Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Wikifan12345 disruptive behaviour

Ed.:People didn't like "the case against wikifan" title, so I renamed it to the title above. --Darwish07 (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sick of this, I'm not here to play edit warring games. User:Wikifan12345 just removes well-sourced material without consensus, and even mis-represent his edit summaries (for bad faith purposes?).

Bad edit 1: he removes my well sourced statement by the Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in his statement to the Security Council, which is quoted as-is:

1. without consensus
2. with mis-representing his edit summary, so instead of saying "Undid revision X by User:Y" he says:"(Undid revision 269971237 by (user name omitted here) define "seriously". MoH is controlled by hamas, and the casualties have been widely disputes by the IDF and others".
3. Attack an official UN well-sourced statement by a WP:OR thesis.

I'm reverting his revert, and if he reverted this well sourced statement again before discussing it below, I'm going to report him on the 3RR violations page.

By the way, it seems Wikifan has the habit of mis-representing his edit summaries while reverting other wikipedians edits (below reverted edits aren't mine):

Bad edit 2: Again, mis-representing the edit summary by saying "Undid revision 269959008 by ah whatever it isn't worth it"

Bad edit 3: More of the same. --Darwish (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The current amount of broken references in this article is evidence of careless editing. I don't know who is at fault here, and i don't feel like playing investigator to find it out. You guys need to get your act together, this is an important article and it should be edited with more care than that is the case atm. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked and then unblocked, if he's being disruptive again I suggest you report him again. I understand it can be frustrating dealing with inaccurate edit summaries. RomaC (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

TheDJ, The cited reference used in my edit that Wikifan diruptively reverted used the Cite news template with all the para::Cerejota, the bad about the last two edits were the misleading summaries as I said. The 3 edits shows systematic trimming of the Username responsible for the reverted edit in the edit summaries. This is done on purpose. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)meters elegantly filled, including archiveurl=, archivedate=, accessdate=, agency=, date= and others that even some editors lazily ignore. Check the edit by yourself. There's no excuse for Wikifan behaviour, and certainly the reference clarity issue isn't one. --Darwish (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I assure you, there is a great group of editors here on both camps. It's just a group of 4 or 5 known editors which are causing troubles and have been blocked before. Unfortunately, some of them when returning use the same disruptive behavior again. --Darwish (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, without prejudice to 3RR, the second and third are not bad edits perse. Such things belong in "International reactions", and what belongs here is a summary. Am no wikifan of Wikifan (he-he), but 2 and 3 were good edits. What was wrong is that he didn't do the corresponding re-insertion in "International reactions".--Cerejota (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

just a quick glance of the history shows 4 "undids" in the last 24 hours by him. untwirl (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, the bad about the last two edits were the misleading summaries as I said. The 3 edits shows systematic removal of the Username responsible for the reverted edit in his "undo" edit summaries, although such username is automatically generated by the wiki software. This is done on purpose. Even the second edit summary is really uncivil, substituting the "by username" to "by ah whatever it isn't worth it" line. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my main concern is the revert of my well-sourced edit without consensus and in a very misleading way; I thought at first he reverted an edit that wasn't mine, due to the deliberate username removal. After that, I had to play inspection games and checking diffs to discover it was him. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The case against wikifan12345?? LOLOL. Wow, you guys hate me that much? The reason why I delete the username is because there isn't enough space to offer my explanation. It was User:Nableezy who reverted what I wrote, then I reverted it back, then he reverted it again with a similar excuse and I said screw it. This was the source:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE50D5YD20090114

"There were also reports of violence against Muslims in France." I felt that was rather odd considering the reactions revolved around anti-Semitic incidents and couching in a Muslim reference didn't look right. My paraphrasing simply expanded on what the article actually said. It was referring to two girls of "African-Origin", which isn't inherently muslim. I didn't want to start a religion war cause I'd probably end up getting the sword so I just expanded what was written. I felt it should have either been deleted or expanded into a more bigger section about anti-muslim instead of just one sentence contrasting with 3 paragraphs of something completely different. It didn't fit well in my opinion.

Also, I'm really getting tired of this witch-hunt. This talk page demonstrates the blatant POV-pushing and mob-rule. I know a lot of you tend to group up with those you tend to agree with and that's fine with me, I couldn't care less, but abusing this talk page to orchestrate a witch-hunt is insulting. All this is doing is further depriving the article of necessary balance, and in the end people like me will just leave and the POV-pushing to the biggest group.

Btw, are you guys stalking me? ; ) I know I probably should be angry but I can't help but laugh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read this in the source: "Violence against Muslims has also been reported." in a report about violence against Muslims and Jews in France? How do you know that the only case that Reuters is covering was that single incident. Why would we even go into a single incident of such, in the scheme of things, minor notability? And stalking? All the edits cited were made on this page, and they missed the one you made from your ip. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, "African-Origin" does not mean muslim. I'm sure they might have interpreted them as being Muslim but it isn't certain. Either way, this talk is absurd and I've proven why. It's not like I deleted the info, I just added it to it. Saying "reports of attacks against muslims" is unnecessary vague when there was so much info in the article. So seriously, stop the finger pointing and crying because there is someone here who doesn't agree with the POV-pushing. I'm not saying this particularly incident was POV pushing because this was quite minor, which is also weird why Darwish would go make a section about it LOL. If you've just go here, take the time to review what I wrote. If you're goal was to get me off this article, you are almost there. Go wikipedia! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also also also, if this is going to become standard where people start making cases against each other, I'd be more than happy to make "cases" whenever I see a obvious opinion-pushing by on. Yeah, this is a courtroom after all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit, I'm not going to let this go. You can't just put me on trial and then say oh I made a mistake. This is totally and utterly ridiculous. Where do I file a complaint LOL? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, for longer edit summaries

• Go to 'my preferences' => 'Gadgets' => 'User interface gadgets' => check option 'Allow up to 50 more characters in each of your edit summaries. Works in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Opera.' Sean.hoyland - talk 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if 'african-origin' does not mean muslim, nobody said it did. There is an exact quote I provided you from the source that you cited that says reports about attacks against Muslims have been reported. You then infer that the north-african case below that is the only such report. The source doesnt say that, you are making that jump. The sentence as it is is perfectly sourced, succinct, and to the point. Why would you dispute the wording "There were also reports of violence against Muslims in France." when the source says "Violence against Muslims has also been reported."? What possible reason could you have to dispute that? Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And witch hunt? Sorry, but when you throw around accusations of anti-semitism you kind of stick out as somebody who sticks POV content into articles. Nableezy (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The attack against muslims was denoting the section about the "African" children. It wasn't it's own complete and independent statement. Either way,t this whole argument is a sham as is the author who created this discussion. Dare I say, waste of time? Everyone else, including admins who are probably itching to pull the lever, please re-read this section. Everything. Last time I checked, wikipedia is not a battlefield...yet users are continually pushing for this method of dispute. If you truly had an issue with my edits you could have come to me instead of initiating this show-trial to further expose my obvious abuse/racism/intolerance/crimes/blah blah. There are far worse infractions being committed on this article but I'm not going to and out the users and wait for some high-fives. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, WP:CHILL. I defended you. However, the lesson here is, rather than edit war, discuss first and then edit. This is a total failure of WP:AGF on both of you. And Wikfan, before you start saying outrageous things about talk page behavior, I suggest you revise the last week or so of postings from you. Not exactly paramount examples of civility and constructive discourse. You reap what you sow. --Cerejota (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll chill. Everyone here is in one way or another acted questionably on this talk page, but that goes along with the controversy of this article. My "incivility" was no less than what was given, as far as I know. I'm sure those who are on the other side might blow it all up on 1000x1000 wall, but the same could be done by me with an equivalent result. Also, I don't go and make sections to hold other users hostage. I don't do that. I'm sure if I did, I'd be blocked right now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but two wrongs don't make one right, amirite?--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I actually took the time and read what Darwish posted.

As of January 26, 2009 investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that between 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians were killed during the offensive and that only 250 of them were civilian. Israel puts the Hamas death toll above 700 and Ehud Barak claimed that "We know their names." Israel also reported that it had captured 120 Hamas gunmen. Discrepancies between the figures giving by Israel and those by the Palestinian Ministry of Health and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights are not clear. Israel disputes those figures giving by the Ministry of Health, saying "the numbers came from Hamas, which controls the Ministry of Health."

The current version quotes UN official saying there hasn't been "serious challenges", when there obviously has by the IDF. Unless the IDF isn't considered a reliable source? I didn't write the original, I just reverted what Darwish did because it looked off from a very obvious perspective. I wasn't trying to censor the UN....wow LOL. How come users are allowed to go off and make wild interpretations and accusations that could are highly damaging without consequence or trial? I was almost blocked indefinitely, and that was a heavy almost. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The IDF is not a RS. And as good as you got? Nobody has called you a racist yet as far as I know. Nableezy (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable enough to quote them. Yeah, Fal called me racist on his talk page. Twice I think. Do you guys like group up or something? I made the edit yesterday, Darwish posts this joke here, you, RomaC, some other guy all gun up and agree....it's like you guys had it all planned out. Eh, probably paranoid. : ) I would just like some closure and assurances that this won't happen unless it's an honest arbitration and not finger pointing. This article is hot enough as is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, she said you called others racist. Twice she said that, and as you not she did it on her talk page, not here, like you did when you said I was an anti-semite (twice), and again on the AE page (once more). I didnt even respond to this until you started crying about unfair treatment. Maybe he shouldnt have put this here, maybe he should have just gone to the edit-warring noticeboard, but just stop crying about how everybody is ganging up on you. For somebody who has written the stuff you have it just comes across as whiny. Nableezy (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And yes the IDF can be quoted, and their quotes would have the explicit citation of coming from the IDF. But if a UN official says there have been no serious challenges to the numbers, we can quote that, and it carries more weight than the IDF claims. Nableezy (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I would love to continue the argument but I won't because I know you'll just latch on to one point and ignore the rest, as usual. I didn't think it was an edit war, and I honestly don't like reporting people unless someone is clearly violating rules beyond a doubt. And I certainly wouldn't lodge a personalized complaint on a talk section in an attempt to gather support.

In regards to the UN, what the official says directly contradicts what the IDF said. What do you think are the editorial motivations for deleting the IDF statement? You think it's because it isn't supposedly-reliable...or to give a false impression that no statistics were challenged? Quoting a UN official is fine, but what the UN official says isn't concrete fact and if there is a testimony from a direct party involved that opinion must be heard. We're using stats from Hamas-controlled health ministry...if that's allowed LOL. Christ. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And, I agree on that. However, that is not a reason to remove the UN quote, it is a reason to put the IDF as a response. And not "However...", but straight up encyclopedic voice: The UN said there are no serious disputes, the IDF sustains that the figures are different. I already emitted my opinion on the discrepancies, but we should limit the editorializing for the blogs. For me, the UN is certainly more reliable than the IDF, but not much more - but the IDF is an important primary source. I think we can resolve this controversy by seeing how the secondary sources cover it: if we catch the discrepancy, I would be surprised if no secondary RS hasn't. --Cerejota (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cmon, not much more? The UN is miles more reliable than any government agency in this world, even if they are not the most reliable source in the world. Every government has been shown to lie to its own populace as well as to the world, any statement from any government should be explicitly cited as the opinion of that government. Nableezy (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is lying; my edit which he reverted did not remove or even touch the IDF statement. Please check the edit by yourself Cerejota. Thanks --Darwish (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly didn't even take notice of the UN statement. I just thought Darwish was POV pushing by contradicting what the IDF (which is part of the government of Israel, they're entitled to a voice) with some UN official stammering how there are no serious challenges. I guess they don't take Israel seriously LOL. I wasn't trying to censure the UN, as accused by Darwish. LOLOLOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"I didn't even take notice of the UN statement": All the edit was this 1 line UN statement. So, you just reverted the edit, without even looking at its contents. Good? --Darwish07 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of talk above, which isn't related to my main complain. My complain was simple, Wikifan just removed well-sourced statements without consensus. His disruptive edit summary behavior just wasted my time, so I reported it.--Darwish07 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. You replaced a well-sourced statement regarding the IDF's challenge of stats in Gaza with a UN official saying different. This has nothing to do with sourcing and everything to do with POV-pushing. My revert wasn't disrputed, it simply interrupted whoever was trying to push their political agenda on the article. Seriously, you think I'm this stupid? You think it is that much of a coincidence that you or whoever did the edit would replace an IDF official saying something that completely contradicts the UN? Lol, obviously somebody is not being open about what they're trying to promote. Let's end this pathetic trial and actually focus on true disruptive behavior, like creating this talk section and wasting everybody's time. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Utter Nonsense. My edit, which you disruptively reverted did not remove a single line of anything, it just added the UN confirmation. I advise you to use wikiEd cause it seems you don't know how to read a diff patch. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense? You whipped out User:ITBlair entire paragraph and reduced Israel's statements to 1 sentence while unjustly emphasizing UN's statement. Let me spell it out for: POV-PUSHING. I didn't really notice the UN source to be perfectly honest, all I saw was a heavy deletion without necessary summary and me being accused of disruption. Sources are being cleaned here all the time on this article, you obviously made this talk section for other reasons yet declared. Stop the show please, for all of us. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, aint a point in arguing with irrationality, just recognize it and leave it alone. Xalas ya khouya ;) Nableezy (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for entertaining us wikifan ;) ... _{I can't believe what I'm seeing, I swear} --Darwish07 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha, figures. I don't really care anyways. When someone becomes so jaded and zealous, there is nothing you can do. Shalom. Faculty Advisors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL --Darwish07 (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire section is uncivilized. If only you read the rules before you started this. [Battlefield]. In life, you can't cause trouble and not expect people to complain. You think I'm not being civil? Well, sorry. I try, but if you're not going to play by the rules, it's extremely difficult for me to follow you. Either way, enough of this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Duh, whatever. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All righty then. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The solution to all our problems

File:Sautmathurine640.jpg

Ile a Vache, Haiti

Let's just have two different articles. One should be written from Israel's perspective, the other from Palestinian. Both can be as biased as they want and we don't need to have all these fights!

Suggested titles:

Israels POV:

Justified and defensive action against the Gazan terrorists +Casualty figures: Israel - 500 wounded, 1m shock victims Palestine: 500, all terrorists

Gazan POV:

Massacre of innocent Palestinians by ISraeli occupiers

+Casualty figures: Israel, 5 wounded (lightly) Gaza: 1500 dead, all children; 10000 injured, 2m shock victims.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but not the wikipedia way. Though you may be interested in reading User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia. Nableezy (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I also thought of that, but it's pretty much the definition of WP:POVFORK. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I really hope this was meant in jest... WP:POVFORKs and WP:COATRACKs are part of the problem, not the solution. The solution is if reasonable people willing to develop a neutral article of each side, try to bring the worse POV pushers of their own side under control, and then we can have civilized source picking, which is essentially all we do in Wikipedia. Also, accepting, in a Zen-like fashion, that your POV will not dominate, and that all you have left as a recourse is that the other POV doesn't dominate either. If we manage that, we can pop open some beer sodas and get more or less along. Easy, I know... --Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is the subject matter. No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo. By all means, lets not try to subdue the 'chaos', it won't work. I do agree, that for the most part, Jalapenos and Nableezy keep their emotions under control, but they won't stop some from 'their' side from doing something for the 'cause'. This is not boston vs yankees. I also must say, that the most 'questionable' behavior has come from 'annoyed' pro-israeli editors. I can't today, but i sure will start checking references ON THE WHOLE ARTICLE for broken links etc.(and bring them up here etc.) It's true, this article is important, and I won't challenge Jalapenos' good will(at face value) for any cause. From my point of view, he tries really hard. We can improve this article, only if we continue to be vigilant of vandalism. I also would like to see Cerojota be more involve in editing, even if other's object, we could start the argument from Cerejota's argument and sugestions. If Jalapenos takes the time to publicly admonish some of the pro-israelis editors, and tell them they are not helping, our jobs won't be any easier but perhaps more sastifying that we got it accomplished with less conflict. Cryptonio (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have admonished pro-Israel editors. I do believe that in this article, pro-Palestinian editors have been more "effective" in making improper edits than pro-Israeli ones; though it goes without saying that this assessment has an element of subjectivity, and could be influenced by any biases I may have. I agree that Cerejota is widely held to be fair and is thus an especially valuable asset to this article (despite his at-times comical paranoia of CAMERA). What we need is a few more active editors like him. Perhaps the solution to our mess is Project:Editors who don't give a shit about Israel or Palestine fixing up and maintaining I-P articles. Anyone suspected of giving a shit would be kicked out. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks ;). And I have given it some thought, and yeah, I might have gone a little overboard with the whole CAMERA thing... I apologize. There are hundreds of thousands of people who agree with CAMERA, and maybe some low millions who only have passing disagreements. Some of them are bound to be geeks who wind up in wikipedia, not as a result of meat puppetry, but sheer statistical certainty. And if they do, its only to be expected they end up here. Doesn't make the pov pushing any less hard to handle, tho. ;) I mean, CAMERA is not mainstream even in Israel. As to the effectiveness, actually, I think any "pro-Palestinian" bias detected is not due to editing, its due to the asymetry of the conflict reflected on sources. The world is in general concerned with carnage and gore, and not really preocupied with nuance - their side is Drama, not the right of self-determination for Semite tribes. But I do fight the fights on systemic bias, like with Babycue (all I needed was a wiff of blood libel and knowing that St. Pancake's Temple ISM was behind it - see equal opportunity? :). --Cerejota (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cerejota, it was just a friendly jab, but as long as we're at it, I wasn't referring to your basic attitude toward CAMERA as an advocacy organization (which it obviously is), but to the frequency with which you mention it. I sometimes get the impression that CAMERA haunts you in your dreams. :) I agree with you that the media has a bias toward the underdog, which in this case was Hamas, but the media also has plenty of other biases, some of which favor Israel. Obviously, since the media is currently the main RS, we have to mirror all its biases and we have no business trying to fix them. Given all that, I still think there's an asymmetry in the editing itself. I've seen articles where it's the other way around, and I've wondered why it's this way here. I suspect part of the reason is that the most extreme pro-Palestinian editors here are on average more persistent and articulate than the most extreme pro-Israel editors. Just my opinion though. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the subject matter is problematic, and I support those who say that recent events should not be covered in wikipedia. While that really won't solve much for I-P/A-I articles, we would have much more solid scholary research, and set names. Six Days War is controversial, but nowhere near the level this article is - and certainly the editwarring and WP:DRAMA is much less. However, until that day comes, I will remain around here. This article is top 500 in visits, and our readers deserve better.

I do not edit much because I am trying to self-impose a 1RR because WP:IPCOLL (which should actually become more than a symbolic thing) calls for it. That said, I think most of my edits survive, and have helped difuse budding edit wars... and once in a while I add a sourced item cause it had to. I might be wrong, but that is the impression I get. I will admit a couple of failures, like the crappy lead, the casualties range, or having to report people to the Noticeboards because things got out of hand.--Cerejota (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As a good will gesture, perhaps Nableezy and Nishidani(sry if i got that wrong) could agree to remove "Massacre" from the lead para. just a sugestion, im sure Darwish might not agree, but we could use that as a token of willingness to compromise and find concensus. The Operation's name can stay. Cryptonio (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious :) ? --Darwish07 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results". Sean.hoyland - talk 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, this is precisely the type of quid pro quo we should avoid - regardless of the merits. For me the "massacre" stuff is obviously a keeper, as it is well sourced. Its the same as with "Roof knocking" - an inflamatory name used to (mis)represent the views of one side of the conflict on a given issue. Thats notable stuff. The issue might not get resolved, but its one that we resolve via dispute resolution, not quid pro quo ignoring of content rules etc. This is not a battleground, and solutions from battlegrounds, such as quid pro quo are invalid, IMHO. --Cerejota (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated my reasoning for the 'massacre' name, repeatedly said I would be willing to change the language used, even repeatedly said I would be willing to not capitalize. I have said these things from the first discussion to when a OR noticeboard thread was started to when everybody offered up their own personal favorite lead paragraph to the last time it was brought up. You know what was the counteroffer as a 'fair' compromise: Version 2. I understand why some want it removed, but nobody has been able to refute this single point. Hamas, the current government of Gaza calls this event 'the gaza massacre'. Israel's government calls this event 'operation cast lead'. That those two things be included with each other is to me at least the very definition of NPOV. That isnt to actually comment on which side is right, that isnt what Wikipedia is for. But that the name used to describe these events by the government of each side seems to me to be a necessity. Sorry to disappoint, but you had to know it was coming. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Simplified - Arab/Muslim world calls this a massacre. And this is an extreme POV because most of the states control the media, so it could be inferred that these are the views of the states themselves. The IDF calls this "Operation Cast Lead" because they consider the war or massacre a military operation. "Operation Cast Lead" isn't particularly controversial other than the fact that it doesn't include massacre. Both are not equals in terms of POV-pushing, so equating them is rather silly. The rest of the world media excluding state-controlled news services of Syria, Iran, Egypt (practically), Gaza/Hamas etc...consider this a war, or at least report without the whole highly-inflammatory and obviously biased "massacre" notion. I personally don't care if it's included considering that's what is coming from the Arab world. However, is this the opinion of all Arab countries? If all Arab countries haven't specifically referred to the war as a "massacre" in one instance or another, then that must be clarified IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didnt understand what I wrote. There is nothing POV about saying the government of Gaza has called this the gaza massacre. Nothing. That you think there is shows a lack of understanding about what NPOV means. Wikipedia is not calling this the gaza massacre, we are just reporting what one of the involved parties has called it. It is the government of Gaza's name for the same event as the Israeli government name 'operation cast lead'. Nableezy (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Many editors (including me for some part) disagree with you on this one, Nableezy. This isn't a democracy and you do make some valid points for its inclusion, though. Regardless, I'd recommend to Wikifan that he start a new section if it is arguable enough to get into.Cptnono (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(hopefully, this is where everyone decides to not bring it up again since I think the argument is done :) ).Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, i tried. Hopefully this will put me on the list of editors who don't give a what. Cryptonio (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, yes! If only this article could be written by knowledgeable people who don't give a shit about the subject. For my part, I thought the OP was joking about creating two separate articles... Betacrucis (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Something that actually could be done, but probably won't be, is for each editor to submit a shadow article. (Copying from other people's shadow articles would be allowed.) A committee set up by admins would decide on the best article and put it up. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualty line

Quick thought: the new "According to the Palestinian MoH, injuries were often multiple traumas with head injuries, thorax, and abdominal wounds." seems like it is not needed with the previous lines on injuries requiring rehab and impairment. I think it is already shown that people had severe injuires and the extra peice of data about where on the body the injuries occured lengthans the section unneccasarily.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it's just one sentence Cptnono. I guess the two sides (positions and effects) complements each other very well. One is specifying the injury positions, and the other is specifying the effects from such injuries like long-term impairments. I'll also be honest and say that looking at how the Italian newspaper claims is given much more weight than the MoH or the IDF figures, removing MoH data makes me feel really uncomfortable. Also comparing this kind of severe head and chest injuries to the much simpler injuries of the Israeli side, you know, makes me think this needs clear reporting. --Darwish (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

2nd concern: "Palestinian rockets landed on Israeli educational facilities several times during the conflict,[336][337] with no casualties except for cases of shock.[338][339][340][341] " Is shock a significant enough casualty or was this added to make a point? There has not been enough time to see if there will be continued psychological damage. Removing it but feel free to revert if it really is notable enough. I'll reword it though since it was sloppy.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere when the rockets attacks began in force (I think at the end of the Second Intifada) Magen David Adom started to include shock as casualties, initially without specification (ie they reported who they had treated, and shock is a standard first aid treatment). This has been controversial, so now they do separate, which still has been controversial.

Personally, as long as it is clarified, I have no problem with it, Magen David Adom is the national first aid organization fo Israel (And I didn't in 2006 Lebanon War, where it was cause of much discord). One of the reasons is because I understand shock (I have been trained as a volunteer first responder in PR's EMA - Civil Defense), and I know that it can deteriorate if untreated into a whole lot of nastiness even in seemingly healthy people, but children, and the elderly are particulary prone. I am surprised that there haven't been reports of miscarriages: I once had to deal with such a situation during Hurricane Georges, and that I would consider mild to a rocket going off next to you.

The other reason is because it is trivial to find reliable sources with reference to shock victims.--Cerejota (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think overall it is a bad line just because of course people could be traumatized.I'm OK with a mental health mention just not where it was.Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the Italian newspaper section. I have several concerns about it:

1. Why it's given super-wieght comparing to the MoH or the IDF figures?
2. The paragraph written does not match the cited BBC article at all. There's no mention in the BBC article of the Battle of Jenin, or "the number quoted by Hamas and repeated by ICRC and the UN" and a lot of other things. Did some one substitute references?
3. Even if a reference supporting each claim in the current paragraph was found, this whole extra weight and explanation is un-acceptable. The whole incident should be presented with far less weight than the MoH and IDF figures; this is a single doctor view not a reputable organization or a government one. --Darwish (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it has too much weight in the article just by the amount of space it takes. My edit on the UN statement is a mute point though since you mentioned the date discrepancy which I failed to look at. I still think it would be best to move that line to another paragraph. I don't know who wrote it and was focusing on that one UN line since it is only there for a rebuttal. It does sound like that paragraph needs to be reworked to not overweight the section.

Yes, it was me who added it. Frankly, I wish I can make an edit in peace for once here :). I rarely jump in debates that's not related to my edits, which can give you an estimate of the origin of most debated statements in here ;). --Darwish (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your recent trauma comment, I think it makes the paragraph too long and really isn't that important. Bombs and bullets injure people really really bad. The places on the body are also commonly targeted locations tactically and take up more space than a foot so I don't think it matters where their injuries occurred.Cptnono (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's only a single sentence with 14 words Cptnonon. I can't believe your "too long" claims. The statement is reported by the WHO and also by Reuters Alert. I've replied more throughly below, please check (i.e., avoid replying here not to create a mess :)). --Darwish (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't expect this section to get this much attention and it is now about three topics (oops). If you want to discuss it please break it into a new one. Just to clarify this is how I feel on the subjects addressed:

• I'm an idiot for not looking at the dates closer in the BBC article. Agreed it receives too much weight. Think the UN line is a rebuttal and should be used somewhere else.
• Mental health issues should be mentioned but the previous line was silly.
• Thorax head blah blah (no offence) is a little long winded and not necessary.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

mmm...

• I don't follow you, what's wrong with the UN line? It's very important for balancing the Italian newspaper claims.
• ok
• you just completely ignored my reply above, cptnono. As I said above:" Also comparing this kind of severe head and chest injuries to the much simpler injuries of the Israeli side, you know, makes me think this needs clear reporting.". Don't forget the source says 44% of the thousands injured have these severe injuries, this is very critical to report. --Darwish (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The newspaper claims can be balanced without it while the line is moved to a more appropriate paragraph. We don't need to dispute so many lines with lines there just for rebuttal when structuring the section better is all that is needed for balance.
• The overwhelming force and weaponry of the IDF unfortunately causes more severe damage which is already clear to readers. We don't need to specify where it happened. The wording in the lines above can use the term "trauma" but that should be enoughCptnono (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia is written in this theme; the opinion, following an opposite opinion. We have an aggressive opinion by a no-name doctor (with much weight), then there's nothing wrong by balancing that powerful opinion with another opposite powerful opinion too. About the injuries, the overwhelming force may be known now, but it will be forgotten after 2 months as any thing in the world is. Please, the statement is only one line and you're giving the impression as if it was a full paragraph. It's only the line:"According to the MoH, injuries were often multiple traumas with head injuries, thorax and abdominal wounds". WP is not paper Cptnono, and this is only a well-cited single sentence. --Darwish (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is just one line and it should be removed. It is long-winded and unnecessary. This isn't even disputed content it just isn't needed. Also, wikipedia should not be opinion followed up by contradictory opinion. That is one of my personal concerns with this article in general. Successive lines should not compete with each other in an attempt to convince the reader of a certain view point. The article should be fact. It is inevitable that there will be tones from different sources but disagreements in the discussion page should not spill over into the main article.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is a compromise; if it is long-winded, let's say "multiple traumas and head injuries" only. About the UN statement, it's a "fact" that they has said that the MoH figures has not been seriously challenged; please do not censor out the statement. I'll provide another compromise and say OK, put it somewhere in the casualties section, but I sharply and wholeheartedly disagree with its removal. You see, two compromises in one statement ;-) --Darwish (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Cptonon, don't you think it's kind of a double-standard when you say "Successive lines should not compete with each other in an attempt to convince the reader of a certain view point" when it's you who did this edit, and exactly made the Italian newspaper sharply compete with the UN statement by saying "However, the next day Journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi published an independent assessment ...". So honestly, when it was thought the Italian newspaper thing was after the UN statement, you connected the statement in a very sharply competing manner, and now when it's discovered that the Italian newspaper article was before the UN, you say things shouldn't be put that way and debate about it. I'm sorry for the bite, but I had to say it :-) --Darwish (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

" "multiple traumas and head injuries" is good. The only reason that mean edit was made was to counter your revert, to try to fix what looked like crap to me, and to make a point. Would have been better left on the discussion page so apologies.Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Neutrality

I want to come to a consensus about the tag on this article. The activediscuss tag does not use the word "neutrality". This article is currently not simply "in dispute", it in inherently lacks neutrality - the inclusions and omissions, the deliberately inconsistent terminology, and other serious entrenched issues plague this article.

I know that you all know this. That's why the activediscuss tag is there. But the activediscuss tag is sterile; this article isn't simply being "developed", it is being used for POV purposes. Some editors regard current conflict pages as trench warfare rather than encyclopaedia writing. The use of the POV tag is simply honest. If I were a user that knew nothing about this subject, the POV tag alerts me to the contentiousness of the subject matter.

I know the opinion of one kind editor who wrote on my talk page. What does everyone else think? Betacrucis (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I am not suggesting the removal of the current tags. I'm suggesting the addition of the neutrality tag, {{POV}}.

Tags are not meant to convey what you are saying. They are not a way to keep score. They are a way to tell our readers: look the content is not really reliable. They also, by means of auto-inclusion in categories, alert the community as to articles with issues covered. In both scores, {{POV}} is fully redudant with {{activediscuss}} as I have explained multiple times. There is no need for redundancy.

In fact, your argument is really worrying: you are saying editors of using the article for POV purposes, which is a behavior issue, while at the same time doing an edit that is not really needed If you feel this is the case, that editors of using the article for POV purposes, there is a dispute resolution process you can use. There are no tags for user behavior, there are tags for content disputes.

Adding a redudant tag for no other reason than feeling that the exisitng tag, which the community designed and supports, is too "weak" for your taste, doesn't strike me a good reason. The alternative is precisely to discuss in good faith, which you have been doing. There is no deadline.--Cerejota (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is not neutral because it is being edited in a POV fashion. What possible other reason could there be for a lack of neutrality? The tag is to flag the lack of neutrality, not the act of editing in a POV fashion.

As a Wikipedia user/reader, I wish to know when an article is in serious dispute. The current tag does not achieve this. There is a perfectly good tag - {{POV}} - it is used on other articles, and this is a classic case of where the tag is required. I can't imagine why you would oppose its use.

I don't think I've shown myself to be an unreasonable editor. I think it is required. Everybody agrees that the article is not neutral. I strongly believe that the default position is that the tag ought to remain until there is consensus on its removal - not the other way around. Betacrucis (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at your talk section above, Cerejota, and I won't post under a title that suggests the inclusion of the POV tag is "lame". I don't know Wikifan or you from a bar of soap, but it appears he shares my view. I don't think it is a troll move; the other tag is clearly weaker and simply doesn't flag the extent to which the article lacks neutrality.

I disagree with others on the content of the article but I have not been assertive about my views because the article is in its early stages. I will remain assertive, however, about the inclusion of this tag while these disagreements are being worked out. Betacrucis (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

By the transitive property of trollness, it is indeed a troll like move. I am not saying you are a troll, but the association you made above proves troll behavior by association. But I dont care how many tags are up there, but if they are redundant then it is not needed. Nableezy (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you are being aggressive and you are violating the no personal attacks rule. I used the word "troll" because Cerejota did. See above.

Close Up of Trolls (John Bauer, 1915).

Nableezy, you are a big part of the reason for the lack of neutrality of this article, so I find it ironic and cynical that you are opposing the POV tag. How can you have a talk page like you do, and simultaneously oppose a neutrality tag being pegged above your work? Any cognitive dissonance at all, there? Betacrucis (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone is PAing you, you don't PA them back. Full stop. Guy0307 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is not neutral.Cptnono (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. You are basically all arguing about what you all disagree about.

Personally, I think the neutral tag should be on this article. It simply states the neutrality is disputed. Clearly it is; those both for and against Israels attack think the article is biased against their viewpoint. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I didnt say I opposed the pov tag, i said i opposed the redundant use of tags. that can be solved by removing either one of the redundant tag, meaning maybe the active discuss tag is there. Really should read what I wrote, like this line: I dont care how many tags are up there; or this one: I am not saying you are a troll. Read and you may find your misconceptions on what you think people will say differ from what they actually said. Nableezy (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Betacrucis:Nableezy, you are a big part of the reason for the lack of neutrality of this article. Others might say he is improving the neutrality, ie. preventing it from being a piece of pro-israeli propaganda. That is the problem with this article: both sets of editors see it as biased against them.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nableezy is extremely biased. Go to his talk page and see what he wrote, the "facts" he believes are utterly ridiculous. I don't mean to be rude, but the reverts speak for themselves.

He consistently imposes his POV on this article, sp equating Betacrucis' suggestions to Nableezy is silly IMO. He hasn't even edited the article as far as I know. Also, there is no balance in the talk. It is extremely one-sided, and we know which side that is. I'm not trying to build walls but it's true, so we should stop kidding ourselves and face the facts if we want to get things done. This talk is far from productive and I know I'm part of the problem, which is why I won't edit anything major without a strong and FAIR consensus....lol. Good luck hehe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus.

Every respectful editor that has been here for a while, whether pro-Israeli, pro-Palestine or neutral knows very well that you're the latest wikipedia editor on earth that can talk about POV-pushing. --Darwish (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"why I won't edit anything major without a strong and FAIR consensus": Yes, that's why you have systematically removed well-cited material, and been blocked before in here (once or twice?, I don't remember). --Darwish (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to get into who pushes POV and not (I suppose you could start another section or RFC if it has become that important). Well said by jandrews23: That is the problem with this article: both sets of editors see it as biased against them. The neutrality tag is fine. I hate too much junk but it makes sense. Both ask the reader to look at the article with care but for different reasons. A tag at the top is better than tags over each section since neutrality swings wildly throughout the article.Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, please use <br>instead of carriage returns so that you retain your indent, either that or put your indent again after using a carriage return. Since we already established how much I care about your thoughts hint: it starts with an I dont and ends with a give a f*** I am not going to comment on the rest of your post. Nableezy (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I care? ; ) Beta, this talk clearly won't work. Cerjota means well, trust me. He has his flaws and often acts like an admin when he shouldn't, but he rarely POV-pushes and he's probably one of the best editors here in spite of our disagreements. Nableezy and Darwish tend to group up and attack those who stand in their way, so don't worry about them. You get used to it after awhile. In regards to the neutrality tag, I suggest you post your issue in the dispute forum, uninvolved admins tends to review disputes in an objective manner...at least I always assume that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

it is not deliberate grouping as you claim. Unfortunately most of the debates above are related to my edits(UN MoH figures statement, Hamas statement of truce and 1967 borders, UNRWA and AI reports, WHO and MoH reports about the injured, ICRC on civilians and phosphorus, ...). Sometimes it appears as I'm just joining a debate with Nableezy, but it was my edits and I just joined the talk a bit late cause Nableezy is more active in here. I urge you to debate the logic itself instead of attacking people. --Darwish (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The one tag clearly doesn't make the other redundant. Both are clearly applicable. I understand that the activediscuss tag notionally covers almost everything known to man that could be wrong with an article, but that does not make other tags redundant where the issues are glaring.

My feeling is that further tags are required - the article is, in parts, poorly written and generally crapulent. I know we've all put effort into it but you know it's true. There are significant enough flaws to warrant substantial rewriting - if anybody could be bothered. Some of the tags that this article deserves: {{cleanup-rewrite}}, {{weasel}}, {{COI}}, {{unbalanced}}, and especially {{Disputed}}. The latter because it is not just the tone or selection of information that is non-neutral; facts are in serious dispute.

I urge you all to look at the Second Intifada page again (edit: and how many tags are on it). This page (edit: the one we are currently editing) is about a far more recent conflict, it's a far newer article, and is the subject of tremendous dispute. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; most of those issues are present here, and then some.

At this stage I think it is crucial that readers understand that the article, as it stands, is unacceptable. The activediscuss "in development" wording doesn't even begin to describe what's wrong with this article.

Tags will be removed when it can be proven that the issues do not exist. Until then, there is a prima facie case for their inclusion. Relevant tags do not favour one side and they are totally unobjectionable. Betacrucis (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Totally agree with Betacrucis on this and his reasoning. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why?--Cerejota (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the last commenter agreed or why the tag? Both are explained in the discussion.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Why Tundrabuggy agrees with Betracrucis's reasoning? What exactly is the question here? Btw, the fact that we can't even agree on a silly tag is the greatest proof of the importance of the POV tag at the top of the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it isn't: the article is already clearly tagged as non-neutral. And yes, I am asking "why" he agrees, I am interested in the reasoning etc. Perhaps a solution would be the use of {{article issues}}: why I do not want this is because it will mean five tags cluttering up the article, when there are clear alternatives that the community has devleoped precisely for these issues. You people are making it into a WP:BATTLE, when it isn't: it is about common sense. --Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings with the revert. I can put the appropriate tag on each section and dissect each line or you can yield to the fact that several editors completely disagree. It is a relativity unimportant discussion and our time would be better spent fixing the article (battle blah blah blah as you mentioned). Get over it and focus on the article.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, Tundrabuggy said that he agreed with me for the reasons that I cited. As Brewcrewer said, I would have thought that meant you can read my reasoning in order to ascertain his reasoning. Also, and respectfully, it sounds to me as if you have it somewhat backwards - you say that those who support the POV tag are making it into a battle, but you are the one battling over it. The POV tag is, surely, as neutral as it comes. Why are you going to battle? For reasons of concision? I don't see it; and even if you're right, surely neutrality wins out over concision any day of the week. In this sense, Cptnono is spot on the money. Betacrucis (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the {{activediscuss}} tag, which is redundant with {{POV}} was in place for a month and a half, with no real reversion or issues. Its you and your contentious editing who is turning this is to a WP:BATTLE, before you came in, we where discussing very substantive tweakign of the article, on specific sections, and you came in, and got people all riddled up. And this is not only about the tag, but about other things too. That is disruption. What is sad is that others follow you to it. That said, I also provided another alternative, which you have not addressed. I will implement anyways so you can understand, as you seemingly not get it. --Cerejota (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternate tag

As I have proposed, and no one commented, I have changed the {{activediscuss}} and {{pov}} tags into {{article issues}}.

I am using these options:

{{article issues|disputed=February 2009|npov=February 2009|weasel=February 2009}}

Feel free to add issues. For how to, go to the documentation here Template:Article issues/doc.

This takes care of both the "too weak" argument (which I see as totally bogus, but in a sense legitimate - people have a right to be drama royalty) and my prissy, wikifairy crap on aesthetics. --Cerejota (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that should be acceptable. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

nice work. good solutionCptnono (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

161,403 bytes

75 OK while 100 is acceptable according to wiki standards. 178k was ridiculous. We will be over with all the content available but we should attmept to stop mentioning every news story. Ask a friend to read the article and see how they get lost in the garbage that has been created. Apologies if my methods were too bold. Please readd as appropriate without all the fluff.Cptnono (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, things will just go well by itself after 2 or 3 weeks. You'll see :) --Darwish (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY - Read, understand, and implement. If the information is there, we should not have to pick and choose, simply fork. That said, we clearly need to shorten the existing WP:SUMMARY paragraphs, and we need to WP:SUMMARY the "International Law" and "Casualties" sections.--Cerejota (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I really want to weed out some of the fluff in the casualties section as discussed above. It is a really sensitive issue due to the high number of civilians so it will be a little bit of a challenge to find consensus.Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed casualty figures

First of all, the "Click here to start a new topic" link seems to create a new section on the actual article. Not sure if this is an error or not, or my fault. Apologies.

I note that there is another discussion above about whether to include the Hamas killings of Fatah members in the casualty figure.

I also note that this is a current conflict article and that there will therefore still be issues of neutrality and so forth that remain until the events are put sufficiently behind us.

As for the Israeli-Hamas fighting, however, Nableezy edited my neutralizing correction of the paragraph which Nableezy edited to read as follows: "As of 6 February, 2009, 14 Israelis have been killed during this conflict, including three civilians. According to figures compiled by the Palestinian Ministry of Health, about 1,300+ Palestinians were killed including 900+ civilians of whom 410 were children (with the remainder being police officers and militants).The Israeli military claims that between 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed."

The trouble with this formulation is that it presents a "Palestinian ministry's" claims about casualty figures as the primary and objective source ("figures compiled by"), without using the verb "claim". Nowhere is it mentioned that the PMH is Hamas-run. "Figures compiled by" suggests neutrality, which is clearly absent. The IDF's figures are presented second, almost as an afterthought, as "the Israeli military" "claims".

This is not neutral (WP:NPOV). I corrected the paragraph to reflect this and Nableezy pounced on it. I do not wish this to be an edit war; I am not making a non-neutral claim. I ask Nableezy to discuss this before editing it again:

As of 6 February, 2009, 14 Israelis have been killed during this conflict, including three civilians. The Palestinian casualty count is a matter of contention between the parties. The Israeli military claims that between 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed. The Hamas-run Palestinian Ministry of Health claims that about 1,300+ Palestinians were killed including 900+ civilians of whom 410 were children (with the remainder being police officers and militants). Betacrucis (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Fixed the new section box. The code was indeed broken.
2. We are having this discussion in a different section, hence I am closing and pointing to the correct thread.--Cerejota (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, sorry.--Cerejota (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cerejota. Betacrucis (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same problem earlier on, thanks for fixing. Kinetochore (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

When we say the Ministry of Health we do not present it as a neutral observer, we present it as the Gaza Ministry of Health. We dont put the ruling party before government ministries, this isnt a special case because you dont like that government. The IDF's figures should be second, the MoH and PCHR numbers have been reported much more, the UN, AI, HRW all quote the Palestinian numbers, not the IDF ones. The IDF numbers are a claim, they say it is an estimate, where the Palestinian say at least this many people. NPOV does not mean agrees with your, or my, POV. Nableezy (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are editing in good faith. And I assume you wish to abide by WP:NPOV. If my assumptions are true, then you will understand that your claim that Palestinian figures are more reliable as a result of being quoted by organisations that committed to the Durban strategy is not sufficient to justify Wikipedia's acceptance of Palestinian figures over Israeli figures. This is particularly true since Jenin. But if you don't accept the point about Jenin, I still think you will understand that it is not defensible to say that the Palestinian figures are acceptable as a WP statement of fact, whereas the Israeli figures are simply a "claim".

You do have a point about quoting the name of the ruling party when referring to the PMH. I shall think about it. I also accept that there is a question over which party's figures should be put first, but I reject your reasoning which leads you to conclude that Palestinian figures ought to go first.

In the long run, that paragraph will not remain the way it is. Eventually, articles on Wikipedia become neutral. As it is, it is simply not neutral. I do not wish to engage in an edit war; I am simply interested in the neutrality of WP, like most editors and, I assume, you. I will clean it up and I ask for WP editors to weigh in on what they think.Betacrucis (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say more reliable, I said they are given greater weight because almost every RS in the world does so. If you would want the Israeli numbers to be presented as an estimate rather then a claim that would be fine with me. We do not put the numbers as a statement of fact, we clearly cite them to the MoH. That is not the question here, you want to add Hamas run to MoH and give the Israeli numbers greater weight. That is a problem, we dont add the current party in power to government ministries, every government ministry in Gaza is 'Hamas run', that is just an attempt to poison the well. Also, why should IDF estimates be given greater weight than what is used by the UN, HRW, AI, ICRC, and countless other RSs? Nableezy (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this? Both figures are presented as estimates. "The IDF estimates that" and "The PMH estimates that"...

Check my recent edit. I removed "Hamas-run" for the moment. And I am simply trying to find a way to give the figures equal weight at present. I suspect a genuinely independent source is required for truly independent figures; a post-Jenin-style review will eventually settle the matter, IMHO. Until then, both figures ought to be given equal weight, and I think the line about "the figure is of some dispute" ought to stay.

As for your last comment, I don't think IDF figures should be given higher weight. Equal weight. I understand you wish to bring in these other organisations that have used the pMH figures, but most would recognize that those sources are not exactly Israel's biggest fans either! Neutrality at this early stage requires equal weight be given to both sets of figures. Notice that I am not making any difference in teh language between the iDF claim and the PMH claim.

Agree with me on this, and the minutiae can be debated later.Betacrucis (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot accept putting IDF estimates before the numbers used by everybody else. I am putting the MOH numbers before the IDF numbers not changing wording, we can work that out here. And they should not be given equal weight, the numbers used given by the IDF have not been used by anybody else. Regardless of what people think of the UN, HRW, AI on whether or not they are Israel's biggest fans, that cannot be reason to use the numbers the IDF has used before the numbers quoted to the world by these organizations. I personally would appreciate it if you stop saying Jenin, but I agree once an independent number is given by some organization that should take priority over any of the partisan ones. But you cannot say that the IDF numbers that nobody has used should be placed ahead of numbers that everybody has used. I am changing the wording around now. Nableezy (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is how my edit reads:
As of 6 February, 2009, 14 Israelis have been killed during this conflict, including three civilians. The Palestinian casualty count is disputed. The Palestinian Ministry of Health has stated that over 1,300 Palestinians were killed including over 900 civilians of whom at least 410 were children (with the remainder being police officers and militants). The IDF estimates that between 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians, comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians, were killed. No independent verification of casualty figures has yet taken place.
Nableezy (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the MoH numbers are not presented as an estimate by them, they have said that is the minimum number, whereas the IDF numbers have been given as an estimate. So I changed MoH from estimated to has stated, left estimated with IDF numbers. Let me know if you have a problem with that. Nableezy (talk) 18:04, 12 February

2009 (UTC)

The description that addressed the discrepancies between the figures given by the IDF and Palestinian sources, was removed on grounds that it belonged in the law section. Currently, the sentence gives Israel's rationale for discrediting the figures given by the Palestinians. " Discrepancies between the figures giving by Israel and those by the Palestinian Ministry of Health and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights are not clear. Israel disputes those figures giving by the Ministry of Health, saying "the numbers came from Hamas, which controls the Ministry of Health." . I propose, for now, that Hamas figures(which were somehwere in this article but can't seem to find them now) on casualties in their ranks be used to counter the Israeli claim(which is fine as it is now). Also, i usually come across these things without much work, but can someone point me where is the discussion on why these casualities, resulting from the intenal struggle(and not by Israel's forces) should be used? Also, under casualties, the figure given is between 60 and 70(which should be remove) but under the section of internal struggle, the figure is 400. If we take Israel's figures of 250 civilians casualties, it seems as if the REAL conflict was happening between Hamas and Fatah. Cryptonio (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh an apology for not re-routing the numbers from my edit(270109494) to the section i proposed, on my first edit. I could have swear that they were the same numbers...i was wrong(see above). and thanks to Jalapenos for correcting me, i appreciate it, i don't believe in that sort of deletion. Cryptonio (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio could you please clarify what you mean - how do you think the intro section on casualties should read? Do casualties belong in the intro at all?

Nableezy, I am sorry, but the use of different wording to describe each side's set of figures is sketchy. There is political motivation behind it. I am not changing this text in a partisan way; I am proposing neutrality (WP:NPOV).

Both of the figures are called "estimates" by the parties but are really claims at this point. Until then, referring to them as "estimates" grants them a certain status. Personally I think the IDF figures are more reliable simply on the basis of history (Battle of Jenin) but I recognise that there are partisans who would dispute this. Therefore this article cannot continue to make a distinction between the claims in favour of the Palestinian one.

There remains a question over which claim should go first. This is hairy and I do not wish to answer it myself. I think Nableezy's reasoning to put the Palestinian claim first is a poor attempt at appealing to verifiability. As I said, I think the IDF figures are more reliable.

I urge editors to weigh in. What do you think?Betacrucis (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse whatever Nableezy isn't saying. He and others have a proven history of gift-wrapping blatant POV-pushing with proclamations of their loyalties to NPOV. I considered doing the rewrite but didn't really have the balls to. I knew if I got into a war I'd lose, as always. Betacrucis, it is a must that we give equal weight to both the IDF and Hamas. And making IDF claims a distant second is rather odd, considering Hamas/Fatah/Palestinians/Arab's lengthy history of embellishing, exaggerating, and often times completely lying about casualties. Israel has a history of underestimating casualties, but not by much. Not to the point of fiction at least. I think we need to emphasize Hamas' control over these stats and everything that goes into Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First, wikifan, i dont give a fuck what you think, that went away the second you called me an anti-semite. Second, betacrucis, it is not up to us to determine which is more reliable. It is up to the RSs. They all have placed more weight on the MoH numbers. Every human rights organization has quoted their numbers, so does the UN. And there is no political motivation, my last reading showed even the home team media, such as ynet state that it is an estimate from the IDF. The MoH says their information is not an estimate, in fact how could the number 1314 be an estimate? Who would possibly say approximately 1314 palestinians have been killed? That is why I changed the wording, not because of my political inclinations (which are known well, but unlike the person above me i do not have a history of inserting pov into articles). And those other language changes you were happy with, that was me, so obviously I cant be all that bad. Nableezy (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I put the pal numbers back first, which is a long standing consensus. I kept the word estimate for both sides. Please do not change the order without consensus. Nableezy (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would note we do not put any Palestinian numbers for Israeli casualties (and there have been claims by Hamas on number killed, which are treated in the media just as the IDFs numbers on Palestinian casualties, a claim not based on anything so not given much weight). I do not understand for the insistence that IDF numbers, which a purely an estimation, should be put before an organization that claims to have actually counted bodies. Especially when the Palestinian numbers have been given far far greater weight than any IDF estimates in nearly every RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, stop dancing. Betacrucis pointed out what is exactly wrong with the current writeup and you totally avoided it. Obviously you are very naive or extremely biased to think that the Palestinians wouldn't embellish casualties figures. OMG, 1314...is a mixed number, therefore it must be truth!!! -Very logical reasoning

Also, stop the personal attacks. I defended my rationale for my statements and it was processed accordingly at the arbitration. If desired, I could compile a list of various combative and hostile statements you have made and pushed for block, which would have likely succeeded...but I don't care. I want to fix this article just as much as anyone so stop bring this crap up in an attempt to derail my and Betacrucis points. Betacricus, I suggest you create your obvious neutral version of the stats in its entirety and post it here if you haven't already. Then we can go from there, instead of pathetic opinion wars. Yeah, I recognize my bias. If only others would too.Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He said the only thing wrong is the order, what didnt I address. And there is no way you can possibly say to me to 'stop the personal attacks'. That requires a response that goes so much beyond a personal attack that ill leave it out. You dont even know what you are talking about, so why dont you take that break from this article you said you were going to after you called me an anti-semite? it would ease the tensions here quite a bit. Nableezy (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And stop responding unless you actually know what it is you are responding to. I didnt say the number was 'truth' i said it wasnt an 'estimate'. Stop being such a pain, it is really annoying. Nableezy (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course. God, I hate POV-pushers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You shouldnt hate yourself, it isnt healthy. Nableezy (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacrucis, you asked other editors to weigh in. Okay, Nableezy has explained several times now why the article (not the editor) gives more weight to the MoH figures. If you can construct an argument consistent with WP:DUE based on RS which demonstrates that Nableezy is wrong then please do so. You haven't done that yet. And Wikifan, play nice, stop being disruptive. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I wait for Bete's response. He's been the most neutral character yet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Original comment above that was changed, you should have just struck out what you wanted to take back. Nableezy (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Wikifan, please see Tit for tat. If you want to avoid getting into a Rand Corp spiral of death simply don't initiate it. It's easy. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So? I deleted something I found to be inappropriate. Nableezy's done it several times, same for Cerjota, Jal, Dar, and Crypt. Give me a break man, at least I recognize my errors. I don't defend them zealousy and accuse others of being racist a thousand times when things aren't going well for me. Whatever, drag this out for all I care. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. What you think I have deleted has actually been archived, anything that I have written that could have possibly offended something i struck out. Nableezy (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the point though. Right now there are apparently 2 issues; which numbers go first and what language to use in terms of calling the numbers put forward by each side a 'claim', an 'estimate', or simply 'stated'. In my view, and please look at the arguments and not why you think I am arguing this, even ynet says estimate for the IDF numbers, here saying they stand behind their estimate, the reference used in the article, again from ynet, says "The military estimates that between 1,100 and 1,200 people." I think it is clear that the IDF numbers are estimates by their own approximation. Now what would be an accurate portrayal of how the MoH presents their numbers. They say, flat out, that 1,314 palestinians were killed, 412 of them children. Here is something from BBC:
During the fighting, the main source for the number of Palestinian casualties came from the Ministry of Health in Gaza.
It said 1,314 Palestinians were killed in the conflict, 412 of them children.
These numbers are being used by international organisations, like the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
However, with very few international workers and journalists allowed in Gaza during much of the conflict, it has been difficult to verify the figures independently.
. here. I think it is clear that the MoH is not presenting their information as an estimate. It is also clear that the numbers have not yet been independently verified. I think we need to accurately how the numbers have been presented, and in doing so we do not, we meaning wikipedia, present the information as fact. We just accurately show how each side has presented their numbers. That is why I think it is accurate to use the word 'said' or 'stated' for what the MoH has said about their numbers and 'estimated' for how the IDF has presented their numbers. That BBC section also shows how widely accepted the MoH figures have been, and as such should be presented first. That is what due weight is, we dont ourselves decide which numbers are more reliable and should then be presented first, we just show which numbers have been given more weight by most RSs. Nableezy (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Always have to have the last word...LOL. No, you've deleted info and the continued posting without even a mention. Everyone has, it's typical in controversial discussions like these. Back on point. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions, everyone. I think we ought to bear in mind that eventually there will probably be a more neutral, objective count, and that these scuffles are essentially fruitless and ephemeral - this paragraph will be replaced in due course and this whole dispute will be almost irrelevant. I don't think the dispute can be resolved satisfactorily by using one figure or the other; it will take a truly independent count to be resolved.

While the UN is far from independent, the Jenin case (Battle of Jenin) is instructive in my estimation; the Palestinians initially claimed there had been a massacre of hundreds or thousands of civilians, largely because (like this war) the media was not allowed in. It turned out (by the UN's count) that roughly 53 Palestinians had been killed, most of them civilians, as against 23 Israelis killed. We need to bear this in mind; the Palestinians have used their own interim counts to score media points in the past. The IDF may have too, but I am not aware of it, and the discrepancy wasn't glaring.

I say this not to score points or to make a political point. I probaby have my own biases, as do you guys. However, I think it is fruitless to edit Wikipedia with an agenda; ultimately the page will settle into something that both sides generally agree upon. My sense is that, if the casualty figure remains in serious dispute, it should be treated in a separate section entirely.

In the meantime, I think the current formulation is better than it was, but not sufficiently neutral. As I said, it won't be until there is a more objective source for a count.

It is true that they are both estimations. These estimations differ substantially and they reflect the agendas of each of the parties. The Hamas/Palestinian narrative is, crudely speaking, that Israel is a cruel occupier, that the Gaza operation was an (unprovoked) massacre, that Gaza is heavily populated and therefore Hamas cannot but fire from populated areas, and that Israel had no regard for the infliction of civilian casualties and/or deliberately inflicted civilian casualties. The Israeli narrative is that Hamas fired 80 rockets a day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlZd3vR6Kzk) in the week(s) before the operation, that Israel was responding militarily to Hamas' targeting of civilian population centres, that Hamas fired from Palestinian civilian population centres and therefore used civilians as human shields, and that Israel took pains to minimize civilian casualties even in these circumstances, even to the extent of calling homes in the area around Hamas targets in order to warn civilians to move for the duration of the attacks.

Is that a fair sketch of both sides?

OK. So, crudely speaking, a lower casualty number and civilian:gunmen ratio favours the Israeli narrative; higher figures favour the Palestinian narrative. This is very crude, of course, because of the vexed issue of human shields (which would inflate the Palestinian civilian casualty ratio). I think it is instructive to note that the IDF hasn't yet published any official figures - this accounts for Nableezy's comment that more RSs have used the Hamas figures (all those RSs want "official" figures, and Hamas provided one. Israel, for whatever reason, hasn't yet done so.) Interim figures leaked to the media are here http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3661940,00.html.

For these reasons, I cannot see why the Hamas claims (the PMH) are more reliable than Israel's. If anything, they are less so - http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3660423,00.html. Israel has admitted that 250 civilians were killed (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3661940,00.html) which to my mind is also instructive, bearing in mind the effect that the figures have on each side's narrative. A figure of 250 civilians is not helpful to the Israelis and so releasing such data is prima facie evidence of its reliability.

If you're still with me, thank you. At least three issues, therefore, remain: first, I do not see why the PMH figure should come before the IDF's figure. I do not see a neat solution to the problem of order. I am eager to hear a less invested editor's opinion. Secondly, I do not like the word "estimate" because it implies that a good faith investigation has been undertaken, which I certainly do not believe the PMH has done (given Hamas' track record of using figures as propaganda), and which Nableezy and others probably do not believe the IDF has done either. "Claim" is a far fairer term in this case. Thirdly, the PMH is no ordinary government organ; it is not as if the PMH is as politically independent or accountable as, say, the UK's NHS. The PMH is clearly a political organ of Hamas. As such, I think it is necessary to somehow make Hamas' control of the PMH overt. I understand that those who prefer the Palestinian narrative are reticent to do this, but I think that to not flag it would be a glaring omission. I am eager to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Warm regards, Betacrucis (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, lets dispel some things about Jenin. The numbers used were based off eyewitness accounts, and repeated by PNA authorities, at the time Fatah, not Hamas. But wtf does Jenin have to do with this? Is there any connection to Hamas and the faulty figures first reported at Jenin, or a better question any connection with the current leadership of the MoH with those numbers? It is just brought up to poison the well. Beyond that, the IDF says it is an estimate themselves. And the PMH is as much a government organ as the Department of Health and Human Services in the US is, yes it is a political body and it is controlled byt a political party, but it is a government institution. I absolutely agree that when independently verified numbers come in that they will take precedence over all this, but as of right now we need to be accurate in how we say each side is presenting the numbers. The IDF clearly presents their numbers as an estimate, and I think that estimate is much better for a pro-Israeli viewpoint than claim, and I think it is clear that MoH is presenting the numbers as a statement of fact. That absolutely does not mean we should present them as fact, but we should clearly say that they have presented it as a fact. Just as we should clearly say that the IDF has presented it as fact. Another discussion below is focusing on primary sources vs secondary sources, there i think the conversation is only slightly relevant, here it clearly is. The IDF and MoH are both clearly primary sources. If we use their information we have to use it as they provide it without any commentary on it unless that commentary comes from a secondary source. Saying claimed when they state it as a fact is commentary, as is saying claimed when they present it as an estimate.
And to the point as to whose numbers are more accurate; that is not a discussion that we need to have. We don't make that that decision. The RSs determine the weight given. And we, Wikipedia, make no claim as to whose numbers are more reliable. Nowhere will you find any of these numbers presented as a fact, they are all clearly represented as the view of the party expressing them. The RSs have given much greater weight to the MoH numbers, that decides the issue of weight in the paragraph for us. We shouldnt be trying to argue that MoH numbers are more or less accurate than the IDF numbers, I havent even said anything like that. I have my own personal feelings on that, but my personal feelings on what is more accurate is irrelevant to the conversation. The sources do all this for us, we do not have to. Having the numbers from the MoH come before the IDF numbers does not equate to saying the MoH numbers are more accurate. All it means is that they have been given greater attention by what we call RSs. And a civilian figure of 250 dead is very favorable to an Israeli narrative, but again that should not matter. If an official independent count that is widely accepted by RSs ends up saying 3 civilians died that would end carrying more weight than all of this, if an official independent count that is widely accepted by RSs ends up saying that there have been 1500 civilians out of 1501 total casualties that will end up carrying more weight than any of this. But right now, the MoH numbers have been given the most weight in the world, as it should be here. Not because they are right or wrong, but because that is how the RSs have reported them. Nableezy (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacrucis, I have to object to the latest edit. Such arguments do not belong in the lead section, they belong in the Casualties section. You do not want to have those type of arguments in the lead. I have no objection to the material, but I do to its location. We dont have each sides view on the other sides position in the lead, if we do we end up in a never ending cycle. The response of some would be to add to that paragraph that Hamas has said that Israel has lied about the number of IDF soldiers killed and that the number is actually closer to 80. That line is not appropriate for the lead section. Nableezy (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The neat solution to the problem of order is to follow WP:DUE and in particular "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors". It's as simple as that. I'm not sure why this has become contentious. If someone can demonstrate the prevalence of the IDF figures in RS then we can swop them around. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See that just makes sense to me and I havent even read that maybe i did but that short term memory thing is kinda hard for me Nableezy (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, guys. To quote WP:DUE: "Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view." As such, I would like to hear your thoughts about my latest edit:

As of 6 February, 2009, 14 Israelis have been killed during this conflict, including three civilians. The Palestinian casualty count is disputed. The Gaza-based Palestinian Ministry of Health has estimated that 1,314 Palestinians were killed including over 900 civilians of whom 412 were children (with the remainder being police officers and militants).[62][63] Israeli officials claim that Hamas, which controls the Palestinian Ministry of Health, "significantly inflated the civilian death toll and played down the number of Hamas operatives killed"[64]. Although Israel has not yet released an official count, the IDF has claimed in the interim that between 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians, comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians, were killed.[65][66][67][68][69] No independent verification of casualty figures has yet taken place.

I have left the Palestinian figure first, in other words, and have outlined the reason for the dispute in neutral terms. I appreciate that some of you have strong points of view, and Nableezy clearly is invested in a particular narrative, but I do think my latest edit concisely and in neutral terms describes the casualty figure dispute. I do look forward to hearing your views. Betacrucis (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that Nableezy does keep undoing my edits, but I strongly believe that we can come to a consensus on this. No need for edit wars - we have done pretty well so far. Keep talking! :) Betacrucis (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, keep talking, but dont keep changing to a disputed version without consensus. About the latest edit, it is introducing Israeli arguments against Palestinian figures in the lead section. That information can go in the casualties section, but there has been consensus for keeping arguments out of the lead. You will end up with a never-ending chain of arguments about who is right if you end up having stuff like that in the lead. Nableezy (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, Nableezy, if there is consensus for keeping arguments out of the lead, then why state the claims in the first place? It could read: "As of 6 February, 2009, 14 Israelis have been killed during this conflict, including three civilians. The Palestinian casualty count is disputed." with a link to the specific section. By introducing the disputed figures, you need to explain why there is a dispute as to their accuracy. I'd like to hear what others think about this, because clearly you and I disagree. Perhaps someone who hasn't yet weighed in would like to comment.

Nableezy, you also introduced the word "estimated" but there has been no consensus on it. Until there is, the term "claim" is clearly less loaded and should remain. Betacrucis (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that Nableezy wrote: "The response of some would be to add to that paragraph that Hamas has said that Israel has lied about the number of IDF soldiers killed and that the number is actually closer to 80." I would not object to this. I think it does belong in the lead section because the casualty count dispute is a highly significant issue; readers can make up their own minds. It seems to me, respectfully, that the claim that it doesn't belong in the lead section stems from a POV attempt to omit information rather than a genuine concern for concision. I propose that we revert to my previous edit, and instead of saying that the Palestinian casualty count is in dispute, it can say simply that the casualty figure in general is in dispute. This is another solution to the issue. At this point, the absence of the reason for the disputed figures is a significant omission. Betacrucis (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying I want a certain wording because of a POV attempt to omit information rather than a genuine concern for concision, the problem with that is I have actually been able to provide a rationale based on the sources for my position so I would appreciate it if you stop saying that and answer my points. Nableezy (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I have been very courteous to you and I would ask you to respond in kind. There is no need to take a tone.

You asserted that "arguments" don't "belong" in the lead section, but you provided no reason why the following sentence does not belong in the lead: "Israeli officials claim that Hamas, which controls the Palestinian Ministry of Health, "significantly inflated the civilian death toll and played down the number of Hamas operatives killed"". I am not sure how sources are relevant to this question; this is well-sourced and it absolutely belongs in the lead because it is a significant issue at this point. It goes to the very heart of both parties' claims.

I understand that you carry a flag, Nableezy, but it seems to be getting in the way of your objectivity. You seem to be blocking material from reliable sources simply because it doesn't suit your agenda. Would you explain why else you would keep deleting the sentence, which is in line with Wikipedia guidelines? I even proposed a compromise solution but you have not responded to it. Betacrucis (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to answer the getting in the way of my objectivity because that is without basis as you have not been on this page from the beginning so you have no idea what my ability to compromise or see past my bias is. But to the point, I have not 'asserted' that the arguments do not belong in the lead, I have asserted that there is consensus for keeping such arguments out of the lead. What makes the fact that Israel says Hamas has exaggerated the numbers important? Isnt that already implied by the fact that they say 250 civilians? Why is there a need to say they have said Hamas, who controls the MoH, has inflated the numbers? And you really think that is that important that it should go in the lead section? Now I am not going to comment on what flag you seem to be waving, because as irrelevant as it is for me it is for you. What compromise? To put Hamas has said that Israel has lied as well? Sorry two stupid things dont make something smarter. Neither of those belong in the lead section, because they are just arguments, if you want that information it clearly belongs in the casualties section. Stop making arguments based on what you like, start making them based on policies and sources. Nableezy (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding shit for which there is no consensus, what do you not understand about WP:BRD? You were bold, I reverted, now discuss it to get consensus, stop just putting the same shit back in again and again. If you do get consensus I wont complain about it being in there, but you dont have it now so stop putting it in the article. Nableezy (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement meets WP guidelines and is crucial to the intro section. I am calling for other editors to weigh in on this issue so we can come to consensus - but in the interim, why should material whose neutrality and varifiability you haven't disputed not remain there until we merely decide where to place it?

I call for other editors to weigh in on the following:

As of 6 February, 2009, 14 Israelis have been killed during this conflict, including three civilians. The Palestinian casualty count is disputed. The Palestinian Ministry of Health has estimated that 1,314 Palestinians were killed including over 900 civilians of whom 412 were children (with the remainder being police officers and militants).[62][63] Israeli officials claim that Hamas, which controls the Palestinian Ministry of Health, "significantly inflated the civilian death toll and played down the number of Hamas operatives killed"[64]. Although Israel has not yet released an official count, the IDF has claimed in that between 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians, comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians, were killed.[65][66][67][68][69] No independent verification of casualty figures has yet taken place.

Nableezy objects to the bolded statement. He has even suggested that a parallel statement could be made challenging the other figures, and I suggested it as a fair compromise. Nableezy won't budge and he is being somewhat recalcitrant.

I seek views other than those that have thusfar been heard. Looking forward to hear you views! Betacrucis (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have disputed the additions neutrality, I have also disputed its necessity, that is why it shouldnt go until there is consensus. Nableezy (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta, you said this "I appreciate your contributions, everyone. I think we ought to bear in mind that eventually there will probably be a more neutral, objective count, and that these scuffles are essentially fruitless and ephemeral - this paragraph will be replaced in due course and this whole dispute will be almost irrelevant."

I totally agree with you on that point. Listen, the current state of the lead, has taken a lot of work and compromise on both sides. I am not going to tell you though, that because we had a vote in the past, that it should remain so now in the present. Not at all. But don't you agree, that if we from the start(the lead) start 'stating' arguments from both sides, it will be a never ending editing and POV pushing of the worst kind? simply because it would show that we didn't even wait to get to that part(POV pushing) till we addressed the actual article? Cerejota(last i checked) would be against this idea and you haven't seen Jalapenos weight in on this yet. That you have just gotten involved in this article is not reason to prevent you from editing at will. But perhaps you should look at it from the point of view that perhaps what you are arguing, it has been argued before and that both sides have probably heard all the arguments and talking points(specially when dealing with the lead). I don't think, anyone here would object for you to post anything you want about Israel's casualties premises and counter-points in the casualties section(where i tried to tackle this same issue you have picked up, but was ignored as usual). There is a place for that(ISRAEL's POV on casualties) in the casualties section, but not in the lead(whichout POV pushing, reverting, to finally settle on not including POV from neither sides). No, i do not agree with you that equal qeight should be given to both sides to POV-push casualties arguments. I am willing to work with you Beta on this issue, i will finally(not that i've showed it) will be able to be more active in here after a week of work and other issues. Cryptonio (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, thank you. I will wait for a couple of days and see what others say and I hope you do become more involved this week! Betacrucis (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am putting the neutrality tag up until this dispute is resolved. I shall add another talk section later today about the neutrality of the article in general. I don't think the other two tags adequately flag the extent to which this article's neutrality is in question. Betacrucis (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted you. See the thread above. It is redundant: the neutrality of this article has been in dispute since December 27th, but then as other things were about to be added, someone put the {{activediscuss}} tag to consolidate. I think it was Wikifan who put the first tag, but I might be wrong. --Cerejota (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As of now, no accusations from either side in the lead. All of Israel's concerns about casualties are now in the casualties section. We hope they are right and that the Palestinian number is wrong. Cryptonio (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't regard consensus as having been reached, but the current formulation is far better than it was when I arrived. In the interim I agree with Cryptonio that the casualties section ought to be focused on. I have put a suggested revised draft (it is by no means complete) - see the section on it below.

As an aside, it sounds as if both sides agree - roughly - on the number of fatalities. It is the non-combatant figure that seems to be in serious dispute. I'd be very surprised if it ends up being as high as the PCHR and PMH are claiming. Israel's figure will end up being closer to the mark. It's a question of narrative, however, and even if the IDF figure ends up being correct, that's not going to change anybody's mind. Betacrucis (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Even editors who have shown trollish behavior in the past should be debated with the standard WP:DR process. No one, including obviously me, should behave above those policies. --Darwish (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Ed.: As a show of good will, I striked the below Wikifan accusation since it did not follow the standard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. --Darwish (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the second time Wikifan adds the Hamas aid incident to the Palestinian minsitry of health page. For heavens sake, enough. Even the cited reference you provided did not mention the ministry of health even once. Wikifan, I'm very close to open a RFC case against you. I know full well that you may suffer infinite ban because of it and I do not want to be a cause of such a thing. Just, please, please, please for heavens sake, enough. Meanwhile, if you didn't stop, I'll have to open a case. --Darwish (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is certainly not where the information belongs. It belongs in a couple of other pages tho... I can think it goes in the "Incidents" sub-article, in the Hamas article, and probably here in "Ceasefire incidents" if it happened after the ceasefire. Wikifan has a history, and is advised to be more productive, but I seriously doubt he would be banned after an RfC for these types of things. "Palestine Remembered" is like wikifan (a bit more soapboxy tho) and he is still around. Lets lower the room temperature. There is a WP:DR process, use it.--Cerejota (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry disagree, Wikifan is a troll, completely useless as an 'editor of an encyclopedia', that is how he has behaved here and everywhere else. PR actually does make a contribution besides soapboxing. Nableezy (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan can be trollish, but so has PR. I understand your need to defend editors you agree with, but I think I am making a valid analogy: there is disruptive behavior on both sides, hence trying to get one editor blocked while defending another is not really a good way to proceed - it is a selective use of community consensus. And mind you, as I have said, I am no wikifan of Wikifan: he has indeed done some bad things. I am just saying we need a sense of proportion. I value editing much more than talk page behavior, and wikifan in general has been good in editing, and has PR.--Cerejota (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A troll is always a troll; whether he's a pro-Israeli or a pro-Palestinian troll doesn't make a big difference ;-). Now to business, what is the accepted and civil Wikipedia thing to do if wikifan added this unrelated Hamas aid incident to the Palestinian MoH page again for the third time? --Darwish (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, I left a summary and rationale. Got a problem? Stop crying here and go talk or my userpage. And FFS assume good faith, I know it's extremely hard for you. Stop using this talk to stir up wars, I'll simply report you because it's pissing me off. Yeah, terrible reason, but everyone else seems to be doing it. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit, Nevermind. The source doesn't connect and you're right. But you're not assuming good faith and you're not following standard procedure (i.e, talk, userpage, talk, edit, revert, report, admin, block, etc..). Going straight to the police is total bullshit man. If I were to make a talk page for every time I see you POV-pushing the entire talk page would be filled up 6 times over. So chill out and stop searching for wars. My edit was in good faith and it is still unknown who is actual controlling the PMOF. Hamas is there, doing crap, yet Fatah still has billing right in the article. My edit could very well be true, it's not like I'm just making this up or trolling the article. Bleh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One does not have to assume good faith in the face of repeated bad faith actions, your allotment of good faith ran up quite a while ago. Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ok. Just assume every edit I make is sinister. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing me to PR? Lol, what are you on?? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI

Beta, above you mentioned COI, I do not see or can prove any COI here. In particular, this is not a commercial product, an academic endeavor, a book/work of art, or a biography - so COI is hard in itself. WP:COI is very clear as to what should be considered a COI, and I see none of the situations covered here. If you see specific instances of COI, you should raise them at WP:COIN, otherwise, you should explain your reasoning and address it. But to my knowledge there is no COI that has been identified, either by self-disclosure or by discovery. --Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he is referring to Nableezy's userpage? It contains some rather POV info/commentary that reflects his attitude in the talk and article. Same for Darwish, but that's my opinion. I'm not sure so let's wait for Beta's response lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what the one difference between us is? There are actually users from 'the other side' that have complimented me and that I think generally respect me. You need to read the COI page before citing it again. Nableezy (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, why did my name came in here under attack? I didn't even participate in any of the COI discussions. --Darwish (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

removed soapboxing disguised as a relevant commentPR^talk 12:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this edit by Brewcrewer, which removed a comment by PR and left words not written by PR in front of PR's signature. The comment by PR, while not directly related to article content, is discussing possible COI issues and therefore seems to me to be relevant to this article talk page. I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with PR's comment, but opposition to the practice of deleting other editors' talk page comments. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. If you see comments you believe are out of place on an article talk page, rather than deleting please consider alternatives such as asking the editor to delete their own comments, or striking out rather than deleting (although I also generally oppose the striking out of others' comments, per the guideline). Brewcrewer, please consider reverting your edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

PR's modus operandi is soapboxing. He has been warned tons of times about this behavior and blocked a number of times for this behavior.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't mount a case for it, but it was my mistake to raise COI. But I'd like to see you address the other tags I proposed, Cerejota. In fact, when I get a bit of time to read through policy, I will probably more seriously propose one of those tags, but I think that unless a tag's inclusion is transparently ridiculous, there shouldn't be much argument about it (I know, I'm begging for more argument just by saying that!) Look, this is a controversial topic and this article is, IMHO, so far from acceptable that I was stunned to see so few tags on it when I first read it. There are more tags on badly written pop culture pages than there were on this article when I got here, for heaven's sake! Frankly I am amazed that there is still a question in anyone's mind over the POV tag.

Could we get back to editing, though? Betacrucis (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacru, I can't agree with your proposal that we get back to editing and before you 'get a bit of time to read through policy.' Please see WP:consensus, your recent edits to the Background section were done without regard for extensive Talk discussions on the content in question. Please get consensus here for controversial edits or removal of long-standing content. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Roma, this is off-topic. I was referring to adding the tags after reading the policy on them. I am aware of editing policy in general. Your reverts seem counter-productive to me. See the section I started below. Betacrucis (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I put a strikethrough over my text and took it to the section below per suggestion. RomaC (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer if you believe an editor to be soapboxing on Talk please voice your opinion here instead of unilaterally deleting their comments. RomaC (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Background

I edited the background section, see my edits. I think they are eminently reasonable; removal of basic geo- and demographic information on Gaza that can be ascertained by hyperlinking to Gaza. The reiteration of this information is suscpicious to me.

The paragraph on Hamas charter and Israel's views about Hamas also needed to be edited and I did so.

RomaC reverted. But the reversion is less neutral, more redundant, and less clean than before.

I urge RomaC to provide reasons for the reversion. Betacrucis (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Betacru, please see WP:consensus, your recent edits to the Background section were done without regard for extensive Talk discussions on the content in question. Please get consensus here for controversial edits or removal of long-standing content. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, RomaC, Betacrucis changes are in very much in consensus reflecting this discussion. All sides have clearly voiced their concerns. RomaC, you're being plain rude. This is not Wikipedia way. I'd suggest that you discuss your changes, before you making it. Who appointed you as consensous representative? Your edits are damaging. I urge you both folks to move your discussions regarding Background to relevant discussion. It will help the discussion and make process of Wikipedia editing more effective and smooth. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you suggest RomaC discuss his/her edits, while implicitly supporting Beta in his/her undiscussed removal of information? And even if people have raised concerns, this doesn't mean a consensus was reached to change the background. I support keeping it as it was before Beta's changes.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I should support RomaC removing information. Is RomaC self appointed consensus? There is discussion under way. All sides voice there concerns. In any way, let's try not to be personal and move this discussion to relevant discussion. Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics have consensus, everything the 2 of you removed has consensus, stop doing this wtf. Get consensus for edits you KNOW will be rejected by many. Much of that section has stood for a long time, stop fucking it up. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As of now, in background it says that Israel continues to expand its borders. Do you guys want to add Israel's reasons? Cryptonio (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Nableezy (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It was added after Agada's edit, which you reverted, and now it might appear somehow out of place. But this section was hijacked, and will provide much conflict if we keep going back to the beginning of the 'conflict' itself. Agada has made it claer from the start, that he intends to blame Hamas for this latest conflict. At least, he feels the article should influence the reader to believe that. Cryptonio (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, I love you too. But sometimes argument with you feels like entering the wrong room in the argument clinic. Hope you feel better now, after you got it out :) Please join discussion. Your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You make it hard to have any sympathy for Israel. You are sabotaging your mission. But notice, that I don't take anyone's opinion over mine, so is not Israel that i argue against, it is you. Cryptonio (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re "It is one of the most densely populated places on earth": I suggest changing this to "It is densely populated", and then combining it with the following sentence to make "It is densely populated, holding a population of 1,500,202. on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi) according to the CIA Factbook as of July 2008." The problem with the current version is that it appears to be OR. The footnotes support that it's densely populated, not that it's one of the most densely populated places on Earth. The link to the Wikipedia page supports, in an OR sort of way, that few countries are more densely populated; but it's not clear that whole countries are appropriate comparisons. I suppose there are lots of cities and groups of cities around the world that are much more densely populated than (almost) any whole country.^{(01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC))}

Re "...and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel." The problem I see with this statement is that the word "destruction" is ambiguous. It could mean the dismantling of the state and replacement with a different government; or it could mean physical destruction of humans and infrastructure. If we use a term, we should be clear what it means. The Hamas page has had more time to be polished. It says "Hamas's charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip." and "Hamas's 1988 charter calls for the replacement of Israel and the Palestinian Territories with an Islamic Palestinian state, but Hamas did not mention that aspect of its charter in its electoral manifesto during the January 2006 election campaign.". These are clearer and better, in my opinion. I suggest changing it to "...and its 1988 charter calls for the replacement of Israel and the Palestinian Territories with an Islamic Palestinian state." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The source explicitly says destruction, as does the charter. I think this is well sourced and verifiable so it can stay, though I think it should say 'destruction of the state of Israel.' Nableezy (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The pop density, it is not OR, we have a WHO report saying 6th highest and the exact quote from the HRW source is 'among the highest in the world', though we had a very long discussion as to what to put, your suggestion is almost exactly like mine, though that failed to gain consensus. Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is more densely populated than most cities in the world, is common knowledge. That OR can tell you different things, is very much possible. But Gaza would be up in any list(like it has been showed) as being densely populated than most cities. Original research can put you in the moon, better than co2.

I oppose, by principal, to bring 'pre-packaged' material from other articles into this one. For various reasons, the main one being that it would save too much time and will leave us with little to do. Cryptonio (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find the word "destruction" anywhere in the Hamas charter. Are there different translations of it? Could you give a link to it? Could you give a quote from it with the word "destruction"? I looked at this version (several pages) which is given as a link from the Wikipedia Hamas article.

Yes, that source says "destruction", but it's not clear what it means.

Re population: Could you give a link to the WHO report, and to the previous discussion on this talk page? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WHO report here, old discussion here. As far as the charter, I was mistaken, does not contain the word 'destruction' wrt the state of Israel, but we do need to stick to RSs on this and not use our interpretation of the charter. If you find a source that goes into more detail by what is meant when people say the charter calls for the destruction, I wouldnt be opposed to using that. Nableezy (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. The references given do support the population statement after all. I must not have looked carefully enough earlier. I struck out my comment about population. Thanks for your patience and for supplying those links, Nableezy, and I'm sorry to have taken up everyone's time with the population density question. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah people, this article is not about the entire conflict. We have wikilinks to other articles which provide abundant information. The background section should focus on the events that ended the ceasefire and thats it. It is becoming way too synthy, like a concert by A Flock of Seagulls.--Cerejota (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Cerejota, your pic added a broken reflist so I took it out, hope you dont mind. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, thanks for adding "of the state of" [1] to the Hamas charter destruction sentence. I think that's a definite improvement. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties reversion and other issues

I am dismayed that my edits were simply reverted. I spent some hours editing the casualties section, which is an abject mess, into something more coherent. There was a significant amount of new material that I wrote from scratch there, which turned paragraphs of drivel into something encyclopaedic. I'd appreciate my work not being reverted simply because you choose to label me. Will you examine it on the merits, please?

As for the pictures of dead people; I can't think of something less deserving of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It has nothing to do with being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, although I can't imagine why anyone might think that such shock pictures do anything for their cause. It is simply in bad taste. If you wish to look at pictures of dead people, go to www.rotten.com.

I am disappointed that some of you have chosen to classify me politically and therefore write off my work. If anybody read my work on the casualties section before it was simply deleted, I think you'll find it was good and that you could have worked ON it rather than removed it entirely. Examine my work first, and at least if you feel the need to revert the work back to the tosh that was there before, paste it here in the talk page so we can look at it.

Most people here seem to ignore the guidelines, but I draw your attention to WP:DONTBITE and ask for a little more courtesy. Any chance we could work on this as an encyclopaedia? Why does it have to become some partisan battleground where people feel the need to classify my views and therefore discredit my work? What happened to WP:AGF? Betacrucis (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You dont just rewrite an entire section and change content without discussion and gaining consensus first. Bring up your proposed changes and gain consensus, but removing material that has been long standing consensus without gaining consensus first is not the correct way, especially when you have already seen your changes have been disputed. Nableezy (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And that picture argument has been made before and completely rejected. You can find such pictures in many articles on wikipedia. Nableezy (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't just revert editors' work because they didn't run their proposal past the gauntlet at this talkpage. There must be a specific problem with a user's edit before being reverted. Like a large part of the article, there never was a consensus for the pics. Saying there was a consensus doesn't make it into a consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There were specific problems, and they were raised each time the users put some of these changes. That they put them in again all at once doesnt change the objections. And yes BRD says you can be bold, but if reverted discuss and get consensus. Nableezy (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And there was a consensus for the pictures in question, a few users vociferously objected but there was consensus for it. There was not consensus for the ISM baby pic, and that has not been put back in. But even many users who opposed the baby pic were fine with including this one. Nableezy (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And you wouldnt revert me in 2 seconds if rewrote the entire background section, removing material I didnt like, and declared that the new starting point? If not let me know and Ill get started on that. Nableezy (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't revert you; so go ahead and knock yourself out. For reasons that are obvious, I haven't looked - let alone - edited the article in a long time. I do know what goes on here at the talkpages and do know a consensus when I see one (for example, the density issue which I'm sure has been modified). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For convenience, links to some edits by Betacrucis: Background section Casualties ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Coppertwig, but it's not really fair to look at that version of the casualties section. In good faith, I rearranged the sections. It wasn't a final edit (I simply didn't have the time) but I don't think anybody really got a chance to read my changes. Can someone tell me how I can revert back to my edit? I don't care if it's reverted back, I just want to copy my entire section here into the talk page, which I seem not to be able to do using the history. Or am I able to view what the page looked like after my last edit?

I agree with the editor that replied to Nableezy - edits ought to be critiqued. Whoever removed my entire damn edit, which I worked a long time on, could not possibly have done it in good faith. There may have been issues with it, but my paragraphs were written in good faith and from a NPOV.

I am bemused by the fact that certain people regard everything on the page as sacrosanct and therefore subject to consensus on the talk page before an edit, EXCEPT when the material on the page is something they don't like, in which case they can just delete at will. Betacrucis (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Beta, If you scrolldown the "diffs" provided by Coppertwig you'll be able to see how the page looked with your edit. I agree with you that editors here are a bit too trigger-happy. I would recommend that you edit the article piecemeal or work at your version at your userpages before transferring it to this article. User:Betacrucis/Sandbox is your "sandbox", which you can use for test edits. Make an edit to the page and it will turn blue. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talkpage. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd that you are demanding assumptions of good faith and then say 'Whoever removed my entire damn edit, which I worked a long time on, could not possibly have done it in good faith.' Doesnt work like that, and can you show me where I deleted something just because I didnt like it? You do not just ignore long standing consensus and demand your edits be accepted, it will not work. Nableezy (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nab: S/he's obviously new to WP and doesn't have a full understanding about how things work. If you worked on something for a long time only to have it promptly deleted while assuming there's no recourse to recovery, you would also be upset. Put yourself in this newbie's shoes please. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I kind of am a newbie, but you are right. As politely as I can in text, I ask that you bring up each of your planned revisions and deletions to the talk page so that people can comment and we can reach a consensus. In an article in this topic it would be appreciated if you do that instead of just introducing your text into the article without consensus. Nableezy (talk)

I will do so. Thank you both for your comments. Is there a formal consensus process? Is it democratic? Betacrucis (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Darwish (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is democratic in the sense that it is controlled by the demoi but it isn't a majoritarian democracy and we don't vote. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And WP:BRD. Which people forget.--Cerejota (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IDF classification

I think that the IDF classification for the deaths should be added, [2]

Another 300 of the 1,200 - women, children aged 15 and younger and men over the age of 65 - had been categorized as noncombatants, the CLA said. Counted among the women, however, were female terrorists, including at least two women who tried to blow themselves up next to forces from the Givati and Paratroopers' Brigades. Also classed as noncombatants were the wives and children of Nizar Rayyan, a Hamas military commander who refused to allow his family to leave his home even after he was warned by Israel that it would be bombed. The 320 names yet to be classified are all men; the IDF has yet complete its identification work in these cases, but estimates that two-thirds of them were terror operatives.

Their numbers are quite different from the Palestinian MoH. Anyone have a good reason why we shouldn't? -Solid Reign (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have that info in here. Not as detailed, but we dont need individual details on the casualties. Nableezy (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, I don't know how I missed it. -Solid Reign (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IDF disputes Hamas' numbers

IDF: World duped by Hamas's false civilian death toll figures -- accuses Hamas of false reporting. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you look immediately above this section before posting the exact same thing? Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! The same article, different emphasis. I am so sorry to have caused so much trouble! Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt mean that as insult, nor did I say you have caused trouble, I just wanted to point out it has already been posted and there is no need to do so twice. Nableezy (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Background Section

Cold dark matter (or CDM) is a refinement of the big bang theory that contains the additional assumption that most of the matter in the Universe consists of material that cannot be observed by its electromagnetic radiation and hence is dark while at the same time the particles making up this matter are slow and hence are cold.

The following is a quote from the first background info section: "Israel agreed to Hamas participation in the Gaza election process and says it will negotiate with the Palestinians if militant groups are disarmed.[94]".

This information came from a very old article (back from January 2006), and so misrepresents the history and background of the situation. The Anapolis Peace process, which began several years after the article was written, negates the relevance of this statement. Indeed, Israel has been negotiating with the Palestinians (or at least Fatah) for some time now, despite the continued presence of militant groups. Frankly, I am not sure if a paragraph discussing the Anapolis Peace Process is relevant to the conflict and its background. If I remove this sentence entirely, would anyone object?Kinetochore (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Suggesting that every act of violence or war documented on wiki be presented with "background" in terms of provocation, revenge etc. The articles would be endless, and very much WP:OR. Each incident must really be addressed in itself, without POV background justification (unless the attack is specifically referred to by the perpetrators as "revenge" for something in particular). Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on; While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on. It is endless. --Cerejota (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure revenge is the best description for this, yet I have to say that I've added this refinement to balance "dismantling". Even Ismail Haniyeh is ready for "long-term" Hudna, though sometimes he lives in Damascus. It is only a question of 1967 borders and Palestinians' national rights. World is not that cold As per OR secondary source is quoted from the period describing background section, I'm not sure where is OR :):) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see how getting rid of the complete line could be beneficial to the article. Go for it.Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The following is a quote from the background: "Hamas officials in Gaza have stated that the Hamas government would agree to offer long-term Hudna, or truce, to Israel if Israel would accept 1967 borders and recognized the Palestinians' national rights". I propose that this quote be removed, as it gives undue weight to a Hamas statement. I could find many statements from Israeli and American sources that claim that Hamas has no such intention, or has not shown any interest in negotiations, etc. Suffice it to say, while it is true hamas officials did say this, its inclusion in the article misrepresents the situation. At the very least, this statement must be counterbalanced with an Israeli claim that hamas has no such intention, but I would prefer if this statement be removed entirely.Kinetochore (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, it is directly related to the statement that the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. How does it misrepresent the situation? Because you dont believe them or is there something else that tells you that Hamas would not be willing to accept a long term truce in exchange for the return to the 67 borders and other "national rights"? That said, I would be fine with Israeli official statements (meaning statements from a government agency or a cabinet official, not just some Knesset member) on what they think of the statement. As best as I know the response has been that unless Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist as a precondition to negotiations they will not negotiate, at least directly, with Hamas. I may be wrong on that and there has been a more specific response to that quote in particular, and I would welcome you bringing it to my attention. Nableezy (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Hamas would doubtless accept a long-term truce in exchange for '67 borders and ambiguous "national rights". And once that has happened, and a "long term" has passed, the war begins anew for liberation. Peace is not a long-term truce. A hudna is not peace. The charter says it all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say peace, it says "Hudna, or truce". Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For me Dignity from incidents chatting with Hamas PM in Gaza is Anecdotal evidence of total blockade claim. I agree Hudna would be step towards right direction. This is wishful thinking though. Hudna so far was not offered to Israel, for now all we had were very limited in time Tahdiya or lull offers and those also in short supply these days. Hamas clearly clarified that by entering Palestinian political process (elections) they in no way recognized Israel. Hamas official position rejects two-state solution. Though I have to say that on ground Hamas run Palestinian municipality coordinate with bordering Israeli municipality to exterminate Culicoidea eggs in water pools during spring so all will not be bothered during summer. No more window nets - no more bloodshed. This is WP:UNDUE AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

All of this is a personal opinion of yours. I have very different opinions but this is not the place for it. As far as undue, how is it undue? Kinetochore just added an Israeli response, well sourced but we should stay away from direct quotes from sources. I think this:
Defense Minster Shaul Mofaz said Sunday the principle according to which Israel will not hold talks with Hamas as a terror group will be maintained, stating that only the annulment of the charter calling for Israel’s destruction, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the disarmament of all terror groups and the recognition of all the agreements reached with Israel so far would pave the way for dialogue. from this ynet article
could be paraphrased nicely in a sentence showing Israel's position on the proclamation of a willingness of a truce. My idea of a sentence would look like this:
Israel has stated that they will not hold talks with Hamas unless they recognize Israel's right to exist and the agreements between Israel and the PLO.
If you think we need to include annulment of the charter calling for the destruction, which I think is covered in recognition of right to exist, and disarmament let me know, but I think the sentence above would be better than what is in there now. Let me know what you think. Nableezy (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the Israeli perspective on the hamas offer, as stated in the Yahoo News Article (It is not a quote from a cabinet minister, but I expect it is acceptable nonetheless). I still think this statement should be removed entirely, but adding additional context is better than nothing. Kinetochore (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

see my comment above and let me know what you think of the sentence I put forward and the source. Nableezy (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice clarification of non-starter. LoL. Support removal of both refinement and clarification. Hudna is still hypothetical. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hudna is still hypothetical": Agada, This is your own point of views and analysis which isn't relevant here. The statement is extracted as-is from the cited reference, which is Haaretz; a very reputable Israeli newspaper. Why people here have to argue over and over using their OR views? I've just copied the statement as-is, which is very important to complement the Hamas charter thing. --Darwish (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We said we accept a state (in territory occupied) in 1967 - but we did not say we accept two states Salah al-Bardaweel Hamas legislator 29/06/2006 - Reuters in Aljazeera AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The statements cited were made by political leadership, do you want me to pull out the statements from MoK calling for the "cleansing of Arabs from Judea and Samaria"? This is relevant to the paragraph that it is in and it is given proper weight. And why do you keep bring up the two-state solution, this isnt that article. As you laughed at my "clarification" do you have a specific problem with it? Nableezy (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

... or maybe even Liberman quote about bombing Gaza with a nuclear bomb found in a Yediot Aharonot article ;-). --Darwish (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggested rewrite for the last paragraph: "Hamas views Israel as an illegitimate state and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel[source], while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled.[source] Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas leader in Gaza, has stated that the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights.[source] However, Israel sees this offer as a nonstarter, as it circumvents full recognition of Israel by Hamas[source]. Israel asserts that it will not negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, accepts Israel’s right to exist, and respects previous agreements between Israel and the PLO [source]."

I want your opinions on this (I did not yet add this into the article to allow for discussion first) If you do not approve, please explain. Kinetochore (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the structure, not all of the wording but on stylistic points rather than actual substance. First, I would rather have the Israel views Hamas as ... be a separate sentence with no while. I dont really like the word nonstarter, but that just might be me. Also, it is just repetitive with the next line. I dont think that line needs to be there unless the point is that this hudna talk does not meet those requirements, and if that is needed I think it could be added better, let me get some sleep and I might be able to figure out how I would add that if you dont agree that it is repetitive. Nableezy (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, there is a clear difference between renouncing the use violence to attain political objectives, and calling a truce/hudna in which no violence will be carried out. I agree that "...,accepts Israel’s right to exist,..." is a repeat of the previous sentence, but the reason I repeated it is because these three points often appear grouped together as the three barriers to Israeli negotiation with Hamas. IMO the word nonstarter is an excellent choice because it specifies exactly the Israeli response to the offer (that it was not something that could have been considered at all). That being said, I have no attachment to the word, and I leave it to you to find a replacement.Kinetochore (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually liked it better except for minor grammar points before this change. Nableezy (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because more than Haniyeh have said truce on these conditions. Nableezy (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, so did I, but this was a change by Darwish in the main article, and I was trying to form consensus one user at a time.Kinetochore (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, I have tried that hasn't worked out for me. With that I pass out, but I'll work on what I think would be good wording in the morning, or my morning. Nableezy (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't aware of the new developments here; just tried to make the statement mirror the Haaretz reference as close as possible. You're welcome, I'm ready for reaching consensus too. --Darwish (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, demand to recognize of Israel's right to exist and the acceptance of agreements between Israel and the PLO is not only Israel position but also widely accepted international community position: Quartet, UN, EU and PLO all clearly voiced it after 2006 elections. IMO defiance in those matters is main political differentiator between Fatah and Hamas and Hamas political ticket. This defiance is an obstacle to internal Palestinian unity. You could also say this defiance is reason why Rafah crossing was closed by Egypt in 2007. Willingness is being tested in Cairo talks hosted by Egypt in which Hamas and Israel are taking part. We even know names of people involved. So I would not picture Israel here as defiant side. Let's wait and see. Unfortunately for now we are talking about hypothetical issues. Do you see what I mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean, but what you say does not matter, it is not based on anything other than opinion. Please stop putting opinions into an encyclopedia article. Nableezy (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, let's try not to be personal here. Really. My humble opinion is usually supported by sources. But oops someone just just started edit war and removed it without discussion. You are free to disagree and argue your opinion. Your opinion is welcome. I hope mine is too. Do you see what I mean? Here proposed addition:

Hamas will not recognize Israel's right to exist and rejects the two-state solution.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:58, 15 February 009 (UTC)

Agada, you need to know the difference between defending Israel in the trenches and advocating on her behalf here in wiki. The approach is different, in here you must respect the other side, and understand its position. Israel should be aware of what the rest of the world thinks. Take a look at the United States' attitude of 'me against the world'. To be arrogant is no substitute to keeping things in perspective.

"53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying." http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469 - Poll on 9/11.

That Israel calls Hamas a terrorist organization, should not be used as a front to avoid seeing Hamas as an enemy. That Hamas is Israel's enemy, is nothing new or questionable. That Israel has a right to exist...the Palestinians DID NOT took that land away from the Jews.

Could you stay on topic? Your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That Hamas thinks, it is easier for Israel to do nothing, accept nothing, negotiate nothing from its current position of strength, is nothing new. That it feels, that unless Israel's position changes, the situation for Palestinians won't change, is nothing new also. Cryptonio (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That kind of reasoning will lead us into Big Bang which initiated everything we see around us. If you want to discuss it further please enable your talk page. I'll be glad to discuss. This is clearly not for inclusion into the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You are using a source to predict the future, it is impossible to say "will not recognize Israel" it is possible to say "has not recognized Israel". And the 2 state solution has nothing to do with this. And we already have a line that says Hamas has not recognized Israel. Nableezy (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And this idea that reverting bad edits is starting an edit war is wrong. If you have something that is going to be objected get consensus first. I really dont know why that is so hard to understand, whatever you think about me and my editing I do not put controversial stuff in the article without consensus first. Try it and this whole thing will be much easier. Nableezy (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree on defiance, clearly my POV don't want to get it into the article though. I just though it was damaging for RomaC to delete sourced material which was in process of discussion. RomaC is not consensus with all due respect. I've tried to revert to last discussed state. Fully agree on prediction, my initial wording was more close to direct quote of Hamas political head, later edited by English speaking editor:

However Hamas leadership has no plan to recognize Israel's right to exist and rejects two-state solution.

See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=270884929&oldid=270878798

It will add encyclopedic value to this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, we already say that Hamas has not recognized Israel, what does the 2 state solution have to do with this? Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Were those reasons why Israel launched the operation? You just don't seem to understand the object of this article. These are non-starters in any discussion about this conflict. Cryptonio (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We are getting way off topic. My initial quote removed by discussion was: "Israel agreed to Hamas participation in the election process and says it will negotiate with the Palestinians if militant groups are disarmed.". Quoting BBC. I've added it to refine dismantling. Any suggestions about inclusion of both quotes? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I object, though not too loudly. I dont see the relevance with Israeli agreement to participation in election process, though the last part is ok but it is not the major demand on Israel's part, recognition of the right to exist is the major demand to begin negotiations. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me explain. Hamas has no plan is to refine 1967 borders quote. Background section is talking about period Hamas came to power in Gaza strip. So I clearly think NPOV BBC report Q&A: Hamas election victory is relevant and valuable asset to this article :) I think we both know that article is shrinking. I'm OK with its happening. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

They said they would accept the 67 borders and other rights in return for a long term truce, you saying that they have no plans to do it is based on your opinions on what they said. But they did say this, the only qualification needed is the Israeli response to that, which Kinetochore added. Nableezy (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Khaled Mashal opinion who is head of Hamas is clearly quoted from relaxed conversation with Jimmy Carter, who is known for his love to war. There is intensive message exchange between Damascus and Cairo these days. Khaled Mashal has a say you know. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont even know what you said besides a nobel peace prize recipient is apparently in love with war. While that confuses me it doesnt really mean anything. Nableezy (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I was joking, Jimmy Carter is known Peace Activist. Khaled Mashal is actually the one Israel negotiating with this conflict resolution in Cairo. I restored to last discussed version. Please no edit wars. Let's continue from here in more relaxed manner. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt work like that, what is there is long standing and was past consensus, you dont get to declare a new starting point. Tell me why each of the changes proposed should be implemented and preferably in separate sections so as not to get too confusing here. Nableezy (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem Nableezy, it's almost 2 am where I am - so I go to sleep. Hope it is not confusing. Let's chat my tomorrow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the thought of shortening up the section. It is a pain to try to decipher what was left in from the history window (side by side red text with refs spelled out) so I can't say if the reverted edit was good or bad. It is a good idea to work it as long as we don't get rid of necessary content.Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But did you see what was removed? I would be fine with shortening it up, but not like that. Adding things from one POV and removing things that have been there for a while and discussed countless times is not the way to go. If anybody wants to remove something bring it up here, aint that hard a concept. Nableezy (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph in dispute, as per my suggestion earlier, but with some minor tweaks to eliminate repetition. Please do not revert without also discussing/explaining what is wrong with it, or suggesting improvements. I feel that, at the very least, it is better than what was there before (feel free to disagree but make sure you explain why). Kinetochore (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworked it, if you want to change it again I would be all right with that but at least keep the source inserted from where you wrote 'source'. But let me know if there are any problems with what I wrote Nableezy (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm OK with your edit. Looks balanced to me. Still we need to clarify Khaled Mashal opinion on long term solution of this conflict. Hope you don't mind. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposed edit: Obviously these are draft edits and they will be refined. Here's my proposal for the newest draft of Background:

Main articles: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaza–Israel conflict, 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire, 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, and Blockade of the Gaza Strip

See also: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2001 through 2007, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008, 2009

Hamas assumed administrative control of Gaza following the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and its 2007 military victory over Fatah, the secular Palestinian nationalist party. Subsequently, Egypt closed the Rafah Border Crossing when EU monitors left. Israel closed off all remaining access to Gaza in July 2007. The blockade allowed Israel to control the flow of goods going into Gaza, including power and water. Israel halted all exports and only allowed shipments into Gaza to avert a humanitarian crisis. Palestinian groups were partially able to bypass the blockade through tunnels, some of which were used for weapons smuggling. Between 2005 and the start of the 2008/2009 conflict, Palestinian groups launched over 8,000 rocket and missile attacks into Israel, killing twelve people and wounding dozens more. During this time period Israeli air strikes, targeted killings, and undercover operations have killed more than 800 Palestinians.

Hamas is a militant Islamist organisation whose charter calls for the "obliteration" of Israel. While Hamas' leader in Gaza has stated that the Hamas government would agree to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna ("temporary truce"), if Israel "recognized the Palestinians' national rights", Hamas will not recognize Israel's right to exist and rejects the two-state solution. Israel sees this offer as a non-starter because it falls short of full recognition. Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled.

Rationale: This removes the redundant data about Gaza geography (which was previously cut and paste from the Gaza article); it changes the wording of Hamas' charter from "destruction" to "obliteration" (see the covenant at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp, one example: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"); and it basically cleans up the second paragraph.

Some have come to conclusions about my biases; I am Jewish and I am knowledgeable about the issues and I do have opinions. Don't we all? But all of my edits strive to be good faith edits. I really do want to see this article become as good as some of the articles about other aspects of the broader conflict.

Critique away. Or point me in the right direction about where this proposed edit should go.

I stress that I see no reason to get into a partisan conflict over this. The paramount question for me is always whether it follows the guidelines and is of encyclopaedia quality. This is a draft and isn't perfect but I think it is a step in the right direction. Betacrucis (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the geography was consensus, many people favored having it and density line was the result of some compromise. I would want to keep the first paragraph as is. You didnt change the next paragraph that I can see so no need to discuss that here unless I missed a change, if I did let me know please. Hudna does not mean 'temporary truce' and put next to long-term doesnt make a whole lot of sense, so I would take out 'temporary'. Also, the 2 state solution has nothing to do with this, I fail to see the relevance. Also, nowhere in the charter does it say 'obliteration' in fact it was raised that it doesn't even say 'destruction' so I oppose that change. Also, it was more than Gaza leaderhsip it was Hamas political leadership from Damascus to Gaza that said they would be willing to have the hudna in exchange for those concessions. I think the last paragraph is also better as is for those reasons. Nableezy (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, if we get back to the start of this discussion we'll notice it was started in order to make progress towards shrinking of this section and the article as a whole. I am sure some of refirement will probably be lost, but hopefully we're here in order to preserve essense of it. I clearly propouse to remove both 1967 borders and no plan to recognize. I also would like to note that I agree that information should not be redundent and if density and demographics present in other article, it is no loss to remove it here while preserving wiki links to original location of information. Any suggestions? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My only doubt is the geo claim, which is referenced and has correlation with this conflict. If that information was on 2 paras, i would oppose it. but it currently takes up a few lines. this current line of thought, that obliges us to go back to the beginning of the 'conflict' itself(1 CE or whatever) is very much inappropriate. I think Cerejota voiced his concerns as well on this. that said, that Hamas as summoned evil spirits to destroy Israel and narrative like that is up to you guys to add them or not. I oppose such edits though, and if i find momentum in opposition i wll jump in the bandwagon. Cryptonio (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing this in 2 places, pick a spot. Half the people are talking in the section below and half in here. I would suggest everybody go below but if you want to consolidate this here that is fine. Nableezy (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)