Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 6

Casualties

the only source for Israeli casualties is a Hamas source [1] , we should wait for the IDF report or a more natural one and not be used as a tool in the Hamas's psychological warfare. --217.132.189.80 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why were Israeli injured civilians (from rockect attacks, about 60 if I rememeber correctly) removed form the casualties figures?--Omrim (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

30 Israeli soldiers were injured

Resolved

can someone add it to the table? here is the source [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.189.80 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would, but the site you indicate, does not mention such information. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct sources are Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post I have added them. Debresser (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Legislative Council building

The photo for the Palestinian Legislative Council building in the article in Rmallah in West Bank not in Gaza, Please can some one add that--84.13.120.243 (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and resolution of bias in introduction

We have to get a grip on the introduction. It is going from bad to worse. It now reads like a pice of Israeli propaganda. Almost all mention of the fact that there have been significant civilian casualties in Gaza - which is one of the most important aspects of this conflict - have been removed. I have just reinstated mention of the first day casualties but there is systematic editing of it going on, so that will probably be removed before long.

The intro reads like a list of Israeli military accomplishments.

Could even suggest that the Israeli government has been editing the article (after all, it is known that the CIA edits wikipedia)!

I suggest that an intro is agreed here, possibly based on the version from a couple of days ago. Agree it here, agree any subsequent changes here and if people edit the intro without discussion, agree that such edits should be immediately undone.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No we cannot agree that Israeli foreign signals intelligence service is editing the article. I'm sure they have more productive uses of their time. As for CIA, I would love to see a citation proving that it was anything more than a bored staffer with time on his (her) hands. V. Joe (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The introduction has become a bit better, but Jandrews is right, there is not enough focus on the humanitarian aspect of the war. For example a detailed description of the exact amount of explosives delivered is better suited to a description of a video game. I think the focus on military maneuvers needs to be replaced with a focus on the political and historical causes and humanitarian consequences of the assault. The details about military maneuvers can come later, not in the introduction. Also, please see the discussion in the section above. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the discussion of humanitarian effects ahead of what, in my opinion, are less important military details. I dont think the exact tonnage of explosives dropped by the IAF on Day 1 is important enough to merit a place in the introduction at all. However, for now, I've just reordered the text.Jacob2718 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of White Phosphorus

On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.

The following pictures seems to me like White Phosphorus munitions...but I am no expert on this so can anyone please confirm this so that the use of this controversial weapon can be recorded in the article. Here are the pictures:

• http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3523/84166342ui7.jpg
• http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9199/84166337pa8.jpg
• http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6506/84166547ab2.jpg

Badkhan (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be WP, but that's a non-issue. This is the commonest way (and of the best ways) to get a smoke-screen, and is not really dangerous to people, as the phosphorous burns in the air to produce the smoke, and doesn't reach the ground in clean form. The use of WP is controversial when used against people, as an anti-personnel weapon. It is used to produce smoke-screens by armies throughout the world. See White_Phosphorous#Exposure_and_inhalation_of_smoke in particular, and that entire article in general, for more info on the subject. okedem (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only controversial amongst the idiots who wish it was a chemical weapon so they could castigate the US for using it in Iraq. Jtrainor (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that original research WP:OR ? Maybe you can email Patrick Baz at AFP via hotmail if you want to follow it up. He's probably a bit busy though.... Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you pay attention instead of trying to deploy tepid burns. If you had even bothered to check the WP article here, then you'd know that use of white phosphorus is only illegal if used for it's chemical effect rather than it's incendiary effect. Jtrainor (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

er..hello..are you talking to me for some reason? Tepid burns? I don't follow. Not sure who is meant to be burning who here and why. Anyway, I have no interest in the legal status of white phosphorus if that helps you. Just trying to help Badkhan out. That's all. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed you were replying to me instead of him. I hereby retract my comment. x_x Jtrainor (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They look like WP to me (though im no authority). What I really wanted to add was that explosions of this type were ongoing early on before the ground offensive. So maybe an issue for further study. Superpie (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited editing?

This article has been edited too much. Editors are editing and reversing it faster and faster. Why not limit the editing of this article and update every 24 hours (or 12, 36 etc.)or after a major event? I think neutrality and stability is more important than timeliness, especially when this article is EXTREMELY sensitive. Also this seems to be the only way to stop an assumed-not-neutral edit (i.e. editors from the belligerents) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhieaanm (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Omrim (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Wiki's popularity (and I experienced this with the Mumbai bombing article), is that Edit Conflicts become incredibly more common when the events are happening right there and then in the real world. There is no way round it, really, given the nature of Wiki. I can only suggest keeping small grammatical edits to a minimum. doktorb _words^deeds 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hai. We have such a rule: WP:3RR. What happens is, next to everyone has violated the rule, so people are afraid of reporting others. Thanks! :D --Cerejota (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not one of those "everyone" who violated the rule. Now tell me who do you want me to report? ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the problem. Just because of an ocasional edit-conflic? Apart from that, I can't imagine any workable definition of "too much editing". Debresser (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture bias?

Isn't the "man holding a civilian injured by the airstrikes" picture a bit too much? It clearly shows blood and is quite 'horrifying'. Maybe that wasn't the uploader's intention , yet I still believe that the article doesn't benefit from those kinds of pictures. either way, I suggest that the picture be removed. What do you think? That'll be much better than using an Israeli wounded picture as a counter-weight, as some would probably suggest.--212.235.85.149 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article would benefit enormously by including one or more graphic images of the dead/wounded from either or both sides of the conflict if

• the image genuinely meets the legal inclusion criteria.
• it was taken in a public place
• it complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

Surely it's the most important aspect of this conflict which is presumably why TV screens around much of the world (with notable sanitised exceptions) are full of such graphic images right now. Why is it biased ? As the aption said, they're civilians. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely don't agree. These sorts of pictures are de riguer in news coverage, and as the previous commenter said, such a graphic image illustrates precisely why the Israeli assault is drawing international attention in most quarters of the world (ie. excluding the Zionist and anti-Muslim parts of the West). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

91.105.255.98, You may disagree but unless they are free pics they cannot be posted.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Falk in Official Capacity

No surprise, the "Alleged violations of international law" section has been the subject of much editing recently. One recent edit has quoted Falk in his official capacity as Special Rapporteur. Let me clarify something right off the bat: I am in no way objected to quoting Falk as a WP:RS. But I do have several objections to the way he is quoted:

1. He's quoted out of a webblog. If we're going to quote him at all--and especially in his official capacity--we really ought to be quoting a press release, a news article, a page in the UN website, or some other type of official publication. A blog page is not in his official capacity.
2. His official capacity is to oversee violations of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories. Gaza hasn't been occupied territory since 2005, so he has no authority to write about Gaza as Rapporteur. See Weiner and Bell.

While we're at it, there's one man who's quoted as saying Israel has used fuel bombs and depleted uranium. I'm removing the reference until there's some sort of serious substantiation. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. My fault. I didn't notice that the existing ref wasn't from the UN. I'll fix if someone doesn't beat me to it. I already removed the fuel bomb/depleted U line that someone added. If a RS comes up that states/alleges that it's a violation then we can add it back with the new ref. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to respond about occupying power status and the Gaza strip. Your statement isn't about improving the article. If you can find a some RS's that support the view that the United Nations Human Rights Council have got it wrong by allowing their Special Rapporteur to issue such a statement please go ahead and add it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sean. Thank you for finding that source. You'll notice I made a few changes to the section, including the status of the Rapporteur. If you find them objectionable, feel free to edit/discuss. I won't be hurt. :-) Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

actually i thought my version was more encyclopedic and clearer in the sense that it more closely followed the original source, included all 3 notable allegations and linked to the appropriate WP pages if people didn't understand what the UN statement was talking about....but then i would, wouldn't i. i have no interest in advancing any political agendas here. the UN statement, whatever anyone thinks of falk or the UNHRC is significant and notable. it deserves to be treated respectfully (in the sense of not watering it down) and with appropriate weight in this article. anyway, the article is pretty unstable at the moment so there's little point in me spending time on it until things calm down a bit. i'm sure i'm not alone in that view. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, forgot to mention that I think it is important to not introduce systemic bias accidentally. We need to acknowledge that the Israeli/US admin's views on Falk and the UN are pretty skewed compared to other member states and try to avoid giving them undue weight in this article if possible. Not easy I appreciate given that most editors probably have strong feelings on these matters and may not even be aware of their own systemic bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Merge Black Saturday massacre into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, it is a short article with little information, and I'm sure some in Israel would object to the title's neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassfire (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Its been done already as Black Saturday massacre title is one sided and thus POV--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Online petition

Resolved

Unless an online petition receives serious media coverage it is not notable enough to be in this article, please move it to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I have left the current one in there for now, hoping someone will come up with some independent sources.VR _talk 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok it has now been removed.VR _talk 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of man killed

If it is notable enough to mention violent protests in London, Greece etc, why can't we mention that a Palestinian man was shot dead during these violent protests. I don't understand why this fact was removed?VR _talk 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You should move it to the inevitably created International Reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict article. Yes, it's the Wikipedia "divide and conquer" tactic. Very professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct link is [[3]]

The death of this man should be mentioned in the main article. The shooting dead of a protester is extremely notable. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely notable? Why is that I wonder?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the protester being shot not because the information is irrelevant, but because it was not included in the source mentioned.

The information I provided on hacked website might be a little detailed, although I would not say excessively. If consensus would be that it is indeed too detailed, it could be shortened in various ways. Although, frankly speaking, I find the information important, since it shows the full extent of reactions to the conflict.Debresser (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the subject of information on hacked sites has been discussed before. The discussion is now in the Archive. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you are the same one who removed the information on hacked sites previously. I also noticed excessive cutting has already been ascribed to you by other people in this discussion page, section Reactions. Especially without at least putting the information you cut out back on the special page for Civilian Protests. By the way, I appreciate you personally inviting me to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh so this is where the discussion is. Can you please join it below in the more recent one called "Reactions"? Thanks.VR _talk 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated events

There was apparently a failed attack on a Chicago synagogue. As much as this attack was disgusting, it was harmless. No one was injured, nor any damage done because the cocktail failed to burn. Additionally, there are no credible sources connecting this attack to the subject of the article. The official of the temple "suspects" that there maybe a relationship, but clearly isn't sure. No officials or policemen have made any comments to that end.

In a time when the article has gotten too long, it would help that we limit it to events that are for sure connected to the subject, not those that may possibly be. Please also note, that the section on reactions has been so severely cut down that it doesn't mention the official reactions by individual countries, nor all of the protests that have occurred. Clearly brevity is of paramount significance here.VR _talk 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Brevity is important, but we're dealing with a fairly short section, anyways. Also, brevity should be a secondary consideration when dealing with something like this, which is totally unexplored in the rest of the article.

There has been someone in an official position connecting the two events: the victim of the crime. Nor is this a stretch of the imagination. This attack didn't occur two weeks ago, but after the invasion. As long as the source is mentioned in the article, it's clear to the reader that this is an issue that's still developing, and that his hasn't been corroborated by police. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you didn't respond to my points. I'm not saying this is not important. Just that it should be moved to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. The lack of connection, lack of significance, and lack of any serious damage just support my point. I hope you will see what I'm trying to say. Also please respond in the above section to inform me of why you removed the fact about a man being shot dead. Thanks.VR _talk 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to remove the part about the man being shot dead; that was due to copying and pasting.

So if the crux of your argument is that this should be moved to International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, then why don't we move the protests and reactions from international organizations there? Actions speak louder than words, and these actions need to be mentioned. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those that hold that this section should mention more details. Or it should COMPLETELY be moved to the other article. But no shortened versions that do injustice to some information or the other. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat picture inclusions and deletions

I notice that the picture of the Palestinian man carrying a maimed bombing victim has been deleted and a picture of Qassam rocket damage has been added. Even as a supporter of the Gazans I think it would be right to show pictures of casualities on both sides. Given that casualties on the Gazan side are over 100 times greater it is obviously giving undue weight to the Israeli perspective to bias the picture count 100% towards Israeili suffering. I also think we have some extremely partisan editors sympathetic to the Zionist side making blatantly biased edits.

I'll say again as I said in the 'Picture bias?' section above that the article would benefit from showing some of the reality of this conflict. Rather than people warring over images (wow, how low can things go) it would be better if we could all come to some kind of agreement. And remember WP:NOTCENSORED + there's the WP:NOIMAGE option if people don't want to see something. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose we adopt a 1:1 policy so that for every picture added showing damages in Gaza, we add another showing damages in Israel and vice versa. Similarly for other traumatic events. If this results in too many pictures, we delete accordingly in pairs so as to preserve neutrality. That way we will save many discussions about one side or the other being favoured. What do you think? T.R. 87.59.77.64 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures were removed because they were copyright violations. If non-copy-vio pictures from Gaza are found, I will defend and uphold their inclusion, provided they have appropriate quality. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's one PD image on Commons. I'll put it in. The rest are still pending Flickr review, so once they are approved they can replace or supplement this one. - Mailer Diablo 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Scratch that, it's copyvio. Wait for the Flickr. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No International Reactions Section?

Will no one quote Bush as saying "Hamas should stop bombing Israel" while there are 500 Palestinian casualties and only 5 Israeli? --193.188.105.220 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point --69.217.126.175 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been moved to a seperate article. I have suggested below that the US be listed on the Involved Parties section in the main article. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should the US be listed in involved parties? Then we would have to list Iran, Syria, Russia, UK, France etc. Does the US have troops on the ground? Are its planes bombing anyone? Are its ships shelling anybody? Where is the proof?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The US (from what Im seeing) seems to be relatively uninvolved. Like the federal government seems to be staying on the side lines offering no more than the expected generic government responses. But yeah I dont know what its officialy called on wiki but I know on other sections of a similar nature they have had those small flag thumb.imgs and a brief comment by said nation or governing entity. Sorry it was hard to word that intelligently. 75.118.149.210 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete non-reliable Palestinian 'executions' claims

Previously "Any Palestinian 'executions' are a internal matter, not part of the conflict"

Therefore the apparent executions have no place in the casualties info box. Just as traitors executed during any historical war would not (I believe) have been added to the military deathcount.

Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea agreed. Plus I haven't heard anywhere else except Israeli sources (YNET, maybe JPOST) about these internal events. 35 people is quite a lot to not merely mention. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently numbers only matter if they are not for the Israelis or their allies.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's BS. Every media outlet reports Israeli casualties (killed and injured), they're just far fewer than Palestinian casualties, so that's no excuse. And Fatah is not an ally of Israel. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course the executions should be added, but to the Israeli side since they are presumably "collaborators." In fact, perhaps we need an info box for Presumed Collaborators Executed. They are certainly casualties of this war, but it ought to be clear on whose hands their blood belongs. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If these executions have anything to do with the hostilities, as e.g. when the reason would be presumed collaboration with Israel, they ipso facto are related and could and should be mentioned. Of course it would not do to mention them as casualties of the hostilities, but the fact should be mentioned somewhere.
I fail to see why Israeli newspapers would not be considered valid sources on this or any other information. The way Al Ameer son dismisses them strikes me as an argument to accuse him of being biassed more than aforementioned newspapers.Debresser (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact Israeli newspapers are considered RS, and we do not discriminate by country of origin. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed we shouldn't. But one definitely wonders as to why only Israeli newspapers have reported this. This is not an argument to exclude the claims, but just to not give them undue weight.VR _talk 02:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Canadian sources? [4] Better yet, what about the New York Times? [5]--Omrim (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is America an Involved Party?

I think it is. After all it bankrolls Israel, supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to this operation. Therefore the American reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.

If America told Israel to stop this attack, it would do so.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I now see someone else has done just this. However surely it should be agreed here first. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

America is an involved party, i think its actions at the United Nations security council ontop of the American tax payer being the one to pick up the bill for this war justifies their inclusion BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you also of the opinion that Iran is an involved party? How about China? France? An involved party is only one that is actively engaged in the operation - Israel, the various Palestinian groups, and Egypt. NoCal100 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Therefore Iran bankrolls Hamas (and Hezbollah), supplies all its weapons and you can be sure it gave the green light to fire rockets at Israel. Therefore the Iranian reaction should be listed under 'Involved Parties'.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AND, just to drag this out to its logical conclusion:

" UNSC Membership in 2009

The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end): Austria (2010), Japan (2010), Uganda (2010), Burkina Faso (2009), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2009), Viet Nam (2009), Costa Rica (2009), Mexico (2010), Croatia (2009), and Turkey (2010). They have all made statements and condemnations. So they should all be listed as involved parties too. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow that members of the Security Council are 'involved parties'. However I take your point that Iran is. So perhaps IRan and America under Involved PArties then?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How about neither as neither one is directly involved in the current combat operations. Or do you know something we don't?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well technically egypt is not involved in combat operations, however it remains an involved party. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling America an involved party might be the biggest stretch since the invention of yoga. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In Israel it is common knowledge the PM doesn't go to the proverbial bathroom without asking permission from the US. Unfortunately. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

America is obviously involved and I see no logic behind many of the comments made here. It is important that Wikipedia sources as much valid and important information possible in order to serve its actual purpose on the web. America funds Israel. Early this morning, the BBC and world news stations have broadcast Dick Cheney's backing of Israel's heavy-handedness. Therefore America's involvement in both funding and supporting this offensive should be included. The article should also be semi-protected.

We, as contributors to Wikipedia but remain neutral, despite our nationalities, and the fact is, America is involved. America funds and supports Israel, therefor the United States are a big part of the ground offensive and unprecidented violence cast upon the civilians in Gaza.--Theosony (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything is a matter of degree. The Zionists here are right: the whole world is involved, even tiny Vanuatu. What they neglect to say is that SOME countries are MORE involved than others. The U.S., clearly, is one of the MOST involved countries, since it operates as an Israeli satellite or colony: It arms Israel, funds Israel, shields Israel from the U.N., and makes war in Israel's behalf.

If some people want to say that Iran is also involved, fine, but let's keep it real: Let's state the exact NATURE of the involvement. The U.S. gives Israel at least $3,000,000,000 a year, plus the most deadly weapons on the planet. What does Iran give to Hamas besides moral support?

Here is the text I added for the U.S. involvement:

• U.S. – "At the United Nations, the United States thwarted an effort by Libya to persuade the Security Council to call for an immediate ceasefire, diplomats said."

Unfortunately, it was summarily deleted by those who prefer to keep the U.S. role in this hidden. NonZionist (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, and everyone here is speaking from an unbiased view. Right. -- Unsigned comment

This is a minority opinion. Israel is a sovereign nation whose democratically-elected government has a relationship with the United States. It is a member of the United Nations and not a "satellite" or "colony" of the U.S. It wages this operation on its own behalf. If we include the United States as an involved party just because of its relationship with Israel, we set off a train of logic that will end with us including numerous countries and the section will look absurd to the unbiased observer. "Involved parties" should clearly be limited to combatants, as it is in articles elsewhere. Egypt is involved because one of their border guards was killed by a Hamas gunman. Allow the reader to draw their own inferences about the relative relationships of other parties to the combatants. -- Noung (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

I have scaled down the size of the reactions section. This article has become huge. More than 60 countries have expressed official statements. There have been civilian protests, clashes, etc. in about 200 cities. Including every one of them will make this article very big. Also, let's keep the cyber-warfare to a minimum as well. Just because a website, or online petition publishes something doesn't mean its notable until is is covered by news media, and/or independent sources. Cheers.VR _talk 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep deleting my entry for the U.S. in the "involved parties" section. Why? The U.S. is what makes the Israeli aggression possible. It arms Israel, funds Israel, and shields Israel from the U.N.. On late Saturday, it blocked Libyan attempts to get the UNSC to support a ceasefire. The earlier statement that the U.S. supports a ceasefire is misleading, since in practice, the U.S. opposes it. NonZionist (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice too that you did not transfer the text you gratuitously deleted to the sub-article -- International_reaction_to_the_2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict. Your "scaling down" is tantamount to censorship. In one of your updates, you managed to delete the entire article. What's the problem? -- is the article not sufficiently biased to suit Israel's taste? NonZionist (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. My accidental deletion of most of the article was unintended. I amply apologized for it. The US is quoted in the section. However, if you feel I've not done an adequate job, please feel free to improve it, *as briefly as possible*.VR _talk 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why this urge to "scale-down"? If I want a "scaled-down" article, I'll go to a hardcopy encyclopedia, where article length is limited by the cost of ink and paper. How much do bits cost? The more information, the better, as I see it.

Because I can't find any justification for "scaling down", it seems a lot like censorship to me: Allowing aggression while silencing the critics of aggression. That's why I find it hard to "calm down". I will try to assume good faith on your part, if you assume good faith on my part when I "scale UP". Keep in mind that many people are dying, because certain powerful people live in a world of stereotypes. Information helps us to counter stereotypes and save lives. This is NOT an academic debate or game! NonZionist (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on websites are indeed notable, and that is why they were mentioned. However, we need to explain them in proportion. For example in this edit, 393 characters explain the website attacks, while the reference to a Palestinian man bieng shot dead (far more notable) in 87 characters was removed. This seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

VR, I truly respect your valiant attempts to cut down this section, but I fear that so long as it maintains its current format, neither side can be expected to be contented. It really ought to be shrunk to a single paragraph stating that there has been international condemnation of both sides (though primarily of Israel), and then referring to the more specific article. What are your thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are even bolder than I! How about two paragraphs? One paragraph for the general protests around the world and Israel (notable for both pro-and con protests) and Egypt (notable because these protests have had an outcome on the conflict). The next paragraph for extra-ordinary incidents, like website attacks, violence against Israelis, and the Palestinian shot dead. How is that?VR _talk 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I created the first of the two paragraph here.[6] Tell me what you think.VR _talk 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty stupendous summarizing right there. I'll see if I can't take the remaining sections and summarize them into one paragraph. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cut back the section significantly. There's still more cutting that could be done, but now I have to leave Wikipedia and tend to my real life. :-P Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Protesters in London, Paris, Oslo, and other cities clashed with the police. There were attacks against Jews and Israelis, as well as defacings of Israeli websites. which were interpreted to be in response to the conflict. One Palestinian man was shot dead during a protest.

Is that good?VR _talk 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reaction on your talk page, that this phrasing is faulted. Apart from that I would like to point out that the hacking of 300 websites is perhaps less tragic than the death of a person, but will be witnessed by probably a thousand times more people, and is therefore far mor noticable. Debresser (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be witnessed more times, but will make far less of an impact. In fact it is generally agreed that human deaths are more notable that some defacing or vandalism.

Secondly, did you take a look at my earlier statement: More than 60 countries have expressed official statements. There have been civilian protests, clashes, etc. in about 200 cities.

If we begin to devote even 2 sentences to each reaction, like you've deoted two sentences (actually one small paragraph) to the websites, then this will be blown way out of proportion.

Please note that we have summarized the 150,000 people protest in Sakhnin, 200,000 people protest in Istanbul, 30,000 people protest in Ammam, 20,000 people protest in Paris and many others in just one long sentence (or one paragraph). Are you really comparing a few websites to these massive protests?VR _talk 03:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not. And nowhere did I make any such comparison. As I agreed in another section dealing with this subject, the information on hacked sites may be reduced a bit. Although you reduced it too much, in my opinion. About the shot demonstator you also reduced the information too much, and I actually added to it in the main article.

The point is, that any information needs at least a minimum of words. The sentence "A man was killed today in a shooting in down-town NY" is just marginally longer than the sentence "Favourite dog of JFK was killed today by passing car", not because it is infinitely more important, but because it just takes that many words to acurately describe what happened.

In this context I would like to point out, that I see no reason this article should contain an enumeration of cities where demonstrations were held. That should be done in the article that's been made especially for that. Keep it short, just like I did when mentioning the pro-Israel demonstrations. Debresser (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "defacings of Israeli websites [occurred]" reduces it too much given I give only a word or so to a protest that brings out 200,000 people. You have to take a relativistic approach as opposed to an absolutist one. That is to say, the amount of space something gets should be measured by the amount of sapce other more similar events get.VR _talk 03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, are you saying that we should remove the cities where thousands gathered to protest? This cities are summarized in one word or so (e.g. London, Paris, Athens...). I don't see at all how they are taking undue weight. If you can summarize the website hacking in one word (actually I'm asking you to summarize in one sentence) then that's great!VR _talk 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for shortening the hackers. I also think that all the violent events should be mentioned together. This includes both attacks on Jews, and the killing of the Palestinian man.VR _talk 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here, I reduced it a little.

The information about attacks on jews etc. is in no way connected to demonstrations, and should therefore be a seperate paragraph.

And yes, whether tens, hundreds or thousands gathered doesn't matter. Just mention it, and be done with it. You're too emotionally involved, it seems to me.Debresser (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I think you are wrong to list all cities. I didn't do that when I wrote about the pro-Israel demonstrations. And I don't think the shooting of a demonstrator and the hacking of an internet site should be in one paragraph, even though both are violence. But I'm not going to change that again. I am pretty sure future redactors will agree with me on these points, without me entering a conversation with somebody who is so empressed by the sheer numbers of demonstrators that he overstresses details and underplays other important facts. Debresser (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We can create a separate paragraph for every individual reaction, then God knows how long this article will be. Also, I never list all of the cities in which anti-Israeli demonstration took place. Like I said such demonstrations took place in more than 100 cities, and I haven't even listed half. Also you were the one who brought up the issue of numbers "will be witnessed by probably a thousand times more people", hence I brought numbers up too to show you what we are dealing with. Anyways, good night.VR _talk 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As it now stands, the "Reactions" section is utterly useless. It says absolutely nothing that people do not already know. It tells the reader that a long list of countries called for peace: It reminds me of a beauty pageant where all the contestants say they are for "world peace". I tried to introduce real SUBSTANTIVE information into this section, but, of course, my efforts were blocked and the information was removed. So now we have nothing. What a waste of time. NonZionist (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Why is Iran featured so prominently in the section currently? The Iranian part, including its leader Khamanei and ally Sistani, are given more space than Israel itself!

Also Egyptian reaction which accuses Israel of "savage aggression" is quoted twice (once in the second paragraph, and once under "involved parties"). May I ask why?VR _talk 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ACLJ

I removed the following from the Civilian Protests section, someone keeps putting it back:

An online petition, claiming 25,494 signatories as of January 4th, called for the "Proclamation for Solidarity with Israel and the Christians in the Gaza Strip" through the American Center for Law and Justice; its representatives have met with Israeli officials in Ashkelon.

Please find an RS for this, ACLJ can't be an RS for itself. Also is not technically a civilian protest, so should probably be in another section.

I agree that it should not be considered a protest but it is certainly verifiable information and the ACLJ is a very well founded organization, a large Civil Rights Organization. I don't think that we should remove it. I think rather that we should make a note that a citation is needed and move it to another section. Coreywalters06 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Founded in 1990 by evangelical Pat Robertson? I have to question it's reliability. Also, I think the statement is covertly racist, by including Israelis and the Christians of Gaza, pointedly leaving out ALL Muslims. If it was an anti-Hamas statement, that would've been ok. --vvarkey (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not an "anti" anyone statement. The only thing that it is against is terrorism in Gaza and Hamas's "radical Islamic threat". And even more so, it is a pro-Israel proclamation more than anything else. Israel should be able to protect itself. Hamas has been shooting rockets into Israel long before this started and Israel has the right to say that enough is enough. Wikipedia is not the place for politics but if you're gonna start pulling out the "racist" card, you better believe I'm gonna say something. You want to complain about racist, why don't you read the current resolution in the United Nations (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1). That resolution doesn't mention a single word about any other religion other than defending Islam and Muslims. Its goal? To make it illegal internationally to "offend" any Muslim, including my beliefs - and punishable by Suria law - including execution. Read it for yourself: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2003.4.En?Opendocument Coreywalters06 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, i was a bit rash there and take back the racism comment. but i think it's fair to say pat robertson is a nut. for eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies#Remarks_concerning_Ariel_Sharon . i think we need a ref from a source other than the ACLJ for this text to be in the article. cheers --vvarkey (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Date Format?

The format at one point was 27 December 2008. I understand that this is an official format but in the table of contents it seems impossible to read when it says "3.1 27 December 2008". That just looks very sloppy. Is there any other format that we can use such as "December 27 2008" so that it looks like "3.1 December 27, 2008"? This is much easier to read. I am also thinking that this conflict will be going on much longer than others expect. If this continues to go on, what will we do about the Development section. It is already starting to get very long. Coreywalters06

I personally use the format 2008Dec27. This is clearly _one_ item, not three, and is easily time-sequenced. Johnbibby (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)::::

It's my understanding that the manual of style does not sanction that format. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Hamas a reliable source?

Is Hamas a reliable source? Consider it in the context of the following claims:

• "Sources close to" Hamas have claimed to execute 35 Fatah "collaborators", says Jerusalem Post[7]
• "Hamas-run media" claims to have captured two Israeli soldiers, says BBC News[8]

Should we treat these as facts?VR _talk 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the claims were made comes from a reliable source, but the claims themselves do not, in my opinion. It's still worth including in the article, but noting that they are unverified claims. Orpheus (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It should be in the Hamas claims or According to Hamas format. However, I am weary about the inclusion of the "35 Fatah" men being killed by Hamas during the conflict. This has not been mentioned by any major neutral source (not Palestinian, not Israeli) and I doubt that the action even occurred. Nonetheless, it should be attributed to the Jerusalem Post. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See Pallywood--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're arguing that it's right to include the statements of Israel Defense Forces, Tzipi Livni, The Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Haaretz, and Arutz Sheva, and AFTER THAT treat the Palestinian sources as a propaganda!??? Dammit, all of pro-Israeli sources I mentioned are cited in the article more than triple times ore more. No comment, really. I'm stunned of this blind bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I. moving it to the casualties section where we can discuss it with attribution.VR _talk 21:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Darwish07...whats good for the goose, etc. Manitobamountie (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Hamas takes part of a longstanding tradition of exagerating. See e.g. the 'Casualities' section on this page, where Hamas claims to have killed 9 Israeli soldiers, whereas all other sources so far (the better part of a day later) mention only one Israeli soldier as having been killed. This is a reality we should be aware of. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which means all its claims should attributed.VR _talk 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'attributed'? Debresser (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pallywood

Pallywood must be deleted from the 'See Also' section. This is clearly a blatant and trite POV addition designed to imply media bias against Israel in the coverage of the offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sick of this extreme conspiracy theoretic sources extremely biased people throw around. Deleted. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Media bias against Israel? I am stunned!!!--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Take for example the following quote from Times Online. It is also felt that Israel is particularly keen to use the internet as an alternative to more traditional sit-down interviews with international television stations and media outlets because many mainstream stations are slated as being unsympathetic. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have personally noticed the difference in coverage from the BBC and CNN. CNN being (at least) slightly anti-Israel biased. I stress that this is my personal opinion. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On this subject I have found the folowing on Wikipedia: In 2002, Honest Reporting spearheaded a campaign to expose CNN for pro-Palestinian bias. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we delete Weiner and Bell quotes

On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.

i am not in favour of deleting the Weiner and Bell quotes/summaries, since that risks POV concerns for the whole section. For the moment i am restoring them. Boud (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Weiner and Bell are just a lawyer and just some professor who wrote something for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Their stuff is not published in a reputable journal of international law. It is just propaganda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? whct about: December, 2000, 100 Columbia Law Review 1965, THE INTEGRATION GAME, Abraham Bell and Gideon Parchomovsky; 16 Temple Int'l & Comparative Law Jourbal 43, THE USE OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN THE AL-AQSA INTIFADA: A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS*, Justus Reid Weiner; 37 Geoorge Washington Int'l Law Review 309, ISRAEL'S SECURITY BARRIER: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND LEGAL EVALUATION, Dr. Barry A. Feinstein*, Justus Reid Weiner; Fall, 2007, 22 Connecticut Journal of Int'l Law 233, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF 'SAFE PASSAGE' RECONCILING A VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE WITH ISRAEL'S SECURITY REQUIREMENTS , Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison; Abraham Bell "JUST" earned his doctoral degree from Harvard. They certainly most no "just lawyers" (Sill,I am still not sure they should be mentioned as their publication was made before the current conflict).--Omrim (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not convinced of the reliability of the quotes from these two either. It would be equally easy to go and get quotes from lecturers at a Palestinian university saying the opposite, and that doesnt achieve much. It would be much better to use only quotes from independent international legal experts. Fig (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The section is only expanding, with now eight (8!) references to their article "published" on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Claims of genocide are ludicrous. They belittle the real cases of genocide that have taken place in history. And does anybody care about Darfur. I will remove the propaganda from the Israeli thinktank. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove relevant, sourced material without consensus, as that is borderline vandalism. You are welcome to your personal opinions about about Bell and Weiner, but they are published academics in reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Not that it's required, as the JCPA is reliable and notable itself, but the Weiner & bell arguments have been picked up in mainstream media, such as here. Please do not remove this agian without consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a view one way or the other about the material itself, and I know the Spectator ref is not being used as a key point, but I would just say that it is pushing the definition somewhat to suggest that Melanie Phillips' blog on the Spectator website counts as significant "mainstream media". I would also note that Electronic Intifada links have been excluded from this page. Is that any worse or less partisan a reference point than JCPA? --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote, the Spectator mention is not required, but there is a big difference between an column in mainstream media such as the Spectator, and self-published websites such as EI. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged you weren't relying on the Phillips piece, but I really would stress the point (perhaps for future reference) that she is viewed as being pretty "out there" by most other media in the UK, and also that this appears to be an online post rather than a published comment piece; and of course my comparison was between EI & JCPA, not between EI & The Spectator. Whatever you or I might think of EI or JCPA, they are both partisan self-publishers as opposed to mainstream outlets - that doesn't necessarily disqualify either of them from being quoted or cited when appropriate and with proper attribution, but you can't treat one differently from the other. --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I disagree with you about the equivalence between EI and JCPA. EI is little more than an unabashedly partisan self-published blog, operated by its four journalist founders. The JCPA is a think tank, its staff comprised primarily of dozens of academics who are recognized experts in their fields, with a well identified board of directors, steering committee and oversight committees. It is the equivalent (albeit on a smaller scale) of such think tanks as the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. NoCal100 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am aware, Dore Gold is a big figure in JCPA, and the group's wiki page (for what it's worth) lists 4 serving and former IDF personnel at the top of the list of major contributors/researchers. Its own website, in the homepage's first sentence, says "Israel's growth and survival are dependent on its winning the war of ideas". I guess everyone can make up their own minds as to whether this makes them a partisan organisation or not. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You should know better that to use wiki article as support for your argument. Nevertheless, I'm sure you didn't miss, on that page, the following names - Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University; Professor Bernard Lewis; Dr. Uzi Arad, ;Dr. Ephraim Kam,;Professor Mordechai Abir; Professor Gerald M. Steinberg - yet for some strange reason those names didn't make it into your above post. Does EI have comparable names on its staff? A more comprehensive list can be found here- [3], and a quick browsing through the names will confirm what I wrote - the research staff is made up of academics, many of whom are notable experts in their fields. Of course the center has its own agenda, as do the Brookings Institute or the Cato Institute. But the simplistic equivalency of "this blog is partisan, this think-tank is partisan, thus they are equivalent sources" is a false equivalence. NoCal100 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, hence my use of the phrase "for what it's worth" in respect of the WP page (and actually of course there were seven IDF related names at the top of the list, apologies for that). And yes, I did also notice the name of Bernard Lewis there, as I have now noticed Efraim Karsh, Uzi Landau, Richard Landes, Daniel Pipes etc on the much longer list you've linked to on the JCPA site. Thankfully, EI does not have comparable names on its staff. Flippancy aside, I repeat my point that both are valid places to go to for a particular POV and in order to source the opinions of those who write under their auspices. Both are quite explicit about where they are coming from. In addition Ali Abunimah for example is often published elsewhere and EI cited with approval by mainstream media, even though it does not drape itself - and nor of course could it, admittedly - in the often-spurious trappings of a "think-tank". --Nickhh (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) You are thankful that EI does not have world renown experts on the subject such as Bernard Lewis. No more needs to be said. NoCal100 (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC) The JCPA site is obviously unsuitable as a source for an unbiased account of what international law might have to say about the attacks. Its talk about "genocide" is inflammable. Inclusion of this material is clearly WP:UNDUE and borderline trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC) You are welcome to this personal opinion, which I disagree with, and as I've pointed out, it's also been published in the Spectator. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC) A blog that call the UN "Club of Terror" is not neutral. I will remove it again. Do not put this kind of stuff back unless it you have a reference to a reliable source, such as a refereed academic journal with a good reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) No source is "neutral". Falk is not neutral either. Wikipedia does not require 'neutral' sources - it requires reliable sources, which both the JCPA and The Spectator are. Please due not remove well sourced material again without clear consensus, as that is disruptive behavior. NoCal100 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The Weiner and Bell quotes, though farcical, should be left in, because they show just how convoluted and detached from reality one needs to be to justify this aggression. However, they should not be paired up with Falk or any other serious legal authorities. We should not use format to create the appearance of dialogue where there is none. Let the Weiner and Bell statements stand alone. The artificial division between "Attacks by Gaza Strip" and "Attacks by Israel" imposes a symmetry where there is none. Eliminate these misleading subheadings. Instead, have one subheading for Falk and one for Weiner and Bell. NonZionist (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Basically, what's going on here only proves that I was right when saying we should delete this section altogether. Please don't edit the section without consensus. I undid the last two edits. --Omrim (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't ignore the discussion we already had.[4] --Omrim (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I started to delete the most obviously propaganda. The JCPA web site is not not a serious source on international law regarding Israel's occupied territories. But as I am so clearly outnumbered by Zionists here, I will leave you guys. Bye-bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC) duh!. It's the nature of all internet communities to have debates, don't be so sensitive and assume WP:AGF. --Darwish07 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply don't think Weiner and Bell have credible opinions, in that they are not definitely unbiased, and from what I've seen, their opinions are very different to most people on these issues.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not in favour of deletion because the absurdity of their opinions speaks for itself. Criticism of Hamas, which is after all a popular guerilla movement and not a standing army, for using "human shields", in one of the most densely populated places on earth is patently ridiculous to anybody who isn't already unsalvagebly

The section has improved a fair bit since yesterday afternoon, but the Weiner and Bell quotes are still given undue prominence considering their obvious partiality. Fig (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fig, and, in my own opinion, the quotes are ridiculously placed and used in my own opinion. They don't lend hand to Wikipedia's neutrality rules either when the sources are read up.--Theosony (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Trashy Article

On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.

This article has to take the award as one of the worst written, most POV, most inaccurate and misleading articles in wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, what complaints do you have with specifics of the article? Mairyweather (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you already know that complaining does not translate to edits and does not magically neutralize this important article, right? So, if you care, I suggest another path. Spend a full day searching for good sources, then edit the article respectively and I promise you'll find the article much less "inaccurate and misleading" afterwards. BTW, this is what keeps Wikipedia alive, if you didn't join the party, your influence had been lost. So, if you're going to blame, do not blame others. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, everything get reverted and reverted and re-reverted and modified to extinction. It is ridiculous trying to improve this article since most here seem to think WP:consensus trumps NPOV. The concept of balance and accuracy is a joke when you have people excoriating one side of the "conflict" only, and mythologizing the other. What you call my "influence" has been reverted so often with zero explanation that it has become meaningless in this article. Eventually it may dawn on some of you that what you are doing here is pushing an agenda rather than trying to write a fair article. If and when that happens, I might start to contribute again. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hai. I agree with you, but unlike yourself, I do my best to edit, propose, talk, debate, and try to move things forwards. Just bitchin' and moanin' about it is not productive. In fact, its counter-productive. Please provide concrete examples and discuss what you see as problems. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For the first time, Tundrabuggy, we agree. We are trying to create a product that is acceptable to two radically incompatible philosophies. At the same time, we are supposed to pretend that these ideologies do not exist -- that we're all just friends. And we're not supposed to dialogue about the ISSUES and reach POLITICAL consensus. So the only possible result is a lowest common denominator -- i.e., ZERO. Because we do not DIALOGUE and develop an understanding of one another, the only thing left is to cancel out. After days of effort, we end up with platitudes that are of no help to anybody. NonZionist (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza close to losing phone contact

Just wanted to submit this short AP article which I think has relevant content to be added to the "humanitarian crisis" sections.

"Paltel Group says 90% of Gaza's cellular service is down, as well as many landlines, because of frequent power cuts and the inability of technicians to reach work sites."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iv4xv2KNWjkm8Ixw60eD52Va5zTw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!, I'm going to add it in the appropriate humanitarian crisis section. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem like kind of a minor detail to you? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

mmm, I guess it's a kind of crisis since people outside Gaza will not be able to know the state of their relatives and families in this horrific situation. To be sure, I'll wait for a day and see other agencies and the UN reaction. Thanks for keeping me honest. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor detail!? 90% of their ability communicate with the outside world is down? We should impose to add a "communications breakdown" section to the "Humanitarian crisis in Gaza" list.. --69.217.126.175 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

haaretz.com is not a source

I think these edits are inappropriate. For one the user deletes the Israeli strength. He also quotes "haaretz.com" as a source for 60 wounded Israelis. I think we need to quote specific articles, and not simply the publisher. VR _talk 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, SPECIFIC articles from haaretz.com are PERFECTLY acceptable ;). Just remember to ALSO verify with other sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but someone should remove the "haaretz.com" reference.VR _talk 22:58, 4 January 2009