professional.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct link is []

The death of this man should be mentioned in the main article. The shooting dead of a protester is extremely notable. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely notable? Why is that I wonder?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the reference to the protester being shot not because the information is irrelevant, but because it was not included in the source mentioned.


 * The information I provided on hacked website might be a little detailed, although I would not say excessively. If consensus would be that it is indeed too detailed, it could be shortened in various ways. Although, frankly speaking, I find the information important, since it shows the full extent of reactions to the conflict.Debresser (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the subject of information on hacked sites has been discussed before. The discussion is now in the Archive. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you are the same one who removed the information on hacked sites previously. I also noticed excessive cutting has already been ascribed to you by other people in this discussion page, section Reactions. Especially without at least putting the information you cut out back on the special page for Civilian Protests. By the way, I appreciate you personally inviting me to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh so this is where the discussion is. Can you please join it below in the more recent one called "Reactions"? Thanks.VR talk  03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated events
There was apparently a failed attack on a Chicago synagogue. As much as this attack was disgusting, it was harmless. No one was injured, nor any damage done because the cocktail failed to burn. Additionally, there are no credible sources connecting this attack to the subject of the article. The official of the temple "suspects" that there maybe a relationship, but clearly isn't sure. No officials or policemen have made any comments to that end.

In a time when the article has gotten too long, it would help that we limit it to events that are for sure connected to the subject, not those that may possibly be. Please also note, that the section on reactions has been so severely cut down that it doesn't mention the official reactions by individual countries, nor all of the protests that have occurred. Clearly brevity is of paramount significance here.VR talk  18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Brevity is important, but we're dealing with a fairly short section, anyways. Also, brevity should be a secondary consideration when dealing with something like this, which is totally unexplored in the rest of the article.
 * There has been someone in an official position connecting the two events: the victim of the crime. Nor is this a stretch of the imagination. This attack didn't occur two weeks ago, but after the invasion. As long as the source is mentioned in the article, it's clear to the reader that this is an issue that's still developing, and that his hasn't been corroborated by police. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you didn't respond to my points. I'm not saying this is not important. Just that it should be moved to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. The lack of connection, lack of significance, and lack of any serious damage just support my point. I hope you will see what I'm trying to say. Also please respond in the above section to inform me of why you removed the fact about a man being shot dead. Thanks.VR talk  18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I didn't mean to remove the part about the man being shot dead; that was due to copying and pasting.
 * So if the crux of your argument is that this should be moved to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, then why don't we move the protests and reactions from international organizations there? Actions speak louder than words, and these actions need to be mentioned. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with those that hold that this section should mention more details. Or it should COMPLETELY be moved to the other article. But no shortened versions that do injustice to some information or the other. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat picture inclusions and deletions
I notice that the picture of the Palestinian man carrying a maimed bombing victim has been deleted and a picture of Qassam rocket damage has been added. Even as a supporter of the Gazans I think it would be right to show pictures of casualities on both sides. Given that casualties on the Gazan side are over 100 times greater it is obviously giving undue weight to the Israeli perspective to bias the picture count 100% towards Israeili suffering. I also think we have some extremely partisan editors sympathetic to the Zionist side making blatantly biased edits.


 * I'll say again as I said in the 'Picture bias?' section above that the article would benefit from showing some of the reality of this conflict. Rather than people warring over images (wow, how low can things go) it would be better if we could all come to some kind of agreement. And remember WP:NOTCENSORED + there's the WP:NOIMAGE option if people don't want to see something.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose we adopt a 1:1 policy so that for every picture added showing damages in Gaza, we add another showing damages in Israel and vice versa. Similarly for other traumatic events. If this results in too many pictures, we delete accordingly in pairs so as to preserve neutrality. That way we will save many discussions about one side or the other being favoured. What do you think? T.R. 87.59.77.64 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures were removed because they were copyright violations. If non-copy-vio pictures from Gaza are found, I will defend and uphold their inclusion, provided they have appropriate quality. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's one PD image on Commons. I'll put it in. The rest are still pending Flickr review, so once they are approved they can replace or supplement this one. - Mailer Diablo 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, it's copyvio. Wait for the Flickr. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No International Reactions Section?
Will no one quote Bush as saying "Hamas should stop bombing Israel" while there are 500 Palestinian casualties and only 5 Israeli? --193.188.105.220 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point --69.217.126.175 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been moved to a seperate article. I have suggested below that the US be listed on the Involved Parties section in the main article. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should the US be listed in involved parties? Then we would have to list Iran, Syria, Russia, UK, France etc. Does the US have troops on the ground? Are its planes bombing anyone? Are its ships shelling anybody? Where is the proof?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The US (from what Im seeing) seems to be relatively uninvolved. Like the federal government seems to be staying on the side lines offering no more than the expected generic government responses. But yeah I dont know what its officialy called on wiki but I know on other sections of a similar nature they have had those small flag thumb.imgs and a brief comment by said nation or governing entity. Sorry it was hard to word that intelligently. 75.118.149.210 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete non-reliable Palestinian 'executions' claims
Previously "Any Palestinian 'executions' are a internal matter, not part of the conflict"

Therefore the apparent executions have no place in the casualties info box. Just as traitors executed during any historical war would not (I believe) have been added to the military deathcount.

Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea agreed. Plus I haven't heard anywhere else except Israeli sources (YNET, maybe JPOST) about these internal events. 35 people is quite a lot to not merely mention. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently numbers only matter if they are not for the Israelis or their allies.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's BS. Every media outlet reports Israeli casualties (killed and injured), they're just far fewer than Palestinian casualties, so that's no excuse. And Fatah is not an ally of Israel. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course the executions should be added, but to the Israeli side since they are presumably "collaborators." In fact, perhaps we need an info box for Presumed Collaborators Executed. They are certainly casualties of this war, but it ought to be clear on whose hands their blood belongs. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If these executions have anything to do with the hostilities, as e.g. when the reason would be presumed collaboration with Israel, they ipso facto are related and could and should be mentioned. Of course it would not do to mention them as casualties of the hostilities, but the fact should be mentioned somewhere. I fail to see why Israeli newspapers would not be considered valid sources on this or any other information. The way Al Ameer son dismisses them strikes me as an argument to accuse him of being biassed more than aforementioned newspapers.Debresser (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact Israeli newspapers are considered RS, and we do not discriminate by country of origin. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed we shouldn't. But one definitely wonders as to why only Israeli newspapers have reported this. This is not an argument to exclude the claims, but just to not give them undue weight.VR talk  02:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Canadian sources? Better yet, what about the New York Times? --Omrim (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is America an Involved Party?
I think it is. After all it bankrolls Israel, supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to this operation. Therefore the American reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.

If America told Israel to stop this attack, it would do so.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I now see someone else has done just this. However surely it should be agreed here first. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * America is an involved party, i think its actions at the United Nations security council ontop of the American tax payer being the one to pick up the bill for this war justifies their inclusion BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you also of the opinion that Iran is an involved party? How about China? France? An involved party is only one that is actively engaged in the operation - Israel, the various Palestinian groups, and Egypt. NoCal100 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Therefore Iran bankrolls Hamas (and Hezbollah), supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to fire rockets at Israel. Therefore the Iranian reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AND, just to drag this out to its logical conclusion:

" UNSC Membership in 2009

The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end): Austria (2010), Japan (2010), Uganda (2010), Burkina Faso (2009), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2009), Viet Nam (2009), Costa Rica (2009), Mexico (2010), Croatia (2009), and Turkey (2010). They have all made statements and condemnations. So they should all be listed as involved parties too. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow that members of the Security Council are 'involved parties'. However I take your point that Iran is. So perhaps IRan and America under Involved PArties then?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How about neither as neither one is directly involved in the current combat operations. Or do you know something we don't?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well technically egypt is not involved in combat operations, however it remains an involved party. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling America an involved party might be the biggest stretch since the invention of yoga. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In Israel it is common knowledge the PM doesn't go to the proverbial bathroom without asking permission from the US. Unfortunately. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * America is obviously involved and I see no logic behind many of the comments made here. It is important that Wikipedia sources as much valid and important information possible in order to serve its actual purpose on the web. America funds Israel. Early this morning, the BBC and world news stations have broadcast Dick Cheney's backing of Israel's heavy-handedness. Therefore America's involvement in both funding and supporting this offensive should be included. The article should also be semi-protected.
 * We, as contributors to Wikipedia but remain neutral, despite our nationalities, and the fact is, America is involved. America funds and supports Israel, therefor the United States are a big part of the ground offensive and unprecidented violence cast upon the civilians in Gaza.--Theosony (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything is a matter of degree. The Zionists here are right: the whole world is involved, even tiny Vanuatu.  What they neglect to say is that SOME countries are MORE involved than others.  The U.S., clearly, is one of the MOST involved countries, since it operates as an Israeli satellite or colony: It arms Israel, funds Israel, shields Israel from the U.N., and makes war in Israel's behalf.


 * If some people want to say that Iran is also involved, fine, but let's keep it real: Let's state the exact NATURE of the involvement. The U.S. gives Israel at least $3,000,000,000 a year, plus the most deadly weapons on the planet.  What does Iran give to Hamas besides moral support?


 * Here is the text I added for the U.S. involvement:


 * U.S. – "At the United Nations, the United States thwarted an effort by Libya to persuade the Security Council to call for an immediate ceasefire, diplomats said."


 * Unfortunately, it was summarily deleted by those who prefer to keep the U.S. role in this hidden. NonZionist (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, and everyone here is speaking from an unbiased view. Right. -- Unsigned comment
 * This is a minority opinion. Israel is a sovereign nation whose democratically-elected government has a relationship with the United States. It is a member of the United Nations and not a "satellite" or "colony" of the U.S.  It wages this operation on its own behalf. If we include the United States as an involved party just because of its relationship with Israel, we set off a train of logic that will end with us including numerous countries and the section will look absurd to the unbiased observer.  "Involved parties" should clearly be limited to combatants, as it is in articles elsewhere.  Egypt is involved because one of their border guards was killed by a Hamas gunman. Allow the reader to draw their own inferences about the relative relationships of other parties to the combatants. -- Noung (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactions
I have scaled down the size of the reactions section. This article has become huge. More than 60 countries have expressed official statements. There have been civilian protests, clashes, etc. in about 200 cities. Including every one of them will make this article very big. Also, let's keep the cyber-warfare to a minimum as well. Just because a website, or online petition publishes something doesn't mean its notable until is is covered by news media, and/or independent sources. Cheers.VR talk  19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep deleting my entry for the U.S. in the "involved parties" section. Why?  The U.S. is what makes the Israeli aggression possible.  It arms Israel, funds Israel, and shields Israel from the U.N..  On late Saturday, it blocked Libyan attempts to get the UNSC to support a ceasefire.  The earlier statement that the U.S. supports a ceasefire is misleading, since in practice, the U.S. opposes it. NonZionist (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice too that you did not transfer the text you gratuitously deleted to the sub-article -- International_reaction_to_the_2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict. Your "scaling down" is tantamount to censorship.  In one of your updates, you managed to delete the entire article.  What's the problem? -- is the article not sufficiently biased to suit Israel's taste?  NonZionist (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down. My accidental deletion of most of the article was unintended. I amply apologized for it. The US is quoted in the section. However, if you feel I've not done an adequate job, please feel free to improve it, *as briefly as possible*.VR talk  22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why this urge to "scale-down"? If I want a "scaled-down" article, I'll go to a hardcopy encyclopedia, where article length is limited by the cost of ink and paper.  How much do bits cost?  The more information, the better, as I see it.


 * Because I can't find any justification for "scaling down", it seems a lot like censorship to me: Allowing aggression while silencing the critics of aggression. That's why I find it hard to "calm down".  I will try to assume good faith on your part, if you assume good faith on my part when I "scale UP".  Keep in mind that many people are dying, because certain powerful people live in a world of stereotypes.  Information helps us to counter stereotypes and save lives.  This is NOT an academic debate or game! NonZionist (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on websites are indeed notable, and that is why they were mentioned. However, we need to explain them in proportion. For example in this edit, 393 characters explain the website attacks, while the reference to a Palestinian man bieng shot dead (far more notable) in 87 characters was removed. This seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE.VR talk  22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * VR, I truly respect your valiant attempts to cut down this section, but I fear that so long as it maintains its current format, neither side can be expected to be contented. It really ought to be shrunk to a single paragraph stating that there has been international condemnation of both sides (though primarily of Israel), and then referring to the more specific article. What are your thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are even bolder than I! How about two paragraphs? One paragraph for the general protests around the world and Israel (notable for both pro-and con protests) and Egypt (notable because these protests have had an outcome on the conflict). The next paragraph for extra-ordinary incidents, like website attacks, violence against Israelis, and the Palestinian shot dead. How is that?VR talk  23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I created the first of the two paragraph here. Tell me what you think.VR talk  23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty stupendous summarizing right there. I'll see if I can't take the remaining sections and summarize them into one paragraph. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cut back the section significantly. There's still more cutting that could be done, but now I have to leave Wikipedia and tend to my real life. :-P Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Protesters in London, Paris, Oslo, and other cities clashed with the police. There were attacks against Jews and Israelis, as well as defacings of Israeli websites. which were interpreted to be in response to the conflict. One Palestinian man was shot dead during a protest.

Is that good?VR talk  01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reaction on your talk page, that this phrasing is faulted. Apart from that I would like to point out that the hacking of 300 websites is perhaps less tragic than the death of a person, but will be witnessed by probably a thousand times more people, and is therefore far mor noticable. Debresser (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be witnessed more times, but will make far less of an impact. In fact it is generally agreed that human deaths are more notable that some defacing or vandalism.
 * Secondly, did you take a look at my earlier statement: More than 60 countries have expressed official statements. There have been civilian protests, clashes, etc. in about 200 cities.
 * If we begin to devote even 2 sentences to each reaction, like you've deoted two sentences (actually one small paragraph) to the websites, then this will be blown way out of proportion.
 * Please note that we have summarized the 150,000 people protest in Sakhnin, 200,000 people protest in Istanbul, 30,000 people protest in Ammam, 20,000 people protest in Paris and many others in just one long sentence (or one paragraph). Are you really comparing a few websites to these massive protests?VR talk  03:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am not. And nowhere did I make any such comparison. As I agreed in another section dealing with this subject, the information on hacked sites may be reduced a bit. Although you reduced it too much, in my opinion. About the shot demonstator you also reduced the information too much, and I actually added to it in the main article.
 * The point is, that any information needs at least a minimum of words. The sentence "A man was killed today in a shooting in down-town NY" is just marginally longer than the sentence "Favourite dog of JFK was killed today by passing car", not because it is infinitely more important, but because it just takes that many words to acurately describe what happened.
 * In this context I would like to point out, that I see no reason this article should contain an enumeration of cities where demonstrations were held. That should be done in the article that's been made especially for that. Keep it short, just like I did when mentioning the pro-Israel demonstrations. Debresser (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "defacings of Israeli websites [occurred]" reduces it too much given I give only a word or so to a protest that brings out 200,000 people. You have to take a relativistic approach as opposed to an absolutist one. That is to say, the amount of space something gets should be measured by the amount of sapce other more similar events get.VR talk  03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on, are you saying that we should remove the cities where thousands gathered to protest? This cities are summarized in one word or so (e.g. London, Paris, Athens...). I don't see at all how they are taking undue weight. If you can summarize the website hacking in one word (actually I'm asking you to summarize in one sentence) then that's great!VR talk  03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for shortening the hackers. I also think that all the violent events should be mentioned together. This includes both attacks on Jews, and the killing of the Palestinian man.VR talk  03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, I reduced it a little.
 * The information about attacks on jews etc. is in no way connected to demonstrations, and should therefore be a seperate paragraph.
 * And yes, whether tens, hundreds or thousands gathered doesn't matter. Just mention it, and be done with it. You're too emotionally involved, it seems to me.Debresser (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I think you are wrong to list all cities. I didn't do that when I wrote about the pro-Israel demonstrations. And I don't think the shooting of a demonstrator and the hacking of an internet site should be in one paragraph, even though both are violence. But I'm not going to change that again. I am pretty sure future redactors will agree with me on these points, without me entering a conversation with somebody who is so empressed by the sheer numbers of demonstrators that he overstresses details and underplays other important facts. Debresser (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We can create a separate paragraph for every individual reaction, then God knows how long this article will be. Also, I never list all of the cities in which anti-Israeli demonstration took place. Like I said such demonstrations took place in more than 100 cities, and I haven't even listed half. Also you were the one who brought up the issue of numbers "will be witnessed by probably a thousand times more people", hence I brought numbers up too to show you what we are dealing with. Anyways, good night.VR talk  05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As it now stands, the "Reactions" section is utterly useless. It says absolutely nothing that people do not already know. It tells the reader that a long list of countries called for peace: It reminds me of a beauty pageant where all the contestants say they are for "world peace". I tried to introduce real SUBSTANTIVE information into this section, but, of course, my efforts were blocked and the information was removed. So now we have nothing. What a waste of time. NonZionist (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran
Why is Iran featured so prominently in the section currently? The Iranian part, including its leader Khamanei and ally Sistani, are given more space than Israel itself!

Also Egyptian reaction which accuses Israel of "savage aggression" is quoted twice (once in the second paragraph, and once under "involved parties"). May I ask why?VR talk  23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ACLJ
I removed the following from the Civilian Protests section, someone keeps putting it back:

An online petition, claiming 25,494 signatories as of January 4th, called for the "Proclamation for Solidarity with Israel and the Christians in the Gaza Strip" through the American Center for Law and Justice; its representatives have met with Israeli officials in Ashkelon.

Please find an RS for this, ACLJ can't be an RS for itself. Also is not technically a civilian protest, so should probably be in another section.


 * I agree that it should not be considered a protest but it is certainly verifiable information and the ACLJ is a very well founded organization, a large Civil Rights Organization. I don't think that we should remove it. I think rather that we should make a note that a citation is needed and move it to another section. Coreywalters06 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Founded in 1990 by evangelical Pat Robertson? I have to question it's reliability. Also, I think the statement is covertly racist, by including Israelis and the Christians of Gaza, pointedly leaving out ALL Muslims. If it was an anti-Hamas statement, that would've been ok. --vvarkey (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not an "anti" anyone statement. The only thing that it is against is terrorism in Gaza and Hamas's "radical Islamic threat". And even more so, it is a pro-Israel proclamation more than anything else. Israel should be able to protect itself. Hamas has been shooting rockets into Israel long before this started and Israel has the right to say that enough is enough. Wikipedia is not the place for politics but if you're gonna start pulling out the "racist" card, you better believe I'm gonna say something. You want to complain about racist, why don't you read the current resolution in the United Nations (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1). That resolution doesn't mention a single word about any other religion other than defending Islam and Muslims. Its goal? To make it illegal internationally to "offend" any Muslim, including my beliefs - and punishable by Suria law - including execution. Read it for yourself: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2003.4.En?Opendocument Coreywalters06 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, i was a bit rash there and take back the racism comment. but i think it's fair to say pat robertson is a nut. for eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies#Remarks_concerning_Ariel_Sharon . i think we need a ref from a source other than the ACLJ for this text to be in the article. cheers --vvarkey (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Date Format?
The format at one point was 27 December 2008. I understand that this is an official format but in the table of contents it seems impossible to read when it says "3.1 27 December 2008". That just looks very sloppy. Is there any other format that we can use such as "December 27 2008" so that it looks like "3.1 December 27, 2008"? This is much easier to read. I am also thinking that this conflict will be going on much longer than others expect. If this continues to go on, what will we do about the Development section. It is already starting to get very long. Coreywalters06

I personally use the format 2008Dec27. This is clearly _one_ item, not three, and is easily time-sequenced. Johnbibby (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)::::
 * It's my understanding that the manual of style does not sanction that format. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Hamas a reliable source?
Is Hamas a reliable source? Consider it in the context of the following claims:
 * "Sources close to" Hamas have claimed to execute 35 Fatah "collaborators", says Jerusalem Post
 * "Hamas-run media" claims to have captured two Israeli soldiers, says BBC News

Should we treat these as facts?VR talk  20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that the claims were made comes from a reliable source, but the claims themselves do not, in my opinion. It's still worth including in the article, but noting that they are unverified claims. Orpheus (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It should be in the Hamas claims or According to Hamas format. However, I am weary about the inclusion of the "35 Fatah" men being killed by Hamas during the conflict. This has not been mentioned by any major neutral source (not Palestinian, not Israeli) and I doubt that the action even occurred. Nonetheless, it should be attributed to the Jerusalem Post. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See Pallywood--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're arguing that it's right to include the statements of Israel Defense Forces, Tzipi Livni, The Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Haaretz, and Arutz Sheva, and AFTER THAT treat the Palestinian sources as a propaganda!??? Dammit, all of pro-Israeli sources I mentioned are cited in the article more than triple times ore more. No comment, really. I'm stunned of this blind bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I. moving it to the casualties section where we can discuss it with attribution.VR talk  21:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Darwish07...whats good for the goose, etc. Manitobamountie (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Hamas takes part of a longstanding tradition of exagerating. See e.g. the 'Casualities' section on this page, where Hamas claims to have killed 9 Israeli soldiers, whereas all other sources so far (the better part of a day later) mention only one Israeli soldier as having been killed. This is a reality we should be aware of. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which means all its claims should attributed.VR talk  02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean 'attributed'? Debresser (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pallywood
Pallywood must be deleted from the 'See Also' section. This is clearly a blatant and trite POV addition designed to imply media bias against Israel in the coverage of the offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sick of this extreme conspiracy theoretic sources extremely biased people throw around. Deleted. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Media bias against Israel? I am stunned!!!--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Take for example the following quote from Times Online. It is also felt that Israel is particularly keen to use the internet as an alternative to more traditional sit-down interviews with international television stations and media outlets because many mainstream stations are slated as being unsympathetic. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have personally noticed the difference in coverage from the BBC and CNN. CNN being (at least) slightly anti-Israel biased. I stress that this is my personal opinion. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On this subject I have found the folowing on Wikipedia: In 2002, Honest Reporting spearheaded a campaign to expose CNN for pro-Palestinian bias. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we delete Weiner and Bell quotes
i am not in favour of deleting the Weiner and Bell quotes/summaries, since that risks POV concerns for the whole section. For the moment i am restoring them. Boud (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Weiner and Bell are just a lawyer and just some professor who wrote something for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Their stuff is not published in a reputable journal of international law. It is just propaganda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? whct about: December, 2000, 100 Columbia Law Review 1965, THE INTEGRATION GAME, Abraham Bell and Gideon Parchomovsky; 16 Temple Int'l & Comparative Law Jourbal 43, THE USE OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN THE AL-AQSA INTIFADA: A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS*, Justus Reid Weiner; 37 Geoorge Washington Int'l Law Review 309, ISRAEL'S SECURITY BARRIER: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND LEGAL EVALUATION, Dr. Barry A. Feinstein*, Justus Reid Weiner; Fall, 2007, 22 Connecticut Journal of Int'l Law 233, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF 'SAFE PASSAGE' RECONCILING A VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE WITH ISRAEL'S SECURITY REQUIREMENTS, Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison; Abraham Bell "JUST" earned his doctoral degree from Harvard. They certainly most no "just lawyers" (Sill,I am still not sure they should be mentioned as their publication was made before the current conflict).--Omrim (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not convinced of the reliability of the quotes from these two either. It would be equally easy to go and get quotes from lecturers at a Palestinian university saying the opposite, and that doesnt achieve much. It would be much better to use only quotes from independent international legal experts. Fig (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The section is only expanding, with now eight (8!) references to their article "published" on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Claims of genocide are ludicrous. They belittle the real cases of genocide that have taken place in history. And does anybody care about Darfur. I will remove the propaganda from the Israeli thinktank. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove relevant, sourced material without consensus, as that is borderline vandalism. You are welcome to your personal opinions about about Bell and Weiner, but they are published academics in reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Not that it's required, as the JCPA is reliable and notable itself, but the Weiner & bell arguments have been picked up in mainstream media, such as here. Please do not remove this agian without consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a view one way or the other about the material itself, and I know the Spectator ref is not being used as a key point, but I would just say that it is pushing the definition somewhat to suggest that Melanie Phillips' blog on the Spectator website counts as significant "mainstream media". I would also note that Electronic Intifada links have been excluded from this page. Is that any worse or less partisan a reference point than JCPA? --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote, the Spectator mention is not required, but there is a big difference between an column in mainstream media such as the Spectator, and self-published websites such as EI. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged you weren't relying on the Phillips piece, but I really would stress the point (perhaps for future reference) that she is viewed as being pretty "out there" by most other media in the UK, and also that this appears to be an online post rather than a published comment piece; and of course my comparison was between EI & JCPA, not between EI & The Spectator. Whatever you or I might think of EI or JCPA, they are both partisan self-publishers as opposed to mainstream outlets - that doesn't necessarily disqualify either of them from being quoted or cited when appropriate and with proper attribution, but you can't treat one differently from the other. --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I disagree with you about the equivalence between EI and JCPA. EI is little more than an unabashedly partisan self-published blog, operated by its four journalist founders. The JCPA is a think tank, its staff comprised primarily of dozens of academics who are recognized experts in their fields, with a well identified board of directors, steering committee and oversight committees. It is the equivalent (albeit on a smaller scale) of such think tanks as the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. NoCal100 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am aware, Dore Gold is a big figure in JCPA, and the group's wiki page (for what it's worth) lists 4 serving and former IDF personnel at the top of the list of major contributors/researchers. Its own website, in the homepage's first sentence, says "Israel's growth and survival are dependent on its winning the war of ideas". I guess everyone can make up their own minds as to whether this makes them a partisan organisation or not. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You should know better that to use wiki article as support for your argument. Nevertheless, I'm sure you didn't miss, on that page, the following names - Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University; Professor Bernard Lewis; Dr. Uzi Arad, ;Dr. Ephraim Kam,;Professor Mordechai Abir; Professor Gerald M. Steinberg - yet for some strange reason those names didn't make it into your above post. Does EI have comparable names on its staff? A more comprehensive list can be found here- [3], and a quick browsing through the names will confirm what I wrote - the research staff is made up of academics, many of whom are notable experts in their fields. Of course the center has its own agenda, as do the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. But the simplistic equivalency of "this blog is partisan, this think-tank is partisan, thus they are equivalent sources" is a false equivalence. NoCal100 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, hence my use of the phrase "for what it's worth" in respect of the WP page (and actually of course there were seven IDF related names at the top of the list, apologies for that). And yes, I did also notice the name of Bernard Lewis there, as I have now noticed Efraim Karsh, Uzi Landau, Richard Landes, Daniel Pipes etc on the much longer list you've linked to on the JCPA site. Thankfully, EI does not have comparable names on its staff. Flippancy aside, I repeat my point that both are valid places to go to for a particular POV and in order to source the opinions of those who write under their auspices. Both are quite explicit about where they are coming from. In addition Ali Abunimah for example is often published elsewhere and EI cited with approval by mainstream media, even though it does not drape itself - and nor of course could it, admittedly - in the often-spurious trappings of a "think-tank". --Nickhh (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) You are thankful that EI does not have world renown experts on the subject such as Bernard Lewis. No more needs to be said. NoCal100 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC) The JCPA site is obviously unsuitable as a source for an unbiased account of what international law might have to say about the attacks. Its talk about "genocide" is inflammable. Inclusion of this material is clearly WP:UNDUE and borderline trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You are welcome to this personal opinion, which I disagree with, and as I've pointed out, it's also been published in the Spectator. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC) A blog that call the UN "Club of Terror" is not neutral. I will remove it again. Do not put this kind of stuff back unless it you have a reference to a reliable source, such as a refereed academic journal with a good reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) No source is "neutral". Falk is not neutral either. Wikipedia does not require 'neutral' sources - it requires reliable sources, which both the JCPA and The Spectator are. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus, as that is disruptive behavior. NoCal100 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The Weiner and Bell quotes, though farcical, should be left in, because they show just how convoluted and detached from reality one needs to be to justify this aggression. However, they should not be paired up with Falk or any other serious legal authorities. We should not use format to create the appearance of dialogue where there is none. Let the Weiner and Bell statements stand alone. The artificial division between "Attacks by Gaza Strip" and "Attacks by Israel" imposes a symmetry where there is none. Eliminate these misleading subheadings. Instead, have one subheading for Falk and one for Weiner and Bell. NonZionist (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Basically, what's going on here only proves that I was right when saying we should delete this section altogether. Please don't edit the section without consensus. I undid the last two edits. --Omrim (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't ignore the discussion we already had.[4] --Omrim (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I started to delete the most obviously propaganda. The JCPA web site is not not a serious source on international law regarding Israel's occupied territories. But as I am so clearly outnumbered by Zionists here, I will leave you guys. Bye-bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC) duh!. It's the nature of all internet communities to have debates, don't be so sensitive and assume WP:AGF. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply don't think Weiner and Bell have credible opinions, in that they are not definitely unbiased, and from what I've seen, their opinions are very different to most people on these issues.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not in favour of deletion because the absurdity of their opinions speaks for itself. Criticism of Hamas, which is after all a popular guerilla movement and not a standing army, for using "human shields", in one of the most densely populated places on earth is patently ridiculous to anybody who isn't already unsalvagebly


 * The section has improved a fair bit since yesterday afternoon, but the Weiner and Bell quotes are still given undue prominence considering their obvious partiality. Fig (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fig, and, in my own opinion, the quotes are ridiculously placed and used in my own opinion. They don't lend hand to Wikipedia's neutrality rules either when the sources are read up.--Theosony (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Trashy Article
This article has to take the award as one of the worst written, most POV, most inaccurate and misleading articles in wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful comments! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tundrabuggy, what complaints do you have with specifics of the article? Mairyweather (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you already know that complaining does not translate to edits and does not magically neutralize this important article, right? So, if you care, I suggest another path. Spend a full day searching for good sources, then edit the article respectively and I promise you'll find the article much less "inaccurate and misleading" afterwards. BTW, this is what keeps Wikipedia alive, if you didn't join the party, your influence had been lost. So, if you're going to blame, do not blame others. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, everything get reverted and reverted and re-reverted and modified to extinction. It is ridiculous trying to improve this article since most here seem to think WP:consensus trumps NPOV. The concept of balance and accuracy is a joke when you have people excoriating one side of the "conflict" only, and mythologizing the other. What you call my "influence" has been reverted so often with zero explanation that it has become meaningless in this article.  Eventually it may dawn on some of you that what you are doing here is pushing an agenda rather than trying to write a fair article. If and when that happens, I might start to contribute again.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, hai. I agree with you, but unlike yourself, I do my best to edit, propose, talk, debate, and try to move things forwards. Just bitchin' and moanin' about it is not productive. In fact, its counter-productive. Please provide concrete examples and discuss what you see as problems. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the first time, Tundrabuggy, we agree. We are trying to create a product that is acceptable to two radically incompatible philosophies.  At the same time, we are supposed to pretend that these ideologies do not exist -- that we're all just friends.  And we're not supposed to dialogue about the ISSUES and reach POLITICAL consensus.  So the only possible result is a lowest common denominator -- i.e., ZERO.  Because we do not DIALOGUE and develop an understanding of one another, the only thing left is to cancel out.  After days of effort, we end up with platitudes that are of no help to anybody. NonZionist (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza close to losing phone contact
Just wanted to submit this short AP article which I think has relevant content to be added to the "humanitarian crisis" sections.

"Paltel Group says 90% of Gaza's cellular service is down, as well as many landlines, because of frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iv4xv2KNWjkm8Ixw60eD52Va5zTw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!, I'm going to add it in the appropriate humanitarian crisis section. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this seem like kind of a minor detail to you? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * mmm, I guess it's a kind of crisis since people outside Gaza will not be able to know the state of their relatives and families in this horrific situation. To be sure, I'll wait for a day and see other agencies and the UN reaction. Thanks for keeping me honest. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor detail!? 90% of their ability communicate with the outside world is down? We should impose to add a "communications breakdown" section to the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" list.. --69.217.126.175 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

haaretz.com is not a source
I think these edits are inappropriate. For one the user deletes the Israeli strength. He also quotes "haaretz.com" as a source for 60 wounded Israelis. I think we need to quote specific articles, and not simply the publisher. VR talk  22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, SPECIFIC articles from haaretz.com are PERFECTLY acceptable ;). Just remember to ALSO verify with other sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but someone should remove the "haaretz.com" reference.VR talk  22:58, 4 January 2009

Since when are the police not counted as civilians?
Is this standard? It seems unusual to me. 206.116.188.187 (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be unusual but if thats what our reliable sources say then thats what we say. Of course, if there are reliable sources which discuss the issue of police not being counted as civilians in this conflict and mention it is unusual then we can probably include mention of that int he article Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a good question. I think the reason for this is because reports from Israel do not differentiate between Hamas and the police force of Hamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreywalters06 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since they're hammering military and "security" installations, I think it would be justifiable by this attestment to raise the respective civlian-millitant casuality ratio. --69.217.126.175 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Policemen are not civilians, but effort should be made to distinguish them in the mostcase from Hamas security forces. In my view. Superpie (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course policemen are civilians. That's why the name "Military Police" exists for those police who are not civilians. Fig (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The hair-splitting over who and who is not a "civilian" is a diversion from the real issue: Who is and is not the aggressor, and who is the victim. The political views, party affiliation and employer of the victim are all irrelevant. International law gives the victim the right of self-defense and the right to resist occupation. The victim who exercises these moral rights is still a victim: He fights or resists ONLY because the aggressor or occupier gives him no choice. In the Nuremberg Trials, AGGRESSION was declared the cardinal sin, not self-defense, not militancy! If Palestine were invading Israel, Palestine would be the aggressor and Israelis who defend themselves would not lose their civilian status by doing so. By the same standard, Palestinians do not lose their civilian status when they try to defend against Israeli aggression. If someone breaks into my house, the moral high-ground rests with me, whether or not I attempt to fight back. Only in the Kafkesque world of the ideologue is the defender condemned as a "terrorist" and the aggressor hailed as an "innocent". I would provide no untenable artificial subcounts. NonZionist (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Shooting indiscriminately into civilian areas from Gaza (and Gaza is not occupied since 2005, so all your statement is fallacious) is not "opposing to occupation" but "targeting civilians by terrorists". You're Pro-Russian, no? Why aren't you talking about how Russia invaded into Georgia when they felt that their security is threatened (even though it's probably not what happened at all)? Anyhow, this really isn't the place to talk about this, is it?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We had this discussion before, and I seem to remember somebody pointed out, that we will have to abide by the information of the pertaining sources. No other way is technically possible or allowed within the rules of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC has published an article discussing this issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811386.stm

It asks whether 40 police recruits killed on the 27th should not be counted as civilians. They are not soldiers, after all.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be better to state that SOME police are soldiers (Gendarmes...United States Coast Guard) and some are not. However, if policemen carry a gun and refuse to cooperate with the forces of occupation (just or unjust) they have the same status as other uniformed and combatant personnel and may therefore be engaged. However, as they wear a uniform and carry arms openly, they are entitled to be treated as soldiers in non-combatant ways (namely, they are "legal" combatants) and must be treated as POWs when captured. V. Joe (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All positions should be stated in the Intro
The introduction reads "Israel asserts its strikes are a response to near-daily Palestinian rocket and mortar fire on its southern civilian communities.[15]". However, this is what Israel claims its motivation is. In a neutral article, the viewpoint of Hamas and others should be stated as well. So I propose the following addition, immediately after this sentence.

"However, Hamas disputes this, asserting that this is a continuation of "Israeli crimes against Palestinians", while others state |state that the rocket attacks by Hamas were preceded by Israeli raids in Gaza.

Please comment. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would phrase it better, I hate the "However". We should be able to express the point of views of either side rather than as a point/counter-point as a Point A and Point B.


 * So I say:


 * Hamas has called the attacks a continuation of "Israel's crimes against Palestinians".


 * BTW, can we get at least one more source?


 * What "others think" doesn't need to be on the intro, as it belongs in the reactions section, which is covered by a few lines in the intro already. This is the intro, not the article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hamas claimed motivation for ending the ceasefire was included in the previous version of the intro:


 * "A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on December 19; Hamas did not renew it and stated the continued Gaza Strip blockade as the reason. "


 * Here's the wording from an even earlier version:


 * "A truce between Hamas and Israel ended on December 19th, when Hamas intensified its rocket attacks on Israel. Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the Gaza Strip blockade. Israel says the aim of Operation Cast Lead is to destroy Hamas' capability to launch rockets on Israel."


 * But this was removed in the new version by Cerejota. I think it is important to have this in the lead, because 1) it establishes a connection to the wider conflict, 2) explains Hamas' point of view on the end of the ceasefire (Israel's point of view is already there.) I'd also like to point out, that the current version of the intro does not mention the six-month truce at all. Any opinions/suggestions? Offliner (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Offliner. In the current version, Israel explanation for its actions is stated unquestioningly. Neutrality demands that Hamas's position be included there. Alternately, we could remove Israel's justification from the introduction. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it's mentioned questioningly or unquestioningly as long as it's mentioned. The matter of whether the Qassam rockets can be taken as a proper motivation of the attack is left to the critical ability of the reader. However, it's clear to me that the introduction is not very well-written, is somehow redundant, and most importantly is far from being balanced with regard to presenting both parties' rationale behind their acts, either it be launching this massive attack on the Gaza strip or keeping on launching the rockets towards the southern Israelian cities. Like said by Jacob and Offliner the Israelian explanation is very well laid out (mentioned three times only in the introduction?) whereas the Hamas justification is only touched upon very briefly. Hamas stand is certainly not to be included in what the "others think"... Hamas is as involved in the "conflict" as Israel is, i.e., It's the other party! You either touch brifly upon the two stands or eliminate both from the introduction. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, my only issue with the truce, is length, it is very important contextually, and the background section shoudl expand on it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that after opposing the "cast lead" title, the article non the less ascribe the start of the conflict to the operation, rather than the previous days of hamas bombardment of civilian population. either the article is about the operation rather than the conflict as a whole, in which case the title should reflect this, or the article is about the conflict as a whole, in which case the into, specifically the 2nd sentence The conflict began with a series of air strikes by Israel in Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008 should be reworded to reflect this. --84.109.19.88 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

bbc piece (Propaganda war: trusting what we see?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm "Israel has tried to take the initiative in the propaganda war over Gaza but, in one important instance, its version has been seriously challenged." I suggest this gets added to "Public relations campaign and media strategies" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.252 (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, this provides a useful insight into how murky claims during a conflict, even with (at first) seemingly conclusive video evidence can be Thefuguestate (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my asking, but don't you think this is pretty much as minor a detail as they come? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(UTC)

See Pallywood--173.49.55.18 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore it is opinion, not fact. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Total strength
In the infobox should we mention both parties' total strength, or only that deployed? For example given the Israeli navy and air force took part, should be describe its total number of aircraft and naval vessels? What about describing total number of Hamas militants?VR talk  23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of ships and planes participating in combat should probably be mentioned. I reckon it will be hard to find the exact number of Hamas members who participated in hostilities, but all odds are that it's pretty much the whole bunch. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is held by IDF experts that large parts of the Hamas have been in hiding. At leat till the beginning of the land incursion. After that I don't know. There's an interesting site http://www.debka.com/ that mentioned this in one of its articles (see also present main article). Whether this site is acceptable as source for Wikipedia I don't know. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the "strength" section of a conflict infobox, typically both troops and weaponry are listed. I favor listing total troop strength, as it is impossible to determine exactly what share are participating in what capacity. Currently we have no mention whatsoever of weaponry. IDF info we can get easily. For Hamas, I've seen estimates of numbers of Qassam rockets ranging to the thousands, but can't find any estimates for their small arms and other strength. Does anyone with military interests have equipment breakdowns with figures or estimates? RomaC (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both side are notoriously difficult to estimate total as far as troops go.  Israel because majority of its male population can be called up for reserve duty at any given point in time, albeit sustaining such numbers is impossible without destroying the economy.  Hamas does not publish its statistics and estimates are known to be inaccurate because any teenager with a molotov cocktail and or a slingshot can claim to be part of Hamas.

Hidden message in front of lead
BEFORE YOU MODIFY THIS INTRO

PLEASE READ THE APPROPRIATE

POLICIES REGARDING INTRODUCTION

"Wikipedia:Lead section"

ALSO BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE

ONGOING DISCUSSIONS IN THE

TALK PAGE AROUND THIS INTRO

PLEASE DO NOT ADD MATERIAL THAT

BELONGS ELSEWHERE IN THE ARTICLE

THIS SHOULD SUMMARISE THE ARTICLE

CONTENTS, NOT TAKE THE PLACE

OF THE ARTICLE.

AGAIN THIS IS INTRO HAS BEEN WIDELY DISCUSSED,

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION,

YOU WILL BE REVERTED.

IF YOU THINK IT SHOULD CHANGE HAVE THE DECENCY

AND COMMON SENSE TO TRY AND REACH CONSENSUS

INSTEAD OF BEING A VANDAL.

I was wondering if we could find a more appropriate wording for it. For instance, "being a vandal" would imply bad-faith contributions, and could be seen as offensive to some newer editors on the project.

And as a side note, the lead section is quite lengthy. I suggest reducing it to 3 paragraphs for the time being.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh,I have proposed shortening so many times! Except all my proposals get shot down, because people want to explain why Hamas launches rockets or why the Israelis attacked, or write a dissertation on the background of the conflict, or provide redundant infos etc etc etc. My point is, this is an intro, which should be a summary of the stuff, not the stuff itself. Its impossible.


 * So, I rather have a rough consensus intro that can be stable, than a short intro. Once this is a historic event, an no-one cares, we can come back and wiki-fairy this baby. Deal?


 * That said, I think the comments are fine, as this article is semi-protected, so only expeirenced editors can edit it, no a chance in hel we can bite (BTW, *I* wrote part of BITE :). Anyone editing in good faith can ignore the message, it is precisely directed at bad faith edits, which are suprisingly high, for a semi-protected article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point well made, I considered it prior however - actually, I'm not specifically referring to anons/new accounts (sorry, I know that's what that page typically categorizes). I should specify what is concerning to me - the "instead of being a vandal" portion. It just seems a bit too... imprudent. Making a bold (but not reckless) change to a page shouldn't be cateorized as patent "vandalism" which is intentionally adding unconstructive content to our site.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 10:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis in Gaza
The people of Gaza have my sympathies and my respect for going through the inconceivable challenges that face them. Nevertheless, it is important to look critically at the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" section:


 * 1) The section begins with a discussion of the blockade against Gaza. This isn't relevant to the article, so the "18 month long human dignity crisis" seems superfluous. It's relevance to the current crisis is mentioned further down, and there is no need to mention it twice.
 * 2) Panic and vulnerability-This is a very serious issue, and I do not mean to diminish the impact that PTSD and other mental injuries can have on people. But if this is to be included in the "humanitarian crisis" section, then there must be a "Humanitarian crisis in Israel" section, detailing the awful mental injuries in southwest Israel. I personally favor removing this section, given the length of the article, but I'd like to hear input from other editors.
 * 3) Cash-Again, this is a serious issue, but Israel faces economic impacts from this conflict, too. Should we remove this section, or add an Israeli counterpart?

I will await either comment or prolonged lack of response before I edit. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that you raise valid considerations. Specifically, #1 the blockade of Gaza should not be considered a part of the present hostilities, #2 short mention should be made of the mental consequences for Israelis and Palestinians both, #3 the whole subject of cash seems to me to be not directly pertaining to the hostilities. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" should simply be its own article. Some may state that Gaza has had a humanitarian crisis for some time, although its certainly worse now. As there are obviously numerous contributing factors outside the military conflict, this might justify its own article. As a section on this page it will only grow larger, and will likely continue after this current military conflict has ended. Harley peters (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the opinion of Harley peters in addition to the short mention I recommended before. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The humanitarian crisis is the most important issue of this war proved by the number of protests around the world and the UN reports coverage. You think the world care about Hamas? No, the whole problem is in the crisis of the Gaza strip. If this section is omitted, then the Wikipedia article gives the impression that this was a simple war between two armies. No, it is not just 400 Palestinians killed, and 1200 injured. It's 400 killed, 1200 injured and 1.5 million living in a "human dignity crisis" as described by the UN. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Saepe, if there's anything stupid in this paragraph, you can blame me :). My reply to your points:


 * 1) The referenced UN report describes the whole situation as a "dignity crisis", and then go to the details. After this exact wording it says "Element of this humanitarian crisis are: ...". So if you want to remove the "18 month" part, it's fine. But I think the rest should stay since this is the introduction that sums the whole situation up as summed up by the UN neutral reports.
 * 2) I think you're comparing apples to oranges in here. All the latest 5 UN reports mention the extreme state of panic in the strip as part of the humanitarian crisis (see references). Southern Israeli panic is different cause in Gaza there's "no public warnings or effective shelters", and I don't find a resource mentioning that Israeli civilians faces "insecurities re-stocking basic foods and water". The mentioned panic is a panic cause of the whole non-humanitarian situations combined. Of course it will be good to have a paragraph describing the southern Israeli suffer, but it's not Wikipedia editors call to describe such a paragraph a "humanitarian crisis". I've seen no resource describing the situation there as a humanitarian crisis and certainly not from the most credible authority that can describe humanitarian crisis, a.k.a the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
 * 3) No you were confused by ambiguity of the word "cash". The cash crisis mentioned, and as reported by the UN, is a crisis in the availability of banknotes. It's not a problem of the costs of war, it's a problem of no available money so the UNRWA can not pay its employees and the families depending on its programs (49,000). It's not cause UNRWA has financial problems due to war, it's cause Israel "banned the entry of cash-notes into Gaza". This is clear in the cited references and I thought it was clear in the article too. I'm open to discussion of course. Thank you! --Darwish07 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again :). To address the concerns mentioned here, I've transformed the section from "Panic and Vulnerability" to "Shelter" and removed the statements that no longer fit. Now the section discusses only the sheltering problems faced by people on Gaza. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that according to the IDF, there are over 50 trucks of international humanitarian aid entering Gaza on a daily basis. Unlike Hamas' and radical Islamist propaganda, IDF does not lie. They don't make up figures or state facts like these, when they aren't true. IDF hides information, but doesn't make up information. I didn't see it written anywhere. There are reports also (need to find sources) that Hamas are not allowing injured people to be sent to hospitals in Egypt and Israel (according to Egyptian foreign minister), and some of the humanitarian aid truck are not reaching their destination, AFTER they cross into Gaza. If anyone has sources, please check this info, because if it's true, all this "humanitarian aid" is a crusade against Israel. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And some sources that I can find:
 * "A convoy of 109 trucks carrying international humanitarian aid was authorised to pass on Tuesday through the Kerem Shalom crossing," a military spokesman told AFP. ,
 * "According to the Foreign Ministry, since the beginning of the operation some 400 trucks carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid have been transferred to the Gaza Strip at the request of the international organizations, the Palestinian Authority and various governments. The ministry said that preparations were under way to facilitate further shipments expected to arrive in the coming days."
 * More sources:, and etc.
 * Yes, the sources are IDF, but again, it would be quite harsh to call them liars. Your opinions? -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And it wasn't quite harsh at all to call all Hamas liars? I really admire your neutrality. I'm checking your posted sources now without saying fanatical statements like all the IDF are liars. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had my shitload of debating with extreme bias this day. This page is really a witness. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really late here and I'm sleeping on the keyboard. I think it's best to put such info on a separate subsection under the Humanitarian Crisis section. The UN reports mention some of these aid trucks and it will be absolutely more WP:NPOV to extract those stuff from the UN papers instead than from the IDF. I'm not ,like you, saying fanatical statements about IDF lies and deception, I'm just trying to get the best use of the most neutral sources available, aka the UN OCHA reports. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was stating my, and many others' opinion about Hamas sources. It's nothing new for these kind of organizations, they pretty much sound like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf most of the time. Nevertheless, it was in Discussion, and not something I wrote in the article itself . These are 2 separate places. While the article must remain as neutral as possible, and show both sides, there's nothing against stating an opinion in the discussion thread. Unless I missed something... And anyway, it might sound as an extreme bias, calling statements by Hamas and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as mostly unfounded "lies" or deception, in reallity most of their statements are exactly that. I was merely calling the baby by its name. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwish, I realize this must be frustrating for you, but please try to tone down the personal attacks.
 * Nomaed, saying that the IDF "does not lie" is just taking it too far. I would agree that they're a reliable source, but they lie sometimes, too. The big difference is in that Israel has a transparent form of government, whereas Hamas has the power and the will to keep everything under wraps in Gaza, and worse (that's why Israel has dissent, whereas Hamas can squash Palestinian dissenters).
 * Sounds fair to me.
 * Darwish, regarding your claim that Israelis are not holed up, this is simply untrue. Many Israelis confine themselves to the safest room in the house. People won't send their children to daycare, kindergartens and schools (even those that are still open), and this leads to a crippling of the workforce. Admittedly, this is far better than the crisis in Gaza. But it is definitely a crisis. If the "Shelter" section remains in the article, I will add this information (and source it, naturally).
 * I understand the cash situation, but I still don't thing it belongs. Ultimately, lack of banknotes is an economic crisis. If economic crises are fair game, then we must include the economic crisis in southern Israel. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How come you delete all of my edits of Yesterday, and re-add the Original Research previously reverted about the Water section though I proved above that it's original research and does not fit wikipedia? This is really weird and reverted. --Darwish07 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This vandalism edit is reported below on . I'm angry cause you approximately deleted one full day of work in one edit. --Darwish07 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Saepe, I never meant to personally attack anyone, if this was the given impression, I'm sorry. Now to the points:
 * Reaching consensus is always good :).
 * I did not ever claim that the Israelis are not suffering, all I said that it's not documented as a "humanitarian crisis". If it's documented as one by the UN, then add all the info to your heart content. Anyway, I suggested adding a section about what the Israeli sufferings from this war, just not doing an original research and calling it a "humanitarian crisis". I know people who do not suffer do not feel the suffering of others, but everything should be cited, and if a big word like this is to be used, then it must be referenced and proved really will.
 * Include the economic crisis in southern Israel, no problem. Let's then have a big section called "Southern Israel situation" that describes the sheltering and economic problems caused in Southern Israel to balance the "Gaza Humanitarian Crisis" section. Fair enough. but this is a different problem from Israel banning cash to Gaza and thus, halting the humanitarian work of the UNRWA, a completely different one.
 * --Darwish07 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I have time, I'll work on doing this. Let us note, though, that the UN isn't the only definitive source on what is or is not a humanitarian crisis. If I can find other RS's, will you accept them?
 * If economic crises are to be considered "situations," then the economic crisis in Gaza must bItalic texte considered in the "Gaza situation" section. Personally, I think this is a terrible idea, but I also think that having the cash section is a terrible idea, because it ultimately all goes back to economics. Here's what I suggest: what if we move up the information about UNRWA's problems following the restriction of cash flows to a different section in "Humanitarian crisis"? Does that seem like something you could support? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS-To clarify: moving this information would also entail deleting the existing section. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My main objective of describing the Israeli situation as "crisis", speaking in humanitarian cases, is how it makes the Gaza strip problems and Southern Israeli ones look equal. I've just read latest report released from an hour where it says that 75% of Gaza with no electricity and how the hospitals power generators are close to collapse from constant working, and a lot of other miserable facts about sheltering and food. Throwing all the politics aside about Hamas stupidity, Israel aggression, who's wrong and others, Do you think that the "humanitarian situation" on both sides are equal?
 * So ofcourse if you find neutral sources that mention a crisis in Southern Israel in sheltering, food, water, and health, go on. But try to make them not just from the Israeli side, cause the Gaza Crisis section does not cite any references from the Palestinian side. Otherwise we can make a new section "Southern Israeli sufferings" and describe the halted state of schools and work in there. I'll make this section as a stub and let others fill it, I'm sure it will be filled in quickly. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a subsection "Suffering in Southern Israel" and marked it with \{\{Expand-section\}\}. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a subsection "Suffering in Southern Israel" and marked it with \{\{Expand-section\}\}. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's just sum up the the humanitarian crisis of both Gaza and Israel in the same section.21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, the severity of the situation is much more different between the two. And no found 'neutral' resources yet cited the Southern Israeli condition as a "humanitarian crisis" --Darwish07 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to humbly suggest the title "Humanitarian Situation in Southern Israel" instead of "Suffering In Southern Israel" for the subsection. It sounds more neutral and encyclopedic in my opinion.--Chikamatsu (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone deleted the "Southern Israel suffering" section entirely without even discussing it in here. Whoever he is, please don't delete it, it's going to be filled in soon. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that a new article should be made focusing on the Humanitarian situation in Gaza, but mainly because I believe that the Humanitarian Sitation is not directly linked to the 2008-2009 conflict. While the conflict is aggravating the situation, the issues run far deeper. A new article can be linked to the Conflict article but should also discuss issues such as Overcrowding, Lack of infastructure, (and at risk of taking a lot of heat for saying this) the reigon is governed by a listed terrorist organization which has shown blatant disregard for its population by not providing for them as a governent should as well as going so far to use them as human shields. The poor conditions in Gaza should not be spoken about for a soley external standpoint (one citing Israel as the cause for the crisis) but rather in its own article from an internal standpoint that would briefly mention the conflict with Israel (in an unbiased manner of course). (Relidc (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Livni: Humanitarian situation is 'as it should be'
Surely Livni's comments should be in the lead? See http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052302.html After all this sums up Israel's attitude to the humanitarian situation.

I notice that all mention of the problems facing ordinaryGazans have been removed from the lead. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Israeli counter-demonstrations
I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of civilian protests around the world were and are pro-palestinian. However, there were quite a few "counter-demonstrations" (pro-Israeli ones). Why don't we mention them? Just to list a few I found in a quick serach in google and google-news: Thanks, --Omrim (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Boston
 * Fort Lauderdale
 * Huston
 * Los Angeles
 * Melbourne
 * Miami
 * Nashville
 * New York City
 * Paris
 * San Francisco
 * Sydney
 * Toronto


 * That's a really nice research Omrim. Thank you!. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is what am talking about! Research! You, sir, have blown my head away.--Cerejota (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This info belongs on the reactions article: International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. There is a list of pro-israeli protests there. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is correct. Nevertheless, just as there is a (too detailed) list of anti-Israel demonstrations included in this page, likewise at least a mention of pro-Israel demonstrations should be made, for impartiality's sake. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, lets definitely mention them. But please keep to mentioning those that attracted large numbers of people, say about 2,000 (or should we make it 3,000?) or more. There are currently 32 anti-Israel protests that had this number (but we shouldn't mention all of them). This way we don't end up having huge lists.VR talk  14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One has to laugh. Pro-Hamas(?) demonstrations of 200 people are listed.  If it's good for the goose...  Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course they were mentioned, but someone removed them. I will add it back--Omrim (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Research added to Water Crisis section
On the water crisis section, and after stating the reported UN figures about the water cuts, User:Manitobamountie | added]:

''These population numbers may be misleading, since, prior to the conflict, a large number of Palestinians were without adequate safe drinking water, because Palestine has the least available water supply per capita in a region that is poorly supplied with safe drinking water. ''

This will be deleted cause: --Darwish07 (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This is entirely original research. The source has no relation to current activities, it's an 2006 paper. The paper has no relation whatsoever to current activities, it just describes lacking of safe drinking water in Palestine.
 * 2) It's clearly mentioned in the cited UN OCHA reports that the water cuts figures occurred cause of the Israeli airstrikes.


 * Ah, Manitobamountie please add  edit summaries to your edits to make finding the guilty edits easier ;-). (Kidding :)) --Darwish07 (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of this page
(Not directly related to article content)

I feel quite a few ongoing discussions have been archived without a consensus or decision being reached. If this is being done automatically can the settings be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It should have been done automatically. However the bot settings still let the page grow to an unacceptable size (several hundred kb). If you feel discussions have been archived that have not come to a close but were on their way to do so - feel free to extract them from the respective archives.
 * One could further think about creating subpages for the RM discussion, maybe also for the discussion concerning the lead section, to keep this talk page accessible. Mind that even after the last archiving the page exceeds 100 kb, and this will again be multiplied within the next hours. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To further explain, the bot only archives threads if they haven't received replies for a minimum of one day (it could be up to around 48 hours because the bot only visits once a day). Given how active this page is, it is likely most (although obviously not all) discussions that haven't received a response in that long are either resolved or dead Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought - but if you look in archive 6 there are several discussions with replies from this morning (5th Jan). They shouldn't have been archived until at least tomorrow. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well let me clarify that I archived a lot (about 1 MB in archives 4-7) to grant accessibility of this page. People need to be able to access and edit this page. If you feel sections were archived to early, extract and re-open. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

4th Most Powerful Army in the world?
The source used for this claim never states nor gives evidence whatsoever to the aforementioned claim. Else I'd question the relevance of this assertion. 189.141.63.87 (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You could add a "citation needed" remark in the article. Wether or not it is relevant may be argued either way. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a highly subjective statement and does not belong in the article header, especially not when merely supported by that highly subjective source. What does "powerful" mean? Furthermore, the header is not the place for military geekery. If we want to provide some measure of the amount of ordinance expended into Gaza, which would be a much more meaningful statement, we should find it elsewhere. I'm going to remove this statement. -- Noung (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should be taken out unless there is a really good ref which actually explains the method used and shows that the method is a standard-ish one. These kind of metrics are problematic so I guess they're likely to cause more chaos in the lead....like now for example.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently there's this thing called Wikipedia with lots of informaton like List of countries by military expenditures, List of countries by size of armed forces etc etc with lot's of refs. However, the variety in methods doesn't give me a good feeling about statements like nth most powerful.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sean, you and I think alike - those were the first pages I checked. Then I hit the web and started searching.  *Lots* of people quote "4th most powerful" but don't give a source.  I had almost given up when I finally found a page that mentioned its source.  Both the source and methodology look legit.  See here for the method used and here for the source database.  152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fighting strength of both the IDF and Hamas is germane and must be in the article. RomaC (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, given they're vastly different but maybe it's best to avoid soundbite numbers without context. Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * that website is quite unpleasant. i'm not really qualified to know whether it's legit but i doubt it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If this does belong in the article then it does not belong in the header - what belongs in the header is the number of forces directly involved in these events. Otherwise it is misleading, as if the entire IDF had just piled into Gaza. -- Noung (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The assessment goes back to one made by The International Institute for Strategic Studies.See


 * George Marshall,Editorial Research Reports, Congressional Quarterly, inc., 1982, p.849 ' The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London rates Israel as the fourth strongest military power in the world, p.849


 * George W. Ball, Error and Betrayal in Lebanon: An Analysis of Israel's Invasion of Lebanon and the Implications for U.S.-Israeli Relations Foundation for Middle East Peace, 1984 p.145. 'By no means should we continue to maintain Israel as the fourth strongest military power in the world.'


 * Cheryl Rubenberg, The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003 p.288, ‘Israel possesses overwhelming conventional military power: it has the fourth strongest military on the globe, and experts acknowledge its capacity to defeat all Arab states combined. It also has a significant (though unofficial= nuclear capability, as well as highly developed chemical and biological weapons. Nevertheless, the construct of an omnipresent Arab threat to Israel’s existence and security was objectified in American culture’

This against the 'natives' with their complex technology of making rockets out of lampposts.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Hamas is using 120mm mortars, and Russian designed Grad, and Improved Grad rockets Proteus7 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the Subsections
Currently section 3's subsections are listed with date in the Day/Month/Year format (eg. "31 December 2008"), but may be misleading in the ToC because right before day there is a number representing the subsection. I.e., 3 Development ——3.1 27 December 2008   ——3.2 28 December 2008  ——3.3 29 December 2008  ————3.3.1 Dignity incident    ——3.4 30 December 2008  ——3.5 31 December 2008  ——3.6 1 January 2009  ——3.7 2 January 2009  ——3.8 3 January 2009  ——3.9 4 January 2009  ——3.10 5 January 2009

I suggest we use the Month Day, year format, eg. "December 31st 2008"-- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 10:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we don't use superscript as it does not display properly on some non-English OS. So, "December 31, 2008" IMO. RomaC (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How bout you leave it alone as the subsectioning is known as Wikiformatting?--173.49.55.18 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli casualties
Any objection to giving the number of Israeli casualties in the intro, following the number of Palestinian casualties? Phersu (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to that. RomaC (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone got a reliable source for Israeli casualties? I'm reading different numbers on different sites. An up-to-date CNN report is saying four Israeli deaths - one soldier and three civilians - while the current Wikipedia article suggests two soldiers and five civilians. Phersu (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have content objection, I have a stylistic objection. The intro is almost as long as it, I would remove both. But if one is put, its fair to put the other. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought the one thing which DOES belong in the intro is the number of casualties... still having trouble finding a definitive figure for Israeli casualties though. Thanks. Phersu (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The time and location of the conflict and the motivations behind it are more relevant than casualities in terms of what gets into the lead. If all those are included and the lead still isn't long enough the casualties could be added... But given the complexity of this conflict I imagine that even such a minimalist lead would be a bit long. Kari Hazzard ( T  |  C ) 12:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. It seems to me that casualty figures are crucial in any intro about a military conflict involving substantial loss of life. Still finding conflicting figures about Israeli deaths though (Jerusalem Post says two soldiers and three civilians, which contradicts other reports. Anyone have the definitive number?) Phersu (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Phersu on importance of casualty figures and their place high in the lead. RomaC (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 5 casualties. 3 civilians, one soldier and one home-front soldier, but I couldn't find a reference to that in English sites. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, someone removed the injured Israeli civilians in the info-box. I added it back, but I can't seem to find the source currently (and I don't have the time to look for it, I really gotta go now). I added it back. Also, someone removed one soldier casualty there, so it was 4 casualties (1 soldier, 3 civs). I added the correct number and added a reference. Whoever made this change, please, don't. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All sources agree only 1 Israeli soldier was killed. Even the same sources you indicated in the article. So I'll change that back. As to the number of civilian Israeli casualties, I've just seen the number of 5, for the first time, in the sources you indicated. But other sources don't seem to agree, and since in Israeli media any killed Israeli is extensivle mentioned, it seems premature to add that to the article. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC says 5 Israelis have been killed so far. VR talk  21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are 2 references there, each referencing to a different death. Please do not revert it! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It may say five killed, but it doesn't mention two soldiers. All sources agree only one soldier has been killed. Please don't change that again. Especially since in the subsection on Casualties you DO get it right. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TWO soldiers were killed (well actually 5, 3 addtional are now confirmed dead ), For the first two see: and . So 2+3 = 5 Okay?--Omrim (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, five. And so it says in the subsection on Casualties. Then why does it say six in the table at the beginning of the article? Since this is clearly a mistake, as confirmed by the subsection and consensus on this Talk page, I'll change it to five. Debresser (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's 6. There was another confirmed soldier killed this morning. Altogether 4 during this night (all due to "friendly fire"), 1 at the first night of the ground assault, and 1 from a mortar in the first days of the air-strikes. Last Monday: MSgt. Lutfi Nasraldin (38); First night: St-Sgt. Dvir Emanuelof (22); Tonight: Mjr. Dagan Wartman (32), St-Sgt. Nitai Stern (21), Cpl. Yousef Moadi (19), Cpt. Yonatan Netanel (27). I added the reference. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Unfortunately... Debresser (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It was just cleared for publication that another soldier was killed during an operation in the north of the Gaza Strip. I see that the infobox was already updated. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now it has to be worked into the Casualties section and the chart, too. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Public Relations and Media Strategies
This section is in need of serious attention. The two subheadings currently read, "Israel" and "Arab" which sounds quite awkward. Second, its not clear that the "Arab" subheading contains any notable information. The media focuses on large scale casualties and this, in my opinion, is not notable. For example, the page on | September 11, with good reason, does not carry any mention of how the US media played footage of the attacks throughout the day. I think the section on Israel can stand on its own, because as the sources in this section point out, the Israeli government seems to have launched a concerted public relations effort. There is nothing equivalent from the other side which is why the "Arab" section seems a bit forced. I suggest we remove it altogether unless something more substantive turns up. Jacob2718 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arab subheading should be deleted. It does not say anything important. Many networks have been playing images of the conflict in "grisly" detail such as CNN and the BCC but this has not been deemed noteworthy. Also, the same goes for logos about the conflict. Most importantly though, Arab is vague and does not represent any Arab nation or political group. The only media group even mentioned is Al-Jazeera which has no cited connection to any so-called public relations campaign. Please delete this subheading. Cishaurim (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli and Others"?
Shouldn't there be a separate section for "others"? PluniAlmoni (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents
"Hamas sources told The Jerusalem Post that members of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were participating in the fighting against the IDF..." - shouldn't we add them to the Belligerents section in the table? PluniAlmoni (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reference provided for this assertion. The belligerent list on the Palestinian side lists a slew of organizations without any citations. They should all be removed leaving Hamas as the only confirmed, widely and publicly recognized combatant fighting the Israeli forces in Gaza unless multiple sources can indicate that this is not the case.

Thrylos000 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of White Phosphorus
The following pictures seems to me like White Phosphorus munitions...but I am no expert on this so can anyone please confirm this so that the use of this controversial weapon can be recorded in the article. Here are the pictures:
 * http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3523/84166342ui7.jpg
 * http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9199/84166337pa8.jpg
 * http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6506/84166547ab2.jpg

Badkhan (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be WP, but that's a non-issue. This is the commonest way (and of the best ways) to get a smoke-screen, and is not really dangerous to people, as the phosphorous burns in the air to produce the smoke, and doesn't reach the ground in clean form. The use of WP is controversial when used against people, as an anti-personnel weapon. It is used to produce smoke-screens by armies throughout the world. See White_Phosphorous in particular, and that entire article in general, for more info on the subject. okedem (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's only controversial amongst the idiots who wish it was a chemical weapon so they could castigate the US for using it in Iraq. Jtrainor (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't that original research WP:OR ? Maybe you can email Patrick Baz at AFP via hotmail if you want to follow it up. He's probably a bit busy though....  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you pay attention instead of trying to deploy tepid burns. If you had even bothered to check the WP article here, then you'd know that use of white phosphorus is only illegal if used for it's chemical effect rather than it's incendiary effect. Jtrainor (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * er..hello..are you talking to me for some reason? Tepid burns? I don't follow. Not sure who is meant to be burning who here and why. Anyway, I have no interest in the legal status of white phosphorus if that helps you. Just trying to help Badkhan out. That's all.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I assumed you were replying to me instead of him. I hereby retract my comment. x_x Jtrainor (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They look like WP to me (though im no authority). What I really wanted to add was that explosions of this type were ongoing early on before the ground offensive. So maybe an issue for further study. Superpie (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I found the following sources report it:
 * Evening Standard
 * Times Online (Times' coverage is notable enough to be reported by BBC)
 * Sify India
 * The Australian
 * Daily Mail

Are all of the above sources are non-notable?VR talk  15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that these reports could be false. Therefore we should attribute them, but mention them nonetheless.VR talk  15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree VR it is reported in verifiable sources. BigDunc  Talk 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some papers haven't got a clue what they're reporting about. Israel has used smoke shells containing White Phosphorous. This is the most common, and best way to get smoke. See Smoke screen for more details of the subject - you can see that the rest of the materials used for generating smoke are no better. What is controversial is the use of White Phosphorous as an anti-personnel weapon, where blobs of WP are rained down on the enemy to produce fire and burns. In smoke-screening the WP does not reach anyone, but burns through the air.
 * The cited articles are simply sensational reporting, by ignorant writers. Most, like "The Australian" piece, get something right: "...Israel was suspected of screening its assault with white phosphorus - a substance that causes terrible burns but is not illegal when used as a smokescreen." - not illegal because it is very different from the anti-personnel version. If it is not illegal, and this use is legitimate - no point in reporting on it, especially not in the untruthful way "banned white phosphorus shells". As some of the articles also bother mentioning, other military forces use this as well. In fact, most military forces use WP for smoke. It's not illegal, and not even controversial.
 * This is simply taking non-issue and trying to make it look important; pure and simple sensational reporting. Not every piece of ignorant journalism deserves mention. The mere fact that something was reported, does not make it notable, or every single "day section" will be 500kb long. okedem (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is, that UNDER a military action(conflict) all weapons used are for military purposes. Then, assume that when these weapons are 'used' it does not matter what 'civilian' purposes these weapons may have, or when is ILLEGAL or LEGAL.  Israel is using these weapons in a conflict, does it really matter HOW they use it? its war people, anybody trying to 'moralize' it or look at it from a 'useful' point of view is plain nuts(for lack of a better place in which to use 'other' terms).

Listen, give the information on this matter, not getting into legallity issues, and also include the past claims from the Lebanon war with Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.165.14 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean, 'nukes' or nuclear weapons are 'legal' but this burning substance isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.165.14 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify this a bit more - if you want to report on this, you'd have to do so honestly, something like this - "Several papers have noted that Israel has used White Phosphorous shells to produce smoke screens. This use is perfectly legal and legitimate, and White Phosphorous is used in this way throughout the world." Not very interesting, I think. okedem (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, not very interesting if phrased this way, okedem ,or if your interpretation is of high reliability than that of the London Times which wrote:


 * "The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: “If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.” The Israeli military last night denied using phosphorus, but refused to say what had been deployed. “Israel uses munitions that are allowed for under international law,” said Captain Ishai David, spokesman for the Israel Defence Forces. “We are pressing ahead with the second stage of operations, entering troops in the Gaza Strip to seize areas from which rockets are being launched into Israel.”"


 * Please note that it should not be used in civilian areas, and that, contrary to your paraphrase,okedem, the IDF denies it is using the material. The 'perfectly legal and legitimate' is again,as often here, a personal and therefore improper editorial intrusion, overriding reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Read all sources VR linked. WP is not to be used as a weapon, but can be used for smoke screens. There's no ban regarding use as smoke screen in civilian areas. Use of WP as a weapon is very different from its use a smoke screen (Physically, different construction and operation), and even people standing right under the smoke-shell will be at very low risk. The only resemblence is the material itself, which is a very peculiar thing to go on - you can use fuel to drive a car, or to burn someone. Not the same use, though the same material. International conventions seems to understand that (not so subtle) subtlety. 'perfectly legal and legitimate' is the sum of what said sources claim, if you get past their headlines. I meant to write "claimed", not "noted". Whatever. It's just a comment, not an actual edit. okedem (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nishidani. The IDF have not explicitly claimed WP is not being used as an incendiary, so it would be OR to claim the IDF is definitely and exclusively doing so. A British military expert is even quoted in one of the reliable sources mentioning his concerns about Israel's use of WP. The white phosphorous article also notes its use in the current conflict. Furthermore, people are naturally curious as to what the heck the fireworks in news images are, and might falsely assume they are clusterbombs if we don't clear the issue up.Chikamatsu (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the source I provided, IDF says it didn't use it, and that's what I wrote. The expert, if you read carefully, is saying - "IF Israel is...", as he has no idea. This is, again, a non-issue. I don't see anyone rushing to explain exactly what kind of bomb the IDF used on every single day (those actually do kill people, you know). This should be no different. It's just a smoke shell. The gist of these claims is (read the articles): "Israel might have done something which is perfectly legal, maybe." Perhaps the novelty of people claiming Israel did something legal is of interest here. okedem (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unlike us, people who fights wars do not think in these terms. Phosphorus bombs have several functions. They are thrown ahead of incoming troups, to screen them. That is the given function, but the secondary function is to burn, or compel into hiding, snipers or mine-wire operators waiting under cover to hit the troops. As to your remark, you wrote:'Several papers have noted that Israel has used White Phosphorous shells to produce smoke screens." Note means 'took record of the fact'. This ostensible fact was denied by the IDF. Therefore what you wrote was incorrect, even within Israeli terms. Instead you tried to justify its use. This is not part of our function as editors, which is simply to check for the best sources, and relate in a balanced way what both sides, and their sutlers in the commentariat, as well as what a few independentanalysts, are saying. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read my comment at all? I said - I mis-wrote. I meant to write "claimed", not "noted".
 * Those sources VR specified clearly said, once you got past their sensational headlines, that use of WP for smoke-screening is legal, and that it was used by other military forces as well. Using those sources for the claim of WP usage, without bothering to note that those same sources report this use as legal, is disingenuous. okedem (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting context to Israel's possible use of WP in an anti-personnel capacity: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/17/israel1 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-doctors-encounter-unexplained-injuries-414593.html

These incidents are relevant to any discussion of Israel's use of WP or other chemical weapons in the current conflict and can be mentioned with something like: "Israel has previously been suspected of using WP or other chemical weapons as part of their military operations in Gaza. Notably, medical personnel reported deep burn injuries, previously unseen in any Palestinian casualties, that appeared to be caused by chemical weapons among many injured palestinians during an Israeli military operation in Gaza during 2006." or something along those lines

Thrylos000 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also cabinet minister, Jacob Edery's answer to Ms Zahava Gal-On's question in the Knesset, Ms Gal-On asked Mr Edery if the IDF used "Dime [dense inert metal explosives] weapons" in Lebanon 2006. Mr Edery said "The IDF [Israel Defence Force] holds phosphorus munitions in different forms. The IDF made use of phosphorus shells during the war against Hizbullah in attacks against military targets in open ground." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/israel --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the OIC as a body making comment on the conflict
A: Who did this? B: Why was it removed? C: Can somebody tell me why the OIC is considered irrelevant to comment upon the conflict when the African Union... Is?

If nobody can tell me why, I will re-add the information as I view it as an important and relevant aspect to the international response to the conflict. Superpie (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I didn't remove it I can understand why someone did. Feel free to re-add if you can summarize their position in 1-2 sentences.VR talk  18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Disastrous Vandalism edit
To my amazement, all of below statements was deleted in one huge edit! caliming it's not related to operation cast lead: I really want to assume good faith, but how can I seeing all 9 facts criticizing Israeli actions got deleted in one edit claiming that it's not related!? --Darwish07 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) On 4th January, Al Awda ambulance was shelled, seriously injuring 4 medical staff. Reported by the UN
 * 2) Hamas told the sources the other groups were fighting with it
 * 3) On 5th January, Israili airstrikes hit two ambulances in Gaza.
 * 4) Speculation Israel might be using banned white phosphorus
 * 5) From "According to Hamas", to "Quoting Hamas run media" Although all the Israeli sources are reported as "According to IDF"
 * 6) That as reported by Save the Children Alliance, 13,000 people (2000 families) in Gaza are displaced. Reported by the UN
 * 7) Power cuts lasted 24 hours on some cities on the strip during the cuts. Reported by the UN
 * 8) Re-added Original Research previously reverted about the Water section
 * 9) Protests that the Red cross team was banned from entering Gaza. The incident itself is again, reported by the UN


 * Saying nothing about the relevance of these claims, I do ask everyone to refrain from doing multiple things in one edit. Please handle one edit, one section, at a time, with relevant edit summaries. These mega-edits are difficult to understand, and are usually reverted en masse instead of discussed. okedem (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but at least the ones mentioned to be from the UN, are directly extracted from cited UN OCHA reports about the war. How come their relevance are denied? Talking about points 1, 6, 7 and 9. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Darwish, I did not say these points are irrelevant, and did not say they are relevant. I chose not to address that right now, but simply wanted to express my concern regarding "mega-edits". The phrase "Saying nothing about the relevance" means I'm not taking a stand right now, not that I believe it is or isn't relevant. okedem (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I need to calm down, Sorry. This was a bit touchy cause this single edit reverted all of my Yesterday's work. Again, please accept my apology. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All the statements were well referenced. So what's the point of this edit? Was it deleting Israeli critics "under the cover" of a huge "remove unrelated facts" edit? I admit this may had happened without the user intention. I'm really asking the diff editor User:Saepe Fidelis to clarify his position on this. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it's addressed in this topic, I'll put it here. It seems that a couple ambulance strikes are being confused with each other. According to AP, the Al-Awda ambulance was one strike by a shell, and the ambulance today was a separate attack. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD95GNHK80 <-- Right now, I have edited the article so that both ambulance attacks occurred on January 5th. If the Al-Awda ambulance attack happened on the 4th, then please move it there. If the Al-Awda ambulance attack happened on the 4th, then it does not appear that two ambulances were attacked on the 5th. FFLaguna (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi FFLaguna. The Al-Awda ambulance attack by a shell was reported on "4 January as of 17:00" by the UN Report "Situation Report From The Humanitarian Coordinator - 4 January 2009 as of 17:00". This was cited before the mentioned edit removed it. I'll re-add it now. Thank you --Darwish07 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the city name to your edit, and removed the Al-Awda ambulance entry from the Jan. 5th heading. Thanks ;) FFLaguna (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who's thankful :). --Darwish07 (talk)

My most sincere apologies. I was referring to the source of an older draft, and accidentally hit "Save page" instead of "Cancel." I guess I didn't realize until just now that I did that. Again, I am sorry. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it happens, especially with such big number of concurrent edits. It's best to edit by section though, not by the entire article to avoid such unintentional big number of reverses. Thanks for clarifying and I should have assumed more WP:AGF too. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As of today, Jan 5th, 22:30 UTC, it seems that the content is fair and balanced, stating the facts of what has happened. Hopefully, we can keep the article unbiased. (Ricgal (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC))