Jump to content

Talk:2012 Gaza War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Super Cable Guy (talk | contribs) at 02:49, 17 December 2014 (→Lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Move to neutral title

Using official IDF designations is extremely biased to say tyhe least. A more generic title, based on the sources, should be used. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected this by mistake, but can't seem to revert myself. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the OK title? -DePiep (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just ... List of Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip. What a mess~of wiki titles. -DePiep (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict‎. For the same reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, because there is March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, so using only year as identifier would be insufficient. Also, maybe even some other problems of this article might be fixed using the solutions for March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. 188.252.186.150 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

This section is a mess and full of WP:SYNTH. What is the logic of events included in the background? And the descriptions of the various events? I searched the archives and found that this concern was raised even earlier in many places including here, here and here.

As far as I can see, the background section is talking about

  • 2005 withdrawal
  • Hamas Fatah conflict and 2007 coup
  • Blockade
  • 2008 war and ceasefire
  • Rocket attacks and Israeli attacks since then
  • Military capabilities of each side

I have no idea what is the logic of selecting these. To fix WP:SYNTH, I am using this BBC article (which is cited in the lead) as a source for the background, basically the section "What is the historical background to this crisis", which seems to cover much the same ground.

The topics covered in my new background, based on BBC article is:

  • Brief mention of 1948 and 1967 and 2005 withdrawal
  • Hamas Fatah conflict and 2007 coup
  • Blockade
  • 2008 war and ceasefire
  • Rocket attacks and Israeli attacks since then

As far as I can see, they are the same, for the most part, except for the last section (military capabilities of each side), which I have removed. I will be writing the section in WP:SS for each of the topics based on their wikipedia.pages. Kingsindian (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have good faith reverted this edit. Firstly, one has to argue that the military capabilities of either side should be here. If we assume that it should be: if you wish to include military capabilities of either side, describe them both, not just one data point of one side. See commented section for some details. Of course, I agree that the article as a whole is a mess. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit about pre-operation events

@Wlglunight93: I don't understand the logic of this edit and this edit. Why is information from down below copy-pasted above, and then some part of the duplicated information removed but not the rest? The paragraph was in chronological order: stuff in early 2012, then July, August, September, October. Now there is randomly a paragraph talking about October 2012 first, then goes back to beginning of 2012, then July etc. I have reverted this for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not duplicated information. It talks about foreign support received by both Hamas and Israel, which is important. I'm restoring it. This is duplicated info indeed. I apologize for that mistake. I didn't notice it was already in the article.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wlglunight93: I am afraid that makes no sense. The information was copy-pasted from below. How is it possible that you didn't know that this information was already present? Your other edit may or may not be fine, I will respond later. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found that information from the Shin Bet, but I didn't notice it was already there. I'm sorry! It was an honest mistake. You corrected it. The other information about foreign support is nowhere in the article. You made a mistake by removing it.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wlglunight93: I am afraid I don't believe you. I am willing to WP:AGF, but this it too much to stomach. Your edit was a word to word copy paste from below, and even included a reference which said "dead link" from below, which was actually not a dead link. As I said, your other edit may or may not be correct, but I will address it later. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I told you I'm sorry. I accepted your revert. There's nothing more I can do.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

As is so often the case with major Gaza/Israel conflicts, the lead has become bloated and contains duplications (e.g. Jabari assassination). It contains detail that belong in the main sections. As a start I intend to 'declutter' the section on the lead-up to the operation, and to merge the detail into the Background section. And even when it contains detail, the two adversaries are not equally represented. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@201.235.223.225: Regarding your revert of the text about Jabari being involved in the negotiation of a long term truce, your comment (no discussion by you in "Talk") seems to contain two messages: 1) "Gershon Baskin's opinion can't be used to state facts" and 2) "doesn't belong to lead". Treating 2) first, you believe that the fact that the man, whose assassination started the main conflict, was involved in the negotiations of a permanent peace agreement, does not belong in the Lead section, yet the model details of the rockets fired at Israel does. Could you explain this position instead of embarking on a non-discussed revert, please.

Regarding 1) - Your "Gershon Baskin's opinion can't be used to state facts" - the detailed section "Pre-operation Events" - does exactly that. But anyway, what makes you conclude that Baskin's relating of Jabari's involvement was an "opinion"? Baskin was intimately involved in the formulation process. Please explain in "Talk" this time. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Gershon Baskin is an unremarkable "peace activist" (meaning left-wing pro-Palestinian, with all due respect) who wrote an opinion piece for a minor anti-Israel newspaper like Haaretz (yes, there are anti-Israel websites in Israel, in a democracy that's not illegal). An opinion column in a biased POV newspaper by a dubious individual is not a reliable source to state facts, let alone without attribution, let alone in the lead. Besides, he is already included with proper attribution at the end of this section, so putting him also in the lead is redundant, POV and undue.--201.235.60.40 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that Ha'aretz is not WP:RS. You can read it's Wiki article, but allow me to highlight a few points: Ha'aretz is Israel's oldest daily newspaper. The English edition is published and sold together with the International New York Times. It functions for Israel much as The New York Times does for the United States. Now let's go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - there is not a whiff there of Ha'artz not being WP:RS. So, if you don't mind, I will reject that rebuttal as being invalid.
Gershon Baskin is a "dubious individual"? He is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post which has a 'central' political leaning; he has a Ph.D. in international relations; he was instrumental in the negotiations with Hamas leading to Gilad Shalit's release; he has been a key contact person between the Israeli government and Hamas; he was decorated by the Prime Minister of Italy; he was awarded the Histadrut Prize for Peace, the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute Peace Prize and the Tribute of Honor and Courage from the World Movement for Democracy. And you blandly, without any confirming support, brand him as "a dubious person". If that is not a mega-POV, then I have yet to see one. REJECTED. And finally, you believe that the assassination of a key player by a party in a peace negotiation of international importance does not warrant being in the summary prelude? Imagine if a US negotiator were to be assassinated by the Iranians. We would never hear the end of it. REJECTED!!!
I await a relevant response before reverting. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@201.235.60.40:Please see above Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gershon Baskin IS ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE! Jabari was not a "US negotiator". He was a senior Hamas terrorist who was the subject of a targeted killing. I wouldn't consider Gershon Baskin a reliable source to state facts, among other things because it contradicts the fact that the assassination of Ahmed Jabari was precipitated by three days of rocket fire from Gaza to Israel (that's not a "truce"). But that's not even my main point. He is already mentioned at the end of this section and his inclusion in the lead (plus without attribution) is redundant and fails balance, lead, NPOV and undue. You have Gershon Baskin in the proper section, so why your insistence on adding such a controversy about alleged "truce/peace talks" in the lead? The circumstances surrounding Jabari's death are developed elsewhere in the article.--Super Cable Guy (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Gaza_War&oldid=638442619"