Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

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...

Razorback216

Razorback216 made a revert despite WP:BRD and the previous discussions calling for the trimming of that section of the lead.[1] 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 [2] 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 - [3] 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)

[4] 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?

Keywords in the section "Propaganda and psychological warfare" have been removed in the Israeli compartment but are still present in the Hamas'. Yes, i agree, it needs fixing. Cryptonio (talk) 07:38, 30 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)

Really? This just isn't contentious enough for any thoughts? How about I remove the flag altogether since there is a question. Anyone mind?Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 2 August 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)

SYNTH

Whoever added this should fix it.

Shortly after Israel completed its troop pullout, Hamas declared "remarkable victory." Khaled Mashaal, speaking from his exiled Headquarters in Damascus said that, "the resistance won the battle in Gaza and the enemy failed in the field as it failed in politics. The enemy had to withdraw from the Strip without being able to impose any condition." The brigade commander of the Israeli paratroopers told reporters:

"I know that in the end Hamas will say they won. It doesn’t matter what will be the end of this war. We know they know today that they have a problem. Will they put down their weapons forever? For sure, no, but I think they have learned a lesson from this war."

Cryptonio (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For Sean

funny that the CSM is used in the lead ah?

lol Cryptonio (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Casualty Chart

I'm pretty sure that the casualty chart is what's keeping this article from being 'futured'...that thing looks horrible...of course, clearly from an aesthetic point of view. Cryptonio (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to be mean but the graph is messy and cluttered. I could design a more comprehensive chart with mainstream parameters. Let me know if anyone wants to collaborate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a more simple graph:

Palestinian casualties	Combatant	Non-combatant	Police	Total casualties
B'tselem	351	764	248	1,385
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights	236	926	255	1,417
Israeli Defense Forces	709	295		1,166
Palestinian Ministry of Health, Gaza				1,400
Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades	48	1,252		1,300

This is strictly an example. The current graph is very confusing and messy. If you guys want to divide stats by gender-ratios, we could make a separate chart for that, or any other parameters reliable sources have published. Comments? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Several

Several witnesses told an Italian reporter that on many roofs of the tall buildings that were hit by Israeli bombs, including UN building, there were rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs.

Sources

The number of Palestinians killed in Operation Cast Lead did not exceed five or six hundred, Lorenzo Cremonesi, a correspondent for Italy's Corriere della sera reported on Thursday.

A Palestinian salvages belongings from the rubble of a house in the Zeitoun neighborhood in Gaza City [illustrative]. Photo: AP SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World Cremonesi based his report on tours of hospitals in the Gaza Strip and on interviews with families of casualties. He also assessed the number of wounded to be far lower than 5,000, the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by the UN and the Red Cross in Gaza.

"It is sufficient to visit several hospitals [in the Gaza Strip] to understand that the numbers don't add up," he wrote.

In the European hospital in Rafah, one of the facilities which would presumably be filled with wounded from the "war of the tunnels," many beds were empty, according to Cremonesi. A similar situation was noted in the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, and in the privately-run Amal Hospital Cremonesi reported that only five out 150 beds were occupied.

Cremonesi interviewed Gazans who echoed Israel's insistence of how Hamas gunmen used civilians as human shields. One Gazan recalled civilians in Gaza shouting at Hamas and Islamic Jihad men, "Go away, go away from here! Do you want the Israelis to kill us all? Do you want our children to die under their bombs? Take your guns and missiles with you."

"Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you. And in any case you will all die, like us. Fighting the Zionist Jews we are all destined for paradise. Do you not wish to die with us?" the religious fanatics of Hamas reportedly responded.

Other Palestinians told Cremonesi of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances. A woman identified as Um Abdullah, 48, spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets.

Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas.

A doctor at Gaza's Shifa Hospital told the Gaza correspondent of the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead might have been 500 or 600, mostly young men between the ages of 17 and 23, "drafted by Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter."

The doctor, who refused to identify himself out of fear for his life, also told the correspondent, Lorenzo Cremonesi: "It might have been like in Jenin in 2002. First they talked about 1,500 dead, and in the end it turned out to be only 54, among them 45 fighters."

The doctor said he was surprised that aid groups, including Western ones, reported the numbers without confirming them.

According to Cremonesi, the impression was that the number of wounded was also much lower than the 5,000 reported. "It is enough to visit a few hospitals to understand that the numbers don't jive. The European Hospital in Rafah and Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis have many empty beds. In the Al-Amal private hospital only five out of 150 beds are occupied."

Cremonesi also quoted civilians who said Hamas used ambulances to flee from Israeli snipers, and that civilians were forced to stay in their homes, from which Israel Defense Force soldiers were being fired on. According to one man, identified as Abu Issa, 42, of Tel Awwa, "They tried to goad the Israelis on. Sometimes they were only 16 or 17, armed with machine-guns ... They knew they were much weaker, but they wanted the Israelis to fire on our homes so they would be accused of war crimes."

His cousin, Um Abdallah, 48, said: "On almost all the roofs of the tall buildings that were hit by Israeli bombs there were rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs. They placed them by the U.N. storehouse that burned down."

BTW, removed per UNDUE and blatant LIE err, misconstruction i meant. Cryptonio (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

The POV tag is there for a good reason, some edit conflicts are unresolved and there seems no progress towards compromise. Thus POV tag should stay. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It won't stay until YOU the provider of suck tag explain to us, with your broken english, that sometimes it doesn't sound all that broken at all, go figure, which issues are you referring to...don't like it, leave as is your custom until you are forced to SPEAK clearly in order NOT to make your point accros but to simply let us know that YOU clearly understand what your purpose is in all of this...second warning...Madhi??? Cryptonio (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're great, Cryptonio, missed you. Love you pepper-mint language. Please don't play games. Check the archives. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please self-revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Self revert this you little freckled house mouse. Final warning, and not because there are only three, but because I simply can't be here all night babysitting you. Cryptonio (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is your test Cptnono, don't shun from it, don't do it now. Cryptonio (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still appropriate to self-revert. Be a decent wiki-player, please. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty common for article to have a POV tag on Wikipedia. Some articles are special, no shame about it. The dispute was not resolved, assume my good faith now, the tag should be restored. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lead of the article is controversial, there are disputes that go on and on and documented very well by archiving bots. Since we're together into this shit for some time now, Cryptonio, I'm not sure I understand your behavior and will have no problem to restore the tag myself. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just perfect. 24.181.195.208 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You, and the so called Jews want to step and dishonor the Blood of my Lord My name is Elisme Joseph Lima, and the Lord has promised me that you will come to me and Bow before me The Lord knows I wouldn't take pleasure in that, but since it is written, I will allow you to bow before me Cptnono will bow before me as well You, are not a Jew, those Jews that hate others, those Jews who have become the antichrist by refusing the Cornerstone will all perish You will perish unless you repent, AND SELF REVERT! My time is here, and I will not shun from it like Cptnono There is only one God, the God of Israel, and you certainly ARE NOT ISRAEL Your time is also here, you agada and those others who share your account Let the Shen-bit-nuts know! Their time is also coming Might as well, call it a night now, since it is dark out here, you may never again see the light again!

Cryptonio (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it weird that I instantly started humming Hell Awaits after reading that? All that religious talk gets to me, man. Regardless of that fun stuff, you need to list things if you want the POV tag to stay. I'm not going to argue about it since it is probably needed but if we don't know what to fix it won't get fixed.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are the Antichrist, editing here is a pretty big WP:COI problem. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sean would say that according to WP:NPOV, if you happened to be Christ or Antichrist ( whatever who cares ? ) and contribute to Wikipedia, it would be your duty to reflect also the other's POV. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the POV tag is up is because certain people do not like that Gaza massacre is included in the lead as an alternate name. That is a manifestly absurd reason as nobody has been able to explain how including that well sourced alternate name violates any sentence of WP:NPOV. People (mostly two editors later discovered to have been socks of a banned editor) have in the past made inane comments that it is not "neutral" to include a significant POV. That was an inane argument because WP:NPOV specifically defines a "neutral" POV as one that includes all significant views. I very much doubt that Agada will be able to provide a reason that is keeping with the policies of this website as to why he reinserted the POV tag here. But I can, though probably not the ones that Agada was thinking of. A sentence in the lead reads as follows: Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations and government buildings. Yes, Israel did attack these places. They also attacked schools, orphanages, a sewage treatment plant, and UN buildings. Another line in the lead reads as follows: n September 2009, a UN special mission, headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, produced a controversial report accusing both Palestinian militants and Israeli Defense Forces of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended bringing those responsible to justice. Yes, Goldstone did in fact say that both sides committed war crimes. But he also said that one side committed many more serious crimes than the other. But instead of tagging the article I will fix these issues. Agada, what exactly is there in this article that you think violates WP:NPOV? And please read that policy before answering the question. nableezy - 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not personal and not about notice board festivals. This lively naming discussion in the lede is inappropriate, it is not WP:FA kind of material, whatever angle you look at it. Contributors come and go and say "what the fuck?", and then there always comes "apparently it is neutral"... it is kind of alternative name. Well, so far it works just fine: we put the garbage in the lede and tag it as POV. If we want to continue this is the way.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments lack any substance as they do not once explain how the material in question violates WP:NPOV. Have you read that policy? Please explain what in the article violates that policy. For your argument that it is not "FA kind of material", featured articles frequently have alternate names in the lead. That you think it is "garbage" or "POV" is wholly irrelevant. You need to explain how including a common name in the Arab world for this attack violates WP:NPOV. nableezy - 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Gaza massacre is a common name in the Arab world for the Gaza war is being disputed. Meanwhile I suggest we follow this way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source explicitly says that it is. A Wikipedia editor disputing it is meaningless. And that way has been discussed in the past and failed to gain a consensus. nableezy - 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, Lauren Cohen and Jackie May which both report for the South African Timeslive, don't give strong evidence of their claim; no evidence at all. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you disagreeing about? That the source does not explicitly say that it was called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world? Sources are not required to give "strong evidence" or even any "evidence at all". A discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard found that the source is reliable for the statement. That is all that is needed on Wikipedia. nableezy - 00:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit is garbage. We dont write "some commentators claim" for what reliable sources state as fact. Another source saying this same thing: Suchet, Melanie (March 2010). "Face to Face". Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 20 (2): p. 167. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

Codenamed Operation Cast Lead, the invasion began on December 27, 2008, and ended on January 18, 2009. In the Arab world the Israeli-Gaza conflict is referred to as the Gaza Massacre.

This is a peer reviewed journal article that is unquestionably a reliable source. I am removing your WP:WEASEL ridden edit and adding this source. nableezy - 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree on WP:WEASEL, not sure Psychoanalytic Dialogues provides more academic evidence. Without solid evidence we can not state is as fact. Sometimes reliable source claim. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agada, that is a garbage edit. You continue to say "claim" for what reliable sources say as fact. We dont do that here. Self-revert your edit as it violates several Wikipedia policies. For the last time, a source does not need to provide "evidence" for what they write. When a reliable source says something is a fact we write it as a fact. Stop playing these silly games. nableezy - 01:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Sometimes reliable sources claim if they don't provide proper evidence. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, going to bed now. 10x for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. On Wikipedia when a reliable source states something as fact we state is a fact, not as a "claim". This is purely POV pushing, an attempt to downplay what multiple reliable sources report is a common name in the Arab world. nableezy - 01:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple other reliable sources report of representatives of various states and governments in the region using the term "Gaza massacre". This indicates that the statement from the reliable source is not "extraordinary". Therefore, there is no need for multiple sources, inline citation or other such measures.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow really? Again? Two writers for a paper in South Africa and a guy writing an editorial (even if he does have credentials) is still questionable. I haven't read the Face to Face piece but the abstract was pretty clear. It is contradicted since the largest media source in the Middle East called it something different. "Massacre" is often used as a descriptor. It is sometimes used as a title (much less than others) but this appears mainly to be bloggers and activist websites. Unfortunately, we don;t have a source that spells it out like that (since it is true that those use it as a title) but giving it the prominence and wording that it is the term in the Middle East is just sloppy on our part. I am done arguing about it too much since it will just be edit warred over and we do list the more prominent titles which I'll take as good enough.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What "guy writing an editorial"? The "Face to Face piece" was published in a peer reviewed academic journal. The SA Times source was brought to the RS/N with every uninvolved editor agreeing that it is a reliable source for this statement of fact. Your unproven assertions about a language that you do not understand, as shown in your attempting to rely on google translate to dispute complex grammatical structures, about this being common among "bloggers and activist websites" and not common in the Arab world do not mean much compared to a peer reviewed journal article and two news reports. Also given that I have provided upwards of 20 different quotes from reliable sources using this as the name, both from Hamas officials and from random Arabs, I dont see much of an argument to be had here. Three sources say that this is the common name in the Arab world, one of which is in a scholarly journal. If you feel that al-Jazeera using a different name "contradicts" that this is the common name in the Arab world you need to read WP:OR more closely. If the only reason the POV tag is up is because we faithfully relay what these reliable sources say is the common name in the Arab world it should be removed post-haste. nableezy - 05:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Face to Face looks like an opinion at first glance and the guy's credentials point to that. Getting something published does not make it reputable. Not saying he is a schmuck or anything but could understand why reasonable people would disagree with his thoughts on it. I also don't know if he has written a piece exemplary enough to support the line like that.

And I have already responded multiple times to the arguments you just repeated and won't be doing it again unless it looks like there is an effort from multiple editors to revisit the consensus on the issue. Completely disagree with your assessment but refuse to play the same game over and over. I don't need you to list them since I have read them but so far the actual number provided is 3 (with some questions) not 20. Like I said, "massacre" is not preferred but I can deal as long as the titles used way more often are included as well. If that is the reason for the POV tag then super. I assume there is much more and that should be mentioned too so that it can get addressed.Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point I dont really care what you think about my "assessment". We have three sources that flat out say that the name used in the Arab world is "Gaza Massacre". As far as I am concerned that is the end of the story. Wikipedia editors are not entitled to replace reliable sources with their own opinions. If you have a reliable source that disputes these sources then you may have a cause for questioning these sources. But you dont. The end. nableezy - 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that some expression is a common name rather than a description? I'd probably go for primary source. Academics do researches, raw data is evaluated, results are published and criticized by peers. I'm not sure at this point we could say weither or not this term is a description or common name. We could say the term was used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Because three reliable sources explicitly say it was known as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world. That is how we know. You are not in a position to dispute reliable sources without providing a reliable source that contradicts the ones provided. nableezy - 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Bjmullan review

Macrakis review

More similar suggestions were raised on this talk page by number of other contributors. I'd strongly recommend ensuring that both sides' terms are used, or neither. We should avoid terms like this in the WP:LEAD. It would seem more appropriate to discuss this name in the body of the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They are welcome to their opinions. We however are not bound by them. The names used by each "side" belong in the lead. Quoting from WP:LEAD:

In articles about places, people, literary and artistic works, scientific principles and concepts, and other subjects, the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses. ...

• Relevant foreign language names, such as in an article on a person who does not herself write her name in English, are encouraged.

We include relevant foreign language names in the lead, and Gaza Massacre, as a common name in the Arab world, is a relevant foreign language name. It is common for articles in the topic area to include both the Hebrew and the Arabic name in the first sentence. And unless you can provide reliable sources relating the name used to the "propaganda war" it would be original research for you to include it there. nableezy - 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no strict rules, see again World War II example. We could but we don't have to put naming discussion in the LEAD, the subject should be expanded in the body, since editors note the current situation is inappropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain, using Wikipedia policies and guidelines, why we should not include the common name in the Arab world as reported by multiple reliable sources? Your own personal distaste for calling this event a massacre is not relevant and has no bearing on what is included in the lead. nableezy - 18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We could include it in the Lede but we should not, because it is inappropriate, this is not what Wikipedia is about. Naming discussion should be expanded in the body instead. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You have given nothing but your own personal opinion. What you think is inappropriate does not matter. nableezy - 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, we're discussing User:Bjmullan and User:Macrakis reviews. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And? They are entitled to their views. Those views however have never gained a consensus on this page. If you want to point to specific arguments made by others, try this, or this or any number of others. If you wish to remove the alternative names from the lead establish a consensus for doing so. Just saying that you think it is "inappropriate" to include a well sourced alternative name is not an acceptable argument on Wikipedia. nableezy - 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Israel began the offensive" from lead

The sentence is weasel words (Which offensive? Their military operation? the war?) and is POV. Sources disagree over which party started this conflict, and when. Attributing the war to being started by Israel is POV. Israel began their operation on December 27, but this event was arguably not the start of the conflict(according to sources). Kinetochore (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the "operation" began on December 27. Sources make an explicit distinction between what happened before that date and what happened after that date. The very first sentences of this article says that the "Gaza War" was the same thing as "Operation Cast Lead". Do you really dispute that "Operation Cast Lead" was initiated by Israel on December 27? The start date has been discussed a number of times in the archives, which each discussion showing that the sources treat this attack as its own topic. nableezy - 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, you misunderstood my concern. What is currently written (that Israel 'started its military offensive') is acceptable. Cheers, Kinetochore (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

aight, thats fine with me as well. nableezy - 01:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind this right?

"Israel began planning for a military operation as early as six months before the conflict by collecting intelligence on potential targets."

Cryptonio (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here don't try to hard...question is when did Israel started planning for the operation? Cryptonio (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

More conflict here...

The second sentence includes the 'strike' action but as reffering to the general objective3 and something else that is making even less sense by the minute, but the initial 'surprise' attack was simply directed to policemen...remember?

Israel started its military offensive with a surprise opening air strike on Dec. 27,[43] following Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks when a six-month truce ran out on Dec. 19.[44] The strike was directed against targets within the Gaza Strip with the stated aim of stopping rocket fire[45] from and arms import into the territory.[46][47]

Cryptonio (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Or are we saying that, after attacking the policemen, the Pales still didn't know who was attacking them, and so the rest of the 'inituial' attacks, say, the tunnels, still came as a surprise to them? Cryptonio (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Were the 'air strikes' that came on the second and third day, considered part of the 'surprise' nature? Cryptonio (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What was the aim of the ground invasion then? Cryptonio (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To include then, what was attacked by the initial air strikes, we must mention that it was a police academy or whatever...if not, then the initial attack was just that, a surprise initial attack on Gaza. Cryptonio (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

After so much time, i think, we can finnaly understand this, a blast from the past...

This was not addressed: "You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective." -Nishidani Because if we DO go back to the beginning of this conflict(and we should when addressing the lead), we'll find the following: Dec 30 - Israel attacks Gaza for the fourth day - http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=54699 (from the BBC)

On goals(aim) - "Israel's defence chief earlier said his country was fighting a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas."

On whether to use 'stated' or not - "Israel says its aim is to end the rocket attacks by Hamas-linked militants - of which there were reportedly more than 40 on Monday."

Dec 27 - Israel's attack on Gaza kills hundreds - http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11323391

On goals - "The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel."

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said late Saturday that the goal was "to bring about a fundamental improvement in the security situation." He added, "It could take some time."

"Stated"? - see above plus "Israel warned it might go after Hamas' leaders, and militants kept pelting Israel with rockets - killing at least one Israeli and wounding six.

Dec 30 - Israel Assaults Hamas In Gaza - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/27/israel-launches-air-strik_n_153664.html

On goals - "Israel's stated goal is to cripple Hamas' ability to launch rockets at Israeli towns, which means that a ground invasion is becoming more likely as it becomes clear that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job."

"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has declared "all-out war against Hamas."

"Stated"? Yes. But infrastructure? and since Hamas fire those rockets from civilians area, not having military bases of their own, police stations and houses in gaza are Hamas' infrastructures?

I recognized Nishidani's point as being that from the beginning there was ambiguity as to what this Israel's attack was to bring Israel itself. Now there was a target inside Gaza, Hamas, there is war, but is war about what? goals? yes to some degree, but most of those goals can't be archived until conquering has been archived(re:Iraq war, AND Israel's previous occupations of both Lebanon and Palestine)...so to cripple Gaza, only Hamas's "infrastructure" was the "stated" goal?

At what point, even Israel's foreign minister was at odds with what the prime minister was "stating" as the goals for this operation.

Needless to say then, it would be a great disservice if we use Israel's "stated goals" as of Jan 30.

My humble suggestion is to leave it as "The operation was aimed at..." Stated is a loaded term.

There should be even more discussion on this BTW. Cryptonio (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Dec 30 - ANALYSIS / Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza - http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051024.html

On goals - "The operation's goals, as defined by the cabinet, are "creating a different long-term security situation in the south, while bolstering Israel's deterrence." The IDF does not interpret this to mean a complete end to the rocket fire, as it considers this impossible. Rather, its goal is to eliminate Hamas' desire to attack Israel. The bombing campaign has so far dealt a severe blow to Hamas."

Fire in the hole. Notice ref to "as defined"(so they are defining what they are stating? or vice-versa?) plus IDF does not interpret what's been stated(which of course was defined before it was stated) which at the end, they disregard what was stated for them(perhaps rather just defined, in order for them to interpret on their own?) because they found what was 'defined' for them impossible(or what they interpreted as being defined to them). Cryptonio (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Defining - Stating Started - Began???

Cryptonio (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wake up and smell the coffee...remember Lebanon? Open field battle between IDF and Hez...and the IDF couldn't muster crap against Hez...I was spewing this 'hatred' years ago on stumbleupon...clearly remember screaming 'SOMETHING MUST BE GOING ON WITH THE ISRAELI COMMAND"

You so called Jews are just being confused and not because you are stubborn, you are stubborn because you do not know YOU ARE being confused...badly...

And so you want to Wikilaw yourself out of this one...

good luck

Cryptonio (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, this article is subject to a 1RR/24h restriction for the next fortnight, per a report at AN3. Any future attempts to edit war will be looked upon very dimly and will likely result in a lengthy break from this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, am i block or something? cause I already had a 'statement' on the matter...you know, i wanted to showboat and be happy I was joining Nishi and Ash in exile...

Cryptonio (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)