Talk:Operation Hot Winter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 108 dead palestinians
Barak said today. Flayer (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Islamic Jihad's participation
According to Ynet, Islamic Jihad was directly targeted in the operation, meaning that it can be listed as a participant. I don't know whether it responded directly to the IDF, but considering that it does fire Qassams constantly, it should definitely be included. Flayer: Do you have a link to the Channel 1 program stating that the Jihad was not involved? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Warm or Hot?
Is it Warm Winter or Hot Winter? I've seen the latter far more often in sources... —Nightstallion 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Israeli publications call it 'Warm Winter' in English, although Hot Winter is a literal translation of the Hebrew name. I support the usage of 'Warm Winter'. Both have many sources. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- If Hot is actually more correct and more literal, *AND* it's at least as common (in fact, more common) than Warm, we should use Hot, I'd say. —Nightstallion 17:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Givati?
What is "Givati" supposed to mean in "8 wounded (Givati)"?Bless sins (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Read the source. It says that there were 8 wounded in Givati alone. I have no information on the other forces which participated, and it's likely that there were no other injuries, considering that it was a Givati operation. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- While we separate casualties by civilian and soldier we don't separate them by their division or location or regiment etc. I'm moving the details down to the content.Bless sins (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Operation over?
It appears that the operation itself is completely over, not just the first stages, and most sources confirm this. However, the IDF Spokesperson has not made a press release confirming that the operation finished, or whether the IDF considers it a success or failure. Even so, should we state that the operation is over? It certainly seems so. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provide sources? If the sources say it, I'd go ahead and put it. Last I read Olmert was threatening that Israel would re-invade Gaza (and I think he did end up re-invading). In anycase, I'd wait a week or so - you never know how things can twist in that part of the world.Bless sins (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't have much time to search, but this article comes to mind off the top of my head. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article says "after the first phases of the fighting were completed." There may be more phases to come. Is there any specific quote you want me to look at?Bless sins (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't have much time to search, but this article comes to mind off the top of my head. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are some sources stating that the operation ended: English, Hebrew Reshet, Hebrew NRG (op-ed) -- Ynhockey (Talk) 06:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Given the above source, and the fact that the news sources are largely silent about it now (no new casualties have been reported), I'd agree.Bless sins (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, maybe the article should be modified to past tense. What do you suggest we put under "result" - perhaps "tentative cessation"? -- Nudve (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply, I haven't noticed that you guys replied. Anyway, I suggest 'claimed success' as the result. I guess we can't simply put success because no one knows what really happenned there or what the true aims of the operation were, but it does appear that Israel meant for it to last 48 hours and Israeli/IDF sources claimed that the operation was a success. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, maybe the article should be modified to past tense. What do you suggest we put under "result" - perhaps "tentative cessation"? -- Nudve (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nakba
The Holocaust and Nakba are two different events, but the Palestinians call the Nakba 'their holocaust'. When discussing what Vilnai meant by a 'worse holocaust' when threatening the Palestinians, it is important to mention that the Palestinians constantly use that phrase to describe what happened in 1948. When threatening Jews, Armenians or Palestinians with a 'holocaust', each one would take that to mean something else, based on their own collective national experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.80.228 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Irrelevant commentary
We can't have irrelevant commentary in this article that calls specific organizations "anti-Israel", unless that commentary is directly connected with Operation Hot Winter. Think of it this way: would it not be inappropriate if someone inserted commentary saying that the United States is anti-Arab, right after the U.S. reaction. Would it also not be inappropriate if someone brought in references to "Israeli apartheid" while discussing the Israeli reaction?
Irrelevant commentary that attacks particular organizations and is not relevant to the operation should not be in the article.Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Very bad comparison. The Non-Aligned Movement identifies itself as anti-Zionist and has always been part of the anti-Israel bloc of states at the UN.[1] Do you know how many Wikipedia articles have criticism and label the criticizer as pro-Israel? Check Robert Fisk, check B'Tselem, off the top of my head. This is where the organization is coming from. As far as the Human Rights Council's bias against Israel, that argument has been made by high-ranking UN officials including Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, in addition to the US and EU. It is a way for Arab states to bring forth their opinion on international level, which (per their majority) they can do. And to that there is a sourced counter-argument. No biggie. And please make sure the whole idea of the reaction is given by each party. --Shamir1 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yet none of those labels are presented in the context of Operation Hot Winter. Again if you wish to include the allegation that the NAM is "anti-Israel" then I can also include the allegation that Israel is an "apartheid state" - where both allegations are irrelevant to this article.Bless sins (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Inserting that Israel is an 'aparetheid state' to this article would be a severe violation of WP:UNDUE, while the Non-Aligned Movement is usually seen as anti-Israel and is in fact anti-Zionist (remember Zionism = racism?). Your comparison is flawed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I highly doubt so. Alleging that Israel is an apartheid state is actually a popular concept (though it may be completely wrong, we are not discussing that). The NAM includes 118 countries of the world (including the world's largest democracy, India). Also my point remains: none of the commentary in the article is related to operation hot winter. Neither you, nor Shamir1 has responded to this point.Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was merely stating that your comparison was flawed, not commenting on the relevance of the statement. About the actual statement in the article, it's meant to provide some context to the reaction of the NAM. I wouldn't mind it being changed to 'anti-Zionist' instead of anti-Israel, although it's pretty much the same thing. Even if this might not be the best argument for keeping the commentary, I certainly haven't seen a better argument for deleting it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- The argument for deleting it is simple: the commentary is irrelevant to operation hot winter. When the sources made those comments they certainly didn't have operation hot winter in mind. However, when NAM condemned Israel, it was doing so because of Israeli activities during operation hot winter.
- Also no one has provided a good comment for not having allegations of Israeli apartheid in the article, should I place them in as well?Bless sins (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also the commentary seems to violate WP:NOR, which says "However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context ... you are also engaged in original research;" You are clearly using the commentary in a different context - as none of the sources were made in the context of operation hot winter.Bless sins (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was merely stating that your comparison was flawed, not commenting on the relevance of the statement. About the actual statement in the article, it's meant to provide some context to the reaction of the NAM. I wouldn't mind it being changed to 'anti-Zionist' instead of anti-Israel, although it's pretty much the same thing. Even if this might not be the best argument for keeping the commentary, I certainly haven't seen a better argument for deleting it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I highly doubt so. Alleging that Israel is an apartheid state is actually a popular concept (though it may be completely wrong, we are not discussing that). The NAM includes 118 countries of the world (including the world's largest democracy, India). Also my point remains: none of the commentary in the article is related to operation hot winter. Neither you, nor Shamir1 has responded to this point.Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Inserting that Israel is an 'aparetheid state' to this article would be a severe violation of WP:UNDUE, while the Non-Aligned Movement is usually seen as anti-Israel and is in fact anti-Zionist (remember Zionism = racism?). Your comparison is flawed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yet none of those labels are presented in the context of Operation Hot Winter. Again if you wish to include the allegation that the NAM is "anti-Israel" then I can also include the allegation that Israel is an "apartheid state" - where both allegations are irrelevant to this article.Bless sins (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)