Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 63

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

Please see previous discussions. I hope User:Bjmullan does not mind my disambiguation of his edit. Warm regards. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The HRW letter was in response to the Goldstone report and it belongs in that section. Taking random quotes that a user likes and throwing them in the article is not how we do things. If a secondary source reports the quotes put them in, but just deciding which quotes to include from a primary source is OR. The letter focuses on establishing an independent review of actions during the conflict, not on which quote was the most inflammatory. Next, the Haaretz article can go in, but not the way Agada put it in. I rephrased that info. nableezy - 21:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Letter to Prime Minister Haniya. Human Rights Watch, OCTOBER 20, 2009 discusses also background of the conflict, like year 2006. HRW repeats the Hamas its own quotes in open letter to Prime Minister Haniya, as if he is not aware of it, probably following Wikipedia assume good faith principle, so probably those quotes are important. You are welcome to use this source also in Goldstone report discussion. Warm regards, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to include the Lieberman quote on drowning Palestinians in the Dead Sea and offering to supply the buses to take them there? We dont need these quotes, this is not a collection of the worst things either side said. nableezy - 20:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I suggest to open a new topic, if you talk about another change. Respectfully, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Its the same thing, we dont cherry-pick quotes like this. The meaning is expressed in the text and the international law stuff is in that section. Stop trying to force in these quotes. nableezy - 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem to use this also in international law. Still see my previous response, the fact that Sarah Leah Whitson wrote a personal letter to Ismail Haniya and quotes essentially himself to himself means something. I think you misread the source, this was not an isolated statement and Human Rights Watch opinion can not be thought as biased towards Israel. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what the letter is, you dont need to explain it. And please dont distort what I said. These quotes add nothing to the background section of the article, various government ministers on both sides made inflammatory comments prior to the conflict. Your attempt to compile all the ones from one side and place them in as relevant background does not make it relevant background. HRW said that Hamas officials have made statement that show an intent to target civilians. We dont need to list each of those statements, just as we dont need to list every time a Shas or Yisrael Beiteinu minister says something like threatening to drop a nuclear bomb on the Palestinians. nableezy - 22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant that you misread the source because you remove

a. HRW reference to other similar statements

b. the quote itself

c. intent to target civilians

without any rational: 1 2 3. Mentioned points are core issues of the discussed document. Currently this info is missing from the background. Those are important to the background, though I did not suggest we need to list each of those statements. For some reason you also orphan the phrase from its ref probably it's also kind of cherry ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agada this quote, does it in your opinion summarize the HRW letter? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@RomaC No, it's just an answer to nableezy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

While this change was reviewed by number of editors, the diff was published and editors expressed their opinion, I welcome additional community involvement. I hope nableezy could provide rational for continuous removal of points a. b. and c. from discussed phrasing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont see where anybody agreed with putting this in the article, and I have repeatedly explained why I removed it. You refusing to either argue against the point made or accepting the point does not mean the point has not been made. Would you care to explain why you have repeatedly put in the same mangled sentences with the same quotes? nableezy - 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, please re-read that discussion, your claim is wrong: number of editors reviewed the change, while it was edit warred. You also misread the Haaretz source: air strikes ere part of an effort to produce lower civilian casualty rates... Really, how?. You also removed refs from both phrases, probably by mistake (we all as humans do err from time to time). But that is out of point of this discussion. I assume your good faith, you're welcome to discuss again and again and again, what ever time it takes. Your involvement is generally welcome. I hope while initially you took part in the warring 1, though not in discussion, the fact that we're having this discussion probably means that now it is only a question of phrasing. I have no problem with you raising the issue again, though you need to explain your continuous reverts, sorry. I specifically asked and you did not explain why points a. b. and c. are forced out of this article by you. Sincerely, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So any input? Do you believe a. b. and c. are properly sourced? If yes, what is the reason for continuous removal of those points and the ref supporting the phrasing? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to express a lot of gratitude to nableezy and RomaC for continues effort for decorating my talk page. You should not have dudes, really. Still, it's nice, this is what WP:WIKILOVE is about! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are so welcome, maybe I bring colored fonts next time? Agada, how is this: We have, now in the article, a bit about new Gazan rockets putting 800,000 Israelis within strike range. It is sourced. There are also plenty of sources that say the Gaza Strip was targeted, and there are plenty of sources that talk about the blockade and restrictions on border crossing. Therefore, consider "800,000 Israelis were within strike range of Gazan rockets and could evacuate, whereas 1,500,000 Gazans were within range of Israeli mortars, bombs, etc., but were prevented from leaving the strike zone..." Now, this also can be sourced. But it does not belong because it would be an edit crafted to present a certain point of view, ie., that the Israeli military were shooting fish in a barrel. So, sourcing alone is not always the issue. If you wanted to include the Vilnai or Lieberman quotes to illustrate a callous disregard for human dignity/life in the pre-conflict rhetoric on both sides, then propose that and you may find support. In any case, it is best if you please try to bring a neutral editing approach to this article and others in the I-P topic area. RomaC (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@RomaC, it's funny, I've discussed automatic signature coloring with nableezy - way above my league. Your comment left me confused, are we talking about soccer match between Ismail Haniya and Avigdor Lieberman and prospects of either side winning? Some of the points you have mentioned are already present in the article, some are interesting to consider and I doubt you could satisfy WP:V on others. This reminds me soviet era joke: Stalin and Truman are arguing whether there is more freedom in the USSR or in the USA. Truman: "In the USA, anybody can shout "Down with Truman!" in front of the White House." Stalin: "Anybody can shout "Down with Truman!" in Red Square too. That's besides the point, you are welcome to use multi-topic feature of this talk page, and discuss other changes, I'll make an effort to take a part, when I'm not busy with fixing silly (some say femicide) sanctions against Nataly Dawn, so what if she's a blond female - she is as notable part of Pomplamoose as what used to be dark haired and now bold male Jack Conte! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jokes aside and to the point. I disagree with your assessment that Sarah Leah Whitson edit crafted Letter to Prime Minister Haniya. Human Rights Watch, OCTOBER 20, 2009 to present a certain point of view, HRW did not spare criticism from either side, there are numerous phrases in the article, and generally HRW is considered neutral secondary source. I hope you share my view that a. b. and c. are properly sourced, supporting ref tag is kinda WP citing tradition thing. I already explained above why current phrasing misreads the source. Continuous reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Here what relevant WP policy says: When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I did improve upon what you added, but that wasnt enough for you. The article contains the information, if not the quotes you seem to want soooo much to include. nableezy - 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Break

nableezy, you did not have a time to discuss for more than 24 hours, but it required just minutes to revert? Is this your idea of a way to seek dispute resolution? You refuse to discuss content, instead you treat this as if its a personal issue, and it is not. I think you disregard opinions of number of other editors which reviewed the change. The article does not include a.b.c. discussed above that you reverting continuously (technically you are ok though). Are you aware that removal of ref from material is kind of WP:VANDALISM? Respectfully. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I didnt remove the ref and it is not a kind of vandalism. You repeating the same thing over and over does not require me to repeat the same response over and over. See if anybody else agree with you. And you telling others not to edit war is funny. nableezy - 21:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

nableezy. you're right about ref. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agada you are slipping "flee in horror" into the article again, say, how about you make a garage band and write a song called "Flee in Horror"? Because that may have more exposure, otherwise please make an honest attempt when adding a new type of information, to do so neutrally. Israeli officials have done their share of sabre-rattling and issued a number of dramatic/threatening/stupid quotes pre-and post- conflict, not only the Hamas folks say such stuff. This also applies to your Turkish addition. Honestly I think if you simply tried to add content that looked a concept/situation from both sides of this conflict, Israeli and Palestinian, everyone would appreciate that. Oh, and as you are not a native speaker please post proposed edits here first for proofreading I asked you this already... Cheers, RomaC (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: quotes in general, I think the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Quote#When_not_to_use_quotations makes a valid point when it says "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." This seems like a wise approach to me although I may have accidentally not complied with the guideline by quoting the guideline, hard to tell. I agree with Nableezy's point that this shouldn't be about quoting all of the worst things people have said, mainly because people are idiots and we shouldn't encourage them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.irct.org/library/torture-journal/latest-issue.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flayer (talk • contribs) 06:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume your heading was a typo. The findings were

• "Using histology and Raman spectroscopy it was found with a high degree of probability that phosphorus was present, although it was not proven with absolute certainty."
• "The birefringent material is likely to be a phosphorus compound, supported by the clinical observation of very deep and very slowly healing burn wounds."

Not sure how "high degree of probability" became "No evidence" in your section heading. Perhaps you meant 'New' rather than 'No'. Strictly speaking I guess the results remain unconfirmed until it's reproduced and published by another team. Also, as the Independent fact-finding mission of medical experts commissioned by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) (that included these 2 reseachers) states, it's not clear whether it's possible to find definitive evidence of phosphorus in the lab long after the event.

"Due to the long time that had elapsed between the injuries and the arrival of the experts’ team, it was not possible to tie specific observed burns injuries to white phosphorus with the technical resources available to the team. Indeed, it is unclear whether even advanced laboratory techniques can make such a connection at such a late stage since, ideally, identification should be made within hours of exposure."

I've said it before but the PHR report is a high quality source and it's a pity it isn't used more. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are we not using it? From reading portions of it, it is clear that they had 0 objectivity and were exceptionally biased (see the use of "however" regarding not having evidence of DIME... YET! along with the first paragraph of the assessment section asserting that it must have been to terrorize civilians) All the bitching about it aside, it is detailed, well illustrated (I hate to use "well" when talking about pictures of burned kids), and has some credentials. Even I can see the potential for it improving the article even with as much as I have reservations about such sources. I think weight needs to be watched, cherry-picking should be kept in check, and wording needs to be of Wikipedia's standards.

In this case there could be two challenges... Edit 1: FFR did not have evidence Edit 2: FFR did not have evidence but timing may be why. So what would the middle ground be? Some use of it seems better to me than some of the other sources (biased towards either "side")Cptnono (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The catch is that an objectivity assessment requires objectivity. Read the whole thing, who the people were who carried out the research, who paid for it, their methodologies, who wrote the various sections (including the conclusions) and who approved the sections. You might change your mind. It's the most professional report I've read that has come out of this conflict despite the brutal honesty of the personal impressions in the non-scientific bits of the report, hardly a surprising reaction given the combination of medical professionals+a focus on human rights+horrific injuries to civilians. As for DIME, "No clear medical cases were observed by the team that suggested the use of DIME. However ...samples were collected of soil..etc..suspected to be contaminated by unknown weapons, which could be DIME or other types...samples sent for analysis in the UK." That's how scientists write reports. I wish wiki articles were written like that, everything about what is and isn't confirmed is clearly stated and unambiguous. The results will presumably be published in due course by the team just like they were for the phosphorus study. Not sure what you mean by 'FFR did not have evidence'..although I assume you mean PHR. Do you mean evidence of phosphorus burns ? The result was "a high degree of probability that phosphorus was present, although it was not proven with absolute certainty." That's about as good as it gets in science. It's not a report about a side by a side. It's a report by independent academics/medical professionals about evidence of human rights violations against people who were injured which was commissioned jointly by Israeli and Palestinian doctors. Flayer saying no evidence is just funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it is. The O is not next to the EW on most keyboards so I don;t know.

I actually didn't read the whole thing. There was just a few things that jumped out. They have the credentials (I still stand by the whole they have no objectivity thing) so if the complete context is "hey, this is probable" than it should be considered. Their wording is just really really bad and preachy.Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit like Holocaust Deniers who say there are no autopsies available of any of the victims, therefore it's not proven that hydrogen cyanide caused their deaths. Quertzel (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

They're doctors, what do you expect ? They're preachy. Just be grateful that they didn't praise the blockade for reducing the supply of cigarettes or the bombing of the Rafah tunnels for reducing the smuggling into Gaza of motorbikes, a major and worsening cause of death and injury in the Gaza Strip. Actually to clarify, I wasn't really suggesting the full PHR report as a source for this article except perhaps to improve WP:V compliance if necessary here and there or add/replace the odd sentence or 2 somewhere. This article has too much information about pretty much everything already. I was thinking more of related detailed spin off and weapons system specific articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would consider launching rockets too if they took away my cigarettes (my attempt to quit failed miserably). Disclaimer to the feds: That is a joke.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew you were foolish but I didn't know you were a damned fool. Smoking kills. Find another hobby, buddy. And because this is WP I've included a RS [1] Stellarkid (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I know! I feel like such a loser for failing at quitting.

And on topic, we can consider the report as a source I assume. I like it better than some of the other observers (even though they were all involved in its publication)Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My last off topic comment and advice is don't do what I did and move from the Pacific North West to Thailand. I had to go to a fairly obscure (interestingly mostly un-demined) border area in Cambodia on Friday where a 10 pack (non-cloned) carton of Marlboro costs peanuts. That doesn't help at all but nicotine patchs do even just to reduce the volume. Or simply stop trying and move to somewhere like China or Vietnam where smoking is a national sport and smokers like us can blend in and be with our people. Good point about the nicotine withdrawal-conflict perpetuation connection though. I'll stop talking now. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agada, regarding this edit and your edit summary 'Since when Arutz Sheva is an WP:RS? The source was closed by the Israeli government, Kahanism is outlawed as racist'. Is this a problem ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you say. Is Arutz Sheva an WP:RS? In any case it surprisingly is, we could leave those stupid people talk (we should check about Mordechai Eliyahu) and clarify points in the commit log. And agree WP quality sometimes is awful. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying anything, I don't know anything about this. I'm asking a question hoping that you know more than me based on your action/edit summary. If this source is a problem...and I'm assuming you are right, I haven't checked RSN...is it a problem that its used in all of the articles listed here and should we do something about it, notify someone etc ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm only guessing here, Arutz Sheva is not an WP:RS. WP is practically infinite, I'm concentrating on gathering WP:RS talking about Nataly Dawn now. BBC encourage WP biography verboseness. Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do a bit more checking when I get a chance assuming I'm not distracted by something shiny. By way of thanks, if you like Nataly Dawn then I shall recommend some people you may also like e.g. Alela Diane, Mariee Sioux, Laura Gibson and maybe try Joanna Newsom. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about this in the article, which I would say is relevelant. From AlJazeera: Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has blamed Hamas for triggering Israel's deadly raids on Gaza, by not extending a six-month truce with the Jewish state. It goes on to say: "Nour Odeh, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Ramallah, reported that senior figures had supported Abbas in his call on Hamas not to abandon the truce." Also: "Egypt's foreign minister has also blamed Hamas for preventing hundreds of wounded Palestinians from entering Egypt via the Rafah crossing for treatment - the only crossing that does not border Israel." And ""There is a lot of anger toward the helplessness and the realisation that in such dire times, Palestinians have been unable to set aside their political differences." Pardon me if I am wrong, but the article doesn't seem to mention that there were considerable differences of opinion among Palestinians on where to lay the blame for this, Israel or Hamas. The article seems to read as if all Palestinians (and indeed virtually all Arabs) were of one mind as to Israel's singular culpability in this. The unanimity of opinion that is implied in the Gaza War article does not meet the RS test. Stellarkid (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

After being heavily criticized for his statements, Abbas later said that he blamed Israel for the "barbaric and criminal" aggression. (see here). And Egypt did not "blame" Hamas for this, the foreign minister said that this was a predictable result of the ceasefire ending. Mubarak also squarely placed the blame on Israel, saying that he condemns "the Israeli military aggression on the Gaza Strip and blames Israel, as an occupying force, for the victims and the wounded." (see here). nableezy - 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, after he was "heavily criticized" (by whom?) he changed his tune. I think his original statements deserved a place here before he was "heavily criticized." Also, while you say , "Egypt did not "blame" Hamas for "preventing hundreds of wounded Palestinians from entering Egypt via the Rafah crossing," I have a RS that says just that. The fact that they later changed their tune due to internal pressures does not make the original facts disappear. These are important facts that shed some light on Abbas' and Egyptian thinking at the time. They deserve a place in the article, and we can add that later they "totally condemned Israel" due to heavy political pressure. Stellarkid (talk)

Egypt did not "later" change its "tune", some sources did not report the FM's complete statements. And it was not "heavy political pressure" on either side. And all this is covered in International reaction to the Gaza War. nableezy - 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your words were (were you quoting from your AlJazeera article?) "After being heavily criticized for his statements, Abbas later said..." FYI to be "heavily criticized" is to apply "heavy political pressure." "Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has blamed Hamas for triggering Israel's deadly raids on Gaza, by not extending a six-month truce with the Jewish state" and he was joined in this assessment by some senior officers. This is important information for readers and should be in the article. It is certainly valid to say that he changed his mind later after as you say he was "heavily criticised." As to the next part ("Egypt's foreign minister has also blamed Hamas for preventing hundreds of wounded Palestinians from entering Egypt via the Rafah crossing for treatment - the only crossing that does not border Israel."')What you said in response to that was: " And Egypt did not "blame" Hamas for this, the foreign minister said that this was a predictable result of the ceasefire ending," yet my source says that in fact the foreign minister did in fact "blame Hamas". You went on to say that Mubarak "also squarely placed the blame on Israel..." but your use of "also" is incorrect here. Stellarkid (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Criticize" does not equal "political pressure". And, again, you take one part of what somebody said and present a distorted view of what they really said. And blaming Hamas for restricting access to the Rafah crossing (and it was largely Egypt that was to blame for this) is not the same as blaming Hamas for the deaths and destruction. And, again, this is already covered in International reaction to the Gaza War. nableezy - 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Israeli troops clashed with Palestinian militants for the first time since the war on 29 March 2010. The fighting broke out when Israeli troops opened fire on Palestinian militants planting explosives along the Israel-Gaza border. Four Palestinian militants and two Israeli soldiers were killed, and another two Israeli soldiers were wounded. Israeli troops backed by tanks, helicopter gunships, and mortars battled Palestinian militants in a sparsely populated area near Khan Yunis. Militants responded with mortar fire.^[1] The militants are believed to be members of the groups Jaljalat, Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine. Islamic Jihad officials claimed that the attack was intended to kidnap a soldier.^[2]

I have moved this to talk as I am not quite clear that this article is the best place for this info. Unomi (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This section should not be in this article but I'm also not sure where it should go. Bjmullan (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think merging into this article is a bad idea. It is already to long to navigate and aspects like WP and Intl law have received heavy amounts of weight before (enough to get split off). If there are certain things that are not clear then by all means improve the section. However, if it is detailed analysis on Intl Law it should go in that section. If it is a list of incidents then the incidents article might be fine.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article is too long already, and there is no reason to not maintain the separate WP article. Unomi (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above. Bjmullan (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't say this, as it does in the 2nd paragraph:

• "On 19 December 2008 a fragile six-month Israel-Hamas temporary truce was set to expire. Israel's violation of the ceasefire[my bolds] on November 4,^[3] triggered sporadic violent clashes along the Israeli-Gaza border until December 27."

The statement of the "Special Raporteur of Human Rights for the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967" is simply not an objective source. It is equivalent of saying a report made up by a Special Reporter for Israel says that Hamas violated the ceasefire. In fact the article doesn't even use the term "violation" but "serious disruption." But this is a majorly biased source. Please remove it and replace it with a reliable and neutral source or reword the paragraph. It does not belong in the lead as written. I will give the Palestinian "side" here an opportunity to rework it before I remove or rework it myself as inappropriate as it stands. Stellarkid (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that there are serious sources indicating anything other than Israel did indeed violate the ceasefire agreement. Unomi (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a handful?Cptnono (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are asking, do you think there is serious doubt whether entering central Gaza and firing on a building constitutes a violation of the ceasefire?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1034307

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1037571.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/31/cnr.07.html

http://www.goldstone-report.org/background/ceasfire/83

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/06/content_10313506.htm

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/gazaoneyearon/2009/12/200912269262432432.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/31/israelandthepalestinians-middleeast2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/17/world/fg-mideast17

http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=14031

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=89480&sectionid=351020202

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AD1CB20081114

Unomi (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of ones personal opinion of the UN, the Special Raporteur is a perfectly fine source. This is not "for Palestine" in the way you are implying, this is a UN position that reports to the UN the human rights situation in the occupied territories. nableezy - 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

First, concerning your sources. I have not looked at every one but I would just ask you to find a couple of RS that actually state outright that Israel violated the ceasefire first. It is not up to us to make the determination based on WP:OR as you are suggesting. With respect to the Special Raporteur it is indeed "for Palestine" in the way I am saying. It is an advocate for the Palestinians and they are reporting to the Human Rights Commission. Read it for yourself here STATEMENT OF SPECIAL RAPORTEUR FOR THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES OCCUPIED SINCE 1967 FOR PRESENTATION TO THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ON THE SITUATION IN THE GAZA STRIP, 9 JANUARY 2009

that's what they call it. It was a prepared (and totally biased) statement by an advocate for the Palestinians to a special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. If you read the Wiki entry on that council you will note the following paragraph:

According to human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism.[3] UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council's president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have criticized the council for disproportionate focus on Israel.[4][5][6][7] The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position it during the Obama administration.[8]

The "Special Raporteur" and the "Human Rights Council" both are noted for their bias. The Special Raporteur is not unbiased in its report. You only need to read it to see that. It does not belong in the lead. Stellarkid (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont use Wikipedia as a source. And random opinion is not going to make me think that a UN Special Raporteur is not a reliable source for basic facts. And Unomi provided other sources. nableezy - 16:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

An opinion in support of a source's reliability is as "random" as an opinion critical of a source's reliability. If anything, the latter opinion which was supplemented by a rationale should be less "random" then the former opinion, not supplemented by a rationale. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just ask you to find a couple of RS that actually state outright that Israel violated the ceasefire first.

Israel Defense Forces troops yesterday killed a Hamas gunman and wounded two others in the first armed clash in the Gaza Strip since a cease-fire was declared there in June.

The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy - not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/31/cnr.07.html "The six-month ceasefire started coming apart at the beginning of November after Israeli commandos killed a team of Hamas fighters during a raid on a tunnel they suspected was being dug for kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. That raid set off more Palestinian rocketing." That's "U.S. News and World Report." I got another one for you, I believe, here. OK, this is "The Guardian" -- questionable, but nonetheless. "A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today" -- this was actually reported when it happened -- "after Israeli troops killed six gunmen in a raid in the territory." That's important to report. And here we go, as well, from the Economist.com, and the point of contention here is this one. Johnny, one more. "The last straw came in November, when Israelis killed six gunmen it said were digging tunnels to launch a raid onto Israel, spurring Hamas to respond with a barrage of rockets."

That is from Haaretz and CNN. Unomi (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I don't mean to be picky, but I read it differently. The IDF went into the territory to deal with a tunnel situation. They were "confronted" by militants who apparently opened fire on them wounding an Israeli. The Israelis then fired back and killed a militant. Then Hamas started rocketing Israel, and Israel fired at the rocketeers, killing five more. I am not sure the cease-fire meant that Israel did not reserve the right to go in and knock down tunnels going into their territory, but for me the question would be who resorted to violence against the other side first. If I recall aright, Hamas was calling for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers at the time. So I would ask if Israel had the right to deal with tunnels and Hamas had the right to call for kidnapping soldiers under the truce? The only one of your articles that specifically refers to the tunnel issue is the one that says: The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy - not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground. I don't disagree that it is important to report, but it is the direct accusation that I am not sure is reported anywhere as an Israeli- first violation of the truce. Stellarkid (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that sequence of events?

Here is what PCHR says

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 8:30pm on Tuesday, 4 November, an IOF infantry unit moved almost 400 meters into Wadi al-Salqa village, east of Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip. IOF troops raided a house belonging to Mofeed Suleiman al-Rumaili. They held the family hostage in one room, and used the house as a military base. Additional IOF troops besieged a house belonging to Hassan Suleiman al-Humiadi, using a megaphone to order the 23 residents to leave the building. Clashes subsequently erupted between the IOF troops and members of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades (the armed wing of Hamas). Three members of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades were injured, one of them seriously. IOF subsequently sent reinforcements into the area, supported by aircrafts. At approximately 10:30pm, an IOF aircraft fired a missile at members of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades, killing Mazen Nazmi Abu Sada (32). In the early hours of Wednesday, 5 November, IOF destroyed al-Humaidi's house, razed 2.5 dunams (a dunam is the equivalent of 1,000 square meters) of agricultural land, and also arrested six members of the family, including four women.

Now this is unrelated to any indirect fire attacks by hamas. That came here:

In Khan Yunis, at approximately midnight on Wednesday, 5 November, an IOF aircraft fired two missiles at four members of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades in the east of al-Qarara village, near the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel. The four members of the Brigades were killed

Please also note that the terms of the truce were specifically that Israel would halt all military incursions into Gaza. One could try to argue that a known tunnel would present a clear and present danger to unsuspecting soldiers, I am not sure how though as they were clearly aware of its existence. One could also argue that they were unable to simply cause the tunnel to cave in without having to wander 400 meters into gaza to do so, but probably not successfully.

Regardless, I agree that the UN report meets RS and if it really is an issue for you then I suggest you raise it at RS/N. Unomi (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Then there is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7709603.stm

The fighting broke out on Tuesday evening as Israeli tanks and a bulldozer moved 250m into the central part of the coastal enclave, backed by military aircraft, says the BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Ramallah. Residents of central Gaza's el-Bureij refugee camp said a missile fired from an unmanned Israeli drone flying over the area injured another three Hamas gunmen.

Unomi (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that editors should commit themselves to throughly studying the sources and discuss changes on the talk page first. Unomi (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This source [2](given above) supports the storyline as I gave it above. Consider this article from Fox News July 4, 2008 just two weeks into the truce /0,4670,IsraelPalestinians,00.html Israel crossings with the Gaza Strip were closed Friday in retaliation for Palestinian rocket fire that has violated a rocky truce as Gaza's Islamic Hamas rulers responded by suspending talks on freeing a long-held Israeli soldier. Please explain how we can say that Israel was first to violate the truce on Nov 4, when I have provided a RS that says Hamas violated it on July 04? Furthermore I cannot see any neutral source that actually says what we say it says. If you are going to make the claim that Israel violated the truce first and you are going to put this in the lead, I don't think it unreasonable to ask that you actually have a reliable AND a neutral source that says just that. I don't accept that PCHR is any more neutral than the IDF or Israel government. Also, the UN report is not a UN report, it is a report by a rep of Palestine to the Human Rights Council. Be that as it may, other sources that demonstrate clearly that Israel was not first to break the truce include JulyJuly AugustAugust And in this [3] undeniable violation of the ceasefire by Israel in October, Israel said "the airstrikes were in response to continued cross-border attacks." So clearly the idea that Israel was first to break the ceasefire in November is just nonsense, and may account for why we have no RS & neutral sources willing to unequivocally make that claim. (I will ignore your suggestion that I did not read the sources or discuss first, since neither are true) Stellarkid (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The preponderance of sources indicate that the ceasefire meltdown was precipitated by the November 4th events. Yes, both sides had broken the terms previously but apparently neither side felt it necessary to press the matter. That changed when the IDF went in with tanks, bulldozers, drones and jets. It is clear that you have not thoroughly studied available sources if this is not apparent to you. My plea was not meant to cause friction, it was a plaintive suggestion on how we can reduce it going forwards. Please also note that as of my last edit to the article it does not contain the language 'violated the ceasefire'. Unomi (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I have thoroughly studied the sources as this is not the first time I have edited this article. Further I was fully aware of what was going on at the time. Now with respect to your edit, I have no problem with it. (except there is a technical problem with the refs) I would just add that between the initiation of the "fragile cease-fire" and November 4, there was plenty of action, infringements on both sides, as well as some major disagreements between Fatah and Hamas. It is a matter of perspective as to what in that time frame might be relevant to that article, if anything. Stellarkid (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the majority of that is best handled on our article on the ceasefire itself. Unomi (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The ceasefire had nothing to do with Fatah, it was negotiated with Hamas through Egypt. I dont know why you would bring up Fatah when talking about the ceasefire except to show you have not thoroughly read the literature. nableezy - 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. Here's a link to a little of the literature. Please avail yourself of it: [ http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=hamas+rocket+fatah&as_ldate=2008/06&as_hdate=2008/06&scoring=n&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&nav_num=20] This is just for June, the first cease-fire month. Stellarkid (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And what pray tell is that link to a google search, that fine academic resource, tell us about the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas? How are "major disagreements" between Fatah and Hamas relevant to the ceasefire? nableezy - 04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be really nice if this tag could be removed. In recent weeks there hasn't been any major edit wars and I was thinking that maybe we could consider removing this and getting this article in shape. Maybe I'm just a dreamer...."I have a dream...". So what IF any are the objections? Bjmullan (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am working on the article now trying to provide some balance, starting obviously with the lead. So far it sounds a lot like a condemnation of Israel and an apologetic for Hamas (sometimes conflated into "the Palestinian people"). It would be nice enough if the tag were gone, but it would be wise to allow some folks from the other side of the conflict provide some context that they feel is important to work a balance in the article. When it is written in an objective and fair way, the tag will surely be removed. I put one of my concerns above, but I have rewritten the para to what would be objective or acceptable to me, but who knows what tomorrow may bring, when someone notes the changes and reverts them? The tag isn't pretty, but it is the truth. Stellarkid (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The tag provides important context for the reader at this point in the article's development. As of right now the Intro/lead is volatile (I just changed a line in the first paragraph). The tag should stay.Kinetochore (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, I wonder if you could explain what you mean by 'balance'? Is it not possible that there was one party in this conflict that was more culpable than the other? (and therefore it would be impossible to make the article seem 'balanced' without playing fast and loose with the evidence that we have). This asymmetric culpability seems to be underlined by the UN's Goldstone Report. There were Palestinian militant groups that committed attrocities, for sure, and this is covered in the article, but ultimately Israel was responsible for the greater destruction, greater loss of life and apparently also graver breaches of international law. So, when you say 'balance', do you mean NPOV (as WP policy demands)? or perhaps more of a mainstream media style "nobody's right, nobody's wrong, bad things just happen"? 82.0.66.100 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The source this is taken from says the following:

Moreover, Hamas literature and speeches treat ceasefires with Israel as the equivalent of a Hudna, or temporary ceasefire that gives Moslems time to recover and build-up their power. It is striking that during the fighting in Gaza in January 2009, Nizar Rayyan, the Hamas military commander, stated that; "The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel. Israel is impossibility. It is an offense against God.

Rayyan does not in any way call this conflict "the final battle", he is saying that any hudna is temporary to prepare for the final battle. Agada, please remove this quote from the lead, he is not talking about this conflict. And the "offense against God" is not saying what you seem to think: Rayyan is saying the existence of Israel is an offense against God. I have no idea why you phrase this line said the armed struggle with Israel is "the final battle" with "offense against God". That sentence makes no sense, and there is no reason why this should be the second sentence of the article. Could you please stop forcing in changes to the lead? nableezy - 01:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just wrong to have this at the top of the article because there is no indication it is an official statement or that it even relates to the Gaza War, can editors please stop trying to force it into the article without consensus? Please? RomaC (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both hurry. It's nice to see a will to work toward consensus. Let me disagree, it is important to bring Hamas view on their role in fighting with Israel. Per WP:LEAD opening paragraph should disambiguate the topic and establish the context in which the topic is being considered. RS and the quote content itself firmly put the phrase in Gaza War context, so please explain your doubts. RS also reflect on Hamas Covenant, in context of Gaza War, RomaC, if you want more official paper, IMHO its more generic but along the same lines though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You havent addressed any of the issues. I reverted you because the sentence is both unintelligible and flat out wrong. Rayyan did not say that this was the "final battle" with "offense against God". I already explained that above. nableezy - 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not personal, you have not reverted me, you reverted sourced material. I agree with your reading of the hudna as temporary to prepare to resolve the issue of Israel's existence. RS put the Hamas leader quote in clear context - Gaza War - during the fighting in Gaza in January 2009, RS tells us which "not 50 years" hudna and "final battle" the leader talks about. It is important to bring Hamas view on their role in fighting with Israel. nableezy, how would you reflect the source, given the need to reflect Hamas view on their role? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a users interpretation of a source that was wholly inaccurate. And Rayyan was not talking about this conflict when he said "final battle" so I would not include that line at all in the article as he was not talking about the topic of this article. nableezy - 22:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Which battle he talked about, during the fighting in Gaza in January 2009? Could you clarify? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He said this during the conflict, but he did not say this about the conflict. nableezy - 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Which battle he talked about? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A future battle after a hudna. nableezy - 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been inline with you so far regarding the meaning of the leader's words, but this claim comes as a surprise for me. The leader said we don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves..., so a possibility of future traditional 50-years hudna is not discussed. How do you know the leader talks about a future battle after a hudna, which information in the source indicates it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The source itself. The source is discussing ceasefires that have either taken place or will take place in the future. This quote specifically is referring to an often discussed 50 year hudna. Cordesman uses this quote to demonstrate what he says is what Hamas thinks of these planned ceasefires. That they are temporary in nature and that their primary purpose is to allow them to build strength. Rayyan is saying that any future hudna is only a temporary measure to build strength for a "final battle" with Israel. He does not say that this is it. I dont think I can explain this in a clearer way, there is nothing in the source that comes anywhere close to even implying that Rayyan was discussing this conflict. nableezy - 23:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

-> OK, you are hopeful in your interpretation, but so be it. I'll try to rephrase the Hamas view on their role according to your clarifications. Fell free to improve. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please dont add these things to the lead without any discussion. There have been repeated additions of inappropriate commentary or irrelevant information. The lead has been carefully crafted through many hours of work from many editors, please try to discuss major changes to the article. nableezy - 23:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

break

Per WP:LEAD opening paragraph should disambiguate the topic and establish the context in which the topic is being considered. RS and the quote content itself firmly put the phrase in Gaza War context, so please explain your doubts. I hope we will not descend into Big Bang theories though. Let's just say the leader said this during the Gaza War. Along your clarifications:

Hamas leader said during the fighting in Gaza in January 2009 that existence of Israel is an offense against God; truces/hudnas with Israel are temporary measure to build strength for the "final battle".^[4]

nableezy, how would you reflect the source, given the need to reflect Hamas view on their role? Feel free to improve. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This wouldnt belong in the lead, maybe the part on any hudna being temporary could go in the ceasefire section, but I dont think it belongs. But it definitely does not belong in the lead. nableezy - 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD opening paragraph should disambiguate the topic and establish the context in which the topic is being considered. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And how would this do that? nableezy - 02:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See above, it is important to bring Hamas view on their role in fighting with Israel. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesnt give us Hamas' "view on their role in fighting with Israel" and what you wrote does not answer how this line would disambiguate the topic and establish the context in which the topic is being considered. nableezy - 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand disambiguate the topic and establish the context in which the topic is being considered quite literally in straight forward fashion. The RS says the leaders words are striking, i.e. defining the topic. The proposed phrasing reflect the RS, does not it? After all it is based on your reading of the source which I also share. What does it give us, in your opinion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Striking does not mean defining the topic. The quote gives us Rayyan's view on the the legitimacy of Israel's existence and the purpose of a hudna. But that does not "establish the context" of this topic nor does it disambiguate this topic. nableezy - 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

-> The source includes the phrase in their "leading section" in Going to War chapter, The Impact of Hamas‘s Seizure of Gaza sub-chapter. It's important to seek consensus, yet we can not agree on everything. The question does the proposed phrasing reflect the RS? The content is written in accordance with WP:LEAD. We need to care of the common good and not edit recklessly but this discussion is stalled and goes in circles. Feel free to improve. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This does not belong in the lead, it is not summarizing anything in the text and does not provide any "disambiguation" or "context" for the topic. nableezy - 20:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We discuss this for some time and I don't mind, we together found some phrasing that we both could agree. I can not accept your "it is not" approach, you need to say what it is. The phrasing is discussed for about 24 hours now, feel free to improve. This addition is according to WP:LEAD, natural flow and inline with Israel definition. Your opposition to include Hamas view on their role in Gaza War is against WP:NPOV, we need to bring positions of both sides. Again and again feel free to improve on proposed phrasing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This quote does not give us "Hamas view on their role in Gaza War" and I already explained that multiple times. nableezy - 21:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Again we can not agree on everything. I kinda agree with RS. Maybe its worth on your part to propose different phrasing altogether. We need to balance Israel's definition. Please don't be disruptive and non-productive and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion. Consider your freedom to improve. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring warning: any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, you are edit-warring this material in against consensus. Please stop. Tiamut^talk 22:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And we had something on the Palestinian perspective that this is war against the Palestinian people. Did you remove it? Or someone else? In any case I added it to the body of the article. When someone decides to really respect NPOV, it can be readded to the introduction perhaps. Tiamut^talk 22:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This kind of lucky of you to jump by, Tiamut, just as nableezy reverts. Excellent timing. Interesting insight on phrasing. I've already discussed with nableezy and User:RomaC fun world of recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. Welcome to discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody recruited anybody, stop saying such silly things. nableezy - 19:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

-> Please see here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

-> Hope I do not abuse Edit warring forum appealing for the second time AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew that I'd be drawn back into this some day. Oh well. I have to agree that Agada is reading too much into the quote. Or I should say Cordesman is. I recognize that quote from the original context. It comes from a piece that Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in the Atlantic after Rayyan's death, "Nizar Rayyan of Hamas on God's Hatred of Jews".[4] The quote is from his interview with Rayyan which Goldberg says occured two years before the Gaza War and was a response to a question he'd asked about the hudna proposals that have floated around:

"There was no flexibility with Rayyan. This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: "The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel.' There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. 'Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God." --JGGardiner (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey JGGardiner. Sorry to see you sliding down into this article black hole. It's just about gravity ;) Nothing secret or special in this quote though its words still contain some info. Thank you for investing your time in locating this new original of Cordesman source reflection. How would you reflect Hamas POV on fighting with Israel and does such info belong to lede ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

With that I think this definitely does not belong in the article at all. nableezy - 19:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think little issue of reflecting Hamas view on their role in fighting Israel still remains. Specifically Hamas POV on Israel's existance and what should be done with it. Refusal of unlimited in time ceasefire is just a by-product. That's how I read the leader's quote. If you think Nableezy paraphrase on direct leader quote is inappropriate, indeed this leader might not representing the "mainstream" view. I can understand that. So does such info belong to lede? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This quote does not reflect "Hamas view on their role in fighting Israel", and Rayyan's views on the legitimacy of the existence of Israel has nothing to do with this article. nableezy - 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what this discussion is about. What is the objective here ? I'm not sure I understand what "<Belligerent X>'s view on their role in fighting <belligerent Y>" means. It is like Israel's view on their role in fighting Hamas was to stop rocket attacks ? Hamas' view on their role in fighting Israel was to <whatever they said it was, end the blockade, IDF incursions or whatever> ? Is this about putting the stated reasons for the conflict in the lead ? That should be easy shouldn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess if one considers the blockade and Hamas fighting as cause and effect, one probably feels inconsistency in targeting communities in Sinai and Negev. Hmmm, that pesky Occam's razor. The source already used as ref in this article mentions in introduction sections, Hamas Covenant defining the belligerent strategy and implications on Gaza War. This is what WP:LEAD#Opening_paragraph is about. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the application of Occam's razor would result in the exclusion of this kind of indirectly related material and encourage the use of material that directly explains matters in the simplest way possible e.g. Hamas' own statements about why they did what they did in this specific instance. For example, Israel said that they took action to stop the rocket attacks. That's it. Applying Occam's razor precludes considering the validity or consistency of that statement with respect to the consequences of the actions because it's unnecessary. The statement itself is simply reported as Israel's explanation for their actions in this instance. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, we need to take into consideration secondary sources reflection on primary sources direct quotes. For instance see Israel and "we don't use WP" and Hamas and "we target military bases". Sometimes we need to emphasize the inconsistency of words and deeds. We should talk about Hamas' goal and strategy, I'm not sure why you say those are irrelevant, there is a reflection in secondary sources and we need to include it per WP:LEAD#Opening_paragraph. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My only concern really is that the framing is appropriate for the article's scope i.e. the secondary sources are specifically about this conflict and statements in the sources are specifically about this conflict e.g. Hamas'/Israel's goals and strategies in this conflict. For example, if we find ourselves regarding the migrations of Homo genus from Africa as pertinent to this conflict we have probably gone wrong somewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, my concern is Fudge factor, basic facts should be mentioned per WP:LEAD#Opening_paragraph. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead, she is big and fat. The second paragraph contains a whooping 356 words, could run several pages in a nice whitespacey handbook. Way to go second graph! All those who think the lead is what it should be (WP:lead), raise their hands. Nobody? Look:

The Gaza War was a three-week military conflict that took place in the Gaza Strip during the winter of 2008–2009. It was dubbed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎ Mivtza Oferet Yetzuka) and defined as a military operation against Hamas by the Israeli government.[14] The conflict has been called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab world.[15] It was referred to as the War in the South in Israeli media coverage while the Arab world's Al Jazeera titled it a war on Gaza.[16][17] On 19 December 2008 a fragile six-month Israel-Hamas temporary truce was set to expire. On November 4th, Israel sent tanks and bulldozers[18] into Gaza for the purpose of destroying a tunnel 250 meters from the Gaza Strip barrier[19] stating that it presented an abduction hazard[20]. This incursion left 6 Palestinian fighters dead and 4 Israeli soldiers wounded [21] and triggered sporadic violent clashes along the Israeli-Gaza border until December 27. Israel stepped up of the blockade of Gaza, which had been in place since the Battle of Gaza (2007).[22] On 18 December, with a surge in cross-border fighting, Hamas stated of the ceasefire, "It will not be renewed as long as there is no real Israeli commitment to all of its conditions".[23][24] Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns resumed with Israel allowing in humanitarian aid after an eight-day closure.[25][26] On December 25, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni gave "stern warnings" to Hamas, saying that Israel "cannot tolerate" Palestinian militants targeting Israeli citizens. In an interview with the Arab television, Olmert said "I will not hesitate to use Israel's might to strike Hamas and [Islamic] Jihad. I say to you in a last-minute call, stop it." [27] On 27 December Israel began a wave of airstrikes[28] on the Gaza Strip with the stated aim of stopping the rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the territory,[29][30] damaging or destroying tens of thousands of homes,[31] 15 of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 43 of its 110 primary health care facilities,[32] 800 water wells,[33] 186 greenhouses,[34] and nearly all of its 10,000 family farms;[35] leaving 50,000 homeless,[36] 400,000-500,000 without running water,[36][37] one million without electricity,[37] and resulting in acute food shortages.[38] Hamas' armed wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, and the armed wings of other Palestinian factions, intensified rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, reaching major Israeli cities Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time, and hitting civilian targets including a schoolhouse, a kindergarten and private homes.[39][40][41][42] According to HRW, during the Gaza War, rocket attacks placed up to 800,000 Israelis within range of attack.[43] An Israeli ground invasion began on January 3, 2009.

The war ended on January 18, when Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire, followed by Hamas' announcing a one-week ceasefire twelve hours later.[1][2] Israel completed its withdrawal on January 21.[44]

Between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed,[45] and tens of thousands of people were left homeless.[46] In 2009, the United Nations Mine Action Centre reported that a further 12 people have been killed and 27 injured in the Gaza Strip by unexploded ordnance since the ceasefire.[47]

A UN special mission, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, was established to look into the conflict in April 2009. In September, they produced a report entitled, United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. It accused both Palestinian militants and Israeli Defense Forces of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended bringing those responsible to justice.[48] In October 2009, the UN Human Rights Council endorsed the report by 25 votes for, 6 against and 16 abstentions/failures to vote. Going against Goldstone's recommendations however, the Council singled out Israeli actions for reprimand, without any mention of Hamas actions.[49]

I have bolded the parts I think could be deleted, condensed, or moved into the body of the article. (Of course some transitions and so on would have to be reworked) Comments? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Unomi (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think it is fine. Would be nice to think that one day this article was at GA standard. FA standard is just pie in the sky. BTW 4 paras only for the lead. Bjmullan (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don;t mind the changes except for the alternate names. If Massacre receives prominence then the terms used more often deserve at least as much. Of course, we could remove all of them but that might go against LEAD.Cptnono (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the terms "War in the South" and "War on Gaza" add something required in the lead? What? In one week no other objections to the edits suggested above would like to do a rewrite as suggested, for brevity etc., but not have it all reverted -- thoughts? RomaC (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They fulfill WP:LEAD by offering something about the media section. More importantly (to me anyways) Google News Archive searches show them being used more often than Gaza massacre. Gaza massacre will again have too much prominence. We finally have that settled down so don't open up another can of worms on it unless we need another month of back and forth. Furthermore, they are vastly different. War on Gaza shows that Al Jazeera was implying that it was a war on civilians (I tried adding that since the Palestinian people thing was removed).Cptnono (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I can live with those terms, but would like to bring the lead overall into compliance with the guideline you cite. It's too damned long, no? She fat, she fat she fat... RomaC (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well do everything else without removing the names then?Cptnono (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok done. The proposed lead-fix edit has been above for four weeks, instituting the changes sensitive to the concerns raised. RomaC (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The White phosphorous section of the conflict reads like a timeline of 'big bad's Israel's outrageous WP coverup'. Completely unprofessional. Whole section can be summarized as follows: Israel first denied but later admitted to using WP. Kinetochore (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Times is considered a professional media outlet. They document the issue together with a detailed timeline in their article here which is used as a source in this article. Summarizing it as 'Israel first denied but later admitted to using WP.' would be inconsistent with the extensive coverage it received in reliable sources. That coverage dealt with the timeline, the effects on people and property and the legality issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Israel first denied but later admitted to using WP" is a great summary. The effects should also be presented in a summary style here. The proposal to move more in seemed ridiculous to me but there is nothing wrong with a second paragraph saying why NGOs were concerned and why the IDF felt justified.Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kinetochore, regarding this edit, with the summary 'White phosphorus: removed intro to section. Speculations are not facts. Also not sourced.' You are removing material sourced to the Times article I linked to above. Perhaps you should self revert and people can work out changes on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright Sean, lets discuss my problem with the following sentences: "On Jan 5th the Times reported that telltale smoke associated with white phosphorous had been seen in areas of a shelling. On Jan 12 it was reported that more than 50 phosphorus burns victims were in Nasser Hospital." First sentence reads like a tabloid, with no attribution of who saw, how they knew, what is this 'telltale sign', etc. Essentially it says "some people said that they saw the mysterious telltale sign of wp smoke". Not appropriate as is. Second sentence is absolutely not verifiable. No proof that burns were WP burns. Just speculation and opinion according to some doctors. If you want to include, you must report as the sources do, that the burns were 'thought' to be wp burns, according to the observations of some doctor. Kinetochore (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just read the article you sourced. Times does report the burns as wp in that article, but in other articles it does not directly say that, instead attributing that claim to a doctor. (i.e. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5497338.ece)Kinetochore (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So Kinetochore where did you come from? Seems like a single article account with it's own POV to me.Bjmullan (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

@Bjmullan: Thanks for your input, much appreciated! If only more WP editors were as pleasant as yourself. Warm regards. Kinetochore (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter Kinetochore. Bjmullan (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What was unprofessional was Israel's continual denial of the use of WP and I think that it should be covered in more detail than your edit has done. Bjmullan (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better to strike that. It's your opinion about the real world, it's not policy based and it's the kind of comment that can result in firefights. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

All forumyness aside, that is part of it. Although Wikipeida cannot ridicule the PR blunder, we can make a mention if sources show there was a good amount of criticism of the late admission after denying it. More than one line would be piling it on but one could be useful. It already is coming across like a rap sheet so a straight forward line would be better than several lines dancing around the issue.Cptnono (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)speaking of forums SeanHolyland, I felt like a nonsmoker at the Cambodian bar here in town. Just wow.

<- Kinetochore, it's seems you removed sourced material apparently without reading it...bad idea especially on this article. I don't have a problem with attribution but do we normally attribute things reported by RS to doctors say when Israelis are injured by Palestinian weapons or when there's a train crash etc ? This Times article from April, long after the end of the war provides a useful summary which includes links to all of the pertinent articles.

Timetable of allegations and rebuttals

January 5 The Times reports tell-tale smoke above Gaza. An Israeli military official says: “We categorically deny the use of white phosphorus.”

January 8 The Times runs pictures of white phosphorus shells stockpiles. Major Avital Leibovich, a military spokesman, says: “This is what we call a quiet shell - it has no explosives and no white phosphorus. It is not for killing people.”

January 12 The Times finds more than 50 phosphorus burns victims in hospital

January 14 Gabi Ashkenazi, Israel Defence Forces Chief of Staff, says: “The IDF acts only in accordance with international law and does not use white phosphorus .”

January 16 UN Relief and Works Agency HQ hit with phosphorus munitions

January 21 Major Leibovich admits use of white phosphorus “according to international law”. Major- General Amir Eshel, the army's head of strategic planning, says: “It is the most non-lethal kind of weapon. I don't see any issue with that.”

January 23 Israel launches investigation into white phosphorus munitions: “Some practices could be illegal. The IDF is holding an investigation concerning one specific unit and one incident.”

April 22 Israeli military official tells The Times that a “media buzz” led to the order to stop using white phosphorus shells

I think the timetable basically contains the pieces of information we need to summarise in this section (and details we don't need). The entire section doesn't need to be long, it's not a complicated topic and the legal issues should go in the legal section.

Cptnono, there's a Cambodian bar ? Hopefully they have lots of one legged people working there to make it more authentic....hmmm, no, that was bad. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

@Sean - I had not read that particular times article, before, as I said above - the sentences were not cited with a link to that particular article. I may rewrite the sentences a bit, while still conserving content from the source.Kinetochore (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Such small summary can't also be made SO neutral. Cryptonio (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agada made this change. Understand a Thai was killed, and "people of Israel" humanizes those reported to be at risk, but the Thai's death came a year after the conflict that is the subject of this article. Actually a Ukrainian died from an Israeli attack during the conflict, do we go through the article and change "Palestinians" to "people of Gaza/Palestine"? Agada, it can be a problem when editors only change the wording/treatment for one "side" -- can I remind editors the article is under sanctions so if you want to go in change things do so with a neutral approach. Editing to advance a one-sided POV effect may reflect a conflict of interest, see that guideline. Reverted for discussion. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This may have some relevance. Unomi (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, initial phrasing was just "people", later changed to "Israelis" by someone else. My edit was not fueled by any particular news break, there are repeating reports of Thai nationals get hurt by rockets thorough out the conflict, you could search for ref in the archives of this talk page. There are also reports of people in Gaza hurt by rockets in this article, from other hand. The source mentions "indiscriminate", id cards / borders are not required. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Gaza War is subject to Wiki special sanctions, and editors are specifically advised to "be neutral when editing," it would seem that if we want to include that 800,000 people in Israel were at risk from attack, we should include the corresponding Gazan vulnerability figure. This NPR article says there was "no safe zone for civilians in Gaza". So something like that. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if you want to add something. But we already have the Gaza figure. It is in that densley populated bit that was much discussed. Although I think that the article repeatedly makes pretty clear that the Israeli attacks occurred across the entire territory. We even have an image that is just a map of the damaged areas. The last sentence in the air strikes section already says there was no safe place for civilians but I wouldn't mind if you wanted to swap that for your NPR source.

I'd also note that we a 700,000 Israelis figure in the Effects section but 800 elsewhere. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is total bullcrap. Cryptonio (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the term 'This' in the sentence is ambiguous leading to a Liar paradox. I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find the decency to say something else, in this sentence. Cryptonio (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are we categorizing militants and police officers in the same category in the infobox? It is clear from the article that there are two diverging perspectives on this, one which regards them as combatants and the other as civilians.

I'm not saying that they should be classified as civilians. But they should be listed separately from both civilians and militants.Bless sins (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support classifying separately. Also the infobox "result section" wraps with original research (On low intensity the conflict continued, but the number of rockets being fired from Gaza reduced drastically) suggest removal of that. RomaC (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I highly favour the infobox to include "Israeli military victory". Israel achieved their goals, as they brought most of the rocket attacks to a halt, and successfully occupied big parts of the Gazastrip. When the ceasefire was signed, Israel controlled big parts of the strip, which indicates that Hamas had been tactically defeated as they failed to take back the land before a cease-fire was signed. Any opinion? With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't have a source from what I have seen. It is obvious that the IDF went in and smashed them up (hence "massacre") but they did not pull the trigger on the third phase which would the media assumes would have been even more devastating. One source (the weapons comparison one if anyone recalls the title) said something to the extent that comparing the two militarily was laughable. However, Hamas and dude in Syria declared "victory" (note that scare quotes are used in the majority of sources as well) for not being completely dismantled. I assume a source will be available some day but I have not seen anything spelling it out. Then again, common sense might apply.Cptnono (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Our opinions about the real world don't matter. Article content has to comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources, not withstanding, Israel likely did achieve "tactical victory". Strategically its debatable.Bless sins (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with sins. Israel military is satisfied with the results of the conflict. Primary objective of course was to halt rocket and mortar attacks. Rocket fire has mostly stopped, but Hamas promises to "resume hostilities" eventually. From the Hamas perspective, the conflict has silently been admitted as a tactical failure. Israel's intelligence gathering and cooperation with rivaling Gaza factions enabled the IDF to destroy most of the long-range rockets before the ground invasion began. If I remember Hamas said Gaza was going to be filled with Israeli blood or something like that. The "terrorist" (disputed, naturally) infrastructure of Gaza was targeted for destruction as that was seen as a crucial foundation in allowing Hamas to continue rocket fire. The operation destroyed most of the launchers and major tunnels, but as of December 2009 Hamas has regained all its losses and acquired even longer-range and more powerful rockets. Politically, the conflict was a major propaganda win for Hamas. But within Gaza support for Hamas has waned. I wouldn't object to saying "Hamas political victory" as that isn't disputed on either side. But tactically, they made zero gains and received a fraction of the post-war support Hezbollah received from Iran after 2nd Lebanon. I support the idea of updating the status box to make it more consistent with similar conflicts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But we would propably need more support before we take the first step.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The infobox should include Israeli tactical and strategic victory and Hamas political and propaganda victory.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Hamas claims victory isn't really a compelling argument against labeling Israel as the winner. Lots of losers of wars claim that they won the war and this propaganda is perpetuated for decades to come. Take for example Egypt in the Yom Kippur War. Another example, though not parallel, is the Soviet Union. I don't know what is taught today in Russia, but at least during the time of the Soviet Union children were taught in school that the Soviet Union won WWII. I'm not suggesting that they lost, obviously... but is it fair to say that they won WWII just because they claim they did? Breein1007 (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

<- Anymore opinions about the real world and I will delete the section per WP:TALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Now we are 5 users who agree that this was a tactical and/or strategic Israeli victory. Is there anyone who can provide some counter-arguments?--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean: This is not about personal opinions, this is about who won a war.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if that is our opinion or not. I believe the IDF was wildly successful. Even without implementing the third stage (we will never know how that would have worked politically) they lost a fraction of the troops seen in Lebanon and killed the enemy at a staggering ratio. However, no sources that I have seen say "Israel was victorious" militarily, strategically, politically, or whateveraly. Until someone provides that source this is a nonstarter. Without sources this is pointless. Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well, these two were earlier used in this article, but for some reason they got removed:

• David Eshel, New Tactics Yield Solid Victory in Gaza, Aviation Week, 11 March 2009, [5]

• Jonathan Spyer, Hamas seeks new doctrine after Gaza War failures, Jerusalem Post, 10 September 2009, [6]

And here is some others;

• Israel's central objective was to prevent Palestinian fighters from using Gaza as a launch-pad for rocket attacks on its southern cities. With the onset of a ceasefire, the missiles have stopped landing. [7]

• Victorious, but vilified: Israel has 'destroyed its image and its soul' [8]

• Gaza militant: Hamas stopping rocket fire into Israel - Hamas is forcing other Gaza Palestinian factions to guarantee they do not launch rockets or mortar bombs at Israel [9]

Five sources, from different points of view. Is that good enough?

--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Avaiation Week is inline 150. Speaks highly and mentions victory in the headline. Something like this is good.
• That Jpost link is not working. My settup or did you copy paste wrong?
• "In military terms, Hamas certainly did not win this conflict. Whether Israel was the victor, however, will only become clear in the months ahead."
• Headline says it but body makes sure to say it is a claim "...while it declares victory on the battlefield, the country's reputation has rarely sunk so low."
• Haaretz does not say it (unless I missed it) and combining it with other sources is SYNTH.Cptnono (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's strange, because Jpost works perfectly on my computer.
• I posted that one because it tells that Hamas lost. However, when the article was written it was still to early to say of Israel had won or not.
• The article represent the side which opposed against Israel's actions. The stability of the article requires both points of view to be included.
• Haaretz tells that Hamas has stopped their daily rocket attacks. This was Israel's purpose with the war, so therefore it should be considered an operative victory.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Aviation Week one is good and I am not totally against "military victory" if other people are cool with it. Do you have a quote for the Jpost one? Not that I don't trust you. I am just wondering what it says and it is just redirecting to the main page for whatever reason for me. The only trouble I foresee is the whole Hamas declaring it as a victory since they held out. I don't know how to address that in the infobox. Maybe just laying it out simply: Result:Israeli military victory. Reduced rocket attacks into Israel. Hamas declared a "great victory" with the operation left unconcluded.

A couple interesting reads but not sure if it helps: [10][11] Cptnono (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw that I posted the wrong Jpost link. It's fixed now. Here is the article: http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=154525 --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That source would be great for other aspects of the conflict as well. Failure to destroy armor, the amount of different types of attacks, criticism from sponsors, 50 bomb makers taken out, and the mention of 19 battles are all things that could go in. I always get stoked when sources come up that actually discuss the fighting instead of allegations of misconduct.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

However, do you support the edit proposal?--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of on board with "military victory". I still also think a quick explanation might be needed. I guess we'll see though. Make the edit and see what happens.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made the edit. Now I'm waiting for eventual reactions.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tactically-, strategical-, military- and politically victory in war is all crap. Most people don't know the difference, and they who claims to know seams to have their own opinion about it. Such statements in an infobox will contribute to confusion. This armed conflict was some sort of military expedition with unclear motives and goals and not an "ordinary war". The user Mikrobølgeovn have for a long time promoted "Israeli victory" for every war/conflict that this country have participated in.--Ezzex (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To start somewhere: You removed five reliable sources without addressing the issue on the discussion page. You express a simplification policy, and use the argument that you personally have a lack of understanding of the meaning of these words. This is not a particulary good reason to remove such definitions from Wikipedia.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What should be in the infobox? - Disputed or undisputed facts?

• Israeli victory? - Disputed facts
• Numbers of rockets being fired from Gaza reduced drastically? (since when and why?) - Disputed or unsure facts
• unilateral ceasefire by Israel and Hamas? - Undisputed facts
• Large damage in Gaza-strip? - Undisputed facts
• Violence between the two parties have been "drastically" reduced since the ceasefire in January 2009? - Undisputed

Why should disputed or unsure facts be inside the infobox and not undisputed facts ?--Ezzex (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Reduction in rocket attacks is actually clear. Did you read the 5 sources before you deleted them?Cptnono (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep on reverting my edits, even though I referred to five reliable sources? To me, it seems like you have a very firm attitude on this issue. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli victory" definitely should not be in the infobox as a number of sources can be produced showing that this war was a strategic defeat for Israel. The number of rockets being reduced should not be mentioned either, even though it is an "undisputed fact", it was one of the Israeli objectives for this war and should not be highlighted unless we highlight, for example, a Palestinian objective for this war, which was the lifting of the blockade on Gaza, which did not happen. And why selectively highlight only one Israeli objective, when others (such as the destruction of Hamas - a goal not met) are not mentioned?

I agree with Ezzex that it is an undisputed fact that there was a unilateral ceasefire declared by both parties. As for the rest (the reduction in violence by both sides and the destruction in Gaza) I'm not sure they should be mentioned in the infobox. Israel has continued to bomb tunnels in Gaza, kill people at the border, among other things, and some Palestinian factions have continued to launch rockets and mortars. While the massive destruction in Gaza is undisputable, we would have to mention to mild to moderate damage in south Israel to be balanced and I really don't think either is necessary. Perhaps just leaving it at mutual unilateral ceasefire declarations is the best way to go. Tiamut^talk 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable with the inclusion of Israeli victory in the infobox. While it is true in a sense, it is only when one narrowly defines "victory" to mean that bombs hit their targets, more or less, and they had a comfortable kill ratio. Clearly Israel was the winner if one had to pick and a couple of sources do but most do not. That's the problem. If something is unambiguously noted in the infobox, it has to be seen as near universally believed and I don't think that is the case here.

Remember that there is no harm in leaving something out of an infobox. I was reading an old paper encyclopedia the other day and it had no infoboxes at all. My understanding is that people would read that actual text of the articles to find out what they said. But I'd have to ask someone who was around in the 1980s to be sure. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Was the dismantling of Hamas a stated aim or do sources just assume? If the stated aim (reducing rocket attacks) was successful than that should be mentioned. It could also be "Result: Reduction in rocket attacks br Hamas retained power" Cptnono (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it seams that the rocket-attack dropped drastically after Hamas announced a week-long unilateral ceasefire in january. They increased dramatically again in february and decreased again in march-april.--Ezzex (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Every source I see from a quick look says they were reduced and relate it to a victory condition. It appears verifiable that there was a reduction in rocket attacks but Hamas did retain power.Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I never disputed that rocket attacks decreased. My point was that selectively highlighting one of Israel's objectives in this war seems somewhat arbitary and less than NPOV. If people insist on including "Result: Reduction in rocket attacks", I would insist that we add "Continuation of the Israeli blockade of Gaza", and perhaps also "Hamas retains power," and "Massive destruction in Gaza." However, as I said above, I think its best to keep it simple and mention only the mutually declared unilateral ceasefires in the infobox. Per JGGardiner, people can read the article for the rest. Tiamut^talk 21:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said that you disputed the rockets. It was in response to Ezzex.

Sources discussing the victory question layout the rockets, Hamas staying in power, and destruction. Those three things is not too much for the infobox. Continuation of the blockade is not needed though.

Result: 
 Reduction of rocket attacks 
 Retention of power by Hamas 
 Large scale destruction of the Gaza Strip

is inline with the sources, concise, and will assist the reader in the understanding of the subject. "Victory" doesn't even need to be mentioned in that scenario. And keep in mind that everyone reads an article differently. Assisting the reader with the info in the infobox is sueful. This is esecially important with such long prose.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of those belong in the infobox. Retaining power is the most common outcome of a conflict, even when one party is attempting to destroy another. We don't normally note it in the infobox however. And it probably was not an aim of Israel in the conflict as it unfolded although there was speculation at the time that it might be. Damage is also usual in conflicts but isn't normally mentioned in the "status" section. It should be noted but we have that in the lower section where we can get into specifics about houses destroyed and the value etc. The rockets are the only thing we probably don't have much of a precedent for. I actually don't mind Tiamut's idea of saying the blockade continued and rockets were reduced. A lot of articles will have "status quo ante bellum" and that's pretty close to what we have here. Otherwise I'd probably just include the ceasefires like we had before. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Retaining power might be common enough but it happens enough that it is certainly not a default assumption to make. The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are recent examples while WWII was a big deal. And in this conflict, the fact that Hamas stayed in power was why they declared victory. So Hamas staying in power is a big deal as verified in the sources. (sorry to use bold I am all frustrated and stuff)
• True, damage is not. However, this was a "massacre" that cannot be labeled as a "military victory" so the next best option is to simply put in the fact that many look at an assertion of military dominance. This is much like the above where "political vicory" is questionable but an assertion that Hamas did not completely lose or could even claim some sort of victory is easy to do with that sing line.
• The blockade has nothing to do with a victory condition. If we are just talking about results then nothing changed. Adding a fourth line really doesn't bother me but seems unnecessary. If it allows for the other clarification so the reader does not have to comb through 100 NGO reports than so be it.
• The ceasefires are not a result in the sense that started this conversation in the first place. Not allowing three concise lines that lay out three simple facts that do not use the word "victory" when they arguably could is a disservice to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the text to state only the information about the mutual ceasefires, as there is no agreement here as to what to include. As I stated earlier, it is undue to focus only on the outcome as measured in terms of Israel's objectives. The blockade was the main reason Hamas did not renew the hudna that preceded this war. Either we mention that the blockade continued and rocket fire was reduced, together, with each one of these representing one of the goals of the two parties involved or we don't mention either. My aim is NPOV. The information is in the article. No reader is being denied anything if we don't put disputed, arbitrarily highlighted and unbalanced formulations in the infobox. Tiamut^talk 09:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you are way too subjective. Wikipedia keeps a neutral point of view, so referring to the Gaza War as a "massacre is pointless. Israel achieved their main goal, which was to bring most of the rocket attacks to a halt, and therefore the war should be considered an Israeli success. Hamas lost in every way, they lost ground, they lost infrastructure, they lost weapons and rockets, they lost soldiers, and their people suffered. Israel suffered less than 10 dead soldiers.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I don't believe it should be called a massacre in the infobox. My point is that other editors have called it a "massacre" which clearly implies military dominance but for whatever reason they do not except "military victory".Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Victory and stuff

Should 2.3.2 Post War Military Assessment and 2.3.3 Aftermath be moved to 4 Effects 4.1 and 4.2? This would better facilitate a wikilink from the infobox as well.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I tried it but it was reverted. It is inline with what the template's page recommends and there isn't consensus on how handle the infobox. "Ceasefire" just doesn't say enough.

An infobox gives readers the opportunity to go from the article into a facts and figures summary. If the infobox just wikilinks back into the article, why have an infobox? RomaC (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section"). status – optional – for ongoing conflicts, the current status of the conflict. This should not be used if a final result (above) is provided. You might want to ask on the infobox's talk page.Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

SO anything on this? We can still use ceasefires in "status" but a concise summary in the body that is wikilinked to would benefit the reader and is inline with the intended use of the infobox.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

C'mon guys. Does anyone have any objections or not?Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Decisive Israeli Victory!" I notice you reported me for reverting that from the infobox. C'mon guy. RomaC (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I reported you for continuous reverting when it wasn't necessary over a 2 day period. You had it coming. So is my proposal acceptable? If you want to complain more take it to my talk page.Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not complaining I'm asking you to edit with neutrality in this topic area. Is that too much to ask? Now, as it took you just a matter of minutes to report me to admin for reverting section blanking of Israeli weaponry in this article's infobox (reversions you said you "half agree with"), I am curious as to your non-reaction the addition of Gazan weaponry, unsourced. Do you believe this edit requires a source? And, no, I don't support your proposal here. "Ceasefire" is what happened, that's enough for the infobox. RomaC (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That is for a separate subsection or my talk page. And ceasefire can still be mentioned as I have said twice already.Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox edit warring - War dances of the Wiki warrior society

'Decisive Israeli military victory' - Is it an objective and verifiable observation, a fact, like the date the conflict started or is it one of several conflicting and complex hypothesis/opinions based on various metrics which are intended to explain and interpret facts ? Unless it's the former it shouldn't go in the infobox in my view. I like the link to the effects section though.

However, presenting opinions like 'The war resulted in a tactical battlefield success for Israel and represented a significant tactical defeat for Hamas' as an unattributed fact in the article body is policy non-compliant. We shouldn't do that. There are various opinions that use a variety of ways to interpret the facts and arrive at different conclusions about whether it was a victory. Here's one.

At the moment the section resembles hasbara. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Does any reliable source say there was not a ceasefire declared by both parties in the conflict? Can editors who seem to see a problem with having that in the infobox please discuss here rather than editing in "Victory" for "their side" -- mind WP:COI please thanks. RomaC (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't disputed. The infobox is not filled out correctly as I have shown above though.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I regard Jiujitsuguy's recent blanking of sections in the Gaza war article with an "it's silly..." edit summary as vandalism. I complied that list, it took a long time and it was done at request of and in concert with other editors. It is properly sourced ^[5] and has stood for months. I have warned the user on his Talk page. I strongly believe we should not let rash/POV blanking editing without discussion disrupt this article to the point where it gets locked again. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of malice makes it appear that it is a content dispute and not vandalism so any warnings are premature and poor form.

In regards to JJG's recent edit summary of the sources not verifying the numbers: This source showed about half the number of tanks Roma originally included so I could see some reasoning to go back and double check everything here over reverting back and forth and using edit summaries only. It does not mean that Roma is wrong but it does mean we should figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Verification failed. "A standard infantry division would operate around 300 tanks and 100s of APCs, though all these might not be sent into battle at once." Since the tank number is disputed by [12] it would make sense that the source is speaking in general and did not actually pull any numbers for what was deployed. "Israel relied on its fleet of approximately 300 U.S.-supplied F-16 warplanes to lead its air assault." reads similarly. They researched how big the fleet was but it looks doubtful that they found the number actually flown.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Verification passed: "The IDF reportedly deployed some 100 armored CAT D9 bulldozers during OCL."Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

user:Breein1007 has come in and blanked the section in the infobox, with the edit summary "these lists are not about what was used in the gaza war, but about the IDF in general. clearly, that only misleads readers of this article" I don't understand. The source is an academic publication, "The Israeli Arsenal Deployed against Gaza" ^[5]. And has been there for months. I note Breein's blanking came minutes after a user page warning to Jiujistuguy that he was on the verge of violation of WP:3RR should he blank the section again. The proper way to proceed is WP:BRD, make an edit, if it is reverted, then discuss. Otherwise the page will be a battlefield and warring will happen, and a lock will be implemented. It is time for editors who can respect Wiki policies and are here to improve articles and not push a POV, to step up. It is time to call others on WP:COI. Enough. RomaC (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As I responded to you on my talk page, the text you inserted into the article does not accurately reflect the source. I have no intention to stasy involved in this battle, so that's all I'll say. Breein1007 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

<- The data in the infobox is reliably sourced. It's exactly the kind of data an encyclopedia should have. If we can get better sources or find sources with different figures so that we can have ranges that's great but let's not throw this info away. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't all sourced. Did you read up above regarding the failed verification of the APCs and aircraft? The tanks was fixed awhile ago. I don't mind listing the types of hardware used but the numbers are at the best questionable and at the worst wrong. Bulldozer number was "reported" to be right which is good enough for me. However, I see no reason to list the number of bulldozers and tanks without listing the numbers (which we don;t have) for aircraft, APCs, and helicopters.Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the reason not to? And if two sources give different numbers what's wrong with a range instead of removing the numbers altogether. There would be no casualty figures for example if we did that. RomaC (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just don't like the way that looks based on consistency. It really doesn't matter though. And there is no reason for a range since it is probable that the highest number is not correct for that seen in Gaza.Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it but since it's not written by an RS it's not really clear why I'm meant to give a fuck. :) If an RS said "the numbers are at the best questionable and at the worst wrong" it would be different. If there are better sources, great, but we have this sourced data. Removing it based on plausible but original research, personal notions of 'Failed verification' or because we don't have potentially more precise data seems at odds with policy. Editors could remove thousands and thousands of WP:V compliant pieces of info from wikipedia on that basis. Having said all that, I don't really care about it that much. I think the hardware should stay but I could live without the numbers. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be swell if reasonable editors could sometimes take actions to contain the cavalier editing, such as section blanking, of other editors who are on the same "side". Otherwise lines get drawn and the article tailspins into a lock. I am going away for awhile I do not like getting sicked into an edit war because I am, for example, reverting blanking. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't malicious so it wasn't vandalism. I actually did consider undoing but thought chatting would be better. Didn't expect the edit war to go that fast.

And there is no evidence that there were 300 tanks or 300 aircraft.Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that 20,000 is an accurate figure for the IDF and Hamas either. WP:V isn't about evidence or else I would have deleted all of the articles about religions years ago. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But the source says the total number for their fleet of aircraft and the makeup of the division without detailing how many were deployed. It wouldn;t be a question but the tank part has already been contradicted so it is safe to assume that their numbers were total available and not used. Conversely, the bulldozer number is clear that that many were deployed. I used the search function to go through it but let me know if you need page numbers for quicker access.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that the infobox says "Strength" and the source is about the strength. It says it quite plainly in the intro, "The compendium that follows does not pretend to be a complete list of Israeli armaments, but rather intends to provide as full an idea as possible regarding weapons known or suspected to have been deployed during OCL." Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

All the info and line wrapping makes the infobox look rubbish though. How about using a small font ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read it? Just say so if you haven't. It comes across like very selective reading if you only go off the title. They make a distinction by saying what was deployed when they have the number and then speaking in general in other parts when simply discussing the make-up of the preconflict Israeli force. I love the source but it needs to be read closely. This isn't that complicated. Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Small might look better. Didn't even think of that.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First let me repeat, I'm fine with leaving the figures out personally. Yes, I read it. I always read sources. I understand your position, I even agree it but I don't think wiki policy agrees with it. There isn't any policy based inconsistency between the infobox heading 'Strength' and the stated nature of the information in the source. We don't know exactly how many IDF/Hamas/planes/tanks etc were actually deployed or put into a state of preparedness to be used if required let alone how many were actively involved in the conflict (which is the more pertinent information I suppose) and we'll probably never know. The infobox just says "strength", that's it. We have reliably sourced information about 'weapons known or suspected to have been deployed during OCL'. I don't think there's a policy based reason not to use it. What I'm concerned about is the reasoning being used and it isn't limited to this specific article. The reasoning is disturbing because it elevates the role of the wiki editor far beyond the limits set by policy in my view. The source has decided to report that the number of planes for example 'known or suspected to have been deployed during OCL' was 300. It states 'For OCL, Israel relied on its fleet of approximately 300 U.S.-supplied F-16 warplanes to lead its air assault.' I don't think it's consistent with policy to remove info using reasoning like 'well, that's a bit misleading, it's not how I would have written the report because it doesn't make it clear that they may have just kept using the same plane to save on wear and tear and reduce their carbon footprint' etc even though that reasoning is perfectly valid and the kind of thing that the editor of the source should have said when they reviewed it. Wikipedia is probably full of WP:V compliant information that is ambiguous, misleading and inaccurate. For example List of countries by proven oil reserves. These could all be quite spectacularly wrong for all sorts of complicated reasons and I'm tempted to delete it all but it's what the sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The size of Israel’s standing army is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only thing that is relevant is the force deployed, which is between 4,000 and 20,000. Moreover, The fact that Israel has the second largest fleet of F-16s (after the US) is also irrelevant. There is not one shred of proof that all these aircraft were employed and to suggest otherwise is downright misleading at the very least.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason I put the size of Israel’s standing army back with a 'total active personnel' tag is because it matchs the Hamas information which is also a figure for (estimated) total active (armed) personnel. We don't have a source there that says how many Hamas deployed or how many took part in the fighting. There's not one shred of proof that all these aircraft weren't employed. So what ? RS aren't required to prove things. What there is is an RS about the things 'known or suspected to have been deployed during OCL' that says 'For OCL, Israel relied on its fleet of approximately 300 U.S.-supplied F-16 warplanes to lead its air assault.' which has been included as 'Up to 300'. That seems consistent enough with the function of the strength parameter, 'the numerical strength of the units involved', for us to use it if we chose to do so. Maybe you can find a more precise figure. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation. If Esposito did estimate a number then that would be fine but I don't think that sentence is suggesting an estimate. Now I see how you've combined it with her opening disclaimer and that's a reasonable enough interpretation perhaps. But it certainly isn't an accurate retelling of what she literally says. If you just want to list Israel's entire F-16 fleet, I don't see why you need Esposito as a source at all. But then that's another discussion. I'd also note that this is yet another problem created by the infobox unfortunately because it cannot convey any sort of nuance. I think we should cut a lot of this stuff out of the infobox. It doesn't really inform the reader and it just leads to endless arguments about how to package real information into one-word bites. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your reading of it as well. But if you are fine not having the figures then that is all I care about on this one. When RomaC and I were drafting this part we attempted to go off deployed #s since the infobox calls for "the numerical strength of the units involved." And as JJG points out, it is misleading to say 300 aircraft were involved. That is logistically a whole other beast that did not happen. It causes more confusion when the tanks is contradicted by a source that is crystal clear about it. So if we are still going off of numbers involved and not numbers available then those three figures should go. I don't hate the total number available mentioned for the troops but it seems to clutter it up and isn;t that important since they weren't used.Cptnono (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Support keeping the figures. "Deployed" by the way also means "to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately" vis a vis troops and equipment. If we list total number of Hamas fighters, we note the corresponding Israeli number. RomaC (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still curious if anyone is able to explain the difference between citing the number of planes and citing the number of armed Hamas guys ? The nature of the information and potential for imprecision is the same. This is what I find puzzling about this whole thing. What is the difference between an armed plane and an armed person stats-wise ? Why is one figure misleading and the other figure not misleading ? Inconsistent treatment of statistical data is the kind of thing that bugs me. In both cases we just have a reliably sourced figure that doesn't contain precise information about how many instances of the thing being counted actually took part. None of the numbers we use are an accurate retelling of the complicated stories behind the numbers. As JG says, yet another problem created by the infobox. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no difference. Feel free to fix both. My mind has been stuck on the plane, tank, and APC thing.Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather replace all the numbers with small pictures of puppies, kittens and flowers but that probably isn't MOS compliant. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer porn. Is that a "side" thing?!?

I have no problem w/ naming a specific weapons platform like the F-16. But to imply that all of Israel’s fleet partook in the ops is not reflective of the source. Secondly, the MLRS is an excellent weapon when used against a concentration of forces but virtually useless in a dense urban environment. The source merely states that the IDF has these weapons but does not state that they were used in the theatre of operations. To include this weapon system is not reflective of the source. Moreover, it is disingenuous to compile an exhaustive list of IDF weapon systems while mentioning only “steel artillery,” (what ever the hell that means) for the other side. The deliberate inclusion of this lopsided disparity conveys a not to subtle attempt to portray this as a David vs. Goliath conflict.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the three figures discussed above since three editors agree and another one said that "I'm fine with leaving the figures out personally". I also removed the specific artillery units based on JJGs comment and rereading the source. So Romac reverted (again) citing no consensus. Am I smoking crack or is that not correct?Cptnono (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are using drugs or not, I do know that your straw poll and three out of five editors is not how content is removed from an article in this topic area. Also can you please comment just below and also in the on section on how content should be added in this topic area? RomaC (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jiutistuguy, it is good you appear to have paused your editing of the article to drop by the Talk Page, please do so more often. The source for Israeli weaponry in the infobox is a published academic paper with three pages of source references, and it clearly states it "does not pretend to be a complete list of Israeli armaments, but rather intends to provide as full an idea as possible regarding weapons known or suspected to have been deployed during OCL." On the other hand, the source for your recent set of edits listing up Gazan weaponry in the infobox is a no-ref PDF on the website of an NGO, which is dated eight months before the Gaza War (April 2008). Given this timeline, how can it even pretend to cover weapons actually used during the Gaza War? Your editing position is inconsistent please revert the unsourced items on your list. RomaC (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject and stop repeating arguments. The selective reasoning of only basing the edit off the title has been addressed. It is time to remove the disputed figures.Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not changing the subject I'm 1) saying I disagree with the reasoning for your edit and that three out of five editors in your straw poll do not make it ok to remove the content, and on a different note, 2) I'm addressing Jiujitsuguy's comments. Sorry if that's confusing. RomaC (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No. It is 4 out of 5. Even if it wasn't, there is sufficient reasoning. Keeping it in is misleading and inappropriate and I can't fathom why you continue to argue it.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, I think Cptnono made a decent compromise that addressed all concerns. Please self-revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cpt. I disagree with removing the content because it it reliably sourced. Jjg, I was commenting on your sourcing of the mighty Gaza arsenal. Simple question: How can a web posting in April reflect events occurring the following December-January? RomaC (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Again: You are misusing the source.

JJG: Discussion can continue on removing the list of hardware if you are still interested. My edit wasn't intended to be a compromise between your preferred version and Romac's. I was involved in the consensus to make the list but consensus can change. For now, the figures are something I think need fixed but others should feel free to chime in on reducing it to the simple "backed by armor, planes, naval" or whatever it said before if they would prefer that version.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

<- This is more precise. "Around 100 warplanes and strike helicopters dropped over 100 bombs within the first hour of the operation,"[13] Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so was it 50 F-16s and 25 choppers and 25 drone predators or 10 F-16s 60 choppers and 30 Drones? My point is that we can't involve ourselves in a numbers game and guess as to quantity.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it was "Around 100 warplanes and strike helicopters". I think you misread it. :) I don't think anybody wants to guess quantities. I think everyone wants to stick to sources in one way or another. That seems to be common ground which is quite handy as it's policy. If we say something, obviously it has to convey the same information as the source including the 'around' unspecified margin of error and the hardware nonspecificity terms used in the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean, Would you object to "backed by around 100 warplanes and strike helicopters," instead of the language currently employed?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The phrase 'the language currently employed' isn't quite clear to me. If you mean lose the hardware details altogether and just have "backed by around 100 warplanes and strike helicopters," then I would rather include the other items in the backed by statement too as they played an important role, i.e. "100 warplanes and strike helicopters, artillery, x tanks, y whatever" but perhaps with less brand details. Details could go in the article. I'm thinking of a single sentence in the infobox describing what was used for each side rather than listing them. I'd like to keep the hardware (brand) details that can link to other articles somewhere in this article but I don't object to those hardware details being moved out of the infobox. For the number of tanks or whatever, if we have a decent source then I'd rather include the number but I can live without them as I've said before. Those details could be moved to the article too. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if ""Around 100 warplanes and strike helicopters ... within the first hour of the operation" works since that was just for the first hour. Its verifiable that it is the minimum I suppose. For the body I think that is great. I threw in some detailed info months ago that this can be added to real easy. Most of the info in the Israeli side of the infobox should already be in the body somewhere. I will comb through and double check. Do we want to go back to "supported by armor, navy, fighter jets, and helicopters" or something? I don't object to the hardware being mentioned but do object to the specific artillery unit types and three of the figures. I could go either way on this one.Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "backed by air, armored and naval units" or words to that effect. I belatedly agree to mention of hardware but omitting numbers and omitting the MLRS since there is not a shred of evidence that this weapons platform was deployed on the Gaza front.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Imagine the reader comes here looking for information on a topic he knows nothing about. Believe we should satisfy that reader's needs and also use Wiki's format to link to more detail. This is about a war, so who fought who where when and and with what and how many got killed and injured and what got destroyed or damaged. So list weapons systems on both sides with wikilinks that lead to more information on what they are etc.. Now, some editors object because the Israeli "strength" side is longer than the Gazan side, or the Gazan damage side is longer. So what? That relative weight reflects the reality of the event. We are not here to rewrite history. RomaC (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And I imagine that the readers understanding of the topic is not greatly improved with the hardware listed like that i the infobox instead of simplifying it. It could be though. I'm not sure. Regardless of that, three of the figures are still misrepresented along with the list of artillery units. So at a minimum those need to be removed. Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli weapons source is fine i'm good with a range where there are different quantities. The source on weapons used by Gaza in the war actually predates the war, as has been pointed out. Suggest removal if there is no discussion will assume silence=consent. RomaC (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As explained to you it is not fine. It is misrepresented in a few cases. The bulldozer part is fine though. And I don;t care about the Hamas side right now. i am trying to get this one thing corrected. I have a source or some of the weapons (just added yesterday to another section and will have to track it down) but at this time I am more interested in getting the IDF bit fixed since everyone is agreeable but you.Cptnono (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Believe we should apply the same standards to both weapons lists in the infobox. On one side we have a published academic paper, which is specifically about weapons used in the war and contains three pages of references -- yet there is hair-splitting on some of the phrasing; on the other side we have a powerpoint-style document on a website, which lists no references, and is dated eight months before the event it is meant to cover. I am stunned that some editors are persisting in questioning the first source but "don't care" about the problems with the second. The way we approach the corresponding infobox lists has to be linked in any discussion, I am sick of editors applying different standards/criteria for different "sides" -- so please suggest a comprehensive solution if you will. RomaC (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

<- Couple of quick comments, the phrase 'backed by/supported by...etc' doesn't seem entirely accurate because much of the operation was carried out before the infantry brigades were involved. I think it's redundant/unnecessary in the infobox. Regarding the 100 flying things, I was thinking of it as a maximum in the sky at one time...but whatever, we don't know. I think at the very least a reader should be able to look at the infobox and get an idea of the military dimensions of the conflict i.e. they should be able to see that it wasn't just some guy in an office flying a drone around or a giant North Korean style infantry invasion. I think that's all that the the infobox really needs to do. It should be obvious to any reader looking at the strength section of the infobox that the Israeli military had 'vastly superior conventional forces'. [14] If we don't convey that infomation in the strength section somehow possibly even by simply writing 'vastly superior conventional forces' we aren't doing our job. The asymmetry is a key feature of the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that the body needs to say it clearly. I have added multiple lines discussing Israel hardware would be happy to see the difference in strength highlighted. If I recall correctly one of the sources said something along the lines of comparing the two as being laughable. It was a big part of the conflict. For the infobox, I see no problem saying there were more than just infantry coming in from Israel. Those three figures and the artillery types appear to not be incorrect though. The other stuff can get done but those need to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Cpt can make a list of all the weapons systems in both of the infobox lists where he sees possible sourcing issues, then we can look at these point-by-point. I can't however support delinking the two lists because in that case we can't say for certain that different standards/criteria won't be used in their respective evaluations. This goes to a simple neutrality point. RomaC (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No. This isn't a compromise or anything like that. Those figures are not correct. They need to be removed regardless of the other stuff. The other stuff might be wrong. I don't care right now since I am trying to fix this part that you refuse to yield on this despite multiple editors telling you it is wrong. As soon as this is finished I will be more than happy to move on t he next problem.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will do it then as it is easy enough. The questions I see are (1) whether there are numbers which are contradicted by other reliable sources; and (2) whether the sources themselves are reliable or relevant in this case. Hope we can apply the same standards to both sides' info.

(IDF)
Up to 300 F-16 warplanes^[5]
AH-64 Apache attack helicopters^[5]
AH-1F Cobra helicopter gunships^[5]
Armed MQ-1 Predator and Hermes 450 unmanned aerial vehicles^[5]
130–300 Merkava II, III, and IV battle tanks^[5][6]
100 M113 Nagmash armored personnel carriers^[5]
100 armored CAT D9 and other bulldozers^[5]
Naval vessels including Super Dvora boats^[5]
Artillery including Soltam M-71 towed howitzers^[5], M109 self-propelled howitzers^[5], Sholef 155mm self-propelled howitzers^[5], and M270 MLRS multiple rocket launcher^[5]
(Hamas)

• Grad and Qassam rockets^[7]
• Sagger ATGM^[8]
• Konkurs AF-5 ATGM^[9]
• Rocket Propelled Grenades
• Mortars of various calibres
• Anti tank and anti personnel mines^[10]
• Improvised explosive devices^[11]
• Anti aircraft missiles^[12] including SA-7s^[13]
• Recoilless guns^[13]
• Heavy machine guns^[13]

I have bolded the bits where there are (1) questions about numbers. I would like to see contradictory sources that relate to the conflict itself rather than unrelated sources on or reasoning about battalion sizes etc. I have italicized the bits where there are (2) either no sources or questions about the source itself. The itals don't read so well, but they are on the Hamas weapons that have no sources and those sourced to this source, which does not relate to the conflict itself. Although these are also italicized, I am sure sources can be found for Qassams and other steel artillery rockets.
To get past this impasse, suggest that in the case of (1/numbers) we should provide a range comprising both/multiple sources (as we do with casualties); and in the case of (2/reliability&relevance) we should take the info out pending the securing of a satisfactory source.

Also note the formatting now differs on the two lists, Hamas has bullets but IDF does not. Propose using bullets on both.

RomaC (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There does not need to be a contradicting source. As explained multiple times (one of them even had the wording provided for you): The source does not word it as used in the conflict. Simple. This isn't that complicated and you are going against consensus. If you don;t like the other part do whatever. I am not concerned with it at the moment.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a problem if there is a solid source but no contradictory source. Again, the source for IDF weapons clearly says "The compendium that follows does not pretend to be a complete list of Israeli armaments, but rather intends to provide as full an idea as possible regarding weapons known or suspected to have been deployed during OCL." That is the overarching criteria of the source, and as we know "deployed" can mean in a state of preparedness it does not mean every gun was fired or every aircraft dropped ordnance. There is no way to determine that. RomaC (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the suggestion I provided. We use "up to XX" or provide a range in the case of data that have numbers questions, and we remove data that are not/improperly sourced. Sorry but I can't abide an impatient approach that focuses on only half of the infobox weapons data. RomaC (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop repeating the same argument that has been addressed. AGAIN. The source is clear that some numbers are reported from the conflict and others are just numbers they had before. It does not take a rocket scientist to read the source in full. And "suspected" isn't good enough to lay out as fact. Fine, if you want to use this as leverage to win I'll bite. I am making the edit right now. It will take about 10 minutes to find the sources but it will be well sourced.Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of us have been repeating arguments. You're right from your side, and I'm right from mine (to quote Bob Dylan). To break the impasse, let's simply establish a standard for the weapons data and apply it to both sides. I look forward to your proposal there are other editors who are not here right now can you post your proposal here so we can get comments honestly I don't see the urgency we can get this done if we are calm :) RomaC (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So I made the changes. I did both the figures that I have been going nuts over and the source you hated. There is some contentious stuff in there so here is what I did:

• Tanks: Numbers used per a clear source. The speculative number based on what typically is used is removed. I removed the types (II & III) of battle tanks simply because I was trying to make it clean and did not have the chance to verify it with all of the other changes.
• APCs figure is gone per above. Added that others were used since a new source mentioned there were new ones rolled out.
• F-16 number since it is completely unknown with the sources presented and what I have personally searched for
• Artillery units instead of a listing of speculative types disputed by another editor and not verified in the source
• Armed UAVs. Hermes being armed is not verified. It is widely speculated but unknown. Predator might be added back in but again I was just trying to get it done. UAV seems fine enough for now.
• Bullets (format not bang bang) added to IDF
• Removed types of anti-tank missiles since I could not find a better source. Simply "anti-tank missiles" now
• Removed anti-tank mines since I could not find a better source
• Removed heavy machine guns since I could not find a better source
• Removed mortar sizes since I could not find a better source. Simply "mortars"
• Added booby traps. Just as important as IED but related
• Added suicide bombers. Sourced but expect this to be touchy

So all of the sourcing is getting better. We can still discuss eliminating the exhaustive list. We could also add more. For example, I have been meaning to add the Skyhawk in since it dropped leaflets. Probably didn't destroy anything but it was used. All I really cared about was the faulty figures but now we hopefully have a base we can work from.Cptnono (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good start. But I think more things should be removed. The listing is really for major weapons and much of what's left is not. Small arms don't belong. Neither do anti-tank missiles, IEDs, AA missiles, etc. Nor do bulldozers. UCAVs should be mentioned but UAVs otherwise don't. I'd also note that we're inconsistent with a lot of terms. For example we use the Apache and Cobra names for the AH-64 and AH-1F respectively but not for the F-16 for example. I'd also note that Apache is the American name for the unit but appears not to be the Israeli one. We also call the Apache an "attack helicopter" but the Cobra a "helicopter gunship" even though both terms mean the same thing. We seem to call the Merkava a "battle tank" which I think may be a shortening of the "Main battle tank" concept; "battle" would otherwise be redundant. Also I see that we use Nagmash as though it was the Israeli name for the M113 but it appears to just be the Hebrew term for an APC. We also say "naval vessels including Super Dvora boats" but it should just list the Super Dvora until we know about other vessels. I'd also note that we call the F-16 a "warplane" but that is a very general term which covers all military aircraft. So we should probably use a term like "multirole fighter aircraft" which is in that article's infobox. Hey maybe those are useful afterall. Just a bunch of little things but everything seemed just thrown in the box without much thought. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We could also remove it all. As long as those numbers don't get stuck back in I don't care too much. "Supported by air, naval, and armored units"? Gunship and attack helicopter are not necessarily the same thing but I am under the impression that both are attack choppers. I originally question the bulldozers since they were not used in an attacking fashion (sweeping ranks of soldiers into mass graves or something else gruesome like that). Good call on Nagmash. Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with most of JGG's comments above also one report of a person with an explosives vest doesn't really justify "suicide bombers" in my opinion. RomaC (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There was more than one. Do you need more sources?Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of neutrality. Plural: [15][16](that one was already in the article eve)[17]. Suicide bombers needs to be restored if the other stuff is in.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative opinions

• REFLECTIONS ON THE WAR ON GAZACamille Mansour

Mansour's conclusions

• "failure—or at least the inconclusiveness—of Israel’s three objectives."
  • "the Israeli army did not prove that it would be capable of waging a successful future land war without casualties in its ranks against an enemy better armed than Hamas."
  • "deterrence, unless nuclear and linked to the very survival of the nation, cannot be counted on to succeed if it is limited to threatening civilians with annihilation. The purposeful targeting of civilians depends very much on the degree of permissiveness of the international community when such targeting occurs, and thus cannot be the basis of a military strategy."
  • "Israeli pressure did not compel Gaza’s civilian population, Hamas’s leadership, or Egypt to choose between two alternatives for Gaza: a humanitarian catastrophe or a return to the Egyptian fold. In other words, the Gaza war was a tremendous waste: a war for nothing, civilian victims for nothing, but a deliberate violation of the laws of war."

• The Futility of Operation Cast Lead - Prof. Stuart Cohen, senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University.
  • "A review of the strategic, operational, societal and diplomatic dimensions of Israel's operation against Hamas in Gaza produces an overall audit that is far from favorable."
  • "Given the imprecision of Israel’s war aims, the Hamas leadership did not have to make any formal concession at all in order to bring about a cessation of the IDF onslaught. Hence, it could always claim that the attack had in fact failed. And provided enough Hamas leaders survived to tell that tale – which was indeed the case – their work was done."
  • "there are grounds for wondering whether the diplomatic costs to Israel of Operation Cast Lead might also not have outweighed its possible benefits"
  • "(Operation Cast Lead) "has probably delayed the possibility of breaking the vicious cycle"
  • "Sooner or later, the misuse of power inevitably contaminates those who apply it, thereby undermining the legitimacy and moral fiber of the entire national enterprise. The sad truth about Operation Cast Lead is that it shows how near Israel might be to unwittingly falling into this condition. From that perspective, the venture deserves to be considered not merely futile but foolish too."

• A New Kind of War - Amos Harel is the defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Avi Issacharoff is the newspaper's Arab affairs analyst
  • "In fact, Israel's military victory in Gaza was far from complete, and the battle of perceptions is still a draw."

• The Gaza War 'victory' - Has Israel grown dependent on terror?

Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Operation Cast Lead: An Israeli Success? section in 'Variation on a Theme Israel ’s Operation Cast Lead and the Gaza Strip Missile Conundrum' by Sergio Catignani in the Small Wars Journal contains a variety of views. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why some editors believe that the consensus overrides the Wikipedia policy. I don't like "let's talk about how we continue to ignore the policy". 208.54.4.19 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please quote the specific part of the policy you are referring and read WP:BRD. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, please self revert your last edit because you have broken the WP:3RR rule and you have trashed the references. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, Sean.hoyland, what policy am I talking about? Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important if the community is to have confidence in them. 208.54.4.19 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But what is our reasoning for removing the information? And are you intentionally deleting the references? Cptnono (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Not "talking about", I asked you to please quote the specific part of the policy you are referring to. That means that I'm asking you to quote the specific text in the specific policy or policies to clarify the policy based justification for your opinion about the merit and policy compliance of your edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you both misunderstand. There is no way to override the explicit policy via discussion. It is not done. Any support for "poor" Wikipedia is useless. 208.54.4.19 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What policy?Cptnono (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

<- 208.54.4.19, I really suggest you revert your last edit before anyone else. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You mention a guideline for the naming of articles in your edit summary. There are multiple reasons why your edit is incorrect and you are now being reported for edit warring since you had been warned.Cptnono (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you both discuss the content. I see your reverts as vandalism, let's just follow Wikipedia:MILMOS#Naming_conventions: avoid operational codenames and non-neutral names like massacre. The policy is pretty explicit. 208.54.4.19 (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Too late. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like massacre being in either but its inclusion is not prevented through the naming convention guideline you are mentioning. Please feel to discuss more in the future if you are blocked and wish to come back.Cptnono (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#CODENAME & WP:MILMOS#NAME are pretty explicit. 208.54.4.19 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For titles of the actual article.Cptnono (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you supporting Wikipedia with rich titles & poor content. Looks like Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to me. 208.54.4.19 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Until you provide reasoning for it not being in the body you are just wasting your time. I have actually made the argument before and know there is some reasoning. Would love to hear yours but am starting to wonder if I am just being trolled. You have already been reported for your six reverts so please come back after you have a better understanding of the standards.Cptnono (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Same reasoning holds both for titles and for body. 208.54.4.19 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is some reasoning to not have massacre as is including the source being questionable, it receiving prominence in the lead, and stating that it is called that in the Arab world (contradicted). However, it is clear that it was used some. It appears more often as a description but here and there as a title. It is also common enough with bloggers. So although guidelines discussing weight and other neutrality issues can be argued, limiting it completely along with removing other info with sources is not acceptable. You can search the archives by typing massacre in the search field. You can also tucker down for a moment and show that you actually do want to see the other guidelines and policies that are better arguments than that one addressing article titles. Unfortunately, edit warring is not the best way to foster discussion.Cptnono (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the proposal for bringing the bloated lead into shape was posted a month ago, the second graph has instead increased from 356 words to 403 words. (add:entire lead now at 654 words) Not good, much much too fat. As there was general agreement in comments, the proposed fix has now been implemented, with respect for the concerns raised. Editors can now contribute by fixing any first-ref wikilinks or refs that may have been changed/dropped, or moving other refs and info into the body of the article. Please look at and neutrally deal with "both sides" if you want to edit here, and present balanced edits for consideration by the community. Those editors who can't behave this way may have a non-constructive conflict of interest in this topic area. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, we are down to 311 words! That's awesome! Generally the changes are great, though not all were discussed and agreed in the fitness program.

1. Location

should include the Southern Israel, rational - basic fact, hope no citation is needed.

2. Belligerents perspectives

(a) Israel defined the war as military operation against Hamas - rational WP:LEAD#Opening_paragraph source ^[14]

(b) Hamas seeks Israel's destruction - rational WP:LEAD#Opening_paragraph sources ^{[15][16][17][18][19]}

3. November 4

(a) prompting a swift barrage of rocket fire at Israeli farming communities close to the Gaza boundary and in nearby Ashkelon, an Israeli coastal city rational - those are not border clashes, source ^[20]

(b) Palestinian militants in Gaza had long launched Qassam and other rockets at Israeli towns across the border, and during those six weeks the number of attacks had increased dramatically - rational Casus belli, source ^[21]

4. December 18

Hamas announces lull is over - rational war declaration, source ^[22][23]

5. December 25

Final warning by Israel Government on Al Arabiya - rational war declaration, source ^[24]

6. Rockets threat

According to HRW, during the Gaza War, rocket attacks placed up to 800,000 people within range of attack. rational core issue of this war, source ^[25]

So bottom line, thank you for investing your time and effort into improving the article. Hope you have more time to learn the sources. Let me know what you think about this content. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think 6 is important from the coverage the sources gave it. That would also take care of 1 since it addresses southern Israel. So it would be killing two birds with one stone.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the changes have been a step in the right direction but do we really need all those reference in the opening section? A total of 24 and 6 for one sentence! I think that all of them should be moved into the main body. It just makes the opening difficult to read and I think would scare away the reader. Para 3 & 4 could also be combined as the preferred option is for 4 opening paras in the lead.

Sure, let's discuss. My initial comments on Agada's comments:

:1. Location

should include the Southern Israel''

"Southern Israel" was removed awhile back because some editors did not want to list total IDF strength in the infobox, but it made no sense that there was a war in Israel in which the Israeli armed forces were not involved. Sources overwhelmingly place the war inside Gaza.

I'm not really sure this is a valid kind of reasoning

a some editors did not want to list total IDF strength in the infobox - is this relevant to location?

b Sources overwhelmingly place the war inside Gaza - this is factually wrong, sources could be provided if this is desirable.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we add Oregon as a battlefield to the Pacific War article's lead because six died in Bly from a Japanese fire balloon attack? Although rockets landed in Southern Israel and there were cross-border skirmishes with Syria and Lebanon, and conflict-related casualties in the West Bank[18], believe the lead should be concise and focus on the location where the overwhelming proportion of the war's military activity took place, which is the Gaza Strip. There is information later in the article covering events in Southern Israel. RomaC (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much about comparison of apples and oranges. There were two belligerents in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:2. Belligerents perspectives

(a) Israel defined the war as military operation against Hamas

It was clearly a "military operation" that took place in a physical space -- the Gaza/Hamas distinction is Israel's POV and is/should be noted in the body, no?

This is not POV rather a verifiable fact, there are tons of sources in the article already. Secondary sources also reflect on this fact. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

: (b) Hamas seeks Israel's destruction

Info on the Hamas charter goes in background?

The Agada comments 3,4&5 are info providing details that can go in the body in my opinion, editing them into the lead, again begs a corresponding Gazan perspective/narrative which would probably balloon the lead as before.

:6. Rockets threat

According to HRW, during the Gaza War, rocket attacks placed up to 800,000 people within range of attack.''

If so, balance this with how many Gazans were reported to be at risk? Have a quote above on this page that says something like "there were no safe zones in Gaza" that would serve to present how reported risk applied to "both sides'"

Can support trimming refs and merging graphs 3&4. The edits took the lead from 654 words to 316 words, there is some work to be done to move some info that was cut from the lead into the body instead. RomaC (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even bothered with how many people were at risk since so few actually were hit. I think the important part of it is that there was expanded range on the hardware. The 800,000 and the actual cities is fine in the body while simply saying "Cities previously unreachable by rockets were under threat for the first time with improved range/or something."Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Improved range" seems neutral on the rockets, "cities previously unreachable were now under threat" seems to present borderline original research or crystal ball issues (I know there was a source about risk). Thing is, if we note Gaza's new/improved/increased weaponry (rockets) in the lead, then shouldn't we note Israel's new/improved/increased weaponry (DIME, WP, etc.) up there as well? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The IDF actually rolled out all sorts of new tactics and hardware. I would love for a mention (like a line or two only) of that to be in. DIME and WP jumps out in many people's minds but something like the additional resources allotted to commanders on the ground and some new technology played an even bigger part in the victory destroying of stuff. Cptnono (talk)

My proposal is to use the neutral HRW source^[25]. No WP:OR whatsoever. On more general note, maybe you both miss a point. Rocket threat is a threat, sources relate to rocket fire as instrument of terror, the goal is fear - psychological effect. HRW quotes the Hamas call to Israeli population to flee. So basically air raid sirens were heard in streets and people ran to bomb shelters. Many choose to flee to areas which were not targeted. Public education institutions, for instance, in effected areas were shut down, during the war. From this point of view rocket threat was effective. And we have sources describing those facts in the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get dragged into this whole thing but I'd make a few comments that I think haven't been said. My comments will be balanced and neutral, even thought they are not required to be as I am not interested in editing the article itself. So...

#1 should probably include Southern Israel. The conflict was mostly about the Gaza invasion/bombings but not exclusively. We do include the "steel artillery rockets" for example. At Roma's request if I recall correctly. #2 We already note in the opening of para 2 that Hamas is the actor which controls Gaza. There's no real need to say that Israel sees it that way since we suggest, correctly, that everyone sees it that way, more or less. #3 This one kind of bothers me. I've read quite a lot of articles on the conflict -- I was actually drawn back to talking here because I was frustrated that nobody else seemed familiar with the Rayyan quote above -- but very few of them mention the Nov. 4 incident. Our lead, however, suggests a narrative where it is the proximate cause that began a spiral which lead to the war. That may well be the appropriate way for any of us to see things but per NPOV-weight I don't think the article should include it like that if it is not believed generally.

Most importantly I'd like to note that we barely describe the actual war in the lead. The conflict itself is only the latter three sentences of para 2, half of which are things from the Casualties and Effects sections. There's almost nothing on the Campaign itself and most of what is there are the dates. The lead is a very poor summary of the aritcle. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the reason I agree with Roma's edit to a certain extent. Stuff needed to get ripped out. Information on the actual fighting would be great. Roma's comment about DIME and WP above shows that it is real easy for editors to get stuck on the aspects NGOs complain about while disregarding other information just as important. I totally understand why it is a challenge (which I am guilty of as well) but it is something that has plagued this article. Agreed the lead is not a good summary. So it looks like two and a half (I could go either way but am leaning) editors want to reinstate the southern Israel bit. Is that correct?Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the Southern Israel question just above. Can see the point that the Nov 4 ceasefire violation can be read as a causal event, open to adjusting this. Could support including more on the nuts and bolts of the conflict (such as troops and manoeuvers, weaponry, casualties and destruction) in the lead and somewhat compact the chronology of events leading up to the Dec 27 airstrikes. RomaC (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Southern Israel should be included. I think that the "what it was called" in the 1st para is inappropriate for the lead and should be moved into the body. I would also like to see more of the nuts & bolts in the lead as well. So if I was writing the lead it would be like this. #1 Para - Current para 1 combined with para 2 without all of the numbers (is 400,000-500,000 really necessary in the lead?). #2 Para - Starting with the last sentence of para 2 "An Israeli ground invasion began on January 3, 2009." and some nuts & bolts of the conflict. #3 para - Combine the current para's 3, 4 & 5. Just like I was taught at school beginning, middle and end. Bjmullan (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

<- Generally we could rethink the lede thing, it could be fresh no problem. Still I'm surprised by 'eh there is one belligerent and one armed force' approach, usually there are two dancers in tango. And it is not an issue of trading this for that. So editors are encouraged to look at the info we have gathered so far. No problems to move some info into the body, still Lede should summarize the info in the article. Maybe we should say that "war" on one side of the border and "love fest" on another.... And yeah, I am being cynical, allright. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have started in my sandbox here a draft of what could be the new lead. It is mainly all reference and number removed and what is need is the nut and bolts of the war itself. I would like to offer this as a space where people can try out some edits to see where we can get to, or is it appropriate to move this to a specific Gaza War sandbox? As pointed out about the lead should be a summary of the whole event that would allow a non-informed user a easy to read overview. I for one feel that this war is of great importance and would love to see it raised to GA and maybe even FA status sometime in my lifetime. Bjmullan (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for sandbox approach, made some changes. It would be nice to see GA/FA utopia. How do you expect to perform sandbox<->real switch? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox is less likely to cause warring, Jiujitsu says below that his recent changes to the lead stem from your concerns -- perhaps you could ask him to join you in the sandbox? RomaC (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, RomaC, it was kind of personal and inline with "camp" kind of thinking, both approaches should be avoided. Generally such a line of behavior is inconsistent with fair weighting of facts and begs a question of honesty. Since you have asked I have no problem with Jiujitsuguy's recent lede content changes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Agada, don't really understand the wording in your comments above. Anyway I saw you were working in the sandbox to find consensus for edits to the lead, but now see Jiujistuguy's message to you on your Talk, and you've come here to support his contentious edits to the lead proper. Sorry but honestly not surprised to see that. Had hoped we were going to start working together. RomaC (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, we work together for some time now. #1 & #6 look like good candidates for lede integration. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the edit by a SPA, summary says it was made for a more "neutral" lead. So, Hamas broke the ceasefire with a barrage of rockets aimed at civilians, Israel defended itself by going after military targets. Clearly this is the narrative preferred by the editor. I wish to revert this POV-push but would prefer if a reasonable editor on the Israeli "side" did so. Will someone stand up? Hopefully, RomaC (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to add the stats about the terrorist weapon and equipment that you promised. Hopefully, Breein1007 (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So you are sort of negotiating on how or when you will edit the article? Do you believe this edit requires a source?RomaC (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes in response to this editor's concerns.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Contentious changes to the first sentences of an article in this topic area should be discussed on Talk first, don't you agree? I see that concerns in the "love fest" post made you do it, that editor is now participating in a sandbox project for the lead. Can you now please now self-revert your edits to the actual lead, in response to my concerns, that this edit removes sourced information and constructs a causal relationship unsupported by sources. Then we can discuss the "love fest" etc. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A few things have happened over the last days which I think have hurt the article and may lead to another lock. Sorry I'm not going to compile a bunch of selective Wikilinks here the info is all on this page and in the article.

1. A repeated blanking of the Israeli weaponry infobox list by a SPA, supported by a second editor. Then the signature "Decisive Israeli Victory!" infobox insertion.
2. A third editor reporting me to Admin for reverting the blanking and "Victory!" edits.
3. A POV rewriting of the lead's second graph to remove the Nov 4 ceasefire violation and peg the conflict to Hamas attacking civilians and Israel responding with attacks on military targets.
4. A concurrent subtle re-titling of the article (the lead's first reference) to "Operation Cast Lead"
5. A tit-for-tat listing of 10 different weapons systems in the Gaza side of the infobox, sourced to a NGO's website and dated eight months before the war started. I asked and the RS/N said "no" to having a source dated April reflect events occurring the following Dec-Jan.

I made numerous appeals to what I regarded as reasonable "Israeli side" editors to curtail the more cavalier characters in their camp or to address for example points 3, 4 & 5, but to no avail. Instead some seem keen to further trim the Israeli weapons list, which is currently about the length of the Gaza list (who said this was asymmetrical war!).

Now would hope other editors can address these points so we can prioritize the production of a neutral, reliably sourced article/encyclopedia above the views/aims of individual editors.

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a disturbing pattern emerging the last couple of days. It would probably be best if you didn't point fingers since you are just as involved. This subsection can only lead to trouble and commenting on contributions in their respective subsections would be better.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, and I tried but that failed. When I reverted Jiujitsu's blanking of the Israeli weapons infobox list (I regard section blanking as vandalism) the blanking editor twice reverted, and minutes later Breein appeared to continue reverting to the blanked version. I asked why on his Talk and he replied he didn't like the source. Hours later when the Gaza arsenal list began to grow, I visited Breein and asked if he'd blank that also, as it was unsourced. This time he told me to find sources. Cpt. you did something similar, fixed formatting on a fly-by editor's change of "Gaza War" to "OCL" in the lead, I asked you to change the phrase back and you refused. I asked Jiujitsu to revert his lead rewrite and he has done nothing, asked Cpt. to talk to him, again nada. Ditto on the Gaza weapons' source problems, no response from any of the editors.

It is worrying if editors get selective on how they respond to content. (Not policy-compliant but fits editor's views/aims = ignore it / policy compliant but editor doesn't like it = edit it). Frankly this is what I'm talking about.

What I try very hard to do, if I see an improper content/behavior, I act. I did that a few hours ago, when some fly-by renamed Julias Rosenberg "Jewlius". I do it all the time on I-P articles, no matter the "side". Is that too much to ask of others?

I already put all the above comments on various article/user talk pages, now I believe they belong here in one place, all the events above have happened over 24 hours or so. The page will be locked (again) if this continues, is that what we want?

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to mention my name, don't misrepresent your encounter with me. Unless you can be honest, I would ask that you refrain from talking about me. Anyone interested in knowing what really happened is welcome to read the comments between myself and RomaC on each of our talk pages. Respectfully, Breein1007 (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd hope everyone here could be honest, that's my biggest hope for Wikipedia. And yes, I think anyone interested in finding out more knows they can look through Talk pages and edit histories and user contributions. RomaC (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: An uninvolved Admin has come in and fixed #4. RomaC (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow Roma, you corrected "Jewlius" to "Julias Rosenberg." Is that supposed to impress somebody? We'll give you the "Defender of Israel" award for your brave and selfless actions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whyever give me ayour "Defender of Israel" award? Julius was American. There is a difference. I would prefer you address the points above if you comment here. RomaC (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder: "This subsection can only lead to trouble and commenting on contributions in their respective subsections would be better."Cptnono (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cptnono re: point 5 above, I asked you on your Talk about the source for the Gazan weapons used in the war, noting it was written eight months before the war. You said to come here. Here, you don't seem to want to discuss it either. Neither does Jiujistuguy it seems he wants to give me an award(!). I propose we remove this data, assuming silence=consent will do so soon. RomaC (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a separate subsection for 5 or is it being discussed here now?Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been out of the edit loop for a bit but I tend to agree with RomaC assertions that things are going a bit south. To that end I have fixed point 3. Bjmullan (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree on south direction, though to say Nov 4 incident is a ceasefire violation as a matter of fact is wrong. It is just an opinion (POV) hold by many respectable parties. Other parties bring other dates and other incidents as ceasefire violation. So is it neutral to say that Nov 4 incident was a ceasefire violation? Certainly not. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be clear that the Nov 4 incident was based on alleged border tunnels. Without some mention (true, 250m is not needed) it could be read as an unprovoked breach. Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The source was removed I think? Also do we nee six references saying Israel called it "OCL"? RomaC (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There was also Fox News source, do you remember? How do you define neutral, RomaC ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources say the IDF made an incursion into Gaza on Nov 4 and killed people, I am adding comments reflecting both the Israeli and Gazan POV on the event that should be neutral. RomaC (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You did not address why but removed the why template. The why is mentioned in the source you used. Simply put in that the reasoning was a suspected tunnel. Pin point operation says nothing and does not address the concern.Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok will add tunnel, but worry this opens the door for all sorts of "why" additions ie Hamas said they did this for this reason etc. RomaC (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we need this at the end of the lead? "In January 2010, the Israeli government released a response to the Goldstone Report addressing accusations of human rights violations and war crimes as well as detailing its own investigations into these allegations.[41]" Seems not to really give any real info and it is just Israel's response. RomaC (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a specific incident where specific details make sense. Other details are for another discussion and isn't my concern at the moment.

Simply stating "Israel disagrees", "rejects", or something along those lines would be sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Said "response criticizing the report" per "...Justice Richard Goldstone (the “Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Report” or “Report”). As Israel has clarified before, Israel

disagrees with the findings and recommendations of the Report..." Again want to keep things brief in the lead and am wary that if we add one side's reasoning/excuses/responses we might have to add the other sides' We'll see. RomaC (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast, RomaC. Maybe we all should switch to sandbox. Well what do we do with this "grave violation"? How do we know which one to promote to lede? Maybe for clarity/neutrality the lede should go something like

1. six month Lull brokered

2. One belligerent first "grave violation"

3. Another belligerent first "grave violation"

4. Things continuously and steadily go furtherer and furtherer in south direction

5. Lull expires

Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your concerns, checked the link and initially I don't see the connection between the incident cited which happened in June, and the war that started six months later. But I see what you mean, support not saying "X violated the ceasefire" but letting the two sides present their respective positions as we have tried to do with "tunnel" and "violation" comments. Also, I notice Nov 4 involved Israeli airstrikes not just special forces and tanks/dozers dunno how much detail we want to put into the lead this is how bloating starts.... RomaC (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, RomaC, the connection is that both incidents happened within the same six month Lull and those what both sides cite as first "grave violation" of the one and only ceasefire. Recent edits are far from perfect and done very rapidly. All editors should avoid tit-for-tat ping pong, let's think first. I'm sure that is not kind of FA/GA quality Bjmullan had in mind, so I propose to revert to lede revision and think first what Wikipedia should say at the matter - edit later. Sandbox sounds great! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be unfortunate. There are detailed edit summaries for all the changes if you have specific issues let's talk instead of blanket reversion. Note that the article you cite also says "A spokesman for Islamic Jihad accused the Israelis of breaking the ceasefire with its operation in Nablus." Also the involved Gazan party wasn't Hamas. Anyway agree we can take our time I'm out for awhile. RomaC (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We are lucky to have revision history, sandbox and this Talk page. Contentious changes to the lede of an article in this topic area should be discussed on Talk first, don't you agree? It is unfortunate that issues raised above on Talk page regarding post revision content were not addressed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK so the 4 Nov incursion could be moved into the background section of the main body but I think we could add the word fragile to the ceasefire i.e. (On 18 December Hamas declared the end of fragile a six-month ceasefire with Israel). Bjmullan (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's to be reverting let's revert to what was the more-or-less stable version, and not the recent edit that says Hamas canceled the ceasefire and started bombarding "towns" etc. On Nov 4 Israel raided Gaza with tanks and aircraft and killed six. Sources suggest that was an important event in the buildup. But if that is to be cut from the lead and moved into the body, fine then let's cut to the quick, have the lead start with the Dec 27 wave of airstrikes. I'm ok with either this, or what was. RomaC (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

<- There's something a bit odd about the Nov 4-5 events. I was reading a piece by Nancy Kanwisher where she did a statistical analysis to investigate 'which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations' going back over many years and I noticed that she said 1 guy was killed on the 4th => mortars => Israeli air strike killed 6 more => rockets. So that's 7 not 6. That's also what it says on the B'Tselem site, her data source, 1 guy killed on the 4th, 6 on the 5th. Perhaps the media have slightly misreported the events or B'Tselem have messed the dates up. Has anyone checked the MFA site to see what they say about the 4-5th ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor (Jiujistuguy) has chaged the lead (edit summary: "more accurate naarative"), it is not terrible but Jiujuitsuguy I have to insist that you participate in the ongoing discussion and see what others think of your edits. For example, is the Israeli blockade of Gaza really best known as Israel's "border interdiction operations"? I have reverted the edit please get consensus for these sort of edits. RomaC (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "blockade" refers to nothing in or out. Israel was allowing humanitarian supplies through and disallowing other materials. Therefore, "interdiction" is the more appropriate term.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your revert suggests you prefer edit-warring on the Article page to Talk page discussion. That's unfortunate. Your opinion on what is the more appropriate term is irrelevant we use the term that reliable sources use. "Israeli blockade" has about 70,000 Google hits; "Israeli border interdiction operations" has zero. Do you propose changing "blockade" to "border interdiction operations" throughout the article and in related Wikipedia articles? Requesting you self-revert for discussion. RomaC (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain that "blockade" is inappropriate terminology as it implies that Israel prevented all supplies from going through. That was simply not the case as Israel allowed humanitarian supplies through, even during the conflict! I suggest "interdiction" or "quarantine" as these words are more reflective of what actually occurred.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest we chose between

• something thing like "Israel's extensive and careful stock management of goods on behalf of the people of Gaza to avoid a humanitarian crisis" in line with the MFA's approach
• or "act of war" as per the Hamas op-ed in the LA Times here

...but I see you've already changed it back to blockade which probably saves a considerable amount of time. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Egypt-Gaza border should be mentioned in blockade context. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article should make it clear that it's a blockade by Egypt and Israel. I suppose it should say things like 'the blockade' rather than 'its blockade' or 'the Israeli blockade' or at least use phrasing to make it clear that it's talking about the Israeli part of a blockade by both Egypt and Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: usage of automatic and semi-automatic tools, during Content disputes is discouraged. Content disputes are not vandalism: If a user is adding biased content or you disagree with the information added, that doesn't mean the editor is vandalising. This includes violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Corollary: 3RR rule still applies since it's not blatant vandalism. Instead of constantly reverting, discuss edits on talk pages and obtain community consensus. See resolving disputes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Current lede wording is a mess. Timeline and context ("lull") are not clear. See chronological 1,2,3,4,5,6 above. Description of Nov 4 incident and following events is vague and unclear: according to sources gathered so far, 1 of 6 militants was killed during "pinpoint" stage, others during subsequent "love fest" activity likewise Ashkelon part should be mentioned, grad arsenal was limited. We still have an issue other side "grave violation" in June. There was Fox News and there is BBC both reliable sources. Let's be clear, both sides used lethal weapons and not flowers during the love fest. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Bjmullan on moving 4 Nov incursion into the background section. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If Nov goes into the body as above, support simply starting the lead timeline with Dec 27 airstrikes. RomaC (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)