Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 7

Public relations
The section doesn't cover anything too useful. I suggest renaming it and shortening it as the information in it isn't terribly notable either.VR talk  18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for deletion, though shortening it would be an improvement over the status quo. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians dead in Gaza
How many civilians have been killed in Gaza?

According to some sources the number is 200:
 * International Herald Tribune 5 January.
 * Houston Chronicle 5 January.
 * The Associated Press "7 hours ago".

Others say it is 100:
 * New York Times 5 January
 * The Associated Press 4 January.
 * International Herald Tribune 2 January.

Shouldn't we quote both figures (i.e 100-200)?VR talk  19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the Associated Press article are in both lists, we should use the more recent one, that is the one that updated the number to 200. --Learsi si natas (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Two of these sources are older than today, one as old as Jan.2. I don't think we should cite newspapers, but rather look through newspapers until we find the official sources they cite, and then check those original sources independently and use them. We will have to run down the sources to official bodies, the UN, UNWRA, B'tselem, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc. This part of the page will be unstable, because the figures will alter hour by hour or day by day, and must be updated, as long as we can discover the best neutral body reporting on the data to source the figures. Newspapers, after all, copy one another mostly.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Nishidani and Learsi. Primary sources (when available) are better than secondary sources for information that does not need analysis, and more up-to-date ones are better than older ones. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that the Associated Press says at least 200 dead. not 200 dead. Given the total collapse of the hospital system, many of the 2,000 civilians counted as wounded are going to die. (these two comments in reply to V's request below). Note very ehlpful I'm afraid.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But since they haven't died yet, and their numbers aren't officially reported, this is a speculation and has no place. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I found three other sources besides the one quote above and added the total 6 sources:

Additional sources can be found: ,,. Cheers, VR talk  03:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to all these sources, Palestinian sources claim 200 civilians, while UN claims about 25% civilians which makes it about 137. I updated both figures in the infobox. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all of the sources claim that the UN claims 25% are civilians. Secondly, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with making the 25% figure (which is an estimate) into a number. Finally, the UN has bee quoting the 25% figure for days now, and the ratio may have changed.VR talk  16:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the total figure we're using comes from Palestinian health officials, so I believe that we should use the other figures from Palestinian health officials too, for the sake of consistency.VR talk  16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

At least a quarter are civilians
That's what the video in the article (that you used as a reference for the civilian count) said. So 520 divided by 4 is 130, so it is approx 130 not 100. Learsi si natas (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The video is from a couple of days ago, when the total casualty count stood at 400, so a quarter of that would be 100. I don't think we can just assume that 25% of the casualties since then have been civilians.  We really need a new source. 98.25.179.111 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, so the more recent articles says the civilian count is around 200 which is more than a quarter (more than a third), see post above this thread. Learsi si natas (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a general principle reporting conflict from sources in the conflict is invariably compromised because there is at the same an informational and disinformational battle. Truth is the first casualty of war etc. The figure of a quarter was presented from day one from Israeli sources. The 75% however was shown to include the 45 odd cadets killed at their graduation ceremony. Hamas, being the legal administrative power (duly and democratically elected) is obliged to oversee, recruit and provide policing of its area. This does not mean that those recruited are 'Hamas (terrorist) militants' necessarily, though they are included in the 75% statistic, which refers generically to all people within the Hamas government structure identified by the IDF as such, whether they be militants or employees. The same goes for bombing. Virtually the whole of the administrative structure, in place before Hamas took over, has been wiped out, on the grounds it hides 'terrorist' infrastructure. Only historians afterwards will make these distinctions, and the picture will radically alter in consequence, going on past experience. Since the whole communicative infrastructure is virtually destroyed, and there is no central data base to collate details coming in from private families, hospitals, in the three zones, everything will remain speculative in terms of the real breakdown of figures re civilian/militants etc. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishidani can you comment on the section above on 100 vs. 200 civilians dead.VR talk  20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the 25% figure was not from Israeli sources, but from the UN. (By the way, it was based on the questionable assumption that women cannot be militants, and thus must be civilians. An sadly naive assumption by the UN, as there have been many cases of Palestinian female terrorists). okedem (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic Background
The Background section has lost any semblance of neutrality. Consider statements like "Hamas violated the cease-fire with rocket and mortar attacks into Israeli civilian areas on a virtually daily basis". Furthermore, the background section cites a source for the "first" violation of the ceasfire (an article in IHT), but that article itself mentions a prior incident of violence (an Israeli military raid)

This needs to be edited immediately to make it more neutral. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(contd) I've edited it to mention violations of the ceasefire on both sides and to make it sound less one-sided. Please discuss here if you would like to revert to the older version. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've brought the text in the first paragraph of the background section into agreement with the wikipedia source article.  It now reads:


 * The first serious violation of the agreement occurred on 23 June 2008 when one mortar shell was fired from Gaza. The following day three Qassam rockets were fired into Sderot, Israel, causing two minor injuries. Islamic Jihad, an organisation independent of Hamas, claimed responsibility, stating it was in response to the killing of two Palestinians in an earlier Israeli raid in Nablus (West Bank). Hamas subsequently pressured the group into abiding by the ceasefire. On June 26, rockets were fired by Fatah, a Hamas rival that elements of which sometimes collaborate with Israel.
 * The first serious violation of the agreement occurred on 23 June 2008 when one mortar shell was fired from Gaza. The following day three Qassam rockets were fired into Sderot, Israel, causing two minor injuries. Islamic Jihad, an organisation independent of Hamas, claimed responsibility, stating it was in response to the killing of two Palestinians in an earlier Israeli raid in Nablus (West Bank). Hamas subsequently pressured the group into abiding by the ceasefire. On June 26, rockets were fired by Fatah, a Hamas rival that elements of which sometimes collaborate with Israel.


 * On 26 June 2008, Hamas warned Israel that its closure of the Gaza border was seen as a major cease-fire violation. Nonetheless, Hamas called on other Palestinian factions to abide by the truce.  Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several per month, with no one taking responsibility. A major eruption of violence occurred on 4 November 2008 when Israeli troops raided the Gaza Strip and killed six Hamas gunmen in an attempt to target a tunnel which, according to the IDF, the Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250 m away.
 * NonZionist (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pallywood
I'd like to point out that Pallywood is back in 'See Also' without any attempt here to justify reverting its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikamatsu (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of that article to this?VR talk  20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * None, except to mock Palestinians, as theatrical, even when being bombed. Will someone be kind enough to remove it? Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I've removed it. All editors. Please erase 'Pallywood' if it is restored. It is pure vandalism to make such a connection.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's playing those hide-and-seek games? --Darwish07 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Tomtom9041 I seem to remember. Hopefully he'll give up now.--Chikamatsu (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias by Palestinians against Israel? Say it ain't so! Should we talk about certain editors, some on this page, whose continuous attempt to make a duplicate article called Bloody Saturday Massacre was most certainly be biased against Israel? I see the Palestinian victimization propaganda machine hasn't been taken out by the Israelies yet. --98.111.139.133 (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Misleading ordering of protests
"Pro-Israel demonstrations were also held in several American cities,[286][287] Paris and Melbourne.[288][289] The largest demonstration was held in Istanbul in Turkey, with around 200,000 to 700,000 people.[290][291]"

The Istanbul demonstration was anti-Israeli, but this wording makes it sound like it was among the pro-Israeli demos. The next paragraph is also effected by this confusion. I think the demos sympathetic to each side should be clearly separated so as not to create this confusion. --Chikamatsu (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed it.VR talk  20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactions
As it now stands, the "Reactions" section is utterly useless. It says absolutely nothing that people do not already know. The long list of countries criticizing Israel reminds me of of a beauty pageant where all the contestants say they are for "world peace": Is this what people come to wikipedia to read? What is the NATURE of the criticism? What exactly is criticized and what is not? Is the criticism constructive? All of this information is being excluded, both from this article and the subarticle -- where a giant worldwide table artificially limits the response of even the most involved parties to a sentence. Where, in wikipedia, should we report this information, if not here?!

In particular, I tried to detail Iran's response:

Iranian officials have condemned "international inaction" and "bias toward Israel". Saaed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, on Sunday (4 Jan), called Gaza "a scene of disgrace for those who claim to be confronting terrorism," He said that these unnamed powers "are not only keeping quiet vis-a-vis the Zionist terrorism, they are actually confirming it", and he called on all countries to stop Israel's "war machine."

Is the response of Iran not WP:NOTE? If it IS notable, then why is there no place for it in wikipedia? Why this urge to "scale-down"? If I want a "scaled-down" article, I'll go to a hardcopy encyclopedia, where article length is limited by the cost of ink and paper. How much do bits cost? The more information, the better -- am I wrong? Is it our job to filter (censor) what the reader may or may not see? Why not give the reader as much WP:RS as we can and then let the reader choose? NonZionist (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. The point is to keep the reactions as brief as possible. The full reaction can be seen at the main article. There is constructive criticism offered, in the form of many countries calling for ceasefire.VR talk  21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate the constructive tone.  Hey, you may start a trend!  See my friendly comment over at the  subarticle. NonZionist (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unethical editing
1. You ignore the rule that changes should reflect discussion. You make changes that have been argued against. 2. You deviate from the language of your sources in a way which puts events in a certain light. 3. You connect two events in the same sentence with a qualifier that pertains only to one of them.

If you'll not stop, I'll ask for arbitrage. I have reason to believe you are biased in the subject of the above article. Please consider this before you make any further changes. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made many edits on the article. Can you be specific on which you're talking about?VR talk  21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also what "bias" are you accusing me of? Please keep in mind that "all editors and all sources have biases." (WP:NPOV) VR talk  22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

4. In the same section you change a certain phrase and leave it unchanged in another sentence. Again in such a way which shows a certain bias.

Don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about. All these points have been discussed with you, and you do them the way you like, regardless of these discussions. Try to remember. If that doesn't help, write again. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You said "in the same section..." which section are you talking about? As far as I can see, I've edited almost every section in the article.VR talk  22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of having a bias. I'm acusing you of letting that bias influence the changes you make to the article. Specifically the section on civil protests. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please give me a concrete example of biased editing on civilian protests? Am I biased because I've cut down mention of the large Istanbul protests against Israel? Is it because I give equal space to a Palestinian man being shot dead as I do to virtual vandalisms?VR talk  22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that in the section just before this the word censoring has also been mention in connection wioth you. And I remember one more such case, which is now in the archive of the talk page. I think you should consider refraining from making further changes to this article alltogether. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should try to focus more on editing this article than criticizing me. I am aware that I have been accused by NonZionist of making the article "sufficiently biased to suit Israel's taste" (see Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_6). In the above section he is accusing editors (not me in specific) of censoring Iran's views.VR  talk  22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I retract my accusation against VR. I suspected that censorship might be VR's motive for "scaling-down" text in the "Reaction" section.  I was wrong. NonZionist (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer to you last two questions is "no" and "no". I stated the problems in general terms, and would realy prefer drinking a cup of chocolate to writing all the petty details. But if I have to, I will. Because you are distorting information! Debresser (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which information did I distort?VR talk  22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already made the changes I find necessary. Now I am arguing with you, so you shouldn't undo them, as you did yesterday. Debresser (talk)
 * You accusations seem to be baseless. Please provide the links to my edits where I undid them.VR talk  22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way. Please don't misunderstand me. You have made many and important contributions to this page. And to other pages also, I am aware. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet you only focus on my mistakes. I have previously apologized for my mistakes and am always ready to. Please let's forget this and work on making the article better. (Of course you can criticize my edits, just don't criticize me or my 'ethics').VR talk  22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Then let's make up and agree to make no further change to existing information in the section on Civil Protests without consensus. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested updates for Jan 5 section
Israelis hit a vegetable market killing 5 people, wounding 4. From the morning of Jan 5 to 15:00 (3:00 pm), the number of killed Palestinians is 25. Israelis have attacked the Union of Health Care Committees (health organization) headquarters. Source: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_05_english.pdf --Learsi si natas (talk)


 * It's good that people began to take notice of those UN documents. They are a very good quality resource. Just a small note, throughout the article, all the UN reports are referenced using this pattern:
 * ref name="ocha_report_1_2": UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2nd of January
 * ref name="ocha_report_1_4": UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 4th of January and so on.
 * All the UN reports from 1st to the latest 5th of January are cited in the article using this pattern. Thanks! --Darwish07 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, I will keep that in mind if I ever get to edit the article. Can you make the additions? The article is locked for me. --Learsi si natas (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about the same events described in the Gaza Market hoax, right? -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos in Development section are impartial
I have noticed that the pictures in the development section are of 1)Hamas rockets and 2)Israeli buildings damage.

There are no pictures of the carnage in Gaza in this section.

It may be that free pics from gaza are not available, but if this is the case I think the pictures should be removed anyway as the inclusion of these pictures alone is biased. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is indded a problem. A good article needs images. Yet there are none from Gaza? Has anyone checked Flickr? Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. This search returns all hits for string Gaza under creative commons licenses taken after 27th of November.  http://flickr.com/photos/farshadebrahimi/3159001417/ is the best I could find so far.  This photostream has lots of good stuff.  http://flickr.com/photos/farshadebrahimi/--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical of these pictures' provenance I must say. --Chikamatsu (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As RomaC spotted before these photos are probably not usable unfortunately unless there is a way for us to justify usage on the grounds that there is no other way of getting images given what's happening. They're taken by people like Patrick Baz at AFP.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Two out of four pictures on this page show remnants of Hamas rockets and one picture features a surprisingly undamaged palestinian building (archive ?).

I would suggest to remove one picture of Hamas rockets in order to restore at least visual partiality in this heavily biased article.

Also I would suggest to change the legend of the Gaza map from "Israeli occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim agreement: permanent status to be determined through further negotiations" to simply "Israeli occupied". mogamma(Mogamma (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Jandrews23jandrews23 and mogamma -- Go ahead and do it, having two pics of Hamas rockets and Israeli damage vs none of IDF weapons or Gaza damage is clearly inappropriate when the real death/injury toll ratio is Gaza 20 : 1 Israel. Also isn't the Palestinian Legislative Council building in the West Bank? RomaC (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * Especially since the minority is proverbialy noisy. :) Debresser (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please assume good faith as you're required to? Generally larger protest are more notable than smaller ones. For example a protest with 200,000 people is more notable than one with 500.
 * "why mention just large protests" Because we can't mention every protest that has happened. From the main article we see that more than a 100 have happened. Clearly we need some sort of criterion.
 * Regarding "several" protests. The only only notable non-American, non-Israeli demonstrations were in Paris and Melbourne.VR talk  22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I asume good faith until proven otherwise.


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


 * So actually we agree, that saying just generally "several cities worldwide" is better than mention all protests including small ones. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said mention all protests, but just give example of the largest ones. And, you can help decide what is notable and what is not.VR talk  23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please notice that such general language (throughout Africa, the Arab world, global isolated attacks, several American cities) is used another four times in this subsection. And I wouldn't be surprised if you were the editor of at least one of them. But the truth is that general language is a good thing in such a large article, to avoid too much detail. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For Arab world see below. Globally isolated was not put in there by me.VR talk  23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the mention of demonstrations in the Arab world stands without sources already more than 24 hours. Which I find pretty ridiculous in such a wide covered and actual subject. Perhaps remove it? Debresser (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure remove it if you want, we already have Egypt there.VR talk  23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And Iran. Consider it done. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Iran isn't part of the Arab world.VR talk  23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Debresser: You need to tone it down bit. Before clicking the Save Page tab, please make sure your comments comply with WP:CIVIL. As for the "enlightment", although Iranians are considered part of the "Arab world" for political purposes, they aren't ethnic Arabs but Persians. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well they are politically, as you say, which would be the main point IMHO. I disdain to comment on your remark about 'toning down'. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:PIJ emblem.png

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

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

Killed: 537 (~100 civilians[11]; ~138 policemen)[12][13] Wounded: 2,600 (mostly civilians)[14]

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

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

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

I have previously stated that no organization has developed a comprehensive estimate of civilian deaths. The most accurate and explicit current estimates reflect the number of women and children killed. Our data should reflect the precision available. I propose we report deaths in the following categories: Total, Women and children. Men are systematically excluded from this count and wikipedia needs to make this important point explicit instead of confusing accounting categories. News outlets are often making this mistake despite the UN sources contradicting this in their most recent accounting which makes NO mention of total civilian casualties (SEE: note [2] cites below and comments by John Holmes at http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/detail/10624.html).

Summarized, my proposals are the following:

1. Report fatalities as Total deaths with the proportion of women and children reported in parenthesis for UN estimates and separate women and children estimates from Al-Mezan. Use the same format for injuries. will look like Killed: 489[1]-534[2] (UN reports 20% of casualties are women and children[2], Al-Mezan reports 89 Children and 30 Women have been killed[1]) Injured: 2,470 (40% are estimated to be women and children [2])

[1] is http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=937 [2] is http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_05_english.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I agree with Thrylos000. In the UN Press Release from a few days ago it acknowledges it's own shortcomings in determining 'civilian' deaths. Instead of misrepresenting their numbers as 'civilian' deaths it would make far more sense to represent them as 'women and children dead' as at the current time this is far more verifiable.-- SomeStranger ( t ) 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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

These are definately very important facts. I remember they were mentioned somewhere. Perhaps on other sites. Somebody really should take care of that. But what it has to do with the present talk subject, eludes me. Debresser (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Well this section was about Palestinian casualties and accounting. Without those 100,000 phone calls, just imagine what the casualty count might have been.  As to the civilian count, I would be interested in what is typical in war in relation to ratios of civilians vs a vs "military."  I would guess that the ratio is considerably better than in most contemporary wars. It is certainly a better ratio than Hamas to Israel.  They can only hit military targets by accident as opposed to on purpose, just another thing that is strictly against "international law."   Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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

Judging other wikis
I think this edit is not ppropriate. We can't judge what other wikis say, and therefore refuse to link to them.VR talk  05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already been discussed. It doesn't matter what any other wiki says. The action must be reverted. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary of rocket fire and mortar shelling in 2008
English: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf

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

Flayer (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're going to list all the rockets in 2008, then we should list all the Israeli abusive actions to the Palestinians in 2008 by then including several UN reports about the 33 illegal settlements in the West Bank, UN reports about abusive actions of settlers to Palestinians, details about the blockade of Gaza strip and the crisis suffered from it before the war. I can go on and on. Really, original research will drive us to endless debates. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * You call it Hamas against Israel overthere, we call it Israel vs. Palestine[by the 1948 UN plan lines] in here :). --Darwish07 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

Reactions: Seperate UN section?
The UN is the largest international body, representing more countries than all other organisations. Therefore I'd suggest it should have a seperate section within Reactions, so that its reaction can be described in greater detail.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to ruin your party but UN: 192, FIVB: 220, FIBA 213, FIFA 208. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 09:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Let me clarify - largest political organisation? That shows the power of sportJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Back from the joke, now I won't be against it, but is there enough stuff so a separate section is needed? &mdash; chandler &mdash; 09:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the UN having a unique section as they represent many countries. RomaC (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Troops Deployed
i have heard on the news that IDF officials announced the number of israeli troops deployed was 30,000 rather than 10,000 but i dont have a link for that, if any of the registered users have the information kindly change the figure in the battle box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Impossible, yet. Only number of brigades deployed, not a number of divisions. Flayer (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Updated Statistics
Updated war statistics can be found here (below), can someone please update the main page with them, it's such a mess that I wouldn't know where to start!

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/israel-bombs-un-school/2009/01/07/1231004054728.html

"The latest attack takes the Palestinian death toll in the Gaza Strip to 660 Palestinians, including 215 children and 98 women, since Israel launched its military offensive on December 27, according to Gaza emergency services chief Moawiya Hassanein. He said another 2,950 people have been wounded." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delos (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help
I've added a picture of palestinian deaths after the first air-strike please help me with the copyright stuff. The image is free for use. Also, please add a box around the image, i don't know how to do it. thank you
 * Ye sples stop bombonhs k tnks
 * You may want to add photos of Grad missle attacks as well, intentionally targeted and launched at Israeli cities and civilians. John Hyams (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Infobox blaming
Apparently 3 Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire, not by Hamas or any other Palestinian militants. Should we identify this in the infobox (by saying killed in friendly fire)? Probably not, as it is a bit too much detail. However, similarly I don't think we should also identify who killed the Egyptian border guard. These details are best left to the casualties section.VR talk  01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I second. --Omrim (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I third. :) Debresser (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

In relation to the "(by Hamas)" attribution after Egyptian casualties. This is necessary given the ambiguous design of the infobox, which splits the conflict into two sides. The box is divided down the middle, and the Egyptian line is ambiguously placed inbetween the two. Since, it's only two words, which hardly over-clutters the box, the gain in clarity outweighs the cost in space Avaya1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Avaya1, I wish you'd respect consensus here. Two words are required to blame Hamas, but more are required to show that Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire, Hamas attacks or in fighting in Gaza. This discussion should not happen in the infobox.VR talk  19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Figures
Also I think that we should only quote figures in the infobox that have been independently verified. Thus if one side claims to have killed or captured some, we shouldn't jump to put it in the infobox, though we can certainly place it in the article with proper attribution. We should wait until reliable sources begin to treat it as fact.VR talk  02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. In Israel, for example, I believe that all news agencies and newspapers rely on IDF and MOH figures. No one counts the bodies by himself (like the UN in the Gaza Strip). Also, it is not a common practice in Israel to exaggerate in the number of deaths as it may cause public outcry. Israeli public has only a certain amount of IDF casualites it may endure before starting to criticize the government and the opertation (ex: 2006 Lebanon War), so governments want to show AS LITTLE IDF casualties as possible to the Israeli public. The situation is a bit different of course with injuries (where Israeli figures many times include non-physical injuries, which I think to be somewhat misleading). I think that at least in terms of IDF deaths, we can count on Israeli media to be reliable. Usually they also name the casualties within 36 hours.--Omrim (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well ok, but I don't think we should use the IDF's statements on Palestinian casualties in the infobox, if it hasn't been independently verified. Currently, there's a statement about 100 Hamas being captured. I think if that were independently verified, it would have been all over the media by now.VR talk  04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the Israeli Foreign Ministry an independent source? It is referenced in the article.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with respect to the captured. It should only be mentioned within the article as a statement by the IDF, and not in the infobox.--Omrim (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest similarly with Israel's claims on Hamas casualties, and Hamas claims on Israeli casualties. For example, "Israel says it has killed 130 Hamas fighters and has denied claims that Hamas has killed 10 of its soldiers." Neither of the two claims should be in the infobox, but both should be mentioned later in the article.VR talk  18:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis
Does somebody else besides me think this section is a little too big? Perhaps we should create an article called "2008-2009 Gaza humanitarian crisis"?VR talk  02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We must take WP:UNDUE into account. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


 * me three. Does Darfur's "humanitarian crisis" get equal time?  How about Haiti and its mud cookies? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the Haiti and Darfur articles on their respective talk pages. RomaC (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what RomaC said.VR talk  03:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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

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

"Despite the continuous and extensive rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip, the largest humanitarian aid transfer since the beginning of this operation took place on Tuesday afternoon (Dec. 30). 93 trucks containing humanitarian aid donations such as food and medical supplies from several different countries and international organizations were transferred through Israel into the Gaza Strip. The World Food Programme (WFP) transferred flour; CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere) provided medical supplies; UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) transferred powdered milk, sugar, rice and cooking oil; the World Health Organization (WHO) transferred medical supplies and medication; and the Health Ministry of the Palestinian National Authority in Ramallah sent, among other things, basic food and supplies." Not to mention all of the cash that is being sent by everybody and his brother. With all that powdered milk and sugar, all that they will need to buy with the cash is more ammunition. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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

Regarding money... "100 billion" should be "100 million" (MAJOR ERROR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.11.104 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About the "non-continuous" and "non-extensive" bombardment. I don't know about you, NZ, I wouldn't want to sit in what amounts to an occasionally used Mortar range, even if the range is only used once a week, with a single random shell. That sort of thing isn't acceptable to any Sovereign state either (just one 81mm mortar can destroy your home) and no Democratically elected government will stay in power if that is permitted by that Government (even some dictatorships have been brought down by far less). V. Joe (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is a ceasefire now (between 13:00 to 16:00 local time) for a "humanitarian corridor". -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rocket fire chart
The rocket fire chart added is a good start ("File:Qasam graph2002-2007.svg"). However, it documents the rocket fire from 2002-2007, thus quite irrelevant for this article. If someone can find or create a chart documenting rocket fire in the past 10 days, or since December 19, or even in the past 6 months, that'd be great.VR talk  05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2002-2007 rocket fire is actually quite relevant to the article. It's Israel's reason for going into Gaza. However, I'm not surprised that you were unaware of this background. After all, this information keeps on getting deleted from the lead. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


 * (ec)The article conveniently ignores preceding events which led up to the current event. An argument to delete a chart of rocket fire because the article does not have this background information perpetuates the vicious circle of this WP:POV riddled article. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't: it discusses it at very much length in the background section, complete with links to all relevant articles. The first sentence also links to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which links to all the background information you could ever want. However, just because you take something to be the truth, it doesn't mean we have to: Need I remind you that you are taking the Israeli view on the events? And that we should write a neutral encyclopedia article? --Cerejota (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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

Brewcrewer: I highly doubt Israel is going to war with Hamas for rockets that were fired more than a year ago. The Israeli action is in response to the more recent attacks, i.e. those between December 19-27.VR talk  06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources say instead Israel has prepared for this for several months, with a mock up town like key points in Gaza where troops have been intensively trained for several months in urban warfare. One must distinguish between formal (often pretextual) reason and strategic longterm calculations. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your doubt shows a genuine lack of knowledge, then. Israel is going to war for the rockets which Hamas (and the other organizations) have been firing for eight years now. It's finally fed up with these attacks, which became even more frequent after Israel evacuated the entire strip. Life in Israel's south has become a constant state of terror, with people running for cover, and everyone suffering PTSD.
 * The more recent attacks, at the end of the truce, were just a trigger, not a cause. Israel didn't go to full-out war over 60 rockets. okedem (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It went to war over the capture of two soldiers and a few skirmishes in 2006 with Hezbollah. It invaded Lebanon in 1982 despite a UN-negotiated truce with the PLO in South Lebanon that the PLO observed for the preceding 6 months. Not to know this is to demonstrate a genuine lack of knowledge.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * Come on, Nishidani. You replied to me, and implied I said things that I never said. Anyone trying to "extrapolate" from your words would have been summarily attacked on various levels. You, as one who is so keen of verbal accuracy, should not engage in such activities.
 * Your speech about Gaza is irrelevant. I spoke of Israel's motives and history. But if you open this up, I'll just say this: Palestinians voted for the organization which doesn't recognize Israel, vows to destroy it, and doesn't accept the previous agreements or the two-state solution. They voted for the organization which has been firing rockets for years. Whereas Israel made the strongest show of good-will by leaving the entire strip, showing it can evacuate settlements and give back land, Palestinians chose to show they cannot live in peace, and continued attacking.
 * But that's enough. A long time ago I told myself I wouldn't get into discussions with you, as you are so fond of twisting other people's words, replying out of context, and bedazzling participants with lots of comments, which usually say nothing. C'ya! okedem (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I caught the allusion, 'full of sound and fury and signifying nothing'. Well, I am a windbag, but the sounds I make, and the fury, are small change in the arsenal exploding over Gaza these days. Since when has recognizing Israel been a passport for survival for Palestinians. In any case, let's leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Yossef Muadi, a Arab citizens of Israel was killed fighting along with the Israeli army
He is from Yirka village

mentioning?

--212.117.137.193 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "fighting along with the Israeli army" you mean he's not a member of the army, and went down to Gaza himself to fight against Hamas or what? &mdash; chandler &mdash; 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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


 * Agree with Nishi, that Maudi is an Arab that is not enough reason to get into naming combatants. RomaC (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Agree. This is simply a bad phrasing by the source. Druze soldiers are like any other soldiers in the Israeli army (if only they were the same as all Israeli civilians, but never mind that now, that's for another discussion). Simply put, he is an Israeli soldier. period.--Omrim (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

We need more information on the different Palestinian factions involved in the fighting
The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source,, the factions involved include:
 * the Qassam Brigades, affiliated with Hamas
 * the Abu Ali Mustapha Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with the (secular, leftist) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Other sources: )
 * the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with (secular) Fatah
 * Saraya al-Quds, affiliated with Islamic Jihad

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

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


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

I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article.  T i a m u t talk 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * The official websites of Islamic Jihad's `military arm` al-Quds_Brigades, as well as Popular Resistance Committees's An-Nasser Salahuddin Brigades, have both officially announced their participation, respectively here and here. Alas, it is only in Arabic. The ArWiki entry has them included by the way. --Almasvault (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: Shall we split 'Development' into a new section?
Someone has proposed 'Timeline of the conflict'. I would propose something like 'Military action in the 2008-2009 Conflict'

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

From above: Hate to interrupt the fun here but this article needs to be badly split. At this point the article takes almost 20 seconds to load, which is horrible from a usability standpoint and makes editing extremely difficult. I see there is a proposed split for the development section to "Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". Is there any opposition to this or better split strategies? If not I'm inclined to go ahead and do it. BJ Talk 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs)
 * I support "Timeline of the [article name]" per Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war and others. BJ Talk 14:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got the timeline template ready to go once a few people comment on this. BJ Talk 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article definitely needs to be shortened or split, and shaving off the Development section into a separate timeline article seems to be the best way to go. It should probably be replaced with a much shorter section describing the course of the conflict in broad terms in a couple of paragraphs (the initial airstrikes, when IDF ground troops entered Gaza, etc.)  Blackeagle (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did it. BJ Talk 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

(4)'Hamas had decreased the amount of rocket and mortar attacks during the cease-fire period, and has renewed them, increasing the distance of attacks to as far away as 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Gaza border.' - Who's the clunk responsible for this? Each sentence should be sourced precisely. This one isn't. 'Decreased the amount'? is question begging. Hamas has consistently asserted, rightly or wrongly, that it withheld rocket and mortar attacks when the truce was made, and those that did occur either were launched by non-Hamas elements, or by Hamas as a retaliation for an Israeli violation of that truce. 'Decrease' is editorializing. It suspended mortar and rocket attacks after the truce came into effect. It 'resumed' them (we require a precise time line for the truce period, with Israeli and Hamas shootings in chronological order). In any case, the passage is an editorial construction, since it is not directly sourced, and no evidence therefore exists, until 'decreased the amount' type of phrasing is given for the passage. If no RS source is available to underline the text, it should be elided as padding.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That is the precise wording, 'we keep' has dropped out, and the source has been lost. An RS for the statement is James Hider, Hamas rockets threaten Israel's N-plan, The Australian January 03, 2009  Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead discussions are supposed to happen at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead.VR talk  17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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

Photographs
I have no experience finding and uploading photographs that are acceptable for use on Wiki, but I would imagine by now someone would have made some "copyleft" images available from inside Gaza. We have two pics from inside Israel, I'd hope we could add pictures from Gaza. Can anyone help get some, or point me in the right direction? RomaC (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * flirck search for "gaza" CC only, taken after Dec 1st, mostly protests. BJ Talk 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks but the problem with those is most are not really creative commons, as was discovered a couple of days ago when an editor here removed several soon after they were posted, citing news stories where they'd run with photo credits different from the flickr credits. RomaC (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. flickr is the source of a great deal of our images, Wikipedia editors being the next largest. I wouldn't expect internet access to be great there at the moment, except for foreigners and journalists. BJ Talk 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be introducing a systemic bias into the article not to rigorously maintain a balance in the picture counts - even if that means a balance of zero. The nature of the assault means that royalty free images are much more likely to come from Israel than Gaza because of the much greater danger and friction of war in Gaza.  Simply including images on an impromptu basis is a bad policy because we're not at all guaranteed to ever find an appropriate copyleft image from Gaza.--Chikamatsu (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest we delete the two Israeli photographs? I generally don't favor deleting content and prefer adding or editing but I don't have a lot of experience with photographs, and I see your point. I did notice the French and German Wikis are not using the Israeli damage pictures that we are, even the Hebrew Wiki isn't. RomaC (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the one of the man inspecting rocket damage should perhaps be removed because it doesn't add much value and it might alleviate concerns of imbalance a little bit. The other one seems okay to me. We do desperately need some images that actually show what's happening on both sides. I wonder if screenshots from news reports might be okay under these restrictive circumstances. Perhaps someone knows ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even better, perhaps one of the Israeli editors here could pop across the border, take some photos, make some friends/build-bridges while you're there and send us the photos. It's win-win. Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a funny guy, Sean. --  tariq abjotu  22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Coverage by Region
 * 2) Arab World
 * 3) Europe
 * 4) Israel
 * 5) United States
 * 6) War Propaganda
 * 7) Israel
 * 8) Hamas
 * 9) Others (if any of course)

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

Be careful with OR and synthesis bias. I am not opposed to this, but I think this is something that is not being significantly being covered by any reliable news sources, and mostly the purvey of partisan blogs and publications. I think we should concentrated on the medular affairs of the conflict, at least until it is over and the fog of war lifts, and academic sources emerge that provide appropiate RS synthesis. Otherwise, we would be pulling this out of our asses. And when you pull out something from your ass, it usually stinks. :D --Cerejota (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gathering is different from contribution, in other words no OR. The sources which I am relying on are not of bloggers or partisans. I am making sure each source respects the Verifiability policy. I relatively agree with you on waiting until the fog of war lifts (valid sources are still scarce about this topic at the time of writing) but that does not mean if any fact (supported by figures and/or agreed sources) cannot be included for the moment. Anyway, I am not in harry, that is why I started this talk section. I will include any possible edits here to reach a preconsensus before posting them to avoid anything that stinks ;). Bestofmed (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

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


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

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

Like all wars, this one is partly about public relations. But unlike any war in Israel's history, in this one, the government is seeking to control entirely the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy."  T i a m u t talk 17:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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

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

...

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


 * I *strongly* recommend using the current media section for such content (we don't want multiple sections on the same content in an already long article). I also suggest that this should be kept as brief as possible, not going into unnecessarily detail. If you feel more needs to be covered, then you can always create an article on the matter.VR talk  18:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I second. Which is why I proposed to not make subsections. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Notable, as in Ariel Sharon?


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


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


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

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

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

I find the argument of the previous user most persuasive. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is especially because Gaza officials have released names for 187 casualties.VR talk  19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about naming those who have unfortunally lost limbs or suffer trauma. Surely they are more important. They have to live in suffering. Those who are dead are gone. Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 185 of those on the Israeli side, and 15 times that on the Palestinian. I did say that this article is getting too long.VR talk  01:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And contains my full criticism of our presentation of casualty figures.

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

Palestinian legislative council building in Ramallah
Please remove archive picture from (undamaged) palestinian building. This building is not located in the Gaza strip but in the West Bank (see mogamma (Mogamma (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
 * You seem to have a point.VR talk  23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * VR, are you always this, erm, understated? ;)--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

French TV airs photos billed as damage from Cast Lead, actually from 2005
I think it should have a room somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? suggestions? --Omrim (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a mistake to me, one that should not be repeated here.VR talk  21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I second. This is just too small of a detail IMHO. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the first mistake I see on worldwide media, using old photos/videos, sometimes unrelated to Israel, and removing when someone actually notices. I wonder how many of those go unnoticed... -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube
This youtube video is being used as a source on the Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. I think that if it was notable, it would be in newspapers, or other news outlets by now. I don't think we should be sourcing anything to Youtube.VR talk  01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. Have a look at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167272256&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even without the video, the UN itself has protested the use of its school for military attacks, and I don't think anybody is denying that it happened. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * True. However, JPost, wisely, doesn't link to youtube. Thus, we shouldn't either, although we should certainly cite JPost as a source.VR talk  01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I was not objecting against including the militants in school, rather YouTube as a source.VR talk  01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this an interesting question, on which I would like to have a more definite 'ruling'. Is YouTube an acceptible source for Wikipedia or not? Debresser (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that *anyone* can post *anything* in it, I say no. Note that wikipedia (English or another language) is also not a source.VR talk  15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that can be said: Youtube is being used as another battle ground in the public opinion war. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uep5UCVC2io This can be mentioned in the article (even though Youtube is used in many other ways and for different purposes) John Hyams (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Proxy war
Should it be mentioned that this is considered by some, myself included, that this is a proxy war between the West and Iran? Just like the 2006 Lebanon war was and has already been described as part of the overall War on Terrorism. Here is a reference that backs this up. And please don't ask for references that hold official confirmations of this because there obviously won't be any. In any case this is a direct result of the Fatah-Hamas conflict which led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, and that as well has been said to be part of WoT. Well, does anyone have an opinion?BobaFett85 (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Editorials aren't notable opinions only because they have a major publisher. They do have notability if their author already has notability of his own. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an op-ed. It's an "analysis" by an Associated Press writer.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, there's tons of such "analysis", claiming to analyze Israel's actions vis-a-vis other war crimes (I've seen the Bosnian genocide analogy used already). Unless, Iran intervenes in this conflict, there is not too much to say.
 * VR talk  03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analysis, even if dead-on, is still original research and illegible for inclusion into the article . The analysis of an Associated Press writer, even if illogical, meets WP:V and is eligible for inclusion in the article. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not my analysis, I believe I did provide the link to someone else making the analysis. Here's another one: Did Israel violate International Law by killing Rayan's children? (Note I want none of these to be included)VR talk  04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * B'tselem is not considered a reliable source just like these aren't.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * B'tselem is not an advocacy organization, rather a human rights one. Here's another analysis accusing Barak and Livni of launching the war, in part, for their own political career. I could go on.VR talk  05:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, but neither advocacy rights organizations not human rights organizations are considered reliable news sources per WP:RS. As I noted below, analysis articles should be treated carefully, but there cannot be a per se ban on all analysis articles.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never agreed for a per se ban on all such articles. If there is an analysis article, say, on the fighting going on, we can certainly include it.VR talk  06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Analysis' articles aren't editorials, but they aren't straight news stories either. Unlike editorials, they're not supposed to be pure opinion.  However, compared to a news story, they rely much more on interpretation, rather than a more straightforward recitation of the facts.  Analysis articles are going to be a lot more subjective and open to dispute than straight news stories.  I think we should be very careful about using them as sources.Blackeagle (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I too agree that analysis aren't straight-forward news, and must be handled with caution.VR talk  05:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly a proxy war... Why Iran might be helping Hamas? The same reasons why they helped Bosnians in the Yugoslavian wars &mdash; chandler &mdash; 04:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, how humanitarian of Iran. More likely, when you only have 4 friends left in the world (Hezbollah, Syria, Venezuala and Hamas), only two of them being legitimate nation-states, you keep them close. WanderSage (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea because Israel are such humanitarians &mdash; chandler &mdash; 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WanderSage, reality check. Actually Iran has many friendly and mutually beneficial relationships with countries and companies all around the world with some very large 2 way investments and ongoing development work. That's despite the difficulties that result from the US position on Iran which I know from first hand experience makes working with Iranian companies exceedingly difficult, time consuming and like trying to walk across a legal minefield. I think your views might be a bit skewed and inconsistent with objective reality. Iran is a big country with many people and many views. It isn't a simple object that you can characterise as 'the enemy' or whatever. It's complex and diverse and with good and bad points probably much like your own country. I'm just saying because systemic bias is endemic here and it's not helping the article... Don't shoot the messenger.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Minutes ago a user added Iran's supplying of weapons to Hamas, so this content seems to have already been covered.VR talk  06:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Irans call to use oil as a weapon until the war stops is worth mention? (Relidc (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Iran has called for many things. In case you don't notice, when it comes to making bold and often outrageous statements, no one can outdo Iran. Iran's statements should be taken to the International reactions to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.VR talk  15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

External news articles
I'm uneasy about including news articles, especially editorials, in the "External Links." Editorials by definition are POV, and even if we provide an even number of pro-Israel and anti-Israel articles, some may be more supportive than others (i.e., an article placing most blame on Hamas and some on Israel vs. all on Hamas), and some may be better written than the other, implying preference on one side. I recommend keeping the news articles in the References sections, and leave official sources in External. Jeztah (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An editorial should be used only if it includes a new piece of information not be found elsewhere (in which case it is best to attribute this piece of information to the author, as it probably wasn't found reliable enough to be included in the news page), or when writing about an opinion (in which case the editorial proves that this opinion exists). DrorK (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Add a section stating each side's reason, or, Addressing the elephant
I think the article needs a separate section that only states both Israeli and Hammas reasoning for this particular conflict. I ask for this new section because, historically, once conflicts are over, the "reasons" driving them often become a matter of conjecture. I do realize that there may be various reasons even within each side; perhaps a good place to start is by stating the opinions of those highest in power on each side of the conflict. I also think, in order to limit sidetracking, it would be a good idea to keep each side's statement to as little verbage as possible. The reader is always free to do further research into what is stated. I realize this idea may sound very simplistic, however it will give future readers/researchers access to accurate and very useful information. Tell someone (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell someone, such a section may be helpful in certain respects, but it would be the definition of POV. It would turn into a giant battleground, and a behemoth, as everyone wanted their position represented (because, naturally, theirs is the most legitimate, and everyone else's is biased). There are too many variables left at the discretion of editors. The fighting would never cease. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That is totally against custom and policy, "Criticism" and "Point/Counter point" is strongly discouraged. We have to speak in one unified encyclopedic voice. I know this is hard to achieve, but coping out of it by WP:POVFORKING or by essentially doing the same thing within the same article is not good: if one side did something or said something we have to report it, point or no counter point. In fact, sometimes you have to let the one side speak alone, because there isno verifiable response from the other. I do agree we should try to limit verbiage, and to point our readers to wikilink our hearts out. --Cerejota (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, kids, this is a neutral encyclopedia, your own POV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving intact. Deal with it. And if there is some article somewhere that does, there is no deadline we will get to it eventually. :D --Cerejota (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This aspires to be a neutral encyclopedia. Almost all I/P articles fail basic NPOV standards, as one can see by glancing at the ratings these articles get in review. A large amount of bunkum, incompetence, misprisions, and POV survives in most articles. Panurge is fine, but being realistic is better.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * the way to provide a truly informational article about a conflict is to provide at least a few details about the concerns and/or grievances expressed by each group which is a party to that conflict. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can people continue to update the timeline on its new page
Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict isn't getting much new edits. Either can people update it, or maybe we should move it back to this page.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be here, it covers what is actually happening, wrong that it's been orphaned. RomaC (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SUMMARY. This article simply got too long. What we do need is a good intro paragraph for this page. CAre to help propose one? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just, it's getting very long, and WP:RECENTISM. Just to compare with something like Timeline of World War II (1939), I think it would be a good idea to compromise it as much as possible, perhaps only short, few comments per day. Or have a lengthy sub article like now but still have important things in a timeline in the main (something like 1-3 points per day), like when Israel started going in with groudforces, the school bombing etc. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 13:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * agree with chandler, support having concise info on background (with link to the general Israeli-Palestinian conflict article) and concise timeline info (with link to detailed timeline article). Same with all bloated sections, including planning and humanitarian, make them shorter or provide a summary with a link to an extended article. But we can't simply eliminate the timeline section, which digs into the meat of the subject. RomaC (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Violent picture gallery
Any reason for why User:Madhero88 from Jordan has removed all previous images and added a huge gallery of very graphic images of injured Palestinians?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic efforts towards truce
I think we should add a new section to the article on diplomatic efforts towrds truce. There has been such efforts since day 1, I think, and they are turnning to be more coherent and fruitful (hopefully) in the past day or two. Any way, I think there is enough information out there to describe this process, which unavoidably will crystallize into truce of some sort in the coming days. If there is an agreement on the issue, I'll do some research and create a suggested section for your reviews. Since it will obviously be a little time consuming, I didn't want to do so without having a consencus on the issue at the least. Let me know what you think.--Omrim (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've read reports that Sarkozys truce plan has been accepted by both sides &mdash; chandler &mdash; 14:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli channel 10 reported last night that rocket firing on Israel has been reduced in 50% since day one!
mentioning?

--212.117.137.193 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that worth all the lives that have been lost in Gaza?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop soapboxing. This page is for article improvement. NoCal100 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * V, V, and V I mean its channel 10! I am sur ethat if this verify Haaretz will mention it. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow. Is Channel 10 somehow less reliabale than other channels, or less reliable than Ha'aretz? NoCal100 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just heard it on channel 10... obviously we may use various other sources... --212.117.137.193 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, since we want to have verifiable sources, unless that specific piece is available online, we can't use television sources - no else can check and verify. okedem (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Screenshot: . Flayer (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly enough... The time frame is not even shown. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 18:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reveerted Brewcrewer's edit in lead
I have reverted Brewcrewer’s edit. The text ran:

'targeting the members and infrastructure of Gaza's governing party. This is an adequate summary of the three sources, notes 22,23,24..

I.e.


 * "(note 22) 'Air raids have so far struck sites linked to Hamas, including smuggling tunnels under the border to Egypt, government buildings, security compounds, and homes of members of the organisation. Israel said it attacked some 20 targets in Gaza overnight and in the early hours of Friday. It described the mosque it bombed in Jabaliya as a 'terror hub' and said it was used to store weapons. BBC staff in Gaza say at least 10 houses belonging to Hamas members were also hit, as well as a poultry farm and industrial workshop."


 * "(Note 23) 'Israeli jets have attacked the Gaza Strip for a fourth day, with raids on a number of Hamas government buildings and security installations. . . targeted Hamas-run offices and security installations, . . Dozens of Hamas centres, including security compounds, government offices and tunnels into Egypt, have been hit since Israel started its massive bombing campaign on Saturday morning.'"


 * "(24) 'Palestinian officials said that Hamas-run offices and security installations were targeted,.. Dozens of centres of Hamas strength, including security compounds, government offices and tunnels into Egypt, have been hit since Israel started its massive bombing campaign on Saturday morning . . raids damaged both the interior ministry and a science building at the Islamic University in Gaza, from which many top Hamas officials graduated. . . Places hit by later strikes included the home of a senior Hamas commander and a car carrying gas cylinders, reports said."

Brewcrewer replaced this with ‘targeting Hamas weapons and launching pads’ Launching pads are not mentioned in the three sources, and the synthesis excludes the large variety of infrastructure the three sources say were targeted to suggest only purely military bases were struck.

Brewcrewer Please review wiki procedures on editing. Do not try things like this again, changing the language without reading the sources for a sentence.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove tag?
I removed the refimprove tag from the article. At this point the article has 235 references and only one citation needed tag. I think that if there are any areas that need to be better referenced, it would be much more useful to tag those specific areas than to slap the improve references tag on the entire (enormous) article. Blackeagle (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PFLP
The Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine, PFLP-GC, and the AL Aqsa Brigades are all on the Hamas side of this conflict. Check their respective websites, they claim responsibility for about 30% of rocket attacks.

Why did the edit ninjas remove their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"On January 4, 2009, Israeli forces bombed two houses in an attempt to assassinate Jamil Mizher, member of the Central Committee of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as part of their campaign of assassinations and home bombings targeting the leadership of the Palestinian resistance."

I thought a political front that accounts for 5% of the Palestinean political population would be worth mentioning?

3rd largest party in Palestine, second largest in the PLO, one of Hamas's key partners, unmentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed a comment I made here because it was innaccurate.--Chikamatsu (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article points out that Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad continued firing a few rockets during the ceasefire without Hamas' authorization. Obscuring the role of these two factions could be motivated by the desire to claim that Hamas never respected the ceasefire - it was broken by an Israeli raid.  As the article points out, Israeli propaganda in the past has focussed on the reductivist tactic of attributing all Palestinian violence to the one faction which is the most potent political threat to Israel, in this case, Hamas.  PS.  I wish I'd chosen the ueername EditNinja :D--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

International Protest
Can somebody please add New Zealand: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00051.htm and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4810786a11.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hell surfer (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Images of destruction
People are complaining that those images only represent the palestinian deaths. Please check the chart in the article to see why the images are more from the palestinian causulties. the number of civilian deaths in gaza far outnumbers the number in israel. however, anyone is most welcome to add images of civilian deaths in israel. I personally don't have any with a proper license. Any removal of those images without proper discussion will be reverted.Contrieng (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC) µ

I personally think they do not reflect the real weight of the situation at all. There are numerous images showing only the rising smokes from a distance, which are far from illuminating. There have been hundreds of civilian deaths, including children. Mosques, hospitals, and ambulances have been attacked. The images should be in consistent with these realities. If the events are dramatic, so should be the images. --80.41.10.68 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue on Alleged violations of international law
It shouldn't have more from a pro-attack Israeli think tank than from the United Nations special Rapporteur. The material should be a short summary after a fuller statement of what Falk says. This is just extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. (And I see it's being reverted already.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please can the repeated removal of Falk's quoted statement stop. It's an important statement by the UNHRC on the situation. 125.27.27.190 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've hit my revert limit here. Feel free to change second section back to something like this, and directly below, slightly improved - just make sure ref is properly formatted:
 * The UNHRC statement by Falk also noted: "Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response." Weiner and Bell concur and also call the rocket attacks "terrorist in nature."  CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have put the direct quote of the UN statement back.
 * "severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."
 * If anyone thinks there is a reason why this important UN statement should not be directly quoted please discuss it here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Falk's full quotation deserves to be in there. But please don't bullet what he has to say. That just takes up space unnecessarily. Also, it isn't enough to say Bell and Weiner counter his points; their arguments must be mentioned. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to directly quote Falk. We should briefly summarize him. Similarly, we should very briefly summarize Bell and Weiner, or whoever else we ues in the section.VR talk  19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just put a POV tag on the section, it's getting so bad. Perhaps some consensus agreements?
 * What Falk says should be correctly reflected, which is not currently true; deleting what he says and replacing it with long rationales for Israel's actions unacceptably POV and can lead to sanctions against the editor under the Arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles
 * If the Israel govt has countered anything UN charges that should have higher priority than Israel's Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs writers
 * A couple sentences listing Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs analysis is acceptable; with all the back and forth editing I just did a quicky shorty myself. But it's actual length should not be MORE than what Falk/UN said on this.
 * If Israeli's can come up with legal rationales for Israel's actions, any WP:RS citing the most credible Palestinian legal arguments for rocket attacks also can be used, should such exist.
 * Hmm. I wondering if anyone's keep track of possible 3rrs in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be mentioned that Gary Grant, a barrister specializing in international law, expressed his legal opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense in his interview on English Al Jazeera. Here is link for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjSoUEysQ4 01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)
 * 1) I agree with you, Carolmooredc. But when are his words replaced with Israeli rationale?
 * 2) Again, I agree with you, but until such time as responses from the Israeli government are found, there can't be any wrongdoing in not using them.
 * 3) In the "Israel" section, Falk's position is expounded in 167 words (1108 characters), whereas Weiner's and Bell's is expounded in 139 words (923 character). So in this section, they're quite balanced. In the "Palestinian militants" section, they do not need to be balanced (a) because the two sources are in agreement, and (b) because the authority of the Special Rapporteur is to oversee violations of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories, and he has no authority whatsoever to comment on the acts of Palestinian militants. Of course, this also means he has no authority to write about the no-longer-occupied Gaza, but that didn't stop him.
 * 4) If you can find a RS that defends the legality Hamas rocket fire, then add it. I can't find one, and I doubt there is one, because the rocket fire from Gaza is in blatant violation of international law. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * I think the part of Falk's statement shown below in the Palestinian militants section isn't really necessary as it's restating points already covered. It's enough that the UN explicitly state that the rocket attacks are in their view, against international law. That is a crucial point of course and we mustn't lose that.
 * "...But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right […] to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response."[310]


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


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

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


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


 * Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Israel's action represent "a legitimate right to self-defense" http://www.wowowow.com/post/tzipi-livni-defends-attacks-legitimate-right-self-defense-bloomberg-ehud-barak166622
 * Here is an analysis by Dr. Avi Bell which is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Before this edit, the weight given to each POV was about 50%-50%. Some editors seem to think this is undue weight, given Falk's position as UN Rapporteur. I disagree with this, but that's inconsequential right now. there should be no question that the 100%-0% distribution currently used is undue weight in the reverse direction.
 * I don't really care whether the distribution is 50%-50% or 70%-30%. But, given that every point that Falk makes is refuted by Weiner and Bell, it is important that all of their refutations be mentioned. If Falk's argument is represented without their counter-argument, that is showing a POV.
 * Let's not forget that we're not dealing with two quacks out of nowhere. These are people with esteemed credentials, who make their arguments based on international law, precedent and very sound logic.
 * As for the position that Gaza is occupied territory, I think this shows the POV of the UN. Think about it: how can a country invade territory that it occupies? But I digress. WP policy tells us that "all sources have biases," but we must combine them in such a way that all POV's are represented. So the argument that Weiner and Bell are biased cannot stand, because their POV must be represented, too.
 * Right now, I'm tired of back-and-forth edits on this section. I'll await comment (or prolonged lack thereof) before moving forward on giving due weight to Weiner and Bell. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If Weiner/Bell from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs can be used to excuse Israel's attacks then the two WP:RS that describe Hamas' rationale of self-defense I found can be used. And, again, more than a couple sentence summary of Weiner/Bell remains WP:Undue. So going in soon to make relevant changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Carol, I must have missed the two sources. Could you post them here please? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've changed the section to conform with your suggestions as well as I could. Though I think Weiner and Bell are not being given due weight, let's work on first getting a version we can agree on as a springboard, and take it from there. What are your thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Carol. And in a ideal world, journalistic standards like WP:UNDUE would apply.  In practice, however, wikipedia, like everything else, is governed by political realities, which means that Weiner and Bell's hugely overblown charges stay, standards notwithstanding.  The bright side is that the ammunition provided by Weiner and Bell fires both ways: If every homemade rocket fired by Hamas is a "war crime", as W/B claim, then the same is true of every missile, every bomb, every shell and every bullet fired by Israel over the last sixty years.  All that prevents us from noticing this is the pro-Israel double-standard, and that will collapse as the mountain of corpses in Gaza grows larger.  NonZionist (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Introducing such obviously and blatantly biased material and then using it as a point-by-point retort against a United Nations official and expert brings shame upon Wikipedia and its credibility. The purpose of this section is to bring forth notable accusations, not yet another place for "A says X about B and B's entirely unimportant friends say A is wrong because of Y". WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE and WP:UNDUE yet again. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jan, thank you for your devotion to improving this section. I can sort of understand why you don't want to give equal weight to Falk and the Jerusalem lawyers, but please refrain from giving no weight to the Jerusalem lawyers. Surely, we can agree that they deserve some weight. How much they deserve will be the subject of much argument, I suspect.
 * I agree with you that "The purpose of this section is to bring forth notable accusations," but to this I would add that another purpose is to discuss counter-arguments to these accusations. Surely, not all accusations are true, and the opposing viewpoint must be considered.
 * You call Weiner and Bell's work "obviously and blatantly biased." What's your reason for this? These are experts on the subject, and this is an official publication. The authors make solid use of international law, logic and precedent. You cannot simply dismiss them as "B's entirely unimportant friends" without any sort of evidence to this effect. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weiner and Bell have the entire opposite section for themselves, without any kind of retort, which is why I do not believe they need even more space in the other section.
 * However I'll retreat from this argument since the subject isn't my forte. Happy editing, — Jan Hofmann (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy editing to you, too. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Jan Hoffman that inluding reference to the legal stuff on the Jerusalem website is a clear deviation from normal policy on sources (WP:UNDUE). I have tried to remove it a few times, but in the eyes of the supporters of Israel here this seems to be a reliable source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pieter Kuiper, thank you for your contributions to this important section.
 * Weiner and Bell both have strong credentials to write this publication (you can refer to their bios at the bottom of it, if you would like). This is clearly a WP:RS. Also important to note is this: the opinion that Israel violated international law is amply represented in the article; it would violate WP:NPOV not to present the opposite opinion, when such an opinion makes a strong appearance in reputable sources.
 * I agree with you that Weiner and Bell are over-represented in the "By Palestinian militants" section, and I'm working to remedy that. But under-representing them in the "By the Israeli Defense Forces" section doesn't cancel that out. Two wrongs don't make a right. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so I was bold: I went ahead and removed all references to Weiner and Bell in the "By Palestinian militants" section. I expect that this will move us closer to consensus. I moved the BBC article that was already there, so that it replaced some of the material for which they were quoted. Most of the rest I brought from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I went ahead and deleted the genocide argument altogether, since I couldn't find another WP:RS that expounded it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That improves it a bit. The excessive quoteing of Weiner/Bell was giving the impression that they are an impartial source on this issue. Fig (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an impartial source. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Return to "Alleged" Violations of International Law
Someone snuck in the title "Potential" Violations of International law which is not accurate and POV since obviously Israel's violations are worst, since they are the occupying power which isn't supposed to do massive military invasions of occupied territory. The definition in first paragraph also may be questionable and needs a look see. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title should be changed back to "Alleged," though for a different reason. "Potential" seems to imply that they could happen, whereas "alleged" implies there's a claim that they've already happened.
 * As for the first paragraph, I think it's fine, except in that it may be too vague. For example, what does it mean that they have to be "proportional"? But it is definitely necessary if these terms of international law are going to be used farther down in the section. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Return to "Alleged" Violations of International Law 2. This time it's personal. "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..."
Okay, my reasoned comment on the amendments that have taken place is DO'H! Maybe it would be better to combine the 2 sections (in a possibly futile attempt) to give the UN the weight they deserve speaking on behalf of the world community (to a first approximation) while still maintaining some...but much less...of the opposing views. We need the links put back to the appropriate _(law) articles I guess too. Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, I understand your concern. Let me attempt to tackle your points in order:
 * Combining the two sections - This wouldn't do much good. This wouldn't actually give the UN any more weight, but simply make it appear that way. And it would jumble the section up.
 * I proposed this to reduce the opportunity for the repetition of counter arguments.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Representing the UN more and the Jerusalem attorneys less - I'm down with that in the "By Palestinian militants" section. The caveat is that we need to find another source that explains why Hamas rocket fire violates international law. I doubt we can find such a source published by the UN. The UN has a position in charge of overseeing violations of human rights by Israel (i.e. Falk), but there is no counterpart who's responsible for doing the same in Palestine. Thus, the UN has no body that is responsible for issuing a document that could be quoted in this section.
 * Re-establishing the links - The links are operative in the introduction.
 * Oh yeah, forgot about that. Given that I put them there I think that confirms what I have suspected for some time, namely that I'm an idiot.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All commentary, in agreement or in disagreement, on international law, should be listed as separate sections and not as point-counterpoint. Plus if/when more get added it will become extremely confusing to readers - the people we are doing this for. Only NPOV way to do it. Finally working on it now.
 * Also getting better understanding of "occupation" status since one WP:RS says as of 2005 it was disputed and only so far I've found Israeli sources saying it is not occupied - but need more update fact/opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of dividing this section by "for" and "against," how would you feel about separating it by argument. It flows better than way. I do agree, though, that it should be better organized. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to mention again that I suggested to lose this section altogether. The section does not describe facts, but only opinions on how facts should be interpreted. Hence, untill there is a valid court rulling on the issue (such as in the case of the West Bank Barrier) we should refrain from mentioning it, since all that is going to happen, is excatly what is happening now: editing battles, which in no way will crystallise to a consensus. So far there have been arguments (not discussions, arguments)on which intrepretation is relevant, is the date it was given relevant, which parts of international law should or shouldn't we include, the number of characters describing each side stance, and my favorite: who is a "notable commentator". Now it has become a "personal" issue. I rest my case! --Omrim (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think things are getting better, and we are all getting closer day be day to consensus. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First, let's not take things too personally on Wikipedia.
 * Also note in my changes to Weiner/Bell that it is wp:original research to use "principle of distinction" both to change Falks words of "targeting civilians" and to use that phrase instead of targeting civilians. (It could be mentioned that they call targeting civilians "principle of distinction" - but frankly, if I were to actually read their page it might turn out that that is a misreading of what they mean by the original editor.
 * Re: Hamas, it is encyclopedic and relevant to include their rational for their relatively puny rocket attacks; obviously if something more up to date is found it should be added or replace more dated material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Omrin, I think the key issue is, is it significant enough for this article. I think the reasonable answer is yes. That being the case we need to try hard to reach a consensus suitable for an encyclopedia.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== Fellows, I'm nor a wikipedia abbreviations expert and do not have enough rights to change the article yet. I'm not neutral and my English and fix it if you like. I have couple suggestions for changes. Please help!

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, only looked through edit summaries and should have come here first. The Grant quote is relevant though frankly more high profile opinions might replace it. As for Falk, this is what he said in the UN Statement; if there's going to be a section on Hamas violations of international law, what he says is relevant. Also, "this time it is personal" is really an uncivil comment and those who put it in should take it out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, to clarify, actually my initial 'this time it's personal' in the subheading was a reference to the movie Jaws 3 since the subheadings seemed to be turning into movie titles. These are very serious matters but I'm not happy with how the conflict appears to be be spilling over to Wikipedia hence the unsuccessful attempt to bring a little bit of satiric relief. Call it me try to maintain civility. No offence intended. We need to work togather despite our differences. Everyone working in this section seem to be doing quite well at maintaining civility. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Sean, I thought your title was funny (and punny). Yay Wikilove!
 * Now, let's get down to business. Consider this paragraph:


 * I see several problems with using Grant's interview as a reference: (1) it comes from an on-the-spot opinion, not from any demi-legal publication; (2) I'm not sure Gary Grant qualifies as a WP:RS; and (3) even if this opinion is to be included, there's no need for the last few sentences, as they are completely superfluous.
 * Also, consider this paragraph:


 * The only sentence that gives any insight into why Israeli attacks might have violated international law is the last, and even that is already mentioned under Falk. The first two don't really contribute anything. I therefore (no surprise here) suggest removing the references to Abbas and the OIC, and possibly the PCHR. If PCHR stays, then we must add the Israeli legal defense that mortars were fired from the school. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, let's consider this paragraph:


 * I have three objections to this entire paragraph: (1) All three quotations say that Israel is violating international law, but don't say why. (2) The sources cited are certainly notable. However, these are speeches that are intended to summarize legal positions made by other sources; they are not independent legal opinions. (3) The aforementioned legal opinions are already in this section, and restating them would be fruitless. Personally, I think they should be removed altogether. But as an interim solution, I propose that a single (short) sentence replace this entire paragraph--something to the effect of "South Africa, Egypt and Jordan all denounced the legality of Israel's actions on the floor of the Security Council."
 * Now, let's consider this paragraph:


 * This simply repeats what Falk says, and so probably doesn't need to be included. To make matters worse, this discusses a single incident, whereas Falk's statement covers the whole war. If we looked at the war incident by incident, there would be no end to it. If other editors do want to keep it, let's cut it significantly.
 * I know this was one really long post, but please let me know what you think, so that we can move forward on cutting this section, because it's way too long. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You deleted all of that in this edit, and I object to doing so all at once. I think some of the information could be moved into other sections of the article, but the wholesale deletion of notable and reliably sourced information from this section doesn't hold water with me at all. If you want to review it point by point, let's do so. But no deleting like that without gaining consensus for your actions. Deleting reliably sourced and relevant material that can be verified is just not cool.  T i a m u t talk 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)