Talk:2006 Gaza–Israel conflict/Archive 1

message: Removed due to wheasel words.
:Although I am without doubt on the side of the Palestinians here, I fail to see the similarities between a 3,000-man rescue operation and a genocide of more than 6 million people. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:65.93.203.219 has been blocked for antisemitic diatribes (elsewhere, too). El_C 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Dugard under UN

message: I don't think these numbers are correct (certainly 2400 Israeli casualties for this operation seems impossible). Also, isn't it a little bit early to decide that this is a "Decisive Palestinian Victory"? ThreeBlindMice 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore my above comment - the page got changed while I was typing it. ThreeBlindMice 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a vandal I fixed the numbers. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though, the 3,000 for Israeli stength is correct. I re-added that. Rangeley 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength and Casualty Figures 

message: What do you mean by 700 under Israel?
:Just a vandal ignore it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: from The Guardian "Hamas' armed wing had claimed responsibility for Sunday's raid, along with the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) and a third group calling itself the Islamic Army". We can't say that only Hamas did it as stated in the article. --Lanov 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ignore my comment , the article was edited while I was writing it.--Lanov 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It Was Not Hamas Only

message: Would someone please put in some info from this article?  I'm not comfortable enough with wiki to do so.  Basically, the US supports Israel in the operation:
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19625342-5001028,00.html
Also this http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885880859&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull  72.83.84.202 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US reaction

message: I just wanted to tell you all what a great job you've done. I mean this article was only created about a day ago. Yonatanh 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  just a well done 

message: Does anyone have more info on Israeli airforce flying over the presidential palace in Syria? Syria said they had shot after it. I only have a swedish language ref. which refers to syrain state television. http://svt.se/svttext/web/pages/133.html
:: Here are links from the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1150885870124&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull and from Ha'aretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/732362.html
Cymruisrael 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Syrian official went from yapping about how his great AA chased the Israeli planes away, to talking about this very operation. So it belongs here. Joffeloff 11:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fly by in Syria 

message: I think we need more information here. Some things to be added:
"But the military signaled the prospect of a new front being opened in the northern part of the strip when it dropped leaflets late Wednesday into the area, urging residents to avoid moving in the area because of impending military activity."
"Israeli army bulldozers moved in Thursday to clear agricultural lands in northern Gaza, witnesses said, apparently so Palestinians couldn't hide there. A small number of tanks entered a buffer zone between southern Israel and Gaza, as they have done in recent weeks."
-- LongKong 13:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansions into Northern Gaza 

message: There is a problem with references. Check reference 18 in the text, for example. It links to reference 16 at the botom of the page, not to reference 18. Anyone have an idea why this happened?
LongKong 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no problem with references. Please, don't introduce more confusion. -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh...I see it now, sorry.--LongKong 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with references 

message: Our language should not support either side in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. When we describe Isreals as 'arresting' and Palestinians as 'kidnapping' or 'abducting' we prejudge the legitimacy of Israeli control over captured territory.
:it has nothing to do with legitimacy of control. -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate?  --Cyde↔Weys 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that the settler and soldier were detained in an extra-judicial action. i.e. outside any legal process (and no, claiming "Israel acts illegaly all the time" doesn't mean thier arrests are in general extra-judicial--not that they havn't been involved in extra-judicial detentions and killings, i.e. kidnapping and murder, in the past, just not in this case). This has nothing to do with whether or not one thinks it is justified or not. The fact is that it is an extra-judicial detention--i.e. a kidnapping. I suppose you could get all philosophical and ask "is there really a difference?", and most people would still say yes, the difference is that there are legal processes, paperwork and rules-of-conduct and such (however loosley adhered too) that people follow in judicial detentions. These are completely absent in the case of the "detained" (and now sadly murdered apparently) Israelis. Get it? --Brentt 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Please ignore my ignorant edit - it has been reverted, and rightly so.  I'm pretty dumb. WilyD 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, everyone 

message: Why does it stand in the translation from Hebrew: Operation Summer Rains, whereas it's singular in English? Who made up the name by the way, I think it's rather beautiful ;) Shandristhe azylean 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hebrew גשמי is geshmey (plural construct state), not geshem (which would be the singular). AnonMoos 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: .....to? Shandristhe azylean 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  to Operation Summer Rains? -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But all newspapers call it in singular! Shandristhe azylean 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But they are mistaken! -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Articles should be titled by their most common name in English.  If the newspapers are calling it Operation Summer Rain, then Operation Summer Rain is where it belongs.  What it's called in foreign languages is irrelevent.  While it may be interesting to note in the article, it's not appropriate to move the article.  Having Operation Summer Rains redirect here is probably right.  Please see WP:NAME for more details WilyD 17:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, right. I wouldn't expect anything else from WP. -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with WilyD.  Operation Summer Rain is the proper title.  Operation Summer Rains can redirect here and can be mentioned in the article next to the Hebrew. Johntex\talk 17:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Soglasen. End of story. Hope you agree, tasc. Shandristhe azylean 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not. But who cares. -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote for the correct plural name. Just because a newspaper made a mistake doesn't mean wikipedia should too. 71.199.123.24 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural translation 

message: According to CNNhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/29/israel.soldier/index.html?
section=cnn_topstories not only Hamas government members have been arrested. Here is the exact quote:
"The Palestine Liberation Organization said 84 people had been arrested, including seven Cabinet officials and 21 members of the Palestinian parliament. The Israel Defense Forces said 87 people were arrested overnight. Of those, it said, 64 were members of Hamas. Another 23 belong to other factions."
Maybe someone should rename the section to "Capturing of PA Government Members".
--LongKong 18:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does sound like its stating the other 23 are even government officials. They may just be people, am I reading it wrong? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably militants, you're right. So just ignore it or make a new section for it? Or rename section to "Capturing of Palestinian Militants"? Since it's one of the secondary goals of the operation I think it'd be good to include it. Just don't know how. --LongKong 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think militants would work. They arent all in the government, they arent all Hamas, but they are all militants. Rangeley 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use "Arrests of Palestinians" or something similar, its not right to label government officials to be militants, some may be, but blanket lumping is not right. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see what you're saying but according to the IDF (which is our primary source here) they are capturing people involved with the abduction, capturing or whatever you want to call it of Shalit. I just read that Israel says they captured about 100 Hamas members:
"Israel arrested last night about 100 members of Hamas. Those arrested are Hamas activists who had violated laws pertaining to the prevention of terrorism. While those arrested include ministers and legislators, it needs to be emphasized that the majority of those arrested are not. In any case, the arrests were carried out due to terrorist activity."http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Arrest+of+Hamas+
leaders+29-Jun-2006.htm
--LongKong 18:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I said "officials," I just mentioned the govt. first, the members of the PLC 2nd, and then mayor/regional council and other officials. IBA says at least a third of govt. members arrested and & held (Haaretz confirms - this is the article they are actively updating, ref 23). I now added it (1/3) to the article. El_C 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Capturing of Hamas Government Members 

message: So who are Israeli casualities according to you, Leifern? -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no Israeli casualties as of yet, that we know of. The two civilians that are dead were deceased prior to the operation beginning, and infact one died of natural causes. Rangeley 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Eliyahu was killed in a hour after abducion. I don't see any reasons to call him victim of this operation. Noam died due to medical cause. It was pure palestinian bluff. -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The abduction and murder of Eliyahu Asheri is mentioned in the article; certainly the threat of his death entered into the conflict after the incursion had started, so at least the threat was part of the conflict. That it was an empty threat, considering he'd already been murdered, raises an interesting question. As for Noach Moskovich, if he died as a result - direct or indirect - of mistreatment at the hand of the kidnappers, they are culpable for his death. I guess it isn't clear whether he was even abducted. --Leifern 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: These "settlers" are on occupied territory, and are usually armed. Therefore they are not civilans, but soldiers, and he was not "murdered" but killed in a war.PerDaniel 20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He was not armed. He wasn't soldier. He was killed and robed. PA so far didn't openly declared was on Israel. -- tasc wordsdeeds 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He died of natural causes. This seriously has nothing to do with anti-zionism or being anti-Israel at all. We dont include the 3 Palestinian militants, or 2 Israeli soldiers who died during the original kidnapping either, because this was prior to the operation. Likewise, the natural death of the 62 year old, and the murder of the other civilian occured before the operation began, and are therefore unable to be casualties of this. Rangeley 19:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep the threat about Noach but mention he died of natural causes, possibly on Sunday. As for Asheri its really upt o developments now to see if he was kidnapped before this even started or why he was killed etc. The only reasonI think we should wait is both may have been bluffs and the people claiming to be tied to this larger operation may not have been, or done it for those reasons, or the ones who did kidnap may not have even been the ones claiming to have. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli casualities 

message: Hello there ladies and gentlemen!
I was doubting the use of the word "arrests" - especially so in a header - in the article. Why, you might think. Well, Wikpedia's definition of arrest is as follows:
:An arrest is the action of the police, or person acting under the color of law, to take a person into custody so that they may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of a crime. (First sentence of Arrest)
What bothers me here is the fact that the Israeli Defence Forces have "arrested" people in territory under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority. The IDF are obviously not the police, and in no way they represent Palestinian law - is it then possible for them to "arrest" the Palestinians?
Is it perhaps so that Israel still - in some obscure way - retains the right to legally exercise its laws in PNA-controlled areas?
This of course raises the question what one would call the "arrests" - and the arrested. If they can't arrested, they're simply Prisoners of War, and if so - it's War. That is not a topic for discussion here, though.
Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: tell us more about palestinian law. I'm eager ot hear.-- tasc wordsdeeds 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what the Israeli Ministry of Justice officially calls it. The arrests were carried as such (i.e. "arrest orders" signed by judges). The legality of the arrests according to international law is a different matter. The use of the word arrests seems rather appropriate. El_C 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: tasc - I know nothing about Palestinian law. That is why I am asking. El C - seems appropriate indeed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actualy your line of reasoning doesn't support your conclusion. The "wikipedia definition" (if there is such a thing!) would seem to support NPOV, not the POV of the israelis. Since the legality of Israel's actions is a central controversy in this conflict, the use of "arrest" supports the POV that Israel's actions are legitimate.--Cerejota 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a conflict, and the taking in of the people happened outside the territory of Israel, without mediating an international arrest warrant, I think the use of the word "arrest" is POV. I suggest the standard setout in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict of reffering to "capture" regardless of side is the best NPOV to reffer to them. "Arrests" reflect the contested and controversial POV that holds that Israel is carrying out a simple police action in Gaza. "Kidnapping" likewise spouses the contested and controversial POV that Israel's actions are illegal .Whereas "capture" simply describes the fact.--Cerejota 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arrests" a POV word? 

message: Is this relevant to this article? Reuters article, Jpost article If not, maybe it should go in Qassam rocket? 72.83.84.202 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not relevant. As the title suggests, this article is about events during and relating to Israeli "Operation Summer Rain". 69.140.65.251 20:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it into the Qassam rocket article would be most appropriate.Hypnosadist 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Palestinian Chemical Weapons  

message: No one has been killed yet in combat. Is there a potential for thousands to be killed? - Little Spike
:In combat, it seems highly unlikely. Beyond that, with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza, fortunately, so far it appears unlikely, since it would be a public relations disaster for Israel to have thousands of Palestinians die. I predict that Israeli (and undoubtedly American and European) capital will be expended to restore and keep in operation whatever vital services currently destroyed or being witheld. El_C 03:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, the militants may begin to combat the Israeli forces directly rather than just fire rockets in hopes of killing civilians. They have supposedly dug in and prepared to combat troops that enter the north, though they said the same about the south. Rangeley 04:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Israel will White phosfallujah Gaza or anything remotely in that scale. Not to mention that unlike the US in Iraq, Israeli intelligence in the occupied territories gives them infinitely greater maneuverability. The Isareli and Palestinian masses need much better leadership than these sweat-shop imperialists and Islamic fascists, respectively. But all of this goes beyond the scope of this talk page, so I just hope I'll be the one who gets to have the last word in this section. El_C 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I bet the militants will conduct guerilla warfare and plant mines, or act as martyrs and set off suicide bombs. They know that they are too weak in strength to go to conventional warfare with Israel. However, in the unlikely event that the Palestine Authority will send troops to intervene, it is unlikely that Israel will suffer a 50% casualty rate based on their 2-3k troops there. --Terrancommander 08:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death Toll

message: Can we have some definitive dates in this article?  At the moment we have a number of events with no sensible way of sequencing them.  When was this soldier kidnapped?  When did the rocket attack on the beach happen?  Without them, this is not high enough quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.202.144.223 (talk • contribs) .
:At your command! El_C 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: So far i've seen only Johntex objecting move. Who else? -- tasc wordsdeeds 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy, if you feel he is wrong in assuming its the most popular name in the newspapers and appropriate sources, just provide counter sources. Not everything has to be a battle, a concensus can easily be reached if people choose to present evidence instead of arguing. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: haven't i presented enough of them? Than could you please explain how not reached consensus became an excuse in non-democratic wikipedia? and why you yourself didn't move page to the proper name? -- tasc wordsdeeds 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt move it because someone has a complaint, I dont move pages while they are in contention. A vote would not address their issue either. Just because they dont write on here as often as you doesnt mean they should be ignored either. And finally Wikipedia is not a democracy. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy, what someone's complains has to do with correcteness of articles? -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They advanced a wiki policy on naming, stating the portion relevant to most popular english name. Just address the issue instead of attempting to vote over their issue. Why are you so combative when asked to debate the issue with the person concerned. This is how revert wars occur, this article was moved and they moved it back before. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed the issue if you haven't noticed. So far I've seen only Johntex objecting. I wanted to make clear if we could conclude a consensus or voting is needed. *gosh* -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have two people who disagree, the other being WilyD then. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for the plural name. re: most popular english name, this might be true for words that have an unclear meaning, or don't translate well, but here it's a direct simple translation. Just because a newspaper made a mistake, doesn't mean wikipedia should too. People do make mistakes, doing so doesn't automatically make their mistake 'the most popular name'. (Aluminum would be an example of where a mistake did become the common name, but it's way too early to decide that for here, right now the articles name should be the correct translation, and not some mistake by a newspaper.) 71.199.123.24 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let google decide :-) Cema 13:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: shall we vote?

message: The image for the pamphlet is kinda weird.  Since it's not a scan of an actual pamphlet, wouldn't it be better to have the pamphlet's text (and translation) on the page?  I apologize if there's a legitimate reason to have it there, I just couldn't figure out a reason.  --Polkapunk 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I just bothered reading the footers... -- Polkapunk 13:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my knowledge of the IDF serves me right, it was first written in Hebrew, then translated to Arabic, then back to Hebrew, then English. El_C 13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are both from the IDF website. As I said above, it's likely it was first written in Hebrew at command level, then translated to Arabic (the pamphlets thesmselve), then retranslated into Hebrew (press), & finally English (which may explain the typos in the latter two). El_C 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I though you were joking!  And why would the IDF host a translation they did not create themselves?  Anyways, the tag-line for this image says this pamphlet was "distributed to Gaza residents by the IDF".  Was the English version displayed actually distributed as claimed?  If not, at least the tag-line should be fixed, but I think posting the original with an easily editable translation would be best.  mdf 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They would create it themlseves, my example implied — with four different translators! I wasn't joking in that sense, the IDF is highly bureaucratic, so these types of irrationalities (and much worse) happen and are to be expected, not that I'm claiming that is what actually happned (and it was indeed of a tongue in cheek). Anyway, the pamphlets were likely only printed in Arabic. But it dosen't matter either way, the IDF is the publisher/translator/internet host of both the Hebrew and English versions (images here). El_C 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see. Yes, it's fine to call either translation (if the Hebrew is a retranslation from Arabic — as mentioned, tragico-comically, it is definitely possible!) "the pamphlet distributed..." And the IDF translation did not change anything that I noticed in a glance (I'll double check later) beyond cleaning some of the grammatical issues that the Hebrew version suffered from (in the source — though I purposfuly chose not to go with a loose translation, which I usually do, which appears to have made things worse on that front). Oh, and they removed the bold, except for Yigal Shalit. But I digress. Any other questions? El_C 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: on 2nd read, this wasn't (just) pamphlets but the contents of the announcement, presumably broadcasted through other means, so I removed it and quoted the text and cited the pertinent ref (i.e. the whole thing was clumsyness on my part).  El_C 02:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pamphlet

message: Two soldiers were killed and one was abducted. Shouldn’t those two soldiers be included in the casualties ( or as a pretext for the operation)?Spoil29   
----
A blogger gives more reasons for the attack. Should any more be incorporated into the article?   
   
1) the breach of the Israeli border along Gaza by Islamic terrorists with ties to Hamas with a 300 foot long tunnel;   
   
2) in the ensuing battle, two Israeli soldiers were killed, and Shalit was captured;   
   
3) the incessant missile and rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza by terrorist groups including Hamas, AAMB, PIJ, Fatah, and the PRCs;   
    
4) the kidnapping and murder of at least one Israeli since Shalit was captured;   
   
5) the ongoing refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel and continued calls for Israel's destruction coming from both Hamas and Fatah;   
   
6) claims that the Palestinian terrorist groups have WMD (though unconfirmed - we must honor the threat that they might actually have them and aren't simply posturing and making empty threats);   
    
7) claims that the same Palestinian terrorists launched one such chemical warhead shell into Israel - again unconfirmed but this comes from the Palestinian terrorists spokespeople;   
   
8) Israel has the inalienable right to defend itself from such threats;   
    
9) Israel has been infinitely patient with the ongoing terrorism and attacks against the sovereign nation of Israel;   
-    
10) Israel's response has been extremely measured and limited thus far, unlike the terrorists who continue to provoke Israel into taking far harsher steps.   
-    
72.83.84.202 05:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are known to be a subjective way to express the blogger's views and may be biased. Its still better to get the hard facts from news articles or qualified experts in the area. The usage of the word "claim" means that the user is cynical. --Terrancommander 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, I would avoid using blogs as sources. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Israeli casualties and other motivations for the operation

message: The blog can not be used as source. However, everything he/she lists is correct. So we should find sources that confirm his words and add the info from these sources to the article. Also some of my additions (sourced) were reverted but I don't feel like engaing in edit war but I hope some of thise material can be found usefull to the article. Zeq 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: blogs

message: The section on the background of the conflict mentions both the Quassam rocket attacks against Israeli cities and similar attacks against Palestinian areas, along with Gaza beach incident. Setting things up this way suggests, I think, that the two sides are equally culpable for the subsequent conflict since they were equally bellicose. In order to give readers some way to weigh this question for themselves, it seems like it might be a good idea to give at least approximate casualty figures for both sides during the month leading up the capture of the IDF soldier. So (1) does this sound like a good idea? and (2) does anyone happen to have access to any casualty figures for the Quassam rocket attacks? I have only had any luck finding figures for the Palestinian casualties thus far: the Gaza beach incident killed 8 civilians and injured an additional 32 (incl. 13 children); the missile attack on the Gaza highway on 13 June killed 11 (incl. 2 children) and injured 30; and the missle attack on 20 June killed 3 (all children) and wounded 15. (My source for these figures is the PCHR: http://www.pchrgaza.org/) Thanks to everyone who's done such fine work on this article so far. --RobinJ 15:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not give the correct picture. Israel uses must stronger weapon (it is a military power) so casulaty figures on the Palestinian side are always higher. (In this light it is surprzing than since the start of the operation the number of casulaties on the Pal side are very low) . So if you want to give accurate measures you should look at intentions, such as : to where the sides aim the weapon they have ? At what frequancy they use their weapon ? etc... Also to measure israel violation of int'l law you should compare Israel to smililar operations such as Russions in Checnyia or americans in Faluga - where half of the city was destroyed) Zeq 15:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply. Your point, if I understand you correctly, seems to be that we should not include the casualty figures for the month preceeding the capture of the IDF soldier because the presence of these figures would mislead readers. I gather that your rationale for this stems from the assumption (which I share) that there have very likely been no Israeli fatalities at all during June as a result of the Quassam rocket attacks (as I recall, there have only been five Israeli fatalities as a result of Quassam rocket attacks during the last three years), and that this will dramatically contrast with the 16-24 Palestinian deaths (including those of several children) during June alone. This information might well lead people to infer, at the very least, that when Israel justifies the current incursions by claiming that they are merely responding to Palestinian violence, rather than instigating and perpetuating the conflict, they are not being quite truthful. I am guessing that you find this outcome undesirable because you think that the actions of the Israeli miliatary (in this case or in general) are legitimate. I have no interest in arguing over the moral legitimacy or the legality of the IDF's actions, and even if I did wish to have such a discussion, this would not be the appropriate forum. Fortunately, as authors of an encyclopedia, you and I don't need to agree on whether or not Israel is in the right. By the same token, we cannot censor pieces of information purely because they support or detract from our view about whether Israel in the right. In some contexts, we might be persuaded by arguments that people are sometimes better off not knowing things; but that anti-intellectual (in a neutral sense) position is surely the opposite of the mission of an encyclopedia, which is founded on the idea that the more people know, the better. It seems to me that there can only be two possible kinds of objections to including the information I suggested: either (1) the information is false (which I gather is not the problem here, since the figures I provided above are widely-agreed upon and documented by reference to a source that is reputable, impartial, and has direct access to the relevant facts), or (2) the information is not relevant to the article. I explained above why I thought the information was relevant, and since it seems equally, if not more, relevant than what we have in the "Background" section already, I don't see what would prevent us from including it. I will, of course, wait to see if there are any other objections before I make any edits. --RobinJ 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: don't you think that it would imply that Israel is to blame for Gaza beach blast for example? -- tasc wordsdeeds 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point, since the Gaza beach incident is subject to some dispute. But I am just suggesting that we add the figures for the casualties suffered on both sides as a result of the conflict during the period leading up to the current incursion (that is, casualties for June). Such an addition (at least as I conceive it), would not make any analytical points at all about who is responsible for what deaths in what way. Any reader who wanted to know the circumstances surrounding the Gaza beach incident could click on the link to the perfectly adequate article on the subject and learn what the various disputes about the incident are. In other words, the only kind of reader who would be misled into making the inference you're concerned about, and whose state of error would persist, would be a reader who was unwilling to just click over to the article on the topic and find out for himself. We do not, I think, need in general to burden ourselves (thankfully) with the task of hunting down the wilfully ignorant. In this case, I think we can assume that our readers are rational enough not to impute to us inferences we have not, in fact, drawn. But if you really deem it necessary to obstruct such inferences, and you will not agree to including the information otherwise, we could certainly just add a parenthetical remark to the effect that the responsibility for the Gaza beach casualties is disputed. Would this satisfy you? --RobinJ 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure we should have an account of individual casualties in a section on its own, so I've hidden it for now. We do need to find a way to ensure the infobox casualty rate refs are updated, I added some hidden comments to that effect. El_C 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gather you're talking about the casualties during this sequence of events, rather than the casualties leading up to these events during the month of June. Perhaps this comment and the ensuing discussion should have its own section? --RobinJ 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not wikinews, is the problem with keeping track of the specific events surrounding each individual casualty, esp. if they becomes significant. El_C 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Daily briefs are problematic on an encyclopedia entry (as opposed to wikinews); I think major events, including casualties, should be integrated into the body of the article, as part of the overall narrative. El_C 04:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a news source like wikinews. If established editors (editors with considerable experience on Wikipedia) disagree with my position, I will not object, though. El_C 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background: casualty figures

message: "Israel's official reason for the operation is rescuing (or pressuring for the release) of an Israeli soldier, corporal Gilad Shalit, who was abducted by Palestinian militants into Israeli territory, but the escalating conflict is about more than just one kidnapped soldier. It was launched After Palestinian groups launched more than 600 rockets on Israeli towns along the border in the last year, 170 of them during the last month, resulting in an increased domestic pressure on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to do something to stop the attacks on Israeli civilian targets." Zeq 08:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Zeq: the Israelis are clearly acting on plans drawn up before Shalit's capture, and this operation is not principally a reaction to that capture. I'm just not sure how you want the article changed to reflect that. — JEREMY 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how article doest not reflect that opinion! -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I agree, and I wasn't intending to suggest otherwise. I'm just trying to find out what exactly Zeq wants changed. — JEREMY 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah; I see now what Zeq wants to do (ie. he wants to insert the text he quotes above), and I agree with El C's evaluation. — JEREMY
Noam Chomsky claims (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258 search for paragraph starting with "Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24") that Israel abducted a Palestinian doctor and the doctor's brother on June 24th. The implication (as far as I can tell) is that the kidnapping of Shalit was at least partially in response to this. I couldn't find anything about this alleged event elsewhere. Anybody know more about this? I think this is relevant to the "early moments" portion of the article, but I'm not sure if the above implication is clear enough. --srostami 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I hate to do this.  But even with the word claim I don't think that citing Noam Chomsky or democracynow.org adheres to NPOV.  Both Chomsky and democracynow.org define the words American Far Left and would say these things to further their position.  I just don't think it's very reliable in this article.  Now if I had a question on linguistics, psychology and development, or wanted a thrashing debate on leftist politics this is the man I'd come running to.  I just wouldn't ask him who to blame for what in this case, even though he is a self-proclaimed zionist. Njjones 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reason for operation 

message: I went to the official IDF site in english, , and found that they refer to it as Summer Rain. They are a better authority then Newspapers on its official English Translation, so should we switch back to the singular name? Rangeley 17:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, an earlier article  shows it as plural. I guess they arent sure either. Rangeley 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third headline from the top Summary of "Summer Rains" Events during the Weekend. I don't think that it's a good reason to swith back. -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, they dont seem to consistently use Summer Rain. Rangeley 17:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In summary of the operation  they also use rains. -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm 

message: Interesting survey of left-wing Israeli reactions as well as public opinion can be found in this Al-Jazeera article.  Don't have time to add it myself now, sorry
link
Dsol 17:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reactions etc. 

message: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/733634.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5139108.stm
Zeq 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentions 

message: Can someone ban Mieciu K for vandalism because he keeps taking out the links from the bottom. He is accusing me of spamming - which is not truth because I have added other links from other website in the past. He obviously does not like the information from the link and I see this as a problem. ~~ Roberto
* There are dozens if not hundreds of english language websites covering "Operation Summer Rains" news. What makes your link so special? Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Adding links to the same website to several articles in a short period of time is called spamming. And asuming my bad faith is against WikiquetteMieciu K 00:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aljazeera is a popular Arab news site, Ynet is a popular Israeli news site. They are the involved groups in this, so its logical to link to them. How is a socialist webpage going to be relevant, in any way? Rangeley 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Ynetnews link is a good source for ongoing updates (BTW the article from Aljeezera is based on an article from Ynetnews). --TheYmode 00:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ynet and alJazerra are valid news sources. Is the socialist website a news agency or a blog or a external group? As fro inclusion in relevant links, possibly just take a vote or something? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful, that is a pretty bad faith assessment. This individual undoubtedly sees linking to the socialist website as beneficial to Wikipedia, hence he placed it there. But the simple truth is that that webpage is not relevant, or notable enough, to be helpful. Both of you were close to, or exceeded, 3 reverts, which is ofcourse against the rules, so lay off that for a while. 
Rangeley 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Ban 

message: Whatever happens, please remove the tag while the discussion is ongoing. El_C 09:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change it to my second suggestion and remove the tag for now. - FrancisTyers · 09:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, anything. Just remove the tag, please. Thaks. El_C 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ongoing discussion. Why to change it? -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed as a condition of removing the pov tag.  If you wish to revert back, please revert back to the version with the POV tag. I find it slightly concerning that you are not attempting to reach a compromise here. I have offered several suggestions and yet you don't seem to be engaging. Am I perhaps doing something wrong? Taking the wrong approach? If you'd respond more constructively to another approach, please let me know. - FrancisTyers · 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not attempting to reach compromiss? You're ignoring my argument, and I'm not attempting to reach a compromiss. Now this is a clear position. -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring your argument, in fact I'm trying not to have an argument with you. - FrancisTyers · 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your failing to do so, since you're pushing pov. -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make accusations, thats exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. I haven't accused you of anything. - FrancisTyers · 09:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What is meant by that? El_C 09:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meant that since there is no solution/consensus wording should remain original! -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try and relax, this is clearly quite an emotive issue for you. Try and work with me to find a consensus rather than disregarding all my suggestions. - FrancisTyers · 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned, I don't particularly care either way, I just note that this isn't the first time this issue came up. El_C 09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, as a matter of fact, raise this point before. I received no response, and then Francis removed my comments, for reasons I don't quite understand. It's especially odd, since we seem to agree that the use of "arrest" to describe Israeli actions and "abduct" to describe Palestinian actions is POV (since the former suggests a legitimate, legal exercise of state authority, whereas the latter suggests a criminal operation by a non-state entity--in other words, to reply to your earlier position on this issue, the choice of terminology prejudges the question of legality rather than neutrally setting it aside). In any case, I apologise if my now deleted comment was inappropriate in some way; if it was, I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know how. --RobinJ 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yargh! That was an accident, sorry I was going to move your comments down to this section, but subsequently got caught in an edit conflict. Give me a sec and I'll restore them. Sorry again! - FrancisTyers · 12:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'm just glad to know that I didn't do anything inappropriate. Thanks for the swift reply. --RobinJ 12:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: By this, I mean, can we refute the fact that both sides actions can be described as "taking prisoner[s]" ? - FrancisTyers · 09:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not refute it. But the wave of arrests was an elaborate operation of an historical significance; not that you changed that section... El_C 09:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you happy with the current wording? - FrancisTyers · 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine by me. El_C 09:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Immediate suggestion

message: The image provided of the airstrike on Ismail_Haniya's office seems to be wrong to my untrained eye (see image #53628). It doesn't seem to be an airstrike in the heart of a Gaza city, but rather some other recent aerial strike on some road in the Gaza Strip. For comparison, see this  aerial strike on some building, dated 16.7.2005 (see ). I have failed to locate the original news report accompanying the given image, thus I rather not remove the image before the matter is discussed. --Lior 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rangeley 19:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Aerial Strike Image

message: luckly only 1 injury so i doubt it will make the world press. Zeq 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All these four sources say there were no injuries; the BBC article states The rocket hit an empty school yard (not an empty school) which is inline with the others (Haaretz: an empty parking lot). Jobrahms 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1 injury. It is lucky the place was not full of kids (summer vacation) Zeq 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have re-read all four these sources: all say there were no injuries. Could you please state a source for your claim that there was one injury so that we can include this info. Jobrahms 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Qassam]] on [[Ashkelon]] - hit a school 

message: I have changed certain words in the artcile to make the article NPOV. The use of the words terrorist and abducted have been changed to militants and captured to bring it into line with the international media.
: Why !? The word millitant is not correct here terorist is. "In French the term "militant" retains a more moderate meaning of "activist" which it formerly had in English." , Militant is a more POV term, it should be changed ( in this case ) to terrorist. It should also be pointed out that the international media is very POV so siteing them does not help your case. Just to clairfy when a civilian boy, Eliyahu  Asheri  is 'kidnaped' and murdered. Why is this not terrorisim ?--yisraeldov 10:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  terrorist is POV, militant is not. The article is in English, not French. --Jobrahms 16:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree see Honestreportings.com, if using the word terrorist is siding with the Israelis, militant is siding with the palestinians.--69.114.174.131 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Despite my hidden comments to source changes to the figures, the source has not been updated whereas the figures have. Suggestions? El_C 03:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through it two days ago, and checked the casualty section to count the number that were wounded or died according to the sources, and I ended up actually adding a few to the infobox total. Rather than update the source at the infobox, every casualty should be stated in the casualty section so that it can be checked in this manner. Rangeley 14:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox casualty rates

message: Operation_Summer_Rains#West_Bank_front On 5 July... - This is currently taken verbatim from the Jerusalem Post article and should be rewritten. Jobrahms 10:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to make a whole section for the West Bank. The operation section is set up in a sort of chronological order, there is a bit of overlap, but for the most part each section takes place after the previous. Thats how other things are, thats what makes sense, and thats how it should remain. Rangeley 14:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Bank incident 

message: A lot when it comes from the palastinian lies origization. --mitrebox 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much BS can wikipedia take  

message: 4 injured.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 
:Source? I dont see anything saying anyone was injured. Rangeley 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Qassam rockets slam into southern Ashkelon 

message: unhelpful heading changed by Jobrahms 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hi user 210, yes this an encyclopedia thats how we know that you can't drink sea water. If you want to then you have to use desalination plants, these use a lot of power, as does pumping water around. Yes the people of Gaza will have thier own personal emergency supplies of water but humans under normal conditions need 2 liters a day. With the heat this could be as much as 4 liters a day in the Mediterranean coast summer. And as for sewage, this can be a killer especially in hot conditions if it is left lying around untreated. Now that what i call "critical water and sewage pumps", hope that helps you 210.Hypnosadist 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did any one mention that the arabs attaced the Israeli Power Plants that was supplying them with Electricity ?--yisraeldov 10:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the relevant page? This page is not designed for a full discusion of all the things that both sides of the conflict have ever done. Me lkjhgfdsa 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on Gaza (formerly 'Weasal words') 

message: a lot of things in this article, esp. the combat box at the top right, suggest it is really about the whole conflict as opposed to simply the Israeli operation.  The present title suggests that the topic is the operation itself, but in fact considerable activity from both sides of the conflict is documented.  Would another name be more appropriate? Dsol 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the operation, not the Arab Israeli conflict in general. Rangeley 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a debate about the use of Operation names going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history at the moment, it would be useful to talk there. This page currently in my view predominantly about the Israeli military operation, but as time goes on more external events (like rocket attacks) get added turning this into a history of a few days in the Arab Israeli conflict. Maybe fork pages like Effects of OSR, political and media responces to OSR are in order?Hypnosadist 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Just keep it here, there is absolutely no need to complicate things. Rangeley 22:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nature of this article 

message: 3 civilians wounded Zeq 11:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq - your comments here will not make it into the article unless you post your sources. As above, I am happy to add your information if you let us know a citeable source for it. Jobrahms 11:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qassam on Sderot 

message: I just wanted to explain an edit I just made that I forget to title. I changes the intro from first "ground entrance" of the IDF to first "major mobilization" of the IDF because Israeli commandos made an arrest into Gaza on 24 June 2006, one day before Gilad was kidnapped. This arrest raid which predated the kidnapping was actually the first entry of IDF troops into Gaza since the disengagement. This was reported in the "World Brief" section of the Observer on the 25 June 2006 and is documented in this article  by Johnathan Cook. Tiamut 15:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First major mobilization, not ground entrance 

message: The kidnapping of Shalit is an act of terrorism. Militant is the wrong word choice. Militant is defined on dictionary.com as "having a combative character" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant). This definition barely explains what is really going on. The kidnapping of Shalit is much more than an aggressive act. By the way, remember the Munich Massacre...just about the entire Western World views the kidnappings and massacre as "terrorism" not militant. I don't see how this is any different (it is not even known if Shalit is alive). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.188.56 (talk • contribs).
:The capture of soldiers is a normal part of any ongoing war; you see terrorists, others see freedom fighters. Your analogy to Munich is far from obvious: that took place far from the war zone, and involved civilians. — JEREMY 07:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "militant" is being used in this article as a noun; the definition you obtained from dictionary.com (not, I would hasten to add, the most reliable reference work for the English language--try the Oxford English Dictionary) is for the word "militant" used as an adjective and it is completely irrelevant here. The relevant definition in the OED reads "A person who strongly espouses a cause, esp. one who is aggressively active in pursuing a political or social cause. In later use also: spec. a member of an ideologically or politically motivated faction or force." This is plainly accurate in this context, and it is less POV than "terrorist." Moreover, as an encyclopedia (not an organ of propaganda for the IDF, or settlers, or refuseniks or anybody), we ought to adopt the most common usage in major media organs unless (1) we establish that there is a good reason to depart from standard usage and (2) we achieve consensus on the issue. It seems to me that there has been a long-standing consensus here that "militant" is the appropriate word, and you will need convince some of the rest of us if you want the article to say something else. Also, please make sure to sign your comments by putting four tildes (~) in a row. --RobinJ 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The act of attacking civilians is not in itself a definition of terrorism; by that logic we would have to refer also to every army in the world, including the IDF, as terrorists. I would argue that the term is in fact defined politically, not semantically. It is, therefore, inherently POV and should not be used other than in direct quotes. --Jobrahms 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorists 

message: 1. This is part of the Israeli-Arab conflict as Hamas is funded by Iran and Hamas' head leader is in Syria. To ignore the "Arab" part of the conflict is inaccurate.
2. Please read the background of this article. This proves that the "casus belli" is the capture of Shalit and heavy Qassam firing.
3. Israel reluctantly mobilized its forces. Israel did not enter Gaza immediately, it waited a few days. It gave the Palestinians a chance to free Shalit and cease Qassam firing.
4. Please tell me how the attacks on Israeli citizens is any different from the Americans who were killed in 9/11. And please don't tell me that it's because this is Israel or Israel started it, because that is irrelevant and a completely different topic. We don't call 9/11 a "militant attack"...instead it is called a "terrorist attack" Please keep in mind that Hamas is a terrorist group (by the US, EU, and Israel). So to use the term militants is innacurate.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.188.56 (talk • contribs).
: Firstly, and hopefully for the last time, please sign your posts on talk pages!
: 1. By this logic, we should call it the US-Arab conflict as Israel is funded by the US. 
: 2. At the start of the operation Israel cited only the capture of Shalit as the reason for the incursion. The reference to Qassam rockets came later.
: 3. reluctantly is POV: we report what happened.
: 4. See above to continue the discussion regarding militant vs terrorist --Jobrahms 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but you see, although the U.S. is supporting Israel by funding them, it does not necessarily mean the U.S. is against or has a conflict with the Arab countries in general. If you could get some sources to prove your point, that'd be great. --Terrancommander 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the category for these sort of conflicts are labelled "Arab-Israeli", and not "Arab-U.S.". The U.S. is only an ally of Israel and helps in its capacity as an ally. Unless you want to change the whole category to fit in... I don't think many people would support that notion. --Terrancommander 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrancommander - you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting we recategorize this as an Arab-US conflict: I was just responding to 68.1.188.56's edit of the infobox from Part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (which has since been reverted). At this stage, at least, only the Palestinians are involved in hostilities, not the wider Arab world. --Jobrahms 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Note 

message: I would like to open a place for discussion of the listing of casualty figures. I have been adding to this section for some time now and have had my edits repeatedly changed. I had always posted using mainstream sources up to the last two edits when I used cources from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza, who have the most detailed background info on the casualties I have seen to date. Their info differentiates between civilians and militants. Please see: , and . Could we come to some sort of compromise and try to match the mainstream Israeli accounts cited now against the Palestinian ones instead of erasing one another's posts? We could for example write that, "Israeli sources claim ..... and Palestinians claim ...." on the circumstances of the deaths listed. I prefer this approach to edit warring. Anyone with me? Tiamut 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems humorous that you removed info from hundreds of sources and replacing it with one (biased) source.  Not wonder it was reverted as fast as it did. --24.185.16.246 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or, we can simply do two things. 1: Dont embellish things. "One young Israeli soldier, who had a dog named Skip, was shot by a live bullet to the throat. He remained consious as he gasped for air for several minutes, as medics attempted to stop the profuse bleeding." This could all be entirely true, but the nature in which it is presented is clearly meant to create sympathy for the soldier. All deaths are terrible things, but we as an encyclopedia have to present them not to get a reaction, but to state that someone was killed, or wounded, or whatever. Your edits did this, and that is one reason they were reverted. 2: Dont use unreliable sources. Information from "Zionists for a Better Future" or "Hope for a United Palestine" is not what is to be relied on. Use information from reputable news sources. This is not to say the information you got from your source is wrong necessarilly, but we cant just take stuff from any and every blog, or page out there. By keeping it from the more mainstream press, there is much more reliability. Rangeley 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But what you keep doing is removing other militant casualties and replacing them with civilian casualties. The thing is, if the civilian casualties are true, then they are probably different events from the militant casualties. So by removing militant casualties it gives an impression that mostly civilians were killed, which is false. --Spoil29 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you realize that your only source is the PCHR, which is completely different then every mainstream report. --Spoil29 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost every mainstream report fails to give enough detail that would allow us to compare them against the PCHR report. Names, times and the places of deaths are usually not mentioned in the mainstream reports which by the way, in the case of the ones you currently have listed, rely largely on Israeli sources for information. What makes Israeli military sources less POV than a Palestinian human rights group? Shouldn't we at least mention both? Tiamut 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong,mainstream reports almost always get their info from Palestinian "witnesses" and Palestinian hospital officials. All the Israeli sources do is confirm the reports. --Spoil29 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m sorry, but that's not at all correct. Take a look at the first article cited in the July 7 causlaties section.  “Palestinian security forces…” are paraphrased twice, once saying that Israeli missiles hit a target in northern Gaza and once as confirming that a “terror operative” had been killed in an IDF strike. Nothing further from them. Then you have “The IDF spokesman's office said … that the IDF was preventing the firing of Kassam rockets…”  Then there is a bunch of unattributed information that sounds like an IDF press release. Then, “IDF sources reported that a Paratrooper battalion...” Then, more unattributed information that sounds like the IDF again. There is also a paragraph that alludes to the killing of civilian Mohammed Atat in his home by anti-tank fire without mentioning that anyone was actually killed. Finally, “the army” is quoted, and the last paragraph quotes a report from “Army Radio”.  That’s just the first article cited in the July 7 section. There are no reports from “Palestinian witnesses or hospital sources.” Frankly, I don’t see how this article even fits NPOV. It fails to mention a civilian death that in confirmed in other sources, it quotes heavily from Israeli army sources and seems to put words in the mouths of Palestinians security forces whom I am quite sure did not characterize the death of a militant as that of a “terror operative”. Tiamut 20:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good case against the Jerusalem Post. Perhaps stick to international news wires, AP, Reuters etc. PCHR seems to be a contentious source at this time (hopefully other sources will start to corroborate their details), you are also citing too much detail that is cluttering the article. Names, maybe... but life stories are unnecessary! 69.140.65.251 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the response Rangeley. I would add though that the Palestinian Center for Human Rights is not a blog, nor is it a political party, it is a registered NGO and human rights organization whose job it is to collect data on human rights violations in the Gaza Strip. They have the most detailed information available and cite names, places, and circumstances of each death. I would argue that this information is important is determining how many civilians have been killed, because the difference between a civilian and combatant often depends upon whether they were firing at incoming Israeli troops or say, sitting in their home with their family. These details matter. Would you mind outlining which of the details is inappropriate? This is the source, [ and here is my post: 
* At approximately 12:40, IDF troops opened fired on Palestinian civilians in the al-Atatra area. Motaz Mohammed Abdul Qader al-Fairi, from Beit Lahia, was killed by a live bullet to the abdomen. Others were wounded by live bullets and shrapnel from artillery shells, among them Hamdi al-Khour, 29, cameraman for the Turkish news agency Ikhlas who was injured while photographing in the al-Salateen area of Beit Lahia. 
*At approximately 13:50, IDF troops killed Shadi Yousef Omar, a 16-year old who was deaf, shooting him in the chest as he walked near the al-Twam intersection, which leads to al-Israa' neighbourhood in Gaza City. 
*At approximately 15:30, an IDF drone fired a missile at Palestinian militants, killing Abdul Naseer Eissa Abu Hwaidi, 42, Abdul Jabbar Muneer al-Husari, 20, and Khalil Ibrahim al-Hajjar, 22, and wounding a number of others. *At approximately 17:00, IDF troops positioned in a local home in Gaza City was firing at Palestinian civilians. Tha'er Te'ma al-Tanani, 22, was killed by a live bullet to the chest, near a mosque in the al-Israa' neighborhood.  A number of other civilians were also wounded.  
*At approximately 17:50, IDF forces fired artillery shells at Palestinian civilians in the al-Atatra area. Musbah Fayez al-'Attar, 25, was killed, and a number of other civilians were wounded. IDF forces refused to allow medical crews to evacuate the victim's body for more than one hour, firing at ambulances and forcing them back. 
*At approximately 21:00, medical sources at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City declared that Anwar Ismail Abdul Ghani Atallah, 12, from Beit Hanoun, had died after being hit by a live bullet to the head fired by IDF near the Erez industrial zone on July 5, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I never said I knew it was false, but I did say we dont know its true. So stick to reputable sources for news, not this source. And when you do post, dont embellish things. Rangeley 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not embellished anything, I summarized the PCHR report very accurately, so please refrain from making baseless accusations. PCHR is a reputable source and it's based in Gaza so it has first-hand information on what is happening, not just AP wire reports made by deadline pressed journalists. PCHR is "an independent legal body based in Gaza City dedicated to protecting human rights, promoting the rule of law and upholding democratic principles in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It holds Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations and is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, the Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme (FIDH), and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. PCHR is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award for Human Rights." Can you explain how PCHR is less reputable or reliable than say the Jerusalem Post or Ha'aretz who are quoted heavily throughout this article? Tiamut 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the things that it is claiming, that the IDF is purposely killing civilians (even firing at ambulances!), is a claim that Al Jazeera, BBC, and other sources are not making. I have never heard of this organization, its site does not look professional, and its claims seem to be highly biased against Israel. If the stories are true that Israel is purposely killing innocent people, you should have no problem finding mainstream sources saying this as well. If they are not true, then we will not mislead people into thinking that it is true by representing a biased sources claims as facts. And the things you added were embellished, whether done by you or done by them. Rangeley 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the IDF deliberately targets civilians is well-documented and has been attested to by any number of impartial NGOs (Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, &c.). Observations to that effect are not, therefore, a prima facie reason for imagining that the PCHR is unreliable. Given their association with the UN, and given that their standards of evidence and documentation are dramatically higher than any newspaper (newspapers generally do not provide any documentation for their factual claims at all, and they often make false claims--remember the whole brouhaha about Iraq having WMD?), it makes sense to regard the PCHR as a plausible source. If anything, they're likely to be more reliable than the mainstream Israeli media, since the Israeli media are large profit-making corporations and so, under standard free market assumptions, are not likely to array their information in such a way that they might alienate their sources of revenue (advertisers) or their sources of information (the government). But Tiamut's original proposal was, in fact, an extremely reasonable and conciliatory one: give both sets of figures and provide sources for them. It is contrary to the mission of an ecyclopedia to imagine that people should have less information rather than more. --RobinJ 18:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties and POV

message: I've removed the line
:Now renamed Operation Oaks of Bashan.
pending provision of evidence that this is actually the new name of the military operation.  I just googled "Operation Oaks of Bashan" and received one single hit. Sir Paul 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is peculiar, I am surprised I didnt find anything about this until today. A search on google news shows quite a few saying it was renamed, however the IDF site does not state this. We should wait to see what develops though, perhaps this is a seperate, or smaller operation within Summer Rains. Rangeley 18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it, , "The military response is called "Alonei Bashan," an operation within the framework of Operation Summer Rain. Relatively large forces took control of the ruins of the settlements in the northern Gaza Strip." It is the incursion into Northern Gaza, that began the 6th. Not a rename, but a part within this. Rangeley 18:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Oaks of Bashan

message: Footnotes 67-69 all point to the same article, and none of them seem related to the items which contain those footnotes.  Specifically, the article is about a suspected friendly fire Israeli death. StuRat 01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Footnotes 

message: The lead says "and to suppress Qassam rocket fire"
*This is missing the point. The Kassam are targeted at  civilian population  and many have been terrorized by it for months. Most kasssam are fired at 7:30-8:00 targeting the time kids were going to school. (now it is summer vacation). In any case by far more than 5 people were wounded from the attacks. Zeq 10:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind, would you be able give an alternative suggestion as to how it should be rephrased then? Thanks. --Terrancommander 10:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is not intended to explore issues in that way; such in-depth analysis should be positioned lower in the article. "[T]o suppress Qassam rocket fire" is a precise description of the claims made by the Israelis; what about that phrase is POV? — JEREMY 11:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that from the safty of Australia or Boston this may not seem like a big issue but for the people of Sderot, who everyday get bombarded by Kassam the fact that those Qaassam rockets carry enough explosives to demolish significant part of their homes (one just did so this morning) or would people driving in their cars to work (one just wounded this mornning) the fact that  kassam are targeted at civilian population  is worth mentioning.... Zeq 11:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tensions had been high for some time in Israel due to Qassam rocket attacks launched by Palestinians into densely populated areas such as the Israeli city of Sderot, reported to have exceeded 800 rockets in the past seven months," would seem to cover your concerns. It is the first sentence following the lead. — JEREMY 12:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Qassam rocket attacks launched by Palestinians into densely populated areas " should be in the lead. The lead should stand on it's own as a mini article see WP:Lead Zeq 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I’ve edit the lead according to your suggestion. --TheYmode 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non NPOV Lead 

message: Does anybody know where I can get a large version of the photo that was originally in the Operation summer rains info box? The one with the soldiers runniong to reload n artillary piece. Its' a really good photo. Mysticflame 08:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo request

message: 15 days ago Hamas leader says there 1000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. Yesterday he said 9000. Today he says 10,000. I wasn't monitoring from 15 days ago till yesterday so I am sure he could of made a lot more lies. This should be pointed out. 203.214.153.235 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 203 you need to provide the sources for those figures if you want them added to the article.Hypnosadist 15:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas lies 

message: I removed it. Can anyone cite Operation Summer Rains is a war crime? Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes: Amnesty International has described it as such. This is quoted in the article. But of course you've read that... --Jobrahms 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Others have said it without using that exact wording: "humanitarian crime" - Fatah, "incompatible with international law" - Sweden, "[Israel] has not taken the precautions required of it in international law" - Switzerland and the UN urgeing "all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law". Me lkjhgfdsa 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:War crimes]] 

message: While this info  is correct I suggest not using Debka File as source.
They have some correct info with a lot of non proven info. Zeq 16:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a reliable source Zeq? Otherwise I'll remove it. --Jobrahms 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll find in Hebrew cause the world press only reports on what Israel does not what it absorbes. Zeq 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  - it sais: After Ashkelon, now netivot is getting Kasam. Zeq 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debka File 

message: For residents in the Negev (southern Israel) this operation has given them the message that Israel will provide them security, thogh this has been doubted since qassam rockets are still fired at them, and it wont undo the damage the rockets have already caused.
: I have removed this section - not because I don't believe there has been an impact, but because it was very badly written and unsourced. --Jobrahms 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on Negev residents - section removed 

message: Its true you wont find many sources on this, thats because CNN, BBC,etc. wont talk about the impact because they side with the Palestinians [see Honestreportings.com] --69.114.174.131 00:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact on Negev residents

message: Zionists try to cover-up their crimes. Robin Hood 1212 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to explain what you mean and how the Casualties section is one-sided? --TheYmode 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The casaulties r one-sided 

message: Robin Hood 1212 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should talk abt residents who fled 

message: Since there was no disagreement with the statements suggested in the Hamas and Terrorism section of the discussion for the past 36 hours (and there has been plenty of user activity going on), the changes have been made and are officially agreed upon. Please do not change the first couple of paragaphs until another discussion has been held. --68.1.182.215 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: "The new draft added language expressing "grave concern" about the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel and condemning "all acts of violence, terror and destruction" including the recent abduction and killing of an Israeli 
civilian in the West Bank." Zeq 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even UN draft resolution mention: 

message: Should we expand the entry of Operation Summer Rains to include Hezbollah actions. That is, should we include the casualties in the Israel-Hezbollah warfare to the total for Operation Summer Rains? Perhaps the IDF will issue a new Operation name in regards to Lebanon.
:Yea, I honestly do not know right now. They havent named it yet, or stated it as a part of this Operation. For now, lets keep an open mind for both possibilities. Rangeley 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah and Operation Summer Rains 

message: What Israel during against Palestinian civilias is war crimes. The Israeli forces had shot and murder civilias, The have destroy power station, hospitol and hydroelectric power station. Now must the Palestinian civilas live on dirty water who have deadly bacterium. They have also kidnapped and tortured civilans. Do not they lock like war crimes and Israeli war criminals. Even the government of Switzerland, UN and many other peace-organizations thinks it is war crimes. Killerman2 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes 

message: 2006_Arab-Israeli_War
Unless someone can come up with a better name, the press thinks its all related.
Cwolfsheep 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That name implies that all Arab nations (or at least most) are at war with Israel.  They are not.  Even Lebanon seems to be leaving the battle between Israel and the Hezbollah terrorists for now, so there really isn't any Arab government which is currently waging war against Israel. StuRat 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A case could be made for 2006 Palestine-Israeli War, as Hamas has declared war on Israel, and was then elected to lead Palestine, and has since canceled the cease-fire.  This isn't quite a formal declaration of war by Palestine, but comes pretty close.  Israel hasn't declared war, either, but both sides have clearly committed "acts of war". StuRat 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the link at the top of this section, you will see there is already a poll going on about whether the new article should be deleted, with some (including me) suggesting that it be renamed.  I would not favor Palestine-Israeli War as that suggests (1) there is a State of Palestine, which there isn't, and (2) all of those involved fighting Israel are Palestinians, which is probably not the case after Israel's action against Lebanon.  6SJ7 18:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestine isn't a full country, but it is an autonomous region.  And the vast majority of the combatants opposing Israel are Palestinians. Perhaps 2006 Palestinian-Israeli War would make the distinction between Palestinians and the theoretical nation of Palestine clear. StuRat 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created war article 

message: ...should be changed, like in 2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict. POV and Israeli-sided--TheFEARgod 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no should not. -- tasc wordsdeeds 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I wrote on the Israel-Hamas page, the MilHist project has a guideline that suggests not using operation names as article titles.
Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy.   
I don't personally have a strong opinion, but I lean towards geographic/time names when possible. Thanks, TheronJ 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be fine with me, but let's wait to see if we can get a consensus.  What do the other editors think?  TheronJ 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an Israeli crisis too, but major combat operations are taking place in Gaza. It's a geographical name, not a POV name. Joffeloff 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the current name is OK as a temporary name, but once a name catches on with the media, we should redirect from here to an article under that name. StuRat 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: What about the destruction caused by rockets or the soldiers that were killed/wounded. Show those photos. The photos presented are too biased as they are all Israeli responses to attacks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.148.154.104 (talk • contribs).
:I agree. StuRat 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post a picture of damage caused to Israelis 

message: I am not sure where this should go. A extremist group says they have captured two palestineans.
Hello32020 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hold on for a few hours to see whether anyone else (outside this alleged group, not just other media) says that this happened.  6SJ7 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am not sure what article it should go in, either.  It allegedly happened in Jerusalem, but the group is naming itself after the soldier captured near Gaza.  There is an article at 2006 Arab-Israeli War although hopefully that will be renamed soon.  6SJ7 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestineans Captured 

message: Or is that under another code name ?  In the first case, they should be in the same article, in the second, there should be two linked articles. StuRat 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the answer, the Lebanon portion is called Operation Just Reward. StuRat 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both a part of a conflict for which we are currently calling the 2006 Arab-Israeli War, though I proposed that we rename it 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. Operation Summer Rains is strictly the Gaza operation, whereas Operation Just Reward is strictly the Lebanon portion, for now atleast. Rangeley 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does "Operation Summer Rains" include Lebanon ? 

message: I believe the title should remain as it is. However, the reference in the side should say, part of the "Arab-Israeli conflict" as this is not yet a war. I think that proposed title would cover everything that has happened so far. --68.1.182.215 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: As in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis page, where does that number about the strength of the IDF come from? What does it refer to? should be removed unless some source is cited. --darkskyz 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rangeley 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing there on the strength of the IDF, other then "thousands of troops", which is far from being an accurate count of the force deployed. Removing until some proper citation is found for that number, or more accurate numbers are reported. --darkskyz 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength? 

message: *Yahoo News, 7-14-2006
*Christian Science Monitor article, 7-14-2006
The Yahoo articles are linking the events, and the CSM article has people calling the situation a "war."
Cwolfsheep 04:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated news

message: Just flipping through an saw that yall had 128 refs.  Most impressive.  My hat off to you.  American Patriot 1776 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressive 

message: Hundreds are crossing the Gaza-Egypt border after Palestineans blew a hole in the wall seperating Gaza and Egypt.(Associated Press)
Hello32020 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not at the end of Impact on Strip residents section just before the Concern for potential humanitarian crisis section.Hypnosadist 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Egypt sent like 10,000 officers to the border to stop that kind of thing? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the best idea is that noone occupies the Gaza Strip. but thats just my own personal opinion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea, hundreds are entering Gaza, not leaving. Supposedly they are coming to show solidarity with the Palestinians, or coming to fight Israel. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundreds leaving Gaza and crossing border into Egypt 

message: Early Saturday morning(IST) Israeli aircraft bombed the Hamas Economic Minsitry in Gaza.  Hamas says that there are no casualties.  This is all according to Reuters news service.  
(On a side note I feel this page is being neglected in favor of the Lebanon-Israeli crisis page, I hope this is just my anxiety and that this situation doesn't get swept under the rug so to speak) Njjones 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Aircrafts strike Hamas Economic Ministry 

message: I don't want to compare, but in 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis infobox in the casualties area, two captive soldiers are listed. Should Gilad Shalit be written there in the Israeli side as "1 captive soldier" ? Máfiàg 12:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between here and there is that this article is about the operation by Israel that began on June 28th, whereas the Lebanon thing is about the conflict that began when Hezbollah attacked Israel and took the soldiers. While in that case it is a part of the conflict, in this case it is only the cause, but occured prior. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but the casualties in the Israeli side are 3. One killed during the operation, two killed in the assault on Kerem Shalom, in which Gilad Shalit was captured. It must be either written as 1 killed, X wounded and so on, or 3 killed, 1 captured and so on. You get my point? Máfiàg 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the captured soldier be consisted in Casualties? 

message: We should write it. Robin Hood 1212 04:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: any reasons to think that it ever existed? -- tasc wordsdeeds 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the name of Hamas' operation in Kerem Shalom? 

message: * Operation Summer Rains → 2006 Gaza conflict … Rationale: A non-POV title - Operation Summer Rains - is the Israeli operation in response to the Hamas attack. 
:After which, 2006 Israel-Hamas crisis should be merged into it. —132.205.44.134 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the conflict started on June 25, only Summer Rains started on 28, so this article only covers the conflict from the Israeli response onwards. (or so goes the infobox and the title). Shouldn't this cover the Hamas operation that started everything as well? 132.205.44.134 23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it is part of the Arab/Isreali confict that has been going on forever hence why 2006 is important in the title as it places it in a timeline of events in Gaza. ie after Isreal left. Njjones is right aswll that it would help bring this page inline with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict article.Hypnosadist 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You couldn't move it because Operation Summer Rains already exist. There are two options:
* An administrator has to delete that page, and the movement will be able.
* This one is kinda messy and egoistic to do: Copy the whole article to "Operation Summer Rains", and make this page a redirect page; but again this is not a good move, and we must consider the other wikipeds that do not wish to revert the name. 
Máfiàg 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename page - 2006 Gaza conflict 

message: No. It isn't only Israel-Gaza. 203.158.35.252 07:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: Do not change the name. - Little Spike 7:20pm EST, July 17th, 2006
:But the conflict started on June 25, only Summer Rains started on 28, so this article only covers the conflict from the Israeli response onwards. (or so goes the infobox and the title). Shouldn't this cover the Hamas operation that started everything as well? 132.205.44.134 23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is part of the Arab/Isreali confict that has been going on forever hence why 2006 is important in the title as it places it in a timeline of events in Gaza. ie after Isreal left. Njjones is right aswll that it would help bring this page inline with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict article.Hypnosadist 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You couldn't move it because Operation Summer Rains already exist. There are two options:
* An administrator has to delete that page, and the movement will be able.
* This one is kinda messy and egoistic to do: Copy the whole article to "Operation Summer Rains", and make this page a redirect page; but again this is not a good move, and we must consider the other wikipeds that do not wish to revert the name. 
Máfiàg 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Can someone ban this person ? 203.158.35.252 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that it was a bad edit, you should refrain from personal attacks - see WP:NPA. I have ammended your comment. Megapixie 07:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the personal attack? I don't remember attacking any person. 203.158.35.252 11:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except just now below. 203.158.35.252 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling people "Morons" is a personal attack. Megapixie 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT THE F***!? 

message: Yet again someone vandalizes the numbers.  Would someone do something about it already? 203.158.35.252 11:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay would someone ban the j***s?

message: This article is, impressively, getting too long. How would people feel about putting the timeline in a separate article? --Carwil 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with length/segmenting off a portion 

message: See Arab world fed up with Hezbullah ! 203.158.35.252 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent news 

message: When have the Palestinians killed 24 Israelis? Why are the casualties from the conflict with Hezbollah being added here?--TheFEARgod 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CASUALTIES NUMBER 

message: Why is this article less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a daily news blog? This is inappropriate. Furthermore, the casuality list is grossly unneutral, it emphasizes Israeli definitions (not everybody the Israeli army claims to be a 'militant' is in fact so according to non-IDF sources)and neglects mention of a significant number of civilians killed. In any case, this article may be put up for deletion if it continues to be a daily news blog, grossly biased or not. Ramallite (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on here? 

message: Everybody seems to be referring to this article as Operation Summer Rains, but the title is Operation summer rains. Should I take that the reason is that Operation Summer Rains already exists? If so, we could contact an admin to do the move. fetofs Hello! 14:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Incidentally, there has been a recent.....heated......discussion about using operational titles instead of more descriptive alternatives. Please see here and the tamer (;-)) second discussion. SoLando (Talk) 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Does anyone know if the Red Cross has requested access to the Israeli "prisioners" that Hamas and Hezbollah has admitted to holding? If not, why not? If they have, can someone cite a reference? --user:mnw2000 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Cross 

message: The main picture in this article has been deleted. It is extremely biased and does not portray the events accurately. Israel did not just launch any random operation. Several Palestinian terrorists raided an Israeli based killed several soldiers and kidnapped one. As a result of this act, Israel entered the Gaza Strip. Keep in mind that Israel withdrew the Gaza Strip in hopes of peace in August of 2005. Apparently, it seems that terrorism is more prevalent since Israel left, and that Hamas does NOT seek peace with Israel. Once hate education ceases and once Arab countries agree to recognize and make peace with Israel, will there be peace. Therefore, the main picture should show Gilad Shalit or the base that was raided. --68.1.182.215 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTICE 

message: A member of the national executive of a (left wing, with seats in parliament) Israeli party says on their website "Analysts looking for the answer to how we got here ought to recall the initial demand from the Palestinian militias for the release of female prisoners and children in exchange for Gilad Shalit's safe return. In our rush to declare that we won't negotiate with terrorists (never mind that we have done so in the past and will inevitably end up doing so again this time) no one bothered to consider how it is that hundreds of Palestinian women and children are languishing in Israeli jails." http://www.myparty.org.il/main-branch/EN/articles/4513.html  I think it's obvious such information deserves verification and if proved correct, inclusion in the article. --fs 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli party says exchange offer was for women and children 

message: I removed a blatant copyvio that appears to have been in the article for some time, two paragraphs copied directly from the following source. I wasn't able to locate the editor who originally copied this verbatim, but please don't do this. KWH 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on Gaza Strip Residents 

message: A week ago there was a suggestion to move the article's name to 2006 Israel Gaza conflict. A vote was made and a majority of seven out of eight disagreed. However, someone has decided to change the name even though the majority said no. And since then, the name is still changed. The problem is that you can't change back the name because Operation Summer Rains already exist. So can anyone here please contact an administrator so he could do something about it? 
Thanks in advance, Máfiàg 07:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the name should be that of the operation, like the previous (see campaignbox)--TheFEARgod 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention! Article Name 

message: See Al-Aqsa Intifada page. ->2006 headline --TheFEARgod 11:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of al-Aqsa intifada? 

message: Raji Serrani, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), which has collected several examples of the tactic, described it as "psychological warfare", adding: "Since when did Israel feel the need to warn people that they were about to bomb their homes? They are simply playing with people's minds and inflicting a new panic in Gaza." 
:Oddly enough I am sure if these calls were made they would complain that Israel is bombing civilian locations with civs still in side without warning. No winning in some eyes, I know they just not blow the building up, but then again rebels could just stop storing rockets in them as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning Phone Calls

message: As some of you know, in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict we refer to prisioners of either side as "captured" after reaching a hard consensus for NPOV reasons. I think this article might be well served by adopting the convention. In particular regarding the contentious facts regarding the origin of the current conflict.--Cerejota 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no concensus. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is it that the overwhelming majority of edits supports this use? That is the very definition of consensus. --Cerejota 00:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kidnapping vs Capture

message: John Berger, Noam Chomsky, Harold Pinter, and José Saramago claims in an an open letter that the two Palestinians captured by Israeli operatives on June 24 was "a doctor and his brother". Could we put that in instead of just refering to them as Palestinians. Or, if anyone knows their names, use them. --Bergerons 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i put in a link to Muamar family detention incident. There's still very little info on them - it would be good to add more info if anyone has reliable info. Boud 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Don't Shoot the Messenger" 

message: The infobox is keeping a tally of all civilians killed or injured, but it seems that only the Palestinian civilians are getting counted. What about the Israelis being wounded in the Qassam rocket attacks? Just recently 2 children were injured in Sderot. Unless they are counted as well, I suggest not add any civilian wounded from both sides.  Richardmiami 06:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find the sources and edit. You already mentioned those to children. You can do do it, oyu have permission to edit! I do oppose categoricaly the deletion of palestinian civilian figures simply because the figures from israel are not forthcoming: what we should do rather that delete information is add the information. So go ahead and do it!--Cerejota 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To let all know, I shall be keeping track of the casualties on both sides and will be updating them. I've already updated it today. The source I'm using is this website. It has links to sites which tally the death and injured scores from both sides. (Afgan42 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the Israeli Civilian Casualties