This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rocket attacks
If RS do not draw a link shuld we imply one? Yes the attacks declined but there may have been reasons for this unrelated to the conflict.????
Lead
Israel's stated goal was to stop rocket fire into Israel: Not found in source Reuters (describes only part of the timeline).
and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip: Not found in sources.
I propose to replace the sentence by:
"Israel's stated goal was to stop attacks from Gaza on Israel. It argued that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. An argument rejected by the UN Fact Finding Mission, who investigate alleged violations of international law during the Gaza War."<ref name="guardian.co.uk">
--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I, for one, oppose your proposal. Firstly I'm not sure why you are changing "rocket fire" to attacks." The weapons smuggling was sourced but now the link is dead. A new source must be found and it should be not difficult. Your essay-like proposal for the second sentence is wholly inappropriate for a second sentence of a WP:LEAD let alone for any part of the article. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problem at all to keep "rocket fire" instead of the more compact "attacks". The Guardian perfectly cites the Israeli key arguments, so I also propose to add to the source the quote: "The inquiry rejected Israel's argument that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. Instead, it found the war was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population".". Rejecting the source by calling it essay-like is very cheap arguing. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- To include such "inquiry" in the lead (furthermore with those words, which are not mainstream opinion... the objective was to "humiliate, terrorize"?? are you kidding me or what?) is blatant and obvious POV-pushing. Take a time to read weight, label, lead and NPOV more carefully. This is a serious encyclopedia, not your personal blog.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Should Operation Protective Edge be added to the top with Operation Pillar of Defense in the "For..." section? - Galatz (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
AmirSurfLera's revert
The text reverted by AmirSurfLera: [1] is not directly related to this war. Following AmirSurfLera's argument, all Gaza incidents should be added here. Everything in the conflict is related. Furthermore, terrorism-info is an extremely unreliable source, and "Hamas' post-war policy of restraint has come under severe criticism from local radical Islamic organizations, which accused Hamas of abandoning the principle of jihad to strengthen its control over the Gaza Strip" does not make any sense here. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is directly related to this article. The source (from 2009!) explains that Hamas restrained its activities as a consequence of this war, therefore drawing criticism from more radical organizations (Islamic Jihad and others). Read the source before deleting entire paragraphs.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Hamas restraint was simply part of the ceasefire, not an aftermath event and not notable. A meaningless statement on an IDF propaganda website, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, about criticism on Hamas, is also not an aftermath event and not notable. Also a meaningless statement of Hamas in which they promise to stay in uniform in the future is not an aftermath event and not notable, especially not in the main article about this Gaza assault. Keep bluffing! --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, read the source instead of wasting my time. Hamas's policy of restraint came under severe criticism from radical Islamic organizations (such as the Islamic Liberation Party) and local groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the global jihad, precisely because they reduced the firing of rockets. The ceasefire was a direct consequence of this war. You can also notice that Hamas reduced its rocket attacks after this operation (from 2,048 rockets in 2008 to 160 in 2009 after Cast Lead). Besides, you also removed important content supported by newspapers like BBC, CBS, Xinhua and Maan News. Finally, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is much more reliable and serious than the Journal of Palestine Studies, the Socialist Worker, Vanity Fair, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Jazeera, Amnesty International, "Studies on the Israeli Aggression on Gaza Strip: Cast Lead Operation" and many other Pallywood propaganda websites in this and other articles about the conflict.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, the ceasefire, was not an aftermath event. As was the reduction of rocket attacks, especially when the same source continues with telling that "the terrorist organizations continue attacking IDF patrols and civilians near the border fence". Apparently little changed. The ceasefire is described in detail in a separate section. Still less an aftermath event was a simple statement about Islamic organizations on this IDF propaganda website. How is criticism on Hamas notable in this article? It has no importance at all. Terrorism-info is a pure hasbara organization and as such an unreliable source.
Why accuse me of removing important content while providing a link that proves just the opposite?May be I overlooked it because of the mouseover gadget. It is very clear that the Egypt item has nothing to do with the Gaza assault.
- I can't see how a policy enacted as a result of the War should not be included in the Aftermath section. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
sources
Sources that are real are not fake. perhaps you should explain why you think this http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE50423320090105 was a fake source?Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- As explained above, this source is fake because it does not contain the statement. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- IN that case an accurate edit summery would have helped. You are saying not that the source if fake, but that it does not support the statement. That is not the same thing.
- “January 5 - Twelve civilians are killed as ground combat rages with the Palestinian death toll at least 524. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak says offensive will continue until communities in Israel are safe from Hamas rocket strikes.”
- So whilst it does not say “that is Israel’s stated goal” it does say that the reason for the fighting is to make Israel safe from rocket attacks. It can certainly be read as Barak saying that their goal is to prevent rocket fire. IO really am not understanding why you are so opposed to this source.
- If you really have this much issue with it take to the RS noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
A very simple modification of lede
WP attracts people who would argue with a rock if they had a chance so I expect heated debate of the simple ommission of the chara cterization of the name Operation Cast Lead as "Israeli". The name was used by English language journalists all over the world. You might also call "the New York Times name".
Nobody is going to read this article at this length except for people who have already made up their minds unless we can follow a more concise rule.
The characterization is also somewhat POV and perjorative. Perhaps calling it OCL is, too, but why not just keep it short and simple and lett he reader decide for themselves,
I am betting my pal $10 this simple change incites outraged opposition. But I am just keeping it simple not necessarily taking a side. See Occam's Razor. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Though I am against the use of military code names as title in general and prefer a reference to the 2008/2009 period, I see this as an exception due to the high ambiguity of "Gaza War". OCL has definitely become a common name. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Devilishlyhandsome. You failed to rationalize your removal of "known in the Arab world" from the Gaza Massacre name. I think this is not trivial and should be re-added as per the cited sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Operation name
Aviados, you seem not to get the point about the name Operation Cast Lead. It is not about the etymology of the word. It is about the cynical use of it, refering to the "lead" casted out over the Gazan population. Making an innocent reference to a celebration makes it still more cynical and hypocritical. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wickey-nl, I'm afraid it is you who does not get the point about the name. *Of course* the name may have several aspects, some of which you may call "cynical", or in any case a word play. However, its basic meaning should undoubtedly be explained (which, much to my surprise, was not the case until now).
- I shall quote from the English-language source I have given (which is nothing if not critical):
- The war-normalizing name Operation Cast Lead [...] carried several connotations to Jewish culture with the key overall connotation being the holiday of Hanukkah. It is important to note that most of these connotations are lost in the English name, thus a detailed discussion of the Hebrew name may be useful for the non-Hebrew speaker. (Gavriely-Nuri, Dalia (2013). “Operation Cast Lead.” The Normalization of War in Israeli Discourse, 1967-2008. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. pp. 42–43)
- The authour – a senior lecturer and a research fellow in the Department of Politics and Communication at Hadassah Academic College and at the Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, respectively, and whose main research area is Peace and War Discourse – goes on to explain it in detail. If you wish to add information to it, based on sources like this study, you are welcome. However, objecting the mere explaining of the operation's name is an absurdity. Aviados (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Image
This photo of a stack of scrap from an unreliable source could have been made anytime, anywhere. Found in a mosque? It clearly are not weapons. This violates WP:SOURCE. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do we usually consider military spokesperson units unreliable sources? Are all government spokespersons unreliable, in your opinion?
- And what is the basis for the claim that Qassam rockets "are not weapons"? Aviados (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, military spokespersons in general are pathological liars. They are not government spokespersons, although these usually also lie. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- This photo shows at best remains of what once were Qassam rockets. Unknown where and when found. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting approach, determining that information provided by official spokespersons is probably a lie. Is it grounded in any guidelines, or is it just your personal point of view?
- Qassam rockets are seen in the images. You *suggest* that these aren't but "remains of what once were Qassam rockets". That's an original research. Aviados (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Government statements are notable primary sources that can be included if attributed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The hollow phrase of Brewcrewer, I do not regard as an explanation. Instead, your suggestion that Qassam rockets are shown is original research. You failed to adress any of my objections. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's less of an original research than to claim that what is shown is "a stack of scrap" or "an exposition of old metal". But of course, we should avoid original research, on either side; that means we are to stick to the source, according to which what is shown in the image are weapons. Aviados (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The image itself proves it is an unreliable source. The accompanying comment speaks volumes. Yet, I gave enough other arguments to delete this picture. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Only silly Israelis and Americans believe that the IDF as a fighting party is a reliable source. Apparently, there are editors among those believers here. The image is clearly for propaganda, both on Flickr and in the article. WP:SOURCE is enough for deletion. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- there are images in there from the ISM, which is not neutral, not a reliable source. Why are you not removing those? This kind of one-sided editing is disruptive. at leats 4 editors have reverted you yon this issue - stop edit warring over it. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- As a mouth-piece of other editors, you are confusing neutral and reliable. Unlike IDF, ISM is not a party that takes part in the hostilities and is not known for systematic lying. There is no evidence at all that ISM is an unreliable source. Moreover, we are talking about an IDF image. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
RfC: IDF image
This request is about the question isued above.
The IDF image, in my view, is placed in the article for propaganda only. It not only violates WP:SOURCE, but also WP:NPOV. My theses are:
- The image is used for propaganda and does not serve explanation of the article
- Date, time and place of the image, and the persons who collected the materials are not verifiable
- The IDF as a party that takes part in the hostilities in general is not a reliable source
Wickey-nl (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
History
- 4 July 2014 [2] Wickey-nl's first removal
- 4 July 2014 [3] reverted by User:Shezor Sajur, almost certain a sock, edit accepted by Brewcrewer
- 6 July 2014 [4] Wickey-nl's first revert, to force discussion on talkpage
- 6 July 2014 [5] reverted by Aviados
- 7 July 2014 [6] Wickey-nl's second revert, to force discussion on talkpage
- 7 July 2014 [7] reverted by Aviados
Until Wickey-nl's third revert on 10 July 2014, there was no response on the talkpage but by Brewcrewer, with a reaction that was not to the point, and from Aviados, who ignored my arguments.