Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 9

I removed that edit ninja tag
because it's non-standard and just created, and I don't think it applies. there are other perfectly good tags which express the same sentiments (I chose active discussion instead). and if for some reason that tag must be used, can we at least re-write it to sound more encyclopedic?


 * NO. Dickbag. We got plenty to worry about with you crying like a baby about what tags look like. Obviously people are fucking with the article. STFU. — unsigned comment by 155.45.81.25 (sig added by ThreeDee912)

also if people are so worried about edit ninja, please realize that having edited "high-traffic" pages before, I can assure you this is currently the most watchlisted page by admins and concerned editors. so any serious edit warfare is being noticed and monitored. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's nice to know we're on stage, Fancy Cat. :) By the way, somebody returned that ridiculous ninja banner. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A screenshot of the banner recently appeared on Digg, and a comment links to this discussion. Although humorous, I oppose using the Ninja tag because it uses Wikipedia jargon that other users may not understand, or may be misleading, as shows in the comments on Digg. Saying "Edit ninjas are attacking" is more confusing than "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Also, some of the above comments were all bunched up on a single line, unseparated and appeared as a single comment, so I separated them. — ThreeDee912  (talk/contribs) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas stealing aid supplies to sell to residents, and executes Palestinians cause of suspicion
AS you can see in the following article: Article Link

it should be published in the main article, some of the humanitarian aid that transfered from israel to gaza, was stolen by Hamas people to sell to resiences, in-orded to make money. to the other topic: (wich also should be published) Article Link

Hamas executed 6 Palestinians cause the were suspects for collaborating with israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.176.252 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The information is already in (except that part about "stealing").VR talk  23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It would never do to accuse Hamas operatives of stealing, of course. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we want to say that, we should use the word "confiscation" or "siezure". "Stealing" has a moral connotation, that is not compatible with WP:NPOV.VR talk  00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added it last night but for some reason its missing now???(Raphmam (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry but I have a huge problem with ynet, every article I've read that has been posted here by them is unapologetically pro-Israeli agression without even the slightest attempt to hide that bias. This aticle cites "reports" without mentioning by whom, for whom or giving anyway for any concerned party to verify those claims. I've also rarely seen any other news outlet pick up ynet articles for publication in their own press. I am VERY uncomfortable with these sorts of articles that are single sourced, without ANY attributions except references to "reports" by a paper that reads like a military mouthpiece. I think these incidents would be fine to report if we could find anything that supports the allegations in them. Perhaps someone else would like to comment on the neutrality of YNET as well (Let me note that there are twice as many articles from YNET than Al-Jazeera). Thrylos000 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing much wrong with ynet. In Israel,unlike Palestinian territories, media is very independent and freely and regularly criticizes the media. But to please you i had it reference jerusalem post.(Raphmam (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Note the entire information is not "missing" it has been moved to the splinter article Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.VR talk  00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I think it is good over there but it should also be mentioned in this article under the humanitarian crisis and health sub section since it is very pertinent to the topics discussed. The fact that hamas terrorists are stealing aid is definitely worsening the humanitarian crisis and health crisis and therefore should definitely be mentioned. But please feel free to edit it to improve language and sentence structure (just don't erase it).(Raphmam (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Ynet is undoubtedly a "home team" newspaper, but it's good enough to reference as "according to a report in Yediot Ahronot, xxxxx..." The real question is what is the significance of this stuff overall in the context of this article. There are much better sources on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, like major human rights orgs, UNRWA, etc. I don't think we should be making our own calls about what snippets from press reports are relevant; if, for example, UNRWA were to issue a press release criticizing attacks on aid workers, that would be a more significant source than some story on Ynet's website. I'm not sure what the relevance of the stuff about collaborators is, either.
 * By the way, the ratio of 2:1 for YNET/Jazeera is pretty well standard on our mideast pages. We almost always seem to rely on Israeli sources, and American sources with a pronounced leaning towards Israel, while I've had Israeli editors claim that foreign press like the BBC should be excluded entirely, since they are antisemitic or something. :| &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly I hate it when people outsmart the UN reports. The cited papers are of the highest quality and most neutral in this topic. And the whole humanitarian crisis section is extracted from those UN reports (basically OCHA reports), except some quotes from Tzipi Livni that says the situation "is as should be" and Amr Moussa, Arab League chief administrative officer ones. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The UN reports is much neutral and trusted that an Israeli official who's even his name was not mentioned blaming Hamas for the health crisis. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * +I've been careful enough not to blame anyone in the Humanitarian crisis section to stop playing this games of Israel said X and hamas said Y. This section describes the humanitarian crisis only. Your mentioned "accident" was/is moved to the January 6 section with rewording to be WP:NPOV. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about we try this for the next 24 hours


 * - Everyone with strong views in favour of one of the belligerents to stop reading media sources that favour their side and only read sources that favour the other side.


 * - Everyone spends 30 minutes considering that everything they hold to be obviously and self-evidently true may actually may be false or at least more complicated than they thought. We might learn something.


 * We can then all come back tomorrow and see if we are any better at producing factually accurate and neutral encyclopedia articles. Just a thought. It might work. You never know.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a funny fact that by observing this article alone, I've learned more about Israeli Journalism and media more than even the journals in my country. If this can state anything, it states the overwhelming imbalance of sources over here :). There's no article in Ynet, Jeruaslalem post, Haaretz, Aaretz shava, and even some all-Hebrew-no-English sources, that's not cited in here. And basically what all of those articles combined do is denying the responsibility of everything the other media reports (including the UN) and shifting it to Hamas. Hell, Hamas is not a saint and never will be, but this is not believable, cause Israel is absolutely not that saint too with this massacre occurring. I'll try to search for Hamas responses once I finish my stupid exams. I'm sorry if I ruined your project before it even starts, I just wanted to show that really if you assume I'm pro-Gaza, I've read my share of the Israeli sources. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Objective Palestinian journalism does not exist. The only agency that can pass as legitimate is Ma'an. And forgive me if I find it difficult to accept your equivalency between Hamas media sources, who tow the party line of an organization that officially sanctions the killing of Jews of any nationality. Israeli, like American media, runs the spectrum from left (Ha'Aretz/MSNBC), centre (Ynet/CNN), and right (Fox News/ Jpost) WanderSage (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you're making blanked statements about the Palestinian media. Yes, there are extremists but you can not deny that there is a good portion of extremists on the Israeli side too. Read the offensive actions of Israeli settlers done to the Palestinians. What about the several fundamentalist religious groups that calls of killing all the Palestinians and making Israel from the "river to the river"?. How you're claiming such democracy in media while a big number of authors, Jewish authors, got labeled "self-hating jew" just because they're criticizing Israel?. Believe me Sir, extremes on both sides exists to a very noticeable level. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That does not deny that in terms of quality, the Israeli media are more professional. But if you're going to blend the Arabic media in the mix, then the situation of "professionalism" get balanced very well between both sides. Alarabiya is considered left and Aljazeera is considered right and they are both too professional. Aljazeera even have an English channel that attracted the best skills from BBC, CNN and other agencies. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about Arabic media in general, the language has no bearing on the objectivity. But a nation's media tends to reflect the society as a whole, and the Palestinian media is very sectarian and factionalized, and in the Gaza Strip, an independent media outlet does not exist. WanderSage (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe cause you really didn't see how their situation is? Those people are the most suffering people in the world in every aspect of respectful life. You want them to discuss peace and love and those "fancy" things while they're killed and injured by thousands every year? I'm sorry, you're attacking them based on the output of their crappy situation, not because of the roots of this situation. I'm sure if you were there, you'll hate everyone around including life itself. Aah, and let's not forget that those people got evacuated by force and extreme Jewish groups from their cities after 1948. Check the UN reports instead of the Israeli media and make your own decisions. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't care what the roots of the Palestinian media's lack of non-objectivity is, and neither does Wikipedia's NPOV policy. WanderSage (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, it would be so much better if everyone here could try set their own views to one side, be acutely aware of their own systemic bias, conciously take measures to counter that bias, make sure they really understand what 'objectivity' means, comply with Wiki rules regarding reliable sources etc and focus on improving the article....for the sake of the children....(you know the rest of the song)....while there are some left. Thinking that one set of media sources are 'biased' and another set of media sources are 'objective' at times like this is not smart given the current situation/restrictions. Secondly, both sides officially sanction the killing of each other for reasons that they think are perfectly rational, justified and no doubt objective e.g. civilians probably served in the army so it's okay, civilians were next to a bad guy so it's okay and so on while reasoning people around the world look on in astonishment perhaps thinking 'Hey, maybe I could find out more about this massacre/brave-and-righteous-operation in Wikipedia'. Meanwhile back at the article weapons of mass systemic bias proliferate.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, We'll stop. Thank you. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Darwish, did I see you calling what happens a "massacre"? I really hope not, because otherwise it'd mean that you're implying that Israel is intentionally killing a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people (i.e., butchering civilians on purpose). -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems we'll all get kicked from Wikipedia very soon. Oh yes, I meant that. You're calling this Humanitarian crisis and all of those deaths and serious injuries un-intentional !? I'll make the claim that you believe in your government statements more than what should be, Sir. I believe in numbers and neutral reports, not in Hamas or Israel claims. And those numbers and this crisis says exactly what you proposed in your definition. It's not a hard lesson to Hamas, as Shimon Peres said, it's a hard lesson to Gazans for choosing Hamas. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok let's make a deal to stop discussing those issues here. Reply to my above statement if you like cause it won't be fair if you did not. After that neither me or you will continue this subsection discussion and return back to constructive editing. Deal :)? --Darwish07 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. But I do want to respond; The deaths and injuries of civilians are not intentional. Yes. They can't be intentional, because IDF doesn't target civilians. There are many deaths and injuries for Hamas combatants, and they ARE being targeted. Unfortunately, there are civilians hurt in the way (because of Hamas' tactics), but these aren't intentional because, again, they weren't targetted on purpose. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nomaed your post above seems to me confrontational toward an editor who has shown restraint toward you, let's try and work together. RomaC (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, perhaps I should have phrased it otherwise, but what's done is done... -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think that the issue of Hamas stealing/confiscating aid coming into Gaza is an important issue that should be noted here. Another ref about it (from a German news agency): here. Rabend (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would just remind everybody that any source is biased, per definition. Obviously, some more than others. Moreover, some sources are more reliable than others. Unless we have reason to suspect a source to be unreliable, there is no reason not to quote it. Specifically, I do not see any reason not to use Israeli media as sources. They are probably biased, but they are reliable. Please note that bias might go either way in Israel, as Israelis are strongly polarised into 'left' and 'right'. The same can not be said of all Palestinian and Arab sources, who are in general strongly biased, and sometimes outright unreliable. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel compelled to wholeheartedly agree with the above statement. Every source you read is going to have a bias based on their particula frame of reference. Getting into a debate about which is more biased is pointless because obviously the overly biased sources are probably going to be unreliable which is the real issue as mentioned above. And one more specific mention for this debate of biased sources, and this goes out to all who believe that UN is the end-all-be-all of unbiased sources, the UN is widely know for having a negative bias towards Israel. Dont believe it? Look at this article by UN Watch, an organization that observes the UN and its actions. http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1359197/k.6748/UN_Israel__AntiSemitism.htm

No one is perfect. Just because an organization is supergovernmental doesnt mean it is free from bias or the final word. Relidc (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could it be that the truth has a bias against Israel. I mean surely the truth is anti-semitic as well. Just because supporters of Israel claim that someone or something has an anti-Israel bias does not make it so. There is no way I am going to listen to un watch, ngo monitor, camera, or any of these other groups who claim that the UN or HRW or AI are biased against Israel, when these groups are so clearly biased for Israel. Nableezy (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha, good phrase Nableezy :D.  All sources are biased, but there are only a very few institutions that exist in order to create non-partisan consensus.  The UN is one.  As such I think it carries so much weight as a source that criticisms of it by some Israeli pressure group are of negligible relevance to an article on the general I/P conflict.  UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee.  PS I'd like to thank Darwish07 for his hard work and sourcing wisdom..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikamatsu (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Got to love the backlash. First, I would like to point out that I was not directing that comment towards Darwish, whos work is through and informative. I have just found that people generally regard the word of the UN as gospel. Also I was not claiming that the UN is not a credible source, just that it, like all others, needs to be scanned for bias and just because the letters UN are attatched does not mean we shouldnt read it with the same academic rigor given to other articles. And saying the truth has a bias against Israel is just uncalled for. In this situation, as well as almost all others, the truth is ambiguous and it depends what side of the fence (that was not a distasteful pun about the situation... but ha.) you are on. And to Nableezy and Chikamatsu, it would be worthwhile to read the article as opposed to just writing it off because it is affiliated with Israel. While there is a bias, as always, they do present facts and even reading it through a very skeptical lens it still raises some important questions. Relidc (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read the article, utter nonsense. You may be able to say that the general assembly has a bias against Israel, which I don't agree with but the point can be made.  But to say that the UN itself has a bias against Israel, on the basis of a clearly pro-Israeli groups accusation, is nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, my goal is not to claim the world is out to get Israel, but rather to make sure people know they need to challange even what could be considered a completely objective source. The most objective thing you can find is an encyclopedia. Go find a recent edition and see if it uses any of the diction/rhetoric (I know encyclopedias cant talk.) that many UN statements use. Also, we need to realize that many of the statements released by the UN are statements from a person representative of the UN. And when representing the UN you are representing both Israel and every Arab nation that wishes its demise, so a personal bias will have an effect. Relidc (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire
In the background section it states that during the ceasefire that started on June 19 2008: "Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." This sentence is misleading and does not sufficiently describe the situation in Gaza during this period.

What might be relevant is of course the actual number of rockets fired by Hamas during the effective ceasefire. The Israel MFA provides data documenting rockets and mortars launched from Gaza by month during 2008. It shows clearly that rocket fired from Gaza drop precipitously during the ceasefire until Israel killed 6 Hamas members who were involved in creating a tunnel that Israel claimed was going to be used abduct Israeli soldiers.

A total of 36 rockets/mortars were launched from Jun 18 to the end of Oct, compared to 1894 launches in the four months and a half months before the ceasefire (Feb to Jun 18). This represents a 98% drop off in attacks. Hamas denied involvement in these few attacks and condemned the splinter organizations not respecting the ceasefire.

I propose that the MFA chart referenced in the EI article or a table based on the chart be included in the background section to improve and elaborate on the statement ""Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." Thrylos000 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd support that. It seems like just an extension of a rather brief statement, and has a good amount of information. Just be sure to add sources.Jeztah (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in my earlier post. I can't make edits as i'm not yet autoconfirmed.  Someone else needs to add this. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the issue with the original statements. Several rockets were launched during the ceasefire, before and after the Israeli operation. The current wording seems to reflect exactly what you were saying. Also, if you're going to cite something, try using a source that doesn't "seek to expose the Jewish lobby". This isn't Stormfrontpedia WanderSage (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The original statement is not sufficiently elaborate. The current wording leaves out quite a bit as my original post states clearly and thoroughly.  The source cited in my post is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and what I present are their statistics.  The fact that I came across this IMFA generated chart in EI is of no consequence what so ever to my proposal. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thrylos000. Where would you like this placed. In the Background or Timeline section or elsewhere? (2) Is there any detailed information for a balancing chart of Israeli firing into, or operations within, the Gaza Strip for the same period? Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I don't have that information unfortunately. However, my proposed addition expands vastly on the small statement on that ambiguously states "Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." without showing that a huge drop off occured as per Hamas's pledge to uphold the ceasefire.  This, in my opinion, is a crucial detail in the lead up to the war since Israel singled out rocket fire as their reason for attacking Gaza.  If you could find information on Israeli military incursions into Gaza during this time period I would be happy to include them.  I suspect there weren't many as both sides seemed to be upholding the truce and when Israel did carry out an attack on Hamas on Nov 4 there was an immediate response. Thrylos000 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I see that this chart is beginning since May. So, we're going to detail the issues of the Gaza blockade and other Israeli offensive actions to Gaza since May, won't we? Really, if this will be allowed to be in the article, there's a lot of other files about the Israeli's actions in this period in Gaza to be opened. Do we really want to go into this? --Darwish07 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is entitled "Background" and alludes the the facts I've cited in my proposal. It has the statement: "Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." I'm sorry but I do not think this is an appropriate level of detail and does not make clear at all that rocket fire from Gaza all but stopped until the incident on Nov 4.  I would argue that this is an incredibly important point given that Israel cites rocket fire as the reason they invaded Gaza.  I'm not sure how these details can be overlooked in a good attempt to establish the background of the conflict.


 * Clearly, the current statement does not say enough. Itt emphasizes the continuity of attacks which is very misleading. In fact there was a drastic discontinuity in rockets launched, a 98% drop that lasted until Israel breached the ceasefire on Nov 4 as I've documented above.  The chart begins in may to demonstrate the drastic drop in rockets.  It wouldn't make much sense to just show the months of the ceasefire completely out of context.  Thrylos000 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifics on Weaponry
"Qassam" and "(Hamas) rocket" are mentioned a total of 35 times in the article. The Israeli side has F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters, this is not specified in the article. Will correct this now, if editors object to using specific information, perhaps we can delete "Qassam" as well. RomaC (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with deleting the name, but not "rocket", and dosagree 100% with naming hardware as per my post in the archives. A generic descriptor is ok, but a specific type isn't, except when central to the sentence, and I still haven't seen one where "F-16" cant be fighter-bomber or "Qassam" be "rocket". We shouldn't be using formulation like "Hama's rockets" anyways, its bad english, better say "Hamas launched rockets" etc. --Cerejota (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, "rocket" is general and "Qassam" is specific and that's better for an encyclopedia that has hyperlinks to more-detailed articles. Anyway was planning to fix this by adding "F-16" and "Apache", but I see now that the information on IDF attacks on Gaza has been removed from the conflict article, to a new "timeline" article. This seems like a whitewashing to me, as the article is now mostly about what happened before the time period that the article is supposed to cover. RomaC (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RomaC: read what I wrote, we actually, agree. I mean you just said what I said! Surely you read what I wrote, right?--Cerejota (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes Cerejota, I did read what you wrote. I believe we disagree, don't we? As I understand it you favor generic terms and I believe Wiki should rather (on first reference) provide (wikified) specific information. So if I had the specific information I would use Qassam and F-16 jet fighter rather than rocket and aircraft for sure. This is because these details can bring greater understanding to inquiring minds! RomaC (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources ometimes refer to the various types of rockets by their type names. As in "a Qassam fell" or "a Grad fell". That doesn't mean we have to use the same language, but it does make our job a little harder. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RomaC's point is a very serious one. I've noted this frequently, and call it privately the 'subliminal hammering effect', one of the subtler forms of getting around NPOV. It should certainly be attended to, perhaps by noting the frequency of terms denoting Israeli firepower. Generally, a specific term that figures in the reports should be mentioned in the lead and text, and then a generic term employed thereafter. And one should be careful to balance the language to avoid tilting the narrative towards an embedded editorial verdict.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a non-issue. I see no reason why a generic can't be used instead of a brand name, even if a source use it, and I have seen no one insisting hardware names be used. If people start with bullshit narrow interpretations nobody else in Wikipedia follows just to filibuster crap, we'll take it to ArbCom and that is that. Ultimately, also, consensus is what you edit. That said, I find your failure to assume good faith disturbing. Few editors will try to pull crap like that and survive long. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's generally wise not to make WP:AGF accusations while using intemperate language yourself. If 'Qassam' 'rocket' etc.are used 35 times, then one makes a frequency count for the equally violent bombing record by the IDF inside the Gaza Strip over the same period, just to ensure that the text is not being edited to tilt perceptions. That happens to be what editors are obliged to do.Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that in Israel, Qassam has become a synecdoche for "rocket"? Is not an evil POV conspiracy (for the most part ;) but a reflection of sytemic bias. That is why it is important to AGF: bias can creep in unintemtionally, because what certain people see as common knowledge, others don't. You get my point? That said, the solution is not to add more useless information, but revert and rewrite the biased passages. Sometimes these pages are a reflection of the conflict, with some launching rhetorical F-16s and others screaming speech Qassams... ;)--Cerejota (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why mention conspiracy? I was disconcerted that Roma had counted 35 mentions of Qassam, as though the text were mimicking the American and Israeli press, which has (there are detailed press organisation analyses of this) been consistently silent about Israeli assaults on the Strip, and yet highlights every rocket fired off. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that while Qassam rockets are the most common, they are not the only type of rocket being launched by Hamas. Being specific helps distinguish Quassams from Katyushas and RPGs.  Similarly, on the Israeli side, a fighter-bomber might be a F-16, but it could also be a F-15I.Blackeagle (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of hardware for editing reasons: only by reading websites and watching tv I have learned that AH-1 Cobras,F-15s, Heron UAVs, Shaldag and Super Dvora patrol boats, SAAR 4.5 class missile boats, SAAR 5 class corvetes, Merkava Mark 4 battle tanks, Tiger APC's, Hammer jeeps and MANY MANY more kinds of hardware are used by the IDF in this conflict. Should we include them all? Generic names are fine, and it convey the message needed to be conveyed.--Omrim (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think RomaC and Nishidani have valid points. My understanding of what Nishidani means by "subliminal hammering" is that when the weapons of one side are specified repeatedly and disproportionately, they take on a buzzword status and therefore assume more prominence and fearsomeness in the minds of the public.  Agree as per Omrim that specialist facts should be kept to a minimum.--Chikamatsu (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the translation, 門左衛門. That's exactly my point.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is very good, it's a little messy but very neutral
I think you're doing a pretty good job. T.R. 87.59.76.192 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So do I. We certainly try. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to chime in and say that you're all doing a great job - at first I was worried that this article (like others on wp) would be completely biased in favor of the IDF but so far it looks great. Keep up the good work! N.D.


 * Thanks. Not often we users get compliments. Feel free to drop suggestions.VR talk  02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! We aim to please :) --03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwish07 (talk • contribs)

Removed POV images
I removed images that I thought were propaganda. I also doubt highly that they have proper copyrights. So I think I did right. V. Joe (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You did right I think. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shock victims = wounded ?
If we are including shock victims as part of the Israeli wounded, then we should include the shock victims on the Palestinian side, which would put the Palestinian wounded at over 1 million. The Israeli civilian wounded are far less then the 119 specified in this article, lets be honest.
 * Do you have any verifiable source of a total number of Israeli wounded that doesn't include shock victims? Blackeagle (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I do not, I could try to find some research, but unfortunately, when Israel posts its wounded, they always include shock victims, which is absolutely ridiculous. But no one can say that the Palestinian shock victims is not over 1 million, considering there is no place in Gaza that is not populated. I'm not suggesting that we say that Palestinian shock victims number 1 million, but we could put a little note in parenthesis saying that the wounded figure for Palestinians is far higher when considering including shock victims.
 * Unless you can find a verifiable source saying that, we can't put it in the article. Blackeagle (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some idea of how hasbara techniques have been used in the past to close the gaping casualty gap (since there are never figures for Palestinian shock victims) can be garnered reading Belén Fernández, 'The Trauma Vortex,' Counterpunch, January 7, 2009. Not appropriate to this article though. (Wiki on the 2006 Lebanese-Israeli war gives figures) Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Since when does shock count as an injury?! Injury as in the Palestinian side counts as your f'ing arm being blasted off your body, a cut in your head, etc. Counting the "shocked" israelis as injured people just diminish the severity of what an injury is and is even ludicrous when you compare to the real injuries happening on the Palestinian side. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, so why don't we just say there is no source for Israeli injured. As said above, the shocked in Gaza must be more than 1m.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But we do have a source for Israeli injured, it's just counted differently than the Palestinian figures. I don't think we should be leaving out information that we do have just because the two sources aren't entirely consistent.  Just note the differences in the way injuries are tallied and leave both in there (which is pretty much what we're doing now).  Blackeagle (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Israeli injury count as well, and in an earlier discussion on the matter strongly advocated that we note that Israel counts shock victims as injuries. During the war with Hizbullah 65% of the injured were people "treated for shock and anxiety" only 2% of the injured were reported as having "severe" or "moderate" injuries. They clearly inflate the number. The problem of course is that they DO provide a number which is why I suggest we take their number and note that it includes shock victims and maybe reference the count from the conflict with Lebanon. Thrylos000 (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well just a quick search on google news found this Jerusalem Post story. It is two days old but lists 39 wounded (29 of those "slightly") as well as 144 treated for shock. It is slightly out of date today but good enough for inclusion I think. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I support updating the injury count using this new source. It is actually more recent than the IMFA source which is dated Jan 4. Someone please make the necessary changes reporting only the injured and not shock victims. It should read something like this: 39 wounded (10 seriously, 29 lightly) and cite the JP. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Shock not an injury? That is a new one. It can kill you, can't it? V. Joe (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can. For example, a 14-year old Palestinian girl died of a heart attack due to the shock induced by Israeli bombings. .  T i a m u t talk 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Samouni family
The Samouni family section only has one source and I can't access it. Can someone please substantiate this section or cut it if no substantiation exists. Remember (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gaza medics describe horror of strike which killed 70

Gaza hospital overwhelmed by dead, wounded
 * 'Under the rubble, we found arms, legs, and half a head'


 * Israel strike kills up to 60 members of one family

Do you not have access to google? 82.102.241.96 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All sources mentioned rely on the same source, namely a Palestinian source. For now this is not substantiated enough to be stated as a fact. It definitely should stay, but should be clearly attributed to "Palestinian sources". Right now it isn't.--Omrim (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that. But I should say that only the two Tim Butcher stories, both from the Telegraph, relate a story like what we have in the article.  The earlier stories don't have the same sort of narrative at all.  The Irish Times story says hospital officials believe nine were killed.  The AP (IHT) story names only four but says that one man believed others were buried alive under the rubble.  The NY Times story (below) says 11 killed.


 * It might just be that Butcher has the jump on this story but for now he's really our only source for the kind of information that's in the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on Fatah supporters
The article makes claims about serious attacks on Fatah supporters on Gaza by Hamas e.g. 25 killed, people having their legs or hands broken. This is based on one article in the Jerusalem Post, which quotes Fatah in Ramallah, and "sources close to Hamas", this does not amount to clear evidence in support of these allegations. If this was true we might expect to have heard more about this, there is no mention of this in independent sources or from sources on the ground in Gaza. I suggest that this should not be in the article unless better sourced. PatGallacher (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Canadian sources? Better yet, what about the New York Times? --Omrim (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is really the same article which appeared in 2 different publications. Nothing in this article supports a figure of 25 people killed in this way. PatGallacher (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the paragraph currently explaining the Jersusalem Post viewpoint is prolix and needs to be shortened. While the claim that Hamas is attacking supposed collaborators appears in multiple sources, I agree, that the casualty figure needs to be sourced better. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israelis directly targetting Gazan medics tending to the injured
In the words of a Gazan medic "I was not able to count them accurately because there was not much time and we were looking for wounded people.

"We found fifteen people still alive but injured so we took them in the ambulances.

"I could see an Israeli army bulldozer knocking down houses nearby but we ran out of time and the Israeli soldiers started shooting at us.

"We had to leave about eight injured people behind because we could not get to them and it was no longer safe for us to stay.'' Mr Shaheen was in a convoy led by a jeep from the International Committee of the Red Cross that made its way down war-damaged tracks past demolished houses to the town of Zeitoun

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4162193/Gaza-medics-describe-horror-of-strike-which-killed-70.html

Again, I am asking for someone to add this information for me because for some reason there is no edit feature on this article. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say we should add that "Israelis directly targetting Gazan medics tending to the injured", do you mean as a fact? i.e. that you KNOW that Israel is intentionally targeting medics? Just curious...--Omrim (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they started shooting at the medics meaning they turned their guns on the medics (who are clearly identifiable) and pulled their triggers raining bullets on the unarmed medics. It is no surprise, they have a history of shooting at unarmed people including medics, reporters, photographers, elderly women, children, etc. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Robert Fisk is a distinguished journalist, historian, and Arabist with three decades of intimate on-site knowledge of the Middle East. He has a long record of cross-checking with the local population their various versions of what happened or hit them. It is therefore worth keeping his remarks today in mind, though this is not material for inclusion on this page. Robert Fisk, ‘ Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask,’ The Independent, Wednesday, 7 January 2009. I add this, Omrim, after glancing at your otherwise reasonable request that one keep in mind that all articles on the Samouni family go back to Palestinian sources. Palestinians are often suspected of being unreliable about their own sufferings. But, as Fisk notes, Israel has a considerable record of fudging on these issues. Of 150 odd instances of unexplained killings of Palestinian civilians on the West Bank in one year which b'tselem asked the IDF to open an inquiry on, only four were examined, etc.Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no doubts regrding Fisks journalistic qualities. Only thing I am saying is that even the telegraph clearly states that all the information is coming from Palestinian sources, and we should do the same. Even the telegraph doesn't state the "intention" as a fact. All I'm saying is that it should read "Palestinian sources stated.... bla bla bla", and not "Israel intentionaly is trageting bla bla bla bla". (Now, unrelated to the article, and very related to my own POV: Let me come clear and be as honest as I can. I have a personal issue with these assertions accusing Israel of intentional targeting of civilians, since I know FOR A FACT they are not true. These terrible events may have indeed happened, but as a former IDF officer (and I hope I didn't open a pandora box by admitting to that fact, and that you'll still be able to assume my good faith), I know for a fact that the IDF is not targeting civilians intentionally as a matter of policy), IDF "secretive" (as someone called it) rules of engagement are all about protecting civilians in combat zones. Thus, as a former officer (which was able to go through a long service without firing a single shot in battle- something I am very proud of) I take personal offence every time Isreali soldiers are accused of targeting civilians with intent.--Omrim (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make myself clear: this is not to say that such terrible and shameful things never happen (see kfar Kassem massacre), but rather that they are NOT IDF policy.--Omrim (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be representing the sources, if the source says that a Palestinian medic said such and such we should say the same. But it goes both ways, just as we should not assume that everything a Palestinian source says about this is true, we should not assume as Israeli sources. If the IDF says that there were shot fired from a location, we should say that 'The IDF says . . .' or if the foreign ministry says such and such, we should say 'the Isreali MFA says.' As far as the Israeli officer goes, Ill keep the faith, and im proud of you that you didnt fire a shot too :). But while I don't assume that Israeli soldiers always target civilians with intent, I likewise dont assume that they never do. I have seen too many videos of Israeli soldiers behaving in a brutal matter to Palestinians who are already on their knees with their hands up to think that it never happens. And likewise I dont think that a pilot fires on a building with civilians knowing it is full of them and only them, but I dont that their superiors would never order it without their knowledge.  Atrocities happen, oftentimes unintentionally, others with full intent, like My Lai Massacre, Sabra and Shatila massacre for which high ranking officers were held at least indirectly responsible, and many others. I think that majority of soldiers in any army want to server their country and their people, including those with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but there are others, on all sides, who just want to shoot and kill people. Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have put it better myself. Thank you. As far as the videos you are talking about, I have seen to many of them myself, and as far as I'm concerned, such people should be behind bars. Unfortunately, only a few of them are (but that's an issue for another article). But that, in no way, changes may stance with respect to our current issue, i.e. that we should closely adhere to the source.--Omrim (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above. Rabend (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Samouni Family were told to evacuate
by Israeli soldiers from their building to another, which they did. Then the Israelis launched a missile towards the building they were taking refuge at massacring and wounding the large family. Please mention this detail. "The Samouni family knew they were in danger. They had been calling the Red Cross for two days, they said, begging to be taken out of Zeitoun, a poor area in eastern Gaza City that is considered a stronghold of Hamas.  No rescuers came. Instead, Israeli soldiers entered their building late Sunday night and told them to evacuate to another building. They did. But at 6 a.m. on Monday, when a missile fired by an Israeli warplane struck the relatives’ house in which they had taken shelter, there was nowhere to run. " http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/world/middleeast/06scene.html?_r=1&hp --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are relentless. Agian, these are Palestinian sources ascribing hidden motives to Israeli soldiers. We may add facts to the article, or claimes of what the facts are. But claims regarding what one thinks the fact are, that's just to much. Should I continue?--Omrim (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're blind and evil. Nytimes reported this and I rather believe the Palestinians who see what is going on than the Israelid who are creating the bloodfest. Who would deny that the Israelis slaughtered the Samouni family, only you. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Learsi si natas. Keep that language up and you will be prompty banned, certainly from editing I/P articles, and I would support any such move if you don't desist. Omrim is making a technical point. You have no right to judge his motives. I say this as a strong pro-Palestinian editor.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, read what I said above, before resorting to personal insults. I am not saying we should ignore the issue, but rather we should state it is coming form Palestinian sources, That is it. Now drink something cold and relax.--Omrim (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, why not mention what the family itself had to say about the incident (read the article all through) "Among the survivors of the Samouni family, opinions were divided. Some blessed the resistance. But Hamada Al-Samouni, 28, who was lightly wounded by the Israeli rocket and was clearly still in shock, said this was all happening “because of the rockets” fired by Hamas. He said he had seen the bodies of eight Hamas fighters dressed in civilian clothing lying in the streets around Zeitoun. They had been lying there for two days and nobody had come to collect them, he said."--Omrim (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article also says:
 * 'A study about to be published in Israel by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, an independent research group that has close ties to the Israeli military establishment and is supported by the American Jewish Congress, presents Hamas as having methodically built its military infrastructure in the heart of population centers.'
 * People who write, scandalized, about this seem to forget the history of Jewish resistance in Jerusalem in 1948, where it was policy to defend and mount weaponry from civilian houses. They also forget that no army that conceives of itself as a resistance army goes out and sets up, on flat ground, to enable a clear shoot for the enemy, its defensive salients. I've been all through Gaza when it was still a beautiful, unoccupied and quiet area. No army of any description would do otherwise than organize what it regards as a defence against a siege, anywhere else than in the areas its soldiers come from, where some cover exists. Thus a military banality has become an excuse for calling Hamas militants (formerly Hezbollah militants) cowards. Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A second point. The so-called, but inappropriate, 'Georgian strategy' wrongly attributed uniquely now to Israel, does the same thing in reverse. The besieger never exposes his own troops to mortal peril by making them push on where civilians and fighters in the resistance reside in the same area. You clear it, irrespective of the distinction, by forward bombing wherever shooting is observed. It is technically impossible to defend one's troops and distinguish civilians from soldiers in any form of urban warfare.Nishidani (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I wrote up a section or two that we should be representing the sources when making any claims about what happened. Here the source does not qualify this passage:
 * Instead, Israeli soldiers entered their building late Sunday night and told them to evacuate to another building. They did. But at 6 a.m. on Monday, when a missile fired by an Israeli warplane struck the relatives’ house in which they had taken shelter, there was nowhere to run. Eleven members of the extended Samouni family were killed and 26 wounded, according to witnesses and hospital officials, with five children age 4 and under among the dead.

with any qualifications as to the source, it reports it as fact. We should certainly mind where these 'facts' are coming from, but I think we can rely upon the judgment of the RS as to what happened if we dont have conflicting accounts. Where the source X says that such and such happened according to Palestinian Y or Israeli Z, attribute such to Y or Z, sourced to X. When they dont qualify what they report, just source it to X. I don't see why this has to be so hard. Nableezy (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as far as mentioning what the victims have to say as to the cause, I don't think that is necessary. They are notable in that they were in such a situation, but to say that there notable in providing cause for the hostilities is lil far I think. We have many more notable people placing blame at Hamas for provoking Israel into such a response, including the president of Egypt. (I have to capitalize Egypt out of my own nationalism, but not president :)) Nableezy (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But we certainly shouldn't ascribe any motives to the Israeli soldiers who told them to evacuate, or that they targeted the next home because the family was there. All the source says is that they were told to evacuate to another building, it doesn't say that they specified a building to go to. I actually don't think any of this needs to be included in the article, it describes a minor thing in an incident in which 11 members of single family, including 5 young children, were killed. I think it sufficient to say that this happened and not try to blame the Israelis for trying to intentionally target an entire family, because the source doesn't say that at all. Nableezy (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The opinion of a bereaved relative as to who is to blame for the offensive is no more notable than any other member of the public -- especially since about 1 in 50 Gazans must have been wounded by now and more bereaved-- how could we quote them all? Fortunately, in any case, since I strongly suspect this msmber of the Samouni family has been misquoted.--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More specific use of reference
in the article it says:

Israel and outside observers allege that Iran appears to be using Hamas militants in Gaza as proxies to terrorise Israel. They claim that Iran supplied Hamas with components to allow it to upgrade the range and accuracy of its rockets that it was firing into Israel.

But the NY times article mentions that the "outside observers" are American officials.


 * Well, stick to the source, and specify 'Some Israeli and American sources'. Are we now obliged to note that many observers remark that the United States finances, and supplies Israel with, a considerable part of the military technology, such as cluster bombs, which Israel, as in 2006, then went and threw, to the extent of some 2 million, all over southern Lebanon, in violation of agreements with the supplier and international law?, just as the weaponry of assault used over the Gaza strip in large part comes as a gift or is purchased on very favourable terms, from the US?Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

NY Times article exaggerates Rockets fired during truce
In the background page someone has cited an NYT article with the following excerpt:

"The New York Times summed up the situation leading to the complete breakdown of the cease-fire and the dramatic increase in hostilities thus: "Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’ main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 700 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity.[41]"

According the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rockets fired from Gaza after the truce ranged between 2-12 per month, not going over 15 even a single time. In fact this table summarizes the data provided by the IMFA over the period of the truce and just before.

Reference: The Hamas terror war against Israel. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 01-01-2009. See Statistics of Kassam rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip subsection.

As this table demonstrates total rocket attacks (mortar+rocket) never went above 12 and decreased to 2 for the month of october, just before Israel raided armed Hamas members on Nov 4.

I propose that that source is scrapped since it is innacurate accorind the IMFA itself. Instead it should state the data presented by the IMFA and give context for how drastic the drop in rocket attacks were. A possible revision:

"A total of 37 rockets were launched from Jun 18 to the end of October, which represents a 98 percent drop from the previous four and a half months during which 1894 rockets had been launched. Following Israel's Nov 4 attack that killed six Hamas operatives, rocket fire resumed from Gaza. "

The NYT article is exagerating the the rocket fire by over a factor of two with regards to official Israeli records. This fact calls for a revision along the lines of my proposal. (See #Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire, for my first and more comprehensive critique of our coverage in the Background) Thrylos000 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very helpful table. One row should be added, however, showing significant events and their dates -- e.g., "26 Jun: Truce begins".  I would like to see it in the "background" section, or else in a separate analysis/summary section.  What do others think? NonZionist (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't noting the truce (Jun 18) sufficient? I expanded the table to include the entire year of 2008 since the data is available.  I believe there is also a page documenting the rockets fired in 2008 that might benefit from the inclusion of this table. Thrylos000 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The text is too long, it is inexact, and therefore misleading, and, though the NYT is, in the abstract RS, it has a poor record in this area of reporting (it even had to censure its own staff after the Iraq imbroglio). There is no reason why the NYTs should earn such space in the article. Especially since Editor and Publisher, which monitors the US press, gives it a poor rating on reporting on Gaza. I.e.


 * "'NEW YORK (Commentary) Israel launched its much-anticipated invasion of Gaza on Saturday. For over a week, U.S. media had provided largely one-sided coverage of the conflict, with little editorializing or commentary arguing against broader Israeli actions.Most notably, after more than eight days of Israeli bombing and Hamas rocket launching in Gaza, The New York Times had produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists, and only two op-eds (one already published elsewhere). The editorial, several days ago, did argue against the wisdom of a ground invasion - - but even though that invasion had become ever more likely all week the paper did not return to this subject.Amazingly, the paper has kept that silence going in Sunday's and even Monday's paper, with no editorial or columnist comment on the Israeli invasion -- beyond a hawkish pro-invasion contribution by William Kristol. It's as if the Times is waiting for the invasion to be over and adapt its position to the outcome. Greg Mitchell Media Commentary Muted as Israel Invades - 'NYT' Fails to Editorialize, in Editor and Publisher January 05, 2009."


 * This is a 'prestige newspapers back us' dollop, and privileges the snippet not for its accuracy, but because of the newspaper's standing. It adds nothing to our understanding, and only confuses it, and should be removed, as indirect editorializing. Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the paragraph stands now, the source given to cite the number of rockets etc. is actually an op-ed by Jimmy Carter, and in it, there is no mention at all about the number of rockets/mortars fired except that it actually decreased during the cease-fire.


 * I agree that the NY times is not a 'bad' or untrustworthy source, but it seems as if Israel's military is in a much better position to know how many rockets/mortars actually were fired.


 * Why as we speak this has not been corrected is beyond my patience. Good dedication Thrylos... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio (talk • contribs) 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

wrong information - shock victims
in the table it says 119 injured (not include shock victims). that information is incorrect

most of the wounded are soldiers (over 60) and the rest, are civillians that suffered injuries due to rocket attackts.

according to israeli news station two days ago, there are over 400 shock victims, please, remove the +shock victims, this information is wrong.


 * See this article in the JP from Jan 6. It states that only 39 civlians have been injured (10 moderately to seriously, 29 slightly). I urge someone to update the injury count to reflect this as the IMFA data is from Jan 4 and clearly includes shock victims. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the Jan 6 2009 article:
 * http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167267556&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
 * I will update the chart. I always try to use the best available data from the most reliable sources. This looks better than the Jan 4, 2009 IMFA info. Because it is more specific in giving separate numbers for physically wounded and psychologically wounded. Since I am using UN numbers for Palestinian physically wounded in the chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter, thanking you for revising the infobox with regards to Israeli injured. I think, however, that oyu should not include the "shock victims" in the total injured count.  The JP article does not refer to them as being injured and our palestinian numbers as has been mentioned repeatedly has no shock victim component.  I think it would be more accurate to report it as the following:
 * 39 civilians injured (10 moderatley to seriously, 29 slightly). Additionally, 144 civilians are reported as suffering from shock.  This follows the JP source very closely and makes some crucial distinctions.  It also is the most symmetrical way of reporting injuries since Palestinian injuries do not include shock victims. Thrylos000 (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Or we could write Palestinian wounded as "3,085 physically injured" as I wrote before it was reverted to only "3,085". --Timeshifter (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds awkard and the fact that injuries represent physical traumas is almost taken for granted. I think Israel's practice of noting shock victims is somewhat unorthodox here so it should receive the unique formatting.  I think if we are going to mention shock victims in the info box they should be mentioned separately and not aggregated into total injuries.  This is the most balanced way to do it, I believe. Thrylos000 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF forces
Any info on IDF forces currently deployed such as amounts of brigades et al?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try and find. I haven't seen any dramatic change in numbers deployed.VR talk  02:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cluster Bombs and White Phosphorus controversy
According with Haaretz cluster bombs have been used

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052331.html ''The ground invasion was preceded by large-scale artillery shelling from around 4 P.M., intended to "soften" the targets as artillery batteries deployed along the Strip in recent days began bombarding Hamas targets and open areas near the border. Hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas''

The Times, about the controversial use of White Phosphorus in Gaza http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5447590.ece

--Bentaguayre (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. It's already included in the Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Bringing it here, unless a substantial number of sources also note it, would be amounting to giving undue weight to IDF's critics.VR talk  02:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are sources that say that israel's use of cluster bombs and white phosphorous (they deny phosphorus claims) are a violation of international law, so it could go in that sections in this article. Nableezy (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism edit - When will those edits stop!?
User:Raphmam deleted the whole Samouni family paragraph without discussion here and even without typing anything in the edit summary. I consider this super vandalism edit to promote a POV --Darwish07 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry, i didn't know things like that had to be discussed, i'm new to wikipedia. I'll start a discussion now. i also dont know what an edit summary is. and i dont have a POV.(Raphmam (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi Raphmam, it's fine no problem.
 * The edit summary is the small box underneath your edit window where you put a summary of your edits to lets others know what has happened by only checking the page log.
 * It's advised to always fill this edit summary with useful info describing your edits.
 * When doing big edits like deleting a full paragraph, discuss it here first and say your points so we can have a discussion to see if this proposed big edit is worthwhile or not.
 * POV is when doing certain edits that transform the article from WP:NPOV/neutral tone to a state that promotes a single point of view (e.g. Israeli or Hamas views only). Thank you --Darwish07 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that's the pot calling the kettle fuchsia.--98.111.139.133 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Samouni family incident Relevant to highlights of timeline of war.????
When I was reading through the timeline section I realized that the samouni family incident was mentioned. I think this topic is definitely relevant but should be kept in the moved timeline article. Since this incident was not a very big part of the war I wondered why it was even mentioned there, and figured that someone added it as an act of POV. i took it off immediately. now i see that it's back on and that some users feel it is necessary that it stays. so lets leave this to a debate. Is the samouni family sub section one of the highlights of the war and therefore should be included in the main article page of the gaza war or should it just stay in the specific article made for it called Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict????(Raphmam (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I added it back immediately cause it was discussed in two different sections above and you removed it without discussion. Not cause I favor a POV or not. You've done the right thing by discussing the article in here now :). --Darwish07 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal thinking is that this article should highlight the most recent events until the conflict has concluded, and that information be shifted to the timeline article as time goes on. But for what has happened in say the past 2 days, I think should be included in this article. Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So then your saying it will be moved tomorrow or in 2 days. then i have your word and we'll do that.(Raphmam (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Nableezy, I think this is a good way of approaching this and similar issues. Thrylos000 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It definitely seems to be less notable than most of our other subheadings in that section (definitely belongs on the timeline page though). Blackeagle (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It has received major press coverage around the world, so I would call it notable, and I would say feel free to move it in a couple of days. If anybody feels otherwise, speak up. Nableezy (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's notable, just not as notable as the other things listed there. I think the timeline section of this article should stick to the big stuff, like the start of the ground invasion, or the first temporary humanitarian truce. The other stuff can go in the separate timeline article. Blackeagle (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but after a couple of days. I would think people coming here are looking for the major points across the conflict and what is happening, and I think this still qualifies for what is happening. The timeline to me should cover what has happened that doesnt qualify for 'the big stuff' which I agree this wont fit that description. Nableezy (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined not to bias the article too much towards events of the moment. Even though its constantly getting updated I think articles on current events should be written with the long view in mind.  What should an encyclopedia article on this topic look like ten years from now? I don't think it would really include the Samouni family incident in the main article. Blackeagle (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But we are not 10 years from now, we are far from seeing the long view. Right now the events are constantly changing and I wouldn't even expect 10 years from now that the timeline article would include the incident, so I dont think we can write with the long view in mind. Nableezy (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you about our ability to write that 10 year article now, but I think we should try our best. Blackeagle (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Children causalities (100 killed, ~1000 injured, ~10,000 traumatized) on the info box
Latest January 7 UN report states at least 101 children died, ~1000 injured and ~10,000 traumatized. I suggest adding this data to the infobox. This is scary and critical information. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That info may already be old info the author was only then mentioning. I see varying numbers from 100 to over 200 children. I don't know what to believe or trust. This AP article is fairly recent:
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8212020


 * It says 130 children. I would like to know the upper age limit used by the various sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Al-Jazeera says 219. Al-Mezan says 123. UN says 101.  I'm not sure the age limits. I would post a range of 101-219 and cite accordingly. Thrylos000 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The numbers of "traumatized" Gazans could balance the Israeli figures for "shock"? RomaC (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Possible, but how we'll know the full number of traumatized people in Gaza? My gut tells me that more than 50% of the population will be traumatized, especially cause 56% of the population is already children. I don't have sources. Do you? --Darwish07 (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean to tell me you want a breakdown between adults and children in the infobox? Don't you think that's overkill? I'd be down with it in the casualties section, though. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

BobaFett85's edit 'summing wounded Israeli soldiers from sources'
I disagree with Bobafett's methodology for determing injured Israeli soldiers. See this edit: (All incidents of israeli soldiers wounded have been reported on this site, when you sum up the wounded from all of the reports you get at least 78 wounded). I do not think we should try and sum statistics for disparate sources, we can wait for a source that states a single number and cite that. Summing across sources is a sloppy practice and complicates verifiability and increases chance of making a factual error. Please revert this until at least until this method is approved by consensus Thrylos000 (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * and WP:SYNTH says we dont do this, you want them added it up find a source that does it. Nableezy (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli military wounded
For the number of wounded I see this page recently linked in the infobox:
 * http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/oper/default.htm

There was this edit summary: "All incidents of israeli soldiers wounded have been reported on this site, when you sum up the wounded from all of the reports you get at least 78 wounded"

Is there any page on that site that gives a total? I want to link to it. I also want to use it to update the chart: File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png --Timeshifter (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Background Section Length
The Background section seems to be getting rather large. While giving people context is good, we've got links to four separate articles on previous events and the larger conflict. Could we perhaps trim the section to a shorter length (moving removed material into the main articles if it doesn't exist there already)? Blackeagle (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim Barzak
The AP reporter who has authored many of the articles on the Gaza assault/massacre, many articles of which we have cited here and followed along, has had his home destroyed by Israelis. I think this event is notable should we mention it? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gaza_a_reporter_s_story --Learsi si natas (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really seem all that notable to me. I'm sure many houses have been destroyed, his isn't really any more notable than the others just because he happens to write for the AP. Blackeagle (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about saying something like: many homes were destroyed, including the home of AP reporter (name)? As long as there is a Wiki-appropriate citation for this, it is part of this incident and should be included.  As usual, we should not censure, but allow the reader to draw her/his own conclusions.   Tell someone (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactions
In the "Reactions" heading, why is there a prose section detailing the reactions, followed by a list of NGOs and the UN and their individual bulleted reactions? Some parts of the two sections even overlap - The bulleted section is almost identical to parts found in on International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Propose we delete the Bulleted section underneath the prose, and let the separate link to the sub-article cover the rest. Tismondo (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed the section in question (based on a lack of anyone bothering to engage in the issue here - I assume that means there's no objection) The information is found verbatim on the International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict page, which you can still click-through at the top of the reactions section.   This should keep the main page a little more neat and tidy (It's getting too big, too fast!) Tismondo (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Does "Gaza Massacre" refer to the whole conflict or only the first day's bombing?
The term "Gaza Massacre" is a blatant POV violation. But instead of going that subjective road, I would like to point out that that there are no reliable sources for the article's claim. The article claims that the whole entire conflict is called the "Gaza Massacre". Although there are sources supporting the term for the first day's actions, none of the sources support the term's use for the entire conflict. Indeed, as the conflict continues, this singular term becomes more and more anachronistic. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You removed a huge chunk of text without first waiting for responses to your talk post. I don't think that's appropriate.  In any case I hardly think the people terming this conflict the "Gaza Massacre" would stop calling it such as things get WORSE in Gaza.  I don't think someone should have to provide sources each and every day to be convincing.  Regardless, your unilateral edit is highly inappropriate in my opinion and I urge someone to revert it to its original form until we have a chance to discuss the matter. Thrylos000 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide one source that refers to the entire conflict as the Gaza Massacre. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwish you should have reverted her/his last edit completely. --Learsi si natas (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Learsi: While you're contributing to this discussion, can you please provide one reliable source that refers to the entire conflict as the "Gaza Massacre"?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * here you go; ; ; and many more in http://news.google.com/news?q=%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%B1%D8%A9+%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9&ie=UTF-8&nolr=1&sa=N&start=10 Nableezy (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * and before you say these are not reliable, surely we can trust arab media to accurately report what arabs are calling something. Nableezy (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, don't you have google? Here is a search:http://news.google.com/news?client=opera&rls=en&q=%22gaza+massacre%22&sourceid=opera&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title and here are 3 random articles pulled off the first page of hits from that search:
 * 1) Qazi blasts Muslim rulers’ mum over Gaza massacre The News International, Pakistan - Jan 6, 2009
 * 2) Members of Turkish-Israeli group express anger over Gaza massacre Today's Zaman, Turkey - 4 hours ago
 * 3) PML-N assails government for ‘soft’ stance on Gaza massacre The Post, Pakistan - Jan 6, 2009

Very irresponsible edit on your part in my opinion. You clearly didn't even try to justify the edit with a simple google search. Thrylos000 (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted.

Brewcrewer: the sources do not say they refer only to the initial part of the conflict, they all unambiguously refer to the "attacks", "conflict", "strikes", with no time limit either way. Just because the sources are from the beginning of the conflict (and some are from 4-5 days after), no one can draw a novel conclusion external to the sources that claims they "expired" - which is what you are doing. As to the phrase being POV, it is, but it is not POV introduced by editors: it is neutrally presented as a highly notable POV on the events: the same way we present "Operation Cast Lead". I find your reading of NPOV highly novel, and unheard off, and your removal of well sourced, entirely relevant material unproductive. We do not censor. That said we must be careful not to give undue weight, so this sentence and an additional mention in reactions should be sufficient. Sorry to add to the pile on, but one never removes extremely well sourced material that has been in place for 24 hours with such a flimsy argument. I am sorry the term offends you, but it is a highly verifiable fact that this is a widely held opinion in the Arab world. Take it up with them, not us. --Cerejota (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said Cerejota and thank you for being a voice of reason here  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that the references I used are of a very high quality ones showing that the operation was referred to as "massacre" by:
 * Arab states of the Persian Gulf
 * Arab league
 * the 6060th UN security council meeting, when Arab nations appealed to stop the "terrible massacre". (using Libya as a representative)
 * the Islamic conference - OIC
 * and some Israeli Arabs.
 * I've also shown on the lead discussion page a sample of Arabic references with English translation that clearly use the Gazza massacre term. People, what can I do more?? --Darwish07 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And the cited references mentioned the whole operation, not the first day only, as a massacre. Go and check the sources. Are you trying to convince me that when Arabs appealed to the UN security council to end the "terrible massacre", they meant to end "the first day"? Does my last statement even made sense? No, ofcourse not. Cause they, obviously, mean the whole operation. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable sources?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Read my points above. Yes, they are reliable sources. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide one link to a reliable english language source that supports this contentious and controversial bolded assertion in the lede?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's POV, but at the same time it doesn't seem to have been universally or even generally adopted as a name across the Arab world. Of course you can find sources in the Arabic media that refer to it as the "Gaza massacre", but there are also sources that refer to it as the "Gaza slaughter", "Gaza carnage" etc. etc. Right now, it's the "Gaza massacre" not the "Gaza Massacre". WanderSage (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We need reliable sources. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The lead claims: "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab World.[32][33][34][35][31] I checked each one.
 * 31.  does not say "massacre" anywhere on the page
 * 32. From Fox News does not refer to it as "The Gaza Massacre" but quotes "This terrible massacre would not have happened if the Palestinian people were united behind one leadership speaking in one voice," he said at the league meeting's opening." ""If it weren't for the Arab impotence, and the participation of some Arab governments into this conspiracy, the Zionists wouldn't have dared to carry out this massacre," the letter read."
 * 33. Title:Gulf leaders tell Israel to end Gaza "massacres"-- massacres is in "scare quotes" and is the only reference to massacre on the page.
 * 34. quoted: "The latest Israeli massacre is a war crime and shows what little regard Israel has for international law and the 4th Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in time of war,” OIC chief Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said in a statement."  "The GCC chief said the Israeli massacre reflected that the Jewish state had no intention to have peace." "Al-Attiyah also denounced the silence of the international community, especially the US, toward the Israeli massacre in Gaza. "
 * 35. Title: Israeli Arabs in Sakhnin protest Gaza massacre quote from article "Furthermore, Mohammad Barakeh, chairman of the Hadash party, stated that the protest is important, as it represents an advanced stage of the struggle of the Arab population, and the forces for peace against the massacres conducted by the Israeli Army against the people of Gaza.

With the exception of one headline, the last, not one of these stories referred to "the Gaza Massacre" as it is written in the lede. It is clear the Arabs are talking about a generic massacre or massacres. The only time " Gaza Massacre" is capitalized to indicate a proper noun is when it is used in a headline. In other words, the references do not support the claim. The best you could accurately say is that many Arabs and Arab states are accusing Israel of a massacre(s). Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first link is working. If you checked the reference link itself, It says click on S/PV.6060 cause the UN website refuse to respond to the direct PDF link. You need to click on the PDF link from their page. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WanderSage, even if your point is true. As said by the references, this is what the major Arab organizations referred to the operation in their official statements. Second, in the UN security council meetings, politicians really choose their statements very well. And they called it a "terrible massacre" there. Go and check the meeting transcript. And your argument is already false anyway cause not all the Israeli sources call the attacks "Operation Cast Lead" all the time. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold up, we are trying to identify what Arabs are calling the conflict, why can we not rely on Arabic sources. That is a ridiculous idea. Nableezy (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They may call it a "terrible massacre" but they do not refer to it as "The Gaza Massacre" as claimed in the lede. Simple as that.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The arabic sources, translated call it the gaza massacre, capitalization is irrelevant in arabic, see Yom Kippur War for how the words october war in arabic are translated October War in English. Nableezy (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If a bolded, contentious, and controversial assertion in placed in the lede with the argument that it is a notable term, its notability as a term should be supported by atleast one english language reliable source. The fact that no such source can be presented is a clear indication of the term's lack of notability. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How when the Arabs refer to the conflict as a "terrible massacre" in the UN council meeting in front of the whole world, does not satisfy your notability criteria? Yes, the transcript is in English. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says they call it the "Gaza massacre" not the "terrible massacre". Besides, one speech in the UN is not an indication that the term is notable. Thirdly, we need a reliable source. Making a claim that the speech is indicative of notability is still WP:SYNTH and unacceptable as WP:OR. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Lead discussion page, I've provided many arabic references calling the operation "The Gaza Massacre":
 * | مجزرة قوات الاحتلال الإسرائيلي بقطاع غزة Aljazeera: "Israeli occupation massacre in Gaza"
 * |رابطة العالم الإسلامي تدين "المحرقة" الإسرائيلية بغزة Aljazeera: "OIC criticizes the Gaza Holocaust"
 * | تداعيات مجزرة غزة ومواقف الأطراف Al-Quds Journal(Jerusalem): "The Gazza massacre consequences and involved parties situations"
 * | البابا شنودة يدعو للوبي عربي بالغرب لمنع مجزرة غزة Egypt News: "Pope Shnoda [Egypt's Pope] calls for an Arabic lobby to stop the Gazza massacre"
 * | ضحايا مجزرة غزة يقارب الـ3 آلاف في اليوم التاسع للعدوان Arab news network (Moheet): "Gazza massacre Causalities close to 3 thousand on the ninth day"
 * | غزة في اليوم الثامن من استمرار مجزرة غزة Jordan News Network: "Continuity of the Gazzza massacre"
 * |خبراء: مجزرة غزة لن تستفز صواريخ حزب الله IslamOnline: "Experts: The Gazza massacre will not induce Hizballah rockets"
 * | جمعية السلامة الخيرية تبدأ بتوزيع مساعدات طبية عاجلة لجرحى مجزرة غزة "Salama institute starts distributing humanitarian aid to Gazza massacre casualties"
 * And there's no capitalization in Arabic anyway. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it contentious or controversial what Arabs call the conflict. The words they use may be controversial, but the fact they are using cannot be. You are trying to censor information from the encyclopedia on the basis that you think that they should not be calling it this, because you dont think it is a massacre. Stop this bullshit argument over whether or not Arabs are calling it 'The Gaza Massacre,' youve been proven wrong on this point. Nableezy (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Brewcrewer, it's only 'contentious, and controversial' because you and others are making it so and I struggle to understand why. This street to street fighting over words and pussyfooting around is becoming silly. Reliable sources call it a massacre. If they called it something that you find ludicrous like 'a holocaust in a ghetto having an uprising' that is what should go in the article. This has been said so many times here, it's not about what we think about the words. Surely you have been given plenty of reliable sources that use the term gaza massacre by now. Have a holiday, Jordan's nice.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. No one denies that the Arabs are calling it a massacre. Just as they are calling Israel "the Zionist enemy" -- but whoever translated those statements should have used caps in English if they meant it to be understood as the "name" of a particular episode.  This is "a" massacre in Gaza, according to Arabs, but not "The Gaza Massacre".  To the Arabs, this is just another everyday massacre by the Zionist enemy on the Gazan people.  To Israel, it is self-defense.  "The Gaza Massacre" is not a parallelism to "Operation Cast Lead."  If you are going to put the Arab view of a massacre in the lead, Israel's position must be made clear as well.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's tenuous objecting on a matter of whether or not capitalization has been used, but here's an English-language source where it is (Note Gulf News style is sentence case in headlines, but the right side section title for the conflict itself uses Caps: "Gaza Massacre"). RomaC (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

really here And you have been given multiple arabic sources that call it 'The Gaza Massacre,' so yes they are calling 'Operation Cast Lead' 'The Gaza Massacre'. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add this as a reference to let this topic rest in piece. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Brewcrewer argument is false anyway. He want all the sources to call it "Gaza Massacre" and not "the Massacre", or "terrible Massacre". This is false logic. IF THE ARABS ARE ARE SAYING "MASSACRE", THEN THEY OBVIOUSLY MEAN "Gaza Massacre". You want all of them to say "Gaza + Massacre" and not only "Massacre" to make you happy? AND EVEN most of the Israeli sources DO NOT CALL THE ATTACKS "Operation Cast Lead" ALL THE TIME. THEY CALL IT "Cast Lead", "the operation", "the attacks" and other stuff too. SO IF PEOPLE SAID AT THE United Nations "Terrible Massacre", THEY MEAN "Terrible Gaza Massacre". THIS IS OBVIOUS. IT'S CALLED "MASSACRE" IN THE ARAB MEDIA more than it's called "Operation Cast Lead" IN THE ISRAELI MEDIA. It does not mean cause Israel started the attacks, and by virtue using a "military name" standard, that it has a monopoly on the name. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Darwish, please don't let this reduce you to SHOUTING, thanks. RomaC (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I apologize. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So to be clear and end this: By using the statements Brecrewer quoted from the cited references himself:
 * "This terrible massacre" == "This terrible Gaza massacre"
 * "this massacre" == this Gaza massacre
 * "The latest Israeli massacre" == The latest massacre caused by Israel in Gaza == The latest Gaza massacre
 * "Gaza massacre" == "Gaza massacre" (Will we need to argue over this?)
 * Done
 * --Darwish07 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer is arguing a point and that's fine, anyway notwithstanding the above post, we can see here that RS&V are satisfied on the question, and I hope Brewcrewer will acknowledge this. Actually the only problem I see with the sentence "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab World." is the word "conflict," because "Gaza Massacre" is being more accurately applied to the the Israeli offensive. Should we change the wording to: "The Israeli offensive has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab World."? RomaC (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * sabr ya khoui :), I dont think we even need all this, we have multiple sources that call it 'the gaza massacre' in the arab media, and as this is a proper noun it would then be translated in English 'The Gaza Massacre'. This shouldnt even be a debate, it is beyond ridiculous that we are even talking about this. Nableezy (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How is it ridiculous? The only thing the sources really demonstrate is that beyond throwing in the word “massacre” people in the Arab word do NOT refer to this event in any consistent manner. I agree with brewcrew and tundrabuggy (I tried to make this point yesterday). At minimum it should be written in lower case. Andi Hofer 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "Gaza Massacre" fully identifies the current attacks on the Arabic media, so it's doing a job like the one done by "Operation Cast Lead". The difference is that the first was born bottom-up, while the second is born upside-down. Not all the Israeli media use "Operation cast lead" all the time, and so not all Arabic media use "Gaza massacre" all the time. but What's important is that when those terms are used, at least in current days, we know exactly what events are they pointing at. If it walks, and eats like a duck, then it's a duck :). So "Gazza Massacre" is the neutralizing side of Operation Cast Lead --Darwish07 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to understand the distinction between "Gaza massacre" and "Gaza Massacre". I'm presuming none of us arguing the point are proficient in Arabic, but perhaps it might be necessary to look at the original Arabic. "Operation Cast Lead" is the name given by the IDF to specifically refer to the original operation, "al-Nakhba" is the name specifically given to refer to the 1948 War of Independence by the Arabic world. These are proper nouns. It seems in this case that "massacre" is just being used generically to describe the conflict in some sectors of the Arabic media. It seems to me if it had become a proper noun worthy of mention and bolding, it would be something like al-*insert word for massacre* *insert word for Gaza as a adjective*. WanderSage (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, why should it have to be al-*? Arabic translation of "Massacre of black Saturday" can not be in Arabic as Al-"...", so as Yom Kippur War which its translation has no Al-"...". As I've said, there's no capitals in Arabic. The whole idea of Al-".." is that a single noun in arabic can not stand on its own. It's either prefixed with "Al" (al-magzara) or suffixed with another noun in the sentence (magzara Gaza). Our current case is the second case. And it's critical to know that those two cases are mutually exclusive. so it's illegal to have (al-magzara Gaza). --Darwish07 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that there are no capitals in Arabic, I was stressing what the difference would be in an English translation. Thus far, none of your sources lead anyone to believe that massacre is used as a proper noun. And yes, Massacre of Black Sunday would need a definite article, set up as Massacre Al-Saturday Black. Unless you can provide conclusive evidence that "The Gaza Massacre" is used in the same context in the Arab world as "al-Nakhba" is to describe the 1948 war, it should be un-bolded. WanderSage (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WanderSage and others, do we really want to debate whether or not, in the Arab world, "Gaza Massacre" refers to the current events in Gaza, by arguing about how capitalization has been applied in English-language translations? Really? (sigh...) Ok, right side of the Gulf News page, here -- "Gaza Massacre" Written In Caps. (Other Gulf News headlines are sentence case.) RomaC (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in Arabic that says that something must have al-* to satisfy being something equivalent to a capital noun. NO relation, whatsoever. Battle of Mu'tah, Battle of Tabouk, Yom Kippur War and lots of others have no "Al". Previous sentence examples prove that your theory is false. I told you a noun need "Al" or another noun (modaf elih) after it to be complete. Our case is the second. Yom Kippur War is translated to "October War"; a clear example of the second case I'm talking about which also applies to "Gazza Massacre". You're treating only one possible case (al-nakba) as the truth, which is false. War in Darfur is bold without a reference saying "The war is called war in Darfur". In Iraq War, it's told that it's also known as "Occupation of Iraq" without a reference saying "The Iraq war is also called Occupation of Iraq", It was bolded because cited references directly called it "Occupation of Iraq", as in our case. You're using fancy-looking-outside false-inside logic. Given references say clearly that it's called a massacre in the Arab world, please stop this. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And as you can see there are several among us proficient in Arabic to be able to tell you how to translate 'The Gaza Massacre.' Beyond that, the English title to this conflict is given '2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict,' followed by the English translation of the names given by each side, for the Israeli title 'Operation Cast Lead' and 'The Gaza Massacre' for the Arabic title. All you seem to want here is that the English and translated Israeli names be used, with no reference to what it is called by Arabs. The capitalization point you argued is incorrect as explained by Darwish07 and me, so there is really no need to continue this unless your point is that we should not be including what Arabs are calling the conflict. This is the practice in every single article that deals with international conflict, the English name then the translations of the names given by each side in bold. There really is no point in arguing this further, unless you flat out say you want to censor the Arab name out of the article. If you want to say that then say it, dont come up with these bullshit arguments to try to say it. Nableezy (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Symmetrical reporting of Injuries
The infobox currently reads: Wounded: 78 soldiers,[12][13] 183 civilians (includes 144 shock victims)[14][15] for Israel.

I do not agree that the best format for reporting injuries would include shock victims. The most current source we cite is from the JP. It says: "Four Israelis have been killed, 10 moderately to seriously wounded, and 29 slightly wounded. Another 144 have been treated for shock." I think we ought to report the Israeli injured in line with their statement with something like Wounded: 39 civilians (10 moderateley to seriously, 29 slightly)

I am not against including shock victims in the article; perhaps, they would be better placed in the casualties section and not the infobox, since we of course have no estimates of "shocked" Palestinians. We could alternatively have add a note in the infobox stating something like: "Additionally, 144 civilians are reported as suffering from shock."

This follows the JP source very closely and makes some crucial distinctions. It also is the most symmetrical way of reporting injuries since Palestinian injuries do not include shock victims. Thrylos000 (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree. Nableezy (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas vs. UN civilian casualty tally
I seperated the Hamas and UN casualty numbers to reflect the fact that, from reading the sources, the 350 number is "according to Palestinian (Ministry of Health) officials..." and the UN is still giving the media the "25%" number. Since the 25% figure has been cited by the UN since almost the begining of the conflict, if someone can find a new source which lists the UN as giving a different figure, please update it. Also, I'd like to suggest that once we find an updated UN figure, to move it in front of the Hamas figure, on the grounds that it is the most objective of the two. WanderSage (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the UN has not, even once, cited a total count of civilian casualties that included men unless it cited the MoH directly. Even so I'm not sure it has done this. It consistently refers to women and children in its reports. I'm not sure why the media outlets haven't picked up on this. I've been screaming this for several days and made a long post about it a while back I can dig up that thoroughly examined the issue. I think its pretty significant that reports read (in the past) civilians when they should have read women and children. I've stopped pressing the issue since most places are now citing the MoH. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A dated figure from the UN is still much more valuable than an up to date number from an agency which has a political stake in exaggerating civilian casualties. We won't have an accurated number for weeks, most likely, until the dust settles and the claims can be varified and scrutinized, but for now the UN/MoH dichotomy is fine in the civilian toll, it would just be nice to have an solid UN figure. WanderSage (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not 'a Hamas figure', it is a figure from the Palestinian ministry of health and should be reported as that. They are in the best position to report and we already say that the numbers cannot be independently verified. As such, I think it should be given in front of the UN figure. This unfounded attack on the Palestinian sources is repeated and getting increasingly tiresome. Why exactly must we dispute anything a Palestinian says about what is happening in front of their eyes yet accept as unequivocal truth whatever Israeli sources report? Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the Ministry of Health that we are sourcing is based in Gaza, and therefore under the auspices of Hamas. You speak as if there is any political plurality in Gaza post-Hamas. Remember the part about all of their political rivals being killed or exiled? Are you trying to convince us that Hamas purged all political posts and and ministries, but decided to leave the MoH alone and out of their sphere of influence? WanderSage (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, WanderSage. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When the UN refers to children as casualties, what ages are they talking about? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the NY Times (considered a Reliable Source) Casualty figures are hard to verify, but officials at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City and the Gazan Ministry of Health said 683 Palestinians had died since the conflict began Dec. 27, including 218 children and 90 women. They said 3,085 had been wounded. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza said 130 children age 16 or under had died. The United Nations estimated a few days ago that a quarter of the dead were civilians.

But Palestinian residents and Israeli officials say that Hamas is tending its own wounded in separate medical centers, not in public hospitals, and that it is difficult to know the number of dead Hamas fighters, many of whom were not wearing uniforms. Maybe we should wait with these figures until the dust clears. We had the same accusations the world over in Jenin, and elsewhere, which embarrassed the media because they had uncritically accepted Palestinian numbers. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont care that they are 'under the auspices of Hamas' though not true it is irrelevant. The reason it is not ture is that it is under the auspices of the PNA. Even if it was 'under the auspices of Hamas' all the Israeli reports are under the auspices of the Israeli govt. You cannot just assume Palestinian sources are lying and Israeli ones are truthful.  It is attributed as it should be and presented as it should be. Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didnt see ref to 'Gazan Ministy of Health' but the above point remains valid. Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The NYT calls it the Gazan ministry of health but their website lists itsels as being the Palestinian Ministry of Health and that is also how the UN refers to them. The NYT is incorrectly refering to it as the "Gazan Ministry of Health." Thrylos000 (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated source quoting the chief of emergency and ambulance services in the Palestinian Health ministry, Mo'aweya Hassanein, is listing the number of casualties as 763 killed, 3,120 wounded. He also said that: "Many people are missing, most probably under the rubble of dozens of destroyed houses," and added that 375 Palestinians who are in critical condition need urgent medical treatment.
 * I also find Tundrabuggy's statements above to be offensive. Israel has banned foreign media from entering Gaza since November last year. If we cannot rely on Palestinian casualty counts, we cannot report on casualties, as there are few other people there to tell us what is going on. It also seems clear that the figures of the Palestinian health ministry are conservative and based on the number of corpses collected at hospitals and by medical workers, and not on how many they estimate to by lying under the rubble. After the confusion in casualty figures during the Jenin massacre where estimates were made before bodies could be collected, they do not want to make the same mistake.  T i a m u t talk 16:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way. Let's wait with the charts of casualties etc until we have some numbers that we can all agree on.  Just as, if memory serves me right, after Jenin, the casualty count was finally agreed by most to be somewhere in the low fifties. That was after the Palestinians reported 500, and then 900 deaths. There is really no need to be offended.  Them's the facts. btw, who is it that is counting the corpses collected at the hospitals?  Do you have a RS for that, or does it just "seem" clear? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter if we agree on the numbers, RS are reporting that Palestinian medical officials are reporting X number of dead and Y wounded. This is not Jenin so what happened there is not my concern right now. Here we are accurately referencing that Palestinian medical sources are reporting these numbers, and we further say that they cannot be independently verified. I personally think we should say why they cannot be independently verified (Israel in contravention to an Israeli Supreme Court ruling has refused to allow foreign media into Gaza) but it should be enough for you that it is referenced to the Palestinians and that it cannot be independently verified. Nableezy (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories
First off, someone that is good with categories should probably take a look at this article and narrow down and/or delete and/or add some. But also, could an admin change these category names please: Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict --> Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict --> Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It's just a matter of changing hyphens to en dashes. Thanks. LonelyMarble (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A better forum for this change might be Categories for discussion. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

lebanon
should this be included or wait until people connect this to the current conflict? Nableezy (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an AP article that links it a bit more specifically I think some sort of mention is appropriate, but it probably ought to be pretty brief until we know more about who fired and whether there will be more. Blackeagle (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn, this really sucks... I hope this fighting doesn't spread into Lebanon now. What a disaster Thrylos000 (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that we could include a section along the lines as 'Potential for wider hostilities' or something like that, but I leave it to yall, im high as hell and dont want to think about war right now. Peace and happiness all, be back if I wake up in the morning :) Nableezy (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is an attack by Hizbollah, then it deserves a seperate subsection. If it's just a unsanctioned attack by a Palestinian faction in Lebanon, maybe just mention it in the timeline article. WanderSage (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the current situation in southern Lebanon, this is most likely an attack by some Palestinian organization, approved by Hizbollah (no one lifts a rock there without their approval) but not carried out by Hizbollah. Right now I would not make a separate section for it, unless it escalates. Rabend (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That really is just your own view, unless you have some source backing it. I do agree this does not merit a separate section. Nableezy (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Drastically Biased
This article is drastically biased both in its language use, its content, and even its appearance (sentences hidden in paragraphs). (unsigned)


 * &lt;rant and steam&gt;The article started out quite neutrally (with obvious violators being removed every now and then). But recently, it really did become biased. Every Palestinian propaganda is quoted as "fact", while every statement by Israel and IDF sounds like some "unbased excuse". I know that there are many people here who are trying to keep this article about facts and not about opinions, but when the Anti-Israeli propaganda is spread so wide in the eyes of the world-wide public (because showing dead bodies is what wins public opinion, and Hamas know that very well and use it, and anything else is non relevant), the bias startes spreading here too. It's frustrating. According to the article and the discussions, it's perfectly normal saying that IDF is intentionally trying to butcher children/women/civilians/doctors/etc., but on any claim that Hamas is using civilians as human shields, exaggerating numbers, Pallywood and so on, is a huge violation of neutrality. Bleh. I'm done with this article too. &lt;/rant and steam&gt; -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's odd, I thought (unsigned) meant that the article was biased toward Israel. That's certainly how it reads to me. Maybe you miss those images of the IAF war machines, Nomaed? Trachys (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A) You see what you want to see and read what you want to read. I didn't see any hint about what bias this unsigned person meant. Unless you can point me towards it, you have no case.
 * B) I followed your "Wikipedia contributions", and your anti-Israeli bias can be seen from miles, with small words changes that make sentences sound completely different.
 * C) You completely ignored all that I wrote, and decided to mock me. Get lost.
 * -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

I must agree with Nomaed. The article has seen dramatic improvement with respect to its neutrality in the past 72 hrs. Suddenly, in the last 24 hrs, this trend was drastically reversed. People are deleting hard-reaching-consensus sections with no discussion. For example, the entire background section, quoting numerous sources with respect to truce violations by both sides was deleted, and is now relying on one(!) source which is not even a news article, but rather a news analysis. Instead bringing facts forward, our article turned to be an "analysis". Analysts opinions are starting to be portrayed as facts. This is troubling.--Omrim (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Situation in Sderot and Other Israeli Cities
More information should be given on the nature of the rockets being fired into Sderot and other Israeli cities. While the article does an excellent job of creating sympathy for the residents of Gaza, it does not address the durress under which the Israelis live. Each day when rockets are fired they have only seconds to find cover. They are advised to keep windows down and seatbelts off to be able to hear any approaching rockets or mortar shells and escape quickly. The issue of escalation -- Hamas's improvement of their rockets is not addressed. Nor are the details such as those found here: which explain that there are far more rockets and mortar shells being fired than stated in this article. In the past 3 years there were over 6000
 * There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia detailing the rocket attacks going back to 2001. There are also details of Qassam rocket capabilities. I think the scope of this article should be restricted to the current Israeli military offensive ('Operation Cast Lead'). It would be too easy for the focus of the article to be lost if we try and cover the entire Arab/Israeli conflict going back decades. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, then name it Operation Cast Lead and deal with it. But don't forget that it is only fair (and necessary) to represent the WHY of the operation from Israel's perspective in the lead.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'why' is that there's an election in Israel on 10 February 2009 and Olmert needs a good military victory to erase memories of the less than glorious Lebanon War from the minds of Israeli voters. This needs to be done now as guaranteed US support for aggressive Israeli military action is seen as less likely after Barack Obama takes office on 20 January 2009... To be honest I'd be happy if this article could simply present the facts from a truly neutral point of view and leave the reader do their own further research and draw their own conclusions as to the motivations behind the actions of the various participants in this latest tragic and bloody chapter in the Middle East. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Language Bias
Quoting the Article: "However, Israel only modestly increased levels of goods shipments into Gaza." Only modestly? Who is the author to judge? Israel is sending aid to people who fire rockets into their land ad yet it is referred to as only modest. Quoting the Article: "In August 2008, 10 to 30 were fired, and by September only 5 to 10 were." This comment is so understated it's almost comical. only 5 to 10? 5 to 10 rockets? What if Cuba fired 5 to 10 rockets into Florida? How would the US respond?

Quoting the Article: "Hamas called the claims "baseless".[145] Residents of the neighborhood that the two Hamas fighters (brothers mad Abu Asker and Hassan Abu Asker) identified as attacking Israeli troops and killed were in the area at the time of the attack. But the residents also said the mortar fire had not come from the school compound, but from elsewhere in the neighborhood." Whether it is the definition or not, people tend to associate the term "claim" with the idea of saying something with strong possibility it is false while the term "said" connotes nothing in particular. Why does the author say Israel "claimed" 4 times in 1 paragraph and yet when two random brothers, simply local residents make claims, those are given the same if not more credit. the brothers "said" they did not "claim."


 * Strongly agree with the first two issues. The third issue is less clear to me but I can see your point. I doubt anyone would object to replacing "said" with "claim" to make it consistent. Andi Hofer 08:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you guys step back a bit, look at things from a wider perspective and check that you have enough context to make judgements. For example, Israel is not providing aid. Aid is being supplied by various bodies like the UN etc and Israel has a legal obligation under international humanitarian law to allow it in all the time without interruption. I could go on but I won't. I hope you see my point which is that your criticisms might be based on insufficient information leading to systemic bias.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whats wrong with combating blatant editorializing? The source says "In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10." Whoever wrote that bit deliberately inserted the word "only." Same goes for the :only modest increase" editorial. I do agree that the language needs to be cleaned up so that it becomes more clear that Israel is only allowing these shipments and not actually providing them.--Andi Hofer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is wrong with combating blatant editorializing Andi. I'm all for that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sean, you are quoting international law as if Israel is obliged by it to open its crossings to Gaza. This would have been the case if Israel would still be an occupying force in Gaza, an issue which is higly controversial even among Int'l law scholars. And if you don't mind to "sit back and look at the whole picture" yourself, there is a very valid point in noting that even though Israel is in a battle with the de-facto government of Gaza, the borders between the two remain open. This, I think, is quite odd and it shouldn't go unnoticed. Also, you refrain from addressing the direct examples given for POV tone, which are good examples for bad editing. Lets leave our opinions of what the "big picture" look like, and address the examples given--Omrim (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And BTW, electricity and water are still largely provided (not allowed, provided) by Israel. Lets include that too, shall we?--Omrim (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Omrim, just to quickly reply so that you don't think I'm rudely ignoring you. I don't want to get into a debate about occupying power status because my opinion on the matter is of no consequence. I'm well aware of opinions on the legal status of Gaza and both sides obligations. I can't step back anymore or else I'll end up crossing the Cambodian border accidentally. I can give you an opinion if you want. Manufactured controversies and undue weight are problems for this article. The reason I suggested stepping back with polite words like 'check' and 'might be based' was simply that I saw a factually inaccurate statement (and there are some facts available to us luckily). I see that a lot around here. When someone makes a factually inaccurate statement it's usually either a lie or poor research. I went for the 2nd option.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you cannot actually starve a people into extinction. Israel is obliged to 'provide' water, since not to do so would be in itself an act of war in international law. The average number of trucks required to satisfy minimal standards of life in the Strip is 500. At the most 50 got through the other day. As to water, Israel controls all the acquifers, also on the occupied West Bank, and the allocation pro capita works out 12-10 litres per Israeli to 1 litre per Palestinian. It is even worse in the Gaza Strip, since a large part of the pumping, sewerage and water infrastructure has been bombed to pieces over the past years. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole world, Israel excepted, still says that Gaza is occupied. Controls airspace, borders, and waters == occupied. Nableezy (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So does that make Egypt an occupier to? I would rather not getting into a legal discussion here, but I'll note that since 2005 Israel could bring VERY strong arguments it is not occupying Gaza. Once out of Gaza, there is nothing in international law to directly oblige Israel to keep its borders to Gaza open, especially given the fact that Gaza also have a border with Egypt. The naval blockade itself cannot bring such a claim (even though it makes it stronger). So we are back to intrpretation of facts. see --Omrim (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The distinction is fuzzy, admittedly. The case is argued by M.Mari, ‘The Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip: and end of the occupation,’ pp.356-368, and Y. Shany, ‘Faraway, so close: the legal nstatus of Gaza after Israel’s disengagement’ pp.369-386, in T. McCormack, A. McDonald (eds.) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2005: Volume 8, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Shany says technically it is not occupied. However, it is blockaded, and the words of Sharon's Disengagement Plan, Israel retained the right to enter the Strip at will, exercise control over Gaza’s airspace, sea shore, and borders, including the border with Egypt (over which Israel negotiates with Egypt, not with Hamas), and exercises military control over the coastline, where fishing, once a mainstay of the Gaza economy. It also exercises a self-perceived right to impede Gazans from exiting the Strip. Of the 7 Fulbright scholars who won grants, only 4 got out. Gaza cannot export anything, and cannot import anything, formally, without Israeli permission. Any Jew knows what this means in their history, it's a ghetto in the Pale of Settlement, only conditions are worse. But this is editorializing. Basically, Omrin is correct, but only on a technicality, since International Law hasn't precedents for the kind of stranglehold on that area Israel has long been exercising. I say 'long been' because the systematic running down of the autonomous Gazan economy was official Israeli policy throughout the 1970s to 2005, in order to reduce the competitiveness of non Israeli Gazan produce on the Israeli markets. See  John B.Quiigley,  The case for Palestine:An International Law Perspective, Duke University Press, 2005 pp.185ff.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're a law student / lawyer. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Egypt was an occupier prior to 67, but to say they are an occupier because they close 1 border crossing is tenuous. And it is not my interpretation that Israel is currently occupying Gaza, it is the opinion of the UN, the UK, the EU, the African Union, the Arab League and numerous other sources. All UN documentation about Gaza refer to it as 'Occupied', all ICJ ruling on Gaza refer to it as 'Occupied' the ICRC when mentioning Gaza refer to it as 'Occupied' AI and HRW refer to it as 'Occupied'. They are not required to keep the border open, I agree, they are however required to provide humanitarian assistance to those people under their occupation. Nearly the whole world is in agreement on this, though yes Israel disputes this. They dispute it on a number of grounds, most often that beacause Palestine was not a state prior to Israeli control then it cannot be occupied under international law. The rest of the world disagrees with this analysis. I think this  provides some good answers on this subject, presenting both sides. Nableezy (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The ICJ hasn't made any rulings on Gaza, surely. If you are referring to the 2004 decision, that preceded the 2005 disengagement, and therefore is outdatedNishidani (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Well I see you already linked the same article, but as you can see from that article that it is the official positions of the US, and the UN, and I will get sources if needed to UK, EU, Arab League, African Union, HRW, AI, and ICRC that Gaza is occupied. I think we should say that Gaza is occupied with cites to the organiztions that list it as occupied, with a qualifier that Israel disputes this with cites to a source that shows Israel disputes it. Nableezy (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see. I also see that the secretary general is very reluctant to call it "occupied", and that "occupied" is an official status that should change only when the UN accept a resolution in the matter (as if it ever gonna happen), hence we could at least differentiate between the "official" status describing old facts, and "legal" status describing current facts. Yet, this is not my main point (as admittedly it is not a strong one). However, saying that Egypt is not an occupier since it closes "only" 1 border is a little double standard. Opening this "only 1" border would have terminated the issue at hand. All that is needed is 1 border open to bring a total relief to the humanitarian situation. Why should it be Israel to open it? After all, Israel is the one in conflict with Hamas, while Egypt isn't. Which one of the two (Israel/Egypt) should open its borders to Gaza? the one in conflict with Gaza, or the one which is not? And finally, my Int'l law point is hardly technical. My very point was to say that to date there is no precedent what so ever regarding a situation as the one we have in Gaza. So the fact that some editors put themselves as judges (predicting future rulings), is not technical at all. --Omrim (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for kicks...can we at least agree that Israel still maintains unyielding control of all basic matters when it relates to Palestine? From the West Bank to the coral reefs?


 * Please, Palestine is broken, inside out...you can blame both Hamas and Israel for this, but do not leave Israel out...
 * I am not saying Israel is innocent. All I'm saying is that it should not be hold responsible alone. Egypt, and Hamas for sure, should share the blame.--Omrim (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * and on that we can agree Omrim.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Israel is the one who decides when HUMANITARIAN AID reaches Palestine, in times of "Operations" or not. What Palestinian economy? What infrastructure? What international airport? what Ministry Building?


 * Israel 'disengages' from Gaza and destroys all of its buildings beforehand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply not true, Cryptonio. Not true at all.  They left beautiful synagogues that could have been used as something and the Gazan burned them.   They left behind the greenhouses (the Jews bought them for the Gazans) many of which were looted and destroyed. They dug up the sewer pipes and used them for rockets.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The secretary general wasnt exactly reluctant to say it was occupied, he said he cannot comment on those legal matters. Later on a UN spokesperson, who apparently is in a postion to comment on legal issues says:"Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," the spokesman replied.
 * And Egypt, as previously noted, negotiates the border with Israel, not Hamas, they are required to under the terms of the camp david accords. And to me the question isnt who is to blame, though I agree that Egypt certainly shares some of it, the question is what is the legal status of Gaza. According to the organizations listed above, including oddly enough the US, Gaza is considered occupied by Israel. I agree we shouldnt be placing ourselves as experts and predicting future decisions, we can though say that according to the UN, the US, the EU, AI, HRW etc., that Gaza is considered occupied by Israel. And you do accept that Israel does control the airspace and coastal territory right? That is part of what makes it an occupation, troops on the ground are not the sole requirement. Nableezy (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For ICJ calling Gaza occupied, see and  and, these both are after the disengagement, the first one about this conflict in particular. Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies Nableezy. I thought you were referring to the ICJ qua International Court of Justice. Thanks for enlightening me.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad, should have made that clear, but I normally write the International Court as CIJ. Nableezy (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Approach to Media Campaign
The article takes an approach to Israel's media campaign that is simply absurd. It does not address the long history of negative portrayals of Israel. It makes it sound as though Israel is doing something wrong. Israel is simply trying to create open channels speaking directly to the world without media filters because the media so often distorts the facts. Somehow the author manages to spin that negatively.


 * It's not our job in here to discuss events before the war, or we'll enter an infinite set of variables. By the way, I can not sense this negative spin, but if you can positively improve the article go on. But do not remove cited and well referenced facts. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel have stated, reported by CNN International yesterday, that they won't let reporters into Gaza because they want to control the information coming out of there, they thought it might create a bad image of Israel if reporters were allowed to report from inside of Gaza... I wonder who tries to distort the facts the most, when they even state that they don't want reporters to know what happens. &mdash; CHANDLER#10 &mdash; 11:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in this section is a pretty honest summary of the Haaretz report. There are however other problems in this section:


 * From the article:


 * "On January 6, the New York Times reported that the blocking of media access to Gaza was part of an "unprecedented" effort on the part of the Israeli government to "control entirely the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy."[...]


 * The Foreign Press Association of Israel issued a statement on January 6 addressing the situation:


 * The unprecedented denial of access to Gaza for the world’s media amounts to a severe violation of press freedom and puts the state of Israel in the company of a handful of regimes around the world which regularly keep journalists from doing their jobs."


 * The way its written suggests that the NYT reporting shows that it is "unprecedented" when in fact the NYT was only quoting the FPAoI. Since the original FPAoI statement is quoted in full later in the article it is both redundant and misleading to mention it again at an earlier point.


 * From the article:


 * "According to CNN, Israel is employing psychological tactics against Hamas by sending recorded phone calls to Gazans saying ""Urgent message, warning to the citizens of Gaza: Hamas is using you as human shields. Do not listen to them. Hamas has abandoned you and are hiding in their shelters", or dropping leaflets reading "that the IDF will continue using full force against Hamas...the toll will be very painful."[221] Aid workers have said that the children who survive the conflict will have to endure lifelong "psychological scars".[222] Meanwhile Hamas has sent its own messages to Israeli citizens' mobile phones, warning "rockets on all cities, shelters will not protect you."[223]"


 * The bolded part is misplaced. The source article says "Children make up a quarter of the more than 600 Palestinians killed in Israel's war on the Hamas rulers of Gaza and aid workers say those who survive will suffer lifelong psychological scars." and makes no mention of this being related to Israel's media campaign or Israel's "psychological tactics."--Andi Hofer (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)