Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Random WP:V check

The Gloved One joins Operation Cats Lead in full military regalia.[1]

Regarding this part in the Gaza City subsection of the Campaign section. I've highlighted in bold the parts of this statement supported by the cited ref. Everything else is unsupported. I'm seeing this kind of thing more and more. Are we losing refs or something ? Entropy ?

The headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was also shelled on January 15. 3 people were injured and hundreds of tons of food and fuel were destroyed. Israel claimed Hamas fired from the site, but apologized for the "very sad consequences" calling its attack a "grave error". After the UNRWA dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense" Israel ordered an army investigation into the incident. Because of this, the United Nations stopped humanitarian aid in and outside the Gaza Strip.

Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I like how the paragraph underplays Hamas' obvious actions and emphasizes Israel's save-face apology: ""The Israeli forces were attacked from there and their response was severe," Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, told the UN chief, according to a statement released by his office.

"We do not want such incidents to take place and I am sorry for it but I don’t know if you know, but Hamas fired from the UNRWA site. This is a sad incident and I apologise for it." Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It does say three employees were injured. Maybe the rest of the content was lost at the Times' end? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, sorry misread the 15 dead bit in the ref. i've bolded that bit now too (despite bolded not being a word). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
..and yes Wikifan, that struck me too. I think we need a lot more of the V checks because everytime I've randomly checked there have been quite large discrepancies between what we say and what the refs we cite say. It's troubling. I don't know what's happened. I assume it's a similar process to the one that made Michael Jackson look the way he does nowadays. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It's typical in an article of this length and a topic so controversial. As long as we have the neutrality tag (which some users are trying to get rid of) then at least people understand the article is still "under construction." : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what got me involved here. I came here as a reader. I just wanted to know the new casualty numbers one day during the conflict, followed the citation to the source which had a different number. I changed the article to conform, got reverted and decided to stay. It's not so bad once you get used to it. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the biggest thing is that when the text is first put in it does reflect the source, but the sources update their original story with newer numbers but the same url. So when we go to check the source it is now different than it once was. Darwish was making webarchives for all his sources to avoid such an issue, but we do need to keep the article up to date with the sources. Nableezy (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith :)
Israel shells UN headquarters in Gaza, destroys tonnes of humanitarian aid

Thu, 2009-01-15 14:10.

By: Ibrahim Barzak And Amy Teibel, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://jessezimmerman.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-bombs-un-hq-burning-humanitarian.html


Fixed the quote as well. Changed it to "mistake" from "error". Cryptonio (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will rewrite this whole paragraph. Cryptonio (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Totally different situation, and check the source. The blog says AP, but no AP link is listed and googling title came up with nothing. Also, that article is ONE MONTH OLD. The article that has been debunked and proven wrong, that is what we're talking about above. Please check sources before embarking on massive edits, and no need to post entire articles, just links. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's a Yahoo news link to the same article.[1] --JGGardiner (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, a month old. There was an article published after that said NOBODY was killed (not 40, as said by the article). It should be in the article somewhere, come'on guys keep up. I think this was the original link we used: [2] Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the article from talk per copyright policy. Links remain. Nableezy (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I was about to as well but edit conflict. Good call lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Where 40 civilians were killed, was at a UN school("An Israeli attack near a UN school in northern Gaza earlier this month killed nearly 40 people. At the time, Israel said militants had fired on army positions from the building.") this is the headquarters incident, which nobody has debunked. Again, you are lost.
"Al-Fakhura school attack, was an incident in which it was reported that Israeli forces had shelled a UNRWA school on January 6, 2009 and killed upwards of 30 people.[8] At the time, the incident drew widespread condemnation from around the world. However, subsequent investigations by The Globe and Mail[9] as well as Haaretz forced the UN and UNRWA to admit "that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school." [10] http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Incidents_in_the_2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict

Cryptonio (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

as a side note, as i remember it, the un wasn't "forced to admit" anything. in fact, they insisted that, from the beginning they said the that the fatalities took place outside and they were misreported. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061189.html . that text needs to be changed to reflect the source. untwirl (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No. You are mixing these incidents. There was two attacks on "schools" and one on a warehouse, that also served as the headquarters of everything UN related(per se, correct me if i'm wrong being so encompassing). This incident, is the warehouse incident. Israel from the beginning said ABC. To my knowledge, there hasn't been an additional response from Israel in this matter(will search though). Again, do not continue to mix these incidents up. Cerejota, please get in here and let these people know in plain english what i'm saying. thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
you are correct, the headquarters bombing and the school strike are two separate incidents. i should have made it more clear that this side note was in reference to the wording of the school incident that should be corrected that was posted directly above my remark. i will start a new section. untwirl (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Where in this two links
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090115/world/israel_palestinians_42
does it say 40 people were killed AT THE WAREHOUSE?

Cryptonio (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a little bit more neat with your posts because I don't know what you are arguing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing yet. I asked a question.
Where in this two links
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090115/world/israel_palestinians_42
does it say 40 people were killed AT THE WAREHOUSE? Cryptonio (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
IT does, but it's wrong. I think. It's in the article somewhere if I recall let me find it. I'm sure tundra has it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Read above. Cryptonio (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Read above. Month old link. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Cerejota will make you look less foolish. Cryptonio (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since this issue seems to be 'organized' already, what i want to do with the para is to include the stronger language from Israel and make the para more coherent because it seems as if information was added and taken away through out the conflict. Cryptonio (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This (or a derived) source may be one we lost I suppose given that it says "hundreds of tons of food and medicine", one of the still unsupported statements. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, lets get this right. There is also this http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090115/wl_mcclatchy/3145540
"Israeli officials, however, later issued contradictory versions of why Israeli forces fired on the U.N. compound. An anonymous Israeli military official first told the Associated Press that Gaza militants had fired anti-tank weapons and machine guns from inside the compound.

Then Israeli officials came forward to say that preliminary results showed that the militants ran for safety inside the U.N. compound after firing on Israeli forces from outside."

To be inbound, I'll add the link from the UN. I'll wait for others to comment on the quote above. Cryptonio (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty says that attack "destroyed tens of tons of humanitarian aid, including, medicines, food and other non-food items."[3] --JGGardiner (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if you look at a variety of RS you will see tens, hundreds and thousands of tons and tonnes (which are not quite the same thing of course). The simplest approach I guess is just to say something like 'destroyed tonnes of', mention that the centre supplies aid for 750,000 Palestinians to provide some sense of scale and leave it at that. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I covered all Sean's points in the new para. should medicine be added as well?(it would require i guess the addition of the amnesty source) I also added the PM's explanation etc as per Wikifan's observation. I did not see the line on the UN stopping its operations due to this incident on any of those sources, so i left it out(if it comes up again it should come back with a source that does etc). anything else on this matter?
More of these V checks will be greatly appreciated. it seems as if some sources were removed while verifying the article. gj sean. Cryptonio (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Youtube and propaganda

re: Kinetochore's recent edits and this summary "Youtube Vids are absolutely not propaganda or psych warfare, they are Israeli PR. Moving to Media Section". The videos are called propaganda here because thats what the RS calls it. This is why we are having WP:V problems. Kinetochore, please check refs first. I suggest you undo your edits or at least discuss it here just in case someone cares. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

which RS? Propaganda is an extremely inflammatory word, I'm sure I can find an RS that says AJ photos are propaganda...doesn't mean it it relevant. I can't find it in the article, so can you post it here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
BBC here. Nableezy (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the ref right next to it that is meant to make the information we supply to our readers comply with WP:V because after all, everything here is based on RS rather what we might think... Seems like a brilliantly simple concept. We should follow it more closely perhaps... Sean.hoyland - talk 06:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Youtube is OK in the media section. It was originally mentioned in Israel's Psych Warfare/Propaganda section that may or may not get fixed according to the discussion above so I assume Kinetochore was trying to make it better. Although it has been mentioned as propaganda, it has also been linked to simple PR on Israel's part. I lean towards putting it in the Media section with the "new media" line.Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be covered in the media section with a brief mention under propaganda, but the main discussion of it in media. Nableezy (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Since when does promoting a particular POV qualify as propaganda? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
When the sources say so? Nableezy (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikifan, some news sources have no qualms calling it propaganda. I hate doubling up on lines and would prefer to keep it in the media section. If it gets a mention (one or even a partial sentence) in an improved propaganda section it doesn't hurt my feelings too bad.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking something small in the prop section like this: The IDF's youtube channel has been labeled as part of Israel's propaganda effort. cited to the bbc article. Nableezy (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Not disputing news sources, but news sources have been called many things in this article. AJ has been accused of disseminating propaganda throughout the war by notables sources. Do we include it? No. A few sources alleging x Israeli topic is propaganda is unprecedented procedure. Shall we sift through AJ, PCHR, etc..all their "reports", and cite sources accusing them of propaganda specifically for those reports? Serious question here. Nableezy - disagree. Propaganda is a touchy issue, as is "propaganda effort." Sets up a clearly polarized stage which will warrant equal propaganda accusations for the other side. Do we really want to do this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Concise, relevant, and accurate argument against it by Wikifan (police light above the net starts spinning). ASlthough I agree that it is polarizing but it has been labeled as propaganda. Is there a way to combine media and the influencing of media in one section? The term propaganda can still be used but maybe if it isn't used as a section header it won't be such a fire starter and could improve the neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, honestly, did you just google al jazeera propaganda gaza? Because the article you cited talks about increased viewing of al-jazeera as a result of their coverage, and the word propaganda only appears in the reader comments. Cmon, I know you can do better than that. And if we have a source relating al-jazeera's coverage as part of a propaganda effort by Hamas sure put that in there too. Nableezy (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind where is goes but if an RS calls it propaganda then so can we, it's notable and interesting. Same goes for AJ stuff if someone wants to do that. Be aware though that that would invalidate all claims that the photos are gratuitous because they would then be illustrating AJ's propaganda. I'm more concerned about editors using theor own judgement in these matters rather than the RS, moving stuff around and trashing WP:V compliance. This is proper propaganda. It says "The Chinese Communist Party represents throughout the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people in China". Israel should use more artists for their propaganda. I might look at it then. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Some sourcs relate it to simple PR. Some sources state "propaganda" but the tone of the source is PR. Propaganda is OK but we need to be careful with balance when we use it.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, your source is an OP Ed, not an article. It is the editors opinion, not necessarily the BBC's. Also, he the editor states in the article: "I would stress that I looked only at the Israeli side because of the new factor - Israel setting up a special unit to improve the projection of its arguments around the world." Here is the editors admission that the purpose of the Youtube videos is PR, or improved projections of its arguments as he puts it.Kinetochore (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, its not listed as an OP Ed, though he does give his personal opinion in the article, but my other point still stands. Kinetochore (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the BBC reporter, Paul Reynolds also did a story on Hamas propaganda which includes that Hamas "shows pictures of dead bodies in graphic detail."[4] The quote is from a second BBC journalist, Omar Yacub. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The accusation of propaganda is minimal at best, far less than the heat AJ has gotten over the war. I'm personally against any insinuation of propaganda, regardless of what a select few of RS report. Media isn't unified Nab, everyone has an opinion. I know your views on Israel so I'm sure you are happy to promote such a spin, but as Cptnono said, we must be careful. I say we should post paragraph propositions here before actually editing the article to prevent edit warring or further disputes from rogue editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
My views on Israel have nothing to do with this, and you really dont know what my views are on Israel as I have never said what I think of the state of Israel. Stop these accusations because I follow what the sources say. Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing intrinsically wrong, POV or negative about describing something as propaganda. It's not a moral/ethical judgement in pieces like the BBC article. It's more like a genre. Of course Israel and Hamas produce propaganda and of course some journalists will call it that because that's what it is. I don't think we need to get all touchy-feely about this word. If we start removing the word because we don't like it then we have a problem because a) it means we are treating it as a weasel word when the RS aren't using it as one and more importantly of course b) RS use it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No, Hamas has been berated with accusations for propaganda and have a long history of "dirty tricks." Israel, on the hand announced a public relations campaign to the media at the start of the war. Propaganda is almost always secretly-designed, almost conspiracy-like. Israel was open about their campaign more so than Hamas or any Palestinian militant group. It is a clear violation of NPOV to equate media-tactics as propaganda, when we do not do the same for Hamas. You believe whatever we say about Hamas must be said about Israel, but that is an unfair call. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
er..no that's wrong. An RS like the BBC describing something propaganda is not an "accusation". Sorry but that just shows that you don't understand what propaganda is. It's not necessarily a dark secret project designed to fill peoples heads with lies and distort reality. It doesn't mean that. It's not unfair because it's not a judgement when the term is used in the way the BBC use it. This is why we mustn't lose our refs. It's a description of the nature and objective of the material. Just because something is propaganda doesn't mean it is untrue. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah Wikifan, I think you are confusing terms. Propaganda is in itself without moral value - there is nothing sinister about it, nor is it "secretly-designed, almost conspiracy-like" - quite the contrary, propaganda is almost alwasy very public and open - because its goal is precisely mass influence: calling "propaganda" by the name "public relations" is indeed a form of propaganda. Propaganda is ultimately the "framing" of "facts" to suit your own needs. I am anti-propaganda, come from whenever it comes, but not because it is sinister, but because it serves to obscure the truth, rather than reveal it. --Cerejota (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We are here: "Agree. However changes are needed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Kick ass. Throw in some ideas here. I have a list of a handful of things I thought were important but know others will want to expand on it. Put in some notes or a draft and we can get to reworking the section.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)"

Can we agree that any edits to this section will be considered as a unilateral edit and should be reverted at once?

Also, as per the conversation above, I had proposed merging both section together(isral + palestine) with Cptnono opposing it. (Struck through by cptnono.)

Everybody on the oppsing side, doing a lot of talking and not bringing up a whole lot of sources rebutting the sources already in place. Everybody thinking that just a simple rationale will suffice to oppose sourced material. If it's POV, then let's just merge it with the Palestinian section. I move to consider Cerejota's position as authoritative and binding on this matter(like in any other matter). Cryptonio (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm on a self-imposed 48 hours ban on editing the article due to yesterday's inappropiate behavior on my part. Whatever wikifan thinks of his actions is of no concern to me. I apologize and aspire to better etiquette. Cryptonio (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What the hell are you on about? Apologies if I wasn't clear but I was FOR merging the sections.Cptnono (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for not understanding you correctly. No harm done sir. Cryptonio (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree Cerejota. Israel explicitly stated it is promoting a a public relations campaign to convince international hearts and minds that Hamas is to blame for the death and destruction they are seeing on their television screens. Public relations does not = propaganda. Propaganda is not never admittied, it's subtle - big banisters with "JOIN US - EVERYONE IS", etc... No propagandist openly says "we are administering a public relations campaign for reason x, y, and z." It's typical in a time of war, and for Israel to openly say it to the public and declare their true intentions (as far as I can tell)...yeah, far from propaganda. Propaganda is an interpretation of the RS, and probably should be noted to some extent, but then again, is it incredibly disputed - and that dispute should also be mentioned. One or two sources claiming it is a propaganda war without specific evidence seems like an interpretation, can we list the sources here? If we haven't already, and if I remember we have, any propaganda-mention should swim with the PR campaign. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you are so wrong in so many ways e.g. propaganda can be intended to promote "true intentions" at least in the eyes of the source, propagandists do openly say things like "we are administering a public relations campaign for reason x, y, and z." all the time, all over the world. You are misunderstanding or rather you are abusing the word a bit. You are focusing on one interpretation of the word which tends to be the way the military/intel/psyops people use it. You probably don't get this excited about the word "advertising" which is a comparable neutral term. The definition by Richard Alan Nelson in the WP article you linked is pretty good. Did you see it ? As punishment I'm assigning you a project to make an Israeli Propaganda article for WP covering the period from ~1948 until the present day. Imagine, it could be a really interesting article for an encyclopedia. Actually I also disagree with Cerejota saying it "serves to obscure the truth, rather than reveal it" as well because that implies an intention to deceive which isn't necessarily present. You could say that it can also serve to simplify and reveal the salient, key aspects of the truth from the perspective of the source as per the fairly recent CP of China example above just like a headline in a newspaper does. Anyway, have a holiday, come to S.E.Asia and see all of the wonderful propaganda. It's everywhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda does = Public Relations. And despite Wikifan's arguments, propaganda has been acknowledged quite openly to be propaganda by governments in the past. He would know that if he actually read the article we have on propaganda before starting this discussion. (See Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda and Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee) However, I do think that the word propaganda has a negative connotation these days, at least in America, thanks to movies like Triumph of the Will. So maybe the word propaganda should be replaced with "public relations". But if that's the case, it should be replaced on every wikipedia page, for example Al Manar.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you comparing China/Nazi propaganda committees to Israel's public relation campaign? The Nazis and Chinese didn't go international and seek the presence of foreign signatories, no they simply supressed (i.e, executed, tortured, imprisoned, etc..) those who violated x rule. They defined propaganda in it's most obvious form, but to compare to Israel...weird. I'm not denying this isn't propaganda, but mentioning it without overwhelming RS support and affirmation from non-oped is crucial. We might as well tag PCHR, AJ, and practically all Human Rights groups in the article - all of which have been accused of propaganda tactics during this war. Just because BBC or some other international sites alluded that Israel is promoting a state of propaganda is incredibly POV. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Calm down Wikifan. He is not comparing China and the Nazis to Israel. He is saying that there are examples of States calling their own government propaganda agencies by the "propaganda" point. Again, dude, read "Propaganda" you are seriously mistaken as to the basic meaning of the word. Adverstising is propaganda, for example. In Spanish, a media campaing is called a "propaganda campaing" - in the press release announcing it! The word "propaganda" can indeed be used negatively, in particular when used as an adjective rather than a noun, but it doesn't carry this weight without context - and clearly was not POV in the use in this article. On the other arguments I mostly agree with you, more RS support is needed.--Cerejota (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of you are arguing that propaganda and this form of PR are one and the same. Two responses for that:

  1. If propaganda and PR both describe what Israel is doing (though I strongly feel they don't), then why do you insist so strongly that we call this propaganda, a word with negative connotations, and not PR, a neutral word.
  2. Even if you prove me wrong, and it becomes evident that this form of PR constitues propaganda according to a majority of RS, why would we talk about it in the Israeli Military Activity section, instead of media? It would be OR to classify this as part of the Israeli military campaign.Kinetochore (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm simply arguing that by changing key words we can break the link between the RS and the article and lose or obscure WP:V. This is not a trivial thing and we shouldn't do this casually or carelessly based on what we think a word means in our part of the world. Everything we do must comply with WP:V. As for where it goes, I don't care but let's not get excited about words like propaganda when the word is used in RS by people who, for our purposes, we can assume know exactly what that word means and what it does not mean. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
We do not render judgment on Israel's public relations campaign(explain how public relations work on the battle field) by including sources that say is propaganda. This is not a POV issue, this is an encyclopedic veracity issue. Why not look for sources that labels these tactics as PR? It is not necessary to look for a neutral word simple because it has adverse connotations. Connect the tactics used in the battlefield(leaflets, calls, text messages) as PR. Cryptonio (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, imagine if someone suggested changing "adapted to" (which has WP:V) to "designed to" in an article about an aspect of animal evolution on the basis that "adapted" might have negative connotations in their part of the world. To me it's a similar issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
We're not talking semantics here, this is obvious POV-pushing to blast Israel has propagandists. Just because ONE RS alludes to something doesn't mean the entire section gets to lose it's integrity. We must be prudent, and no more tossing the "this is an encylopedia" blah. If we apply your reasoning, almost every factual citation in this article, most notably BBC and AJ, should have a mentioning of propagandist tactics as RS have accused them of doing so. I know we love it when major media verifies our feelings, but take a step back mmmkay? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
argghhh....Wikifan, this is Chinese propaganda from 2003. It's propaganda. That is what it is. It says "Prevent Aids from spreading through blood". Do you see what I'm saying ? It is propaganda. Propaganda does not mean something is bad or untrue. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
..and I appreciate that the BBC can be a useless bunch of ... sometimes but in this case give them credit for at least understanding what the word propaganda means. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You actually think Israel doesnt propagandize? Wow. You think there is a single government in this world that doesnt disseminate propaganda? Thats what you are arguing here? That the RS is wrong to say that Israel engages in propaganda? Nableezy (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
re: "You think there is a single government in this world that doesnt disseminate propaganda"...yes, Viet Nam. It said so on a giant poster in HCM city I saw last year. It was next to a poster that just said "This is not propaganda". Anyway, I wish I had seen posters like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The use of the term in the article is fine. If we make sure to refer to it as PR when appropriate as well it should be OK.Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my position, the mention of it being called propaganda be small with the overview of what it is bigger in PR section. Nableezy (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that that is settled... Wikifan, here's a nice example of Israeli propaganda for interest. Pretty good. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted comment by me. unnecessary. Cryptonio (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus on merging both Propaganda and psychological warfare sections and perhaps moving it under Rocket attacks into Israel? i agree and cptnono agrees to merge them, but don't know about moving the section.(it is assumed that it will have to be moved somewhere else if merged). Cryptonio (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

At first glance I don't see how they can be moved into Rocket attacks into Israel but combining both sides psych-warfare is good. I could see it going into media but don't know if it is the perfect fit.Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to after the military campaign/military activity as a seperate subsection under Campaign. Nableezy (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, that's what i meant, under the Campaign section(on its own section.) good, can we get it done now pretty please? i would but i'm still banned. 9 hours and counting. Cptnono, the youtube info was moved to Media with ease. What i would concentrate on, is looking for at least one source that ties the phone calls, leaflets and text messages as PR. in that case then, we could rename the media section as "Media And Public Relations" and have the word prop and psy war mentioned once. what do you think? Cryptonio (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so on the end of that, the psych warfare stuff is not part of the media and public relations. The section dealing with propaganda and psych warfare should be anout things that have been called prop/psych warfare. If they have been more commonly refered to as media relations then it should be talked about in greater depth in a section like that, and only mentioned in the prop/psych warfare section. Nableezy (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In a way, is my understanding at least, that it would be almost impossible to find a source that refers to those practices as PR. But I understand your proposal and would agree to it any day. Cryptonio (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, neither of the two links in use to ref this claim "As part of its public-relations campaign" provides PR in its body. I have found this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28450663/ "IIsrael's military takes PR battle to YouTube" and i think it should go there instead of the actual website of youtube. Cryptonio (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Took care of that as there was no objection. Also took care of the merging.Cryptonio (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

on the article's scope

On the latest move discussion, Tundra raised this interesting point, but it was closed before I could reply. I think it does hit on some of the wider consensus issues, so it is a discussion worth having... at least it sure beats talking about unsigned images...



I am just saying that sometimes analogies - and specifically WWII analogies -, even by yourself in this very talk page, have not been taken as such (ie to more or less quote you: "are you comparing Israel to the nazis?"). So lets be careful with the analogies, and try not to be disingenious about what you have argued before. Some of us pay attention, and do not enjoy when you play nomic

I understood the purpose of the analogy, and in fact have addressed why this analogy is a weak one: WWII has a start date, which is the day Germany invaded Poland. That there is a debate around this is addressed in one small paragraph in that article World_War_II#Chronology, as should be done. Since the RS also give prominence to this debate, it is touched upon in the lead.

However, this article is not analogous to WWII. It is analogous to a battle in WWII. The closest thing to the WWII article we have here is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This battle has been called a "war" by the overwhelming majority of RS.

Again, the problem with your position is that you do not accept that mentioning "part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict" as covering this ground, nor do you accept that the background section is to cover only the events directly. It is an unproductive position, not supported by RS, and smacks of obstructionism. Your intent is irrelevant, the results of your action (such as not allowing a consensus for a name change or a stable lead), are what concern me. Since you accept your view is not popular, why continue to !vote against seeking even temporary consensus? Believe me, all of us are eating our pride and not really goign for what we think this article should go, but we all try to rescue from the RS whatever we think is relevant. Wikipedia is the micx of our idiocies.

If we use your expansive logic, we could argue that his conflict began when Ashkanazi zionists began to buy up land in Palestine when it was still under Ottoman rule. Or we could even be more extreme and go thousands of years back in history. That is why we ban original research from wikipedia: who determines what a major view is as per NPOV is not our own opinions, but what the RS say.

So far, the only coherent RS-based argument I have seen for what you propose is the Shalit stuff by Agada, but even that smacks of WP:SYNTH, and durign such a stretch of time that it is already covered by many article, not to mention the article on Shalit himself.

All we get from you is a call for "accuracy", but wikipedia doesn't aim to be accurate or truthful, it aims to be verifiable. If the RS take on your narrative, then perhaps I would support your argument. But as long as you are simply soapboxing, pushing for a view not supported by RS, and in the meantime being all pointy and obstructionist, I cannot accept it.--Cerejota (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have to argue with the idea that an encyclopedia doesn't aim to be accurate. Aside from that, your above commentary is simply one attack suggestion for my behavior, after another. I suggest that, since there is nothing here that will improve the article, you should take it to my user page. I am not arguing this point on this page any longer. Lol, you suggest I stop beating a dead horse, but you are certainly doing your share. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The only behavioral point I addressed was the fact that you have repeated this position for weeks, without ever providing a single RS that supports it. And of course, the tendency to by slippery and inconsistent, of playing nomic. The rest is all about content/substance of your argument. Please re-read what I wrote; you again failed to address any of my substantive points. I have bolded them for your benefit - and none of them adress your behavior. I will continue beating on the dead horse for as long as you continue to throw it my way. It takes two to tango, ya know? --Cerejota (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What I have to say reguarding the articles topic is that this isnt the first time it has been brought up for a change and most likely wont be the last. At one point there was even a huge discussion reguarding the so called problem with several possible titles for consideration in the end though NOBODY could agree to just one and the current title has stuck. For the record I support calling this article the way it is now and dropping the problem (For now again) as it is not the major issue here in this article. If it has to be called a war due to media however I support "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza War".Knowledgekid87 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Since someone mentioned the title, I would like to bring up this side issue, is there a reason why Israel precedes Gaze in the title? I assumed that Israeli preceded Palestinian in titles like Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of alphabetical order. I admit I am not familiar with naming conventions so I would like to know what factor is used in determining the order of names like in this case? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have always wondered the same thing. However, its very low in my priorities list of Shit to Get Cleaned Up.--Cerejota (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In all reality this article is about a military operation and i agree with " It is analogous to a battle in WWII" to a certain extent (ie Operation Market Garden and Battle of Arnhem). Everything in this article as based off of Israel launching an offensive. That is why there were more news reports and that is why it has received so much attention from us. I am assuming that the only reason it is not titled Operation Cast Lead is because some editors thought it might give too much weight in the lead to Israel.Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:MILMOS#CODENAME Nableezy (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting

I believe the Manual of Style allows either date format "January 3" or "3 January". I checked 15 dates in this article and found far more of the former format. I propose to change all dates to that format, e.g. "On the 18th of December" --> "On December 18". I'll wait a bit first in case anyone wants to discuss this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go head and make the changes you proposed.--Andi Hofer (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Ministry of Health

I have a couple of questions regarding the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza from which so many of our statistics come. Is this Ministry the same one in the West Bank? Does the Gazan Ministry of Health (under the Hamas-run government) cooperate with the West Bank Ministry of Health (under the Fatah-run government)? I was under the impression that everything in Gaza was now run by Hamas, so that essentially their are two entities, run by two different entities? If so, (and I'm asking not telling) shouldn't we clarify that the Palestinian Ministry of Health is actually a separate entity, more like the Gazan Ministry of Health? That might handle the "Hamas-run Ministry of Health" concern that has been brought up by a number of editors in the recent past? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources call it the 'Palestinian Ministry of Health'. Nableezy (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]::That may be. In fact there is a wp article here Palestinian Ministry of Health and it also begs the question. When we give statistics from the IDF, we understand who it is that the IDF speaks for. I think it is not asking too much to understand this question on the other side. Where is the PMOH located? Is it in Gaza? West Bank? Is it Hamas-run or Fatah run? Whom does it speak for? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't answer Tundra's question. I too am curious. It would be logical to assume Hamas is running the a show, if not...who is? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It speaks for the government which in turn, as it is democratically elected, speaks for the people, so it in turn speaks for the people. This source has been referred to though as the Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health in some sources (i saw a bbc article say that) but is most often referred to as the Palestinian MoH. If you want to add it is Gaza based with a source feel free, but calling it the Hamas MoH is incorrect. Nableezy (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, calling it Hamas MoH is like calling the Kadima run IDF. I know Gaza is a Statetard, but we still have decency in wikipedia of refering to things by their names, not by what partisans what it name, no matter how much controversy their is. --Cerejota (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The MoH article doesn't know what it's talking about. It was created to talk about the Fatah/Third Way/West Bank ministry and was changed by an IP to say that it meant the Hamas/Gaza ministry instead. But nobody ever bothered changing the infobox which has always listed the same Fatah minister.

But it is really a battleground article: just a single sentence that only says which of the two governments controls it. This is part of a wider problem. For example, we have seven article on PA ministries of which five mention only the Fayyad ministries and two mention only Haniyeh ministries. It is pretty confusing and unfair to our readers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. It is confusing and unfair to readers, like me. Perhaps someone who knows something more about it will go and edit it. I am not asking that it be called the "Hamas" MoH. However, from what I am reading, the Palestinian Ministry of Health is located in West Bank but I think there is one is Gaza that is giving out figures and information and such related to this conflict. The one in Gaza is run by the government, which is the democratically elected Hamas government, right? There is an article referenced at the MoH article referring to the health minister going off to Egypt to find out if Egypt will take in the casualties if Hamas would let them go. The name is rather misleading since it refers to "Palestinian" yet it is not clear it talks about all of Palestine. If the Gaza MoH entity is different and run by Hamas, that should be made clear somehow. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
As the sources call it the "Palestinian MoH" and once or twice I say that they were referring to one in Gaza, as in this:
During the fighting, the main source for the number of Palestinian casualties came from the Ministry of Health in Gaza. from this bbc article
I think it would be fine to say in the article the Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health once, after that it can be referred to as the Palestinian Ministry of Health without any ambiguity. Nableezy (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There is an endless amount of UN and WHO reports that exactly call it "Palestinian Ministry of Health". So why should we report it differently? It's reported in an endless number of reports (I can give more than 20 reputable reports) as "Palestinian MoH". We report what others are reporting, WP:OR analysis and connecting dots and quotes isn't our job here. --Darwish (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to say who runs the MoH and how much collaboration there is. The Fatah-Hamas split has made that hard to determine. However, it's best to refer Palestinian MoH as exactly that, especially since we don't refer to the American army as "Bush run army" (now "Obama run").VR talk 10:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that during American Civil War they talked about the Confederacy MoH or the Union MoH. During Russian Civil War they talked about "red", "white" though other colors were also present. Palestinian MoH confuses me as hell. Is this Ramalah or Gaza ministry? In my eyes Palestinian MoH is clearly false flag. PNA president Mahmud Abbas would be confused, after all he fired Hamas government so in his eyes Gaza MoH is not "Palestinian" :) Do you have alternative suggestion for description: Hamas-run MoH or Gaza MoH? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
We follow the sources, they call it the Palestinian MoH. This isnt for us to choose. Nableezy (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am personally confused. There are two instances of Palestinian MoH in this Universe :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Gaza MoH could be a nice compromise AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The sources call the the "Palestinian Ministry of Health". They call themselves the "Palestinian Ministry of Health". We already say in the article that it is Gaza based, nothing else needs to be said. This is not up to us what to call them, the sources make that choice. Nableezy (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

how about a compromise? "Palestinian Ministry of Health (Gaza)" Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, if we go by Nableezy's criteria I have 4 acceptable sources that refers to them as "the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza."
There are countless other sources that refer to them as just the 'Palestinian Ministry of Health'. We already say it is Gaza based, we do not need to use Gaza every single time. Once said that is enough. Why are you pushing for this so much anyway? We already say it is in Gaza, and then refer to it by its name, wtf else do you want? Nableezy (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And honestly, I can find sources that call the IDF the 'Israeli Occupation Forces' to the point of actually using IOF as its abbreviations. Yet you have not seen a single user say we shouldnt call it the Israeli Defense Forces because they are occupying forces. I cannot believe how ridiculous some of these arguments are. If I were not so pissed I would probably just say fuck it and leave. Might even do that anyway. Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And honestly you do not find them called IOF used by WP:RS such as the BBC & OCHA, both sources that you have used regularly. The confusion of PMOH between Fatah and Hamas is not ridiculous. Whenever information is given that can be seen to be contentious (and possibly not all is contentious), it should be referenced as Gazan MoH. Why in the world would you equate this with "Israel Occupation Forces" I have no idea. On the other hand, I encourage you to stick around as your input has been valuable to this article, even if I disagree with much of it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell me why you want it to say it is in Gaza more than once? Nableezy (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, I think you really miss the point. The MoH in Ramallah and MoH in Gaza is not the same organization. They are both Palestinian though. How do you abbreviate the second one in Ramallah? Don't you see here source for confusion? Some people through think that Ismail Haniyeh lives in Damascus, so maybe its OK with them just to call it Palestinian, like some sources do. Do you see any way for compromise? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. The sources call this the Palestinian Ministry of Health. They sometimes say 'in Gaza'. We also say that the Palestinian Ministry of Health is in Gaza. That is all that needs to be said. Nableezy (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I get it now, it's an aha experience for me. No way to compromise. We do really want to confuse the reader so she/he will not know which of the two organizations we are talking about. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If a reader see that it says the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza once and the rest of the time it says the Palestinian Ministry of Health, that reader would have to be a moron to think that they are two separate things. We already say it is int Gaza, what dont you understand about this? Nableezy (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I see your logic. Maybe we should make "in Gaza" consistent, so reader will not have to second guess and really research into the article to know what the hell do Wikipedia mean. Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No, we define it once. That is all that is needed. Nableezy (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love that willingness to compromise and find consensus. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have compromised a lot on this article, I have yet to see you move one inch on a single position, from the gaza massacre, to the pictures, to 'started' vs 'intensified' and so on and so on. Try taking your own advice before doling it out to those who have at least tried to compromise on a lot. Nableezy (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
While I have disagreed and still disagree on a number of issues I have not made a point of throwing up a wall. "That is all that is needed." I have not put notices on others' talkpages telling them what constitutes "consensus" and warning them not to make changes, as others on this page have done. My way of "compromising" is to say nothing more about it and not revert obvious errors, such as "The Gaza Massacre" (which even you no longer capitalize, as if acknowledging the point made by me and others), the "start date" of this so-called "conflict" etc. I am not the only one to have made this particular point, ie "Gaza MoH" . It is hardly an earth-shaking change. I get the feeling that this is more about me than it is the actual issue of confusion here. Discouraging, really. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well it is your life, you can feel however you want. Nableezy (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No I do not, and I have said multiple times that the name is not the Gaza MoH, the name that they use as well as the name the sources use is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I dont have to worry about a MoH in Ramallah, they are never discussed in the article. We already say it is located in Gaza, but its name is the 'Palestinian Ministry of Health'. Nableezy (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I must disagree with you, Nableezy. The crux of this issue is not whether the readers would be morons if they didn't understand the terminology we decide to use or where the ministry is located. The fact that you lobby the use of 'Palestinian Ministry of Health' demonstrates that you don't see the crucial difference between governmental entities run by different regimes within the Palestinian areas. If you understood this and worried about the constant repetition of 'Gaza', you would suggest to just use 'Ministry of Health', not 'Palestinian Ministry of Health'. 'Palestinian' is a generalizing term here and that's exactly what we don't want to do. Right? masqueraid 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The name used by them and the sources is Palestinian Ministry of Health. We say the institution by the name of the Palestinian Ministry of Health is located in Gaza. We do not change the name to something that you think is more appropriate. The name used by them and the sources is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Anybody's personal opinion on what they should be called is their own, they call themselves the Palestinian Ministry of Health and the sources call them the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Nableezy (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, sources would not name it Governance of the Gaza Strip MoH :) Still ministry does not belong to geographical region. It's a political institution. For UN Palestinian MoH is in Ramalla. We should make things clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the UN when citing the MoH numbers says the Palestinian Ministry of Health. As this OCHA report says: Palestinian Ministry of Health (MoH) figures as of 1600 hours 14 January are 1,013 Palestinians dead, of whom 322 are children and 76 are women.
Or later just as the Ministry of Health: According to the Ministry of Health (MoH), since 27 December 2008, 13 medical personnel have been killed and 22 medical personnel have been injured while on duty; 15 ambulances have been damaged and seven ambulances have been destroyed; and twelve health facilities have been damaged through direct or indirect shelling.
Everybody calls it the Palestinian Ministry of Health, we do too. Nableezy (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Does UN regard Mahmud Abbas or Abdel Aziz Duwaik as Palestinian president? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You are confused on a few things, Hamas won the elections that were held for the Palestinian Legislative Council. The Presidency of the Palestinian National Authority is elected separately, so nobody outside of Hamas dispute that Mahmoud Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority (though he has currently exceeded his term in office). But that is wholly irrelevant and I do not know why I even answered that. You have been shown that the sources all call this entity the Palestinian Ministry of Health. You do not get to choose to change that. The name that they use for themselves is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The name the sources use is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. That is also the name we use. Nableezy (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the core of this discussion is the same than that of our discussion regarding the name of this article. The fundamental aim of an encyclopedia is to inform its readers. As I wrote earlier, the distinction between the two ministries of health is crucial, and Palestinian is a generalizing operator that is uncalled for. In this article, for instance, the ministry run by Hamas is specifically identified as such to make this distinction lucid. Although claims made by encyclopedic articles must be verified through reputable sources, I don't see why such arbitrary details of the sources should be slavishly mirrored when it comes at the price of intelligibility of the article. masqueraid 14:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And I think the core of this discussion is that a number of users want to change the name of something that they dont like. I would think a user of your experience would recognize that we do not just change the name of something because we do not like it. The name of the institution is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. AND WE ALREADY SAY IT IS GAZA-BASED. I cant believe I have had to spend so much time and effort to show people that we cannot change the name of something. Nableezy (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, Nableezy, let's avoid getting defensive and keep this discussion calm. I maintain that the ministry should be regularly and consistently identified as the one run by Hamas and/or as the one operating in Gaza, because the use of 'Palestinian' blurs the distinction. I hold no personal preference for either name; that you take up such feelings for preserving the name used by the institution itself, notwithstanding its impeding effects, while accusing me of a personal agenda tells more about you than it does of me. masqueraid 15:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, whatever you say, but what can be seen is that you want to ignore what they call themselves and what the sources call them. We do not say government ministries are run by the party in power. That you want to do this with Hamas says quite a bit about you, as can be seen by the others who have taken this position. I do not see anything uncivil in my comments, but if you want to bust that out whatever. The name of the institution is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. You cannot just change that. There are no impeding effects, do you even know if there is such an institution in Ramallah? Do you know if there is one are they associated with the one in Gaza? Do you have answers to these questions, or did you just show up one day looking for clarity in this article by attempting to poison the well by saying Hamas ministry everywhere? Can you tell me what is the name used by the sources and by themselves for this government ministry? Call it a slavish devotion to the sources if you must, I call it trying to avoid OR and inserting my POV into the discussion by focusing on what the sources say instead of the arguments of a wikipedia user. Nableezy (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If UN regards Mahmud Abbas as Palestinian president then PMoH is located in Ramallah. Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The name that they use for themselves is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The name the sources use is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. That is also the name we use. Nableezy (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Some reader will think the source is talking about Ramallah organization. Why don't you want to add neutral explicit description. No one disputes the source is talking about Governance of the Gaza Strip MoH. It is Wikipedia neutral lingo. No one expects to find it literally in in RS. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You dont seem to understand. The name of this institution is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. WE ALREADY SAY IT IS IN GAZA. Nableezy (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And, quoting Cerejota earlier in this section: "Yeah, calling it Hamas MoH is like calling the Kadima run IDF. I know Gaza is a Statetard, but we still have decency in wikipedia of refering to things by their names, not by what partisans what it name, no matter how much controversy their is. --Cerejota (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)" The name is the Palestinian Ministry of Health, that is what we call them. Nableezy (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant argument. No suggestion to call this organization Hamas MoH, it is clearly wrong. I suggest using Wikipedia neutral lingo, referring to political entity it belongs to - Governance of the Gaza Strip. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there was that suggestion. As for yours, the name of this institution is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The sources call it the Palestinian Ministry of Health. They call themselves the Palestinian Ministry of Health. So do we. That is what is 'Wikipedia neutral lingo', we do not change the name of something because you do not like it. Nableezy (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't say I don't like it.
  • There are two Palestinian Ministries of Health one in Gaza and another in Ramallah. Those are not branches of the same organization.
  • Sources would not call it Governance of the Gaza Strip MoH, because it is Wikipedia lingo. Wikipedia is neutral.
  • This is not a question of location, but question of political belonging. Which governing unit it belongs to.
What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
We dont change the name of something. This is not Wikipedia lingo. That is the name of an article covering the governance of the Gaza Strip. Sort of like Government of Canada or Government of Guam or Government of Israel. That would be like calling it the Government of Israel IDF. The name of the institution is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. What do you dispute in that? All you want to do is change the name of something. We do not do that. We already say it is Gaza based. That is all that is needed to be said. Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is no unity government, the Palestinian Ministry of Health is run either by Fatah or by Hamas ... It is either the one in Gaza or the one in West Bank. No one is "changing the name" as you suggest, and your analogy is not valid. Israel is one government. Palestinian territories are run by two different entities and it needs to be made clear to readers. It is simple to say each time PMoh in Gaza or Gaza-based PHoh or some such so that there is no confusion as to whom we are talking about. No one is suggesting using "Hamas" -- just Gaza. It seems you are throwing up different rationales all the time. Why is it necessary to be obstructionist about a simple change (that many of us here agree on) that helps bring clarity to the article? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand this. The name of the institution, as reported by themselves and the media, is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The name is not the Gaza Ministry of Health. This Ministry of Health is based in Gaza. We say it is in Gaza. Who are the many you speak of? You, Agada, and masqueraid (an editor who has not been here besides to comment on this and vote in the naming discussion)? That hardly qualifies as many. Just as many have rejected this. Why do you insist on being disruptive? Different rationales? I have consistently said that we call them what they call themselves and what the sources call them. That you say I have thrown up different rationales is an outright lie, one that I hope you will not repeat. But we do not change somethings name. What do you not understand about that? Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree, in some sources call this organization PMoH. Other sources call it Hamas-run. We need neutral name. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Nearly ALL, not some, of the sources call it the Palestinian Ministry of Health. And neutrality is not an issue here, the name is the name. The name of the institution in question is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. That is the name. Much like Hezbollah means Party of God. The name is the name, we do not change the name of Hezbollah even if you think it is not the Party of God. The name of this institution is the Palestinian Ministry of Health. That is what they call themselves, and that is what the sources call them. Nableezy (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A number of sources also call it the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza. But apparently we are only allowed to consider your choice of sources. It does not "change its name" to call it the PMOH (Gaza) or the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, or some such compromise such as Agadas' Governance of the Gaza Strip MoH. You claim it "only needs to be referred to as Gazan-based once, and that after that it can be refered to as PMOH without ambiguity, and claim that "A reader would have to be a moron to think they are two different things" despite the fact that there is in fact serious evidence (see some of Agada's posts) that there really are two PMoHs, one in Ramalla and one in Gaza. Clearly there is confusion and there is a simple. compromise. solution. Your answer? "No, we define it once. That is all that is needed." and "That is all that needs to be said." And you are accusing me of disruptive editing? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Oh and I want to add, that I think your dismissal of Masqueraid's edits and posts because he has newly arrived at the article is rude and unwelcoming. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not, it is a statement of fact, there was no dismissal. If you failed to understand what I wrote that really isnt my problem. We do no need to say it every time because we never mention a different Palestinian Ministry of Health. There is no disambiguation here. You pull out 2 sources that say in Gaza and I pull out a thousand that if they say it at all they say it once. Stop being disruptive. Nableezy (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a very misleading post by you. Besides the FOUR WP:RS sources I put up above (not two, as you falsely claimed) here are FOUR more:[5] HRW, [6] International Middle East Media Center, [7] Electronic Intifada (not a RS but a demonstration [8] New York Times. Plenty more where those came from "Gaza Ministry of Health" or MoH in GAZa. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you really want me to post a thousand that dont? Nableezy (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You are apparently missing the point, hopefully not on purpose. We have RS that do both. We do not have to find 1000 that do or that don't. We simply have to chose which version is the most encyclopedic and gives the reader the most accurate information. You say we should use your references because you have decided it is unnecessary since the readers are not "morons" (your words). This despite the fact that a number of us here believe it is confusing. Call us morons if you like, but you seem to be purposefully obstructive here and I don't think that is a valid reason for not coming to consensus over this. It is not a big deal but would clarify things. Especially since it is possible that the comments in this article could be coming from one or the other of the "Palestinian Ministries of Health." Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of the RSs do not call it the Gaza MoH, if they say Gaza at all they say the Palestinian MoH in Gaza, which the vast majority dont even say that, they just say PMoH. We already say it once, we never mention another Palestinian MoH, we never say Ramallah, we never say the PNA. We already say that the Palestinian MoH that we are referring to is based in Gaza. I dont understand why we need to say it every time, there is no disambiguation here. If we actually brought up a PMoH in Ramallah, then we would need to say every time which one we are referring to. But we dont ever mention a PMoH in Ramallah, just saying that the PMoH that we are referring to is in Gaza is sufficient to clear any confusion. And no, none of the comments in this article are coming from one or another Palestinian MoH, all of them are coming from the one based in Gaza. We never once bring up anything in Ramallah so we do not need to distinguish between that and this. Nableezy (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we do not need "the vast majority," we simply need RS. It is simple enough when we name it, to disambiguate it by referring to it, as these references do.

  • [9] Child rights Information network "The Palestinian ministry of health in Gaza claims that the number of dead is even higher."
  • [10] Global Security .org "Bassam al-Badri of the referral department at the ministry of health in Gaza,"
  • [11] UN "according to Gazan health ministry figures,"
  • [12] BBS News "According to the Gaza Ministry of Health,"
  • [13] Change.org Humanitarian Relief "distributed to Gaza Ministry of Health hospitals"
  • [14] Juan Cole "According to the Ministry of Health in Gaza"

Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the vast majority of the media has used the name of the institution, The Palestinian Ministry of Health. Just because you have a few sources calling it the MoH in Gaza means almost nothing put up against that. Im not dealing with this nonsense anymore; luckily we still have a few days without you editing this article, so for that time I will be working on things that actually matter. Nableezy (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Nearly ALL is incorrect. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, consider an example from history. Just as institutions under the rule of Hamas/Gaza should be consistently disambiguated in an encyclopedia from those under Fatah/West Bank, political bodies belonging to the Spanish Nationalists were always differentiated from those under the control of the Spanish Republicans. Why? The Republicans and Nationalists represented exceedingly distinct regimes that both operated in the same country. By the way Nab, I do think I'm entitled to an equal opinion as you are. I find your dismissal of my arguments on the basis of little exposure to the article offensive. masqueraid 17:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I didnt dismiss your opinion, so there is no cause for offense. And we distinguish it from anything in Ramallah, we already say the Gaza based PMoH the first time it is mentioned. Why should we say that every time it is mentioned? I could understand if we actually used anything from a Ramallah based MoH, but we dont. We say once that it is Gaza based, and every mention thereafter to a PMoH is quite obviously referring to the only one we have mentioned, ie the Gaza based one. Nableezy (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
From this discussion, I get the impression that the name used in the great majority of sources is "Palestinian Ministry of Health" and therefore that we probably ought to use that name, as Nableezy says. However, it is also important to distinguish which organization we mean.
Two parts of the MOS seem to me to suggest a similar principle to not repeating "in Gaza" every time: (re acronyms) "Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence" WP:Manual of Style#Acronyms, and "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section." Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#General principles.
Some readers may not have perfect memories, so repeating "in Gaza" one or two additional times in the article seems reasonable to me, as with wikilinks, but not every time it's mentioned.
I suggest that if we begin as we do now, with "The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health (PMoH)", that it may be least confusing to use the acronym "PMoH" throughout the rest of the article, possibly spelling it out one or two more times but making it clear when doing that that it's the one in Gaza. If spelling it out additional times, we could word it differently to make it clear that "Gaza based" is not part of the name: varying it with "in Gaza" or "Gaza ... the Palestinian Ministry of Health based there", etc. We will not eliminate all possible instances of readers being confused, but the same could be said for any use of acronyms or non-wikilinked names, yet the MOS seems to encourage assuming the reader is smart enough most of the time to notice that something was defined earlier in the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That is pretty much what we are doing now. Nableezy (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[OT] Palestine-Israel enforcement

Future Perfect at Sunrise believes that Infoboxes must burn in Hell

I just want to share personal experience from discussing this article. This is really off topic and not for inclusion into the article. Recently out of the blue I received message in the subject from Wikipedia administrator. I wondered what the hell does it mean so I started an inquiry. Unfortunately my last question remained unanswered. This could be a nice addition to psych warfare section :) Hope you see what I mean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And soon, I will also ask for clarification on your actions concerning your constant editing on Belligerents. You have been explained, over and over again, by multiple parties, that Hamas is the Ruling party of Gaza, democratically elected. That Israel views Hamas as its enemy is not an indictment on how the world should see Hamas. In this case, we don't have to bring sources that name Hamas as the reason why Israel attacked Gaza, simply because a judgment is made from Wikipedia's point of view. In fact, I won't be wasting much time on this with you, as many editors in here, including Cerejota, has explained these things to you in great detail. I will ask for clarification at this time. Cryptonio (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That is disputed above in the belligerents section. Anyone who simply reverts Agada's change is just as guilty of edit-warring. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It was simply a revert on my part. And I am not accusing Agada of edit-warring at this time. He continues to ignore what has been discussed, for his 'inability' to properly examine the arguments from all sides.
That Agada want's to view this particular matter per Israel's POV is not a dispute worth considering. This is a judgment call that must be addressed through Wikipedia's POV. Cryptonio (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You have one perspective, he has another. With all due respect, I don't see you viewing all the sides any more than he does. I think this is the crux of the problem we're having. Everyone digs in their heels to defend what they think is right. The problem is that Agada is right, from a certain perspective and you are right, from a different perspective. ARBPIA says we should work collaboratively. Where's the collaboration? We have 36 fucking pages of archives and I could probably count on one hand, even Rahm Emanuel's hand, the number of times I've seen the I's and the P's work together. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
What you see is your perspective, and what you don't see is not others' failures. I mentioned already that in this particular matter, we must make the judgment call from Wikipedia's perspective. Israel has a military, it is the IDF, it has a political party, it is Kadima(or something else by this time). Gaza does not have a standing army, but its defense is in placed by Palestinians, including members of Hamas, it has a political party, Hamas. We have covered why the Lead is right in mentioning Hamas(and it should also include other groups) since Hamas is perhaps the largest militia in Gaza. Let's not pretend here, that everybody in Israel is in unison with the actions of its government and that in Gaza the people of Gaza are not supportive of Hamas. This conversation is over until further notice, and if i've broken any Wiki-policies I am man. Cryptonio (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I know that this conversation is over and my comments will end up in the aether but I just wanted to clarify because I think you misunderstood. My last comment wasn't intended to be specific to the belligerents section. I was trying to make a more general point than that. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be a witch hunt, but Agada you would be best off not making the same disputed changes over and over. Get consensus for edits that have been disputed, if that is achieved then make the change. But please do not keep making changes that you know have been disputed and that you know do not have consensus. That goes for me, wikifan, cryptonio and everybody whose username does not begin with JGG. That editor should not be allowed to edit the article at all, but I have had difficulty getting him banned. Nableezy (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit the article. I'm just here for the conversation. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
TROLL TROLL TROLL!!!! Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
JGGardiner I think you made a slight error in the strike-out above. It should have regarded 'pages'. The adjective's okay, par for the intercourse as they used to say, though 'fucked' might be more au fait with the contents! There are 36 archives, which in turn have various numbers of pages. I hope this acute observation can assist deliberations. I can't, and will quietly eff off.Nishidani (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I try to type my comments the way I would say it in conversation. I think I had something more like 'fucké' in my head. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
And I forgot to say that its good to see you back. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada: I want to be more on-topic on this thread and address your question directly. Both because you are relatively new, and because indeed I respect you as an editor, even when I do not always agree with your edits.

This article, and a whole bunch of them, are under WP:ARBPIA. That means that all editors who choose to edit these articles are subjected to discretionary action by uninvolved admins, at any time, for any of the reasons listed in WP:ARBPIA. This means that the regular process of dispute resolution is not necessary for sanctions to be imposed, althought admins are counseled to allow dispute resolution to happen, and use their discretion when impossing sanctions. In essence, by editing ARBPIA articles, and only while editing them, you are subjecting yourself to admin action that can only be reversed by discussion, rather than the other way around, which is the usual wikipedia way.

One of the processes set forth by WP:ARBPIA is that before such sanctions are applied, a first step should be taken in which the editors are notified officialy by an uninvolved admin, and this notification logged.

This is what happened to you. For example, I was notified officialy and this notification logged.See the log here.

This doesn't mean anything per se, althought it does means that an uninvolved admin probably thought that you warranted notification due to your activity, which regardless of it being positive or not is rather active. Editing-wise, you are actually more active than me!

So there is nothing sinister, there is no secret trial, and you should not worry if you adhere to policy. You are just being told the rules in an official manner. If the admin has not answered, perhaps he is busy. I say you should be a bit more patient.--Cerejota (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How come Belligerents change, for instance:
And I was already explained that 5 reverts in the row, could be counted as single one for 3RR purposes :) This is Olympic Games of Fast Reverts and not Wikipedia BRD process. In the end I see arguments here about persons (Mr FG Superman has a hidden identity! He's really Bicycle Repair Man) and not about facts. What should I, as Wikipedia editor, do in such case? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Agada, the belligerents change was not agreed to, I dont know where you got that idea. There have been many discussions about this, and I cannot see how you got the idea that it was agreed that it should list Hamas as the belligerent and only Hamas. The last agreement on this was changing it from a list of Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, and a few others to Gaza. You want it to say Hamas get consensus for that. Nableezy (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, I'm new to Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. According to Wikipedia rules - Silence implies consent. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There was no silence, there were loud protestations. Nableezy (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is archive of loud protestations. Somehow reverts remained silent both on Talk page and in commit log. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioning user X by name in headers

Yir'on (Hebrew: יִרְאוֹן) is a kibbutz in northern Israel. It sounds a bit like the domestic appliance pictured which is used to remove wrinkles. In that sense the device is yir'ony.

I'm all for it and won't mention Wikifan in a header. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support
I did it once but will stop now, because I don't want to see long discussions evolving off a header with a user's name in it. There are a number of reasons for this.
  • 1 It draws attention away from the article.
  • 2 It may be objectionable to the editor whose name is used in the header.
  • 3 The exposure may make the editor famous and rich and they may buy Wikipedia, then write whatever they want.
RomaC (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest we discuss this at further length here, continue voting and perhaps include a pie chart of the results. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

baleted Wikifan's name from the header. It's offending. you guys carry on though. Cryptonio (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Sean hoyland started this section just so he can mention wikifan in the header. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is an excellent sense of humor barometer. RomaC (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Surely not ? If that were true it would suggest that this was incredibly immature, breaking several talk page rules done for my own amusement and that the wikifan => X change in the header would ruin the joke. Luckily it's clearly not that because that would be incredibly immature and break several talk page rules, mmmkay. Anyway, I like wikifan. He funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent discussion. And excellent picture (+ caption)...I hope no one is offended by it. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh noes! Anonymous picture! Oh noes!--Cerejota (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem. We should have like triggers or something in the database that make a sort of a history thingy or something so you can see who made an edit. Maybe we could have like a search engine or something to search the history, find who made an edit etc by looking for the first appearance of a phrase or unusual word. Maybe call it something catchy like WikiBlame or something. And if something that useful were to exist it would probably identify this revision as the first occurence of the image and might say something like "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sean.hoyland (Talk | contribs) at 02:16, 27 February 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision". Also I'd like to complain about excessive use of sarcasm on this talk page and me adding images when I should be doing something else. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think your idea is excellent! Perhaps we can make it a tab on the top, next to the edit tap! Why no one thought about it before?--Cerejota (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
WikiBlame exists, even if it does suck right now. Nableezy (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You just lost The Game, Kobtan Obvious.--Cerejota (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I like how I never report anyone regardless of how much crap they do. I'm so awesome. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I like that too and it's nice to see people following Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...the bit that says "and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood".  :) Sean.hoyland - talk 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Suicide bombings - why is this disputed?

Current:

Between 2005 and late 2008, Palestinian groups launched over 6,000 rockets and mortars into Israel.[2] According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 116 Israelis, including civilians and IDF personnel, were killed in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents" and 1,509 were injured.[3] During this time, 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed while 8,308 were wounded from Israeli attacks.[3]

Previous:

Between 2005 and late 2008, Palestinian groups launched over 6,000 rockets and mortars into Israel,[4] in addition to 11 suicide bombings.[5]

I'm trying to determine specifically why we there is resistance to include "suicide bombings" with the background. This isn't POV-pushing as accused by Crypt days ago. The kills/injuries cited by the UN accounts of all reported-casualties. However, the terrorism source only provides evidence for rocket and mortar attacks, while completely omitting suicide bombings. Including mortar/rockets but excluding suicide bombings doesn't make sense. Suicide bombings accounted for exactly 40 kills between 2005-2008 according to the Israeli Ministries of Foreign Affairs. Background says 116 kills, while only listing rocket/mortars as the cause, omitting the fact that 1/3 of all kills were the result of suicide bombings. These are 2 different types of campaigns, if we exclude one we must reduce the # of Israeli's killed so it correlates with the sourced info. And as Cerrejota said, terrorism.info is rather shady, which is why I believe we should be using government sources to verify casualty listings, in addition to the United Nations or any other notable site. In fact, we could remove the terrorism.info because the Israeli site hosts dozens of articles detailing rocket/mortar and suicide bombings.

Reversion History - Nab reverts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers are included, it does not only list rockets/mortars as the cause of them. All casualties are included in the numbers. What is disputed is explicitly saying how many suicide attacks there was. Why is that needed, we dont cover how many of each type of Israeli attack, why should we here? And we are now using an IDF source on the number of rockets (7200, surprised you didnt find that one). We do not say all the deaths come from any one thing, it is counting everything in 'direct conflict related incidents'. Nableezy (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
When was the last suicide bombing? I am just curious as to how suicide bombings fit in with the background of this recent offensive in Gaza. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
According to his source there was 1 fatal suicide attack in Feb 2008, with 1 prior to that in Jan 2007. Nableezy (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The background currently mentions numbers between '05 and late '08. We don't need to go back decades or anything but the suicide bombings were a relevant and recent concern to Israeli's leading up to the operation. Feb 4, 2008 - Lyubov Razdolskaya, ... was killed and 38 wounded...by a suicide bomber...".Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, suicide bombing hits the reader more than rockets. I understand why it is a concern but it is valid.Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
ec...So we should not mention the suicide bombings since the last one was almost a year ago and retaliation for suicide bombings or to stop suicide bombings wasn't an objective of the Israelis in their offensive. Also do we need to include the number of deaths from as far back as 2005? For the background section, I would suggest limiting the casualty numbers to deaths that occurred within a few months before the offensive from whenever the last truce was. Just a suggestion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
'05 since that is how a good and very valid source laid it out. We could ONLY use the catalyst of the kidnapping tunnel but then we might be cutting too much (not like me to say, actually)Does anyone know which source it is where the Israeli dude told Hamas to knock it off since there would be bad repercussions? That one was good if I recall correctly.Cptnono (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"Between 2005 and late 2008, Palestinian groups launched over 6,000 rockets and mortars into Israel. According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 116 Israelis, including civilians and IDF personnel, were killed in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents" and 1,509 were injured.
-and-
During this time, 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed while 8,308 were wounded from Israeli attacks."
See, this is already unbalanced, because there is clear and specific information on the type of Palestinian attacks, ("6,000 rockets into Israel") yet none on the nature of Israeli attacks, for example, Israeli artillery shells into Gaza in 2006 alone totaled 14,000. Now, instead of applying the same editing standards to both sides and considering how to include this information, we are instead being forced into reverting and debating information on Palestinian suicide attacks. This is just wrong. RomaC (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying we shouldnt mention it because of when it happened, I am saying that we are calling it background by putting it there. If there is a RS has said anything at all about suicide bombings as it relates to the background of this conflict, like they have with the rocket attacks repeatedly, then I do not have a problem putting it in. We can come up with all sorts of numbers that say one thing or another, but we should have as a threshold of what to present where as what have the RSs presented. The rockets are clearly related to background as they have been brought up as such in the sources. I havent seen any RS say much on either the suicide bombings or the artillery shells. That is why I oppose placing it in the background section. Nableezy (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The deaths are fine, though I would prefer limiting it to what came from Gaza, which is difficult. The other choice is just discounting all deaths on either side that occurred in the West Bank, but that still includes any victims from within Israel from attacks that originated in the West Bank. As that is the case, I am fine with just including all Israeli and Palestinian deaths from anywhere in Israel or the Palestinian territories during that time frame. But listing individual methods of attack and causes of deaths that have not been brought up as relevant background is not a good idea in my opinion. It just opens up the section to too much information that hasnt been related in the sources. Nableezy (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

going to bed soon but I'll see what I can pull up in the morning. It is coming across that it is a concern that it is in because it could actually make Hamas look bad. If you say it is not then I will believe you but that is the initial impression.Cptnono (talk)
My thinking is if a source relates it as background, as they have with rockets and the blockade, then we put it in, but if not we dont. Which is really what I think about pretty much everything in the article. Nableezy (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed. Everything in the section is gone over in detail in the See Also in the section. What is the line for how much we want in? We could scrap all of the paragraphs and replace it with whatever sentence is required by Wiki standards. Kind of negates yesterday's work but it is a solution. Rockets and blockade is not a bad idea but it is really easy to directly correlate the rockets, bombs, and shelling.Cptnono (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If a RS correlates all that I am fine with us doing that too, if not then we shouldnt be either. Nableezy (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Please cptnono go to bed because you are not alert enough to make any sense. What do you mean "It is coming across that it is a concern that it is in because it could actually make Hamas look bad"? It is John Hyam all over again. The 'good and valid source' is not a mandatory model for this article, most good and valid articles do not discuss the suicide bombings and whatever happened one year ago. I intend to limit it to the more commonly discussed background information. If I wasn't such a procrastinator, I do it right now. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Chill, the captain is nowhere near anything like that other user, everybody is entitled to their impression and he has been calm and reasonable through 2 months. We have yelled censorship often enough that we shouldnt jump on somebody who says something. Especially when he says 'If you say it is not then I will believe you'. Cpt, it is not because of that. Nableezy (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I attributed his poisoning the well statement to his tiredness so if anything I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I let him off easy-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Falastine, understand your concerns but what you say, let's all chill a bit, I noted my concerns above also, I am content to wait for a day and see what these two come up with, and take it from there. !Yes, Cpt is no JohnH... RomaC (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay if you guys say so... -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ha! I actually went to bed before reading that. No worries.
Every recent news source I see mentions the rocket attacks just prior to the tunnel attack by Israel. The municipal alarm system was activated and the government warned Hamas to stop. Suicide bombings have been an ongoing concern but this has not been attributed to the military operation by news agencies. I still think it should be in since attacks from the strip include rockets, shelling, and suicide bombings. To reach consensus, the criteria for inclusion has not been met.Cptnono (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
From the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "The main objective of Operation Cast Lead was to bring about conditions for the creation of a better security situation in southern Israel - namely, the long-term cessation of rocket and mortar fire and all terrorist attacks from the Gaza Strip." Mortars are mentioned (I believe this was disputed earlier). Can we use terrorist in the section? http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Aerial_strike_weapon_development_center+_Gaza_28-Dec-2008.htm Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
see wp:terrorist. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
So can we use bombings or suicide bombings instead?Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't dispute an inclusion of specific-campaigns against Palestinians by the Israel government, but there is several issues here: First, the 14k arty is true, however it does not correlate with the casualty numbers properly. The 14k was an isolated campaign, killing ~50 (from what I remember) Palestinians in a response to the killing of a soldier or something if I recall. The 6k+ rockets shot at Israel were a collective campaign by the Hamas government, responsible for the vast majority of kills/injured. That is why it should be included. More Palestinians were killed by Palestinians than the Israel arty shelling. Including "Israel operations" opposed to "targeted killings, border incidents, etc.." is because those belong to a broad range of tactics utilized by the IDF, and it would be unbalanced because there is a very very very long list of methods. I did not dispute the original inclusion of targeted killings because those "technically" violate international law and IMO is notable because of that. I thought that was a fair compromise but crypt preferred edit warring anything he happened to disagree with, which is why I came here.

BTW, the 11 suicide attacks occurred between 2005-2008/9. A sharp decline from the years prior. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You are recollecting what happened incorrectly. In this matter, as in this conflict in general, you fail to recognize that in order to have any kind of "war" it takes two parties. You want to label certain targets in a way or another, and now some of them with 'violation' connotations. You allude that Israel is defending itself, what do you think Palestine is doing? solely attacking Israel? in the marquee of warfare, you are inclined to taking the side of both, the victim AND the aggressor, while from Palestine perspective, they wanted to stop being the victim and BECAME an aggressor as well. Then, taking suicide bombings into account, it is a tactic just like any other tactic where Israel feels 'sorry' for 'collateral damage', including the destruction of learning facilities. Israel's demoralization of anything Palestinian, in order to get to an enemy(Hamas) is in the eyes of many and reasoning itself, nothing to applaud for. Then, comes your standard position of inclining this article one way over another. If your job is to blame Palestine for this conflict, at any price necessary, then the job of Wikipedia is to label you obsolete, as in the world recognizes there are two sides to the coin. The POV that you said I was pushing is also incorrect, for I will say this once and repeat it again as long as you are arguing these points. i would much rather have Palestinians lay down on the ground, raise their hands and submit to the will of Israel. But in this very nasty world, you can't separate the garbage from its foul smell. With Editors like you, is necessary to bring these points up, because one day you'll use Wiki:policies to your advantage, and another day you'll use "reliable sources" and in another day you'll wake up 'somehow' different that before and argue from the status quo POV. Since you are all over the place, in this nasty world, you can't expect to be exempt from the stench. You mistake has been and continues to be, having been born for the grace of someone. Wikipedia does not(SHOULD NOT) differentiate between victim and aggressor, and their inter-changing periods. I fail to see you as constructive. Cryptonio (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't get past two sentences of your random rant. This article gives tons of weight to either belligerent (yeah I went there) depending on what section it is. Adding "and bombings" should be fine for this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Nab-lazy, this what ya mean by laziness, amirite?
Looks like you got a source for it relating it to this conflict, so I am fine with it, but do you also want to specify they type of Israeli attacks like it had before, like targeted killings, mortars, . . ., (i forgot everything else but you get the idea, and well pretty lazy right now if you feel me)? Nableezy (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no Cptnono, please ignore both of us. Myself and Wikifan. I did not see your post(i swear by Zeus) what pilgrim i've made myself to be in this matter after your post. Nableezy is who you should listen to.(and to him i say pardon as well). I believe your source to be adequate to the background section. Cryptonio (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Although i also missed Sean's post(and surely it carries some weight). All the merry though, because we are looking for a compromise here. Ignore me for today(sunday) because today(saturday) i've been a naughty boy and found what was under lock in the cabinet. As if, I wouldn't know, behind the cabinet and things related to this article. well i blame any confusion on wikifan. Cryptonio (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cpt, I wasn't ranting. I was simply trying to respond to as many point as possibly without multiple posts/cluttering up section. Half the time nobody responds anyways so I didn't see the reasoning in wasting time doing so. Try to assume good faith, thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
My comment was directed towards Cryptonio since he went into such detail. It wasn't even supposed to be overly mean but in hindsight "rant" can be taken pretty mean. And, Nableezy, I don't want extreme detail (I think we are @ 140,000+ kb from 160,000+ a couple weeks ago!)and could see using the complete line in quotes. Have a feeling that might be bad per the guideline sean referenced earlier. Anyone have an idea on how to work the sentence to "rockets, mortars, and bombings" while not making it exceptionally long?. It looks like someone figured it out.Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[OT] Nemo

[[:Image:Flyingcircus 2.jpg‎|thumb|right| News break! Mr FG Superman lives in Bat Hefer, Israel ]]

I blame the ISA. What's happening Agada is that your edits are getting reverted unless they can be matched to issues being highlighted by CAMERA. Remember, they told us to work this way at the last Shin Bet teambuilding outing when Yuval Diskin gave us the Shabak hats at that "Crazy Golf" course....oh shit, me and my big mouth.
How about adding an image to the Bat Hefer article in the meantime ? No excuses. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
CAMERA SHMAMERA. I have a secret identity. Initially I've created my account to improve quality of Apache Tomcat article. Deal with it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know the feeling. I came to work on sensible articles like apis florea and weaver ant. Let's just delete the whole thing. It's distracting. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
To be frank with you Sean, I still hope that we could meet at Taba Border Crossing and explore Sinai Red Sea shores, while riding a bike. We could find a Nemo or two. My personal Big Bang was, when my friend, living in Petaluma California mentioned to me that Apache Tomcat and Apache Web Server are basically the same and bundled together and referred me to Wikipedia article. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
That sounds great and beats wiki editing anyday especially as I've not been further south than Ma'an in that area. I'll bring a pizza. Anyway, back to your serious issue "What should I, as Wikipedia editor, do in such case?". I'm sure someone will be along soon to respond. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that's a conflict. Are you pro-bee or pro-ant? --JGGardiner (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Tragically to me that is a genuinely interesting question that I could drone (heh) on about for hours in the pathetically misguided belief that anyone is interested... Sean.hoyland - talk 01:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. It's not that editors are uninterested in bugs, just nuance. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Grapevine

Has it that after Tony Blair leaves Gaza there will be renewed operations, due to rockets. So far RS thin on this. Comments?--Cerejota (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on whether or not the Palestinians release Shalit. There is no peace without Shalit. The Squicks (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V Check II

I thought I'd do a WP:V check myself. I just randomly generated the lucky number. So, we have this sentence: "On December 29 a Grad rocket hit Ashkelon, killing an Israeli-Arab construction worker and seriously wounding three other people."[15] The source does not support the number of wounded. It suggests 17 wounded, five seriously. But I've seen different numbers also. Any thoughts? --JGGardiner (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The JTA says one dead and a non-described number wounded. The Squicks (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This Israeli photo-journalist site claims one dead, fourteen wounded. Thaindian News says two died. The AFP says one dead, eight wounded. The Squicks (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess here is another textbook example of how easy it is (even if you completely intend no bias) to slant an article. Personally, I would go with the AFP's numbers since I consider it to be the most reliable of the news sources. But every RS could be potentially defended. The Squicks (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What I consider the be all, end all, of Israeli casualty counts, the Magen David Adom, are saying 12 casualties MDAIS - Scroll down as the article is a merger of all snippets. "1 killed, 1 in critical condirtion;, 4 moderately and 5 lightly injured construction workers were evacuated to the Ashkelon Barzilay hospital. All casualties are from Northern Galilee and the Rahat Beduin Community in the Negev." It doesn't make clear that the fatality is a Bedouin, but this is verifed by other reliable sources. I think the sources are combining moderately and critically injured to arrive at the "5 serious" wounded figure. However, they seem to be pulling the "17" out of thin air, unless there where 5 people treated for shock - which under heavy criticism MDA has started to separate from casualties (although as I have explained before, and in spite of mocking by some, shock is an extremely serious part of EMS interventions, and is always the second thing to be treated besides hemorrage control - it can be fatal even weeks after the shock event).

The article also says that for all of the "Cast Lead Operation" (great medics, shitty translators ;): "MDA personnel treated and evacuated a total of 770 casualties that comprized 4 fatalities, 4 severely wounded, 11 moderately and 167 lightly wounded. An additional 584 persons suffered from shock and anxiety syndrome, they were evacuated to relevant medical centers." So this I take to be the official tally for casulaties inside of Israel. We should add the casualties from the operations in Gaza and that gives us the total Israeli casualty figure.--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems very sensible. This is a small thing so I originally intended to just correct it. But this source says 17 and when I (news) googled the poor dead guy's name, the first source said 16 and then the next said 10 so I was unsure. But none of them said three and that's what we had in the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Check III was just a broken link that I repaired myself. But it seems like there's a lot of work to do. I hope the other editors aren't as lazy as I am. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am. I decided to move all the bromeliads I bought the other day into the rain instead. Nice work by you though. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible prosecution of Israelis: new impetus to this story: The Hague Court

This is a front (web) page story in The Guardian today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/02/israel-war-crimes-gaza

  • The international criminal court is considering whether the Palestinian Authority is "enough like a state" for it to bring a case alleging that Israeli troops committed war crimes in the recent assault on Gaza.
The deliberations would potentially open the way to putting Israeli military commanders in the dock at The Hague over the campaign, which claimed more than 1,300 lives, and set an important precedent for the court over what cases it can hear.


In light of this, I propose to reinstate the old paragraph - which told of the warning of Israeli soldiers not to travel abroad - with this information added.

I feel this is a very notable aspect of any discussion of war crimes. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This link can be used to support a new paragraph, but not the old one. Your conjecture does not qualify. This article is simply repeating what we already know, and we cannot plaster "war crime" simply because it is said over and over again. There is already an international law section that demonstrates a relatively accurate portrayal of the situation globally speaking. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wikifan (gasp!). Lets not WP:CRYSTAL here. Original Research: Besides, since Israel has so far (along with the USA) refused to sign the Rome Statute, so Israel cannot be subjected to its jurisdiction unless the crimes happen in the territory of a signatory (which they didn't - this is probably the main reason Jordan signed the ICC - it provides a certain level of protection from Israel). What the International Criminal Court is doing is a procedural/bureaucratic thing, because there has indeed been a formal report. But like with the Iraq war, there is nothing they can actually do beyond a press release. In this sense, any actions belong in the ICC's article, not here, and if indeed there is a more biting process, it would be a historic thing warranting its own article. --Cerejota (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that isn't actually a new story. Here's an IHT story from a month ago on the subject.[16] The PA (Fatah) announced January 22nd that it would accept the ICC. So this is the response to that. The whole world media seems to have been mostly ignoring this for a month now. I wonder why the Guardian suddenly feels it is news.

But this might lead down a path that becomes more notable. And we could still have a section in this area generally. But I don't think story says much on its own. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly why WP:CRYSTAL applies. We are not news, we are an encyclopedia... Nao, in OR terms, this is just Fatah seeking a way to get rid of Hamas without seeming like they are "traitors". If the PA ratifies the Rome Statute, experience shows it will be used first against Palestinians and then against Israelis. This has been the case in Central Africa, the only place the ICC has been doing prosecutions. --Cerejota (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, Fatah is probably just trying to get Nableezy to recognize that they're the legitimate government of Gaza. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Fuck that. They are the legitimate government of deez nuts. Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Cerejota here. If/when they decide to actually due something, that could be worth including. But if they are merely "considering" things at this point, than we shall see what happens. The Squicks (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"Soldiers" are not necessarily "commanders" or "officials" which are mentioned in the previous and this source. Anything added needs use the correct terminology. Before it read like any random enlisted 19 year old was going to be picked up at a foreign airport.Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

this will belong in the article only if any official charges are made.untwirl(talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel ties ceasefire to Shalit

Some folks here didn't even want Shalit mentioned in this article as somehow "irrelevant" to this conflict. However, not so irrelevant. [17]. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources tying the attack with Shalit. You have found a source tying the ceasefire with Shalit but after all this time you still cannot tie the attack with Shalit. A line off this source would be appropriate in the ceasefire section on something about ongoing negotiations. Nableezy (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this belongs in the ceasefire, not the background.--Cerejota (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Gilad Shalit is known instance of war crime during this conflict his case belongs to international law. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really, this is said to be a violation of international law, I cant find anybody saying the holding of Shalit and not allowing ICRC visitation is a war crime as it relates to this conflict. This has only been related to a proposed ceasefire, I for one havent seen sources linking it to other things. The International Law section is supposed to be about violations committed in this conflict, not past specific issues, though past general background should certainly be included, such as occupation on Israeli issues and past behaviour by Hamas, but we dont go into specific violations in the past. We are not going to detail every extrajudicial 'targeted killing' or every rocket attack. Nableezy (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That said, I would be fine with a small sentence saying Shalit has been denied visitation by the ICRC in Gaza in the intl law part, but not off of this source, find one that brings it up. Nableezy (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) According to the reliable sources, an impediment in ending this conflict and a factor in the conflict's renewal is the continued holding of Shalit, which turns out is a violation of international law. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
But you see they are relating it to ending the conflict, as in achieving a ceasefire, not that it is a violation as a part of this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The international law violation is directly related to the cease fire. If he's given all rights due under international law Israel would be less bothered by the kidnapping and wouldn't place the same emphasis on his release.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but the violation is not related to this conflict, it is ongoing from over a year. Are there sources calling this a violation as it relates to this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It's ongoing for over a year and it's related to this conflict because Israel is making his release a factor in the ceasefire.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It is related to the ceasefire because Israel is making his release a factor in the ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Soooo, it should go in the ceasefire section? Nableezy (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
At least. As well as in the international law violation section. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There are reports of Israel linking a new ceasefire with a swap involving Shalit, support inclusion of this relevant information. RomaC (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Find a source that ties international law violations as a part of this conflict, not as a part of the ceasefire, and we can put a line in the intl law section that would be sourced and relevant, right now with this source it is only relevant to the ceasefire section. Nableezy (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit has the information, if we link to it, problem solved. There should be a one line mention in International Law, with a source from the article. The wikilink would be in the "Ceasefire" section, because its first. Problem solved. THis is a cause celebre for a certain section of Israeli public opinion, so be careful with undue weight. Shalit's inclusion in the ceasefire is done for clear political advantage, and in 10 years it will be a footnote. Historians tend to be assholes that way. BTW, not allowing ICRC visitation to a POW is a war crime - if you are a signatory of the Geneva convention or state that you abide by it. Hamas, to my knowledge is neither a signatory, nor abides by it. Of course, this is OR, but might be the reason why it is dificult if not impossible to find RS calling it a war crime: it is a partisan emotional charge, with no basis in how international law actually works. Similar to the DU/WP stuff with Israel.--Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it is a violation of international law, but my point was it is not a war crime in relation to this 'war'. That is why I dont think it should be more than a small mention in the intl section if at all there. Nableezy (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, some people say it is related to this conflict. Poll: 76% oppose truce without Shalit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You keep proving my point, this is related to a truce or ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, from other hand, human rights experts describe Gilad Shalit case as a war crime. Many agree. Such opinions of experts reported by reliable sources go to international law section in this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a 'war crime' as a part of this 'war'. A line about Shalit can be included IMO but you need a source tying it to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Some people say that everything we see around us was initiated by Big Bang. It is really not a problem to find citing Gilad Shalit ... war crime. In any case Gilad Shalit events were initiated chronologically during period described in background section. Maybe we could put it there. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not background to this conflict, it is germane to the ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you really say that (ie "not background") with a straight face? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has accused Cpl Shalit's captors of committing a war crime. International humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force in order to compel the enemy to meet certain demands, while threatening to harm or kill the person if the demands are not met," the group said.
  • "Furthermore, hostage-taking is considered a war crime." BBC
  • In fact, B'Tselem said on 25 June 2007 (just 6 months before this conflict flared up-escalated): B'Tselem: Hamas must secure Gilad Shalit’s release immediately .
How about this bbc article where the Israeli negotiator is saying: "Suddenly, the order of things has been changed" talking about new demands that Shalit be released as a condition to a truce. This is only related to the ceasefire. It is not background to this conflict, it is related to the negotiations for a ceasefire. And yes, something that happened in 2006 is not relevant background to this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
And do you notice how none of your sources are talking about this conflict? Why do you like proving my points? You take all the fun out of it. Nableezy (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This link will point out all of the stories in Haaretz in 2008 regarding Shalit: [18] This article from the JP, Dec 29th 2008- can be interpreted differently from its title: " Operation not geared at getting Schalit back"

Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Diplomatic- Military Bureau, said Sunday there is not necessarily a connection between the fate of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit and Operation Cast Lead.

"Releasing Schalit is a goal in its own right," he told Israel Radio. "We have not ceased efforts to bring about his release even for a day."

In marked contrast to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when the return of captured soldiers was among Israel's declared war aims, the return of Schalit, held in Gaza for more than 900 days, has not been presented as a direct goal of the Gaza operation.

Gilad reiterated that Operation Cast Lead would continue with full force until calm was restored to the South.

Credit: Jerusalem Post staff

The way I interpret this article, Shalit is very much a part of this conflict, though not a direct goal in Operation Cast Lead. Considering that this article is not simply about OCL (or it would be so named) but rather about the 2008-2009 conflict itself, Shalit is very much a part of this conflict, especially in '08 when negotiations for his release broke down. To insist that he is not involved strikes me as tendentious, although why I am not sure. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For example this article: from October 2008, just 2 months prior to this operation --Haaretz [[19]

  • "Olmert has told officials in meetings on the matter that Israel must choose between moving ahead on Shalit's release by applying massive pressure on Hamas - which might lead to the breakdown of the cease-fire and a renewal of Qassam fire on the Negev - and a freeze on the Shalit release and quiet in Sderot and the communities close to the Gaza Strip. Sources close to Olmert have said that as long as things are quiet, Hamas has no interest in moving ahead on releasing Shalit."

It doesn't take "original research" to understand that when the ceasefire broke down completely, the choice was to move ahead on Shalit's release by "applying massive pressure on Hamas" which is what OCL did. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say it wasnt related, but you seem to want to put this in the background, which I say it is not, Intl law, which I would be fine with if it were not for the fact we would just be repeating ourselves with the next one, and in the ceasefire section, where I completely agree it should be in. If you want to have a small sentence in the intl law section about how he has been denied access to the ICRC, fine, but we shouldnt repeat it in the ceasefire section. If you want to split it up so that intl law sentence there and how they have now said there will be no long term truce without Shalit released in the ceasefire section, I would be fine with that. But it doesnt belong in the background section, and for all intents and purposes we are talking about Op Cast Lead in this article and the things that are relevant background to that and its immediate response should be in the background. This article is not about everything that happened in 2008, if it were the blockade would be given much more attention rather than being relegated to a couple of sentences as relevant background to this event. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
And it does take OR to do that, especially considering your source says: "In marked contrast to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when the return of captured soldiers was among Israel's declared war aims, the return of Schalit, held in Gaza for more than 900 days, has not been presented as a direct goal of the Gaza operation." That line alone says that Israel has not presented the release of Shalit as part of this operation, whereas in Lebanon they did. "Releasing Shalit is a goal in its own right" says that the release of Shalit is not dependent on Cast Lead, it is something they pursue independently. Nableezy (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
They have not presented as a "direct" goal...that is not say it is not an "indirect goal." To claim that "for all intents and purposes we are talking about Op Cast Lead in this article" is WP:OR. There was no consensus to rename it as such and the title as it stands says different. The Shalit issue is part of the background of this conflict, absolutely. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either change the title or fairly and honestly put in the background to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict, which clearly includes information about the rest of 2008 and the kidnapping and negotiations surrounding Shalit. We have the truce issue acknowledged and the continual rocket fire from Hamas acknowledged. What is wrong with acknowledging that Hamas will not only not allow ICRC visits, but that they won't release him either until "all their demands are met?" I don't get your resistance on this issue. Is it that it makes Hamas "look bad" ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The kidnapping was from 2006, and do you have any source to back up that Shalit was a goal of this, directly or indirectly? And why would I think it make Hamas look bad, and if you want to add that they will not release until demands are met, maybe you would want to also add the demands are for the release of political prisoners in Israel being held to be released. Nableezy (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
And I do not understand your persistence on this issue. Is it because you think it will make Hamas 'look bad'? Nableezy (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries, Nableezy. For some Wikipedia readers it will not make Hamas look any worse. They probably clicked on the wiki link and don't deny that terrorist organizations do exist. I could bring quite large number of Hamas official quotes talk about Gilad Shalit, during this conflict. it is clearly important for Palestinians. It's custom in this article to put international law experts opinion in International law section. In this case though no one denies the allegations. We need to explain our readers why current situation of Shalit being hostage in hands of Hamas is a war crime. Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we agree in principal that if information about captured Israelis is to be included then it needs to balanced by information about captured Palestinians currently being detained without trial by Israel, 548 at the moment I believe. Obviously we need to make sure that we aren't just presenting one side of things. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hamas denies Gilad Shalit Red Cross visitation which is a war crime under Geneva convention. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that. That is a fact. I'm saying that if captured combatants/non-combatants are regarded as relevant to this conflict/article in some way then surely the relevance works both ways for both belligerents ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Gilad Shalit was kidnapped before these hostilities started (OCL). He was captured in a cross-border raid and was not taking part in hostilities at the time so was a non-combatant at the time, according to international law. But I personally don't see anything wrong with mentioning captured combatants (and non-combatants if you have that evidence). That is all part of the "conflict". Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy thank you for clarification. Sean thank you for agreeing Shalit case belongs to International Law section. Let's move on and agree on wording. I propose:
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas in June 2006 cross-border attack and continues to be an important topic in Hamas-Israel negotiations brokered by Egypt. Hamas denies Gilad Shalit Red Cross visitation which constitutes a war crime under Geneva convention.
First sentance ref: Hamas press release
Second sentence ref: B'Tselem press release
Any suggestion about wording? Thank you AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood Sean. What he said is if Shalit goes in so do all the 'Palestinians currently being detained without trial by Israel, 548 at the moment I believe.' If you really want to include it, here would be a reasonable sentence on Shalit:
Gilad Shalit, captured in a cross border raid in 2006, has continued to be held without visitation from the ICRC.
But Hamas is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions so they are not bound by them so it could not be a violation of it as they cannot violate it. You could say, 'which X has said is a violation of international law.' Then that would have to be balanced out by the Hamas demands that Israel release all prisoners from Israel in exchange for Shalit. Nableezy (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't agreed that it should be in the law section. Was it commited during OCL ? No. In general I want stuff removed from the law section rather than added because the amount of material in there is in danger of making a mockery of WP:DUE. It's importance and notability from this articles perspective is related to the future of relations between the belligerents i.e. the ceasefire negotiations, prisoner release etc. I agree with the arguments Nabeezy made earlier here. "Find a source...that says..during this conflict" etc if you want it in the law section. On the other hand I don't really care. :) On the other-other hand it annoys me when the coverage/weight afforded to captured people depends on random factors like the exact location on this planet they were born, their nationality, so on and so forth. That's neither here nor there though. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] This article isn't about "Palestinian prisoners" but about Gazan prisoners. The conflict is with Gaza so the prisoners would have to be Gazan prisoners. And of course you would have to have RS to support your contention. I find it odd that your consensus is not based on the facts of the matter but with some kind of tit-for-tat editing. It is obvious to most that the Shalit is of major importance to this conflict, and your efforts at keeping him out unless there is tit-for-tat stuff edited in is inappropriate. Each issue should be decided according to its own merits. I fully agree with Agada's edit and in fact it is a miniscule edit in relation to its importance. I shouldn't have to remind you that Israel did a major op against Hezbollah in Lebanon because they kidnapped a soldier. Israel already did an op against Gaza to get the soldier back and did a prisoner release. Hamas stopped negotiations in 2008 unless Israel opened the border crossings. Since border crossings are a big issue for Hamas in this conflict, and they tied Shalit to border crossings, and since Israel is tying a cease-fire to his return, it should be clear to reasonable people that Agada's edit is the least that should be mentioned under the circumstances, unless one is deliberately being obstructionist. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with tit-for-tat. We have both said we are against including things not related to this. Neither of us think either piece is necessary in the international law section, but if you continue on being disruptive by demanding non-relevant information, then that information has to be properly balanced. What is discouraging is that you still do not realize some basic points, that Shalit has only been brought up as part of the ceasefire negotiations. That is the only time the Israeli government has brought up Shalit, and there are sources that say they did that on purpose in stark contrast to the Lebanon war. The very source that you brought to prove his relevance to this conflict shows relevance to the ceasefire. I dont know why this is so hard for you to understand, this article is not a laundry list of everything that Israel or Hamas has done wrong to each other, it does however contain information on what Israel and Hamas have done to each other in this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there agreement on inclusion of propoused quotes and refs? Suggestions about wording? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is not agreement and I gave you suggestions above. Nableezy (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
hmmm..Tundra you are just plain wrong. My primary interest is and always is in balance/NPOV in I-P articles. Very ironically indeed that very often results in me being categorised as pro-this or anti-that which shows what is wrong with I-P related and other contentious issues in WP. If you prefer to describe my approach as 'tit-for-tat' that's up to you but this kind of 'tit-for-tat' editing is entirely appropriate from the perspective of neutrality as far as I'm concerned. The issue of Shalit and Palestinian prisoners are connected and therefore they should be treated as such as is clear from 2 RS below if the issue of Shalit is to be included in this article.
"Among those detained were dozens of former ministers in the Hamas-led PA government and Hamas parliamentarians and mayors who were seemingly held to exert pressure on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured in 2006 who continued to be held in Gaza by the armed wings of Hamas and the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC)". from the 2008 AI report.
"Since Shalit was kidnapped in June 2006, his captors have made it clear that he is being held hostage within the framework of the demand to release Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails". from the 2008 B'Tselem report.
Furthermore, phrases like 'it is obvious to most' are precisely the kind of phrases that keep this and similar articles on my watchlist because they provide a glimpse of the systemic bias of editors which compromises the approach to editing here.
...but mostly, read what Nableezy said. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
...and by the way, regarding "I shouldn't have to remind you that Israel did a major op against Hezbollah in Lebanon because they kidnapped a soldier"....I also shouldn't have to remind you that the day before Shalit was captured the IDF carried out a cross border raid into Gaza, captured 2 Palestinians and took them to Israel which is naturally rather pertinent to the matter (despite it not being in the Shalit WP article). If you want to talk about kidnappings, hostages etc or whatever terms you want to use then we must try to be neutral and not present things out of context. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sean, you are getting way of topic. Is there agreement on inclusion of proposed quotes and refs? Suggestions about wording? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
He said there is no agreement on inclusion, so did I. Nableezy (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Your only argument was that it would make Hamas look bad. No worries. See above. Sean did not dispute that Gilad Shalit is a case of war crime and there are more quotes of Hamas about Shalit during this conflict. Don't you just love Internet technology? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not made that argument a single time. Shalit has not been brought up in this conflict except in the ceasefire negotiations. That is what I have said this whole time. Dont misrepresent what I said. Nableezy (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The case of Shalit was brought up pretty early and consistently during this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will wikify this baby. A great effort on the part of Agada (as usual):
These sources could belong in 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict:
These sources could belong in 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict (being merged with 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict):
  • April 8, 2007 Hamas gives prisoner list for Israeli soldier swap
  • June 26, 2007 Hamas releases recorded message from abducted Israeli soldier
  • July 4, 2007 Hamas: No link between Army of Islam, al-Qaida
  • September 25, 2007 Hamas says release of jailed Fatah lawmaker separated from Shalit's case
  • April 6, 2008 Hamas issues first clear threat to kill captured Israeli soldier
  • April 8, 2008 Israeli FM to visit Qatar for release of kidnapped soldier
  • May 19, 2008 Hamas leaders leave to Cairo for final ceasefire discussions
  • June 3, 2008 Palestinian militant group says Shalit not to be freed under Egypt's mediation
  • June 16, 2008 Haneya says Hamas succeeded to separate Shalit's issue from ceasefire
  • July 13, 2008 Hamas says talks on crossings, Shalit achieve no breakthrough
  • July 16, 2008 Hamas halts talks on prisoner swap with Israel
These sources could belong in the same as above but mainly in 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire:
These sources could belong in this article:
You see, the case of Shalit should be covered, but in the context of this article, it should be covered in the ceasefire section. We have plenty of articles, joined by an abundance of wikilinks and navboxes, that touch upon this. We do not have to go in long mentions of every event of every part of the background in every article, because it defies common sense, but mostly because the RS do not make the connection. It is glarinly obvious that the case for Shalit was not raised during the war, but was an important issue before and then during the subsequent ceasefire articles. --Cerejota (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Uhh, do you notice not a single one of these links come from the time period of this conflict? And when they are after this conflict they are talking about the ceasefire? Do you also remember you saying that xinhuanet is not a RS for information in the IDF shot the farmer conversation a while back? Nableezy (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree, Hamas dudes had little access to media roughly from December 17, 2008 till January 26, 2009. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that doesnt really mean anything, but Shalit has not been brought up in this conflict besides in the ceasefire negotiations. It should be there. That is the only place it is relevant. Nableezy (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sources talking about Shalit case during the intensification of this conflict were brought earlier. It is clearly wrong to say that Shalit has not been brought up in this conflict besides in the ceasefire negotiations. Experts say Shalit case is known violation of international law. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not clearly wrong, it is in fact correct that the sources say that Israel has not brought up Shalit besides in the ceasefire negotiations. Let me repeat. All of your sources showing the Israeli government bringing up Shalit in the context of this conflict is in relation to the ceasefire. I do not see what you dispute in that sentence. Shalit has been brought up in the ceasefire discussions, not as a part of the conflict outside of that area. The International Law section is about violations that each side has been accused of during this conflict. Not everything that happened unless it is related to violations that occurred in the context of this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I already brought link to article which describes events during fighting before unilateral cease fire, by Israel side. Else where in this article there is Hamas side - also during fighting. Violation of international law continued during this conflict. We talk about rocket fire. How is this different? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
We talk about rockets for 2 reasons; it is a stated reason of the Israeli government for the attack, and it has been brought up in the context of violating international law in the context of this conflict, as in Hamas fired rockets during this conflict. There is the difference and the explanation as to why Shalit applies to the ceasefire and not the international law section. He was brought up in the context of the ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hamas denied Gilad Shalit Red Cross visitation during this conflict. It is a war crime under Geneva convention. Rocket fire also started before and continued after. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Find a source that brings it up as a violation as it relates to this conflict. Just one. Not one talking about the ceasefire, but one that brings up international law violations as it relates to this conflict. That is all I have asked you to do, and instead you continue to argue about this. Just find a source that does this and we can put it in the international law section. And that sentence would also include the source that says Hamas has demanded the release of these prisoners in exchange for Shalit. Nableezy (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Violation is related to law and not conflict. No one denies the violation continued during this conflict. Hamas justifications are irrelevant. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The violation has to be related to this conflict, and like every single violation Israel is accused of in the section the response of the accused is certainly relevant. Nableezy (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Agada, I don't really understand the logic you are using here, why you think Shalit is a special case that is somehow significantly different from other cases involving Palestinians or why you seem to be having trouble understanding what Nableezy and I have said about where information about captured people should go. If your intention is to highlight international law issues involving captured/detained people in the law section because you regard them as ongoing through the conflict then you need to treat both sides in the same way e.g. "Almost all the Palestinian detainees continued to be held in jails inside Israel, in violation of international humanitarian law, which bars the removal of detainees to the territory of the occupying power" from the 2008 AI report. What I am saying above all other things is that if you want to talk about Shalit in the context of legal matters or other matters then you must also talk about captured/detained Palestinians because there really is genuine symmetry here. Please try to see it because it is really there. We must ensure NPOV and we must not decontextualise information. Can you try to swop Shalit and captured Palestinians around in your mind for example ? Maybe that will help you understand what I'm saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
...and I do appreciate that swopping Shalit and captured Palestinians around in your mind might sound like a stupid thing for me to ask you to do when you live next to a giant concrete wall there to stop people killing you even though they've never met you or know you in any way. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean, we really don't need your soapboxing. Finally this conflict is termed 2008-2009 conflict. That's its name and Shalit is relevant to this time frame. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, if by "soapboxing" you mean advocating a neutral point of view, the balancing of entries to put information in a reasonable perspective (to use phrases from WP:SOAPBOX) so that we can avoid soapboxing then yes, I'm soapboxing. I'm soapboxing on behalf on Wikipedia and a rational, dispassionate approach to this issue that faithfully represents the information available to us in reliable sources with expertise in these matters. I'm trying to use persuasion and direct quotes from RS that explicitly demonstrate the connection between Shalit and Palestinian prisoners and the symmetry between the 2 issues in RS no matter whether you look at it from a legal perspective or a ceasefire perspective. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial, biased or unreasonable etc and I do appreciate that it may be difficult for some people to look at these matters in a dispassionate way for understandable reasons. Perhaps you saw my word "symmetry" and assumed I meant moral equivalence ? I meant symmetry in the RS. Please try to understand that I'm not giving my point of view on right and wrong here. I'm simply trying to follow our guidelines. I can tell you a little story about extrajudicial abductions for your interest. Many years ago I was detained without charge, transported across an international border to Iranian territory against my will, held for a few hours at gunpoint and interviewed by Iranian security people probably in breech of international law on suspicion of "spying" simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No harm done in my case and it sounds much worse than it was in actuality but it has left me with quite strong views on these matters. You won't see me soapboxing about them or human rights or international law here though and to be honest I don't really think it's either right, reasonable, fair or constructive to describe what I wrote as soapboxing in the way you meant it. My interest is in the article not in the rights or wrongs of the I-P conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The time frame is Dec 27th 2008 - Jan 18 2009, and Shalit is relevant to the ceasefire. Nableezy (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I clearly disagree, Shalit name came up almost daily in media during Dec 27th 2008 - Jan 18 2009 on both sides of this conflict. Agree, Hamas had limited access to Xinhua during the same period. There are still quotes both in this article and discussion. So is there agreement on inclusion of proposed wording (hopefully neutral) supported by reliable sources? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there is clearly no agreement on any of this. And all you are saying is your own view, not supported by anything other than that. I am no longer arguing about what you think is right or wrong, bring something from a source to backup your statements. If you cannot bring a source that supports the idea that international law issues about Shalit are at all related to this conflict, stop arguing. Nableezy (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, This is well sourced neutral wording. Do you want additional to what we have in discussion and article sources? Don't you just love Internet technology?AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I dont really care if you disagree, not a single source has been brought that connects Shalit to this conflict besides the ceasefire. In that list of references you provided, not a single one was from the time frame of this conflict. You have more sources from 2006 than from this conflict. The only connection between Shalit and this conflict is the ceasefire. That is it. And no, the wording is not neutral, if you could find a source that connects the international law violations in this conflict with Shalit it would still need the Hamas response. Nableezy (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is already reliable secondary in article Psychological Tricks to Demoralize the Enemy. I also brought Israeli source. It is not a matter of "truce". This is war crime as should be mentioned in appropriate section in neutral wording. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The info from that source is in the psych warfare section, as that is what that source is talking about. Bring a source talking about international law violations and this conflict and Shalit. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree, this is war crime which was used as psych warfare during this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That is not what I said. If you read the source it talks about 'psychological warfare' by Hamas by saying that Shalit had been injured or killed by Israeli strikes. It does not call that a war crime. You keep trying to tie together multiple different things, 1; that Gilad Shalit being held captive without ICRC visitation is a war crime. 2; Israel has said that they want Shalit returned as a part of a ceasefire in this conflict, or Hamas has used psychological warfare by saying things about Shalit to the Israeli public during this conflict. You are combining 1 and 2 => 3; Shalit being held is a war crime as it relates to this conflict. 3 does not follow 1 and 2, 3 needs a source that relates Shalit being held and the international law concerns about that with this conflict. I am perfectly willing to include the information in the international law section if you can find a source that talks about violations of international law and this conflict and Shalit is mentioned. But that information would also contain the Hamas response to those accusations. I am not trying to cover anything up here, but you need to find a source relating Shalit to international law violations in this conflict to put it in that section. Nableezy (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, human right experts still call it war crime. Thus it should be mentioned in International law section. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they call it that, that information is in the Gilad Shalit article. If they say that it is a violation of international law as it relates to this conflict we can put into the international law section in the article on this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So, Nableezy, according to your interpretation of this conflict, there were no rockets that landed on S'derot, there were no kidnappings, no provocation by Hamas, no prior truces, etc. We should only have material about this conflict, since it only started on Decemember 27, 2008. I guess there is a lot of extraneous material in the article especially anything to do with Israel responding to any previous provocation whatsoever. But you don't see anything wrong with that, do you? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I never said any of that. In the international law section we have international law violations that have been brought up as it relates to this conflict. You apparently do not understand what I write, so before you put words in my mouth again kindly ask me what I said if you are confused. Nableezy (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can't see any of those things in what Nableezy has said. It's almost as if you have completely changed everything he said. That's seems unnecessary given that you have his words right in front of you. The points both Nableezy and I have made are pretty simple. Why is this becoming complicated ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The sad thing is all I have asked for is a source that relates international law violations in this conflict to Gilad Shalit. Why dont they just find that instead of going through all this? Instead of bringing a bunch of sources dealing with everything besides this conflict? As for why it is getting complicated, well there is the line from a dre song that answers that question quite nicely, but it could be taken the wrong way so ill leave that be. Nableezy (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy is defining this conflict from December 27, 2008 until now. He claims that "The time frame is Dec 27th 2008 - Jan 18 2009, and Shalit is relevant to the ceasefire." (and only the ceasefire, implied) That being the rationale for not including earlier references to Shalit, why would we have references in this article to the other things I mentioned, ie Hamas rockets into southern Israel, the earlier truces, the earlier closings of the crossing etc which didn't occur expressly within that period? This rationale doesn't hold water. Either we consider only those things that happened directly during this period, or we don't. We don't cherry-pick what is relevant and what is not according to our personal biases. There is much evidence that Shalit is relevant to this conflict. By choosing an arbitrary (and inaccurate, based on the title of this article) time frame, and then demanding all RS deal only within this timeframe (for particular subjects, ie Shalit), I believe is an effort to WP:CENSOR important material. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For somebody who objected to pictures because 'enough people hate Israel already, no need to make it any worse' to accuse me of censorship is retarded. Why dont you, instead of crying, find a fucking source that brings up Shalit as it relates to international law and this conflict? Why dont you actually read WP:CENSOR so you can stop pulling things out of your ass and put some policy next to it. Learn what the word censorship means and stop being disruptive. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
...and by my saying "if you want to talk about Shalit in the context of legal matters or other matters then you must also talk about captured/detained Palestinians because there really is genuine symmetry" in the RS I'm apparently advocating censorship via the inclusion of more information. Perhaps I've misunderstrood the term censorship. I suppose the black bars they place over censored bits of text or images could be considered to be additional information but it seems like a novel interpretation. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No Sean, that's unfair, since I already said that I was not against including captured or detained Gazans in this context. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Forgot about that. Apologies. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Brew, Agada...i can understand why Tundra has not made this edit, but for all this talking and chiming why neither of you two added the info on Shalit on ceasefire at the least already? what are you waiting for? Cerejota and Nableezy agreed that at the very least there should be ALREADY a mention of Shalit under Ceasefire. Are you guys waiting for Cerejota to add it? and on International law, why hasn't even a three word sentence added to it, for consideration at least? this talk page is not the article and you guys are doing a bad job of proselytizing anyone in here. identify your objections, submit a draft or compromise AND THEN DISCUSS their merits. it seems all you guys are good at is deleting and making the bad guys look bad. can we please stop beating the dead horse once someone has AGREED with you. are you guys waiting for 'someone' to do this knowing that trouble will be brewed? gosh. Cryptonio (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy added it in connection with ceasefire negotiations.
Tundrabuggy, the name of a Wikipedia article does not always completely specify the topic of the article. For example, there's a movie named "Earthquake", yet the Wikipedia article by that name is not about that movie. The topic of a Wikipedia article is usually specified in the first sentence of the article, sometimes in conjunction with hatnotes above it and occasionally with assistance from the rest of the first paragraph. Although the year 2008 is mentioned in the title of this article, the topic of this article is not events throughout the entire year 2008; rather, the topic is a set of events which occurred beginning December 27 and continuing into early 2009. Events earlier in the year can be mentioned if sources make a clear connection between those events and the topic of this article. From the above discussion it seems that no source has been brought forward that connects Shalit with this conflict other than in connection with ceasefire negotiations. One might think it's obvious that Shalit was a reason for the invasion, but someone else might not think it's obvious at all; and if it isn't stated in a source we can't say it. A source stating only that rescuing Shalit was not a direct goal is not, in my opinion, verification of a claim that it was a goal. We need to report what the sources actually say, not our own interpretations and conclusions based on them; see WP:NOR and in particular WP:SYN.
Tundrabuggy, please avoid misquoting other editors. Nableezy, please avoid words like "retarded" which seem to be commenting on editors rather than on article content. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't misquoting, Coppertwig, I was drawing the logical conclusion from his argument. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I said that the accusation was retarded not the editor. But I will try to avoid such terms. Nableezy (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like your whole Gaza/Hamas distinction. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, your analogy to the movie "Earthquake" is faulty for two reasons. 1)A movie is in no way related to a real earthquake, ie the information contained in one article has almost zero real relation to the other, and 2) there is a disambiguation page pointing to the movie from the earthquake page. Still, there appears to be a general consensus (which I am not part of) that agrees that the article is in fact about a discrete military operation by Israel while refusing to rename it as such. I consider this misleading to the reader, but I will not argue the case again unless someone else brings it up, or if it relates to a tangential issue, such as this one regarding Shalit. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Cats continue their merry run". ABC News. 2009-02-24. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
  2. ^ Summary of rocket fire and mortar shelling in 2008.
  3. ^ a b "POC_Monthly_Tables_October_2008" (PDF). OCHA-oPt. October 2008. Retrieved 2009-02-25.
  4. ^ Summary of rocket fire and mortar shelling in 2008.
  5. ^ http://www.mfa.gov.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_39&oldid=1255318970"