Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

interesting article

from IDC Herzliya: Hamas seeks new doctrine after Gaza War failures. Havn't decided what to do with it yet, but at least it is worthy archiving it here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

casualties

Under “Casualties” I deleted the last sentence, “Hamas claimed that it lost 48 of its fighters and that at least 80 IDF soldiers were killed” since the claim had already been stated in the first paragraph of this particular section. Repeat of the same claim or sentence is redundant and serves no purpose.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also added the following: "IDF figures were reinforced by a report from the Israeli based Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), which stated that at least 1,000 of the Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip were Hamas combatants or suspected of being combatants.”

The section cites B'stelem's findings so it was important to add the findings of an NGO with a different perspective.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

B'tselem actually investigated the casualties, the ITC reported on another groups investigation saying they were basing it off of the PCHR list. The ICT report is disputing the findings of the PCHR report, and it is already included in the "Disputed figures" subsection. nableezy - 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

in the breakdown of the number of Palestinians killed from birth until the age of 18, the ratio of males to females increased dramatically as the age increased. Thus, B'Tselem found that 33 males and 27 females were killed up to the age of six (1.2 male/female ratio) compared with 26 males and 4 females between the ages of 17 and 18 (6.5 male/female ratio.) The authors concluded that "the findings suggest that a very large number of the 153 males, aged 11 to 18, could have been involved in, drawn into or exposed to combatant situations either as shields, fighters, circumstantial helpers, sporadic helpers or accidental bystanders." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting but a gender/age casualty distribution like that could be consistent with sampling skew caused by cultural factors that may influence differing levels of exposure of girls vs boys of various ages in an urban combat environment because of differing roles and responsibilities within the family. Preferential targeting of males as a function of age is also consistent with the results if the weapons systems used had high resolution targeting systems. There are many ways to interpret those results but without empirical evidence to support a particular interpretation it's difficult to assess their relative merits. Consequently, in my view, interpretations should be treated with caution. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

you know, the numbers seem strange. i checked out my excel file where i put PCHR data. there are 11 girls aged 16-17 and 68 boys aged 16-17. i am quite sure this could not be attributed to 'sampling skew', because for ages younger than 12, the approx. 1:1 ratio is very consistent (while the absolute numbers are around 5-10 dead for each age). i agree that speculations must be dealt with caution, but you can't rule out the possibility that majority of these boys contributed to military effort of armed groups in Gaza. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you pay some attention to the cultural factors, already mentioned above. Without making sterotypes, I think its fair to say that in many cultures, including the Arab culture, men are put into social roles that would be at greater risk. Again, not to make sweeping generalizations, but women have a tendency of staying at home, away from areas of commotion. In times of war, then, it would be male young adults who'd be expected to leave the safety of their homes in order to fetch food and medical supplies etc. From what I know of Arab culture, this responsibility certainly wouldn't fall on the shoulders of girls.VR _talk 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

'you can't rule out the possibility that majority of these boys contributed to military effort of armed groups in Gaza'. You can by carrying out field work, interviewing the witnesses and looking at the forensics just like a traffic accident or a crime scene. That is what has happened in very many cases and the results have been published. It's then possible to describe in this article what is known rather than speculate about what is not known. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Jiujitsu above the link for “Hamas claimed that it lost 48 of its fighters and that at least 80 IDF soldiers were killed” appears to be broken Plus "claim" is a word to be avoided is it not? RomaC (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

meanwhile i'll post 2 links with partial info, and later i'll check out my archive for Al-Jazeera article with all the numbers.

only 48 Hamas fighters killed

it lost just 48 fighters. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Abu Obeida claimed only 48 Hamas fighters were among the 1,300 Palestinians killed

According to Abu Obeida, no less than 80 (!) IDF soldiers were killed, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with the terrorists - unfortunately no independant link is currently available. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

strange name, strange activities

the one who calls himself Arabmaniac (sounds slightly offensive, don't you think) made some edits that are likely incompatible with our policies - i'm using this cautious language simply because i didn't look at all the edits done. so i ask (Nableezy or someone who can do it fast and easy) to make a damage assessment. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic I'm disappointed -- You say you didn't read the edits but even a cursory glance reveals the lot as childishly-written, grammatically-mangled, terribly misspelled and obviously inappropriate Israeli right-wing POV vandalism. Do you believe it falls to someone you regard as "pro-Palestinian" to revert this sort of thing? Respectfully, let's be pro-Wikipedia. RomaC (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

i said "all" the edits, didn't i? now seriously, the revert you did - did you revert in one edit all his edits or just the last one of his? i recall Nableezy at one point used some kind of s/w to take care of multiple edits at once and this is why i explicitly mentioned him - he's very good with this kind of things. i assure you that if the situation was reverse (like some left-wing pro-Arab vandalism) i would still ask him or anyone to do this because the only way i know is to revert them one-by-one. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I also don't know how to revert multiple edits from one editor, so what I did was go to the last version before his series of edits, open that for editing then save it. Then put what I'd done in my edit summary. But yeah I think there's a better way just don't know what it is. RomaC (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Navigation popups gadget in your prefs. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it looks like that crazy person is trying to help. Gaza masacre in the lead (especially that early without War in the South) being mentioned has always been contentious. Removing it without discussion is bad, though. Lead doesn't need that many sources per WP:LEAD. Hamas is better than Hams. Meh... reverting all and warning. Next time will be an easy block. We could probably request it now but I would rather be watching porn on my other window. Cptnono (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PMoH figures

How come the PMoH figures are not quoted in the infobox? When one sees that Israeli government figures are quoted, one would assume that figures found by the Palestinian ministry of Health, which has far greater access to info inside the Gaza Strip than Israel, would also be mentioned.VR _talk 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed unreliable source

Hi all. I just removed this link and the information sourced to it, that Tel Aviv and Haifa are more densely populated than Gaza. Mere Rhetoric is not an WP:RS. Please do not reinsert this information again without establishing its reliability. Tiamut^talk 09:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think which one is more dense means shit. Plenty of sources say that the theatre had a dense population so operations were challenging. Source those since it is related to the conflict and not editors (I actually think this one was spearheaded by Nab who is pretty great) poking around data sources unrelated to the conflict. Low priority since it is worded fine but a little bit of ref clean up could help. Principle, navigation to related research, and aesthetics... nothing more.Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The UN report found the density of the population of Gaza to be relevant. It mention it multiple time, once in this content: "The Government's statement that "civilian populations inevitably and tragically suffer during a time of armed combat, particularly where the combat operations take place in densely populated urban areas”668 may be correct, but this does not relieve Israel from its obligations under international humanitarian law." I think its inclusion is relevant and important. I'm not sure I understood your comment though, so if you care to elaborate, I'm all ears. Tiamut^talk 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to read what I said? It is relevant but the sources could be better, FFS. To elaborate, we don't need two human rights reports when 1 source will do and we certainly don't need an extra line of commentary asserting the fact when a line discussing why it is important will do. Also, you can look at those sources all you want but if you bothered to look at the military aspect you would see that it is stated without so much whining.Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I did read what you said and I explained "I'm not sure I understood your comment though." So I don't really understand your apparent impatience with me. I don't think its "whining" to mention one of the salient facts about the Gaza Strip. I believe we have discussed this before a number of times and many sources were provided attesting to its relevance in the background section. I'm quite intimately familiar with the contents of the article, thank you very much. Perhaps you might consider being a little more polite with people who are trying to understand your position? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I cam across bitey. The line was added when editors were going back and forth over every little thing to prove a point. In the hub bub it was asserted that yes, Gaza is packed. Unfortunately, implications and links to sources were made but it wasn't spelled out. The prominence of sources pointing to human rights organizations while disregarding other aspects (although the press had a field day so it is hard not to) comes across whiney not this particular edit or source.Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Its okay, sorry if I can off as oversensitive. I think I understand what you are trying to say. I've modified your addition slightly (I removed part of the sentence about being forced to adopt other tactics (didn't see it in the source cited) summarizing it more as "posing tactical challenges to Israeli forces". I also restored the numbers related to population density. I hope the modifications meet with your approval. Tiamut^talk 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit conflict resulted in me switching it within seconds. Adjusted the wording instead of your revert. All meanness aside. Let me know and I will slap more inline citations in but I am trying to minimize the numerous cites used for a single line here. I removed the CIA stuff since it doesn't matter. It can stay in if needed but thought it would be good to remove the clutter.Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, hi there. I didn't "revert" as you accuse me in that edit. I restored the factual information you deleted and married it to what you added that was supported by the source you added. I do want to see other sources that support the wording you chose. I don't know why you reverted to restore your addition as is, changing only one word, after I objected to the aclk of sourcing supporting your formulation. I'd appreciate it if you would self-revert and discuss here. Or if you would supply the sources that support what you added and restore the CIA factbook info. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit at 10:36, 17 September 2009 looked like a revert from the edit differences.

Roma wants to talk: I think it looked fine as it was event though it was in the completely wrong section. It was worded per the sources (I can add more) and if the reader wants to look up the data they can click on the wikilink that was preserved. It states that both the IDF and HR observers were concerned by the pop density. What's the problem? The line is only in there to imply that Israel was to stomp around killing innocents. there is absolutely 0 reason to mention ref the HR groups and not military except to imply that Israel is bad. I would move moving this to the lead with a modification of my edit that clearly lays out the facts. In case you missed it:

The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It among the most densely populated places on earth. Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers.

Cptnono (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like RomaC reinstated the longstanding version and has opened a section for discussion below. I think your edits were problematic for a number of reasons, which I stated above. We can continue discussing below to gain consensus on what to modify and how. Tiamut

I think it is the upgrade but those edits should have conflicted. Regardless, my proposal is up above. Screw the longstanding version since it sucked.Cptnono (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, its being discussed below, where your proposed version has been pasted beside the longstanding version so that people can compare and discuss. I urge to participate in the discussion there. Tiamut^talk 11:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

background

Agada recently changed the long-standing text that was painfully fought over somewhere in the archives from

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis, including both civilians and IDF personnel, were killed and 1,509 were injured by Palestinians in "direct conflict" related incidents in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. During the same period 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed and 8,308 were wounded by Israelis in "direct conflict" incidents.

to

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in "direct conflict" related incidents and 1,509 were injured. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents.

His last edit summary said that "Both civilian and security forces" is redundant. I would like an explanation as to how that is possibly redundant. I wouldnt mind including the indirect attacks, but I felt that it was best to only include things that OCHA said were undeniably a part of the overall conflict. The internal violence though is wholly irrelevant to the section. It being included in a report on total casualties over the past 3 years in no way makes it relevant to the Gaza War. An explanation as to how it is would be appreciated. nableezy - 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

nableezy, please read the verbose commit logs, there are explanations to all the questions you have raised. I'd appreciate if you self-revert, to fix WP:3RR violation. Let's be calm. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The OCHA report include "Physical protection" statistics – concerns incidents where there were casualties. These include deaths and injuries in Palestinian, Israeli and foreign nationals who were killed or injured in the occupied Palestinian territories or in Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2. Despite you POV, OCHA regard "internal violence" as relevant to "Physical protection", OCHA report explain that "internal violence" category includes casualties caused by factional violence or family feuding, internal demonstrations (that are linked to the conflict/occupation) and shooting of alleged collaborators with Israel.

3. According to report Israelis, generally could be either civilian or member of security force (such as Israeli police). Likewise Palestinians, generally, could be civilian or members of Palestinian militant groups.

By your questions, I have a feeling that you have not read the source. Hope your concerns are satisfied. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but not necessarily related to the Gaza War, which is the topic of this article. It is relevant to the overall conflict, but how is it relevant to this conflict? As to point 3, you are right, Palestinian and Israelis are either civilians or member of security/militant forces. Why would we not make clear that we are talking about both when discussing these casualties? And it is odd for you to say I did not read the source as I was the one who found this source and entered the original information a long time ago. The OCHA report covers more than we need to in the background. Not everything that they cover is relevant to this conflict. We needed numbers on how many of each side were killed or injured by the other side in the years preceding this conflict and OCHA provides those numbers. It is not necessary to use every single thing that they list in the report, only what is actually relevant to this conflict. nableezy - 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This report brings statics of incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Not relevant to Gaza War specifically. If we include casualties statistics from this report, we should include it as-is if we like it or not. Casualties of conflict are casualties of conflict. All have red blood. And I'm not saying we have to include this report, which I agree is only "slightly" relevant to Gaza War. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But how is it relevant to this page? You and I clearly do not agree on this, suggest we wait for others to speak up. Others, please speak up. nableezy - 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree the source, which talks generally about incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, might be not relevant to this article. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate if you self-revert, to fix WP:3RR violation. Let's act as Wiki gentleman. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3 revert rule, though if you wish to report me feel free. Either way, you shouldnt be repeatedly reinserting the same edit after it has been reverted with a pointer to the talk page. I suggest you leave the long-standing consensus based text in until we have some other people comment. nableezy - 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada why should Nab "self-revert"? You changed a long-standing section on the article, not he. Now, the edit you are trying to add is confusing, as it introduces a number of subsets and distinctions not present in the clear and concise version that served the article well for many months. Let's be reasonable. RomaC (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

@RomaC, it's so easy to support edit warring. Did you read the OCHA source and arguments of this discussion or just geo-locating my IP is enough to enter this discussion? Could you clarify, do you still stand by your suggestion that an Israeli WP editor should get his/her hands off articles that "have anything to do with Israel"? Thank you for such an enlightening 3rd party pro-Wiki opinion. Sorry, I'm not impressed. In the end Wikipedia is changing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If we include casualties statistics from this report, we should include it as-is if we like it or not. Casualties of conflict are casualties of conflict. All have red blood. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how internal conflict casualties are relevant to the background of this conflict? Can you explain why we would need to use everything in a single source? nableezy - 07:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between how they were killed and Agadas's edits are welcome. Claiming that its no good because it changes "long standing text" kinda goes against whet we're all about here at WP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am claiming it is no good because it removes some relevant information and adds other unrelated information. I am saying leave in the current (before your revert) text because it is the current consensus. And your revert is also against consensus. nableezy - 08:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

@brew, 10x for kind words.

@nab, I'm not following you. Could you elaborate:

1. Which relevant info is removed? What new info is added by saying both civilian and security/militant forces? Would not just saying Israelis and Palestinians, like report does, is enough?

2. Which unrelated ( to what ? ) data is added. Do you disagree with OCHA analysis that those casualties related to conflict/occupation? On what do you base your opinion about casualties distinction in relevancy/relatedness?

Generally, I'd like to satisfy all editors concerns. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The report actually does explicitly say it includes militants and Israeli security forces, defining them as "all member of the Armed Forces, the Border Police, and the Police". The report also includes the number of children killed separated from the rest, should we also include that? The report includes a lot of detail that is relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page but is not relevant as background to 'this' page. Not everything a source writes needs to be included. Can you explain how this is relevant background to this conflict? nableezy - 18:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But since the two of apparently feel everything in the report should be mentioned I'll be adding the number of Palestinian and Israeli children killed in the years before the conflict shortly. nableezy - 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you cant have it both ways, you cant say "this information is in the report so it goes in" and then try to keep out other information in the report. OCHA specifically reported on the number of children, so following your logic above why are you removing that? nableezy - 13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, this disagreement began when you replaced long-standing, clear and concise content with selected data that introduced a number of subsets and distinctions, arguing that because that data was in the report it should also be in the article. (We should "include casualties statistics from this report ... as-is if we like it or not", you wrote above.) Now, another editor has done just this, and you are reverting them. For the sake of consistency, I will revert, although I believe the original text was better. Don't you think? RomaC (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the original was clear, concise and better. But if there is an insistence to include things from the report just because they are in the report this should also be included. nableezy - 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice indeed. Love it :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So why are you reverting it? nableezy - 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Was the reason for your changes the articles my feelings? Whatever... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. But no, I did not add anything to the article because of your feelings. nableezy - 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont change your comment after it has been replied to. The reason for the change I made was that you and brewcrewer were able to editwar in the idea that everything in the report should be included. Your words were we should include the info from the report "as-is if we like it or not". So I did that. What is the reason for you to go back on that now? nableezy - 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears there is a consensus to return to the original comparative data text, doing so. RomaC (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really original, which substituted "direct hostilities" by "other side attacks". Let's not censor info about span and origins of Palestinian casualties of the conflict. Still agree with Nab, the source is only "slightly" relevant to the Gaza War.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt agreeing with me and you are combining numbers the source doesnt combine in your edit, and taking out qualifications that the source uses. nableezy - 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And there clearly is not consensus for that edit Agada, why do you keep making it? nableezy - 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not productive. Agada your edits and the long additions that resulted were discussed and a return to the original text supported (you posted "Nice indeed. Love it.") But then you changed your Talk comments, and now a few days later you are back making the same sort of edits, which makes other editors respond with reversions. Could you either leave this as is or take your arguments to RfC? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You kind of have strange way to form a consensus. The OCHA report include Physical protection statistics – concerns incidents where there were casualties. These include deaths and injuries in Palestinian, Israeli and foreign nationals who were killed or injured in the occupied Palestinian territories or in Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you disagree with OCHA analysis that those casualties stats (you are removing) related to conflict/occupation? On what do you base your opinion about casualties distinction in relevancy/relatedness? I'll have sporadic Internet connectivity this week, hope you could address this question for consensus sake. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way why did you remove the information on children killed? That is also in the "OCHA analysis that those casualties stats (you are removing) related to conflict/occupation". We dont have to include everything that is in the report, just what is relevant to this conflict. If you want to include all these things that is fine, but dont combine numbers like from "indirect conflict" with "internal violence". And include the parts of the report you dont like, such as the casualty counts for children. nableezy - 05:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet access at last. Let's not pour gasoline on the fire. I'm not sure where I combined "indirect conflict" with "internal violence", though I did aggregate together numbers of "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents to improve the readability. Any objection there? I have no objections to your additions as long as it's not motivated and reasoned by other editors feelings. So if you think breakdown by adults vs. children Physical protection statistics worth mentioning, get serious reasoning to support the change. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is objection to combining stats the source does not combine. And "get serious reasoning to support the change"????? It is the exact same reasoning you are trying to use, are you now saying that is not "serious reasoning"? nableezy - 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing civilians and armed forces on both sides, since it does not provide any additional info without breakdown. I think one ref tag is enough, the first one is redundant. The best way to display 5 categories is table and it's what OCHA source does. Since we use sentences with words we should summarize the source without distortion, the curious reader can always read the source for all the details. If you still think we need to break numbers for all 5 categories, I will not object for such change. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It does provide additional info, it makes it clear that it includes both civilians and military personnel. And again, there is no consensus for your edit, stop trying to force it in. nableezy - 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you reverting without addressing my question about Physical protection. I call it forcing. In my eyes current wording distorts the source. According to OCHA Israeli Police are not considered civilians so current wording is not accurate. Maybe we could say that there were civilian casualties on both sides?AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What about saying "civilians and military personnel" "distorts the source"? And why is it needed to give the name of the report in the text? These sentences:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs physical protection statistics of casualties in Palestinian territories or in Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in "direct conflict" related incidents and 1,509 were injured. During this time, 1,735 Palestinians were killed and 8,308 wounded in "direct conflict" related incidents. There were civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict.

are terribly written. It is both confused and confusing. I am restoring the original text and ask that you make suggestions here and try to gain consensus for your changes. nableezy - 22:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

IDF is not the same as Israeli Police. "Physical protection" statistics are being distorted. I don't mind you fixing my broken English. Just reverting is not constructive. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs physical protection statistics of casualties between years 2005 and 2008 in Palestinian territories and Israel in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there were 116 Israelis killed and 1,509 were injured in "direct conflict" related incidents. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents. There were civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed IDF personnel to "Israeli security forces" which is the wording the source uses. That clears up one issue. Multiple users have already taken issue with your including the other casualties and with your combining those that the source does not. Also why do you want to include these casualties and not the children. Your reasoning has been it is in the source so it should be included. So are the stats on children. Why not include that too? nableezy - 23:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing IDF bs. Let's deal with completeness of physical protection statistics and discuss additional statistical break-down of types of human beings later. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents" and 1,509 were injured. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents. There were civilian (including children) casualties on both sides of the conflict.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is like you are not paying attention to a single thing anybody says. Why are you combining "disputed" "reckless handling" and "internal violence". Why are you not including the numbers on children. And why are making a confusing mess of a simple set of sentences? And why do you keep trying to push it into the article? nableezy - 06:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey man it took you week to get the IDF bs I explained number of times. HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DEAD CHILDREN INCLUSION. Stop screaming about it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada again there is no support here for your edits and the reasons have been explained above in detail, yet you persist in pushing them into the article. Also, please remain civil, CAPS can be regarded as rude and are at least ironic when followed by "Stop screaming". Have you considered a RfC? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably missed in details explanations. Please enlighten me. Could you explain why we should exclude some Physical protection statistics and on which basis? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

249 is a signifigant number. I see the concern being mentioning the explosives screw ups and not the several other reasons mentioned, though. There is nothing wrong with saying x amount of people died during the conflict leading up to this conflict. The concern is pointing out explosives and not the other reasoning makes Gaza look like they had it coming. When some of it was factional violence related to the conflict. That being said, there is nothing wrong with saying a signifigant number of people died due to the conflicts but it wasn't Israel pulling the trigger. This should get further expansion in the main article regarding the background and a quick line without """""""" everywhere might work.

I also don't see why we are mentioning kids at all. It reads like it is in only included to assert who the bad guy is. I'm cynical but "some kids died on both sides" seems silly and doesn't provide any informaiton that improves the article. Of course kids died. People are starving or getting explosives dropped into their living rooms.Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to include everything as Agada is trying to certainly the numbers on children should be included. It was covered in depth during this conflict the number of children killed, it would certainly be relevant to get numbers on the past in the background. But Agada is not just doing that, he is also combining numbers that are not related. "Internal conflict" has nothing to do with "disputed" events or with "reckless handling of explosives". And two of those have nothing to do with this conflict at all. nableezy - 18:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob, Nab, go ahead. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And "internal violence" stats while being related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (according to OCHA report) are not combined with other categories, so I'm not sure why you repeat this nonsense. BTW if you want to provide detailed breakdown of all 5 categories of physical protection casualties of OCHA report, I don't mind, I told it in the past. Though agree with Cptnono, the attitude of "ah in this case I'm going to add kids stats" is strange at least. Anyway peace man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, wtf? Why are warring this in? Multiple users have objected and you just keep going. Fine, will be including them broken down and with the children. nableezy - 22:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The section was clear, concise and neutral; now it's bloated, confusing and POV. Persistence shouldn't trump policy but apparently some people value advocacy over editing. Ridiculous, so now let's have even more additions. RomaC (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Replacing IDF-sourced background info that only covered Pal. rockets with UN/HRW figures covering both Gaza rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli shelling of Gaza. RomaC (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... children multiplied by too many. We are not seriousley considering adding that many lines about children while disregarding women, elderly, men, midgets, Capricorns, etc, right? What is wrong with being broad (x amount of palestinians died doing y).Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(bloat)

As Cptnono notes, yes there are a hell of a lot of numbers being crammed into this section after recent editing.

To reduce bloat, consider the current text:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed and 1,509 were injured in "direct conflict" related incidents in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, including civilians and Israeli security forces. During the same period 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents. 128 Palestinians were killed in "indirect conflict" incidents, 20 in "disputed" incidents, and 101 in "reckless handling of explosives", as well as at least 749 in "internal violence".[44] Over the same period of time 302 Palestinian children were killed in "direct conflict" related incidents, with 11 killed in "disputed" incidents, 29 in "indirect" incidents, 51 in "internal violence" and 7 due to "reckless handling of explosives". During that time period 11 Israeli children were killed in "direct conflict" incidents and 1 in an "indirect conflict" incident.[44] The number of Palestinian children killed in 2006 may be under-reported.[44] From 2007 to October 2008 743 Palestinian children were injured in "direct conflict" incidents, 20 in "disputed" incidents, 44 in "indirect conflict" incidents, 61 in "internal conflict" and 44 due to "reckless handling of explosives". Over that same period 14 Israeli children were injured in "direct conflict" related incidents.

could we reduce it to something like this:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed and 1,509 were injured in "direct conflict" related incidents. During the same period 1,735 Palestinians were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents.

or this, which was the original:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis, including both civilians and IDF personnel, were killed and 1,509 were injured by Palestinians in "direct conflict" related incidents in both Israel and the Palestinian territories.[1] During the same period 1,735 Palestinians, including civilians and militants from various groups, were killed and 8,308 were wounded by Israelis in "direct conflict" incidents.

For brevity and readability I support the second option, myself. RomaC (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, seems you have not followed the discussion, Nab acknowledged that "IDF personal" does not reflect the source and fixed it. In addition Cptnono noted that "civilian/kids" part does not provide any info. You also are not accurate about "original". Could we also consider third option:

According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2005 and 2008 116 Israelis were killed in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in "direct conflict related incidents" and 1,509 were injured. During the same period 249 Palestinians were killed in "disputed", "indirect" and "reckless handling of explosives" incidents, 749 (figures may be "underreported" before May 2006) in "internal violence" incidents and 1,735 were killed and 8,308 were wounded in "direct conflict" incidents.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Cptnono, it adds information. But I also think the original is best, though I could see adding specifically "disputed" incidents as relevant. nableezy - 13:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The only parallel set of data is the concise and balanced "direct conflict incidents". If we look at for example "Indirect conflict incidents," we can see from the report that this messy classification includes "casualties resulting indirectly from the conflict and occupation of the oPt. They include casualties caused by Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), traffic incidents, “home made rockets” missing their target, deaths in prison, deaths from probable underlying medical conditions that occurred during military operations, or where access to medical care was denied." For this there are no corresponding Israeli stats. Also your proposal above is flawed as you are adding up three distinct categories to create a set of aggregate figures. This is synthesis and original research, as has been pointed out many times in the discussion. Finally, you've argued repeatedly for adding other data, basically saying that it is in the report therefore should be in the article; which is the same position other editors then took in adding data on children. Now we have bloat. Suggest we can be either inclusive or selective, but not selectively inclusive. RomaC (talk)

Your claim to "parallelism" is an original research, you're making distinction (selection) not present in the source. Quotes: These include deaths and injuries ... in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.' Moreover, the report explicitly clarify that irrelevant (to conflict) stats are out: Reports of casualties resulting from accidents, or from violence in the context of criminal activities are not included. The reality of conflict is asymmetrical. For instance report uses different terms for combatants. So it is not a big surprise that categories of casualties are specific to party involved in the conflict. Forcing the source to make symmetry between parties, where it's not present in the source ( and reality ) is not called balance. Please note that number of editors accepted significance of inclusion of all categories, technically your opinion is a minority one. Though it does not necessary mean that you're wrong. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are combining things that are not relevant to this article. This is not an article on the entirety of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and we are under no obligation to include everything that is in that source which contains a number of statistics such as the number of days curfew has been imposed in occupied territory. We do not need to include everything in the report. And if you feel that we do then why would you argue against including the number of children casualties in the article? OCHA also felt that to be relevant to their report. nableezy - 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't ge the concern here. x died in direct incidents while a couple hundred died due to noncombat related causes related to the conflcit.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why include the noncombat at all? Why not just have it the way it was with just the direct casualties? nableezy - 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that this is a background section best kept clear and concise. So why not: According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "direct conflict incidents" between 2005 and 2008 killed 116 Israelis and 1,735 Palestinians and injured 1,509 Israelis and 8,308 Palestinians. These figures carry an inline citation, and have not been disputed by any editors. All this elaboration is mostly creating obfuscation. RomaC (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume the edit was originally in to make a point ("this many died in combat ops but don't forget this many died from trying to make bombs"). I don't think the making bombs needs to be in specifically but a couple hundred is a significant percentage in my opinion so non combat related deaths might be worth mentioning. I don't know how to word it so it doesn't become more bloated but I know adding all of the info about kids and nothing else isn't the key.Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I see Cptnono's point here. The thing about all the other data in the report is that there is not just the bomb-making accidents, as has been pointed out there are also figures on children, on curfews, on traffic accidents and so on; as well as "disputed" death/injury figures which may or may not relate to the conflict at all. My point is that no editors are disputing the main, "direct conflict" figures, and that could be where we find our consensus. RomaC (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that the report used stupid terminology. A guy blowing himself up making a bomb or another getting killed for not siding with whatever faction is directly related. I view it as similar to a plane carrying troops going down due to a mechanical failure or internal violence in Italy during WWII. The source has some good numbers it looks like but they are catagorized funny. The "disputed" thing makes it even worse.Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the report does not specify who was killed by who, only the numbers on those killed, so even a suicide bomber was killed in a directly related incident. But again I favor either just the direct conflict numbers being included or if we have to include everything then include everything. Not just the parts Agada likes. nableezy - 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of flattered, but I do not think that my "wants" and "don't wants" should be an excuse for additions into the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to be flattered and I agree that what you want or like should not matter to the article. If you could kindly stop pushing in things because you like it without regard to consensus it would be appreciated. nableezy - 21:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid from personal attacks (pushing rhetoric). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote is not a personal attack, it is a simple description of your actions. It is not attacking you as a person. nableezy - 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You should assume good faith, you're making baseless allegations, instead of explaining strange argumentation of your additions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

read WP:AGF before citing it. nableezy - 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

archiving relevant publications to Goldstone report

A UN war crimes investigation into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza has found evidence that both sides committed "war crimes,".

Israel called the Goldstone Commission Report "nauseating" on Tuesday, saying it created an unjust "equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization" and lacked the context of a decade of terrorist attacks by Hamas.

Israel has argued the opposite, citing numerous examples when IDF soldiers risked their own lives to assist Palestinians in need of medical care. One case came on January 9, when the commander of the Golani Reconnaissance Battalion ceased operations and ordered his men to help load handicapped Palestinians into ambulances sent to evacuate them from Jabalya to Gaza City.

The authors summarize their findings: "The Mission investigated 11 incidents in which serious allegations of direct attacks with lethal outcome were made against civilians. There appears to have been no justifiable military objective pursued in any of them. (will check out later if this includes Abd Rabbo story). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The mission believed the Israeli military operation was "directed at the people of Gaza as a whole" to "punish" the population.

Hamas also adamantly denied allegations by human rights organizations that it had improperly used ambulances as a cover during the operation, or that it deliberately targeted civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The report, added the source, "Not only rewards terror it also encourages it... The defense establishment is gearing to give legal counsel to IDF officers and the proper legal and diplomatic steps are already underway in order to render this report invalid." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In Gaza, a spokesman for Hamas said it fired the rockets at Israel to try to defend itself. “We did not intentionally target civilians,” said Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas adviser. “We were targeting military bases, but the primitive weapons make mistakes.” But the report did not take a position on the number of Palestinian casualties, noting that they ranged from the Israeli government figure of 1,166 to the Hamas number of 1,444, without saying how many were civilians. (this link has more, it is just for archiving purposes).

Fair enough then, please continue with other sources but try not to copy/paste extracted copyright material to this page too much. One or two sentences at most or whatever the limit is. I forget but you should check about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

They said that Israel failed to take “all feasible precautions” in using white phosphorus shells in the attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza City on January 15 despite the presence of up to 700 civilians. It also criticised the use of white phosphorus in attacks on Al Quds and Al Wafa hospitals. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"I can vouch for the independence and the integrity of all the members of the mission," he said . --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel is correct that identifying combatants in a heavily populated area is difficult, and that Hamas fighters at times mixed and mingled with civilians. But that reality did not lift Israel’s obligation to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

amazing - Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch: "For example, we know Hamas has stored weapons in mosques, so when Israel targets a mosque, we don't scream war crime". Why didn't he share this knowlede with Goldstone? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

also amazing - Hamas says they were not targeting civilians, dubious perhaps, but not a single mention of this in the article. Meanwhile there are 417 words in the article asserting the (also possibly dubious) claim that Israel was not targeting civilians. Sceptic would you care to suggest some edits to address this imbalance? RomaC (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone Report

Following the paragraph dealing with Goldstone's report, I added views that were critical of his findings. It's important for the sake of balance and objectivity that views of a different perspective be presented. Someone took it upon himself to deliberately skew portions of the edit while deleting other relevant sections. If it is done again, I will revert and will continue to do so as the only motivation for this type sabotage appears to be bias. My edits were brief, well sourced, cross-referenced and extremely relevant.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Goldstone's report drew heavily on findings from Marc Galarsco, the recently disgraced military analyst who allegely covorted and interacted with Nazi sympathizers thus calling into question Goldstone's findings, particularly those dealing with military matters such as the use of various tactics, munitions and weapons employed by the IDF. Galarsco and his relations with Goldstone are fair game and germane to the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, it is not wise to call good-faith edits "sabotage" or to explicitly threaten to edit war. The section was badly skewed to the detractors viewpoints, one was replaced with a supporting viewpoint, of which there are many, to give due weight to those views. You are making no attempt to abide by WP:NPOV, a core policy. This article will not be turned into a platform for opinions that only one "side" supports. nableezy - 03:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine I've got no problem with Falk's viewpoint but Chinkin only heaped pre-goldstone-report condemnation on Israel and not Hamas. To suggest otherwise is not only misleading but false. In addition, as I stated in a well-reasoned explanation before, the issue surrounding the taint of Galarsco is fair game and its out there for everybody to see. Let the Wiki readers decide for themselves. What are you so afraid of, the truth? In the interest of compromise, I won't revert Falk's viewpoint but my initial edits which are, relevant and well-sourced stand.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, show me the source that says that Chinkin issued a pre-report condemnation of Hamas. You can't because no such source exists. You keep on slipping Hamas into the sentence and you compromise the integrity of the article by inserting facts that are false. Her pre-report condemnation focused exclusively on Israel. Plus, I also noted Goldstone's defense of her and his reasons for keeping her on so that his decision to retain her wouldn't seem completely arbitrary--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I "slipped it in" once as I didnt notice your revert of that part as well, I only saw the removal of what I replaced the Garlasco nonsense. As far as it being "fair game" there has not been a single substantial accusation that his findings were actually wrong, just condemnation for a hobby he has. That may seem relevant to you, but it is not to this article. The reports that Garlasco participated in were published by HRW, not Marc Garlasco. And those reports have not been retracted by HRW, nor have they been seriously challenged. Trying to coach in the current flavor of the day of the oh so reliable NGO Monitor crowd into this article is nonsense. It has no relation to the actual conflict and is only a sideshow. I apologize for blanket reverting all of your changes, but you reintroduced the issues of both due weight to detractors comments as well as overloading this article with information better suited elsewhere. These lines:

Critics also charged that the NGO Human Rights Watch played a central role in the formation of the UNHRC Mission and that Judge Goldstone, who was a member of HRW’s board, drew heavily on some of HRW’s findings, which were critical of Israel. Goldstone’s detractors point out that many of HRW’s reports were compiled by HRW’s military analyst, Marc Garlasco, who has been a harsh critic of Israel. On September 16, 2009 HRW suspended Garlasco after revelations of his alleged interaction with Nazi sympathizers.

do not belong in this article. It is wholly POV (calling Garlasco a "harsh critic of Israel", saying he has "alleged interaction with Nazi sympathizers") based on the source you are trying to cite but doing so incompletely which phrases these allegations in the more accurate Critics of Human Rights Watch have suggested that Garlasco's enthusiasm for Nazi-era badges and uniforms goes beyond historical interest and makes him a Nazi sympathizer or anti-Semite. and The analyst, Marc Garlasco, is a former Pentagon analyst who has worked on Human Rights Watch reports critical of the Israel Defense Forces, such as "Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.". That is both a WP:BLP violation as well as providing undue weight to the critics of the report. nableezy - 03:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit you are taking issue with is this by User:Dailycare. Again, I apologize for reverting that part of the edit, it was an oversight in looking at the complete diff of your edit. nableezy - 03:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the source you cite to allege that "critics of Goldstone point out" does not mention a criticism of Goldstone or the report a single time. I removed that. nableezy - 04:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

no problem. I won't object to your last set of edits and your apology is accepted and I too apologise for coming off harsh.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

if you dont object is there a reason you again inserted the following:

Moreover, the criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by disgraced Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco, who was suspended by his employer for interacting and cavorting with Nazi sympathizers.

As far as I can tell you are citing this source. You again included "interacting and cavorting with Nazi sympathizers" which is absolutely not supported by the source and is a WP:BLP violation. That source does not support the charge that Garlasco has "covorted with Nazi sympathizers". The source contains the following: On her blog, Just World News, Cobban notes that on Web sites where Garlasco contributed, he interacted with "people who clearly do seem to be Nazi sympathizers," and Critics of Human Rights Watch have suggested that Garlasco's enthusiasm for Nazi-era badges and uniforms goes beyond historical interest and makes him a Nazi sympathizer or anti-Semite. nableezy - 05:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I reworded it to avoid the BLP issues in that edit, but it still says much of the same thing. I dont think this is needed at all though, this is a trivial issue that has not raised any real issues with the actual report. But I wont remove it. nableezy - 06:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He did more than just collect Nazi memorabilia, he had a morbid facination with it. In one example, he discusses getting "shivers" just talking about an SS jacket and in another, he states that he would "kill" for some Nazi medal he was ogling over. His internet chat name when entering these Nazi chat rooms was "Flak 88." Could be an innocent reference to the famed German 88mm gun or something more sinister. The number 8 corresponds to the 8th letter of the alphabet which is "H" and 88 among naziphiles is code for "Heil Hitler." Hence the HH = 88. Since this is such an important issue that incriminates the IDF in its entirety, and the incriminating documents rested principally on reports compiled by a possible Nazi sympathizer, I would have liked to have seen the original language employed and allow the Wiki reader to decide for him/herself. However, I won't fight you on this and will leave the edit as is as I believe that you have the best interests of the article at heart.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a citation from the letter Chinkin co-signed: "We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks." So we can see what is "false" and what is not. I'll re-add "and Hamas" to the article with a link to the letter. --Dailycare (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Background section edits

The opening to this section,

"The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It is one of the most densely populated places on earth. According to the CIA Factbook as of July 2008, it holds a population of 1,500,202 on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi)."

was changed to

"The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It among the most densely populated places on earth. Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers."

Mindful that the long-standing version was settled after much discussion I hope we can address Cptnono's proposed edits here. My concern is that the phrasing frames intent vis a vis the assaults, where this could more appropriately be neutral background information. RomaC (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I share your concern. I also do not see which sources support the idea that Israel revised its tactics to minimize civilian and troops casualties. According to the UN report, the Israeli definition of the "supporting infrastructure" of Hamas basically amounted to the entire population of Gaza who were rather indiscriminately targeted. So I have major problems stating the Israel tried to minimize casualties in the background section when many many sources strongly disagree with that.

I remain supportive of the prior version, though I am willing to consider including mention of other things, that are balanced and well-sourced. Tiamut^talk 11:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Transparency and admittance to screwing up: I didn't realize it was the background section while making the edits. (I suck as bad as the previous version :) ) That being said, we can add it into the assault section with half a dozen sources describing Israel's claimed restraint and there definite adjustments of tactics + another mention in the background to drive home the point of how bad it was or we can put it in the lead where it touches on both aspects. The background section should still say that it is densely populated but it doesn't need several sources and it certainly doesn't need the CIA info since that was only there to finish the argument a few months ago.Cptnono (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see the usefulness of something along the lines of what you wrote in the assault section. Question though: "to minimize civilian and troop casualties" isn't this kind of vague? and seemingly paradoxical since steps to minimize troop casulaties often result in additional civilian casualties and vice versa. What source are you using for this?

About the CIA info, I'm for keeping it, because I like numbers and details, but I'm open to hearing other people's views on the subject. Tiamut^talk 11:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hell yes it is vague. That is the name of the game. I can add in the measures taken and start citing how it was compared to previous wars in sources discussing the actual conflict or it can be generalized which keeps down the bloat (see the previous conversation regarding splitting). I prefer not to go tit-for-tat but instead to present sources in a factual concise manner. The lead should stay short but this is madly important. Unintentionally, this discussion is about adjusting the lead which is one of the most important parts f the article for many readers. The Inl law section already goes into mad detail (even though it was split) on the concerns with the population density. An extra line in the Operaitons section was added about a month ago to address the pop concern bu it can be expanded if it is not clear.
• In regards to the CIA factbook. It is only in since Nab wanted to prove to others who are long gone (brats who just wanted to moan about who was right and who was wrong) that the area is populated and the human rights observers were concerned. The source does not discuss the topic and is yet another line that can go. If we got rid of the similar shit lines in this article we could actually focus on getting it raised in the assessment scale.
• Background: "The Gaza Strip is a densely populated strip and these are the problems associated with Israel" Operations: "Israel did x,y, and z" Lead: My proposal.Cptnono (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Slow down a second. You want to change the section in the background to omit the population and area details and you want to add the text you added to the background to the introduction now? That's a huge change. I think given that there are still problems with how the text is written, its not appropriate for the lead right now. It ascribes a tactical intention to Israel as fact that is contradicted by other sources. And upon reflection, I think the population and area figures are actually quite relevant. It helps the reader to know how many people live in Gaza and how big it is.

The most problematic part to me is Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties. Which sources are you using for this statement. It is said in Wikipedia's neutral voice as though it is a fact, when I believe that it is an Israeli claim. Just as the targeting of the entire population of Gaza is a UN claim regarding Israel's tactical behaviours and objectives and is atttributed to it, I think at the very least, we need to do the same here. But I'd appreciate you citing the statements you are using for this part of the sentence here first. Tiamut^talk 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I do to a certain xtent. I know it is a big change. That jerkoff mentioned the extra stuff about Tel Aviv and it got me to thinking that the stuff in there currently was done at a relativity early stage of this article and hasn't been improved upon. Since I did them already, I am fairly confident that the military based stuff have the sources and the appropriate lines so am not worried about tinkering with them for now. I would be happy to expand on them but I think they are OK (I'll double check before doing anything drastic, BTW). What I am worried about is the intention of the density line in the background being used to say "HEY, LOOK AT THESE SOURCES ABOUT DEAD BABIES... oh there are some other sources about the density somewhere else that you don't need to care about". The amount of detail and sourcing isn't appropriate. The reader can click on the wikilink and the need to have extra lines to prove points is over. If you take exception with minimizing civilian and troop casualties I would recommend striking out civilian (the focus on preventing IDF deaths is not disputed at all) and stating Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers." and then later going into further detail on the amount of precision strikes used. This would keep the claim that civilian casualties were minimized out of the lead while letting the numbers speak for themselves on the percentage of proper hits made and human rights observer's allegations speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how mentioning the population and area figures = screaming about dead babies. I believe that the relevance was reviewed in the previous discussion on the matter; i.e., these are facts that were included in many background reports by reliable sources. I can dig up the individual refs again if you like. I think there was that concern previously when there was also information about the number of people under 15 years of age, but that's no longer there now, so the inference you say is being made, is gone now.

I wouldn't mind adding to the intro a sentence about the revised Israeli tactics to reduce troops casualties. But I'd like to ask again if you can point me to what sources you are using to draw that conclusion because I'd like to see the information in context. Tiamut^talk 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? I finally figured out what the problem was "minimizing civilian casualties" and now you want to go further. Let me open another beer and see what I can find to get these sorted out. Off the top off my head, IDF commanders did not want to answer for the amount of shit they saw in Lebanon.You oculd read the article and google, too. BRB.Cptnono (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I do appreciate your openness to modify your proposals. The new sentence is not bad at all. I just wanted to do some more reading of things you are reading to write it. If you're not reading anything specifically about it and its just informed by your general knowledge, I'm sorry for troubling you.

I suggest you be bold and add your sentence to the introduction as proposed here. If someone has a problem, they'll either modify it or revert and we'll move back to discussion per the WP:BRD cycle. I don't think you should remove the pop and area figures again from the background though, until we here fromm more people. Cool? Tiamut^talk 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. How would it look if I called you out and you weren't able to do the same.

Prevention of dead IDF (striking out civilian should be done since that is so disputed)

• [1] (this is a PDF of a Washington Post piece)
• [2]
• [[3] my favorite lines include the "higher-intensity theaters" and "protected friendly forces and helped reduce unintentional targeting of Palestinian civilians."
• [4] (2 pages clicky. Dense does not show on a ctrl+f but asymmetric describes it close enough)
• There are a few more but this was a quick google search and off memory of sources already used in the article. I think there is also further info in the sources that are more critical of the tactics but limited my search. There is a great artillery one but I am not sire if that is included.Cptnono (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

About the population density in general:

• In Dense Gaza, Civilians Suffer] in The New York Times: "It has always been the case, over years of conflict here, that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security. But six days of Israeli airstrikes have surpassed previous operations in scale and intensity; the long-distance bombardment of the Hamas-controlled territory has, however well aimed at those suspected of being militants, splintered families and shattered homes in one of the most densely populated places on earth."
• Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation in The Guardian: "There has been reckless and disproportionate and in some cases indiscriminate use of force," said Donatella Rovera, an Amnesty investigator in Israel. "There has been the use of weaponry that shouldn't be used in densely populated areas because it's known that it will cause civilian fatalities and casualties."
• And there are many more. I've noticed not many mention the specific population and area figures, but they do stress the danger to civilians (like those above), while others stress that half the population is under 15. [5] I would consider dropping the pop and area figures to mention the impact on civilians or include a note on the youthful composition of the population. But I do like having the figures, because like I said, it gives some dry factual context about how many people live there in how big an area. Either way, I feel elaborating on population density in the background in one or all of these ways is appropriate. Tiamut^talk 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, thanks for the sources. I'll be reading them. Tiamut^talk 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the population density was a huge factor from all aspects. There is an interview I want to try to find again which was intersting (Basically another commander said: Screw the Palestinians no dead IDF boys). I could care less who looks bad since some people won't be satisfied (ie: moms of either fighter will be pissed). So can we get it in the lead where it belongs, kill the extra sentence and sources in the background, and stop being worried about every editor on this page having an agenda? To tell you the truth, Tiamut, you have made it perfectly clear that you are biased. That is OK as long as you remember that while editing and don't fuck up the mainsspace.14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Population figures and the area are usually mentioned in backgrounder sections to the conflict, like this on at at the BBC website. Tiamut^talk 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't be bad to settle down some and allow other editors to weigh in on the various proposals. RomaC (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm settled, but that was rather rude of Cptnono. I try to be conscious of my bias while editing. While I invite discussion on any specific edit I have made to an article that is perceived as having introduced POV, I'd prefer that he not use crude language to imply I am generally incapable of NPOV editing, due to my proudly announced loyalties. We all have them, I'm just more up front about mine than others, and I do have the ability to self-reflect when approached nicely. Tiamut^talk 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: this isn't a BBC website. If you want it included you need to find a source that makes the corralation. If you don't it is called synth and people should give you a hard time about it. That was typed in a friendly tone though, Roma, so don't worry about it. Drop the pride since I'm not impying you suck just saying we all have bias Tiamut.

And to you Roma, why is this page still this low on the assesment scale if it is that important to you. I've said it (go look at the archives): Garbage. We get closer and closer and the best way to fix it is to get stuff straight. If anyone thinks it is off they need to pipe up so it can get fixed and stop worrying about what news report got picked up by your chosen internet news site.Cptnono (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And don't make snide comments and get upset by fuck.Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Use "fuck" all you want. Just don't imply that I "fuck up" or could "fuck up" maninspace when we are discussing content together. It's distracting, rude and off-topic.

As for the rest, I'll let others comment since I've lost my taste for further discussion here. Tiamut^talk 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imply that you fucked up anyhting. I said don't fuck it up. Maybe this is why the guidelines ask us not to use terms like fuck since people read it wrong. So fine: I don't care if you are biased. Your edits have been primarily to demonize Israel come across in a pro Palestinaian fashion with disregard to other elements of the conflict. My edit have been to clear them. Bias is OK just don't fuck up the mainspace.Cptnono (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't accept that description and view it as a personal attack. Please do review my last 10 edits to this article. If you can point to one of them that was made so as to "demonize Israel", I'd be quite surprised. So, before removing myself from this discussion totally, I'd ask that you strike that last accusation here. I don't edit with that motivation at all - I edit to share information. Tiamut^talk 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned it on your talk page. Don't pretend you don't have a bias. You don't have to look far to see what your intention is since edit summaries in the last couple dozen say enough. Don't get pissed off. Your edits are just as biased as everyone elses. The difference is that your new to this article and I mentioned it.Cptnono (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I answered you on your talk page. So please strike the sentence Your edits have been primarily to demonize Israel or provide evidence for this false assertion. Otherwise I'm afraid I won't be able to let this go. Tiamut^talk 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

doneCptnono (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish you just would have stricken the sentence without adding the rephrasing which is still speculative, inaccurate, and off-topic, but whatever. Tiamut^talk 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

hey, my user page has local sports crap on it. You're the one with Palestinian girls and a flag. Take the criticism and change it or don't edit here.Cptnono (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm free to put whatever I want to on my user page, and you are free to comment about it on my talk page if you have a problem with it. You are not free to use what is on my user page as a way to malign my editing in mainspace on article talk pages. Now, if there is a specific edit I've made here that you think is POV that you would like to discuss, please do so. If there isn't, then you should stop talking about me and motivations because it has nothing to do with article improvement, which is what this article talk page is for. Tiamut^talk 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being offended and trying to save face on the article talk page you should take the constructive criticism. Hit the history button while on the main page than drill through the edit summaries. Like I said on your talk page, Duck test = you contributing for a sole purpose here. I have done mainly military and stopping bloat lately but have been more then happy to do little crap and have tried to not let personal opinions cloud my personal judgement (although they have and I try to admit it). If you get so bent out of shape by one little comment up above then there is a problem. Is the current proposal OK or not?Cptnono (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on continuing this discussion here even after I asked you to confine it to my talk page, or point to specific edits here that are related to article improvement? You seem intent on proving that people other than yourself are biased in the things they add to this article. Point out something specific, if there is nothing content-wise that's related to article improvement, then stop talking about it here! Its disruptive. Tiamut^talk 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now can we stop the butthurt or do you want to talk more? Here is my proposed changes:

• remove CIA factbook in the Background section since it isn't neeeded
• remove extra sources on density
• Add line to the lead saying " Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents were raised by human rights observers."

Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your first two proposals. About the third sentence, I think it combines three separate issues clumsily and without enough detail. I would suggest we work more on isolating the different points.

• Israel adopted revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties. (Why? Its not just because of population density. There are some clues in the UN report regarding the "Dahiya doctrine")
• Gaza's high population density prompted concerns over the welfare of resident by human rights observers. (I think this part needs work too. Another important cause of concern was the lack of safe places to go.)

Anyway, any changes to the lead need to be discussed thoroughly with others. Tiamut^talk 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The fun thing about the lead is that it is a summary. If you can take all the source provided above and say that density was not a concern in figuring out the tacticts (safving troops) and then take all of the sources and allegations to conclude that human rights organizations did not think density was a concern I will call you a liar. So anyway, mjy one line proposal is sourced and speaks the facts.Cptnono (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, your edit seems to imply that the population density was only an issue because Israel supposedly changed tactics to minimize civilian casualties. That is not what WHO, the Goldstone report, AI, or HRW (all of which talk about the population density) seem to find as the important aspect of Gaza being so densely populated. The NGOs have said that Israel should not have used certain weapons in such a high population area, the WHO say that the density is a factor in increased risks in the spread of disease with hospitals being destroyed. You are taking a simple line and putting a spin on it. All due respect but you saying that others are trying to either demonize Israel or make the Palestinians look better is misplaced, when I read the line as you wrote it I see an attempt to say "look how good one side is". I also think the CIA numbers should stay as background information on the theater of conflict. Your line on Israel modifying tactics can go in the campaign section. nableezy - 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I apologized and clarified the demonize comment. The other editor has only edited in a fashion that is favorable to the Palestinians. It hasn't been worded in a POV manner so there isn't a problem if that is the type of edits he wants to make. Hell, most of mine have focused on IDF stuff recently so it was a little hypocritical and I said some stupid stuff.
• Now that that is cleared up, where are you getting "your edit seems to imply that the population density was only an issue because Israel supposedly changed tactics to minimize civilian casualties." I struck out "civilian" up above since it is so disputed and still think it should say that human rights observers expressed over concerns. It says "*Add line to the lead says: "Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents were raised by human rights observers." Easy to miss with so many lines in this discussion page.
• Also, is my assessment of why the CIA line is in correct? When you (I think it was you) were trying to add what is now well sourced density info others were saying no. Now that we have several sources (both military and human rights based) saying it + a wikilink for further info the CIA factbook line is extra. We don't need it anymore in my opinion. That is why I want it in the lead. The density was a huge concern that was part of the equation of too many civilians getting killed or injured while it was also something that adjusted Israel's tactics in an attempt to see less dead IDF soldiers. Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My point back in the day on it being in the background section as a simple fact was that it influenced so many different parts of the article. It influenced the military operations of Israel as your source (and I gave one of a retired Israeli officer talking about the same thing back then), it influences the humanitarian issues as the WHO reported, it influenced the casualties section as many sources reported, it influenced the international law issues as NGOs have said. So in the background I felt it should just be stated as a fact and in each individual section say how that fact is relevant. In the military planning section include whatever sources say how Israel adjusted tactics, in the humanitarian crisis say how it is affecting issues of disease control, in the casualties section say whatever and so on. The background should be as to the point as possible. nableezy - 06:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is fine we just don't need the extra CIA line in the background. There is a wikilink for more info + two inline citations with another several availabel that discuss the topic. I think it should be dropped to one line in the background section.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on removal of the extra CIA line? Any thoughts on making a 1 line mention of the density in the lead?Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you accept something like "The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. With a population of 1,500,202 on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi), it is one of the most densely populated places on earth." with no inline citation of the CIA factbook (but keeping the link to the source)? I don't see a problem with that. But this still belongs in background, where we should present relevant info on the time/place the event took place. RomaC (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinkin

There you go again slipping in “Hamas’ into the sentence for the third time and for the third time I will revert you, though I will leave the remaining part of your edit (“before seeing any evidence” to “prior to participating in the mission”) unmolested as technically, you are correct. Chinkin saw evidence (what that evidence might be, well, your guess is as good as mine), just not the commission’s evidence.

The first paragraph of Chinkin’s petition rejects Israel’s contention of self-defense. The second paragraph is dismissive of Hamas rocket attacks claiming that they do not “amount to an armed attack.” The third details Palestinian casualties and property damage while neglecting to mention anything about Israel. The fourth discusses the large disproportion between Israel and Palestinian casualties and reaffirms that Israel is the “occupying power” despite her withdrawal in 2005. The fifth calls Israel the aggressor and states that Israel acted contrary to “international humanitarian and human rights law.” It further states that Israel’s actions are “prima facie war crimes.” The sixth paragraph gives an honorable mention to Hamas almost as an afterthought but true to form, finishes with condemnation of Israel.

Thus, the thrust of the petition is clearly aimed at Israel which is the subject of the harshest criticism. Hamas is mentioned in just two places while criticisms of Israel are peppered throughout. Thus, your edit is misleading and inaccurate and warrants reversion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, overall there are two points to be made: firstly, it's an indisputable fact that the letter condemned Hamas' rockets as war crimes, and secondly, Goldstone made the point that the letter condemned the rockets when defending Chinkin, as the Jerusalem Post article states. Therefore the mention that the letter condemned Hamas should be there. We might also keep in mind that Chinkin is a professor of international law, and that other reports have reached similar conclusions as the Goldstone report, so the facts in the matter aren't as contentious or complicated as the present form of the article would seem to suggest. --Dailycare (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Chinkin's petition condemns Hamas rocket fire but the thrust of the petition's invective is aimed at Israel. You can not realistically argue otherwise. The petition mentions Israel (and not in glowing terms) 13 times and Hamas gets a fraction of that. Moreover, the attorney's who requested her removal from the commission specifically did so because they perceived her to be biased against Israel based on her prior proclamations. They did not request her removal becuase of her position on Hamas.

I am not arguing the merits of Chinkin's or Goldstone's positions. I am just stating that her critics charged her with being biased based on statements she made and petitions she signed which were construed by the attorneys to be vehemently anti Israel. That is why they requested her removal. If you want to add an additional piece stating that she also condemned Hamas, by all means do so. But to include Hamas in the sentence and making it seem as though the attorneys requested her removal based on anti-Israel, as well as anti-Hamas statements is extremely misleading and is in fact inaccurate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Divining what the "main thrust" of a document is is WP:OR. If you want to include that, you need a source saying that the document was "vehemently anti Israel" whatever that means. However we're discussing a minor point and I can make a compromise edit that you'll probably be OK with based on your comment above. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just include everything that was in the article...no as a diving source but a source that brings understating to the article...Cryptonio (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

police

regarding this edit. OCHA does not say that police are not civilian, it says in their report "Israeli security forces" are comprised of the armed forces, the police, and the border police. It does not say whether or not they would be classified as combatant and it does not say under what circumstances they would be a combatant. And it does not deal with the casualties of this conflict at all. Taking this piece of information and juxtaposing it with analysis on whether or not police killed in this conflict or combatants or non-combatants is original research. nableezy - 06:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

10x for discussing. I'm not sure I agree with you. The Terminology chapter, page 4 defines basic terms:

Israeli security forces – are defined as any member of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Border Police. Private security personnel are not included and are considered to be civilians.

Please note the private security, which unlike security forces are considered civilians. The OCHA terminology divide casualties to two mutually exclusive sets: civilians and security forces. Each person has to be either civilian or member of security force, but could not be both. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But it does not combing them into combatants ans non-combatants and it does not say if killed within Israel are civilians or non or if killed in the occupied territories what they are. And it does not talk about this conflict. You are making an argument when the source does not make that argument, that is original research. nableezy - 13:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "combatants and non-combatant" terminology: it is not used by OCHA. Still according to OCHA, member of "security force" (such as policemen or IDF soldier) can not be "civilian". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not what they say. They say that for the purposes of their statistics they count all those people as "Israeli security forces" because they are all members of the "Israeli security forces". And again, that document makes no comment on whether or not police killed in this conflict are combatants or non-combatants. It is original research to include it in that section. nableezy - 14:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the document does not say a thing about police force being combatants or non-combatants. No such argument by my side also. Though the document says about inclusion of casualties, which are members of Israeli Police, into civilian count. Do you understand from the document that "Israeli security force" could be included in the civilian count? Thus the suggested change:

UN OCHA excludes Israeli Police members who were casualties of Israeli-Palestinian conflict from civilian statistics count and regards them as "security forces".

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring what I wrote. Yes it defines police Israeli security forces, but no it does not include them in "armed forces" as it includes "armed forces" separately from police in "security forces" and it does not talk about casualties in this conflict. It is original research (specifically synthesis) to use this in that section with that statement. If you want to include the definition of security forces in the background where we use the source fine, but here it is original research. nableezy - 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I've addressed your arguments. The combatants and non-combatant terms are not mentioned at all in the document or in the suggested addition. The document talks about casualties of conflict. There is no synthesis/original research, just reflection of one and only document. Could you clarify why in your opinion the change is original research with citation of Wiki policy? Moreover you already accepted that Israeli Police is not included in the OCHA report civilian count in the background, so I'm not sure why you're arguing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One more time. The report makes no mention as to whether or not police killed in this conflict are civilians or not. By placing it there with arguments that do directly address the topic you are advancing an argument that the source does not support. It is original research to place that sentence next to others that are talking about whether or not police killed in this conflict are combatants or non-combatants. And again, the source does not say that police are part of the "armed forces" which is what you are linking to and it does not say that they are not civilians, it says that they are included in "Israeli security forces" without calling all members of that set combatants or non-civlians or whatever. nableezy - 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, could you please stop trying to force in the same edits like this every single day? You are introducing original research by putting in a source that does not deal with the Gaza War at all to support a premise about disputes about police in this conflict. nableezy - 06:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, considering your remarks I propose wording closer to source: Israeli Police and Israeli Border Police reported with Armed Forces as "Israeli Security Forces" by United Nations OCHA-oPt.. Based on following source sentence: Israeli security forces – are defined as any member of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Border Police.. Hope there is no ambiguity here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You considered one thing but ignored the major issue of trying to advance a POV through sources that do not support that POV. I included your note on the Israeli police in the OCHA report where it is relevant, in the section dealing with the OCHA report. nableezy - 06:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you kindly could drop POV allegations or at least base it on violations examples. Though I have to agree that Disputed Figures as paragraph is a toxic explosion of POV and opposite POV. Saying that I'm not aware of any limitation why any particular source can not be used multiple times in this article. It is important to know in which framework UN humanitarian experts work in oPt regarding Israeli Police. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do any of the numbers that the UN released contain info on Israeli police killed during this conflict? Do any of the UN reports make any mention of the civilian status of Israeli police in this conflict? Any at all? Does the report you are citing contain any information on any casualties during this conflict? Does anything that the UN released in that report make any mention of the issue of civilian status for police killed in this conflict on either side? If not why are you including it in the section on casualties during this conflict? How is that specific source relevant to the arguments in that section on police killed during this conflict? Or is the entire purpose of the inclusion in the section on casualties during this conflict to argue against the classification made by HRW and others on the civilian status during this conflict when the source itself makes no such argument? Sources may be used many times, where they are relevant. You are attempting to advance a POV by making an argument through a source that the source does not make by placing it in that section. nableezy - 07:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm adding report period (2005-2008) considering your remark and OCHA-oPt citation permission. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is like you are purposely not reading or even attempting to answer the issues. This line Israeli Police and Israeli Border Police reported between 2005 and 2008 with Armed Forces as "Israeli Security Forces" by United Nations OCHA-oPt. does not belong in the disputed figures section. It does not address the disputes raised during this conflict. It deals with background information, it is in the background. nableezy - 08:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence provides valuable info about Israeli Police status, in context of Palestinian Gaza Police classification dispute. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not in that context you are making that up yourself (OR) to push a POV. nableezy - 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I try to understand why you continue reverting this change and frankly I can not. "push POV" sounds like personal attack to me. If something does not make Israel look bad it should not be included in the article? OR is kind of ridicules in context on one-to-one mapping between single source sentence and proposed phrasing which you helped me to improve. The point of the paragraph is critique of Israeli sources practice to include Palestinian Police dead with militant group dead in the same row in their statistics table. We compare what is practice for reporting Israeli Police dead. This is called balance. I hope you do not deny that if UN OHCA oPt see dead Israeli Policemen and dead IDF infantry trooper they put it in the same raw in their statistic table? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The OR is trying to tie this with the dispute over police killed during this conflict. The source does not make any comment on the dispute over the classification of police killed in the conflict and makes no comment on the actual classification of police killed in this conflict. It also does not explicitly classify police as not being civilian, it says that they are segregated from the civilian count and included with security forces, but does not say they are not either civilians or presumptively civilians. To use this line in that section is OR by making an argument the source does not make, and the argument is being made to advance a POV. nableezy - 20:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As you are intent on edit warring this into the article and nobody else has replied to this I have requested clarification from others here. nableezy - 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is about including police in the militant's count. The addition does not say a thing about "civilians" of "presumably" those are arguments of critique. The addition states the fact of long standing reporting practice of UN OHCA oPt. Hope you don't imply that Gaza war changed standards of reporting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The source does not comment on the dispute, you are including it based on your own opinion of what it means. The source does not mention one thing about the classification of police killed during the conflict and does not address any of the arguments presented in the section. It is there strictly to advance a POV that the source does not support. nableezy - 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The source do not comment on Palestinian police reporting, it even does not define in Terminology what Palestinian militant group term is, despite the fact that the term is being referenced. The addition does not say if Israel's reporting was right or wrong. Saying that something should not be included in the article, because it does not make Israel look bad is POV pushing. Sorry for personal attack ;). I firmly disagree about relevancy. The comparing practice of reporting of police of both sides in the conflict is balance. This is what we do here in this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We dont provide "balance" by making arguments the sources do not make or by using them on topics that they do not address. That is OR. That the source does not mention any of the casualties in this conflict shows that it does not belong in a section dealing with casualties in this conflict. You are continuing to edit war information in that is problematic without regard for WP:CONSENSUS. nableezy - 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is an argument not supported by source. The addition is stating a fact backed by source. I respect your opinion, but you represent consensus as much as I do. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do, and when there is no consensus for a disputed edit it should be removed. You are forcing it in without consensus, and there is now another user who feels this is original research by synthesis. nableezy - 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I saw this mentioned on the NOR noticeboard. The edit in question is advancing a position that the Gaza police are armed forces. That point is not made in the source. Therefore, it is synthesis, in my opinion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello JohnnyB256, I appreciate your opinion. nableezy helped me to improve the phrasing to reflect the source as close as possible. The addition states about Israeli Police reporting practice by UN OHCA oPt (2005-2008). There is no claim whatsoever about Gaza police, why do you say so? Please define "advancing". Try to assume good faith. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about "good faith" which refers to intentions, but to the actual content of the edit. It is placed in that section to provide a counter to the stance that police killed during this conflict are non-combatants. The source does not actually counter that, so in this section it is attempting to advance a position that it does not actually support. Original research is not just about following the words of the source, the words of a source can be used in ways that the source does not. That is what is done here. nableezy - 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not about your intentions, this is about the substance of your edits. Repeatedly invoking AGF does not make your edit not original research to advance a premise the source does not support. nableezy - 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

advancing rhetoric != AGF

Maybe you could elaborate about substance problems of my edits. But for me now it's time to sleep. Talk to you tomorrow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AgadaUrbanit, here's the problem. If the source said something like "Israeli police casualties are counted as members of security forces, so therefore Palestinian police casualties by right should be counted as armed forces casualties," then you could certainly make that point in the article. But if the source makes no such connection, that is synthesis. My suggestion is that you locate a source addressing that particular point from the Israeli perspective, rather than juxtaposing this in the article, where it is synthesis. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF before citing it again. nableezy - 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256, I do not say a thing about Palestinian Police. Why do you put words into my mouth? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not. He is explaining that the way you are juxtaposing the unrelated OCHA information implicitly makes the argument. That is the original research, you are implying the source supports an argument it does not by placing it where you are. nableezy - 06:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. Why do you say the addition is implying anything about Palestinian Police? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If it does not imply anything about the Palestinian police why are you placing it in a section about how Palestinian police killed in this conflict are classified? nableezy - 07:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And what is not accurate about my comments? If you want to make an accusation like that back it up. nableezy - 07:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Main points of inaccuracy: You say The Israeli government has asserted that they are "combatants". "combatants" term is inaccurate and not used by Israeli sources. The more accurate claim is: (Israeli government has asserted Gaza Police) inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count. I think also your speculations about my intentions are inaccurate: there is no claim about Palestinian Police. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not inaccurate, the Israeli government has said that police are "combatants", see here, "In other words, more than nine out of every ten alleged “civilian police” were found to be armed terrorist activists and combatants directly engaged in hostilities against Israel." (my emphasis) nableezy - 18:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this a latter (to dispute) Israeli paper try to answer HRW claims and use its terminology. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. The source though lacks "secondary" credibility in my eyes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli MFA lacks credibility for saying what the Israeli government has said? That is an interesting one. nableezy - 06:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I acknowledge that MFA statement addressed "combatants" status of Palestinian Police. You were correct. I mean that Israeli government is far from neutral (due to the fact it's belligerent), thus Israeli government statement lacks "secondary" credibility in my eyes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition does not imply a thing about Palestinian police. Just comparing report practice of belligerents Police force. This is called balance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More precisely it is called false balance. You just admitted that you are using the report to make a comparison that the source does not make and that no secondary source has raised. That is original research. The source is being used to advance a position that the source does not make. A completely uninvolved person agreed it is original research, I sincerely hope you will not return the material absent consensus to do so. nableezy - 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have not you noticed I've stated: it is important to know in which framework UN humanitarian experts work in oPt regarding Israeli Police. I firmly disagree about relevancy. The comparing practice of reporting of police of both sides in the conflict is balance. This is what we do here in this article. Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. The source (and addition) clearly say: "UN OCHA-oPt put Israeli Police in the same row of our report table with IDF". This is a fact. Hope you don't deny it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not important if no secondary source raises the point. You cannot just make up what is an important comparison that is not compared by reliable sources. And my comments were accurate. And I dont deny it, it is included where it is relevant, in the background section. Not where you are using it to advance an argument the source does not make. nableezy - 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OCHA is a secondary source and their report raises the point of Israeli police place in their report table. We disagree though on relevancy. We dive into "para-legal" discussion thus it is important to examine precedents. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent) I wasn't relying on anyone's comments in particular, as everybody has been, forgive me, a bit long-winded. I just looked at the edit in question, which I presume is [6] as it is AgadaUrbanit's last edit to the article, and reached my own conclusion. My problem is that it inserts a discussion of the way Israeli police are treated as casualties in the midst of a discussion of the same issue for Palestinian police. Whether the balance is false or not is beside the point. I don't think you can do that unless the original source makes that comparison. As I suggested earlier to AgadaUrbanit, what's needed to balance out that section, which I presume is his/her desire here, is something from the Israeli side making that point specifically. Now maybe I'm being too strict in my interpretation of WP:SYN, but that is my feeling on it. I think this subject would benefit from more input from uninvolved editors familiar with this policy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256, appreciate your opinion. Could you clarify how the addition violates WP:SYN? What is not allowed is combining multiple sources ( not a case here ) or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The source (and addition) clearly say: "UN OCHA-oPt put Israeli Police in the same row of their report table with IDF". Am I missing something? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My conclusion, reading the contested passage cold, was that since Israeli police are listed as civilians, the same should apply to Palestinian police. Now, that's my own brain at work, but at that point a WP:SYN red flag rose up. None of the sources cited in that article made that point. You may be interested to know that I tend to agree with that conclusion, but I think it needs better sourcing. Believe me, I was not influenced by anyone in making that conclusion, and as I said I'd dearly love to get more opinions. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note in the Military History Project. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love more opinions. JohnnyB256, of cause you have your own head. I'm sorry you understand it this way. I question your "advancing rhetoric", which you have not explained. WP should be neutral. Hmm, I'm not sure what "Israeli police are listed as civilians" means. I also would like to warn about drawing a conclusion from Israeli Police status precedent to Palestinian Police. There is a dispute here - a lot of opinion without definite truth. I think that some precedent facts would improve this article quality. I'm not sure how sourcing should be improved. Usually in this article we prefer secondary sources to primary ones, to improve neutrality. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

editorial in lead

Why should we include an editorial critical of the contents of the UNHCR report when there are a number of other editorials that are praising it? That we include that the Israeli government (and the US government) are critical of the original mandate and the contents of the report (not so much the US but certainly Israel) is fine, but including a random editorial does not strike me as proper. nableezy - 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that if we include the Israeli POV on the UN report in the lead, we would have to include the Palestinian POV too. This would become an unde focus on critique over a report. The report critiques both sides. Is there a problem with keeping its conclusions in the lea sans commentary from either peanut gallery? Tiamut^talk 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

First, The Economist is not an Israeli POV, and we won't be able to get anywhere if we don't agree on that basic fact. Second, the UNHRC is not taken seriously by much of the western world and has been criticized regarding its attitude toward Israel by two UN Secretaries General, among other UN figures. I'm only mentioning this so that you don't get disappointed when you see the volume of criticism of this report, the committee that wrote it the resolution that mandated it. Third, as I said in my edit summary, having the UNHRC report in the lede is plain recentism; it should not be in the lede at all. A sentence noting that war crimes by both sides were alleged by various third parties is enough. If we agree on this, there won't be any problem re the lede. Fourth, if the report is praised by POVs as notable as The Economist (by, not in), those POVs have as much of a right to be in the article as the Economist's POV, according to WP:UNDUE. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The report is definitely now recentism and undue. At this point, with no direct outcome to the report, it is just 'another' report, so it should not be in the lead. The lead should be fact, brief chronology, and minor explanation. Other issues should be in body. --Shuki (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is not recentism or undue. This is the most comprehensive report by a UN agency on this conflict, just because it was recently released does not mean that it should not be given its due weight (which is substantial). nableezy - 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that a claim that the UNHCR "not being taken seriously by much of the Western world" would need to be well sourced, as it's a bit of an extraordinary claim. (what about the non-Western world, BTW?) To the contrary we do have sources (which I can provide) underlining the weight of the report --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here: "The report, which was described yesterday as a milestone by lawyers" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/un-report-goldstone-israel-gaza --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explicitly stated, in an attempt to prevent anyone from sidetracking this discussion, I did not suggest writing that claim in the article, I merely noted it to avoid unnecessary tension in the editorial process. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, regarding recentism. Lets examine the following hypothetical (sometimes known as a straw man), which may be more familiar to readers familiar with the US judicial system (apologies if it does not translate). X is charged with some crime based on a search that is challenged. The appeal of his conviction is heard before the US Supreme Court who rule (lets say the ruling came down yesterday) that the search was indeed illegal and so the conviction is set aside. Should that finding be restricted from the lead because it happened recently? This is a report that has been anticipated for months and is the most comprehensive report from the UN on the topic. That it happened recently does not mean we should not include something that is as notable as this in the lead. As far as including the Economist editorial, I think there is a place for it. But the lead is not the place for such opinions, the section where it details the actual report and the controversy surronding it may be, and the sub-article International law and the Gaza War would certainly be a proper place for inclusion (also that section is becoming bloated again with things that belong in the sub-article). nableezy - 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Shuki and I never said that the report doesn't belong in the lede because it's recent. We said that it doesn't belong in the lede because it's not important enough. Arguing that it is important enough because it "has been anticipated for months" is where recentism comes in. That the report "is the most comprehensive report from the UN on the topic" says zilch about its importance in absolute terms. The most comprehensive report on the war, period (as oppposed to a specific aspect of the war: int'l law), was that by Anthony Cordesman. And yet nobody (including me) argued for including that in the lede. Hmmm... Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion shouldn't be sidetracked, I was commenting on the claim you made about the UNHRC, in the context of discussing editing this article, which appeared in light of e.g. the source I quoted to not be accurate. --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The report is definitely now recentism and undue by Shuki. I do see that you did not raise that issue so sorry for addressing that hypothetical to you. As to undue, the similar argument applies. A major report, anticipated for months, was released, the most comprehensive by the UN on this conflict to date. I dont see how including that in the lead is undue. nableezy - 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We both said that the inclusion was recentism. WP:RECENTISM is not a claim that recent material should be discriminated against; that would be silly. It is merely a recognition that there is a tendency to give recent material unjustified preferential treatment. I already addressed your other comments. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But you didnt address my other comments, you only made the assertion that it being the most comprehensive report by the UN means zilch to its importance then apparently taking issue with Cordesman's analysis not being in the lead. There is a simple explanation for that, the Center for Strategic and International Studies is not exactly the United Nations, and Cordesman report, while certainly notable and is indeed heavily cited in the article, was not given the same weight as this report in the sources. This report has been receiving steady coverage since it was first commissioned and has been given major coverage by sources (compare just the results of Goldstone report gaza September 2009 searched on BBC vs Cordesman gaza on BBC, and that isnt even getting into the coverage leading up to the report being released over the past few months). This isn't "unjustified preferential treatment". A major topic of the coverage of this conflict are the international law violations that have been widely reported. An authority on the topic released a very widely cited report. A report that has been reported on for months before it was even released. That you think this compares to the Cordesman report whose coverage pales in comparison to Goldstone's does not make much of an argument. nableezy - 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe if there is some disagreement as to the relevance, significance or importance of the United Nations' definitive report on the incident, we should simply look and see how it is treated by media etc. They decide, not Wiki editors. RomaC (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion, as you don't mention an absolute standard by which to measure these things, nor do you mention what time frame you have in mind to be examined. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, if receiving a lot of news coverage for a particular period of time is a sufficient condition to be included in the lede (which I don't think it is), then the widespread criticism of the Goldstone report should also be in the lede, as it is also receiving a lot of news coverage right now. So I assume you won't mind if I add it. If and when news coverage of the criticism outweighs coverage of the actual content of the report, we can summarize the criticism without the content; It seems in fact that this is already the case, but right now I don't feel like making the effort of convincing people who are predisposed against accepting that possibility. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not my point, the news coverage was in response to you saying that it being the most comprehensive report by the UN not meaning jack regarding its notability and then making the comparison to the Cordesman report not being in the lead. And I dont mind a short mention of the controversy surrounding the report being included, but I do mind it being sourced to an editorial in the lead. I think my position is slightly more nuanced than you are assuming. nableezy - 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Jesus, Nab, that article is not an editorial except to the extent that all Economist articles are editorials. That's what their articles are like. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This Economist article is not an editorial, the one cited is specifically listed in the "Leaders editorial" section, which is in the "Opinion" section of the Economist. It is reporting opinion, not the opinion of a single person I grant you but of the editorial board of the Economist. My feeling is the lead should be for what is presented as facts. nableezy - 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By Jove, you're right, and I was wrong. It is in the opinions section. But the distinction between "presented as facts" and "presented as opinion" is artificial in this context. Essentially, all criticism, including criticism of countries, is opinion (hopefully based on facts): there's no reason for us to discriminate against those who present their criticism more prudently. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, regarding your edit that added the following:

The report and the resolution mandating it were criticized as flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated by Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the United States State Department and Congress, UN Watch, The Economist and others.[31][32][33] Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch encouraged the implementation of the report's recommendations.

I think, and I may be mistaken, that most of those cited only criticized the original mandate and not the actual report as being "flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated". Could we please clarify which is which? nableezy - 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea to list personal/editorial/governmental criticisms of the UNHRC report opens a can of worms. If you're looking for it, there is individual, media and governmental criticism on just about any report/information/data in this (or any other) article. Also, criticism of a report's personnel/methodology etc. does not necessarily mean rejection of its findings. RomaC (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also in the rush to discredit the report, the actual controversial content was removed from the article. Content before commentary please. RomaC (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Mary Robinson citicized only the original mandate. The rest criticized the report itself or both. We could separately state the criticism of each major figure/group, but I think it's important to be as brief as possible in the lede. Roma, the fact that a UN report drew such widespread criticism from significant figures and institutions is notable in and of itself. As for your your last assertion, I agree, though I'm not sure what your point is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Did the state department actually criticize the findings? for some reason I thought their criticism was of the mandate. nableezy - 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They criticized both the mandate and the report as unbalanced. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the following sentence in the article somewhat troubling for a number of reasons.

Judge Goldstone’s findings drew sharp criticism from the Obama administration who claimed the report was unfair to Israel and did not take adequate account of the “deplorable” actions by Hamas during the war.[326]

1. 'Sharply' - no per MOS:OPED

2. The Obama administration didn't claim it was unfair to Israel. The NYT claimed that the Obama administration claimed that it was unfair to Israel. The State Dept just said Although the report addresses all sides of the conflict, its overwhelming focus is on the actions of Israel. While the report makes overly sweeping conclusions of fact and law with respect to Israel, its conclusions regarding Hamas’s deplorable conduct and its failure to comply with international humanitarian law during the conflict are more general and tentative. It would be better to let the State Dept speak for themselves rather than let one source put words in their mouth in my view.

3. The following statement in the same press conf is presumably of equal importance so may be worth a mention. We also have very serious concerns about the report’s recommendations, including calls that this issue be taken up in international fora outside the Human Rights Council and in national courts of countries not party to the conflict. We note in particular that Israel has the democratic institutions to investigate and prosecute abuses, and we encourage it to use those institutions.

4. Link to NYT source missing from ref.[7] Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)