Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 60

Infobox Status
Israeli Military Victory (easily sourced) +/vs Hamas victory (easily sourced) +/vs Ceasefire (easily sourced). Did I miss a discussion about this ? Any thoughts on how best to approach this ? Please remember that using words like shit when discussing an article about warfare can cause distress so try to limit yourself to no more than 5 shits per sentence.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I uploaded this double sourced edit and if two sources are not good enough for you, I can add an additional two sources, one of which includes the New York Times.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need an "Outcome" subsection of the Campaign section? It can discuss the cease fires, Israel's military victory, Hamas claiming victory for being defiant. Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jiujitsuguy, both Israel and Hamas claimed a military victory. Can you understand that there are alternative ways of looking at the same information and that those alternative ways can have equal validity from the wiki NPOV perspective no matter what you or I think of them ? My opinion is that we should either just say that the outcome was a ceasefire or that we should reflect the perspectives of both parties to the conflict rather than just one.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, with all due respect, noone treats Hamas victory claims seriously. It's kind of "ha-ha shameless Hamas" thing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From our wiki perspective Hamas are a set of someones and they seem to take themselves quite seriously. Many things that are said about this conflict are shameless but editors don't normally let that stand in their way. My point is simply that Israeli Military Victory is one way of looking at it but there are others. The infobox obviously isn't a place for complexity which is why I prefer status=ceasefire.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)....just like in the 2006 Lebanon War article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean raises good points. Again, "double-sourced edits" notwithstanding, both sides claimed victory, and that is sourced whether we regard it as "shameless" or not. If one had issued a surrender that might change things, Wiki-wise. Incidentally, the editor who added "Israeli military victory" to the infobox is now on a one-week block, so if someone else wants to revert I would support that. Comments? RomaC (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted to ceasefire.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, sides claim, some editors get blocked (WP as shooter game) and other editors have preferences. How is it all relevant? What the hell happened though? What do sources say? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What definitely happened without a shadow of a doubt was that ceasefires were declared. The sources say many things depending on their perspective about what constitutes a victory. Apparently editors sample the sources according to their systemic bias, obtain the outcome they desire and insert that outcome into the infobox happily ignoring their obligations to be neutral as mandated by the discretionary sanctions.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, ceasefire and 1 week ceasefire were declared by sides. My concern is nearsightedness. If a tree falls in a forest... Generally, I still believe objective reality exists though. So who are those bad editors? Who to judge? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the article containing statements like Israel claimed victory because the rocket launch rate fell below n/t and Hamas claimed victory because the rocket launch rate exceeded n/t with n/t probably being the same in both cases :) or whatever but not in the infobox. Avoiding pointless editing disgreements over subjective opinions about things that are not objectively measurable using standard criteria seems better to me e.g. the IDF/Hamas are great [1][2], however, no they aren't.[3][4] It's easy to find sources to fuel these subjective disputes. Editor's compliance with policy is objectively measurable for the most part so the bad editors are the editors who make puppies cry by not following policies.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly approach. Puppies cry out loud, ants go on with building their colonies. Still what happened from military history point of view? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kristalnacht was considered a victory and great success by the perpetraors and also by some of the victims who didn't lose everything. German newspapers reported it dead pan and hi-lighted kindnesses shown by Germans. The rest of the world reported it as a pogrom which is the same as we should do here. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

<- Regarding this edit by 24.46.74.122 and my revert, 24.46.74.122 why not expand the info a bit and put it in the article body ? I won't revert that. I'm only concerned about the infobox which as I've said before is no place for complexity.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

International law
The International law section should be a summary of International Law and the Gaza War. It isn't. Is there a good reason why this section can't be condensed down to a copy/paste of the lead from the main International law article and stay as a periodically synchronised copy of that lead ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes! But remember United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. It could be a combination/synthesis of both leads. ******, exept the shortening down of the corresponding section of lead this was the main reason I started to edit this article a month ago. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A crude c/p of both leads, little redundansy cut away from International Law and the Gaza War lead. A larger part of reactions from United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict lead also removed in this 'draft'. -- Accusations/ snip / controversy. -- Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been away from the entry for a while, but as long as my opinion counts - since the whole section was spun off to separate entry, I'd rather leave just a sentence or two, not more, and redirect. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes good sense. It isn't as if this article is too short or lacking material. Stellarkid (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good start with 'inter alia' fixed. Now, how shall we make the section better? I was probably to bold before Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsu if the last NGO's critical of Israel, 'As of September 2009, some 360 complaints had been filed by individuals and NGOs at the prosecutor's office in The Hague calling for investigations into alleged crimes committed by Israel during Operation Cast Lead.[317]' is removed, do you accept the version on (with Stellarkids 'inter alia' fixed?? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

libido-increasing gum
Yes, the history happened but is it notable enough for this article? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the incident that is notable - it is whom the Goldstone committee chose to believe were a credible and reliable witness. After they designated the Gaza police official as credible witness, they accepted at face value his explanation that the order to help the resistance fight the IDF invasion was actually meant to say that the police should continue distribute food to the civilians. And after they reinterpreted this order in such a way, they concluded that police was civilian forces and it was a war crime to attack them. So in the end, the moment Nableezy inserted mission's conclusion on police, I felt obliged to cast doubt on the committee's proceedings - and I feel like I made damn good and valuable contribution. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont understand, what exactly in this article is based on this witness? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * the goldstone's report conclusion that the Gaza police forces were a civilian police force. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to who? Its less than clear.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, where in Goldstones report do you find this? Second, what do the UN watch blog claims?Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * read this. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read that allready and it dont support your claim that "the goldstone's report conclusion that the Gaza police forces were a civilian police force" is based on this witness. It just claim that this witness is the same that taked about the gum. I think you better selfrevert. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And what kind of editing is this: "JCPA researcher speculated that... He also suggested ...". What are you doing? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole gum thing is dumb. Sorry, it's not notable. RomaC (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the gum thing as FUD from a blog and the JCPA researchers speculations as vague and unecessary for that part as somewhat better critic is just above. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not "a blog", it is inherent part of the NGO's site - NGO that is notable, even if some doesn't like it. Sentences are well-attributed, no problem here. Wording was tightened up and reinstalled. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel announces international PR campaign
"We are now setting out to delegitimize those who try to delegitimize us."

-Benjamin Netanyahu, October 16, 2009 (adding) Is this notable? RomaC (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is entirely in reference to the Goldstone Report. It is not exactly appropriate to put such comments here on the talk page, especially when an earlier "connection" was suggested to another editor here.    It could be considered inflammatory and the first reference a personal attack.  Especially since no context was offered.  Here is the context in which the PR campaign is mentioned:

The prime minister instructed the forum to prepare for a "lengthy fight"; one that would include an extensive campaign explaining Israel's right to defend itself against terror, as well as taking diplomatic, legal and other steps in order to undermine those who wish to delegitimize Israel's actions.

"We are now setting out to delegitimize those who try to delegitimize us. We will not tolerate it and we will respond on a case by case basis," he said.


 * In other words, if there are known conflicts of interests by the parties, (those directly involved in the mission) those conflicts will be exposed. Israel believes that it "right to defend itself" and that its "existence" within the community of states is attempting to be "delegitimitized" by some within the UN and elsewhere. This is really not news, nor unsurprising.  Any other state in the world would do the same thing under the circumstances, at the very least. Stellarkid (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Has Gaza's government issued such a statement? Also, when you quote "existence" above, where are you quoting it from? The article says "actions". Does criticism of Israel's actions equal a threat to its existence, is that the view you wish to advance? It is not exactly appropriate to put such comments here on the talk page. Let's just look at the sources please. RomaC (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP lets not. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what Hamas has said lately with regard to this issue. However, when one refers to "delegitimatizing" it means "existence" (as used  in the above sentence) by definition.  As for what is appropriate, I was asking RomaC just exactly what he was getting at with this new section, and providing context and interpretation for what was put up, based on the article itself.  If RomaC did not want context and interpretation added, he should not have put the link up without commentary, imho.  Stellarkid (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you asked, here is a link to a Hamas press release (in English) on the subject: (not sure if it is an RS or not)-


 * "In a press release, Hamas said that this victory is the outcome of the determination of Arab and Islamic countries, and other countries around the world “to ensure the prosecution of Zionist war criminals at the International Court”.


 * Hamas spokesperson, Fawzi Barhoum, said that approving the Goldstone report is a victory for justice and the victims of ‘Zionist crimes’.


 * Barhoum added that Hamas welcomes the approval as it is a victory for the Palestinians rights and people.


 * He also slammed the countries that voted against the report and said that ‘those countries claim to be defending Human Rights and democracy'." Stellarkid (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stellarkid, we can see that Israel has announced what some might term an official smear campaign targeting those critical of its actions. That's a significantly distinct way of answering or addressing criticism. And as for "existence", if you are going to include a link, kindly ensure that it says what you say it says. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point out where in the article it says official smear campaign targeting those critical of its actions. "We can see..." I am sure you believe you are correct, but I assure you this is your interpretation speaking, what some might term bias, or at WP as POV. As for my link, in fact it does say what I say it does. Stellarkid (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this playing with words helps. The Israeli government, organizations and individuals that support Israel are carrying out an international PR=propaganda (in the technical sense) campaign. It's very broad in scope, broader than just the the Goldstone report and covers all sorts of areas like human rights groups (funding/visas), campaigns/activities by all sorts of groups like StandByUs etc along with all of the usual orgs like JCPA, NGO Monitor, CAMERA, an army of bloggers etc etc. It's all quite open and obviously notable within the context of the Gaza War.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And you don't think that Hamas, Gazans, Palestinians, organizations and individuals that support [Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians] are not doing this? You think there is not an army of bloggers, NGO's, groups that call themselves "peace groups," Palestine Solidarity Movement, Jews against Zionism, Electronic Intifada, Divestment groups  etc etc are sitting idly around and not bothering to pump out propaganda?  Or perhaps you are convinced that they are pumping out the facts, and only CAMERA, JCPA, NGO Monitor are doing the prop?  Don't kid yourself.  Your bias is showing.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * um..there is no information whatsoever in what I wrote that addresses the issue of non-Israeli propaganda.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * of course not. Stellarkid (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This, together with statement about who won, could be a new section. Subsequent Developments. And if it become a big thing, is noteworthy enough, an article on its own. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To much povediting now
Specially in the lead. I going to revert lead to rev specially conserning 2:nd paragraph in lead which up to now been fairly stable. Discuss and build consensus BEFORE changing lead. actually that goes for whole article but specially for lead. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the version of 2:nd par in lede I reverted to. Discuss changes and ensure yourself there is consensus befor change Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact Box IDF Military Victory
Regarding the edit, I have four sources to back up the claim of IDF military victory. 1)Aviation Week 2)The Jerusalem Post 3)The washington Institute for Near East Policy 4)The New York Times.

The Israeli aim was to reduce rocket fire against periphery towns. In the year prior to Cast Lead, Hamas fired over 3,000 rockets and mortar rounds at Israel. Post Cast Lead saw just under 300, a reduction of 1000%. By any objective standard, that's an unqualified success. Hamas took a thrashing during the campaign and they don't want a repeat. Additionally, several senior Hamas cammanders and experienced bomb makers were killed. Hamas military infrastructure took a beating (over 95% of targeted infrastructure was destroyed or sustained heavy damage) and the combatant kill ratio (even when judging by Palestinian numbers) was heavily in Israel's favor. If you use Israeli figures, it's about 80 to 1. Please provide me with some RSs that contradict my claim.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jiujitsu you have just returned from a one-week block to resume exactly the same stubbornly aggressive editing of the infobox. It has been pointed out patiently that "double-sourcing" your contentious edits does not necessarily qualify them for the infobox summary, as both sides have claimed victory. Also, User:24.46.74.122 made the same edit with the same summary two days ago. I'd like to assume this was a coincidence? RomaC (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RomaC, I find it difficult to understand why you would lecture others on "comment on content not the contributer" and at the same time make the above comment. Please try to follow your own excellent advice to others.  Thank you. (Not to mention WP:AGF) Stellarkid (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well sourced information. I am actually happy with "military victory" instead of an all encompassing "Victory". The numbers and sources say it all. For the benefit of the article as a whole, it would be better spelled out in the prose as well or instead. Hamas's claim to victory for standing their ground would deserve a good mention in such a subsection as well. Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I purposely noted "military victory" because there is a political component that is much more difficult to quantify. I'm glad Cptnono, that you picked up on that nuance.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Roma, first off, I didn't double source it, I quadrupled sourced it because I anticipated this very response from you. Second, it doesn't make a difference what either side claims concerning victory. What matters is that there are reliable, independent sources that provide factual grounds on which to base their claims. I provided four. I challange you to find one RS that claims that Hamas scored a tactical military victory on the ground. Sorry about the IP thing, I just forgot to log on, no ulterior motive--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Stellarkid (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully support spelling out the details of the military victory assessments in the article based on your sources. We should also briefly mention Hamas' victory claims in the same section as both Cptnono and I have suggested before. These are however just opinions based on wildly different decision criteria. There may be less flattering military assessments out there. I haven't looked but the important thing is the assessment rather than the soundbite. I'm still very skeptical about putting a soundbite in the infobox for the same reasons that I think putting a big sign on an aircraft carrier saying "Mission Accomplished" is a little bit of an oversimplification and not very encyclopedic.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right but Gaza Massacre in the lede is perfectly OK, right? (Sorry, off topic) Stellarkid (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided four credible sources detailing the reasons why from a tactical perspective, Israel won the ground war. Now Hamas can say they won. They can also declare that the earth is flat and that Lindsay Lohan is a superb actress. Now I do agree that from a political perspective, it's difficult to quantify a win or loss becuase you're dealing with abstract intangibles. But from a military perspective you can at least quantify it with bare statistics. Kill ratios, damage to infrastructure, losses to senior command structure, steep reduction in post Cast Lead rocket fire from Gaza, etc.. So again I say that Hamas can say what it wants in terms of winning their great battle against the "Zionist imperialist entity" but the facts and the dry statistics say otherwise and I have the credible sources to back it up.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess if we can find RS that also claim that Hamas won from a military perspective then we can claim it's a draw. And in the long run and from a strategic angle, it probably is. Stellarkid (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll find the lost Ark before you'll find an RS that posits that view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jiujitsuguy, yes but the difference for me is that the non-flatness of the earth is something that can be established because there is a standard metric space in which the measurements can be made (they aren't opinions, it's just math) whereas the outcome of OCL is something about which people like the director of the Washington Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process can say complicated things like "a preliminary assessment reveals some concrete achievements. But the durability of those achievements will surely be tested in the post-conflict period." In other words, Fact Boxes are for facts. To answer Stellarkid's not entirely off topic comment, I have no way of properly deciding whether Gaza Massacre (a non-factual descriptive term that represents the opinion of a subset of something) is okay in the lead because there is no decision procedure in place. The lead isn't a fact box.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we to accept self-serving proclamations by Hamas politicians over hard facts and reliable sources? Again, you'll be hard pressed to find one RS that states that Hamas achieved a tactical military victory over the IDF. I provided you with four that state the opposite and I can probably find more with ease. Just as an aside, if Hamas considers this to be a military victory, I shudder to think what they would consider to be a military defeat.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we to present opinions as facts in a fact box ? A fact is a fact rather than a set of competing opinions. Anyway, I've said what I think. I'm happy to let (policy based) consensus take it's course.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those "opinions" are based on hard quantifiable facts; Kill ratios, reduction in rocket fire, loss of top commanders and bomb makers, damage to military infrastructure, etc... These are all matters that could easily be quantified and tactical success is measured by utilizing these metrics. Other than self serving proclamations designed to satisfy a demoralized constituency and para military, Hamas can not point to a single success on the battlefield. They did not destroy a single IDF armored vehicle and their losses relative to the IDF were beyond extreme.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth you continuing this kind of from first principals argument especially with me given that in my world presenting an opinion as a fact can have dire consequences. I'm well aware of the difference. Many people look at the hard quantifiable facts surrounding them, draw all sorts of conclusions using various decision procedures and passionately believe in the opinions they form. So what ? They're still opinions rather than facts and they should be presented as such. I think you should have a look at and consider what The Squicks said below.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of just something like "military victory" label is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, possibly misleading. Take, for example, this article from Xinhua titled "Israeli ties with key players in Mideast worsening"
 * Much of this icy view of Israel goes back to Israel's major military offensive on Gaza in December and January. There has been considerable international condemnation of Israel's actions... On the face of it and given international criticism of Israel in the post-Gaza operation period, that there is room for assuming the reactions to Israel from Cairo and Ankara are purely objective.
 * Or take this analysis from noted Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who remarked, "that war made peace-making harder."
 * Or this report from BBC's Panorama program, which reported: In wars between small groups like Hamas and big national armies like Israel's victory is in the eye of the beholder. It is all a question of how you define it.
 * From the other side of the political spectrum, FrontPage Magazine has noted: criticism of the war’s conduct is heard as well from various commentators who supported the campaign but feel that Israel erred in not pursuing it to what they argue was an achievable, more comprehensive, victory entailing the destruction of Hamas.
 * My point here is that when the facts are in dispute, an infobox cannot take sides in the matter. All an infobox can do is report. The Squicks (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument does nothing to rebut my claim. The two former articles deal with alleged political fallout. I am focusing exclusively on tactical military success on the battlefield and I was very specific in noting "military success." The political component is more difficult to quantify. Thus, I did not state victory but rather "military" victory. Cptono picked up on this subtle nuance. The latter article posits the theory that Israel did not go far enough but does not militate against the tactical success of the operation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An argument that the infobox should declare an Israeli military victory based on "hard quantifiable facts; Kill ratios, reduction in rocket fire, loss of top commanders and bomb makers, damage to military infrastructure, etc..." is problematic. First of all, the qualification "military victory" might be original research here. Secondly, is "military victory" a relevant metric in an asymmetrical conflict? Thirdly, that list of criteria almost certainly is original research.
 * Based on kill ratio and overall degradation of opponents' ability to fight, it could be argued that Japan won the Pacific War. But Japan surrendered. Based on kill ratios and loss of top commanders and weapons makers, damage to military infrastructure, etc., the United States won the Vietnam War. But that Wiki article infobox says "North Vietnamese victory," probably because although the United States did not surrender, they withdrew.
 * On the other hand, the Invasion of Grenada infobox says US victory, because the US accomplished its objective of regime change. It is from this perspective that we could take a look at "Israeli victory", as Israel says it accomplished its goals. But then we'd be making our own interpretations. So, we should go to reliable sources. In the end, an important distinction is although there are sources which note that Israel claims victory with regard to accomplishing its objectives; Hamas survived, and there are sources noting that in this regard, Gaza also claims victory in the conflict. So, it isn't infobox simple.


 * "One of the most important things in this conflict between state and nonstate actors is what is the meaning of victory?" says Eitan Azani, a former Israeli Defense Forces colonel and a deputy director at the Institute for Counter Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. "A lot of people from [Hamas] dying? A collapse? Or most of the operational capability destroyed? This is up for debate. We are in a very complicated situation." 


 * So, for the infobox, we look at what we do know for sure. We do know a ceasefire was declared by both sides. Suggest we leave that in the infobox and explore the Pandora's box in the body of the article. Respectfully. RomaC (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article that you cite was written on Jan 5, two weeks before the cease fire. How can anyone assess victory or defeat before the battle is over? I have provided you with concrete sources written after the cessation of hostilities when one has the ability to engage in Battle Damage Assessment and assess the results of the action by other metrics as well. As far as kill ratios, you misconstrued my words. Kill ratios are but one factor to consider in a myriad of factors. The sources that I provided lay out those factors in a methodical fashion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, your Vietnam War analogy is equally misplaced. The stated war aim of the U.S. was to prevent the fall of Saigon and prevent the spread of Communism. In both of these, the U.S. failed miserably becuase not only did Saigon fall, but Laos and Cambodia as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jiujitsuguy, can I suggest that you might want to consider adding "Status: God exists and is great. Atheists defeated" to the God article too. There are plenty of refs to support this view which are based on assessments of the hard quantifiable facts of the observable universe apparently. No need to wait for consensus to emerge on that page.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have yet to find me one RS that establishes that Hamas achieved a tactical military victory over Israel. I quadrupled sourced my edits and that's still not good enough for you. While consensus is a good thing, it's not a prerequsite for an edit, an edit that is well sourced. You may not like what is said but the fact is that it's sourced with verifiable, reliable sources and that's the Wiki standard. Your revert was inappropriate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated before verifiable, reliable sources are controlling, not consensus. However, since you're so focused on consensus, judging from the comments on the discussion pages, consensus for the edit is evident here [|here] here [|here] here [|here] and here [|here] Now I'm sure you've got your people lined up so I'd say it's just about even.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jiujitsuguy, yes that's me, making inappropriate edits all over wikipedia. Try not to misuse words. As you surely know you need to gain consensus for controversial changes before making them. Do not edit-war them in repeatedly. You have already been blocked once for "aggressive editing" so why are you doing it again ? Several editors (and by the way they are not my "people", this is not a football match or a tribal war) have tried to explain to you why presenting a set of opinions as a fact in a fact box is inappropriate. They have even provided sources and lengthy explanations to support their positions which you have rejected out of hand in my view. As far as I'm aware everyone supports adding details about the military victory assessments to the body of the article, that is the important thing but there is no agreement so far about what to put as the Status.


 * It seems to me that you are having difficulty understanding the difference between opinions and facts. I don't understand why. Please consider these statements both of which can be supported by many reliable sources and consider whether they are statements of fact and therefore suitable for a fact box or whether they are the (widely held) opinions of a set of people/organizations.
 * Hamas are terrorists.
 * The IDF committed war crimes.
 * If anyone thinks either of those are facts they shouldn't be editing fact boxes.


 * I'm sorry but you can't seriously expect me to respond to statements like "find me one RS that establishes that Hamas achieved a tactical military victory over Israel" when it should be perfectly clear to you by now that even if I had 100 sources voicing opinions based on various assessments I wouldn't put it in the fact box as a fact because it isn't a fact. The Squicks BBC Panorama source stating "In wars between small groups like Hamas and big national armies like Israel's victory is in the eye of the beholder. It is all a question of how you define it." should be enough for you to realise where you are going wrong. It is a simple fact that 1000 cubic cm of water weighs 1kg and that ceasefires were declared. It's a simple fact that sources exist that say that Israel achieved a military victory. It is not a simple fact that they actually achieved a military victory so please, let's not present things as simple facts when they are not. None of this has anything to do with what I like and what I don't like by the way. Seriously, I don't care about who thinks who won and that is exactly why I monitor I-P articles.


 * I'm going to ask you nicely to self-revert your fact box edit and return it to Status = Ceasefire etc until such time that consensus on the wording has been reached in a collaborative, non-aggressive way. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have two questions. First, do you think the statement, "Israel won the Six Day War" is a fact or an opinion? Second, if I included the cease fire declarations along side "tactical victory" would that be sufficient?
 * Also I hope you took note of the fact that based on your criticisms, I changed the wording from "Israeli Victory" to "Israeli Military Victory" and yet again to "Israeli Tactical Military Victory" to encompass the narrowest definition possible.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's a thought. Suppose I took my wording out of the fact box, leaving the original wording (of mutual cease-fire declarations) and instead inserted it in the lead with phrasing like, "the war concluded with a tactical battlefield victory for Israel followed by mutual cease-fire declarations by the belligerents," would that be satisfactory for you?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There can be a new section in article as Cptnono propose 'Assesment, Victory, Result, Outcome' or 'Subsequent Developments'( my suggestion) Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ceasefire in the infobox is correct though Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not support anything except Mutual cease-fire declarations', given the contentiousness of the issue as both Sean and I have pointed out. I really suggest that you read the BBC piece that I linked. The Squicks (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at "Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel" from Haaretz as well. It notes=
 * The initial objective of the war was to put an end to the firing of Qassam rockets. This did not cease until the war's last day. It was only achieved after a cease-fire had already been arranged. Defense officials estimate that Hamas still has 1,000 rockets. The war's second objective, the prevention of smuggling, was not met either. The head of the Shin Bet security service has estimated that smuggling will be renewed within two months.
 * Levy concludes thus that the conflict was a military failure. You can see that it is a heavily debatable issue. The Squicks (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The writer that you cite is neither a defense analyst nor a military expert. He is however an editorialist and unabashed critic of Israel whose opposition to the war is well known. Unlike, the sources that I supplied, which provided in-depth analyses, his statements are conclusory without hard facts to back them up. Moreover, The article was written on 22 Jan 2009 before anyone had a chance to assess whether in fact, rocket fire would decrease after the war. We now know that rocket fire decreased substantially and life in Southern Israel has returned to normal. In addition, much of his focus is on political fallout and I stressed on several occasions that I was referring strictly to tactical battlefield success and nothing more. Why don't you take a look at Senior Shin Bet official: Hamas completely lost Gaza war and      Hamas dismisses commanders on Iran order and Israel And Hamas Both Declare Victory and New Tactics Yield Solid Victory in Gaza and Hamas seeks new doctrine after Gaza War failures and Preliminary Assessment of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead and Hamas Shifts From Rockets to Culture War I have now provided seven sources that maintain that Israel scored a major battlefield success in Operation Cast Lead. This is the consensus among military analysts and defense strategists and it absolutely should be in the fact box.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Sean's and Cptnono's recommendations, I've decided to take the matter out of the fact box and created a new section dealing with the matter in the prose. The section deals with tactical battlefield assessment.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea to take things out of the infobox. But I know that the current section only represents some of the opinions out there.  So that's a good start but obviously needs to be fleshed out with an eye to NPOV/WEIGHT issues that might be tricky. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * RomaC and Black kite had some objections to some phrasing so accordingly, I made changes that will hopefully be to their satisfaction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Prose
Assesment, Victory, Result, Outcome? I think the best place for claims of victory is a new subseciton in campaign. Any thoughts on the title, text, where it shoudl go.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea is good but probably not easy to keep objective. A section with 'Subsequent Developments' might work? It can have differnt attributed povs on the outcome (if they are noteworthy) and take that away from the infobox. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The intent is to say "Israel had a military victory according to xyz. Hamas claimed victory for 123" It is not supposed to be about Subsequent Developments.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The statements was made after the war by the diferent parts. Or notable experts, notable opinionmakers or notable loudmouths. We can leave the NPOV little if we use attributed and ballansing statements representing both sides or even more parts interested in defining the outcome. Anyhow they are making statements 'subsequent' as the war is over. Objectivly and from npov the answer is ceasefire, noone won. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Assessment potentially. The sole purpose is to present claims of victory within days of the ceasefire. We can even put it as a paragraph after the ceasefires mention. We can even call it VICTORY???? Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Israeli tactical military victory, Hamas tactical defeat"? Could someone explaine. --Ezzex (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a dispute where a user recent changed it from ceasefire without consensus. Hopefully he will revert himself Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding my voice to the others requesting Jiujitsuguy self-revert his infobox edits. RomaC (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Lead starts to swollow up again. Event before December 27 better stay in background sections. Futher I suggest this part to be removed to keep lead focused and within 4 pararaphs.

'by 25 votes for, 6 against and 16 abstentions/failures to vote. Hamas and the Israeli government rejected the report's findings as being biased.[36][37] Against Goldstone's recommendations, the Council singled out Israel exclusively for reprimand without any mention of Hamas.[38]'  Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And this paragraph 'Between 750 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed...' above this 'A UN mission headed by Judge Richard Goldstone was established...' so the timeline of events not disturbed. I fix that now Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The UN vote is immensely important and that's why it is in the lead. The Squicks (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

bombardment?
let's read the Anon's source: "Israeli forces continued to bombard the homes of Hamas leaders"; .... "Israel began the offensive on Dec. 27, following Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks when a six-month truce ran out on Dec. 19." so, either the lead says that Israel started its offensive on Dec. 27, or it says that Israel started bombardment of Hamas. either way, the lead can not say that Israel started to bomb Gaza. this is not Luftwaffe bombarding London, unless you can prove otherwise. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a general point, use of the word bombardment to describe the actions of the IDF anywhere in the article is fine. It's a technically accurate term that was used quite extensively in the media. Look it up, do a google search and you'll find many interesting articles. The MFA also use the word bombardment to describe rocket and mortar attacks against Israel because that's what it is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * using term in the article, providing context to the specific action is fine. saying in the lead that Israel started bombardment of Gaza is not. I wasn't so successful with Google search, can you show me articles published in supposedly neutral RS (exclude Al-Jazeera) that say that Israel started to bomb Gaza on Dec. 27? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying in the lead that Israel started bombardment of Gaza is fine. I'm not suggesting we use that word, I'm just saying get over it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/29/world/fg-arab-protests29 http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/topstories/Israel-ignores-global-pleas-as.4836817.jp http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/britain-punishes-israel-for-gaza-naval-bombardment-1744969.html http://news.aol.ca/article/israel-pauses-gaza-bombardment/475896/ http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-01/2009-01-02-voa27.cfm?CFID=313860630&CFTOKEN=13802768&jsessionid=883015d3ee7292a8e402144558162e2e5592 http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/further-protest-planned-against-gaza-bombardment-1595916.html http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24886583-2703,00.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/02/world/main4695928.shtml http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLG514136 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4013026/Israel-pounds-Gaza-for-third-day-Interior-ministry-destroyed.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5586968.ece <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

who started the war?
As the name suggests, this entry is not about Cast Lead, but about Gaza War. Israel started military operation on Dec. 27. Hamas started military operation on Dec. 23 - commencing an operation code-named "Oil Stain". let's get the facts straight, including the lead. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a avid reader of the pro-Israel Elder of Ziyon blog I'm concerned that on Saturday, December 27, 2008 they noted that No media outside this article ..(they mean the Maan article)..even mentions "Operation Oil Stain," although quite a few have mentioned Israel's response, "Operation Cast Lead.". If this is indeed the case, I'm curious why you have just put it in the lead. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ..and I reverted it here with the edit summary "see Talk:Gaza_War#who_started_the_war.3F. no indication as to the weight/significance/causal relationship of this based on RS as opposed to say the killing of militants the previous day". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "Operation Oil Stain", but there was a six-month truce between Israel and Hamas, Hamas declared the end of the truce and intensified its rocket fire at Israeli towns, and a week later Israel lauched Operation Cast Lead. Regardless of when we define the war as starting, these are elementary facts without which the outbreak of the war cannot be understood, and they almost always appear in mainstream media accounts of the war. I have added the info several times to the lede, sourced to some of said media accounts, and it keeps getting removed without discussion. Naturally, I think it should be returned. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hamas declared the end of the truce and intensified its rocket fire at Israeli towns, and a week later Israel lauched Operation Cast Lead". No, that is not what happened. What happened is described in the Conflict escalates section and it includes actions by both parties. That should of course be reflected in the lead. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, that happened. It is described in the "Conflict escalates" section, along with the November breach of the truce. We seem to agree that the section should be summarized in the lede. I don't think the mid-truce breach is important or relevant enough for the lede, but whatever, that would also be better than the status quo. So I'm not really sure whether you disagree with me on anything, and if so, what and why. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to re-phrase then. Yes, it happened but to present the information in that way ignores the Palestinian perspective on things like the blockade and it's role in their decision making. We agree that the section should be summarized in the lede but can we make sure it doesn't oversimplify, give undue weight to the perspective of one belligerent over another or detach perceived causes from effects ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To adopt Amnesty narrative, who says that Israel started a war on Dec. 27 out of the blue - this is oversimplification. On days preceding Israeli attack rocketing intensified and this could be verified independently. The fact that only one source referred to it by its factual name is quite unfortunate - but disproves nothing. Who were supposed to report on it before Dec. 27? I can live with Jalapenos version though. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about an event that took place within a certain time frame, beginning with the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip on December 27. We can add background information, but we can't re-frame the event itself. RomaC (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, I have no problem including Hamas's stated reason for resuming and intensifying the rocket attacks, assuming there was a coherent stated reason. Beyond that would be wading into speculation. Roma, it's not actually clear that the Gaza War started on the 27th, but for our purposes it doesn't matter. Whether a war started one day or nine days after a ceasefire between the two belligerents expired, the existence of the ceasefire, the circumstances of its expiration and the subsequent hostilities are critical background information and should be in the lede. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The change is without consensus. It should be reverted to this version regarding 2:nd paragraph in lead. I revert later if not Sceptic and Jalapenos selfrevert. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JDE you are right about the vagueness of the term "Gaza War," but it is absolutely clear that the event that this article is about did start on December 27, corresponding with the start of the Israeli military's "Operation Cast Lead." Whatever happened prior to December 27 is background information which goes into the body of the article. As requested above please self-revert and make your case for a novel framing device here before pushing it into the lead. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "it is absolutely clear that the event that this article is about did start on December 27" - why is it clear and clear to whom? as the lead stands, Israel started its military operation out of the blue. I remind that the article was long ago renamed "Gaza War". You say "it is clear" that Gaza War started with Operation Cast Lead. Why not "Oil Stain"? Why not end of the lull? According to Israel, it reacted to dozens of rockets on days prior Cast Lead, but the lead says nothing about it. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative names
I've restored these to the first sentence, per WP:LEAD. They should not be removed again, because they're needed for balance. Indeed, I doubt the article should be called "Gaza War": the view that this was a war is a minority one. I've also removed a few citation templates again, because they make the article hard to edit for flow, and the page even harder to load than it already is at this length. SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely, you're not saying that you prefer that this whole page is renamed "Gaza Massarce", are you? The Squicks (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the time frame and what happened, it could be more accurately termed something like "Attack on Gaza", as it covers events beginning with the Israeli air bombardment through the land invasion and ends with the Israeli withdrawal. Supported this early on but some editors insisted that because Gazans had engaged in combat then it should be called a "war." RomaC (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Attack on Gaza" is horrifically slanted and POV- making this sound as if its an ethnic cleansing campaign against all the people living in the Gaza strip.
 * What about the Israeli citizens under rocket/mortar barrage, what about that? And what about poor Gilad Shalit, held hostage with a gun to his heart? And what about the fact that the Israelis did not attack all of Gaza but seperated civilians from militants?
 * We can't pick one sides ideological slant and then use that as Wikipedia's slant. By your logic, would you support renaming the article Mexican-American war as the American attack on Mexico? The Squicks (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Gaza is full of refugees who've already been ethnically cleansed out of Israel, and they were not allowed to esape this time, then ethnic cleansing is the wrong word. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, it appears you were not around for the last month or better of discussions regarding this "name", though it has been argued almost consistently since the day it entered the lede. It is a name that is not a name. It does not have verifiable sources that identify it as a name, ie, there are merely one or two usages where this "name" is capitalized. Wars are appropriately capitalized (you will find that all the most respectable sources do indeed capitalize "Gaza War" and most RS (English) sources refer to such things as "massacre in Gaza" or "Ahmadinejad refers to it as 'a massacre'" etc. Further, it has been demonstrated by Google news that this is not a common name at all (RS), certainly not anywhere near as common as "Gaza War" or even "Israel's attack on Hamas" or "Israel's attack on Gaza" etc.  It is of course very commonly used in unreliable opinion pieces and  Israel attack sites.  As for "balance" that is not an appropriate concept here since a compromise was made to remove both CastLead and "massacre" from the lede which was rejected.  Further both Gaza War and OCL are non-judgmental, non-descriptive "names".  The only way that balance would be achieved by including "massacre" would be if we were to call it "Israel's war against Hamas' terrorism" which of course a non-starter if providing  an appropriate "balance" to "massacre." Finally, the only vaguely valid RS source that supports your edit was the last one put up by Nableezy -- just one, which capitalizes "Massacre" indicating that it is a name. The problem with that one is that this source was covering a local event and is not a foreign affairs editor so is probably not covered by the blanket of editorial oversight in this area. Add to that that a contentious edit in the lede needs to be supported by several, not just one, RS. These do not exist as you will see if you do the research. I might add that if you check dates in Google news for "Gaza massacre" you will discover that there have been a series of Gaza "massacres" since 1994, demonstrating that "The Gaza Massacre" is not a unique name for this event. You will also discover that the name is dwindling in usage in RS. There are in fact just a handful. Finally, it is the opinion of a number of editors here that this is a POV addition to the lede, and as such misleading. No one seems to disagree that it is commonly called a massacre in the Arab world, but not that it is an official name that belongs in the lede. Perhaps you want to give some more flesh to your assertion that "Gaza War" is not common and that "Gaza massacre" somehow is through RS? As before, it is generally accepted that someone who wants to put material into an article is the one with the burden of evidence, particularly when that material is highly POV and contentious. Stellarkid (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Many Arabs—and we are  speaking of the Arab name here—don't  see this as a war, merely as the latest massacre in a decades-long war waged  by Israel against the Palestinians.
 * Regarding sources: Since this is an Arab term, I searched Google News using the  Arabic expression "مجزرة غزة" and found 7,000 hits between December 2008  and October 2009. Of course we don't know how well Google indexes the  Arab press, so those 7,000 may be merely the tip of the iceberg. (I hope  somebody who can read Arabic can help out; maybe there's a better way  to search Arabic news sites.)
 * Finally, your assertion that Operation Cast Lead is neutral is laughable. It's the Israeli name for their  military incursion into Gaza, and including it implicitly favors the  Israeli narrative. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Many Arabs....see this...as the latest massacre in a decades-long war" -- I don't dispute that. But again, that makes it the Arab POV...not an official name. WP:NONENG speaks to the preference for English in WP and there are plenty of translations so that we do not have to go to the Arab Google to find an expression which is amply translated in English by RS as "a massacre" with a small "m."  Even your post just acknowledged that it is how the Arabs "see" it, not an official name.  There is plenty of English-translated Arab text that calls this the Gaza War as well.  This POV is acceptable in this article but not as an alternative name.  As for OCL being neutral, of course it is.  It is just a name, not an accusation (POV) like "massacre."  Just because Israel calls it a name, doesn't mean that the Arabs when referring to it as a massacre has to have that particular "name" in the lede.  Why is this so hard to get across?  Stellarkid (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's so hard to get across because you're wrong. First, WP:NONENG clearly permits the use of non-English sources. The article says the Israeli incursion into Gaza is known as the "Gaza massacre" in the Arab world and in case you hadn't noticed, most of the Arab world doesn't speak English. Also, I didn't use "the Arab Google", nor even Arabic Google—I used plain old English Google with an Arabic search phrase.
 * As I wrote, the fact that you see Operation Cast Lead as a neutral phrase is indicative of your own bias. The word massacre isn't an accusation. It's simply the name by which the Israeli incursion is known in the Arab world. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The central problem here is that it's devilishly hard to gauge what the Arab media says since (a)virtually no WP editors understand the language and (b)internet sites may either overestimate or underestimate reactions. The Squicks (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Squicks, we don't need to use Arab sources for this since there are plenty of English sources available. Arabic does not use capital letters and so there is no way we can understand that this is a name or simple a pov based on the Arabic. Nor should we have to since WP is supposed to be "easily verifiable" per WP:NONENG. Stellarkid (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or we could use the language that's used in the English speaking world - there are over 2 million results for Gaza Massacre and a British MP calls it that. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

fyi -"gaza massacre" Googled News for 2009 | 134 usages mostly not RS On most RS referring to Gaza "massacre" the word "massacre" is put in quotes. There is some significance to this.

"gaza war" Googled News for 2009 3750 hits mostly RS such as  and the following 2 Arab sources including Al Jazeera   If Al Jazeera is calling it the Gaza War, and it is a RS for the Arab street, why are we insisting on the other? Stellarkid (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not remove the alternative names from the lead. This is basic information every reader should know. Offliner (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By that logic (ie basic information) the only real other 'name' that is used is OCL. which in 2009 had 4700 GNEWS hits.  So we have Gaza War at 3750, OCL 4700, and Gaza massacre at 134. Gaza massacre weighs in at roughly  1/28th of Gaza war and 1/35th of OCL, most of the 134 not being RS or actually saying it is a "name" at all.  The idea that this is an official name or even a popular one is not really supported by RS. Israel's "war in the south" has 164 GNews hits for 2009   and as such does not belong in the lede any more than Gaza massacre does.  Stellarkid (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I see no objection to adding the descriptive terms "Gaza massacre" and "war in the south" somewhere in the body of the article as background. But these are descriptions, not "alternative names." Stellarkid (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I showed you above that there are more than 7,000 Google News hits for Gaza massacre. That seems to be more than either Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Please stop edit warring over this while we discuss it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You presumably showed this on the Arab wiki. This does not conform to WP:NONENG which asks that information be easily verifiable and prefers English translations.  I used English news Googled "Gaza massacre" in quotes for that particular phrase. Stellarkid (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't find it on the A-rab wiki or even the Arabic wiki. I found them on the English Google. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are said to be 200 Israelis editing Wikipedia, the highest concentration in the world. I don't know how many are obsessively trying to get articles written to their nationalist preference and POV. Wanting "Operation ast Lead" in and "Gaza Massacre" out would be a significant clue as to what is going on. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the above comment should be struck. Stellarkid (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, leaving the C out of "Operation ast Lead" is unacceptable. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't see anything wrong with a comment that starts "There are said to be..." and referring to Israelis as "obsessive" ? Israelis are like people everywhere. They have different opinions about different subjects.  Many Israelis are probably editing articles about math and science - law and the arts. It is a personal attack and a gross over-generalization.  Stellarkid (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see many things wrong with it. I also see many things wrong with your reaction to it but most of all I see an amusing spelling error. Nobody died. One day people might start complying with the discretionary sanctions and that would help. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let me get this straight. You said, "Since this is an Arab term, I searched Google News using the Arabic expression "مجزرة غزة" and found 7,000 hits between December 2008  and October 2009." So you used an Arab expression which says "gaza massacre" in quotes and googled news, correct? (I don't use caps here because I have been told that Arabic does not use caps). We do not however know in what context this was used unless we read the usage in the articles ourselves. How many of these sources would WP consider reliable? How many are quoting others? (For example, some reliable English sources in Google news use "massacre" in quotes.) How many of those are describing it as a massacre? What indication do we have that this is considered a name and not a description? I believe this is exactly the kind of case where WP:NONENG would be appropriate, since it says " English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article." Arabic wiki google is hard to verify. I agree that there is enough material to suggest that some Arabs refer to the Gaza War as "a massacre," but this does not belong in the lede as an "alternative name" based on an Arabic Google search that is not "easily verifiable." Finally, the concept that "the Israeli name for this implicitly favors the Israeli narrative" is way over my head -- makes no sense to me whatsoever. I guess that is what all the warring is about, come to think of it. This is the Judea/Samaria/West Bank argument -- it's the "illegal settlement" vrs "Israeli community" argument -- it is the idea that each "side" must get in its preferred "name" right at the top of everything. Bingo! It becomes clearer. Still, I think to favor the Arab narrative in this case is then to put in the Gaza Massacre as a name to "balance" OCL? What kind of balance is that? Seems to me that there are a whole lot of folks sitting on the other side of this see-saw. Stellarkid (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A small but crucial point here is that you need to ignore your response to the meaning of the string of characters "Gaza Massacre". Pretend it says something like "F53d %6GFD325f". It doesn't matter what it says. The meaning can't be part of any decision procedure. Also, there is no "illegal settlement" vrs "Israeli community" argument. They are called Israeli settlements here just like Albert Einstein is called Albert Einstein despite a tiny minority (i.e his nursemaid) calling him "the dopey one". I bet she's kicking herself now <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct in that you understand the gist of the argument but your answer is wrong. Words do have meanings and implications.  That is why we don't use ethnic slurs for example.  We may all understand that a slur might be an "alternative name" for something, but it is accepted as improper.  It is a social convention or an agreement by civilized folks that we don't use these expressions especially in a formal setting such as this one.   If you want to compare as above, try "Albert Einstein" and "that smart kike" .  I was thinking about it and asked myself what if Israel's name for it had been "the War against the Hamas' Terrorists" - and there were a bunch (a few) of pro-I's here who put it in?  Let's say Hebrew Google had quite few references to "War against Hamas Terrorists" but very few in English so we had to take the pro-Is word for it?  Virtually all the English RS did not say it except for one source that the pro-P's said was 'iffy".  Then to take the analogy a bit further, try to imagine that the pro-P's tried to take it out but every time it was removed the pro-I's claimed "no consensus to remove?"  Perhaps one could imagine a similar scenario in the Hamas artilce "known in Israel as Terrorists?  No, words and their implications have meaning, even if they are or can be considered a "name."  Stellarkid (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki policy on these issues doesn't try to factor in complex, heterogeneous, non-global 'social conventions' and notions of 'civilized folk'. Content policies are designed around ensuring information verifiability and neutrality. It has a giant in your face content disclaimer. It's not censored. It simply reflects the sources and makes a clear distinction between it's (wiki's NPOV) narrative voice and the source's (POV) voice via attribution. That way the language is owned by separate, clearly identifiable entities. For example, Wiki doesn't call people terrorists as a matter of policy but if, for example, the Supreme Court of Israel wants to call them terrorists, that's fine, quote them and attribute it. Just yesterday I used the word terrorist 3 times in one edit because that is what the source used in the material I quoted. Similarly, if a representative of the Palestinian Authority describes every individual death on an innocent Palestinian man, woman or child as a massacre at the UN as happened a couple of weeks ago that is his perogative and we can quote him and attribute it. Yes, words have meanings and implications to all of us and despite that we have to follow policies. Editors and readers getting upset about words is their problem not wiki's. If it could be demonstrated that known as "the War against the Hamas' Terrorists" in Israel or whatever complied with WP:V then it is just tough if someone doesn't like it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, with caveats. Anyone can find someone to call someone else a "murderer" or "terrorist" and attribute it.  Does a journalist who writes stories about handbags who calls someone a murderer rise to the level of a headline?  I would no more expect to see lots of quotes suggesting that Palestinians are terrorists than I would to see lots of quotes saying that Israelis are murderers. WP is more than simple verifiability.  It is judgment, context and evenhandedness. And hopefully a few civilized folks, like you and me... well, at least me.  :) Stellarkid (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Denials of White phosphorus use" section
Can someone pls explain the encyclopedic value of the section in the 1st place? WP is not a weapon of mass destruction, not an incendiary or a chemical weapon, it is perfectly legal in the urban area - and I will prove it shortly. The only reservation, which is true for every weapon, is that each use withstands the principle of proportionality. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP usage is perfectly legal under international law. It is designed to produce instantaneous smoke to cover troop movements. In addition, WP usage by the IDF is covered in other sections of the article and a separate section dedicated entirely to WP is redundant and unnecessary. Moreover, the source cited does not mention the name of one IDF rep who denied its usage. The IDF was forthright and upfront about its WP usage.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Below is copy-pasted excerpts dealing specifically with WP from col. Lane and prof. Newton who testified for the Goldstone report in July. As said, its use in urban area is generally legal, some specific attacks might violate rule of proportionality, but that is true for every sort of weapon too. I don't see a point to focus here on WP; this section does not belong here (maybe in WP entry - if someone explains why is it important). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The international law applicable to white phosphorous ammunition, in particular to their use in urban settings

Col. Lane - Phosphorous, military applications are smoke generation so that when you go into conflict you can hide your own position from the enemy. Phosphorous will burn. ... It’s, em, it’s horrible stuff. The Irish Defence Forces stopped using phosphorous 20 years ago. We now use hexachloroethane or titanium tetrachloride as our smoke-producing ammunition. From a military perspective if you use white phosphorous in a built-up area, where you are concerned about the presence of EFPs or time initiated rockets, one way of reducing the threat to your forces is to saturate that area with white phosphorous. And hopefully you’ll push the people away and maybe burn or disrupt the device that might be waiting for you. [The] quality of smoke produced by white phosphorous is superb. You will never match it. So, if you want real smoke for real coverage, white phosphorous will give it to you.

Prof. Newton – Question 3 deals with the use of white phosphorous. And I can talk you through some examples of white phosphorous, but again, the basic legal analysis comes down to that same duality of legal considerations. One, is it a lawful weapon? Because if it’s not a lawful weapon in the first place, I simply won’t use it, I’ll find other feasible ways of accomplishing the military objective. One, is it lawful? Two, even a lawful weapon can be misused in an unlawful, illegal manner, particularly challenging in the context of white phosphorous in urban area, because the law is clear that there some authorized, perfectly valid uses of white phosphorous munitions. The most common uses of course, as I’m sure you’re all familiar with, are to mark targets, for one example. As an Armour Officer, if I wanted an air strike to come in, tanks, mini tanks have white phosphorous rounds or they used to in our inventory. And you could simply fire a white phosphorous round to mark a location where you wanted an air strike to come in or artillery fire or the location of the enemy. If you’re trying to vector in, there’s a number of forces spread out across a geographic area, and you want to very quickly vector them in so that, they’re all looking at the exact same place where the enemy has been located. No better way to do it than a quick white phosphorous round, right there, and you’ve done it. The most common uses of course, are both, and I hesitate to put them in order because they’re both coequal, but of course, for illumination which works. And the most effective use is to shield movements, as a smoke screen, very effective, very dense, very effective. One aspect of this is that white phosphorous in an urban area, if you are in fact trying to move forces through an urban area, of course there are snipers in second story windows. There are sometimes, explosive devices planted along the way. There are sometimes trip wires. So, one option, of course is simply bomb buildings, simply level areas or with incendiary or with high explosive munitions. They call it covering fire. I’ll simply lay down a base of covering fire along the pathway that I want to go. The obvious drawback to that of course, is that you’re destroying civilian houses and civilian buildings and civilian property which later must be rebuilt. If I’m a commander and I want to do what’s feasible, of course I can simply launch high explosive rounds. Another way of potentially achieving the same thing is to simply mask those movements using white phosphorous. But, and here’s the key “but.” In an urban area, remember I’ve always got that underlying residual proportionality analysis to be made. What is the military advantage to be gained? If it’s simply moving from this point to that point, the relevant question is not simply where do I want to be? The relevant question is what’s the best way to get there? I can get from Point A to Point B and minimize collateral damage, minimize incidents to civilian damage going another way, possibly. Is that, feasible? Is it practicable? What’s the offset? What do I know of how many civilians are left in that area? A very common tactic which was used during operations in the spring of course, is to do warning, warning the civilian population, but it doesn’t satisfy the proportionality analysis to simply assume, “Okay, I have warned the civilian population.” Experience tells me that most of them won’t leave. Most will get some food – get as much food as they can. They’ll go to their basements. They’ll try to ride it out. That’s been the practice from Stalingrad forward. I can’t simply say, “Ah, I’ve met my proportionality analysis because I’m going to use white phosphorous in an urban area. And there won’t be any civilian lives endangered because I’ve asked them to leave.” You can’t assume complete compliance because experience tells you that you’ll never, ever have complete compliance. You simply don’t. So, you must undergo the proportionality analysis on a detailed basis. Some people – and I just want to be clear about this, some people would simply assume that white phosphorous because it has aspects of chemical compounds in it, would per se constitute a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, not true. Because the, effects of white phosphorous, all munitions in some way or another have a chemical process. White phosphorous is not intended to cause damage. It’s not dependent on the use of the chemicals in order to achieve its effect. It’s simply a collateral effect. It’s not prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Similarly, Protocol 3 to the Convention on certain Convention weapons which bans incendiary weapons has this flat prohibition that says you can never have air-dropped incendiary weapons, meaning napalm, in an urban area. So, again, some people would simply extrapolate from that and say, “Well, you have an air-dropped incendiary weapon, because white phosphorous does cause fires". The question was about area weapons. Well, it’s essentially the same legal analysis as with white phosphorous. Is there proportionality analysis? I can never use indiscriminate weapons. I must always target military objectives. So, even in an urban area there are pockets where I may use area weapons when I’m focused on a military objective, provided same legal analysis. I’ve done what is feasible to minimize or eliminate damage to civilian lives or civilian properties. The principle of proportionality includes not just the direct with specific reference to white phosphorous. The military advantage anticipated does not just include the mere, immediate ancillary military advantage. There’s also a humanitarian dimension of that. If in fact, white phosphorous on a playground for example, is different from white phosphorous in another area. The humanitarian implications of that are vital. I believe the commander has an obligation to do what’s possible to minimize or eliminate. So, in some senses, again, to restate, you may have a perfectly lawful weapon that is used in an unlawful manner. And that comes down to the precise circumstances of it’s use, not in general, generically, but based on that target, at that time, based on the information available to that commander. Again, the keyword is “anticipated.”


 * I don't understand. It's weight here comes from the extent to which it was covered in reliable sources. I presume it was covered extensively because it caused millions of dollars of damage to UN humanitarian aid infrastructure/supplies and killed/injured civilians. All sorts of organizations heavily criticised it's use in enormous detail noting possible illegal usage. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP usage is covered in other sections and a separate section dedicated to WP usage is redundant and unnecessary--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be true. I've often felt that too much time and effort is wasted on WP usage. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that we have consensus for reversion of the entire section dealing with WP--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not counting me in on that consensus; that isn't exactly what I meant. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus, it stays Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Juijutsuguy, your radical edit is not within consensus, contain a weasly atribution and reflecting your pov. Selfrevert and stopp this povwarring. Build concensus or dont edit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted him. Srsly; removing BBC, and only relying on JPost etc? No go. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

→"White phosphorus and Israeli denials" is non-neutral name for a section to start with. And I'm asking again, what's the encyclopedic value in the section? Sean's answer is unsatisfactory - I guess drones and their Spike missiles did much more damage and killed many more, but there's no such section. There's controversy, but it is based primarily on not so accurate presumption that WP is banned in urban areas or that it puts civilians at too much risk - this is untrue, it could be said about each weapon and actually the war itself in urban area puts civilians at high risk, but it doesn't mean that such war is prohibited. Meanwhile, I'll copy-paste sentences based on col. Lane and prof. Newton into the section from International Law and the Gaza War and I strongly suggest this duplicity is resolved. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with Septic. This WP section is nothing short of blatant POV pushing and the entire section should be reverted. There is ample dicussion of WP in other sections and certainly no need for a separate section that serves no purpose other than to bash a party to the conflict. I made a good faith effort to maintain a more concise version of the section and added two more sources but was immediately reverted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "The BBC picked up the story and published a photograph of two shells exploding over a densely populated area on 11 January, 5 days before the last denial and 10 days before the Israeli admission" - second half of the sentence (highlighted) is problematic. It borders with OR, as the article does not contain these words. Moreover, "The Israeli army said operational secrecy prevented disclosure of its weaponry, but emphasised it "only employs weapons permitted by international law"." - technically true, as WP is legal under IHL. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll stress again, I'm aware of HRW Roth's publication that says "As for obfuscation, the IDF claimed that all weapons it used were "legal," but that begs the critical question of how they were used. The use of white phosphorous is legal in certain circumstances but illegal when deployed in a way that causes unnecessary or indiscriminate harm to civilians" - this is also true, but again it is true for each and every weapon, a rifle, a drone, a missile, whatever. Merely saying that some journalists or HRW military expert saw WP bursts proves or disproves nothing. You need, as for each and every weapon and each and every attack, to analyze every incident separately to conclude whether there was a breach of laws of armed conflict. (a side note - this analyses would not be required for Qassam and Grad rockets - because they are indiscriminate weapons per se and each their use is a violation of laws of armed conflict.) --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (another side note, Times publication has an inaccurate sentence, "The weapon is legal if used as a smokescreen in battle but it is banned from deployment in civilian areas" - it is not when you expect snipers, explosive devices etc, see words of prof. Newton) --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another distinction must be made. ICRC publication might cause some confusion that I wish to avoid. WP can be used as an incendiary weapon (and then all the restrictions Herby mentions are valid), but WP per se is not necessarily an incendiary weapon. He says that "If munitions containing white phosphorous are used to mark military targets or to spread smoke then their use is regulated by the basic rules of international humanitarian law" - the same is true about every weapon and each military operation. (And when Roth titles his letter "The Incendiary IDF", implying that WP is incendiary, he is slightly dishonest.) --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

<-Sceptic, I'm still confused. My answer is unsatisfactory because you don't like it or it's unsatisfactory because it's inconsistent with wiki policy ? What you think is true or untrue, accurate or inaccurate about the controversy isn't relevant. Worse that that what you say is rather blatant misrepresentation of the sources that reported on and expressed concerns about the use and effects of this weapon. This article is about a conflict in the real world that used real weapons against real people and real places that produced real effects. That is what we are meant to be describing. It is not an abstract analysis in a courtroom. Describing the weapons systems, military tactics and their effects is exactly what this article, an encyclopedia article should be doing and the weight given to those entirely encyclopedic issues should be based on reliable sources rather than your or anyone else's notions of what the reliable sources should have said or focused on. If the issue of WP or drone use etc has been covered extensively in reliable sources than this article should also cover it as a weapon system. The legality of weapon usage is a separate issue that is rightly dealt with in the appropriate articles. We need to stop conflating the two issues. The extensive media coverage of rockets raining down on southern Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with their legality. It's covered extensively because of it's effects in the real world on real people. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have problem with your current post. I ask simple question: what is the encyclopedic value of the section dedicated to the use of the WP and the denial of its use by IDF? The importance of such section would have been evident if WP was a weapon of mass destruction or a banned weapon. I made my posts to clarify that it is just a weapon, that might (as every weapon) have very adverse affect on human beings. Can you explain what is the logic behind the section, its wording and construction? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification for Sean - seems like our concerns elude you. Pay attention that the section challenged is a section that says very little about WP, its legitimacy, its affect on people, or specific incidents. The section says merely that journalists and human-rights activists spotted use of WP and nevertheless it was denied til late January by IDF. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the encyclopedic value ? Gee, I don't know. Probably the same encyclopedic value of the section (and the large number of articles) dedicated to the use of rockets by Palestinian militants. Seriously, what is wrong with you guys ? It's like trying to convince someone with hemispatial neglect that they've only eaten the food on the Israeli half of their plate. :) Turn the plate around 180 degrees, pretend the WP was being fired by Hamas and raining down of southern Israel then reconsider the vast amount of reporting on this munition. Consider that your limbic system may be causing information processing errors.


 * Having said all that, yes, that section needs to be completely rewritten so that simply documents the cold facts, the various usage narratives and the effects preferably by someone with a serious damaged limbic system that no longer processes emotions. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After spilling 5 lines on problems with pro-Israeli editors, here comes the punch line - "Having said all that, yes, that section needs to be completely rewritten ...". So maybe the problem is not with us after all, 'cause this is what I'm trying to say and this is what JJGuy tried to do. Want to write about WP in the course of Gaza War? No problem, but don't devote entire section on denials on something that is generally legal. Now can we finally get to the task of rewriting? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And btw, I can easily write a section devoted to Hamas officials' denials that they don't target civilians. I don't do that yet 'cause it's rather stupid. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But you do work on articles that describe things and use words that upset you. I think that is rather silly. Nevermind. We make weight assessments based on RS. The denials were mentioned in the press. There were initial denials of use just like the US initially denied their use in their Fallujah shake and bake operations. I don't think it needs more than a mention in this article. Denials have never set anyone's pants on fire contrary to the 'liar, liar, pants on fire' saying. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We rarely agree, but here we reach the same conclusion: "I don't think it needs more than a mention" - a mention yes, an entire section no. And btw, there's already a mention in the section here: International Law and the Gaza War. I think this duplicity can be reduced and I am neutral whether to leave it here and remove from Int_Law or vice versa. (I also strongly suggest to remove almost everything from Int_Law section here, leaving no more than 2 sentences.) --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the weapon needs an entire (not very long) section just like rockets needs an entire section. I don't think the WP section here needs to mention legality at all. That is covered elsewhere. Yes, that int law section needs action. I still think the easiest and most sensible policy compliant way is just to copy/paste the lead from the International Law and the Gaza War article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP section heading is provocative and implies that Israel had something to deny. The content of the paragraph makes it appear that Israel "denied" WP usage due to supposed illegality. It is therefore important to incorporate Septic's qualification to restore a modicum of balance.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't and no it doesn't. You experience the emotion of provocation and you add information in your interpretation of the title that makes you conclude that it implies something. Who knows why Israel denied it. I assume they had their reasons but we don't know what they were so they don't matter. The military lying to the press, big surprise there. I have changed the section title so settle down now and have a cup of tea. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

<-Jiujitsuguy, why are you adding tremendously irrelevant and uninformative information? Why can't we not mention legality just this once because that goes elsewhere and why are we including comments by army officers that are built on the hypothetical premise that the weapon was being used to hide troop movements without for example mentioning that apparently there weren't troop movements in the areas it was being deployed ? I hope you see the problem. This is what happens when you only focus on one side of the story and include the musings of people. Can't we just stick to the facts to start with ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea Sean, strike the whole section and I don't drink tea.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you strike the whole section on the use of rocket and mortars by Palestinian militants ? Is there a reason to treat the weapons systems differently ? The problem I have is that if someone asked me a simple question like 'which weapons system has caused more deaths/injuries/damage in the last, let's say five years, rockets from Gaza or WP shells from Israel ?' I honestly wouldn't know the answer precisely. What I do know is that both systems have killed/injured in the 10-100 order of magnitude, caused extensive property damage and psychological trauma. I don't see why weapons used by Palestinian militants and weapons used by the IDF are treated differently. It strikes me as irrational. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)...and of course if you narrow the time range from 5 years to the period covered by this article it seems even more odd to not treat rockets and WP with comparable weight. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP was but one of many weapons employed by the IDF. The IDF used Merkava tanks, Namer APCs, drones, Apaches, Tavor assault rifles. Do we need separate sections for each weapon system employed by the IDF? I'm sure that these weapons caused more deaths than WP. Second, the section dealing with rocket attacks on Israel has a qualification at the end as follows: "Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar stated during the operation "they [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza.... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques, ... and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." Why is that qualification necessary? under your logic, it's okay to rationalize rocket fire against civilians but not okay to offer explanations for WP, which provides cover for troop movements. Third, the section dealing with rockets is necessary because it was rocket fire eminating from Hamas controlled Gaza that prompted the war (or at least it was a major factor). Therefore, the section is essential and integral to the conflict. The section regarding WP is not and is in any event, covered in other sections of the article--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The weight allocated to an issue is decided by reliable sources not us. We just reflect that. If the reliable sources had written extensively about Tavor rifles in this conflict then yes, we would write about them. However, they did not.
 * Okay, first let me explain why I find it difficult communicating with you. The statement "under your logic, it's okay to rationalize rocket fire against civilians but not okay to offer explanations for WP, which provides cover for troop movements." illustrates the problem. You must and are absolutely obliged to treat information about Palestinians and information about Israelis the same way. Please compare the statements "rationalize rocket fire against civilians" and "provides cover for troop movements" and consider whether you are really capable of addressing issues in a neutral, balanced, rational and detached way as required by the discretionary sanctions. Think about why you didn't write "rationalize WP fire against civilians". You seem to implictly process information using a good guys vs bad guys, cowboys vs injuns model. But to address your question, I made no statement about the contents of the rocket section so you can't draw any conclusions about what I think about it. So, to clarify, as I have said before, I think the WP section should simply document the cold facts, the various usage narratives (which of course includes the IDF's 'rationalization' to use your word) and the effects. According to my 'logic' that also applies to the rockets section. Hamas' 'rationalization' and the IDF's 'rationalization' are relevant in both cases. My problem with the information you added is that it is not the IDF's 'rationalization', it's some military guy droning on about hypothetical scenarios. Let the IDF (or MFA) speak for themselves about their actions and let Hamas speak for themselves about their actions. There are no double standards or inconsistencies in my approach.
 * Again, the weight allocated to an issue like WP or rockets is decided by reliable sources not us. You thinking that WP doesn't matter is irrelevant. I'm not sure what other sections of the article you are referring to but if it's the legal section that will all be removed soon. If it's elsewhere as non-legal statements about the military aspects then move it into the WP section. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, I don't have problem with what Sean writes, except for the following: "...it is not the IDF's 'rationalization', it's some military guy droning on about hypothetical scenarios. Let the IDF (or MFA) speak for themselves about their actions and let Hamas speak for themselves", and this is one of my constant points of friction with Sean. Many notable figures and organizations (including latest Goldstone report) produce judgements and I do my best (they way that I see it, but hey I'm not alone here) to document them. Speaking of WP, we all aknowledge the outcry that surrounds the issue and many publications, indeed, that the matter invoked. The section currently cites Times articles and that's fine; however, as I noted before, without being experts in the military field they (RSs, human-rights groups, etc) produce statements like "The weapon is legal if used as a smokescreen in battle but it is banned from deployment in civilian areas". This is why I support providing opinions of military and law experts in the field, and the opinion of the soldier published in Spectator is relevant to balance those generalizations. I agree that it is useless when discussing specific incidents though. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ..well to clarify (and deliberately ignore your reference to the legality issue), the problem for me is that it's quite easy to find military experts saying generic things about military matters without those statements being very helpful and informative from our perspective. For example, if we quote a US military guy who fought in Iraq saying WP is excellent for area denial to restrict the movement of insurgents and extremely effective as an incendary 'shake and bake' weapon where you contain the enemy and simply burn them in situ that is fascinating but it doesn't tell us anything about what happened in Gaza unless that is what the IDF say they did. It's in that sense that I find these kind of generic statements uninformative and potentially misleading. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * clarifying the clarification - as I said above, yes I agree that generic statements of experts are uninformative with regard to specific incidents. However, they are informative to balance other generic statements expressed by numerous journalists and human-rights defenders and shared by many ordinary people, readers and editors alleging that WP in urban area is forbidden per se. Look at the post of our IP86 - I bet this is what he thinks and he cites Roth who gave title "incendiary IDF" to his letter. My point - it all comes down to the circumstances, WP is a legal weapon that could be used in illegal manner, as drones, rifles, clubs, forks. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse other editors of naivity or gullibility. I'm not in denial of anything, I'm perfectly happy to grant you that WP can be abused like any weapon (well, except I've yet to examine the argument that it is a weapon). However, Israel chose a different reason not to be condemned for the use it was thought to be making of WP. They chose to tell fairly blatant lies. And that's quite notable - the 2006 case was head-lined in the Independent and I imagine something similar happened here, it was certainly documented in detail in the Times. Wikipedia has a history of drawing attention to falsehoods (even when the allegations of falsehood are unproven, trivial and practically irrelevant, such as Pallywood). Accusations of gullibility won't stop it looking as if there's an attempt to bury something well-known and damaging and central to the public's view of this "War". 86.158.184.158 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reason for high-lighting the denials this time round is that it's happened before, Lebanon 2006, where Israel repeatedly and adamantly denied use of this weapon and was then been found to be lying. Israel also denied using DU on that occasion and may have been vindicated - certainly nobody made false accusations this time round. Use of illegal (or alleged illegal) weapons and denials are a big deal in all cases. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would remind 86.158.184.158 that the talk page is not a forum for your opinions on Israel. If you want to write an article about Israel's "lying" I suggest you go ahead.  These blatant accusations (offered without the least evidence) are not conducive either to a collaborative environment, nor to editing an article from a neutral position.   I would think  you should recuse yourself from editing any articles in the area since you are working from such a negative perspective both about Israel and about WP ("a weapon"). Stellarkid (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or Stellarkid, since you appear to lack some awareness of the history of Israel lying about it's military operations (just like many other countries) why don't you do some research about it and check that Wikipedia is covering this issue properly ? You could start with this article and ensure that we are accurately informing our readers about this. That would demonstrate that you are willing to edit on both sides of the conflict. Oh look what I just found, could be useful Israel Defense Forces spokesman told CNN: "I can tell you with certainty that white phosphorus is absolutely not being used."...oops. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget that using WP is quite a big deal because it's not been used in Gaza before (possibly because 'In training you learn that white phosphorus is not used, and you’re taught that it’s not humane' according to an IDF soldier who was there(page 30]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stellarkid - do I have that right, you would support having an article on "Lies of Israel"? Cases in which Israel (or pre-Israel Zionist forces) denied or concealed their links to particular actions but someone either confessed their involvement or rewarded the perpetrators? 86.158.184.158 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that's not the start of that bit of conversation but it should be the end of it. That's just asking for a response that wouldn't be helpful on the talk page. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Int_Law section
How about removing it completely, leaving just a sentence-two of the allegations? Everything (or almost everything) that the section says is in the Int-Law article. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not my copy/paste the lead from the Int-Law article suggestion ?
 * the section in this article is meant to be a summary of the Int-Law article
 * the lead in Int-Law article is meant to be a summary of the Int-Law article
 * Therefore
 * the section in this article = the lead in Int-Law article
 * The logic is flawless-ish. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Do it, Sean, I'll cover you. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Figures
Sean, please self revert based on Report slams B'Tselem Cast Lead figures as you had requested. (Cut and pasted from <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk Talk page).--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding it. Google didn't. Mind you I only searched on the title and I don't think JPost put the title in their article....brilliant. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank JJGuy for the quick decisive response, Sean for the courtesy, and myself for spotting the original publication (is vanity a deadly sin? hope it isn't). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The only slight criticism I have is that we have missed a rare comedic opportunity to highlight a journal dedicated to seeking peace in the Middle East containing a report that concludes with dovish, academic statements like
 * "Hamas’ genocidal attacks on Israeli populations....the silence and inaction of outside bystanders, including human rights groups....The death tolls are the bitter harvest reaped by a society which has chosen to be ruled by a terror movement -Hamas--explicitly committed to the destruction of a neighboring country-Israel."
 * Peace through a bitter harvest. I shall be sending that poetic phrase to StandWithUs to be included in their "How to make an inexpensive rally sign" and "Signs and Posters Here" sections of their web site to see if they take me seriously. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...but what is the object of your sarcasm? that Hamas is dubbed terrorist org. by US and EU? that it "supposedly" promotes genocide? or towards piece of poetry? or maybe it is directed towards Palestinian people's democratic choice? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...it's probably just that as an outsider, when I read things like this (and there's plenty more where that came from as your part of the world isn't short on rhetoric), I wonder why the authors didn't just do something enjoyable like a bit of gardening instead or perhaps plant a nice tree. Everyone enjoys a nice tree. Just ignore me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to ignore you, I want to invite you to Israel (or maybe Jewish community closest to your place) on 30th of January 2010, when the Tu Bishvat will be celebrated and many many trees will be surely planted. Notice - 30th of Jan. 2010 happens to be Shabbat, so I guess the actual planting will be the day before or the day after. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Well, Jewish communities outside Israel may not be planting trees after all...I hope at the very least they eat dried fruits. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is it's not funny if you have to explain it. --JGGardiner (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I should add that I do remember that when I was a child, some of my Jewish friends took home little saplings that they were given at Hebrew school. I think they were planted somewhere in some kind of ceremony.  I don't know if it was for Tu Bishvat but it sounds like it probably was. --JGGardiner (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very nice of you Sceptic but I have my annual appraisal at the Electronic Intifada office that week. We've planted so many (mostly super fast growing flame, fruit and golden shower) trees over here that we have created a little forest which now has a proper layered canopy (amazingly already 15-20m high) with many animals. We may even be Jewish now....as a fundamentalist atheist I'm not sure about the details of how these things work but if it is related to tree planting activities then it's possible. :) I shall buy some Israeli figs though. They are available here. Also, my Jewish community moved to India i.e. the one Israeli guy we know here moved to an NGO in India thus rather selfishly causing a catastrophic collapse of the Jewish community. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Hamas claimed to have suffered only 48 casualties and to have killed at least 80 Israeli soldiers" has been widely discredited and in fact, has been controverted by Israeli and Palestinian reports as well as reports compiled by unaffiliated NGOs. It was not based on any compiled report, statistic or data. It was a raw number taken out of a hat, made strictly for propaganda purposes, similar to the claim of soldier abductions. It seems out of place in the "casualty" section and should instead be inserted under the "Propaganda" section.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it belongs in the Casualties section as long as it is properly labelled. I think that our readers understand what that means.  While it might also count as propaganda, so are most things that the parties say during a conflict (whether true or not).  So grouping everything there would make for a big unorganized section of miscellany in an otherwise bare article. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems awkward placing it in the "casualty" section given that it's a widely discredited figure and the other claims (Israeli/Palestinian) are based on more thorough reports rather than just making up a figure out of thin air. The Hamas casualty claims, which grossly understate their own losses and greatly exaggerate Israel's, are akin to their false claims of abducting soldiers and destrying 47 tanks and armored vehicles (the carcasses of one of these have yet to be displayed). You see my point here. The claim is but one of many propaganda claims made by Hamas to save face and satisfy a demoralized militia and constituency. Therefore, it most certainly belongs in the "propaganda" section as an accurate reflection of a propaganda claim rather than a legitimate casualty figure.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And to use you argument, the Israeli figures are inconsistent with every other source therefore, it most certainly belongs in the "propaganda" section as an accurate reflection of a propaganda claim rather than a legitimate casualty figure. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a virtual fact that 13 Israelis (10 soldiers and 3 civilians) were killed in the fighting. It is also a virtual fact that between 1,100 (Israeli claim) and 1,400 (Palestinian claim) Palestinians were killed in the fighting. Israel claims that 709 of those killed were "terror operatives." While official Palestinian tallies dispute the latter figure, their numbers concerning Hamas combatants killed (even if you exclude "policemen") are still far higher than Hamas claims. Sean, Hamas claimed that it destroyed 47 Israeli tanks. One would think that they would gladly display their burnt out hulks to the international press as a victory image. What I'm saying is that you have to distinguish propaganda from fact. No credible figure cited comes close to matching those of Hamas. The Hamas figure should not be reverted but should be placed in a different section as an accurate reflection of what it is, propaganda.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you but we can't distinguish propaganda from fact. DCI publish a list of 352 named children they have confirmed died as a result of Israeli actions. Propaganda or fact ? The IDF publish a figure for the number of Hamas etc people killed (but do not supply any corroborating evidence to support the information). Propaganda or fact ? We just say what the sources say and place it where the sources suggest it should be placed. If you want to add something about Hamas' claim lacking evidence add it. I plan to do that for the Israeli claims as I work my way through that section of the article to update it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me attack this issue from a different angle. Hamas claimed to have killed 80 Israeli soldiers (no mention of civilians). I can name you the names, dates of birth, places of residence and a brief bio of all 13 Israelis, (soldiers and civilians) killed in Cast Lead. My point here is that reports of Israeli casualties are not something that can be controlled by the Israeli government. Casualties in Israel are a very sensitive matter and funerals are, for the most part, rather public affairs attended by rabbis, politicians and military personnel. It's not something that can be hidden from the public and press and woe to the government official who tries to understate it. The Israeli press would be all over him like a pack of wild Hyenas on the carcass of a wildabeast. See my point? Hamas claimed that Israel suffered at least 8 times that figure and that excludes civilian deaths. How did Hamas come up with that figure? Do they have the dead bodies? C'mon Sean be reasonable here. Clearly, the Hamas claim belongs in the propaganda section. even Hamas' own constituency doesn't buy their claims for one second. Please see Trumpets of victory strike false note--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point that it is not believable. But that is what part of what makes it unremarkable as propaganda.  It is just a wildy inflated number.  So what?  Why mention that?  As propaganda it is meaningless.  But I think the article needs to say what Hamas, as the government of that area, says about the casualties, no matter how unreliable it is.  I think that in any conflict we should always include what both parties say and what reliable third parties say.  And we should understand that most readers will accept what the third parties say.  Of course I realize that some people are completely credulous when accepting information from their favourite state and will internalize those numbers.  As a Wikipedian, I have learned that I have to accept that.

Let me pass along some words of wisdom that I heard an executive from a cable company once say: "I'm just the plumber who puts the pipes together -- I don't care what people flush down them." I think every Wikipedian should take that to heart. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * --JGGardiner I'm not saying to revert it. On the contrary, it should be included but under a different and existing section within the article captioned "phsyche warfare and propaganda"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, I think it is arbitrary and generally unimportant to move things out of their general context if we feel they are false in order to label them as propaganda. This information makes sense in the casualties section.  It is the thought of one of the belligerents on the subject.  It serves a purpose there and follows WP convention.  What would be the point of putting it in a propaganda section?  It seems like it is just calling out Hamas on a lie.  I don't think that's useful, encyclopedic and probably isn't NPOV.  I agree that Hamas wasn't telling the truth (in my opinion), I just don't think that it is our job to catalogue all of their falsehoods. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wise words from JGGardiner there. Jiujitsuguy, what we think is reasonable isn't relevant to anything here. We just say what the sources say. If I edited based on what I thought is reasonable I would implement a regime akin to "The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil", delete all references based on the notion of ethnicity in Wikipedia, completely rewrite all articles about religions and instantly block anyone who displayed even the slightest evidence of nationalism. If belligerents want to spout statistical nonsense it's fine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to get off topic here, I had a look at the DCI figures. Nearly 90 of the "children" mentioned were 16 and 17 years old. In Africa, it's common for 12 year old boys to be recruited for war. In Israel, there are para-military outfits like Gadna youth corps, that prep 17 and 16 year olds to be officers in the army and have them undergo military training. During Israel's war of Independence, it was not uncommon to see 15 year old boys with Mauser rifles and Sten submachine guns. The US army accepts 17 year old recruits. Yes, technically a 17 year old is a boy but he can hold and shoot an AK-47 just as an 18 year old.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And one more point. The DCI figures don't state the circumstances of their death. The fact that they died, by itself is of no probative value because they could have died as a result of "friendly fire" (remember that nearly 50% of Israel's casualties were the result of friendly fire). Palestinian rockets are notoriously volatile and unstable and there could have been instances of mis-fires. They also could have died as a result of "work accidents" where an explosive lab blows up. And of course, as I noted above, the 17 year old child could have been a combatant. Nothing is cut and dry here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but didn't you just say that we "have to distinguish propaganda from fact" ? It's in the nature of propaganda to use distraction to draw attention away from the raw empirical data and attempt to refocus attention on an aspect of the data using interpretations that advance the agenda of the propagandist. There are many commonly used techniques such as supposition, analogy and implying causal links with the common factor being lack of evidence. The statements usually rely on weaknesses in the way people process information by exploiting things like illusory correlation and systemic bias. The suggestions sound plausible to those that want to believe them. Yes, 90 were between 16 and 17, 91 were between 0 and 7. The mean is ~11, median 13, the mode 17 and every single death has been confirmed by DCI as being 'a direct result of Israel's military offensive'. They have provided the circumstances of their death for about 20% of the children so far. There is a near linear growth is death rate from the age 10 upwards which could be consistent with all sorts of scenarios such as a linear growth in the proportion of time spent outside exposed to a events in a combat zone while fulfilling family duties or preferential age based targeting by the IDF using weapons systems with high resolution targeting systems or it could simply be a consequence of a fog of war "In urban warfare, anyone is your enemy. No innocents." approach (I'm quoting an IDF soldier's testimony to Breaking the Silence). DCI simply present data without interpretation. It's broadly consistent with other sources. The IDF/MFA to my knowledge have not presented any evidence that invalidates it. The statement in this wiki article includes no interpretation. It simply reflects the source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And in any event our job is to minimize this sort of back and forth that otherwise makes information processing (and packaging) so much fun. Because at the end of the day we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article here.  A concise, coherent encyclopedia article.  I think it would probably be helpful for everyone to grab one of those off of their bookshelf and look at the entry for, say, the Polish-Soviet War (which I just mentioned above).  I think it would be helpful to reflect how different that is from what you see here when you hit the article tab. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, despite not having a bookshelf, I tend to agree. Jiujitsuguy, left me a message saying "The article looks decent and I don't think there's much more to add as all topics are covered at length and in detail. Hope you concur"..and I have to say that I don't concur at all. The article is pretty messy, verbose and a little bit like the bomb cratored area around Củ Chi after the conflict between the US and the Viet Cong or was it the NVA or the communists or maybe Vietnam. It needs a purge. I'd like to see things that can go into tables go into tables so that we can get rid of some text e.g. most of the Casualties section. The Disputed figures section has too much information. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I don't know if you read the link I sent you aboveTrumpets of victory strike false note but one notable quote was this "According to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, on the first day of the war Hamas ordered its gunmen to take off their uniforms to avoid being detected by the IDF. The Hamas gunmen who participated in the fighting against the IDF were all dressed as civilians and the majority arrived at hospitals without their weapons or any other signs revealing their status as gunmen." I firmy believe that the official Palestinian and other NGO figures were skewed as a result of this. Moreover, do you actually believe that Hamas would allow NGOs from the "other camp" access to Gaza? I could just see Hamas militiamen and government officials extending the welcome mat to delegates from NGO monitor, U.N. Watch, CAMERA and MERMI. C'mon Sean, at least entertain the possibility that there's another side other than the Hamas side.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also loved the way Israeli casualty estimates are sandwiched between four contradictory claims such that the Israeli casualty claims are well camouflaged and barely noticeable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, I can find no references to this DCI study or republishing of it's findings in reliable sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And, more importantly, where do you keep all of your books if you don't have a bookshelf? --JGGardiner (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jiujitsuguy, regarding "Israeli casualty estimates are sandwiched", yes I did that and I don't like it either but the figures are being reported in time sequence so I put them in time sequence. I could think of no reason whatsoever to have the IDF figures first given that they were issued in response to the Palestinian figures. There's is far to much text dedicated to the Palestinian figures which to me is the main problem. I would prefer that section to be a short paragraph of meta-information i.e. list the orgs that issues stats, mention disparities etc but put the actual figures in a table listing all sources. Regarding "no references to this DCI study or republishing of it's findings in reliable sources", yes I'm aware of that but DCI is a reputable global NGO. It's referenced in the Goldstone Report so in that sense it has been republished in a very prominent way although the figures in the report are slightly out of date. Regarding beliefs, I don't have any apart from perhaps that orgs like ICRC, Oxfam, Save the Children, DCI, HRW, Amnesty, PHR-Israel, B'Tselem and many many more are not on the Hamas side.
 * JGGardiner, regarding "where do you keep all of your books", I keep them as far away as I can from the millions of termites that have surrounded my house and against which I'm in a perpetual state of warfare. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well good luck with that. I'm very tempted to make a lazy comparison between your struggle with insects and the subject of the article but I probably shouldn't. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't challange your DCI source but for the record, I don't like it. I'll also leave The Hamas casualty figures where they are based on objections by you and JGGardiner but I did add a triple sourced qualification.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not liking it is fine. Making an edit like this is not fine. That's original research. I reverted. Actually it's far more inappropriate than OR so please try to resist the temptation to make edits like that. It's the kind of edit that could be presented in an arbitration enforcement request to demonstrate an inability to follow the discretionary sanctions. Do yourself a favour and avoid edits like that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I do agree that it's important to be clear what 'child' means for this dataset so we need to add something that comes from the source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Figured you'd do that. Was hoping you wouldn't cuz it was factually accurate but I understand your revert and won't object.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. It's also factually accurate to say that 91 were between 0 and 7 years old but we're not going to do that. It's not factually accurate to say "does not specify how those named on the list were killed". They specify that for about 20%. In fact they have written a giant report about it. You'd think it would easy to find a definition of child= person<18 according to DCI but apparently it isn't easy at all. All I've found is "in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child" which is an indirect way of saying child= person<18. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment "There's is far to much text dedicated to the Palestinian figures which to me is the main problem. I would prefer that section to be a short paragraph of meta-information i.e. list the orgs that issues stats, mention disparities etc but put the actual figures in a table listing all sources." How do you propose to do that. Sounds like a good idea but complex.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I like what you did to the "International Law" section. Short and Sweet.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's because I went ahead with the approach described above i.e. Talk:Gaza_War. That is all well and good until you consider that we are now giving almost as much real estate in this article to Breaking the Silence as we are to International Law.... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning "Breaking the Silence," This section is but one of two that essentially deal with the same issue. The other being "Allegations of misconduct by Israeli soldiers." This appears to be needless redundancy. I propose merging the two sections as one and tightening it up a bit. How do you feel about that proposal?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They were for a long time one section. I don't know who and when and why separated them. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I intend to merge the two when protection is lifted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

this diff
"Hamas, despite mentoring from Iran and Hezbollah proved incompetent and cowardly on the battlefield". This pushes a POV, can editors please review policy and edit as neutral Wikipedians. RomaC (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those aren't my words. They are those of a political writer specializing in issues concerning foreign policy and Commentary magazine contributor. In any event, do you have another way to describe wide-spread desertion and a lopsided kill ratio in Israel's favor? If yes, I'm open to suggestions--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been lots of fighting lately. I'll take the first step. If you want me to self revert the offending sentence, I'll do it. Respectfully (Cut and Pasted from RomaC's talk page)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a brief look at the section, I found it very interesting, as it explores new dimension of military analyses. Before I read it thoroughly, I ask JJGuy to take a look again at the sentences - wherever there's an opinion of somebody and not a statement of fact from RS, it should be attributed accordingly. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sceptic. I'm glad you believe that the added section is informative. I have self-reverted a sentence that RomaC found objectionable and rephrased another sentence per Black Kite's insistence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New table with war dead statistics
Editors who have commented above here and here have agreed that a table listing casualties would be an improvement over the current mess of hard to follow casualty reports, so I constructed a table, and cited it, and placed it into the article. I chose two NGOs and the representatives of the two sides of the conflict. The NGO's were chosen based on those that did the most comprehensive work on researching and classifying deaths. In particular I left out "Defense for CHildren" since they provide a single figure that does not easily fit into a table. And I couldn't find a breakdown of combatants/non-combatants from the Gaza PMOH - hope someone will add if they can find it. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Who was the war between?
The war was between Israel and Hamas, not between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Here are 132 Google news archives results from the beginning of the conflict until today for "fighting between israel and hamas". The same search for "fighting between israel and the gaza strip" yields 0 results. This is a proportion of infinity to 1. The same or similar is true for "conflict between israel and x", "war between israel and x", etc. The reason for this is presumably that the Gaza Strip is not a political entity but a part of a political entity (the Palestinian National Authority), and can no more be a side in a conflict than Kaliningrad Oblast can. Of course, to be even more precise, the war was between Israel on the one side and Hamas and various minor (in this context) Palestinian militant groups on the other side. I have no problem putting the other groups in the lede and the infobox, but saying that the Gaza Strip was a side in the conflict is simply wrong. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Israel did not wage war against the Gaza Strip. It waged war against the entity that controlled the Gaza Strip, Hamas.


 * Israel and Hamas are entities whereas the Gaza Strip is a geographical location. Entities interact with each other. They make war, peace, engage in commerce, etc. Therefore,Jalapenos do exist (talk) is correct. It makes more sense to state that the war was between Israel and Hamas as opposed to a war between Israel and The Gaza Strip.


 * As an illustration, Israel fought a war with Syria in 1967 in the Golan Heights vicinity. The war was between Israel and Syria, not Israel and the Golan. Similarly, she battled Egypt in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. The battle was between Israel and Egypt, not Israel and Sinai/Gaza Strip.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Gaza" and some variants are often used as shorthand names for the de facto state that Hamas controls in the Gaza Strip. We often use these convenient geographic based shorthands like Taiwan or even China for that matter.  Or as another example, in 1967 Israel fought a campaign in the Sinai against a state called the United Arab Republic.  But a lot people will use a shorthand and call the UAR "Egypt". --JGGardiner (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a defacto state called the Gaza Strip and Hamas is the government there. An attack against a government is an attack against the place, we can't push the Israeli MFA line that they were neutralizing Hamas terrorists, just as we can't we use the Gazan line that they were resisting the "Zionist entity". Two places fought, we name the two places. Also, many Gazan groups other than Hamas were involved in the fighting. Reverting. RomaC (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Roma, there is defacto lawlessness In Gaza. There is no state. No one recognizes Gaza as a state. It is a geographical location that is currently under the nominal control of Hamas Islamists, who take their orders from their paymasters in Iran and Syria.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On this one, I agree with Roma. There is a de facto separate political entity, the Gaza Strip, Hamas forming its government. Just to illustrate, it is quite possible that the allies in WWII fought against the Nazi regime, and not against German people or Germany, but since the Nazi regime was the ruling power in Germany, the war was against Axis powers, primarily Germany, Italy and Japan. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it not ironic you mention the Nazi regime considering the parallels of the Nazi war crimes in the second world war and the war crimes of the Israeli Defense Forces as was cited in the recent UN report? Additionally, when editing this article keep in mind it was Israel that behind the scenes helped create Hamas as means of hurting the peace process so Israel is not just merely acting in defense in hopes of achieving peace. Therefore it is fair to say this is an Israeli war on the people of Gaza, a people they want out of their "borders" no matter how illegal those borders may be, so that they can achieve the ethnically pour Jewish State the Zionists dream about. All this is at the expense of the innocent on both the Palestinian and Israeli side of it. DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus among the reliable sources that the war was between Israel and Hamas, and not between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The rest is just our own opinions. I'm restoring the old version.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jalapenos do exist (talk) I think that his edits are more accurate than the previous version and I support his changes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't think that any such convention exists -- at least within the sources I've seen. I have mostly noticed that there is an awkward ambiguity between Hamas and the de facto Hamas state in Gaza.  Israeli sources in particular seem to like the construction "Hamas-controlled Gaza".  "Gaza Strip" is an awkward noun to replace Hamas but either one alone is a bit more simplistic than what the sources seem to say. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts too that I expressed above and nobody answered me. Hamas in this case is not a renegade group within Israel; it is even not a renegade group in the Palestinian territory (Hezbollah, at least before they entered the Lebanese government were), but the ruling force of the Gaza Strip (in the same sense, Nazi party ruled in Germany til 1945). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany is a decent analogy. "Red" China is also.  Or the Republic of China for that matter.  I think actually Bolshevik Russia is the best that comes to my mind.  In the Polish–Soviet War the Poles could say they were at war the Bolsheviks (I understand that most still do), with Bolshevik state or with both.  Our situation is a little tricky because in order to maintain legitimacy, Hamas carries on with the notion that it governs all Palestine.  But if they'd made a UDI and called themselves the Islamic Republic of Gaza, I think there would be no problem saying that Israel was at war with the IRG.  So I think there is no real problem that the belligerent was the political entity.  The sources are just confused about the nature and more importantly the name of it.  I think that sources reflect that confusion. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I showed, all the reliable sources say the fighting was between Israel and Hamas or between Israel and Hamas+other militant groups. None of the reliable sources say that the fighting was between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think you showed that at all. As I said, the Hamas entity does not have an agreed upon proper name per se.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not referenced in the sources.  It just won't appear in a headline.  That's why you sometimes have to read the content of articles to know what they say.

It also not the position of either of the belligerents. I think people would do well to read the Israeli Forgeign Affairs FAQ on the conflict. One would also do well to read the background provided, especially this and this to start. As you can see, they go back and forth between Hamas and their political entity, just like the Bolshevik thing I mentioned above. Obviously it is most convenient for Israel to say it was fighting merely "Hamas" the organization but they seem to find it necessary and important to note, repeatedly, the political entity involved as well. I'd guess that it is an important part of their political and legal strategy in the long run. Obviously Hamas, as the de facto government, has obligations that Hamas, a bunch of dudes, does not. The Israelis seem to want to mention those obligations. I know some editors will probably think "to heck with the Israeli government and their claims" but I hope people will at least think about it. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue is not related to the name-of-the-conflict issue. I'm not sure if I understood your response, or what you were trying to show with the sources you brought; I would appreciate if you could explain. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't warrant that my ideas will be understandable. But I'll do my best to explain this one since you asked.

While there is no convenient short name for it, even Israel believes that that Hamas is both an organization and has also established "a radical Islamic entity in the Gaza Strip". Now there is no convenient name for this entity, like there was not for "Red China" (Westerners eventually settled on "China") but that doesn't mean that there isn't a political entity involved. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Very late response, sorry:) What Israel might call "a radical Islamic entity in the Gaza Strip" is the Hamas de-facto government in the Gaza Strip. There is also a polity, the Palestinian National Authority, and a territory, the Gaza Strip. But I don't see how any of this is relevant. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)