Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Givati Brigade/Gaza War in news again on CAMERA

Givati Brigade Soldier who stole credit card during Gaza op jailed Might be nice addition to IntLaw/war loot. The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, both explicitly ban 'pillage' by hostile armies. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Island of Consensus - PNA flag

The reflector is is a refinement of the refractors technology. Sometimes you need a bigger light bucket to see more details.

I'm not really sure when using PNA flag for belligerent became "Consensus". I made a survey among non-English language WP articles describing this war. English language article is an exception: PNA flag is not normally used, Hamas flag gets a wide international support. Any thought? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Does Hamas consider itself a part of the Palestinian Authority? From what I understand Gaza is a semi-autonomous piece of land that does not answer to anyone, including the PA. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• We could change all the other wikis to use the PNA flag. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ไทย - we could start here, the flag looks suspiciously green. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That infobox was created based on Israeli media sources and it's never been discussed. Also the fact that there are several thousand Thai nationals in and around Gaza and Eshkol who get attacked by both sides (luckily only one killed so far I think) means that Thai editors are potentially biased......could be either way, hard to tell. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A-ha. But why year 2552? Is it sensible? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Year zero is the death of Mr Gautama. It's AD+543. It's all explained here along with the Thai colour coding system for days of the week. No, it's not sensible but it seems to work okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Spanish uses the PNA flag but what does that matter? From what I understand English Wiki is a semi-autonomous piece of cyberspace that does not answer to anyone, including the Spanish or Swedish Wiki. Wikifan I know you support this pholosophy because you disregarded the Arabic Wiki's use of "Gaza Massacre" just a few months ago. As for timing, I may be wrong but I think this article has had the PNA flag since about March? RomaC (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's cool for Español exceptional speakers. Still other Romance languages such as Italiano, Français, Català, and Português avoid using PNA flag. Both "belligerent" languages: العربية and עברית use green flag. I guess my question is what kind of reasoning could support PNA flag. Again, I missed the discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arabic doesnt actually define the belligerents, only the commanders. nableezy - 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Let the Force (القوى) be with you. Still no PNA flag. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats actually strength and shows the strength of Hamas, the PFLP, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. nableezy - 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All those armed groups fought under Hamas flag, according to Arabic language WP. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It has the symbols for each group shown in the strength of forces. It only lists two commanders both of whom are Hamas so they show the Hamas flag, Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif. Where does it say they all fought under the flag of Hamas? nableezy - 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no PNA flag. Though Palestinian tricolor is visible at PIJ logo color coding and PRC emblem incorporates the flag in its design. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is now. nableezy - 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter what the other wikis choose to do. We have been through this too many times. We have had consensus for using this flag. If you want to try and challenge that you need to get consensus here. Not on the thai wiki or the portugese wiki or anywhere else. But we have been through this before (many times) and we have had consensus for this flag set up. nableezy - 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

PNA flag - reasoning

Go ahead, nableezy. What are the reasons for using PNA flag? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Read here, here. But to recap, the flag of Gaza is not the flag of the party in control of the government. The Gaza Strip is a part of the Palestinian territories. Just because Hamas won an election in the whole of those territories does not mean that the flag of Palestine changed to the flag of Hamas. And most importantly, we have had this conversation too many times, with you starting it almost every time, and consensus among the users here that we use the flag of Palestine for Gaza and the Hamas flag for the commanders. It is time for you to accept consensus was against you and not continually bring up the same arguments over and over. nableezy - 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. What I remember from those discussions, that the disagreement was so wide, that you decided to strip all flags as a "compromise". Later flags re-appeared, without (AFAIK) any discussion. It's time to fix distortions. How could we make such a decision in WP procedural way? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We already made a decision, the flags have been stable for 3+ months. One user besides yourself has changed them in that time. There isnt any controversy or dispute here, you are just making the same arguments over and over. Do you want to strip all the flags? Fine, do that. nableezy - 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note about the name of the flag being used, because I had to check the page after reading what you guys were talking about. Its the Palestinian flag, as in the flag of the Palestine. The PNA is just the name of a temporary body created by the Oslo accords to run the territories for Israel. This was a war between the Israelis and the people of Gaza, who are Palestinian. I realize the PNA also uses the flag, but please don't call it a PNA flag. That's not what it is. It predates it by decades. Tiamut^talk 20:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tiamut. I accept your clarification. The flag has deep national roots, adopted officially by PLO since 1964 and used as flag of Palestinian statehood since 1988. I understand your skepticism about the PNA which still achieved some international recognition. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is a belligerent in War in Afghanistan (2001–present)? Afghanistan? Hardly. Who is a belligerent in 1982 Lebanon War and 2006 Lebanon War? Lebanon? I don't think so. If Hamas were a leading party in the current government in the West Bank too, and the war was waged both in Gaza and West Bank, than it could be possible to say that the war was waged against Palestinian people, who volunteerly chose their leaders. But the matters in NPA are slightly more complicated. Too bad Gaza does not have a flag of its own. Or does it? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Hamas get relatively more electoral support than Kadima did? Or, does Kadima have a flag? Disagree with selective delinking of government and population. RomaC (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For the portion in time the Taliban was the governing authority the War in Afghanistan does list the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as the belligerent. nableezy - 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "flag of Hamas", Roma. I only think it would have been more appropriate to use flag of Gaza instead. Ashdod has a flag, Illinois has a flag, why not Gaza? After all, West Bank and Palestinians there were not part of the war. They are de facto different political entities at the moment. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, if Canada attacked Illinois (good luck punks) the belligerents would be Canada and the US, even if all we needed to slap them back to at least Wisconsin is 10 Chicago police officers armed only with night sticks. nableezy - 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh so that explains why the Illinois Air National Guard preemptively bombed those Canadian soldiers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I have tried looking for a Gaza Strip flag, but havent found anything in what could be called a reliable source. nableezy - 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And if Illinois' government is overthrown by some separatist anarchist movement that would leave de facto (but not de jure) 2 countries instead of one, both having American people (God knows what it is)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC) No seriously, if US would attack North Korea, no one would say that US is waging war on Korean people, right? It would be clear to everyone that the belligerent is a regime of North Korea. In our case, a belligerent is a government of Gaza, and if there's no such thing as Gaza flag, a flag that represents best current situation in Gaza should be chosen. Btw, there's nothing 'wrong'(? not the best word) in this situation - Korea is partitioned, Germany was divided, Israelites were segmented in Judea and Israel entities. And don't tell me this is different because Hamas won the elections throughout PA - we have de facto 2 political entities. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

North Korea is a state itself, Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and claimed as part of the State of Palestine. Nobody has said that it is a separate entity from that. So if not the flag of Palestine what flag do you think should be used? Just the Hamas flag? There were other groups who fought with Hamas in this conflict. And an attack on the government of a territory is an attack on the territory, even if we were to accept that this was an attack on Hamas specifically. nableezy - 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm repeating for the third time, before the split Gaza was an integral part of the state, but not now. De facto this is a separate entity with independant government. Sort of Bavarian Soviet Republic. As for the flag - I'd suggest a traditional tricolor with two additional colors, the blue (sea) and the gold (the beaches). Mounted Shariah policeman can be added too. I told you - in the absence of the Gaza flag, the best next choice is the flag of the leading party of the government. Other groups' flags can be added to commanders section. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with that. Gaza has not seceded from Palestine, the government of Gaza has not said they are a separate entity. There has been no declaration of independence establishing Gaza as anything other than a part of Palestine. nableezy - 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And fot the good reason! Each government, in Gaza and in Ramallah, claim that it is the only legal one. But the fact remains - 2 separate governments, 2 prime ministers, 2 ministers of health, etc. Maybe they use the same flag, but this is de facto different entity. It should be somehow resolved. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But as Tiamut pointed out above this is the Palestinian flag, not the flag of the PNA or the West Bank exclusively. This is the flag for the government of the Palestinians, and in Gaza that government is Hamas. nableezy - 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This I understand. You have to understand reciprocally that a situation when 2 de facto separate political entities use the same flag is ambiguous. How would you deal with 2 Koreas if both had used by chance the same flag? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If they both used the same flag then I would use the flag for both, next to it I would make sure we say North or South, sort of how we do here with the Palestinian flag and the text next to it saying Gaza. nableezy - 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with infoboxes

Future Perfect at Sunrise believes that Infoboxes must burn in Hell

Now I know I've said this before but infoboxes suck. And this shows us why. A line in the 'box or, worse, a little picture, can't say anything that is even slightly complex. Indeed, it obscures everything that we try to explain in the article.

The belligerents line only speaks to readers who are too lazy to read the first bloody paragraph. I would suggest that we remove it and I hope that other editors would consider the suggestion even if it upsets some MOS. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I might consider, but only after you reveal what a MOS is. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style. WP:MOS and a whole lot of other specific pages (like WP:MILHISTMOS). nableezy - 14:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, most readers are lazy... but i'm a conformist and will go with the flow... i even argue about the flags used for the sake of a good dispute, not because i truly care...--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would like that summer would not end. Ever. Still we have to handle winter from time to time. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your metaphor. I live in Canada where it is always summer. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are great. Unfortunately, many readers of wikipedia only look at the lead and this info (sorry, but it is society's dirty little secret when obtaining information) The problem isn't infoboxes, it is the weight that it carries. We need to use caution when adding/removing/wording info found there. It is safe to bet that at least some readers have felt the same way if an established editor has a concern. Be use prudence, let the facts speak for themselves, and leave any opinions out of editingCptnono (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that the weight of the infobox matters at all is because it doesn't say the same things that the article does. It can't. We couldn't simply write the article to fit in one massive colourful box. The box is a god-damned spreadsheet. Look through all the archives of the talk page. We'll bicker and argue about a stray adverb but then condense 20 paragraphs into four words to fit into the box.

The box forces us to take descriptions from the article and make judgements about what they mean. In every other context that is against the spirit of NPOV. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop crying, your tears might freeze. nableezy - 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the vodka content lowers the freezing point. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using PNA flag

"Middle Kingdom" (中国/中國)

I see the main problem with using the PNA flag ( which is also flag of Palestinian statehood and tightly connected to other Arab national flags ) is that it is factually wrong in context of Gaza war. One of main developments of this war is that Israeli tanks did not roll into streets of Nablus and Ramallah, which are parts of future Palestinian state. Diplomats around the world use this flag to designate PNA if we like it or not. PNA did not take any part in fighting. Is there any reliable source support for "Palestinian nation" as belligerent of this conflict? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

When Hamas has talks with other countries, such as meetings with the Arab League in Cairo, they use the Palestinian flag. This is the flag of Palestine, not the flag of the PNA. This attack was on a portion of what are called the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

see here. Khaled Meshal meeting with Amr Moussa (Sec Gen of the Arab League). You see what flag is behind Meshal right? nableezy - 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course they will use the PNA flag - they see themselves as the legitimate government of the PA. But referring to the conflict in Gaza as if it directly impacted the whole PA is like referring to an attack on Taiwan as an attack on entire China (both PRC and ROC). PluniAlmoni (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article? Where do we say this was an attack on the whole of the PA? We say it was an attack on Gaza. And, again, this is the flag of Palestine, not the Palestinian National Authority. Was the Falklands War an attack on the entire United Kingdom? nableezy - 23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Both examples are not good. Taiwan and China are de facto separate entities with different flags; Falklands are not de facto separate entity but an integral part of UK. Besides, the flag must refer to political entity, not people of a certain nationality. As said, Gaza Strip is de facto separate entity, let's assume as an axiom that its representatives consider traditional Palestinian flag as the only valid for Gaza as well. Actually, this means that Nableezy is right - the belligerent on the left is Israel (however, what does ISA doing there?), the belligerent on the right is Gaza Strip (and not Palestinian Authority). I suggest to terminate the discussion and move on. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is the de facto separate entity, for it claims independence and China objects(on enough compromising ground that countries have chosen sides). China is not being claimed by anyone, let alone Taiwan. According to this revisionary claim, the example could and is an acceptable one. We should move on etc, but we can't deny that Palestine is, and has been at with Israel for quite some time, no matter who we may list as belligerent at this time(or today's flag maybe). I liked Agada's momentum this time, but that "the PNA flag is not the flag of Palestine" just derailed all hope. :P Cryptonio (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether Zhongguo includes Taiwan is not universally agreed upon outside the PRC. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that it really matter but I've to to say that Taiwan does not claim independence. If it tried I'd be editing the article about that war instead of this one. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, China has been very verbose about this(daring them to try). Cryptonio (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle Earth

Hercules: The middle of the earth!
Confucius: Nah ...

East of the middle of the earth, there was couple of groups, countries or other entities which acted in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Unlike the colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive, its formal use does not necessarily imply that the belligerent is an aggressor. If you look how this war started and ended, the actors were Israel with Ehud Olmert and Islamic Resistance Movement with Khaled Meshal as its respectable formal heads. They in their official roles declared war and they ceased acting in hostile manner.
|combatant1= Israel (IDF) + (ISA)
|combatant2= Gaza Strip (Principally Hamas)
|combatant1= Israel
|combatant2= Hamas
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The belligerent isnt going to be listed as Hamas by itself for a number of reasons. Hamas is the government of Gaza and unless you want it to say Kadima/Labor instead of Israel you are not being consistent in your postion. A number of other groups joined Hamas in fighting. Really Agada, we have been through this way too many times, you have been saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over. Please stop. NPOV does not mean treating the Israeli government narrative that this was an attack only on Hamas as gospel truth. It does not mean Hamas gets treated different because certain people in this world do not like them. nableezy - 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally , nableezy, let's avoid "this is like something else" allegories. I assume there is no dispute regarding combatant1: IDF + ISA are just Israel's arms. The head of the combatant1's pyramid was Ehud Olmert, during "in a hostile manner" arm waving. Regarding combatant2 both war start and end declarations firmly attributed to Hamas politburo according to independent sources. The head of the combatant2's pyramid was Khaled Meshal (great photo btw), which moved his arms "in a hostile manner" during the conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agada, would you mind reading WP:IDHT and let me know if you want to keep doing this? nableezy - 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive, like this AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? There was an error in the code causing that not to display on the Arabic wiki, I fixed that error. That isnt disruptive. Keeping this argument alive for no reason is. nableezy - 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And you might want to change that picture. I was expecting an elf or something. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an allegory. RomaC (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

December 19 2008: "... Palestinian resistance factions headed by Hamas will act ..."

January 6, 2009: Khalid Mish'al is the head of the Hamas political bureau: Israel will no doubt wreak untold destruction, death and suffering in Gaza. But it will meet the same fate in Gaza as it did in Lebanon. We will not be broken by siege and bombardment, and will never surrender to occupation.

January 13, 2009: ... at the organisation's headquarters in Damascus, 100km from the territory, Musa Abu Marzouq, the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, told Al Jazeera why he believes his organisation is on the verge of victory against Israel ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

January 18 2009: Exiled Deputy chief of Hamas' politburo Mussa Abu Marzouk announced ... a one-week ceasefire in the Gaza Strip...

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

May 4, 2009: The leader (Khaled Meshal) of the militant Palestinian group Hamas said Monday that its fighters had stopped firing rockets at Israel for now ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agada, aren't you being tired of endless discussions about least significant matters? I've been seeing this going on for months. If anything, then ISA should be removed, and Hamas could be substituted with Al-Qassam brigades. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He does have a point though. It was the Hamas leadership outside Gaza that announced the beginning and end of hostilities. These people have no official position in the Palestinian government, no matter who you think the legitimate government is. If they are the ones who called the shots then it is Hamas as an organization who were the belligerents, not Hamas as the government of Gaza. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Hamas does have an official position in the Palestinian government (majority of the legislative council) and they are the government of Gaza, legitimate or otherwise. Having spokespeople and officials outside of Gaza does not change that. nableezy - 16:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamas has an official position in the Palestinian government but the two are not one and the same. Not everything Hamas does is necessarily in its capacity as the Palestinian government. This is particularly apparent when Khaled Mashaal (who's not exactly a "spokesperson" or just an "official") makes the decisions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a name I haven't seen here for a while. I'd be glad if you stay, NMMNG, and help me with numerous things to be done yet - and believe me this is not one of them. Gaza Strip is a de facto separate political entity, whose leadership claim to be the legal representatives of NPA, the flag of Gaza thus is the same tricolor. Note that Hamas flag is attached to the leaders there and I think it is a fair compromise. Now Nableezy, for the sake of reciprocality, Israeli chain of command should start with PM too. It means we can do without Eisenberg. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think "commanders" is meant to be used as it is, it should be the military commanders not the political leaders. So I think the Israeli side is correct and the Gaza side is incorrect. But to make it equal we could either make them both wrong or both right. nableezy - 18:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite, Sceptic, but to be honest I don't have the time or inclination to spend hours of my life arguing minute points in what is a notoriously unreliable section of a semi-reliable encyclopedia. Since every little change requires endless back and forth between the two sides, IMO only someone with the tenacity of a dedicated activist can really influence what the article looks like. Unfortunately I'm not one of those. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, thank you for articulating the point: Hamas and Gaza government is not the same thing. Legitimacy of Hamas controlled Gaza government is irrelevant to this discussion. Here how independent sources describe the events: Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Gaza-based Hamas administration ... In a speech, he called Hamas's ceasefire decision "wise and responsible".. Ismail Haniyeh as PM is speaking on behalf of Gaza government, Abu Ubaida (in the same source), speaking on behalf of Hamas's Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades. Both officials' quotes are reactions to decision made by higher authorities. So Hamas politburo was decision making head and Gaza government and Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades were policy executing arms during Gaza war. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good quote. The ceasefire decision was made by Hamas, but not the parts of Hamas that are part of the Palestinian government. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Kind of unrelated to Gaza war, Palestinian sources describe elections mechanism of the "Political Bureau" and its role: 27/04/2009 Gaza - Ma'an - Hamas leader Khalid Mash'al has been reelected the leader of the movement's top decision-making body, the Political Bureau, for the third time, a high-ranking Hamas source disclosed on Monday. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to implement the change, after weekend. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A number of people have objected, quickly scanning there is me, RomaC, even Sceptic agrees this should be the flag. nableezy - 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see suggested change above, bellow "Middle earth". I accept your "no flags" compromise. I hope I gathered enough independent sources to support the change. Did not you get No More Mr Nice Guy explanations? I assumed silence is agreement... What still concerns you, nableezy? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did see, the issue that both RomaC and I raised is that you are trying to treat the governments unequally. If you want to be consistent say "Hamas" and "Kadima". At least 3 users have said the belligerent should be Gaza. nableezy - 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And silence can mean that others are tired of responding to the same arguments over and over. nableezy - 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

According to you RomaC would write that Israel is occupied by Gaza in order "to treat the governments equally"? Please address decision making mechanism of combatant2. Did you have time to read the sources? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhh no, that makes no sense. nableezy - 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You say "Hamas and Gaza government is not the same thing." Is there any evidence that there were hostilities with Hamas outside of Gaza? Did Israel attack Damascus in an attempt kill Meshal? I must have missed that. These were Gaza government ministries that were attacked, Gaza infrastructure such police stations. Hamas was not alone fighting here, other groups were involved as well. This was not just a war on Hamas as the Israeli foreign ministry would have us believe, and the fact that Hamas leadership outside of Gaza made statements means nothing. The belligerent was Gaza, the political entity that was engaged in conflict with Israel. nableezy - 02:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic maybe we should change combatant1 to Southern Israel. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not following my logic, so no we should not. nableezy - 04:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is unusual for a government to craft their terms and classifications hoping to win public or international support for attacks that leave civilians dead. Note that President Truman, in his historic radio address 65 years ago described "Little Boy's" target as "Hiroshima, a military base". Not surprisingly the Gaza and Israeli governments both use non-neutral terms to refer to the other side. Agada I think what people are saying here is that Wiki should not get tangled up in this rhetoric. Israel and Gaza are the subjects, avoid contentious political qualifications. Support further identifying involved parties and politicians and fighters and so on in the body of the article. RomaC (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Governments are evil - I feel your pain, RomaC ;) Which of the sources brought was of Israeli government? I fail to see how President Truman position on Hiroshima attack is relevant to this discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about these sources? attack on Gaza, air assault on Gaza? nableezy - 04:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Great sources, both concentrating on Israel's attack in Gaza. Regarding combatant2 belligerent (actor performing hostile activity) first source mention: "Hamas continued to fire rockets", second mention: "Hamas has pressed on with rocket and mortar assaults". So those sources also agree that combatant2 belligerent is Islamic Resistance Movement. Looks consistent also with ceasefire declaration attributed to Hamas politburo by sources brought earlier. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Hamas continued to fire rockets" is the same thing as saying "the Israeli Air Force dropped bombs". It doesnt make the IAF the belligerent. nableezy - 05:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Both sources talk about Israel's assault, Ehud Olmert is being mentioned. I'm not sure what point you tried to demonstrate with those sources. Please stop a second before another allegory and think. Do sources report that IAF declared ceasefire? Hamas politburo declared ceasefire on behalf of Gaza Strip. What do you think was Hamas politburo part in Gaza war events? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"politburo"? any sources for this term? RomaC (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RomaC, sourced pretty well. Sometimes spelled "political bureau". Please read provided multiple sources above and under Middle Earth. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I see it always spelled "political bureau" except in the "Chinaview" site -- why did you use a Soviet term? RomaC (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, politburo is shorter and easier to type than "political bureau" ;) And political model definitely reminds a Soviet one where politburo is decision making body and government is policy executing arm. To the point of discussion what do you think was Hamas political bureau part in Gaza war events? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno maybe it's like 'what was the US oil companies' part in the Iraqi invasion'? type of question, bottom line is the government are the representatives of the people of a particular place, ideally at least. No big fan of Hamas but they were elected and formed the government of Gaza. And as was pointed out before an attack on a government can't not be regarded as an attack on the people/place said government represents. RomaC (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideal world - nice allegory, though usually means nowhere. No argument about Gaza government legitimacy - just note regarding decision making process. Could you address to Gaza PM called Hamas's "political bureau" ceasefire decision "wise and responsible". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The source says 'he called Hamas's ceasefire decision "wise and responsible"'. It means there are others that contribute to military decisions. How that matters to the discussion is beyond me. nableezy - 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is prerogative of belligerent to declare war or ceasefire. Sources attribute ceasefire decision to Hamas "political bureau". Thus Hamas "political bureau" is a belligerent in Gaza war. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully concerns (that are not connected to oil industry or usage of atomic energy) are satisfied. I'm going to implement suggested change based on provided sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How "on earth" are you reading consensus for your proposal? Patience in the face of perseverance does not equal acceptance. RomaC (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I heard carefully to your concerns, I hoped I addressed those and supported my points by independent sources. Consensus is not excuse to reject verifiable facts. If you want to continue this change discussion, let me know if you have any constructive objection. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agada I have no problem discussing. The area above is filled with objections to the change you are proposing. Principally I can't accept selective delinking of government and population, which is what I see in your arguments. Of course, there are places in the body of this article -- and in other articles -- where you might propose inclusion of your distinctions regarding Hamas' structure in theory and practice. RomaC (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. I hate edit wars and prefer to resolve disagreements on talk page instead. What do you mean "delinking of government and population"? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It means using Hamas and not Kadima. And you saying Hamas is the belligerent is not verifiable so please stop saying that it is. nableezy - 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally it is only human to love Symmetry - it gives us imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance. Naturally we need to be neutral and balanced while editing WP. Still we can not ignore reality of Asymmetric warfare. To the point of your argument, you would not find any source describing "Kadima fights against HamasGaza Strip". Moreover if you look for instance at ceasefire decision making process described by sources: Israeli Prime Minister ... announced a unilateral ceasefire. The announcement came shortly after Israeli security cabinet voted in favor of a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza.. So source describe Israel's (government) decision making process leading to ceasefire declaration. From other hand, source which was already brought earlier: ... Musa Abu Marzouq, the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, told Al Jazeera why he believes his organisation is on the verge of victory against Israel .... Please note it is the organisation which fights against Israel, i.e. the organisation is belligerent. That's why the suggested change is based on provided sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are reading meaning in the sources that are just not there. None of those sources say it is Hamas exclusive of Gaza being the belligerent, none of those sources say anything about the other organizations that fought, none of those sources say that Hamas is the belligerent. None of them. That you continue to waste our time talking about this is annoying, that you refuse to recognize that there is a consensus against changing this is disruptive. Please stop. nableezy - 18:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can not agree with you, Nableezy, regarding exclusivity. Sources say that ""... Palestinian resistance factions headed by Hamas will act ...". Clearly though there are multiple Palestinian resistance factions, not only Hamas. And war was stopped by Hamas "political bureau" order. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Really my take on Agada's proposal is not so sophisticated: A war, the IDF represented Israeli, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and others represented Gaza. Israel says their airstrikes and ground invasion were an attack not on Gaza, but rather on a specific group -- so we detail that in the body of the article. The Infobox naturally represents with broader strokes. RomaC (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, RomaC, but belligerent means: "... which acted in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat ( not necessary aggressor )", so what Israel says (it's balanced to say it is all propaganda ;) ) or which target its military attacked during the war has nothing to do with identity of Gaza side belligerent. Both belligerents used all available resources (arms), not only military/intelligence but also diplomatic and media. So claims - look Israel claimed this and that or bombed this and that invalid argument in my eyes. The relevant question is which authority gave Palestinians in Gaza an order to start and stop fighting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Earth to Wikipedia

File:Charon 2.jpg

As Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere gradually freezes and falls to the ground

Is this discussion still going on? I for one cannot believe that our Wiki article still pretends as though Hamas was the only Palestinian belligerent in this war. What about the Popular Resistance Committees (who are not, by the way, part of the Islamic Resistance Movement, which Agada Urbanit is suggesting we write as the sole belligerent). See this link [1]. There are others too. Are we supposed to put up the flags of every tiny organization that participated in the Palestinian defense of Gaza? Or do we just go with the most logical solution, which is the Palestinian flag, the flag of the people of Gaza, the West Bank and beyond, the flag of the Palestinian people (over 1400 of whom were killed in this war), the flag of the government of Gaza and beyond. I say we go with one flag. And we start adding the names of the other belligerents to this article. I tried doing that once, but I don't what happened to the info. Tiamut^talk 16:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I love your passion, Tiamut. "And beyond" rhetoric goes well with "to boldly go where no man has gone before". I personally have no problem with additional and sourced armed groups which joined Hamas Gaza Strip in its fight. Live long and prosper.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AgadaUrbanit, I was inspired by the "Middle Earth" phrasing and funny pics you guys keep posting around here. A special sense of humor, embodied in the comments of editors like Sean Holyland and Sceptic Ashdod, seems to be the norm here.

About the other groups, I'll go about adding some info on them again. Tiamut^talk 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a very high quality soapbox.
Here's a question for you - do the Hamas armed forces take their orders from Ismail Haniyeh and the rest of the de facto government of Gaza, or from Khaled Mashaal and the de facto (and de jure) leadership of Hamas? Nableezy is complaining both sides are not treated equally. Considering they're not the same, that's no surprise. Kadima does not have armed forces independent of the armed forces of Israel, while the armed forces of Hamas do not apparently take their orders from the Palestinian government, lead by Hamas or anyone else in the PNA. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Don't really see the relevance of your question to the topic at hand. Forgive me for ignoring it. Tiamut^talk 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Two sides cannot be treated equally as they are not the same" is neither a logical nor an acceptable argument -- anyway Wiki does approach different subjects equally, that's the whole idea here. Can we please stop this? RomaC (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I can phrase this in a clearer way. If the Hamas armed forces do not take their orders from Ismail Haniyeh who is the Prime Minister of the Palestinian government (de facto) then the Palestinian government is not the belligerent in this war. Whoever commands those forces is. Since we all know it's the leadership of Hamas (and not the Palestinian government) who controls these forces, Hamas as an organization is the belligerent.
This is very relevant to this article, but do feel free to ignore it again.
Also, approaching different subjects equally does not mean that if we say "Hamas" on the Palestinian side we have to say "Kadima" on the Israeli side. I think it was pretty obvious that's what I meant, but I'd be happy to elaborate if that was hard to follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, the Hamas armed forces were not the only belligerents in this war. The Popular Resistance Committees were also involved and they do not take their orders from Hamas. The idea that all of these various Palestinian militant groups are somehow not properly represented by Palestinian flag is a novel one. These groups are an integral part of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination which is represented by the Palestinian flag, universally recognized as the flag of the Palestinian people, if not also their state (or state-to-be, depending on one's perspective). There is no single other flag that is well suited to these purposes. So the Palestinian flag is an obvious and logical choice, despite the protestations of one or two editors that it is not. Tiamut^talk 11:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to interfere, but somehow I'm urged to. The arguments of Tiamut are erroneous, but this is not the point. The point is that, NMMNG, you contradicted yourself. All (or most) the armed forces in Gaza, including Al-Qassam brigades and police, DO take orders from the de-facto Governemt in Gaza. This makes the Gaza Strip political entity a belligerent. Other radical groups who say that they are not subjected to the Government - this is an internal affair of the Strip. Seems like when Gaza Government truly desires to take control - they manage to suppress the motivation of that rogue groups, the close to zero number of rockets and mortars during last 3 months is the evidence. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically that's evidence of correlation rather than causation....since we are already off the point anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The police do. AQB don't. And even if they sometimes did, in this war they didn't, as the fact the de facto government wasn't the body that decided to call a ceasefire proves. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently one evidence can be interpreted in numerous ways, just like many lines could be drawn through single point. But, to return to the issue, I actually hoped the saying that 'all (or most) the armed forces in Gaza, including Al-Qassam brigades and police, DO take orders from the de-facto Governemt in Gaza' would terminate this conversation. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, based on sources report, Sceptic, Gaza government and Al-Qassam brigades took orders from Hamas political bureau, during the war. There is no indication that Gaza ministers or legislators had any discussion/decision making process regarding combat. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And if I find sources that say that politburo took orders from Iran? And the latter - from the Almighty himself? We have to cut that chain of command somewhere. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

With two points (in conventional model) you can draw a single line. With more points thrown on the table if you lucky you might remain with line, but chances are that straight line is not achievable, just a dream. I sympathize with your sarcasm, still being tired and reading sources might be to much: after all some editors are just lazy. NMMNG articulated the point best. Strangely even Nab acknowledged the facts, though denied an importance. Endless loops in conic sections more stable than lines ;) And how do you prove 2+2=4 - the almighty might exists or not, but even Sean knows that the the almighty speaks Geometry and Principia Mathematica. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy did not acknowledge so-called "facts". Try and stay on topic, 90% of the time I have no idea what you are saying. nableezy - 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This what nableezy said ;) And thank you for not taking BYT to Wikipedia:Administrators trip because of grammma removal ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Others contribute does not mean others control. And again I have no idea what you are saying in the second sentence. nableezy - 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about control, but about verified decision making process of broad coalition of Palestinian resistance movements during Gaza War. Read the sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have, and since you keep repeating refuted arguments I dont plan on responding again. Nothing in your sources suggest that Gaza was not the belligerent. Nothing in your sources explain why we should treat the governments of Israel and Gaza in completely different ways. Nothing. nableezy - 21:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, charts

Any concerns with the charts?Cptnono (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Israelis killed by Palestinians in Israel and Palestinians killed by Israelis in Gaza - 2008.png

I also find background chart concerning, though this is my personal opinion:

1. The chart is original research combining two sources of data into one chart. I'm concerned about comparing "oranges" with "apples".

2. The December column is clearly based on massive Israeli air strike assault at beginning of this war. Thus "Background" might not be the best place for it.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I already explained why I consider background chart of dead as misleading from legal point of view. The same is true from the moral perspecive. About 60,000 British civilians were killed by German's bombings of the UK during WWII, while allied air forces' bombing of Dresden resulted in comparable civilian death toll (the numbers vary from 20,000 to 200,000) in the course of 48 hr alone. Does this say anything about who were the good and the bad in WWII? So of course I support removing the chart completely. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted due to who is bad and who is good but that is more than likely why it was used (apologies to assume bad faith). Comparing oranges to apples is something to consider as well. The fact that some sources contradict it are another concern. Removing it.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries with the revert. Any other thoughts on inclusion or removal of this particular chart?Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Legality, morality, good guys, bad guys clearly have nothing to with this. Arguments can't be made on that basis. The graph is just statistical information. It simply shows have many people were killed in 2008. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone were to make a list of the important pieces of information that are required to properly describe the background to Operation Cast Lead then the number of people killed in the year preceeding the operation should feature near the top of that list because it's pertinent background information. Perhaps the graph could be improved, perhaps it's fine as it is, perhaps just using text instead of a graph is enough, I don't know. It's pertinent information though. Removing it seems hasty given that it's been there for a while and the first 98.6% of the data comes btselem.

Sceptic, try interchanging 'person' with 'rocket' in your mind when you look at the graph. It's just data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the data disputed?Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, is the Btselem data being disputed? If not, the chart is about the most neutral presentation we can hope for covering casualties on both sides in the leadup to the Gaza War, it dispassionately illustrates the ratios and the relative lull from summer to December. About the graph's spike in December, corresponding to the initial IDF assaults, perhaps an asterisk noting that the December figures include deaths in the period covered by the Gaza War article itself? RomaC (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to need to present this information in a graph? IN this particular case, if an asterisks is needed does that show that maybe we should be showing this info differently? I really don't mind it but see that two other editors expressed concern. It looks to me to not be needed so I go for removing it instead of fiddling with something that is unnecessary. Does it improve than article more than it harms it?Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

→There is a text description in the last sentences of that section.
"If someone were to make a list of the important pieces of information that are required to properly describe the background to Operation Cast Lead then the number of people killed in the year preceeding the operation should feature near the top of that list because it's pertinent background information" - I am not aware of this. Number of people killed was never a pretext for the operation for the Israeli side. The same is true, I guess, about the rockets, especially if we recall that the rockets date back to 2001. What I am aware of is that people misuse this statistics for their purposes. For example, Amnesty in their annual 2008 report noted that some dozens of rockets hit Israel after Nov. 4, but resulted in no-one killed. People do use this as an argument - they say: "you see, Hamas killed no one, and what do the Israelis do? Kill several hundred!".
Number of rockets launched was, on the other hand, a pretext for the operation and has high encyclopedic value. Both the number and the trend. Too bad there's no such chart in the article. Because this the core of the Israeli narrative - Israel disengaged from Gaza and the rockets attacks intensified; Hamas seized the power in Gaza and the rockets attacks intensified; Hamas refused to renew the lull and the rockets attacks intensified.
To sum it up, I don't say it has no encyclopedic value at all, but it is the least important thing and the text description is sufficient. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, do you know what hemispatial neglect is ? It's an interesting condition. Simple treatments using mirrors are often quite successful over time. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple, but time-consuming I guess, and I don't think others would wait til the completion of the treatment. So in the meantime, tell me again, why exactly do you think the number of people killed in the year preceding the operation is so important (take into consideration that for Israeli side that I think I represent fairly well it isn't)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's important background information, presented in a succinct manner. RomaC (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That I heard, but I asked to explain why. Why do you, Roma, Sean, others, think that chart presenting the number of people killed in the year preceding the operation is important. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Should putting this event into context for the reader involve presenting background information? Is this is a violent event, such that much of the background information would concern aggression and casualties? Does this graph present background casualty information in a neat and neutral manner? RomaC (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can find you a chart that will present in a neat and neutral manner population distribution in Israel. And? I tell you again, I can show easily, that the number of people killed is unimportant for the Israeli side - even if there had been not a single man killed since 2001 by rockets, Israel would still launch military operations to stop the rockets. I ask again, why do you think that chart presenting the number of people killed in the year preceding the operation is important? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, does the chart in question describe preceding? December column says otherwise.... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, reflected on atomic energy. I said it to Cryptonio in the past, but u2: Hands of Karma! I made a research about Nonviolence and Ahimsa, Go Ghandi, colonies should burn in hell! Here is copy paste from Hinduism view on Self-defense, criminal law, and war: The concept of ahimsa as expounded in the scriptures and law books is not meant to imply pacifism; war is seen as a normal part of life and the natural duty of the warriors. In the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Krishna refutes the pacifist ideas of Arjuna and uses various arguments to convince him that he must fight and kill in the impending battle. According to this interpretation of the scriptures, face-to-face combat is highly meritorious and fighters who die in battle go to heaven. The apparent conflict between ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita has often been resolved by resorting to allegorical readings. Such readings are based on Theosophical interpretations and were notably represented by Mahatma Gandhi, who made clear throughout his life and his own commentary on the Gita that it was "an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil." According to some interpretation of Islam, Jihad struggle is a spiritual one against enemy within, in fact Jihad is an integrated part of Nonviolence tradition. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the few charts I have seen that I actually think should be used. We have a number of charts that only show "one side" of the information, such as the rocket chart being discussed below. That chart only shows the wrongs of "one side". This data is all from a single source, not multiple as Agada said at the top, and contains a complete view of the topic it is covering. If that chart were to include any military actions taken against Gaza since the conflict "ended" I wouldn't have a problem with it as it would then be a complete view, which in a conflict like this typically equates to a more NPOV. This chart is just a visual representation of the text of the article (though the text relies on OCHA stats not B'Tselem stats *i think*). Is there something that could be added to the chart that would make it more "NPOV"? How is it comparing "oranges" and "apples"; are Palestinian deaths "oranges" and Israeli deaths "apples" and how should they be treated differently? One thing I do agree with is that we need a chart that has a demarcation at Dec. 27. Besides that I dont see what the fuss is about. nableezy - 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You should be careful with That chart only shows the wrongs of "one side", I might hands of Karma you. Thank you for acknowledging Dec 27 nonsense, maybe we'll remove this chart, till resourceful Sceptic prepares new one? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The concern of not cutting off at Dec 27th is resolved. What else is the issue? nableezy - 02:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The other issue is apparently that the number of people killed in 2008 in this conflict is unimportant as far as this article is concerned. I find it quite difficult to understand and therefore respond to that view so I haven't. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We have the completely useless "remnants of rockets" image and this is unimportant to the background of this conflict? Sceptic, I have been reading your responses here but like Sean I find it somewhat incomprehensible. Misleading from a legal standpoint? How does it make a legal argument? Misleading from a moral standpoint? How does it make a moral statement. It says x number of Palestinians were killed in the were leading up this conflict and y number of Israelis killed. The article itself goes further back than that giving data from OCHA from 2005-2008. If you could explain why feel this is not relevant background I might be able to better understand your argument. And if you could also explain how by whatever standards you are using do you feel that the rockets since is pertinent but this is not. nableezy - 03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you truly had read my posts here, you would have noticed the question I'm asking over and over again, which is ignored. Maybe you can explain, why do you think that chart presenting the number of people killed in the year preceding the operation is important. (About the rockets since, see relevant section). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we both read your posts. Obviously I can't speak for Nab but I personally find it difficult to understand and answer your question. For me it's like being asked why when I see the rear half of a cat sticking out from under the sofa I think there is a whole cat there rather than half a cat. Perhaps we need to find some common ground here because it seems like there is a total communication breakdown. Can you confirm whether you accept all of the following statements ?

• All Israelis and Palestinians belong to the H. sapiens species and are therefore 'people' to an equal extent.
• There are causal links between events in the past, present and future.
• The number of people killed is an important piece of data for events that involve deaths e.g. armed conflict, plane crash, earthquake etc.
• This article is about an armed conflict between people.
• This particular conflict is part of the broader Israel-Palestine conflict which started before Dec27, 2008.
• Events before Dec27, 2008 form what is referred to as the background of the Gaza War.
• The number of people killed is important data throughout the entire period of the Israel-Palestine conflict from it's beginning to the present.
• The background section in this article focuses on 2008.
• For time sequence data (such as deaths, rockets etc) an appropriate way to visualise that data is by using a graph over a time period.
• The chart displays important data covering the period that forms the main focus of the background section.
• The 2 major themes of the background section, '2008 lull' and 'conflict escalates' are clearly visible as changes in the numbers of deaths per month in the chart.

A "No" to any one of these is likely to make future attempts at communication on this issue futile. If that happens perhaps you could try explaining why this data isn't important given that both parties went to all the trouble and expense of killing these people. I assume it was important at the time. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Graph for dead and wounded Gaza conflict.png

Oops on casualties chart, original literal description: "Unclear include the major estimates and the dead which are not known to be either civilian or militant. The militant casualties on the side of the Palestinians cannot be verified." If no one objects - this new chart should be removed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The chart doesn't comply with WP:V in the sense that there's no link to the source data. I'd support removal on that basis. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and done. We cannot make a chart for every source's different casualty numbers. Good thing we have text.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Citing a verifiable source and providing a link to the data would satisfy WP:V. We could, for instance, create a chart that uses information from, and links to, this site or a similarly responsible one. Or we could break down the specific news citations and provide links to them, though I think a single source would be better.BYT (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

B'Tselem couldn't be used, BYT. You see, they describe themselves as a watchgroup of human rights in the occupied territories. Gaza Strip however, according to Israeli officials and definitions used in international law, is not occupied by Israel, so their mandate is inactive. Now seriously, you'll have to use multiple sources, too many perhaps, because there are separate figures, depending who you ask: PCHR, Al-Mezan, IDF, Gaza-based MoH, Hamas. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to find a way to summarize the casualty information visually, using verifiable sources. If that means tracking down more than one link, so be it. BYT (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to since the focus is on text per the guidelines. However, if you can find the sources and make an all encompassing graph then you should try it. I'm skeptical but will reserve any judgment until it is created.Cptnono (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono has stolen the words from my mouth. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath image of rockets after the war

Cptnono, why did you remove the image (I know it was installed poorly and I hoped for some help, but nevertheless)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was being a little rash again and did that without comment here. I did not like the "Since the end..." wording since that is easily outdated, thought it could be broken down into prose (I didn't try myself, though), and have a concern with the way it worked layout wise (size was needed to view it but it also overlapped other sections). I am also leaning towards being against the different graphs after the recent discussions. I like data but there are so many problems source wise. If it looks like it needs to go back in please go ahead.Cptnono (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wording can be easily worked out, layout I hoped someone can help fixing, and in this particular case there's no concern regarding self-research or problem with the data because it was taken directly from Israeli MFA report. I think it illustrates the current cease in the rockets well. What do you say? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have much less of a concern if the image can be adjusted to not say "since" and if it doesn't screw up the layoutCptnono (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look now. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall we add a chart illustrating the amounts of Palestinian and Israel ordnance delivered during the actual event? RomaC (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you'll find such chart in any notable source, and without it you'll have extremely hard time to make it on your own, without breaching the OR policies. But even if you'll obtain such a chart, what point would it illustrate? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Roma, how would a chart comparing the delivery of weapons between the two parties benefit the article? We might as well create a chart comparing suicide bombings in Iraq to the 50,000+ Jdams that have been dropped on Baghdad since the war began in 2003. I would support a chart that enumerates the location of attacks, targeting systems, and general strategy of Hamas/IDF. However, I do not know how this would be created. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think RomaC was just trying a bit of mirror therapy for hemiagnosics. Having said that I think a chart showing the amount of ordinance used each day throughout the war would be a great addition to the article or indeed any article about a conflict if it existed. For comparison, it's much easier to understand what happened in Laos during the Vietnam War when you look at sortie/ordinance charts. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Which reminds me that we can easily obtain the daily chart of rockets on Israel during the war, from MFA report. But the amount of ordnance used by IDF? I don't know how this chart could possibly be created, unless of course you want to go through each daily bulletin issued by ITIC. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To Nableezy - I think the chart illustrates the wording of the aftermath, i.e. current cease in the rockets, see the aftermath section in the article. Do you still have objections or something? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

7300+ words into the article ...

(I counted.) That's how long we take to get to a discussion of casualties. Perhaps it's a complex enough event that that span is inevitable. Yet once we do get there, no headline explicitly guides the reader to a discussion of civilian casualties.

Given that the civilian casualties in Gaza were (and remain) a major global news angle on this story [2], [3], [4], I wonder why we are (perhaps inadvertently) de-emphasizing this topic, and what changes in titles and/or subtitles in this section might be worthy of discussion. BYT (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Civilian casualties is a terrible thing. It is covered in the infobox, lead, casualties subsection, and intl law subsections. Everyone reads an article differently and I read this article as going into exceptional detail on civilians. If we add a "Civilian casualties" section in the "Casualties" section will it help readers looking for the information?Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think so. BYT (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple editors did good worked on the section so they might be some help (not trying to volunteer anyone). If you want to try it might get reverted pretty fast if you add in anything that looks like bias but you could try adding a subsection and breaking down the current prose to see what other editors think. Keep in mind the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle since it is a preferred method by many editors. Hopefully others will chime in before you do so but if you want to go for it you can. Your fresh perspective could be valuable to improving the article.Cptnono (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Again Cptnono said it all. Now I for one most interested in Int-Law section, and I can easily get there via the contents. I sincerely think that the matter of civilian casualties is covered well, and though the concern is clear, but the sources above said nothing new. All that is there is already covered in the article and in the subarticles. If you have anything concrete in your mind - go ahead, we'll examine it. I personally prefer that it would be first tried in the talk page - but then again I can't stop anyone from inserting text directly in the article. Specifically about Al-Fakhoura school incident, there's a mention in the text (see ground invasion) with the redirection to the subarticle, that includes many testimonies by local residents. Worth reading. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My chief concern right now, as I mentioned above, is the fact that headlines do not reference the clearly relevant issue of civilian casualties. BYT (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is something I will disagree with. Try a subseciton within the already included casualties section and it will provide an easy 1-click solution for people looking for the info. We are not here to promote views and the article is already slanted in some people's eyes so adding informaiton to lead the reader to certain conclusions on the circumstances of the civilian casualties will not be acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside for a moment such issues as the direction of the article's "slantedness" -- :) which I am beginning to sense is not a good topic of conversation for this page -- would you support a subsection entitled Civilian casualties? 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally would not support such subsection. You see, the main 'casualties' section provides the raw data of the casualties, differentiated into groups of militants/civilians. According to Palestinian sources, more than 900 civilians, according to Israeli sources less than 300. Next, in the 'disputed figures' subsection there are some ruminations concerning the discrepancies in the numbers. What else do you think is missing (because the numbers and the disputed issues are already there)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptic. I don't see the logic in emphasizing beyond what reliable-references indicate. There is a clear dispute over casualties (civilian and combatants) and the article does a fairly decent job demonstrating this fact. Placing more importance on the "civilian" aspect of death when the subject of civilian casualties are being explicitly debated seems less than appropriate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Wikifan, your I/P topic ban allows you to contribute on I/P Talk pages? Anyway I don't see where the "subject" of civilian casualties is being debated so much as the number/ratio of civilian casualties. Even the Israeli government pegs the Palestinian number at 100 times more than its own civilian casualty figure. The Palestinian sources have it at about 300 times greater. Is this why you consider it inappropriate to have a "civilian casualties" section? RomaC (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No this is not. With this kind of arguments this discussion is pointless. Go ahead, Roma, construct a section. Just bear in mind that, as our fellow Cptnono put it, I am "resourceful" and I think I have all the counterarguments to whatever you'll insert there. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RomaC lives in neutral Switzerland, s/he knows the math, thank you mr Sceptic ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope we are all aware this article shouldn't be shaped according to which side suffered the most. There are many factors in these casualties, and I'd say it is very dishonest to create a comparison that places basic numbers over actual policy. I'm sure if Israel forcibly-located civilians into rocket-zones, prohibit the building of bomb shelters, launch attacks from civilian homes, and not create one of the most advanced civil defense programs on the face of the Earth....many more Jews might have been killed. Maybe I'm thinking out loud here but I just don't like the goal of this section and I can see the reasoning behind it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think out loud. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let them, Wikifan. I'll do my best to make sure that section won't be one sided. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations...etc

I appreciate, greatly, Sceptic's prompt and reasonable response on the issues that have been raised. I think that if it doesn't show how capable and understanding he appears to be, in the very least it shows that he is willing to conform to Wiki policies, and that's the least we could enterprise on these issues...

That said, I want to make sure that I am understood, and by that I mean that I would like to see every statement attributived properly. And for that purpose I ask him to understand that we can't undermine Wiki's vehicle to present views, by presenting reported statements as facts. Wiki does not contribute in that matter. And so, the following "The report did not represent a cross-section of the army, but rather they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members.[117] An Israeli military spokesperson dismissed the testimonies as anonymous hearsay." cannot be posted without proper attribution, even if it's acceptable through the RS medium. Wiki is not judging what the report says(since we assume is from a RS) rather Wiki asks we give credit where credit is due. In other words, we would like to recognize that the JP read the report and it found such findings. It is all we are asking in this matter. The JP found that the report did not represent etc. That is a judgment statement, and must be sourced to the identity that so view the matter in that way(or in this case). Cryptonio (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, attribution in a case like this is vital but I guess it's just an oversight. Phrases like 'The report did not represent a cross-section of the army,' are meaningless anyway because the term cross-section is undefined and JP are not qualified to talk about sampling methods. I also suspect that NGO Monitor (which as usual is where the nonsense starts before it's picked up by JP, NYT etc) wouldn't know what a good sampling methodology was if it came up and hit them over the head with a big book about research methods. Just thought I'd mention that as I haven't had a soapy rant for a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Throughout our discussions I tried on numerous occasions to show nonsense in Amnesty and others, however only Monitor receives all the credit. Do I have to double the soapboxing here? And since when, Sean, do you take words out of context? Of course the first half of the sentence is meaningless, but why did you dismiss the second half? Katz says clearly that they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members. This is definitely not a crossection, whatever scientific definition you can think of.

Now to the original question from Cryptonio. The logic that guides you here is clear. However, I want you to take a look at this: Ayman Mohyeldin, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Gaza, said: ..."The Israeli military is engaging in very aggresive psychological warfare. They have been dropping leaflets warning Palestinians that they have to flee their homes and warning that anyone who lives in area that could be a possible target that their home will be targeted as well.". When asked to attribute the words to Al-Jazeera correspondent, I was overruled by Nableezy - he says that AJ presented it as fact and no attribution to RS is required. So, I think we either adapt a policy of attribution to RS in controversial issues, or we drop it in accordance with wiki policies. As you see, we won't be able to resolve this one without Nableezy yet again. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, Nableezy cannot overrule you or anybody else. I said what I thought based on my readings of WP:NOR WP:RS and WP:V. If there is a disagreement we ask other people. nableezy - 14:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, in this article, attribute everything, including the pro/psy war statement. I apologize if I was in a position to agree with you on that other matter and didn't, but I don't remember when that conversation took place. Cryptonio (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You was not a part to that conversation, Cryptonio, no claim to you. Are you sure we want to attribute everything? I don't think I'd mine that, but this will require broad consent. Nableezy, Sean, are you ready for this? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<- Sceptic, "And since when, Sean, do you take words out of context?"...since I was about 3 years old. It's served me well ever since. As for "they were troops who had approached the group" etc. Yes, it's the same sampling technique the police use to identify victims of crime. They wait for them to contact them. It's quite effective and it's cheaper than phoning people up at random and asking them whether their car has been stolen today. Thanks for the Jpost article by the way. Will read later. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell me Sean, does the police in Thailand act in similar way? I mean, after several dozens of victims called the police, the police rushes to mass media and publishes the allegations all around the globe, implicating that the whole country is a bunch of criminals? --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. They parade people they arrest in front of the TV cameras, often broadcast a 'confession' and their pictures get splashed all over the tabloids usually next to the bloodied corpses of their victims (no mention of the word alledged) and photo's of bikini clad 'pretties' advertising cosmetic products or perhaps a new baby panda etc. I think you're being a bit harsh on Breaking the Wind or whatever they call themselves. Seems like shooting the messenger. An org that encourages woman to report abuse by men isn't implicating all men. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not the case of Breaking the Table. They are not the messenger, but the judge and the jury: "The testimonies prove that the immoral way the war was carried out was due to the systems in place and not the individual soldier," said Mikhael Mankin from "Breaking the Silence." What was proven yesterday is that through the IDF the exception becomes the norm, and this requires a deep and reflective discussion. This is an urgent call to Israel's society and leadership to take a sober look at the foolishness of our policies." Now tell me again, if the police gets a call that says "They say a man across the streat hits his wife", does police or court take this seriously? Because this is the case with this Breaking the Rules' report (just the first random page): "The Israel Defense Forces used Palestinians as human shields during Operation Cast Lead last January despite a 2005 High Court ruling outlawing the practice, a Golani brigade soldier says. He says he did not see Palestinians being used as human shields but was told by his commanders that this occurred...The soldier said he had heard of other instances in which Palestinian civilians were used as human shields. One time, for example, a Palestinian was put at the front of an IDF force with a gun pointed at him from behind. But the soldier said he had not seen this himself". Or take a look at this (one of 2 testimonies about 'human shields'): [http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/testimonies_e.asp?cat=2 "...and they also brought up moral issues that troubled them such as using civilians. He denied this, but I don't believe him when he says he's not aware of this happening on the ground". Nothing concrete here. So maybe the allegations are worth investigating. But even before any probe into it could have started, the mass media publish it and the next morning our encyclopedian article is expanded with well-sourced sentences about IDF misconduct. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I'm not sure what you expect me to say. What I can tell you is that as soon as I read phrases like 'the immoral way' in NGO reports/press releases I stop listening. If your complaint is that Wikipedia articles are too susceptible to the constant back and forth in the media between partisan sources with conflicting agendas then I agree but that's a 2 way street. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of any of this material being in the article but if it is going to be here then we have no choice but to follow the normal policies etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under impression that you do listen to humam rights NGOs (and reject propagandist-like NGOs), but if that's not the case - no more questions, you're excused. Let's go on with the normal policies. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the above exchange went ahead and made you take your word back Sceptic. I thought we had agreed on sourcing this statement. I do apologize for not making the extra effort to understand the previous exchange, but I think the problem brought is still an issue and that we sort of reached an agreement and then without further discussion things change. Cryptonio (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We didn't, Cryptonio. This is what I said: "I think we either adapt a policy of attribution to RS in controversial issues, or we drop it in accordance with wiki policies." - meaning that one rule should apply to this article as a whole. I find it unacceptable that we make an attribution to JPost in this particular case - either we do it to numerous sentences throughout the article simultaneously or we do not do it at all. I also draw your attention to the fact that general wiki policies would not require attribution in this case, as recent recommendation by Nableezy in the talk page of Gilad Shalit article suggests. To sum it up, you'll have to arrange broad consensus on the issue throughout the active editors of the article to adapt this move; if such consensus is reached, I won't obstruct it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very well, but you only brought one other example related to attribution, and I was not opposed to it. You must then, bring up, like I did, the case where attribution is required and we'll then discuss. You say you want to attribute everything, but what is it that you want to attribute? and furthermore, I will be exceedingly surprised if there is another grotesque example of under representation like in this case. I don't know what Nableezy is doing in another page, but in this page, both him and Sean has voiced their support for attribution. For this fact, I will attributed it once again, and ask you to one, read this paragraph once again, and two, bring up any other case that you feel is not attributed properly. Cryptonio (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

→You write "very well" and do the opposite. First, the only sentence from Nableezy in this thread referred to different discussion, he said nothing about this matter. Second, I don't have to read this once again, I already know this section by heart. Third, if anything is grotesque in here, it is the report by Breaking the Silence, as I tried to show to Sean above. You are trying to interfere in the domestic internal Israeli matter - JPost is qualified enough to report on it, no attribution is required according to wiki policies. Fourth, the following sentences could be attributed but they are not: "The Israeli attack was the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians..."; "In war zones, leaflets warned local residents that they had to flee. It also warned residents that their homes would be targeted if they were located in an area of possible target...". Btw, the following sentence doesn't require attribution to the Guardian: "...despite the hundreds of phone calls to families warning their house is about to be blown up, only 37 were destroyed, presumably as of the 3 January The Guardian article date". Fifth, I insist that the changes of the attribution policy would be done only after reaching general consensus, and not only after you agree to this. Then I promise not to obstruct this. To sum it up, ask Nableezy if you don't rely on me. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, perhaps it might help if I explain my position in this. It's about distinguishing between facts and opinions, between neutral and non-neutral sentences and attributing accordingly. I think you are misreading the policies in this case. The WP:V and WP:NPOV policies depend on eachother which is explcitly stated as "They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another".

The following statement (assuming it is true) is a plain and simple factual statement describing what something is. The stuff that encyclopedias are made of.

Statement A - "they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members"

There are few degrees of freedom here, there's pretty much only one choice of what to say. Nothing particularly controversial there.

The following statement is however a statement describing what something is not.

Statement B - "the report did not represent a cross-section of the army,"

There are an infinite number of degrees of freedom here. There are an infinite number of things that something is not so what is it about this particular is not that makes it special and worthy of mention without attribution ?

• Is it a fact ? No, it's 2 opinions. Firstly an opinion about what comprises a 'cross-section' (without actually stating what would qualify as a 'cross-section' in their view) and secondly an opinion that the sample is not a 'cross-section'.
• Who's opinion is it ? Remember that it's actually NGO Monitor's opinion but that connection has been broken in the JPost article because they don't attribute it to the source. An earlier ref did.
• Is the source of this opinion neutral ? Hardly.
• Given that Statement A provides the facts and is sufficient to describe how the sampling was done what is the function of Statement B ? The most obvious answer would seem to be that it's function is to point out a potential weakness in the sampling methodology in JPost/NGO Monitor's opinion. What happens when you add Statement B to Statement A without attribution ? Since A is a neutral fact and B is a non-neutral opinion then B+A = a non-neutral opinion without attribution.

So, given that Statement B is one out of an infinite number of things that the sampling methodology is not, is an opinion rather than a fact, comes from a non-neutral source and when concatenated with statement A renders it no longer a simple statement of fact as far as I'm concerned, I favour attribution. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Sean, I quickly got lost in your explanations. Maybe you could have said it in less abstract form, something like "Monitor-Katz-Sceptic are zionist propaganda triangle". Who told you btw that it was originally Monitors opinion, stated by Katz without attribution? I don't recall this. Anyway, this is merely your speculation and its value is, excuse me, infinitely low. Now if you return here: Talk:Gilad Shalit#Hamas' children show and see the latest post from Nableezy, maybe you'll realize that a sentence that stated as fact by JPost could be said as such, regardless of deliberations about its scientific values, truth, plagiary speculations, your personal views on Katz, etc. etc. Finally, as wrote before - you don't believe me? Ask Nableezy. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Read it again until you understand it because I intend to attribute the sentence on the basis of my argument unless someone convinces me why not. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to answer your question about NGO Monitor. Here's the piece by NGO Monitor in The Guardian [5] criticising the methodology 2 days before the Jpost piece. It's reachable via the response piece from Breaking the Silence [6] (which is our ref 124) also in The Guardian published on the same day as the Jpost piece. Note that the statement from Breaking the Silence in our article is directly attributed to them. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

With all my sympathy to you, Sean - I won't. You are about to do something inconsistent with wiki policies, and all your appeals to common sense are futile. I promise not to obstruct this - but only after general consensus to alter the attribution policy is changed throughout the entire article. Until then I'll revert you, even though I'm least inclined to start edit warring with you or Cryptonio or anyone on this matter. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, all I'm proposing is making the following amendment (or something less clunky) based on the detailed argument I provided.

OLD: "The report did not represent a cross-section of the army, but rather they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members"

NEW: "The Jerusalem Post reported that the report did not represent a cross-section of the army, but rather they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members"

My concern is neutrality and distinguishing between facts and opinions. These concerns arise from core policies so WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and non-specific 'inconsistent with wiki policies' arguments aren't really going to convince me that my assessment of how to apply the core policies in this case are wrong. I've provided a detailed description of why I think attribution is appropriate in this case. If you would like to provide a coherent argument as to why attribution is inappropriate in this case, go ahead, I'm listening. Adding 'The Jerusalem Post reported' is the simple formula that obtained consensus in the Shalit article. It makes it clear to the reader who is making the assessment that the report did not represent a cross-section of the army..etc. A mandatory, non-negotiable aspect of NPOV is that "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". That is entirely dependant on ensuring that points of view are identified as points of view and attributed. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ease of editing break

Sean, I'm tired of this. I stopped counting how many times I said in this thread that JPost wrote this line as a FACT, not as its (or Katz's) opinion. They could have easily established this fact without help from Kosky, published in a far-away comment-is-free Guardian. Our mutual friend Nableezy said that JPost is qualified as RS, and needs no attribution (in Shalit issue, the attribution went to photos obtained, not the newspaper). He also said that Al-Jazeera is RS, and when its correspondent reports controversial news from Gaza, but presents it as fact, no attribution is needed too. So, I won't make this attributions without his consent. And I don't like changing policies without broad consensus on the matter. If others would agree - I won't object. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a nap. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how an inaction from Nableezy act as induction of your point on this case. If Nableezy has not thrown his weight on way or another, it doesn't mean he agrees with you and disagreeing with the rest. Yes, it seems as if I read Nableezy's statement in one way, the opposite way that you are reading him. You have brought a couple of examples that concerns you, very well, go ahead and attribute them, no one has till now express any opposition. You have worked with numbers on these numbers, numbers in relation with votes, and it seems that there is more than just votes in this matter. I'm not thinking too much about your action on this matter, but take a look at the facts and what the people who are actually discussing this subject matter are saying. Cryptonio (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's set things about Nableezy straight to avoid unnecessary speculations. His only sentence in this thread reflected our discussion Talk:Gaza War/Archive 52#Engagement with Israeli forces#Reply to Nableezy there. Nothing more, nothing less. In that discussion I asked to attribute what I consider controversail report of the Al-Jazeera correspondent. Nableezy disagreed, replying that "when a reporter (of RS) makes a statement of fact in a report the publication is making that statement of fact (of RS)", meaning that attribution is not required. I eventually stepped back. So, as you see, it is not true to say that no one expressed opposition to my concerns - he did and it happened less than a month ago. I can't simply wake up one day and decide to nevertheless insert the attribution, it wouldn't be fair towards Nableezy as a person and it would be against general policies of wiki. Now I'm using his argument to oppose your suggestion to attribute what you consider controversail report from JPost. At least you have to admit I'm consistent. I even removed yesterday an unnecessary attribution to the Guardian.
I'm not sure I understood "the numbers" issue, but if you're implying that you are 2 and I am 1 - this is a wrong argument. Wiki is not about numbers and democracy, it's about consensus. You don't have my consent to make this attribution and I think I made very strong case to tell you why.
I am saying this again: as I see it, this matter is not about attributing one specific sentence to JPost and another to Al-Jazeera. This is about general policy enacted for the entire article. To change it from current standard used, you don't have to persuade me - you have to reach the consensus of all the other active editors in this talk page. If all the others would agree to endorse your policy change - I wouldn't obstruct it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well this is just pointless if you don't listen. This ain't about Nableezy. And if he wants to make it about him, i would just follow him around. Crap, listen then, to those who besides Nableezy have said something on this matter. That you prove yourself immune to counter-arguments is something we don't give much credit to. Bring your votes to the table then. I'm in love, I don't care, never have, never will, because I have good luck. And I'm always in love...dude, stand your ground in your neighborhood, when it's time to drop certain things, just drop them. Whatever, I had a good time today. Cryptonio (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very happy for you, stay in love and have more good days. Actually it is you who do not listen - you want to apply stricter attribution policies to one specific case, while I keep telling you that either policy is changed to all controversial cases or remains as it is. You want to change policy? Fine, bring it to the attention of the community. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

hearsay

Thanks, Sean, for drawing my attention to almost forgotten thing. One more sentence could be added, based on this: The soldier says his unit employed a variation of the practice, the so-called "neighbor procedure," when it checked homes for Palestinian militants. He says he did not see Palestinians being used as human shields but was told by his commanders that this occurred...The soldier said he had heard of other instances in which Palestinian civilians were used as human shields; and on this: As for the allegations themselves, they frequently rely upon secondhand evidence and hearsay, according to Kosky (is he a member of Monitor? should be checked out). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oded Na'aman has been a member of Breaking the Silence since 2005; Dan Kosky is the communications director of the research organisation NGO Monitor so of course attributions to both are due. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

4th HRW report, 2 more to come

Yesterday HRW publish another (but not the last) report, this time Hamas Rocket Attacks on Civilians Unlawful. For me the most surprising part is that it took 6 months to issue a report that covers no new ground and largely repeats similar reports and statements; one can only wonder is it coincidence or not, but the publication is just several weeks after the controversial news about HRW raising funds in Saudia using the Israel-condemning report surfaced. Maybe I'll substitute older HRW sources with this one. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

HRW collecting funds from people in Saudi Arabia was discussed in detail here prior to it's move to the subarticle if anyone wants to contribute. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that happens every time somebody releases a report. They tend to say nothing new but everybody gets all worked up anyway. But thanks for the link. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Several secondary sources: AFP, Haaretz, JPost, the last one has this valuable addition, "they pointed out that the International Crisis Group interviewed three Hamas fighters in January who said, "They had often fired rockets in close proximity to homes and from alleys, hoping that nearby civilians would deter Israel from responding." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Several sentences from summary, I find particilarly useful. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"The purpose of the laws of war is not to create parity between parties to a conflict, or to assess their violations in light of their relevant capacities, but to minimize the harm to the civilian population. Violations of the laws of war are not measured in the number of civilian casualties, but whether each side is taking all feasible precautions to minimize civilian loss"

"Since 2001, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have fired thousands of rockets deliberately or indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel...Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have sought to justify the attacks as appropriate reprisals for Israeli military operations and the ongoing blockade against Gaza, and as a lawful response to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. As noted below, international humanitarian law (the “laws of war”) does not support these asserted justifications... such weapons are inherently indiscriminate when directed towards densely populated areas. The absence of Israeli military forces in the areas struck by the rockets, as well as statements from the leaders of Hamas and other armed groups, indicate that many of these attacks are deliberately intended to strike Israeli civilians and civilian structures. Individuals who willfully authorize or carry out deliberate or indiscriminate attacks against civilians are committing war crimes. reprisal attacks that target civilians are prohibited under any circumstances. Even assuming the rocket attacks were intended as reprisals for Israeli attacks that killed and injured civilians, they still are unlawful under the laws of war. The law governing reprisals—defined as otherwise unlawful actions that are considered lawful when used as an enforcement measure in reaction to an adversary’s unlawful acts—does not permit direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilians."

"The rocket attacks have also placed civilians in Gaza at risk. The unpredictable nature of the crude rockets has meant that rockets have struck areas not only inside Israel but also inside Gaza; on December 26 a rocket hit a house in Beit Lahiya, killing two Palestinian girls, ages 5 and 12. In addition, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have frequently violated the laws of war by firing rockets from within populated areas. In doing so, they failed to take all feasible precautions to avoid placing military targets within densely populated areas, such as by removing civilians under their control from the vicinity of military targets, and protecting civilians from the danger resulting from military operations."

But the report stopped short of accusing Hamas militants of war crimes, with officials saying only a court could make that determination...Hamas took responsibility for each of the attacks on its Web site but Hamas spokesman Ismail Ridwan nevertheless denied the charges. "Hamas did not use human shields and did not fire rockets from residential areas. Hamas does not target civilians," Ridwan said. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is useful to stress in this thread that Jerusalem-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, Bill Van Esveld, told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that there was evidence to indicate that war crimes were committed by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who allegedly used civilians as "human shields" during Operation Cast Lead... Van Esveld added that the fact that the rocket launcher was located in the middle of four residential buildings proved intent on the part of those who fired the rockets. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

More on the weapons used

1. Just preceding the ground phase, Haaretz reported that: Hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas. Amnesty stated that If reports of use of cluster munitions in Gaza are correct, it would pose a serious ongoing threat to civilians. However, Dropping cluster bombs before the ground assault is likely to cause casualties among your own footsoldiers, says David Hambling (simple Google search shows that he is notable writer on military issues including this book). 2. Another interesting article by Hambling: Tracking Down Gaza War’s Deadly, Mysterious Cubes. The bottom line: despite Anesty's conclusion that "They appear designed to cause maximum injury", seems like "This type of ultra-precise strike capability is supposed to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties". It is arguable to what extent this indeed happened, but the intent...

And now the question - do we include this and if we do, should it go to Int-Law section - Israel - weapons? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty criticised IDF artillery rounds on Gaza suburbs as indiscriminate attacks. On the other hand, When asked about claims from Amnesty International and other groups that IDF didn't do enough to limit innocent deaths and injuries, Macgregor said, "I don't know how they could have done things any differently. Seven thousand rounds during a three-week war indicates considerable restraint on their part. It would have been much easier to pour 5,000 rounds into a city block in a span of an hour.". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Macgregor was added a few days ago. The shrapnel is interesting because it has been viewed both positively and negatively. How should it go in?Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that you did, and your work is very esteemed, but mine considerations are different. I'm still occupied with Int-Law section. This thread is intended to be a draft for the sake of rewriting weapons subsection there. I'm inclined to add couple of sentences on issues of clusters, shrapnel, DIME, white phosphor. I hope you read that testimony of the weapon's expert for the Goldstone's team. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP

The report describes projectiles filled with white phosphorous that “unfortunately may have landed at the school.” --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian detainees

This piece from Amira can add something yet unexplored in the article: Forty Palestinians from the Gaza Strip were incarcerated in Israel Prison Service facilities during Operation Cast Lead at the beginning of this year, and 21 are still in prison... and so on. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pave way to the 6th HRW report

The JPost news starts from a confession: The statement was made to The JPost by Bill Van Esveld, the Jerusalem-based researcher for HRW, who admitted that there is evidence to indicate that war crimes were committed by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who allegedly used civilians as "human shields" during Operation Cast Lead. Unfortunately, nothing concrete was mentioned. But then comes the twist. It turns out like HRW are about to publish today its 5th report, focusing on alleged killing of 11 Palestinians (most women and children) who were holding white flags by IDF soldiers. NGO Monitor president, prof. Steinberg, immediately recalls that similar allegations following 2nd Lebanon war were, at least, controversial - while Human Rights groups accused IDF of killing persons waving white flag, ITIC provided words of Hezbollah operative who testified about Hezbollah's practice of "flying white flags to prevent IDF attacks". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Can we just create a new article titled Allegations of war crimes in the Gaza War? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's inevitable. There are voices who'd like to spin off the entire Int-Law section in a subarticle. For how long would I be able to resist it? Especially when taking into consideration that I barely started using previous HRW report and Israeli MFA report, the 5th report is on its way and the 6th already announced, and in a couple of weeks Goldstone team would surface again ... --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be a lot worse Sceptic. The Lebanon War was a PR disaster for Israel but the latest Gaza face-off seems to have been mostly forgotten comparatively so outside of the Middle East. I say we should just do the best we can and if need be, make another article. the Int/law section is almost half the article, and is mostly made up of an endless-array of conjecture and violations of X Geneva Convention. It seems logical to move the bulk of this to a separate page or else the integrity of the article's core-subject will ultimately be compromised. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I still argue that Int/law section IS the core subject, but given the rate of its expansion (by me primarily) - it will be inevitable. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

From an outsiders perspective, I'd say so. But internally I think the actual topic of war, i.e - combat strategies, training, procedures, weapon systems, etc...I say is much more pertinent. It's a somewhat misleading to title an article "Gaza War" while pushing content based on the theory that the conflict was simply an endless series of "crimes against humanity" rather than a legal, calculated, and rather mild war compared to most current combat-zones. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

..over the weekend a mild war will be sweeping in from the north bringing hot metallic showers over some areas. bring an umbrella. - the war channel. The intlaw section will have to be split off eventually. It's the wiki way. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it but precedents have been set with the antisemitic incidents/media response/blah blah during the Gaza conflict. The world is obsessed. Meh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

→Here we go. IDF: HRW report on 'white flags' based on unreliable witnesses, Report: IDF killed women and children with white flags in Gaza. The 1st sentence in YNET is particularly catchy: "Following Hamas' harsh criticism, Human Rights Watch issues additional report on Operation Cast Lead that includes severe accusations against Israel: 11 civilians unconnected to fighting killed". I'd like to see more of that harsh criticism.

Here's the full HRW report: Israel: Investigate ‘White Flag' Shootings of Gaza Civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...and of course the name Ab'd Rabbo sounded familiar... for those who do not mind looking into zionist propaganda pages ... --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

for those who do not want to read the zionist propaganda pages, Times could suffice: Most residents of Jebel al-Kashif claim there were no Hamas fighters in the area at the time of the alleged incident, but a middle-aged farmer in a battered army jacket took me aside and said, in a near whisper, that Hamas had been firing rockets from the vicinity of where the episode took place.

what is even more remarkable, is that this is the same Abd Rabbo family who candidly told PA newspaper how they were used by Hamas as human shields: The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress. And also, they were still loyal to the Fatah movement and we recall what did Hamas do to Fatah members under the cover of war. Needless to say none of this is in the HRW report. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are Palestinians reliable witnesses or not ? One moment I read the Jpost stating (director of NGO Monitor) "Steinberg noted that all the organization's reports on Gaza were based on what Palestinians said...". Shocking news I think you'll agree. I rule out Palestinians as reliable witnesses and now this, middle-aged Palestinian farmers in battered army jackets are okay. This whole thing is a lot more complicated than I thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. All I know is "named" sources are hard to trust because Hamas or other "vice-squads" will find you if they see your name in the paper and say something unflattering about the leadership. I guess that's the logic behind keeping info anonymous but then you can't fact-check or confirm sources. So if a real-named Palestinian family says something nasty about the gov, I tend to take it seriously because their livelihood is now in danger. Unless it's just total b.s... Hamas has gotten more ruthless and paranoid after the IDF starting dropping millions of calling cards with intelligence service phone # and emails over Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM nableezy - 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean was ruling out "Palestinians as reliable witnesses" and I was simply expanding on the comment. Anyways, is this 6th HRW going to be absorbed into the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BBC pimps HRW report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should stop that. If people would stop sourcing material from extremist organisations it would help. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NGO monitor is extremist? By virtue of criticizing HRW...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can re-phrase. If people would source material from organisations that achieve low scores when assessed using Laird Wilcox's metrics for the identification of extremist traits it would help. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading your link, do you not see the irony Sean? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that this method is applicable to any organisation if that is what you mean. Obviously the method will fail if the assessment is carried out by an extremist. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. I guess labeling something extremist makes it pretty difficult to argue out of. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ironic isn't it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

→I continue to post relevant info. "In a response to the report, the Israeli military said its soldiers were obligated to avoid harming anyone waving a white flag but that in some cases Hamas militants had used civilians with white flags for cover. In correlation with the statement, the IDF uploaded a video to the internet depicting what it said was a Hamas gunman planting an explosive device and then attempting to take shelter in a home of uninvolved civilians waving white flags during fighting in Gaza". For those who want to see the authentic video, it is published in the IDF site here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

These are the descriptions of the cases from HRW report, Abbed Rabbo case is the 1st. Here is the authentic testimony of the family to the Asharq Al-Awsat. Its Google translation is not very informative, but the help will come. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

this might lead to some useful information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...not something I'd add to this article, but it is definitely useful to the Criticism of Human Rights Watch, along with these nice fellows too. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Monitor provides translation to that Asharq Al-Awsat piece, which is quite consistent to the Google translation. No doubt the family underwent to personal tragedy. But small details of that tragedy differ... --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reconstruction of Gaza

2 weeks ago it was reported that: Israel plans to transfer several hundred tons of cement and other construction materials, including metal pipes, into the Gaza Strip to facilitate reconstruction, providing that "cement will be transferred for use solely in the approved projects and will not be handed over to Hamas". Additional delivery is, though, reconsidered, because according to IDF Southern Command intelligence, cement that was transferred for the renovation of a British War Cemetery in Gaza earlier this month was partially confiscated by Hamas. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Hamas tactics

Not sure if it could be incorporated, but this is interesting: Hamas has been studying its mistakes from Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Israeli officials say Hamas military commanders have recognized that their militants' decision to take off their fatigues and don civilian clothing a few days into the fighting was a mistake. The Islamic group believes the decision damaged morale and was perceived by Gazans as indicative that they had lost control of the territory.

Forgotten and slightly redundant, but still...According to commanders and soldiers, Hamas has built an underground city of tunnels and holes paved with weapons. Many Hamas members have dug tunnels for themselves under their homes and hid weapon caches in them. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another piece, most likely will be ridiculed by my fellows, because it is from PMW: The (Palestinian) Health Ministry stated yesterday that Hamas militias had raided 46 ambulances, donated by Arab states during the recent aggression on the Gaza Strip, of the medical equipment that they contained... and used them as military vehicles to arrest civilians, after painting (the ambulances) black. Claimed to be from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 20, 2009. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why ridicule it? It's sourced to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is sourced to pmw saying it is from al-Hayat al-Jadida. nableezy - 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Your point? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

that it isnt sourced to al-Hayat al-Jadida and that it is sourced to an unreliable source (pmw) so should not go in the article, unless a reliable source says something about it. nableezy - 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. If I understood what I like to call the Finklestein Trick or the Pappe Maneuver correctly, we can add something along the lines of "PMW says Al-Hayat said that...". Isn't that how you usually get the words of obvious partisans into an article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Partisanship is not the issue, Norman Finkelstein and Illan Pappe are both historians recognized as reliable sources, but a few overly loud editors object to encyclopedia pages containing historians rather than CAMERA crap in articles, so we directly attribute things to them. PMW is an unreliable source. Pappe and Finkelstein are reliable sources. nableezy - 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's permissible to use self-published material by an expert in the field. Since we're talking about a translation from Arabic here, PMW seems to qualify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you, Nableezy, really wanted to be helpful, you could have made a search in Arabic. I'm not insisting, I'm not even asking, I'm only saying if. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetically, just for interest, if a search of all reasonably neutral, high quality international RS failed to produce any hits for information like this how would that impact on a) an assessment of whether the proposed source is suitable and b) whether the information is notable enough for inclusion ? Shouldn't we be trying to be a bit systematic here about when things make it into Wikipedia given that it's quality and the degree to which it is used as a battleground are directly related to it's sourcing ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Shrugging my shoulders. I'm guided by 3 simple questions: 1. Is the information well-sourced? 2. Does it come from a reliable or at least notable source? 3. Is it relevant?
Right now, I don't know the answers to all 3 questions, this is why it was put on the talk page first. If Nableezy wants to help, he could do the following - make a search whether this piece was indeed reported by Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, and to establish whether Al-Hayat Al-Jadida is reliable source or not. And now a remark. PMW may not qualify as RS, but it is definitely notable, as could be easily demonstrated, e.g. [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56959 here] and here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually to clarify, my question was really about inclusion criteria for information rather than exclusion criteria for sources. In that sense whether the source is notable isn't relevant. I'm only concerned about the information itself because that's all that matters in the end. If the information itself appears in (preferably multiple) reasonably neutral, high quality RS then we can have confidence that it's both reliable (excluding WMD+Iraq..oops..nobodys perfect) and notable. If it doesn't it should raise a question per WP:REDFLAG. As it says in WP:SPS "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so". Sean.hoyland - talk 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" - the least I know that PMW's report was immediately picked-up by righ-wing neo-con call-it-whatever-you-will e-magazines (Right Side News, Frontpage Magazine). It is possible that more than one original Arabic-language sources exist. Anyway, it would be much easier to reach any decision here if any Arab-speaking editor would provide help, because right now I do not know whether Al-Hayat Al-Jadida is "reasonably neutral, high quality RS" (wiki says that it is an official daily newspaper of the Palestinian National Authority, so I guess it is, but I'm simply not familiar with it yet) and whether similar stories werre reported in other Arab-language media. (just to give you an example, Maariv is the 2nd-read daily newspaper in Israel, but its electronic version has no English edition. yet it is still high-quality newspaper, and it is conceivable that some interview with some notable public figure was provided exclusively to Maariv and was not reported by others) --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of Gaza War

Further information: 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire

(the dissolution section)

Since the cease fire ended in November 2008 but wasn't official till December 18, shouldn't the Gaza War battle box say the war began on November 4 when the Israelis launched their attack on the border tunnel. Resulting in 6 dead Hamas terrorists. It was then the terrorists began launching rockets at Israel again, leading to the December 27 air and artillery campaign and then the January 3 groung assault. I will now change the date to beginning on November 4 2008 instead of December 27 2008. Why do you refer to the 6 murdered Hamas members as the terrorists when Israel initiated the attack and the murders? The Israelis are the terrorists. Regarding the widely talked about home made "rocket attacks", not one Israeli died in any of those "attacks" in the entire preceding year. On the other hand, Israel murdered many Palestinians including a family of eight spending a day at the the beach.

Use sources to make any changes. Everything points to the kick off being the start of the Israeli military operation. Terrorist should also always be used with an eye on WP:Terrorist. Please also edit in a neutral fashion as much as possible. Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)