Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Fluctuating IP accounts

There's been a surge of fluctuating IP user edits to this article. I suspect that it's all coming from one user or perhaps multiple users with a shared plan and purpose. I ask that editors from "both sides" be vigilant against such editing especially in light of these Diffs [1] [2]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They're probably here to compliment the sysops for protecting your fine NPOV editting from being undermined by people who mis-read the sources. It's important that the article implies that Hamas broke the ceasefire. Before you ask, no, I'm not been vandalising your userpage nor have I been making edits to the article, much as I'd like to contribute. 86.179.183.60 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alsuara, 12 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Documentary of the CAST LEAD operation: To shoot an elephant (2009) Alsuara (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done What is it that you're requesting? Note the template says to list a specific change. CTJF83 pride 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Title of this article

I feel the title "Gaza War" needs changing - this is about a 3-4 week period in 2009/9, but the war goes on. (Israel said as much in justifying their blockade - that they are 'at war' with Hamas)

We need an overall timeline for the Israel-Gaza conflict - maybe going back to 1945? - and then this sad episode will appear as just one amongst many.

Aa42john (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is just about this one aspect of the conflict. If you want to look at the bigger picture, there are articles that do. The Gaza–Israel conflict,Israeli–Palestinian conflict and maybe Arab–Israeli conflict are the most relevant. For more of a timeline you might want to see Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still cool with adding a date or a season to clarify it.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not rename it 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict? Similar to 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict and 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict. The Gaza War more or less had the same military objectives as the previous conflict - reducing or ending the threaten of rockets, as well as securing Shalits release. The only thing the separates the 2008-2009 conflict from previous operations is the sheer number of casualties and destruction that followed. Gaza War is way too ambigious. How many hundreds of conflicts have been fought in Gaza? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was originally all against that until I realized it was primarily due to it being too wordy and I thought the operational name could eventually be an option. And if they would have waited a few days we could have just used "2009". Stellarkid mentioned some time ago that sources have used the term "Gaza war" in other conflicts (unrelated discussion). And it makes some sense if other articles are worded that way. Is anyone against returning to something like 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict? I would modify it to read "Winter 2008..." so that people don;t start adding in boder incursions that are not really in the scope of this article. Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm with keeping the name as is. A quick search shows two RS that use the term. [3][4]

New section

Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations and government buildings. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Southern Israel,

This POV doesn't seem neutral to me, as it left me feeling that the Isr. forces attacked without trying to justify doing so. If you're open to it, I'll find a reference. Maybe I missed it, but it's odd not to mention Sderot, especially since the city has invited foreign visitors and dignitaries to it with the express purpose of witnessing the conflict. "Intensified" is not neutral if what you mean is that there are more or the range is extended. "Intensified" means a stronger intensity, that is, more explosive power. At any rate, a citation would be useful to clarify which meaning applies, and whether the greater range, power, or rate is/was a point of disagreement in Gaza itself and between Gaza and Israel. I'm also unclear as to whether Hamas "intensified" the bombardment, or members of a Hamas faction did so, or whether the government of Gaza did so. If the actor was/is controversial, then I would hope that a neutral POV would state (for example) There is an on-going/was controversy as to whether the bombardments came from etc.

Why not something like the following?

Israeli forces targeted sites that their intelligence units pin-pointed as the source of rockets used to send missiles across the Israeli-Gaza border. These sites are/were military targets (i'm not sure what that means), police stations, and (all?) (many?) government buildings. Hamas had recently extended its rocket and mortar bombardment (more neutral than attack?) from the Israeli southern city of Sderot to points north.

I just happened into this entry when I wrote the urban legend section, so I am reading it afresh. I don't have time to follow-up just now. Please consider my comments as you re-edit. Thanks. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Cryptonio (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Israeli "will be" deception

When time go future going to past, but :

In pedia is

"The NY Times quotes a study published by the Israel-based .."

In source is

A study about to be published in Israel by the Intelligence and Terrorism...

From Israel and abroad: urban legends or not

THese stories reflect a contemporaneous reaction to the saga of war.

(I) A baby is miraculously named after the first Israeli casualty Dvir Aminalov [sic], and miraculously meets his mother as she tries to make sense of his death.

Here is as close to a source one can find in English: Talk:Gaza War/Archive 6 Israeli casualties : Dvir Emanuelof (22);

Here are links to the email circulating, dating from May 2010. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=dvir+aminalov

Here is an example: http://jewishmoms.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/a-hug-from-dvir/

(II) This story received attention just after the war itself. A woman dressed in black "guided" Israeli soldiers away from buildings that they later found were dangerous, so must have been an incarnation of the Biblical Rachel, also known as Rachel Imeinu. Some printed media maintain that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef declares the reported miracle to be true.

This search locates printed instances: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Rachel+Imeinu%22+Ovadia+Gaza&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Jan 25, 2009 in http://www.vosizneias.com/26290/2009/01/25/jerusalem-rabbi-ovadia-yosef-rachel-imenu-indeed-helped-idf-troops-in-gaza/ Newspaper Vos Iz Neias (Yiddish for What is News?)

Jan 25, 2009 Here is a report of the putative declaration: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=29313

At http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/05/eyewitness-confirmation-of-rachel.html , Rabbi Josh Waxman reports this blog entry, dated SUNDAY, 11 JANUARY 2009, as possibly the source for the story: http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/2009/01/the-land-of-miracles.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

From Israel and abroad: urban legends or not MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC) MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Razorback216

Razorback216 made a revert despite WP:BRD and the previous discussions calling for the trimming of that section of the lead.[5] So continued discusion is of course OK but the edit needs to go until a version is agreed to, Razorback216 needs to stop reverting and, it would be appreciated if an admin would give him a heads up on the sanctions.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Razorbacks version "On 19 December 2008 a fragile six-month Israel-Hamas ceasefire was set to expire. Following Israel's violation of the ceasefire on November 4, there were sporadic violent clashes along the Israeli-Gaza border for the following two months" looks like a NPOV account (leaning towards being very pro-Israel version) of what happened. The alternative that's been edit-warred into place "Responding to a surge of border incidents, on 27 December Israel launched a wave of airstrikes" sounds like a thoroughly propaganda version of which editors should be ashamed. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, IP! We at WP welcome new contributors! Please refer to WP:NPOV to better understand how to recognize bias. Warm regards, Kinetochore (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to condescend to unregistered contributors. Warm regards, 67.252.127.81 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead and this so called, implicit and contradicting "Hamas breaking of the truce" should be 'reworded' yes i agree. and yes i will do it if no one else does Cryptonio (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between rewording and adding large amounts of text thrown out based on consensus.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed this bit of nonesense. That we are still here discussing nonesense should be a testament as to no one knows who carries the torch of burden. Not even Israel has said Hamas broke the truce, Israel's position has been that Hamas did not renewed it, and there are, oh i dont know, 10 sections on why they did not renew that lovely and wonderfully respected truce.

After Hamas ended the six month lull, analysts in Israel believed a durable peace agreement between Hamas and Israel is unlikely, as it would go against Hamas' ideology and undermine Israel's long-term security objectives.

Cryptonio (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And lets not talk about consensus and the lead, please...let's rather fix it. Cryptonio (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks fixed now. the lead that is. Cryptonio (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Created sub articles

The article is tagged as too long to read comfortably since March, and this is definitely still true, policy tells us that readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, to resolve this I created several new sub-articles and attempted to keep a good summary in the article to make it more readable. Still work in progress. Comments are welcome. Marokwitz (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You completely blanked the section on casualties, though that was already chopped down in size per consensus on this page. You want to make sub-articles great, but forcing your mass blanking of over 40 kB is not acceotable. WP:SIZE refers to the readable prose of an article, not the total size of it. nableezy - 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't blank it. I created a new sub article with ALL the contents, and was in the middle of summarizing things per WP:SUMMARY when you disrupted my work. If you looked at the latest version you would see that I was in the middle of bringing back summaries. The guideline says that 30 to 50KB is too long for comfortably reading, and the article is tagged as too long since March 2010. I am making the article more readable. Please undo your revert and let me proceed with my work. Marokwitz (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Disrupted [your] work"? Please. In this article, you blanked it. That disrupted my watchlist. That specific section was put together following a long discussion on how to organize it and what should be included, down to the order of the pictures. When making such drastic changes you should come to the talk page first, not try and push your changes through by reverting. nableezy - 14:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You are being uncivil. I was in the middle of improving the article in a bold way, in conformance with a request that was posted in the page since May 2010 (not by myself) and wasn't removed by you, you didn't even give me the courtesy of finishing my work. I'm very disappointed by your battlefield attitude. The result of your revert is that we have 2 forked articles that will need to be deleted. I will now stop wasting my time, and call other editors - review my edits (whatever I managed to do before being reverted twice by nableezy) and see how much they improved the readability and quality of this page. My version is [6] together with the 2 new sub articles Casualties of the Gaza War and Propaganda and psychological warfare in the Gaza War. Marokwitz (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not being "uncivil" (and accusing somebody of being uncivil without basis is, you guessed it, uncivil). You made a "bold" edit. It was reverted. The next step is for you to come here, not to re-revert. There is no "battlefield attitude" demonstrated in my comments. I object to you blanking, without any discussion at all, over 40 kb of material. I especially object to the removal of the casualties section, as that was crafted on this talk page and gained consensus (and had been more than 3 times the size of the current section prior to being rewritten). Prior to making such drastic changes it is wise to come here, and it is especially unwise to try and force those changes in after being reverted. nableezy - 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, I do not have a problem with splitting off some of the sections and giving them a proper summary (in fact, I did that with the international law section a long time ago). The casualties section does not need to be split, though it could use some tightening. And a proper summary needs to be in place, not just a link to a main article. If you would like to work on actually summarizing whatever sections you feel need to be split, great, but just bulldozing ahead is not how you should go about it. nableezy - 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was in the progress of doing! And I didn't remove the casualties section, I left the whole table which is, itself, an excellent summary of this topic. Instead of reverting my entire work, you could have, and still can, offer to help me with the summaries process. Marokwitz (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is do it prior to removing these sections. And the table is a terrible summary, it neglects so much about why the casualties were such a large part of the story. It completely disregards the reasons why everybody except for the IDF classified the police as non-combatants and why the IDF classified them as combatants, it completely disregards how the casualties were counted and how they were classified by each group that provided figures. In fact, if it were up to me the one thing that should be removed is that table, it is far too simplistic and neglects the major parts of the story. The information in that table should be relayed in prose. And I am willing to help with summarizing some of the sections, but prior to removing sections that should be done. nableezy - 15:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My only mistake was not putting Template:In use while working on the article. I prefer working in stages. If you think something crucial is missing from the summary, then you can go ahead and fetch it back from the sub-article. Not a single word was deleted. Marokwitz (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nearly the whole of the casualties section (prose and images) should be in here. The section on the background to the conflict is larger than the section on the casualties, and we already have a ton of articles on the background. nableezy - 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)

Marokwitz (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for offering assistance! The article is tagged as too long, and is indeed very difficult to follow, that's why I propose splitting the article using summary style according to WP:SUMMARY as follows: The main article - [7] together with the 2 new sub articles which were created: Casualties of the Gaza War and Propaganda and psychological warfare in the Gaza War. In addition I was interrupted in the middle of summarizing a few more details from Casualties of the Gaza War back into the main article. I request the article reverted to the version 372214128, and to continue my work from there to ensure that the most important points are summarized in the main article (hopefully with assistance and cooperation from other editors). Marokwitz (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

[8] at the time of this post the user seems to be offline for the last two hours. I am gonna leave a talkback temp on his page; if he doesnt pop-up by this time tommorow I'll give you the revert. I'll be off and on around till 2am UTC Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Nableezy

I am fine with splitting off some sections into new articles and summarizing them here. What I am not fine is the mass blanking without any type of discussion. Focusing on the casualties section specifically, that section was crafted on this talk page (here). That method should provide a template as to how to chop down the size of the article, create a summary and post it here on the talk page and see what issues there may be. Currently the casualties section is shorter than the background section, yet the text and images were completely removed, leaving only the chart. That section needs to have an adequate summary on this article, and what Marokwitz made was not that. Now to the propaganda/psych warfare section. That section is relatively tiny. It certainly does not merit it's own article. There are certainly places where the material in that section can be cut down, but the summary Marokwitz made ignores many of the main points in the section. It presents what the sources call Israel's "psychological warfare" as simply providing warnings to the residents to flee, where the sources report on the fear and panic caused by calls that claimed their homes would be destroyed in minutes. This article could, and probably should, be shorter, but the way to go about that is to propose what should be removed, what should be split, and seek a consensus. That is what was down in the casualties section in the past, and the International law section (see here. I cant find where the actual split was done, too long ago). nableezy - 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by Weaponbb7

....

• User:Marokwitz made a Bold edit and naturally was Reverted and discuion ensued as expected. I recomend both of you to review WP:CALM.
• User:Marokwitz next time say something on the talk-page prior to such a bold edit, and Try inviting people to a WP:SUBPAGE where the main article will not be affected. Especially on high traffic and contentious article such as this.
• on the Casualties issue it sounds like User talk:Nableezy interrupted User:Marokwitz summary being inputed back into the main article so this may be mute. I do agree it needs an adequate summary and that it will proably take much hashing out as i doubt any first draft will achieve consensus.
• I have to agree that as it stands now Propaganda and psychological warfare in the Gaza War is way to small "as is." does user:Marokwitz think that more

reliable sources be found to beef it up? Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also is there not a workgroup covering this topic that can get a wider consensus here on summaries?

Controversies regarding tactics

The 'Controversies regarding tactics' section contains a subsection called 'Improvised Explosive Device counter measures'. What is the controversy ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is none, it can come out. You shouldn't have to ask. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Hamas

Is the Flag of Hamas acceptable? From my understanding it is a flag often used but not official. I'm not sure and don't really care.

Assuming it is acceptable, does anyone know enough about licensing to help out here? It appears to me that it is improperly licensed since the current license only covers the creation of the file, not the flag's graphical design itself. I believe {{PD-textlogo}} would be fine but am not sure. {{insignia}} may also apply but I do not know if it is an official flag.Cptnono (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Result

It needs to be kept uptodate in my opinion...

1) Israel not ending the blockade 2) Israel allowing certain goods in 3) Tunnels still up and running

I'll get to it if no one else does, but I am a very busy man. Cryptonio (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)