Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Rocket attacks

If RS do not draw a link shuld we imply one? Yes the attacks declined but there may have been reasons for this unrelated to the conflict.????

Lead

Israel's stated goal was to stop rocket fire into Israel: Not found in source Reuters (describes only part of the timeline).

and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip: Not found in sources.

I propose to replace the sentence by:
"Israel's stated goal was to stop attacks from Gaza on Israel. It argued that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. An argument rejected by the UN Fact Finding Mission, who investigate alleged violations of international law during the Gaza War."<ref name="guardian.co.uk">
--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, oppose your proposal. Firstly I'm not sure why you are changing "rocket fire" to attacks." The weapons smuggling was sourced but now the link is dead. A new source must be found and it should be not difficult. Your essay-like proposal for the second sentence is wholly inappropriate for a second sentence of a WP:LEAD let alone for any part of the article. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem at all to keep "rocket fire" instead of the more compact "attacks". The Guardian perfectly cites the Israeli key arguments, so I also propose to add to the source the quote: "The inquiry rejected Israel's argument that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. Instead, it found the war was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population".". Rejecting the source by calling it essay-like is very cheap arguing. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To include such "inquiry" in the lead (furthermore with those words, which are not mainstream opinion... the objective was to "humiliate, terrorize"?? are you kidding me or what?) is blatant and obvious POV-pushing. Take a time to read weight, label, lead and NPOV more carefully. This is a serious encyclopedia, not your personal blog.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

First, a quote in the ref does not appear in the lead. Further no one says it is a mainstream opinion; it is a quote from a RS. Third, "humiliate, terrorize" are not my words, but only short-sighted minds see them as a joke. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Operation Protective Edge be added to the top with Operation Pillar of Defense in the "For..." section? - Galatz (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation name

Aviados, you seem not to get the point about the name Operation Cast Lead. It is not about the etymology of the word. It is about the cynical use of it, refering to the "lead" casted out over the Gazan population. Making an innocent reference to a celebration makes it still more cynical and hypocritical. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wickey-nl, I'm afraid it is you who does not get the point about the name. *Of course* the name may have several aspects, some of which you may call "cynical", or in any case a word play. However, its basic meaning should undoubtedly be explained (which, much to my surprise, was not the case until now).

I shall quote from the English-language source I have given (which is nothing if not critical):

The war-normalizing name Operation Cast Lead [...] carried several connotations to Jewish culture with the key overall connotation being the holiday of Hanukkah. It is important to note that most of these connotations are lost in the English name, thus a detailed discussion of the Hebrew name may be useful for the non-Hebrew speaker. (Gavriely-Nuri, Dalia (2013). “Operation Cast Lead.” The Normalization of War in Israeli Discourse, 1967-2008. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. pp. 42–43)

The authour – a senior lecturer and a research fellow in the Department of Politics and Communication at Hadassah Academic College and at the Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, respectively, and whose main research area is Peace and War Discourse – goes on to explain it in detail. If you wish to add information to it, based on sources like this study, you are welcome. However, objecting the mere explaining of the operation's name is an absurdity. Aviados (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

This photo of a stack of scrap from an unreliable source could have been made anytime, anywhere. Found in a mosque? It clearly are not weapons. This violates WP:SOURCE. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we usually consider military spokesperson units unreliable sources? Are all government spokespersons unreliable, in your opinion?

And what is the basis for the claim that Qassam rockets "are not weapons"? Aviados (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, military spokespersons in general are pathological liars. They are not government spokespersons, although these usually also lie. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This photo shows at best remains of what once were Qassam rockets. Unknown where and when found. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting approach, determining that information provided by official spokespersons is probably a lie. Is it grounded in any guidelines, or is it just your personal point of view?

Qassam rockets are seen in the images. You *suggest* that these aren't but "remains of what once were Qassam rockets". That's an original research. Aviados (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Government statements are notable primary sources that can be included if attributed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

An exposition of old metal, yet not weapons, and a soldier posing for the picture. This image is not added for information, but merely for mood making. So, I remove it again. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Two editors have explained why you are wrong and objected your edit. I reverted your edit yet again. Please do not remove the image again without achieving an agreement in the talk page. Aviados (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The hollow phrase of Brewcrewer, I do not regard as an explanation. Instead, your suggestion that Qassam rockets are shown is original research. You failed to adress any of my objections. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's less of an original research than to claim that what is shown is "a stack of scrap" or "an exposition of old metal". But of course, we should avoid original research, on either side; that means we are to stick to the source, according to which what is shown in the image are weapons. Aviados (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The image itself proves it is an unreliable source. The accompanying comment speaks volumes. Yet, I gave enough other arguments to delete this picture. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You gave some arguments, all of which were then refuted.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by saying that "the image itself proves it is an unreliable source". Aviados (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Only silly Israelis and Americans believe that the IDF as a fighting party is a reliable source. Apparently, there are editors among those believers here. The image is clearly for propaganda, both on Flickr and in the article. WP:SOURCE is enough for deletion. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

there are images in there from the ISM, which is not neutral, not a reliable source. Why are you not removing those? This kind of one-sided editing is disruptive. at leats 4 editors have reverted you yon this issue - stop edit warring over it. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As a mouth-piece of other editors, you are confusing neutral and reliable. Unlike IDF, ISM is not a party that takes part in the hostilities and is not known for systematic lying. There is no evidence at all that ISM is an unreliable source. Moreover, we are talking about an IDF image. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The IDF is reliable source for thier own images.Please don't remove it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: IDF image

This request is about the question isued above (the use of an IDF image).
The IDF image, in my view, is placed in the article for propaganda only. It not only violates WP:SOURCE, but also WP:NPOV. My theses are:

1. The image is used for propaganda and does not serve explanation of the article
2. Date, time and place of the image, and the persons who collected the materials are not verifiable
3. The IDF as a party that takes part in the hostilities in general is not a reliable source on the subject, including statements about targets, and casualties among the other party
   

Wickey-nl (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

History

• 4 July 2014‎ [1] Wickey-nl's first removal
• 4 July 2014‎ [2] reverted by User:Shezor Sajur, almost certain a sock, edit accepted by Brewcrewer
• 6 July 2014‎ [3] Wickey-nl's first revert, to force discussion on talkpage
• 6 July 2014 [4]‎ reverted by Aviados
• 7 July 2014‎ [5] Wickey-nl's second revert, to force discussion on talkpage
• 7 July 2014‎ [6] reverted by Aviados

Until Wickey-nl's third revert on 10 July 2014‎, there was no response on the talkpage but by Brewcrewer, with a reaction that was not to the point, and from Aviados, who ignored Wickey-nl's arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickey-nl (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 July 2014

Wow, this description cannot be less accurate. First, Wickey-nl neglected to mention the fact that the discussion had indeed begun, with both his argument and my response, on 5 July. Second, I couldn't have ignored Wickey-nl's final "arguments", since his kind remark about the silliness of Israelis and Americans does not constitute an argument (but if anything, merely reflects his "neutral" POV). Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Please, start your comment with a * and your sign (~~~~)

1 The image is used for propaganda

• The image, showing weapons found in a mosque, demonstrates Hamas's notorious usage of public, civilan facilities – including, as in this case, mosques – for military purposes, and thus effectively turning the civil population in Gaza into a human shield. This is a matter of fact, known to be true and confirmed by numerous non-Israeli sources (including, interestingly enough, Hamas's own speakers, who apparently do not believe there is anything wrong with this practice). To present the readers with this image, then, is no more of a "propaganda" than to present them with images depicting the actions of the other side (i.e., Israel), namely explosions, damaged buildings etc. (which, to be sure, appear in the article in their numbers). To show visual evidence of the wrongs inflicted by only one of the two fighting parties, while erasing all trace of the ones inflicted by the other, is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, the image is used for propaganda/PR. That is the only reason to take the photo and publish the photo. But including propaganda in Wikipedia articles is fine as long the source is clearly identified and what it purportedly shows is attributed to the source of the propaganda. And Aviados, we are not here to show visual evidence of the wrongs inflicted by anyone. It's an encyclopedia with a mandatory WP:NOTADVOCATE policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The image may have been taken by the IDF for PR purposes, but in this article it is being used to illustrate some of the arguments. There's nothing wrong with that so long as the overall article adheres to WP:NPOV - by including arguments and images from the other side. On that note, I might be more sympathetic to the OP's argument here if he also suggested that the propaganda photos originating with the International Solidarity Movement also be removed - but as the OP hypocritically supports retaining those photos while advocating the removal of IDF ones, we can safely dismiss this argument as disingenuous. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Obviously, but as long as the caption clearly states where photo comes from and as long as photos from similar Palestinian sources are not rejected, it's useable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• The question is not only if the image is used for propaganda purposes, which is obvious, but more importantly why it is used in a WP article. What does the picture add? Does it say that mosques are legitimate military targets, like homes, press offices, schools and hospitals? And if so, should WP support this. If this is indeed the case, it should be mentioned in the capture; not simply "weapons found in a mosque", which is meaningless. Questioning the presence of pictures that damage Israel's image is legitimate. But, unlike the photo about we are talking now, there are published plenty pictures of the damage, by plenty independent sources, and they were verifiable by everyone. The presence of other images does not legitimate the presence of an improper one. Every one should be judged separately. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The most disturbing use of a non-sense argument is, that propaganda from an unreliable source may be used for balance and NPOV. No source or image from a Palestinian battle group has been used in the whole article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• The image gives an example of case where Palestinians have used a mosque as a weapon warehouse; nothing particularly new. You may think this to be "meaningless", but that seems like nothing more than yet another reflection of your clearly non-NPOV attitude here. It is a crucial aspect of this warfare, which should certainly not be disregarded. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

2 Content not verifiable

• This is not a separate issue, but merely an aspect of no. 3 (see bellow). Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• This is true of just about every photograph on Wikipedia - , and is a byproduct of copyright laws. verifiable images - from reputable news agencies - are copyrighted and can't normally be used. (and as an aside, even reputable news media have been caught publishing fake photos). We rely on user generated content for most photographic material. Specifically, it applies to all the ISM photos in the article, which the OP has no problem with. Again, an insincere appeal to policy, properly described as WP:WIKILAWYERING Brad Dyer (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• As Sean.hoyland pointed out, propaganda may be included in Wikipedia articles under certain conditions. This does not mean that misleading info may be presented just because it is correctly attributed. The content on the discussed photo is dubious and not verified by a RS. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• As others have already stated, the image gives no "misleading info", and only someone who applies a double standard would consider it "dubious" while unquestionably accepting the validity of the ones taken by the ISM. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• I am fine with this photo as long as "according to IDF" is there in the caption. It does illustrate Israel's claim of weapons being hidden in a mosque (without saying anything about whether that claim is true). If someone wants to jump from this allegation to the conclusion that it is ok to bomb mosques, that is their problem. I do however note that there is no equivalence between the photos from ISM and this photo, because nobody disputes the damage as shown in the ISM photos. While here, there is obviously a charged claim that Palestinian militant groups used mosques as weapons storage. As far as I understand it, the ISM photos are used mainly due to them being without copyright restrictions. Kingsindian (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Off topic discussion on use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes

FYI, the Palestinian use civilian infrastructure for military purposes in the current warfare as well. There are plenty of sources referring to both now and then (for instance: 1, 2; 3; 4). Aviados (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Not sure what this has to do with the above topic, but if you wish to discuss it, sure. I was indeed aware of the rockets found in the UNRWA school a few days ago, which is being investigated. All the sources you mention (except for the Israeli intelligence source, which I will not treat as independently credible) refer to the 2014 war, and just this single incident. There are no other sources for the 2008 war which you list. So your phrase "both now and then" seems wrong. I am quite willing to believe the allegation that mosques were sometimes used for storage (indeed, it would be surprising if it were not true), but you haven't given me any evidence for it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC) It was just a casual remark, so I didn't try very hard. Also, quite naturally, I'm more occupied with current news. I don't know how good your German is, but the Die Zeit article refers to another (2014) incident, where Hamas used a German-funded civilian facility. Now, I looked it up, and there are indeed numerous sources – apart from military intelligence researches – discussing this issue. To give a few examples: "Hamas Independent reports give detailed evidence that Hamas used hospitals, school, homes, and mosques to hide weapons and soldiers during the Gaza War [...] Hamas hid IEDs in and around civilian homes and hospitals[.]" (Marie-Helen Maras‏, ‘Hamas,’ The CRC Press Terrorism Reader, 2014 , p. 287); "[Hamas and other Palestinian operatives] fired rockets from residential neighbourhoods and engaged Israeli forces from or near houses, hospitals, mosques, schools and UN compounds." (Richard D. Rosen, ‘The Protection of Civilians During the Israeli-Hamas Conflict: The Goldstone Report,’ in: David W. Lovell & Igor Primoratz (eds.), Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict (2012)); "Hamas uses its civilian infrastructure as meeting places; it hides fugitives in the homes of its dawa activists and supporters, and has buried caches of arms and explosives under its own kindergarten playgrounds." (Matthew Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, 2006, p. 97 (see also p. 36); a general claim, followed by an example from 2000). Aviados (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC) (Still off topic) I spent a bit of time tracking down the sources. My previous conviction remains as it is. I can't read German, so I have no idea about the Die Zeit article. Source 1: It just says: "Independent sources" without giving any details. It mentions a) The UN report and b) Israeli intelligence. I will leave aside Israeli intelligence. The UN Goldstone report found no instances of mosques being used as caches or for storage or to use as launching pads, though it did not investigate this thoroughly. The only incidents where it investigated, mosques or hospitals, it concluded that there was no evidence for the Israeli claims of using mosques or hospitals as weapons caches or to fire rockets. (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf page 117). It says " Israeli Government has produced no visual or other evidence to support its allegation that Palestinian combatants “mingle routinely with civilians in order to cover their movements". It discusses some other sources and conclude that if there was mingling, it was mostly due to the very small area of Gaza, and definitely not done deliberately. Source 2: The source for the second is an article by Steve Erlanger in the NYT. His source is Israeli military and intelligence. Source 3: This seems plausible, the source is a Palestinian security chief. But this is from 2000, it does not pertain to 2008. Kingsindian (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) I appreciate the challenge. German: not my problem; you can either rely on me, use machine translation or go ask a German speaker (although one may find similar articles in English as well, I presume). You seem too quick to dismiss Israeli intelligence, forgeting they enjoy high global prestige they do have to maintain. This is not less so in regard to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. The above-mentioned article, "The use of mosques in the Gaza Strip for military purposes by Hamas and other terrorist organizations: the case of the Al-Farouq Mosque", is rich in images (among which, I found, is the photo that started this debate (p. 8). The Goldstone report did not enjoy the cooperation of the Israeli government, which suspected – quite justifiably, one might add in retrospect – that this UNHRC appointed mission is aimed as another anti-Israeli means, courtesy of this shamelessly biased council, rather than as a sincere attempt at "finding facts". However, had Israel presented its arsenal of evidence before the Goldstone team, it would in all probability have included findings found in the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center comparative report "Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip: The Main Findings of the Goldstone Report Versus the Factual Findings". You may, of course, choose to ignore everything in it. In any case, it is worth mentioning, in regard to the image under discussion, showing IEDs seized in a mosque in Al-Atatra, the following: "An operational sketch of Al-Atatra in the northern Gaza Strip was seized during Operation Cast Lead. It showed that the mosques were integrated into the combat system, and that IEDs, anti-tank and emergency squads were placed nearby." (p. 147); "On January 14, 2009, IDF forces found large quantities of weapons in one of the mosques in Al-Atatra. Some of them were hidden in a storeroom built under the imam’s pulpit" (p. 152, accompanied by several photographs from p. 152 ff). To be sure, this section of the report, titled "Hamas’ military use of public and administrative institutions and facilities during Operation Cast Lead", refers to numerous instances where mosques were being used by Hamas for military purposes. You may, again, dismiss the report and the photographs, just like you may dismiss this video. In that case, I refer you to Iraq War veteran Colonel Tim Collins. Collins, examining the ruins of one of the mosques destroyed by the IDF in Rafah, stated that "down in the cellar of the mosque, there was clear evidence of secondary explosions. It's my opinion that the only thing that could have caused this was explosives that have been stored here." (Celebrated Iraq war veteran's view of the Gaza conflict, BBC News, 19 January 2010, 6:16–6:58 segment). Aviados (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 1. I am fine with Israeli claims to such things. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, I am fine with the picture as long as "according to IDF" is there. All the other sources you mention are Israeli military or intelligence sources (including the Die Zeit article, as far as I can make out using Google Translate). 2. My point is not to dismiss Israeli sources (they are valid, but they must be treated as in a separate category as a potentially biased source from one party in the conflict). My point was that the other sources you cited just base themselves purely on Israeli intelligence or military sources, with no independent verification. 3. The source you mentioned earlier is the one which cited the UN report. I was just reiterating its conclusions which pertained to our discussion here: namely using mosques or hospitals as weapons storage or human shielding etc. Leaving aside the merits of the report, citing the UN report obviously does not help to support the claim. 4. I watched the Tim Collins report and it does seem to be at least an independent examination of the claim in one particular case (al-Maqadmah mosque), which is fine. However, it is just one man's opinion (he claims there were secondary explosions, but no evidence is shown), which directly contradicts the Goldstone report's investigation of this particular case. Desmond Travers, in an interview where he was asked about this, has stood by his original claims. I have no competence to judge the merit of the conflicting claims and this does not change my priors. 6. As to the pictures, surely you can imagine that from the viewpoint of a skeptical observer, pictures of ammunition or weapons allegedly in a mosque (which seem to be the pictures in the first pdf), is not good evidence. They could easily have been planted there. I am not saying they were, indeed, planted there. Just that this is not good evidence. Kingsindian (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Although Aviados' spinning is irrelevant for the discussion about the contested picture, it is not surprising at all if in the advanced stage of a ground offensive weapons and ammunition are found hidden in houses, hospitals, mosques, schools or whatever. It does not say anything about where they were before the invasion. Consequently, such founds are not of any value for justifying the Israeli massacres and warcrimes. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC) It's merely a side discussion, as noted several times. There's no need for spin, since most of the commentators in the discussion have opposed your bias-motivated or non-NPOV suggestion to remove the image. The findings are just what they are; no one said anything about what they might or might not justify. But since you decided to bring it up: using a civilian facility for military, offensive purposes is in itself a very real war crime. So is the massive use of civilians as human shields. Both of these criminal acts inevitably bring about considerable civilian casualties. Aviados (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC) You have a point. Well, I'd settle for that source based on Palestinian security chief (pertaining to 2000); the 2010 opinion of the British Colonel (2008-09); and the UNRWA reporting that weapons have been found in their school (2014). To establish the claim further would require more work. Aviados (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

3 IDF is not a reliable source

• To be sure, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit has an agenda here. However, the same can be said about other sources for the images used here, including the Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera, which is highly ideologically-driven and is known to have a clear agenda, ridiculously favoring the Palestine case.

It is Wickey-nl's contention (above) that "military spokespersons in general are pathological liars". Well, we shall respect this point of view, like any other, and since Wickey-nl takes this belief to be a rule of thumb, he may well ignore military spokespersons altogether in his opinion pieces. Here, however, we do rely upon government spokespersons (at least as far as we deal with open societies).

When deemed necessary, we can, and do, precede claims with "according to", as is done in various cases throughout this very article; in fact, that is what Wickey-nl himself suggested. The caption is now "Weapons found in a mosque during Operation Cast Lead, according to the IDF". This should undoubtedly be enough, and there's no justification for removing the image. Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The false suggestion is made here, that a Flickr account under the name Israel Defense Forces is a source of the IDF Spokesperson. A Flickr account used for uploading propaganda pictures by soldiers is not an official IDF communication channel. Apart from that, is is very naive to suppose that IDF Spokespersons are reliable. No one can expect that IDF will let prevail truth over military and propaganda objectives. Not the nature of military; you cannot even blaim them for that. Just repeating that IDF is a reliable source does not make it true, even if 1000 editors would do. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• The account is in fact an official channel of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. As was already stated, you may choose for youself what you wish to rely upon. But here, as Sean.hoyland and Brad Dyer pointed out, we do rely on it, like we rely on organizations such as the ISM, as long as the source is identified and the claims are attributed. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Preliminarily I would note the strange format of this RFC conceived by user: Wickey-n1.[7] I support the inclusion of this pic based on a notable primary source as long as it is properly attributed. I'm not really sure why this is an issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You are a master in pointless comments. Why do you you insert that strange link here? --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is violation of WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. This RFC is against policy per WP:RFC it should be "be neutral and brief" it doesn't follow those requirements--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment.The inclusion of IDF pictures are necessary per WP:NPOV if remove them we should remove an ISM pictures too. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sderot cinema

I don't see that this is notable on its own, but I think it could be included in Gaza War (2008). Tchaliburton (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It has received plenty of international coverage and the term was coined during the 2014 attacks. // Liftarn (talk)

While Sderot cinema (as a new stub) is a small article, merging its references into the 2008/09 Gaza massacre would further expand the latter one substantially. I would encourage, though, adding a small paragraph with link to the article about this perversion in Gaza War#Reactions in Israel. No pictures of such (ob)scenes? I also note that such happenings are being repeated in the current massacre Operation Protective Edge. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(Regardless of the discussion itself) Pertaining to your poor choice of words: Clearly you're having a hard time maintaining NPOV. You are, nevertheless, expected to keep some minimal appearance of it and avoid using charged, offensive words such as "obscene" as well as plainly false ones like "massacre" in regard to the current warefare in Gaza. This kind of wording may suit your blog or Facebook posts, but it's inappropriate to use it in Wikipedia talk pages. Aviados (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Al Mezan centre figures

Zaid almasri (talk) included figures from Al Mezan Centre for Human rights into the section "Civilians vs Combatants". The subject is a complex one and there are varying interpretations of what counts as civilians or combatant. This is discussed in detail in the main article "Casualties of the Gaza War" already. The discussion on this page is supposed to be no more than a summary. Including the Al Mezan Centre figures by themselves and no others in this summary will inevitably be seen as violating NPOV, as Shrike (talk) already did. In addition it is verbatim posting of the BBC article which might be violating copyright (I am not sure about whether just a short passage quoted really violates copyright, but it is arguable).

I had put the Al Mezan figures in context of the figures compiled by other human rights orgs in the preceding section, which is where I think they should be. But Wickey-nl (talk) has reverted this with unclear justification. Perhaps someone can tell me what is happenning.

I think there is a decent case for the inclusion of those figures somewhere in the article, since they claim to have checked each individual case. Naturally, I think the place where I put them is best. But edit as it currently stands is not acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The move of the figures is not the point (they should move). You deleted part of the discussion about the ratio, including the source. Of course the figures are irrelevant if there are more recent ones. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken about me deleting the source. The source is already present in the previous paragraph. See the last sentence of the first paragraph (ending with "...Israel's strict blockade of the borders before, during, and after the conflict") where the source is cited. The whole paragraph of the Al Mezan centre comes from that source. The paragraph is the issue at stake here, and it still remains in the current edit, which is unacceptable to me. Kingsindian (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The huge amount of sources makes it difficult to keep track of. Apart from the figures, what is not unacceptable to you? I think it is preferrable to keep figures of the ratio in the separate section. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already mentioned what is unacceptable in the first comment. The section "Combatants and civilians" should not have just one data point (the Al Mezan centre) about what is combatant and what is civilian. The matter is complicated and there is already a separate article "Casualties of the Gaza war" about just this very topic. In this article there should just be a reference to that article, and a short summary. Including just the Al Mezan figures in this section will clearly be seen as violating NPOV. To repeat, my suggestion is what I did before: the whole paragraph should be removed, and the figures from Al Mezan included in the previous section, along with B'Tselem and others. Kingsindian (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

<----The main section just gives the naked figures, not the ratio's. I will copyedit and move back the figures, except the ratio. Other ratio's can be added later. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why the numbers are in one section and the ratio in another section. The Al Mezan number is expressed as a ratio (85%) because the source says so. They did not give the exact number. I have moved the ratio to the previous section. The second problem is again, the whole paragraph starting with "B'Tselem investigates" in very unsatisfactory. It does not give the methodology of classifying civilian and combatant deaths. B'Tselem says it followed ICRC guidelines. Al Mezan says it classified it in a different way. PCHR does it in a different way. Israel disagrees with all of them and gives its own reasons. This is not a trivial matter and cannot be addressed in such a casual way. This is why there is a whole article devoted to these claims. If we include all those arguments into this section it will make it very long and this article is already too long, in my view. I have rewrote the paragraph in a summary way. Kingsindian (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem when you try to write about things you do not understand. Al the organisations that follow international law have exactly the same method, ICRC, B'Tselem, Al Mezan and PCHR. Assassinated persons are not combatants, but extrajudicially killed persons. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Merging with International_Law_and_the_Gaza_War

What happened to the merge request for section Gaza_War_(2008–09)#Controversies_regarding_tactics? Seems to me dealing with the same topic, and 95% is duplication. And it is much better to organize the section around violations of international humanitarian law, than Wikipedia:LABEL#Contentious_labels like "controversial" Kingsindian (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename '2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict'

Since we now have the '2014 Israel–Gaza conflict', which reinforces that 'conflict' is the first thing to come to mind when contemplating these conflicts, and it was agreed, see Archive 32, that 'Gaza conflict' was more commonly used on Google than 'Gaza war' at the time of the conflict, I believe we should rename. By the way, Archive 47, which ostensibly archives earlier discussion on the name change from my suggestion to 'Gaza War', doesn't exist (anymore?).Haberstr (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

'Conflict' does not reflect the article topic precise enough. A conflict can also mean diplomatic, or juridical, or about an opinion. 'War' says better what is (namely, violent). -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We should respect common usage because that is how users will search for articles on the Gaza-Israel conflict(s). Few on Google refer to the conflict as a war, and perhaps for good reason: it doesn't seem like much of a war.Haberstr (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

More general, all these in List of Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip need a stable naming pattern. And, of course, no reason to leave out Israel from the title. So it better be Israel–Gaza war (2008–2009) I guess; initiator of this war (period) mentioned first. I don't see why 'war' should be capitalised btw. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And the Israeli-designators 'Operation ...' should not be the encyclopedic title. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I Believe we should rename the three articles as First, Second and third Gaza wars. 3bdulelah (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be POV names. Why not stick to "Israel–Gaza" basically in the first place? -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that using the 2014 article as a precedent is pretty unfortunate, because the title is probably going to get changed to something like Gaza War (2014). See move review here. Kingsindian (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Your 'probably' is not enough. I oppose such a change. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Rename to 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict Fact is, I wanted to link to an article on this and was genuinely surprised to find Wikipedia calling it a "war". Major media sources are using "conflict" See: New York Times [8], BBC [9]. Wikipedia is out of step with the sources on this.ShulMaven (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried to move it, to 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and could not. Is there a special procedure? Or do we have to wait ... even ... longer?Haberstr (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the title. Google trends shows that "Gaza war 2008" is more searched term than "2008 Israel Gaza conflict". Sohebbasharat (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo mistakenly deleted has been returned to Commons

This might be put in the article:

Palestinian girl killed during the Gaza War (2008–09). "War On Gaza Day 14" (in Arabic). Al-Jazeera. Jan. 9, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Here are some more photos that might be put in the article:

Palestinian woman wounded in Gaza during the Gaza War (2008–09). "War On Gaza Day 17" (in Arabic). Al-Jazeera. Jan. 12, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Israeli woman injured during the Gaza War (2008–09).

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Igorp's tags

Please do not blot the text with useless tags as in this edit. It's elementary that a secondary source's statements cannot be challenged for their content. LeVine made those remarks, and it is neither your nor my business to get back at him and demand he explain himself. You don't do that on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that these tags are useless. Moreover, your next edit ("Fixed to everyone's satisfaction?" @Nishidani) proves the opposite :)

Otherwise pro-Hamas Khawaja's propaganda will be remained in the article.

Now regarding to a "Tel Aviv-European University study", etc. mentioned by LeVine. IMHO, this his article in Al Jazeera cannot be considered as an academic secondary RS because itself has no appropriate sources and tells us only about his own opinion.

Do I understand right that your 2nd new source is an alternative for an anonimous "Tel Aviv-European University study"?

That's the pity, but you (as usual with your selective RS' quoting / usage (:) have forgotten to quote from this source that it based only on not so correct B'tselem's data where Anat Biletzki - one of its coauthors worked. So I added this info. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

False quote in the article used as RS

The following is the quote from Michele K. Esposit's article published in the Journal of Palestine Studies

Publicly, Israel accused (11/4) Hamas of plotting to dig under the border fence to capture soldiers and abduct them to Gaza, but separately Israeli defense officials acknowledged (see Washington Times 11/20) that Israel wanted to “send Hamas a message.”

and is used in our article as

"Israel stated its aim was to destroy what it said was a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate into Israel and abduct soldiers, however an Israeli defense official was quoted in the Washington Times acknowledging that Israel wanted to "send Hamas a message."

But the real quote from Washington Times is

Israeli forces moved about 300 yards into Gaza to destroy a border tunnel dug by militants. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said at the time that militants had planned to abduct Israeli soldiers through the tunnel, similar to the 2006 capture of Cpl. Shalit.

However, defense officials acknowledged that Israel also (--Igorp_lj (talk)) was trying to send a message that it would not allow Hamas militants to operate close to the border.

So we have to check where this false RS is used else and to exchange it by original article(s). --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Both Khawaja & LeVine made false use of the source(/s?) mentioned in their articles

See IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
(copy from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_185#IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS)

See appropriate :( Nishidani's edit, 16:03, 2 March 2015, based on them ((what is interesting else here that Nishidani uses here the same ITIC, what he so criticized before :):

The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified.

• as well as their text : Khawaja:

The Israeli government’s argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a five-month old ceasefire has been challenged by observers and think tanks alike...

Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled “Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report” on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day

• LeVine :

The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged, not just by observers in the know such as Jimmy Carter, the former US president who helped facilitate the truce, but by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report," confirmed that the June 19 truce was only "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".

Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day.

Now let's see what ITIC really wrote in its report:

ii) The escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement, November 4 to the time of this writing, December 17 2: On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets. Since then, 191 rockets and 138 mortar shells have been fired...

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarity

Our Secondary source LeVine, makes a thumbnail judgement, mentioning a source.

• 'The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified.'Mark LeVine, Who will save Israel from itself?,' Al Jazeera 27 December 2009 ( added by --Igorp_lj (talk))

The source he refers to has these elements:-

• (a)'A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4: . .Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire
• (b)'On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action.
• (c) In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets.
• (d)the IDF operated to prevent attacks within the Gaza Strip (Israeli Air Force attacks, firing at terrorist squads within the Gaza Strip near the border), the terrorist organizations responded with barrages of rocket and mortar shell fire to retaliate for their losses and continued daily sporadic fire, in response to which Israel closed the border crossings, exerting pressure on Hamas and the Gaza Strip residents. . .With the escalation in rocket and mortar shell attacks which began on November 4, Israel began closing the crossings for longer periods. That led to shortages of basic goods in the Gaza Strip and to disruptions in the supply of various types of fuel (although electrical power was not cut off, since the plant in Ashqelon, which supplies 65% of the Gaza Strip’s electricity, provided an uninterrupted flow of power).

I've said that the Meir Amit centre stuff is written by buffoons who think their readers cannot parse a sentence. Their report says Israel broke the ceasefire that Hamas observed (unprovoked); it says that when Hamas et al, fired back, Israel in turn waged further attacks and shut down the border crossings, and created shortages.In LeVine's words, 'the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified'. The report, shorn of its wholly whooly inflations of language, and spin, says exactly what an independent reader, or scholar like LeVine is entitled to synthesize it as saying. Got that? Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you've decided to discuss the subject here, not in prev. topic, but ...

So now one may find above what really LeVine wrote in his article versus ITIC's Report referenced by him and why his reference is false when he wrote :

• "The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged ... by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks."

The following is what LeVine has only quoted from Report, omitting, e.g., "in some instance" and adding his own "without provocation" in contrary to Report's content, to make his pro-Hamas conclusion, as if based on the Report :

• "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".
• "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation... (--Igorp_lj (talk))

So what he's omitted from Report:

• i) The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (--Igorp_lj (talk)) (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.
• Unlike Nishidani (see his (b)), LeVine hasn't even notifified about prevented tunnel kidnapping, retaining only "after Israel killed six Hamas members..":
• "19. The second period of the arrangement began with Hamas’s preparations to abduct an Israeli or Israelis through a tunnel dug under the border security fence. In our assessment, those who planned it had to take into consideration that such an attack would do great harm to the arrangement, but nevertheless Hamas was eager to have another Israeli hostage to use as a bargaining chip. 6 Following information, the IDF went into action close to the border, prevented the attack and killed seven Hamas terrorist operatives. Hamas responded with a massive barrage of rocket and mortar shell fire..."
• 43. During the lull, Hamas spokesmen repeatedly stressed the importance of abducting more Israeli soldiers as a way of thawing the Gilad Shalit stalemate. Terrorist operatives belonging to Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations coordinated their efforts to abduct Israeli soldiers during the lull, despite the fact that a success would sabotage the arrangement. Two examples were the attempt to abduct IDF soldiers through Israel’s border with Egypt and smuggle them into the Gaza Strip, 9 and the attempt to abduct a soldier through a tunnel dug under the border security fence, which was prevented by the IDF action in the Gaza Strip on November 4. 10
• vi) The military buildup of Hamas and the other terrorist organizations during the lull
• vii) The tunnel industry during the lull
• xii) Appendix: Data relating to lull arrangement violations carried out by the Palestinians

My conclusion: this LeVine's article doesn't correspond to any kind of RS or academic secondary source, it contradicts to referenced ITIC's source and distorts its content.

In fact, it's no more than an usual Al Jazeera's pro-Hamas article, and should be removed from others articles where Nishidani used it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

All high class secondary sources do not include all of the information in the primary sources they consult, while making their own judgement. To, as you constantly appear to do, try to find a discrepancy between the RS (LeVine) and one source (an extremely bad source for its language spin) of the many he would have read) to disinvalidate his reliability is WP:OR. The Meir Amit centre spins things, and the original spread sheet is a farce (there is no evidence in turn for the Centre's claim that the killing of the Hamas operatives was linked to foreknowledge of an imminent attempt to abduct an Israeli soldier. Other sources do not phrase it that way: i.e., here (Israel claimed the tunnel's purpose was to kidnap soldiers, Hamas said it had a defensive function. Two claims. Israel did not provide evidence that would validate the Meir Amit spin that Israel broke the ceasefire because of an alert that a soldier was about to be kidnapped. Chomsky covers all of the Hebrew press on this and states: https://books.google.it/books?id=xuQstngyHdEC&pg=PT175 Hopes and Prospects Penguin 2010 p.175.

'The pretext for the raid was that Israel had detected a tunnel in Gaza that might have been intended for use to capture another Israeli soldier; a "ticking tunnel" in official communiques. The pretext was transparently absurd, as a number of Israeli commentators noted. If such a tunnel existed, and reached the border, Israel could easily have barred it right there. But as usual, the ludicrous Israeli pretext was deemed credible,. and the timing was overlooked' (day of the US Presidential elections when everyone had eyes elsewhere chosen to abreak the ceasefire).

See also Avi Shlaim,Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations, Verso, 2009 p.313 who calls the same ceasefire breaking reason a 'flimsy' pretext. Idem Benjamin S Lambeth, Air Operations in Israel's War Against Hezbollah: Learning from Lebanon and and Getting It Right in Gaza, Rand Corporation,2011 p.232

This is the last I have to say. These perplexed queries about the obvious are, when insistant, vexatious, and I am under no obligation to reply to them, esp. when they are patently based on misprisions of both policy and sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The most curious is that neither LeVine, nor others who references ITIC's articles have no such strict words like yours.

So all your angry speeches is only your own opinion, with which you will have to stay.

In addition, I have to remind you about a normal NPOV scheme to represent the various opinions:

• Israel believes so ...
• Hamas & haters and / or critics of Israel - so ...
• The rest - so ...

Returning to the LeVine's article itself: if you insist that it's RS, I'll add to the article that it contradicts to its source's content as well as other things if needed. --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Massacre

This article has been linked to at Template:Massacres against Palestinians. If you have an opinion about it, please participate in the discussion.“WarKosign” 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

War?

There are several problems with the current title. Firstly "war" implies a conflict between sovereign states. That is not the situation here. Secondly this is more of a "police" operation, from the Israeli perspective. Thirdly international law regards Gaza as Israeli-occupied, therefore this would be a civil war not a war.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Latuff cartoon

I'm removing this inappropriate unencyclopedic cartoon (not to mention offensive). Find neutral images made by third parties which contribute to illustrate this section, not a piece of propaganda by a controversial activist.--LoveFerguson (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavy bias in the article which rely on erroneous sources and misquotation of sources

"November 4 incident ...On November 4, 2008, Israel launched a military incursion into a residential area of Dayr al-Balah in central Gaza. Israel stated its aim was to destroy what it said was a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate into Israel and abduct soldiers, however an Israeli defense official was quoted in the Washington Times acknowledging that Israel wanted to "send Hamas a message."[93] The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified.[94][96]"

tracing the sources shows that these very sources admit that a. Israel did in fact found the tunnel, under one of two houses which were searched. Israel didn't "stated its aim was to destroy what it said was a tunnel". The tunnel was there. b. The Israeli Official indeed claimed Israel wanted to send Hamas a message - which was, that digging terror tunnels into Israel was unacceptable (Washington Times).

So these are two misqoutes in the article. You can't just take a source and cherry pick a stanza, take stuff out of context. This is tantamount to a lie.

But there are other, more serious Blunt lies in the article currently - for example,

"2008 six-month ceasefire Implementation ...According to a joint Tel Aviv-European University study, based on B'tselem's data, 79% of all breaks in a lull of violence since the Second Intifada were due to Israeli actions, while Hamas and other factions were responsible for 8% of such violations.[94][95]"

Note that B'tselem's "data" is a prime source of allegations against Israel. So, what's wrong with that data? Well, that's it's a blunt lie. B'tselem is a political group, not a reliable source - their "data" isn't collected, it's manipulated. For example, when B'tselem's "data" claims something like 79% of all breaks in a lull of violence since the Second Intifada were due to Israeli actions, while Hamas and other factions were responsible for 8% of such violations - and a source given - following the source will reveal that in fact, they counted cases of IDF soldiers preventing abduction and IDF soldiers preventing IED positioning as "Israeli Violations of the ceasefire" while in fact these should have been counted as Hamas violations. So simply follow their sources and see it yourself.

And please, don't relate to Mark LeVine as a legitimate source as well - most of his "work" is based on B'tselem's "data". Simply Google about Mark Levine. He describes himself as an "advocate of compassion", not as an unbiased historian - but he is also heavily involved with Muslim groups working at his uni and calling for a "student's intifada". Now how is that "compassion", is above me.

Now you decide if you think that a blunt lie has a place posing as a "fact" in Wikipedia, based on B'tselem's "data". Cause if you do allow this to happen, Wikipedia has finally lost all its right to claim objectivity at anything.

 Not done You have not specifiwed your COI with relation to this article. If you do not have a COI, you should make the edits yourself. I am marking this request as answered for now. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 21:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013101750/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_080408.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_080408.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111128161503/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_080408.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_080408.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090217182827/http://cc.aljazeera.net:80/node/30 to http://cc.aljazeera.net/node/30

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 42 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013101750/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_080408.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_080408.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114225319/http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-11-voa20.cfm to http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-11-voa20.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090308113739/http://www.csmonitor.com:80/2008/1226/p99s01-duts.html to http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1226/p99s01-duts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109194300/http://www.newsdaily.com:80/stories/tre5053r7-us-palestinians-israel/ to http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre5053r7-us-palestinians-israel/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605235622/http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/8E841A98-1755-413D-A1D2-8B30F64022BE/0/GazaOperationInvestigationsUpdate.pdf to http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/8E841A98-1755-413D-A1D2-8B30F64022BE/0/GazaOperationInvestigationsUpdate.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090512141943/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100415112249/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il:80/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080707053304/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2008/06/25/africa/25mideast.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/africa/25mideast.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091224140711/http://www.ipsnews.net:80/news.asp?idnews=45350 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100510174311/http://www.phrmg.org/The%20War%20on%20Gaza.pdf to http://www.phrmg.org/The%20War%20on%20Gaza.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090823140923/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/NR/rdonlyres/E89E699D-A435-491B-B2D0-017675DAFEF7/0/GazaOperation.pdf to http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E89E699D-A435-491B-B2D0-017675DAFEF7/0/GazaOperation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130929193412/http://www.handasa.org.il/show_item.asp?levelId=64757 to http://www.handasa.org.il/show_item.asp?levelId=64757&itemId=220
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928203037/http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/10341.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/10341.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090119062732/http://cc.aljazeera.net:80/asset/language/arabic/war-gaza-day-18 to http://cc.aljazeera.net/asset/language/arabic/war-gaza-day-18
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109061030/http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-07-voa7.cfm to http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-07-voa7.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090823140923/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/NR/rdonlyres/E89E699D-A435-491B-B2D0-017675DAFEF7/0/GazaOperation.pdf to http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E89E699D-A435-491B-B2D0-017675DAFEF7/0/GazaOperation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090122095501/http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200911915455957756.html to http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200911915455957756.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205092415/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsDq6OF2EPsiWRhxLymVUUKVcmvQ to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsDq6OF2EPsiWRhxLymVUUKVcmvQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121103101551/http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=154525 to http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=154525
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140130145115/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hF7u6SVbHfZSeLKnM97LlsaGWg_Q?docId=CNG.af5a1cb25e03ecc70924e5a7787c7aa3.831 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hF7u6SVbHfZSeLKnM97LlsaGWg_Q?docId=CNG.af5a1cb25e03ecc70924e5a7787c7aa3.831
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120323045808/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/world/middleeast/24gaza.html?_r=2 to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/world/middleeast/24gaza.html?_r=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110813152033/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100729093431/http://www.cnsnews.com:80/news/article/55622 to http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55622
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110813152033/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417014029/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/coffeehouse/3286561/a-british-soldiers-view-of-operation-cast-lead.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3286561/a-british-soldiers-view-of-operation-cast-lead.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110219084642/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/2009.07.07PM_Session.doc to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/2009.07.07PM_Session.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060217152902/http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov:80/press/011505.html to http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/press/011505.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110219084642/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/2009.07.07PM_Session.doc to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/2009.07.07PM_Session.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116054551/http://www.amnesty.org/es/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/es/3301b5c0-189b-4ba2-9bca-68e116fd590f/mde150122009en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/es/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/es/3301b5c0-189b-4ba2-9bca-68e116fd590f/mde150122009en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013032055/http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/ENGLISH_oferet.pdf to http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/ENGLISH_oferet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100205123223/http://www.paltelegraph.com:80/palestine/gaza-strip/3931 to http://www.paltelegraph.com/palestine/gaza-strip/3931
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100116204024/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=80443&sectionid=351020202 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=80443&sectionid=351020202
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110322154449/http://www.thegoldstonereport.com:80/rockets.html to http://www.thegoldstonereport.com/rockets.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090122154137/http://jta.org:80/news/article/2009/01/13/1002206/israeli-schools-reopen-as-rocket-fire-declines to http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/13/1002206/israeli-schools-reopen-as-rocket-fire-declines
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090905000358/http://jta.org:80/news/article/2009/09/01/1007573/palestinian-girl-accuses-israel-in-the-hague to http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/01/1007573/palestinian-girl-accuses-israel-in-the-hague
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091022011608/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsdjgCX2JtwyHVtOEKfuVieGZaLw to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsdjgCX2JtwyHVtOEKfuVieGZaLw
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140228173443/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDNXSKy5hAvIp-4y37J-q3q_Trzw to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDNXSKy5hAvIp-4y37J-q3q_Trzw
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141218120219/http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090323/GLOBALBRIEFING/890200661/1001 to http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090323/GLOBALBRIEFING/890200661/1001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090121132203/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h9KysGfr_McbPBkSWsjXJzvto83A to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h9KysGfr_McbPBkSWsjXJzvto83A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207043033/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Airstrikes-On-Gaza-Hamas-Leader-Ismail-Haniyeh-Condemns-Ugliest-Massacre/Article/200812415194411 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Airstrikes-On-Gaza-Hamas-Leader-Ismail-Haniyeh-Condemns-Ugliest-Massacre/Article/200812415194411
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101011010948/http://www.palestine-studies.org:80/files/pdf/jps/10332.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/10332.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090107095002/http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/ to http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110614203423/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GAZA031109.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GAZA031109.xml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110715211850/http://www.rt.com/Top_News/2009-01-12/Gaza:_the_partisan_war.html to http://www.rt.com/Top_News/2009-01-12/Gaza:_the_partisan_war.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091013023651/http://www.phr.org.il/phr/files/articlefile_1241949935203.pdf to http://www.phr.org.il/phr/files/articlefile_1241949935203.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727082446/http://www.middle-east-policy.org/print.php?template=C05&CID=2997 to http://www.middle-east-policy.org/print.php?template=C05&CID=2997
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120309032124/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292909104&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292909104&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110715185713/http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901133351/global-terrorism/operation-cast-lead-update-no-12.html to http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901133351/global-terrorism/operation-cast-lead-update-no-12.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111001163639/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443696703&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443696703&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110510010356/http://www.paltelegraph.com/diaries/featured-articles/4847-cancer-increases-by-considerable-percentage-gaza-strip to http://www.paltelegraph.com/diaries/featured-articles/4847-cancer-increases-by-considerable-percentage-gaza-strip
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111220091710/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_back_to_school to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_back_to_school
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121025050919/http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan13/0,4670,MLIsraelCoveringtheWar,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan13/0,4670,MLIsraelCoveringtheWar,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111008232101/http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article82673.ece to http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article82673.ece
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111008232419/http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article56121.ece to http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article56121.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqf8cM48 to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3645485,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327212440/http://www.btselem.org/statistics/casualties_clarifications to http://www.btselem.org/statistics/casualties_clarifications
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/36-2009.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.france24.com/en/20090206-media-kept-bay-gaza-reporters?quicktabs_1=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2016

The final sentence of the second paragraph "The international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets as illegal under international law." ...should be deleted entirely. It does not need to be replaced with anything. Although the statement my indeed be factually correct, there is nothing in it that directly relates to the subject. It assumes that the firing of rockets by 'Palestinian groups' was indiscriminate. The case is not made for this assertion, certainly not in the opening two paragraphs.

The statement invokes considerations of the international community in a misleading manner. Again, although the statement may be factually correct, it incorrectly implies that the international community was legally more opposed to the actions of the Palestinians than the Israelis, during the assault on Gaza, which of course, is not true.Bbfoxy (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bbfoxy (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbfoxy: I disagree. I think that that sentence is helpful in clarifying that the Israelis were trying to stop illegal Palestinian activity, rather that simply annoying activity. Pppery 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Toggling as needing further input/discussion/consensus. — Andy W. (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_02_english.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524125511/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121004141/http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3642815,00.html to http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3642815,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100919025443/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472856,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472856,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228030109/http://www.jpost.com:80/Israel/ to http://www.jpost.com/Israel/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_07_english.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522041335/http://dover.idf.il:80/IDF/English/News/the_Front/09/01/0101.htm to http://www.dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/09/01/0101.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/65032/-idf-releases-names-of-un-school-deaths.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD95IA22O0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116053643/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-191450521/palestinian-groups-continue-firing.html to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-191450521/palestinian-groups-continue-firing.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/12/content_10642207.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091019094819/https://www.unwatch.org:80/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409 to http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat/freeproducts/Gaza/Crisis2008/UNOSAT_GazaStrip_Damage_Review_19Feb09_v3_Lowres.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_11_english.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_29_english.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_crisis_security_briefing_2009_01_26.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_19_english.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://january.unricmagazine.org/front-page-news/161-every-gazan-has-a-tale-of-profound-grief-to-tell-yet-people-also-determined-to-overcome-pain-rebuild-lives-security-council-told.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/01/07/DI2009010701185.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_05_english.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5fmzNuPSN?url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/07/content_10776872.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/07/content_10776872.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_09_english-20090210-104024.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_02_english.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_26_english.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_who_gaza_situation_report_2009_02_04_english.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnJOE4BR01X.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ipy-I4l8HBUyagJsP_RJwLFRWkbQ
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3663679,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1229868837971
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C472856%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/Israel//Article.aspx?id=126519
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news%2FGAZA031109.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167305954&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1232292939041
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1235410720483
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100321154128/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqps7qdeyKE0&refer=home
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAXwmnGEbQBBCvdn82UdbTFpnECA?docId=CNG.81e3f073a7ff60182e936e010de882cd.791
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424908523&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan13/0%2C4670%2CMLIsraelCoveringtheWar%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34807
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3663679%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1230456531523
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20090323%2FGLOBALBRIEFING%2F890200661%2F1001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Massacre?

We have gone over this many times but I believe time has officially told us the answer: Gaza Massacre is not a commonly used title cor this event. If anything, 2014 has more of a claim.

"massacre" was an emotive description that finally had sources using it as a title months after given credence here.

"Gaza Massacre" doesn't even redirect here anymore![10] Enough is enough.

I do still support a line similar to "It was described as a massacre." as I always have. Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually it does still re-direst here, just not only to here. It is also still called a massacre by the victims.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't redirect here. It redirects to a disambiguation page.

We also only care what the victims supposedly say. Follow the sources and we have an easy answer. This conflict was a massacre but not titled a Massacre. Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We had an RFC over this, with sources specifically refuting your unsourced views. You want a change open an RFC. nableezy - 07:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that is what I meant, it redirects to other pages as well (a disambig page), I do not see a problem with this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Just pointing out that no-one seriously challenges commentators rights to use the 'M' word with regard to Boston (1770 - 6 deaths), South Africa's Sharpeville massacre (64 deaths), Charleston (June 2015 - 9 deaths), Orlando nighclub shooting (June 2016 - 49 deaths), etc. - see List of events named massacres . Compared to the five major conflicts since 2005 those quoted look like scuffles at a school picnic. Massacre therefore remains fully appropriate. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331011719/http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291245235226.pdf to http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291245235226.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205002514/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_26_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_26_english.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3645485,00.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130619215508/http://www.handasa.org.il/show_item.asp?levelId=64757&itemId=220 to http://www.handasa.org.il/show_item.asp?levelId=64757&itemId=220
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615184156/http://acus.org/new_atlanticist/israel-shells-un-headquarters-gaza to http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/israel-shells-un-headquarters-gaza
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406180838/http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=15384 to http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=15384
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.middle-east-policy.org/print.php?template=C05&CID=2997
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329005840/http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/194/26/ to http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/194/26/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216063443/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_the_humanitarian_monitor_2010_01_18_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_the_humanitarian_monitor_2010_01_18_english.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615010601/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/63256/2-arabs-charged-with-defying-idf-censor.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/63256/2-arabs-charged-with-defying-idf-censor.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3663679,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023123752/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/05/content_10603389.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/05/content_10603389.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129074845/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10679186.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/18/content_10679186.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225151513/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/POC_Monthly_Tables_October_2008.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/POC_Monthly_Tables_October_2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313012835/http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=3081&TTL=Palestinian_%E2%80%9CPolicemen%E2%80%9D_Killed_in_Gaza_Operation_Were_Trained_Terrorists to http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=3081&TTL=Palestinian_%E2%80%9CPolicemen%E2%80%9D_Killed_in_Gaza_Operation_Were_Trained_Terrorists
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013114213/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706072645/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_protection_of_civilians_weekly_2009_01_20_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_protection_of_civilians_weekly_2009_01_20_english.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/CJAL-7PYM36?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

restrictions on medical supplies

@Icewhiz:, medical supplies are often called out specifically outside of "goods". In fact the source cited does so. What is the justification for removing it? And why exactly are you not specifying what NGOs, those being human rights groups, that are discussed in the other line you reverted? nableezy - 22:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I summarized both sentences to be more concise and to the point. Cerainly we could discuss food and medicine somewhere (and probably do), just as we could several other classes of goods - there is no need for the parenthical here. The human rights qualifier beofre NGOs is both somewhat pufferish and inaccurate (as some NGOs that are not human rights NGOs have also made their opinion known).Icewhiz (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere else in the article does it discuss the responsibility of Israel to allow medical supplies and their lack in doing so as part of the blockade. I am fine with removing parentheses, but the material should be returned. nableezy - 03:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Amnesty International has highlighted the restrictions on food for many years. The Gisha list includes food items e.g. fresh meat and live animals [11]. Huffington Post specifically highlights 'food and medicine' - see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/things-palestinians-cant-do_us_586554d4e4b0eb58648895bc Secondly, 'Human Rights' is not subjective as applied to NGOs - Wiki has an article - List of human rights organisations, a list which includes the NGOs that mainly publish on this topic, such as Amnesty International, and. May I request that יניב הורון and Icewhiz comply with the WP:5P4 and discuss (Talk) and provide sourcing for delete-edits. I therefore fully agree with Nableezy to revert the deletions. May I respectfully request Icewhiz not to revert items that that editor has not discussed In line with customary polite Talk protocol I will wait for either editor to provide their sources before reverting. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I have commented above, prior to your comment, Erictheenquirer. My motivation was mainly conciseness and avoiding puffery. In the context of the 2009 Gaza war there is no particular reason to discuss the rather mild (and varying) food item restrictions, and there is no particular reason to be over-verbose in an inaccurate pufferish description of the NGOs. I will also note that some of the background material is sourced to pre-war NGO reports - which is a bit SYNTHy - and might warrant removal (though I suspect this is present in better sources) - one would expect us to follow the background material present in serious academic, military history, coverage of the background of this conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I cannot accept your explanation as warranting un-sourced reverts. Your notions of 'unnecessary' and 'puffery' are by definition subjective and hence not NPOV. "No particular reason" and "Mild" (!!!) food restrictions are once again totally subjective and unsubstantiated. I do not believe that you are a better expert on the matter of "mildness" than HRW, OCHAO, Al Mezan or B'Tselem. Next, many commentators have pointed to the crippling blockade on Gaza (in full violation by Israel of various ceasefire agreements) as the single most important factor fomenting the tensions which have led to four wars with horrific casualty figures. Therefore anything contributing to the hardship and tension is supremely relevant. Thirdly, the restrictions cover the period 2007 to Present, so any commentary within this time range is valid. Your counter-position is therefore without substance. I fully support your call for "serious academic, military history, coverage of the background of this conflict", especially in Talk and when you revert edits. Many thanks in anticipation thereof Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you to provide such sources. I will note that we are discussing a short blurb in parenthesis - and that our article still covers the blockade/restrictions on goods. The blockade is quite relevant as background, and while I would prefer a better source, it definitely should stay. The parenthetical comment added little, and it isn't clear if this particular aspect needs highlighting in regards to Hamas's motivations for war.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Which of the deletions you made were inadequately referenced? Additionally I note the POV use in your justification, such as "little", "relevant", "better", "little", "isn't clear", "needs", etc. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I too would like to know what source you have a problem with. The source for medical supplies is an Amnesty International report on this specific conflict. What about WP:ONUS is not met? nableezy - 23:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

recent reverts

@Shrike: @יניב הורון:, if you want to follow BRD then discussion follows the revert. The reversions of well-sourced material require an explanation. The material currently in the article, that Hamas overthrew Fatah (when they had won the election) is directly contradicted by reliable sources. The Weisglass quote is directly related the material it is referring to. You need to justify these reversions, just claiming that you are following BRD is not acceptable in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy (talk · contribs) and TheGracefulSlick (talk · contribs) ... I have also noticed the regular use of unsubstantiated WP:ONUS, UNDUE, WP:RS etc. reverts in DS topics. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This is quite POVish, based on rather poor sources (Vanity Fair). It is also somewhat off-topic for this article - presenting this POVish spin on the Hamas takeover of Gaza a few years prior to the war.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you icewhiz (talk · contribs) - you prove our point perfectly. You inject a POV regarding Vanity Fair without providing a single shred of evidence. Compare your non-input to the following from me:

"Vanity Fair (VF) is published by Condé Nast, a 110 year old American mass media company with 164 million consumers across its 19 brands (which includes the New Yorker). Mediabiasfactcheck rates VF's factual reporting as 'High' - "Overall, Vanity Fair is well written and mostly factual, but there is a clear left wing bias". MFC gives VF a similar status to that of the New York Times. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, VF has always covered politics quite heavily since the appointment of Graydon Carter as editor in 1992, and accelerated its political coverage after 911, including the hiring of Pulitzer-prize-winning investigative journalists. The article "Gaza Bombshell" was written by David Rose, an investigative journalist, author of six non-fiction books, News Reporter of the Year in the Society of Editors British Press Awards for 2015, and winner of the Royal Institute of International Affairs David Watt Memorial Prize. In 2013, a poll of investigative reporters organised by the UK Press Gazette named him among the top ten practitioners of his trade."

Can you spot the difference, Icewhiz? I view the VF article as an excellent piece of investigative journalism, bringing both encyclopaedic content and a balancing view that is fully substantiated by previously unpublished documentation. Perfect for Wiki's 5 Pillars. Once again thank you for having provided your timely assistance. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanity Fair isnt a poor source, and it certainly isnt a Hamas spin. That is a bizarre line to say the least. nableezy - 09:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, Icewhiz stop throwing around arbitrary pseudo-policy claims as you edit, such as 'off-topic' when the matter is focused on the topic, or asserting that the key article for the PLO/Israeli/US coup against the election winner, Hamas, being in Vanity Fair, is unreliable. It is widely cited as a first-rate piece of investigative reportage.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanity fair is not exactly known for their insight on political ongoings in far away countries, but even if it was, the text as it was put in the article is an obvious NPOV violation, pushing the idea that Hamas was forced in some what to violently take over Gaza while throwing people off buildings. I think we all know that can't stand. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what No More Mr Nice Guy said, Weisglass's random quote doesn't necessarily reflect Israel's policy regarding the blockade. It's extremely POV and undue. There was no policy to "put Palestinians on a diet" or something. There's a clear policy to prevent Hamas from obtaining weapons and building tunnels, which is the reason why some dual-use products (such as cement) are sometimes banned. There's no significant restriction on food.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, but your unsourced assertions go directly against what reliable sources say. The idea that Hamas "overthrew" Fatah is directly disputed by reliable sources. You cannot insert non-NPOV material under the guise of "BRD". Weisglass' quote is not random, it is directly related to the preceding line. This game of making up claims that do not withstand even the slightest bit of scrutiny and then reverting is what cant stand. nableezy - 23:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If you wont allow material on Fatah attempting a coup to be included then I am removing the material on Hamas "overthrowing" Fatah. nableezy - 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

How would you say the balance of RS present this, as "Fatah attempting a coup" or as "Hamas overthrowing Fatah"? It's been over 10 years, there's plenty of RS by now.

I also agree with Yaniv that this random Weisglass quote is UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So we are supposed to allow unchallenged the contention that Israel allowed in humanitarian aid? When several human rights groups have said they were restricting it? nableezy - 23:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as how do RS balance it? Idk, Here is Avi Shlaim: "Hamas preempted a Fatah coup". Or here: "the weight of evidence shows that Fatah, not Hamas, carried out a coup in cahoots with the Bush adminstration". You cannot put statements that reliable sources directly dispute as undisputed facts. The idea that Hamas overthrew Fatah is such a statement. nableezy - 23:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What happened to BRD? Also, that Weisglass quote has been challenged by two editors. The ONUS is on you to gain consensus for it. Why did you restore it when you knew there was no consensus on the talk page?

Please explain what "contradicts" the sourced material (which has been in the article for how long?) you removed.

I asked what you think the balance of the sources say, not to fish for a couple that support one side or the other. Do most sources say that Hamas overthrew Fatah, or not? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus requires reasons based in policy, so far all that has been offered in opposition is that it is UNDUE without any explanation as to how. It is directly related to the topic, and other inclusions of material showing that Israel purposely withheld food aid have likewise been removed without basis. As far as fishing, sorry, that isnt what I was doing. What I was doing was providing proof that the material you reverted to include was directly disputed by reliable sources, and that the view that Hamas did not "overthrow" Fatah and that they instead repelled a coup is reliably sourced and is a significant view. And WP:NPOV requires its inclusion. nableezy - 01:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

But fine, Ill remove the quote, but Ill be adding material from Amnesty and Oxfam on Israel restricting medical supplies and food. nableezy - 01:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I asked what you thought the balance of the sources is. I am aware that some sources say Hamas was preempting a coup or words to that effect. But the vast majority say it overthrew Fatah. Which makes sense since one day Fatah was in charge, a few days of violence later Hamas was in charge. In normal English usage you'd say Hamas overthrew Fatah. We could say something along the lines of "Hamas overthrew Fatah. Some people say they were preempting a coup while others say Abbas had the authority to dismiss the government". We'd have to investigate how much weight to give those two opposing opinions, but the overthrow is a fact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont think the vast majority of sources support what you say, certainly not the vast majority since the Vanity Fair piece uncovered the evidence sources such as Shlaim use and the Wikileaks of the diplomatic cables was released. And no, overthrow is not a fact. To overthrow Fatah means that Fatah was the rightful government. And they were (are) not. When exactly was "Fatah in charge" of Gaza? Or the PNA for that matter? Abbas holding the presidency doesnt dismiss that Hamas was the majority party in the PLC. Regardless, the reliable sources that dispute the view that Hamas simply violently overthrew Fatah have been presented, and since I have answered your questions how about you answer mine. Is it a NPOV to discount the reliable sources that say Hamas repelled a coup instead of overthrowing Fatah? Is it a NPOV violation to say as a fact that Hamas overthrew Fatah, full stop? And what about the material on the restrictions on food, is it a NPOV violation to excise that from the article? nableezy - 00:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally the vast majority of countries, international bodies, and media reporting does not see Hamas as the legitimate government of Gaza (or of the PA as a whole). They may be wrong, but it is quite clear that Abbas and the PA receive the vast majority of recognition.Icewhiz (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont actually know what you are responding to here. It doesnt seem to be anything I wrote. Or anything we are discussing in this section. Maybe Im wrong, but I dont see it. nableezy - 07:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to the promotion of this clearly small minority view, which the piece in Vanity Fair perhaps partially supports, that casts the Hamas takeover of Gaza as something different from a violent usurpation of power. Most sources take a different tack, for instance NPR in 2017: Ten years ago this summer, the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas staged a coup, ousted members of the rival Fatah party and took over the Gaza Strip. [12]. You can find a source pushing just about any narrative on Gaza - including the Islamist narrative. This is a question of WP:BALASP.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you paying even a little bit of attention to the sources brought in support of this? Maybe try not making clearly bogus claims such as clearly small minority view when it has such sources citing it as:

*Nathan Thrall, The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine, Henry Holt and Company, 2017 p.271 n.20

*Bjorn Brenner, Gaza Under Hamas: From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance, I.B.Tauris 2017 p.207 n.21

*Eugenio Lilli, #New Beginning in US-Muslim Relations: President Obama and the Arab Awakening, Springer, 2016 p.98 .n46

Jason Brownlee, Democracy Prevention: The Politics of the U.S.-Egyptian Alliance, Cambridge University Press, 2012 p.223, notes 76,78

*Daniel C. Kurtzer, Scott B. Lasensky, William B. Quandt, Steven L. Spiegel, Shibley Telhami The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011, Cornell University Press, 2012 p.217

You cannot per NPOV not include significant POVs as published by RS, and the simplistic line you keep pushing is doing exactly that. When you continually make completely bogus claims, like Vanity Fair is a poor source, or that this is Hamas spin, or that this is a clearly minority POV it makes it difficult to reach a consensus as the arguments seem to have not factual basis that I should be responding to. nableezy - 08:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Firkin Flying Fox: the quote you cite from Haaretz is not reported as a fact but rather as a claim by COGAT, and even then it doesnt dispute that those calculations were in fact made to determine the levels of food allowed into the strip. But it is reported as a disputed claim by COGAT, and does not in any way justify the wholesale reversion you made. I mean if it ends up being reverted per WP:BAN later or not, you at least should give us the honor of gracing us with your presence here to justify why you returned the material on Fatah being "overthrown". As NMMNG says above, the ONUS is on you to show consensus for inclusion apparently. Beyond that, it is demonstrably a NPOV violation. nableezy - 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As I am not including any=thing, but rather excluding something which misrepresents its source material, I don't see how WP:ONUS applies. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, did you not notice you restored material about Hamas overthrowing Fatah? And what misrepresented what source? The source on the calculations did not say the government made those calculations to determine how they should provide just enough food so as not to starve Gaza, but not so much that their needs were met? Or what about the source about the cable that quotes an Israeli diplomat saying their aim was to keep Gaza on the brink of economic collapse? That was misrepresented how? Please do reply User:Firkin Flying Fox, I very much would like to know how the material misrepresents those sources. And why you restored a NPOV violation That being the Hamas overthrowing Fatah, which ONUS would apply to. nableezy - 04:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The source most certainly did not say the government made those calculations to determine how they should provide just enough food so as not to starve Gaza, as anyone who reads it can see. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

From the Guardian source cited:

The Israeli military made precise calculations of Gaza's daily calorie needs to avoid malnutrition during a blockade imposed on the Palestinian territory between 2007 and mid-2010, according to files the defence ministry released on Wednesday under a court order.

From the Haartez source cited:

The "red lines" document calculates the minimum number of calories needed by every age and gender group in Gaza, then uses this to determine the quantity of staple foods that must be allowed into the Strip every day, as well as the number of trucks needed to carry this quantity. On average, the minimum worked out to 2,279 calories per person per day, which could be supplied by 1,836 grams of food, or 2,575.5 tons of food for the entire population of Gaza.

Bringing this quantity into the Strip would require 170.4 truckloads per day, five days a week.

From this quantity, the document's authors then deducted 68.6 truckloads to account for the food produced locally in Gaza mainly vegetables, fruit, milk and meat. The documents note that the Health Ministry's data about various products includes the weight of the package (about 1 to 5 percent of the total weight) and that "The total amount of food takes into consideration 'sampling' by toddlers under the age of 2 (adds 34 tons per day to the general population)." ...

The point of the "red lines" document was to see if this number of trucks in fact met Gaza's needs.

It doesnt say exactly what I said it says? Those quotes arent from the cited sources? nableezy - 05:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The source clearly quotes COGAT as saying this there was no such policy, that this a rough draft, never discused , and never implemented. If you were editing in a NPOV way, as required by Wikipedia policy, don't you think this needed mentioning? Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What policy did I write that Israel implemented? And really, after your two edits with their either blank or straight up lie of an edit summary, youre gonna lecture me on NPOV? And in all your usernames and all your years of editing, have you still not learned that the word of the Israeli government is not gospel here? nableezy - 07:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The policy called [{WP:NPV]], one of the main pillars of Wikipedia, which requires all significant viewpoints be presented. I will lecture you until you start editing properly. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

as::::Oh, and User:Firkin Flying Fox, you still havent answered why you removed the quote from the Israeli diplomat, or added the material on Hamas overthrowing Fatah. Please do so. nableezy - 05:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No arguments are being supplied for the elisions. It is stupid to harp 'wp:undue' without providing arguments based on policy, for example. If one says Rose's Vanity Fair article is undue, you have to explain why it is so widely cited in quality sources. If reliable sources widely cite a piece of reportage, then that emphasizes that the information is thought to be important, hence due. Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Unrestrained application of WP:ONUS and/or WP:BURDEN has been shown to have grave risks for Wiki's integrity. A relatively minor effort (a revert + citing WP:RS and WP:ONUS) can strip the encyclopaedia of verified content, and, as we have seen in this Talk, generate significantly more effort to re-establish the deleted text. Given this (over?)reliance on WP:ONUS, especially in "discretionary sanctions" articles seems to lead inevitably to edit wars. In the case of articles under 'discretionary sanction', I therefore support the contention that reverts of verified text should be accompanied by a Talk justification.

In the specific case discussed here, the Weisglass statement turns out to have been reverted because it did allegedly not represent Israeli policy, but we can now see that that allegation has not been verifiably supported as Nableezy and Nishidani have repeatedly pointed out. Nonetheless it is correct, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN put the onus on the restoring editor to prove WP:RS. So let us get on with that right here and show that it WAS policy, thereby satisfying both Wiki protocols

In a widely cited article concerning the period 2006/2007 respected analyst Mouin Rabbani published in the prestigious London Review of Books - "In 2006 Weissglass was just as frank about Israel’s policy towards Gaza’s 1.8 million inhabitants: ‘The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.’ He was not speaking metaphorically." "In early 2006, Dov Weisglass, then a senior advisor to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explained that Israel’s policy towards Gaza was designed “to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”" In 2010 Israel was forced to release documents confirming the dietary calculations and restrictions dating back to 2007 - "I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place. In 2012 Israel was again obliged to release documents as a result of "a High Court hearing on Gisha's petition against this policy". It was revealed that precise calculations had been made AND implemented as to the minimum caloric intake necessary for Palestinians to avoid malnutrition so Israel could limit the amount of foodstuffs allowed into Gaza without causing outright starvation over a period dating back to 2007. "The Israeli military made precise calculations of Gaza's daily calorie needs to avoid malnutrition during a blockade imposed on the Palestinian territory between 2007 and mid-2010, according to files the defence ministry released on Wednesday under a court order. To deny that this was policy necessarily means that the military was acting outside of official policy, perhaps an even more heinous long-term violation. "The documents reveal a deliberate policy by the Israeli government in which the dietary needs for the population of Gaza are chillingly calculated, and the amounts of food let in by the Israeli government measured to remain just enough to keep the population alive at a near-starvation level.

Since there has been such insistence on verifying the source of Weisglass' statement and to show that it was 'policy' I will place all of the sources cited above into this article's text so as to safeguard that the same accusations are not made in the future, and also adapt the other related articles accordingly, namely Blockade of the Gaza Strip and Timeline of the Gaza War. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be easier for you to understand why these policies are needed, if you imagined someone was trying to insert a sourced soundbite you think was inappropriate into an article. For example, I could easily find many PA officials saying nasty things about Jews, including Abbas. Should I go and stick those as "background" in anything that's related to the PA and Jews? Of course not. You wouldn't approve if I did and you wouldn't want it to remain in the article until you proved it was UNDUE, either.

Not every sourced piece of information belongs in this encyclopedia, which is why consensus is a pillar of Wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Background section review

The final paragraph of the lede to 'Background' - I just don't understand the entire text. It starts with rockets then moves to the hugely more destructive heavy ordnance. Then, in an Article about Gaza, it gives us irrelevant facts regarding how many Palestinians and Israelis died in all of Israel/West Bank/Gaza. Next issue: It relates that 59 Palestinians were killed in Gaza between 2005 and 2007 yet the cited source reveals that 112 were killed just in 2005. In the entire background section (basically Feb 2005 to June 2008) not a single mention is made of the most important chain of altercations during this period, let alone its cause and effects, involving the notorious Gaza beach bombing, Shalits kidnapping, and two IDF invasions of Gaza.Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The next issue that I came across was the first sentence of the second paragraph under "2006 six-month ceasefire", specifically the phrase "... and to enforce the lull throughout Gaza". I do not know how to describe that other than as an insertion into Wiki of a deliberate fabrication. The comprehensive House of Common (HOC) review of the hostilities provides various versions of the understandings, none of which present a formal obligation on Hamas to stop all rocket fire. In fact that insertion is nothing more than an (extra-agreement demand) made by the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert (page 5). I have deleted it without waiting for discussion and have entered the HOC source. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The next sentence implies that the 'lull' deal included an end to Hamas' military buildup in Gaza and movement toward the release of Corporal Shalit. In fact, as pointed out by Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), these points were a source of conflict between the two parties and certainly not mutually agreed. I therefore intend to reword the entry to reflect this, plus to insert the ITIC source. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)