Talk:2014 Gaza War

POV

What's the point of adding POV?--Anton^Talk 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no sign that equal voice is given the two parties in the conflict. It sounds so far like an IDF version of events, and indeed an IDF blog has been used, and when I removed it per failure to pass RS criteria, it was immediately restored by an editor who thinks a specialist journalist in Jerusalem, writing for the Christian Science Monitor was pushing 'propaganda' for stating as a matter of record that Hamas has reined in rocket fire since November 2012, as per the cease-fire agreement, and only assumed responsibility for rockets fired from the Strip today. You'd never guess this from the article being patched up today, and it's evident the majority of contributions show zero interest in WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Using POV is not going to solve the NPOV unless you edit, correct or talk with the user(s). I do not like to see the articles just hang with "POV". As per {{POV/doc}}, I encourage you to point the issue rather than giving general idea. --Anton^Talk 16:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

How does one edit an article when one's first addition is automatically reverted at sight with a false edit summary? Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is almost no elbow room for any experienced editor who has been reverted to restore improperly removed material, or further remove things like the IDF blog which is in direct contradiction with the given data from Bryant and happens to use a unilateral statistic from a belligerent in the conflict while eliding all mention of the alternative perspective? Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your point. Why don't you intervene with editor(s)? --Anton^Talk 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll notify here that for one, User:Galatz, whose been round for 5 years, cannot alter the existing text for a day. He broke the 1R rule in ARBPIA articles with the edit summary ‘Undid propaganda’ (false edit summary also) here, removing citation tags uynder false pretenses, since they were entered because the IDF blog is not usable and here. Normally, this merits an automatic suspension or sanction, but I'm not personally going to worry admins for the moment. All red-ink editors and others should study the rules on reverting and fashion their edits in such a way that they do not revert the given text more than once, except to correct obvious vandalism.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is just nuts, unless something is done what we are going to have is a POV tag sitting around for months. My suggestion is to take this whole thing back to arbcom and ask that well established editors be allowed to at least have 2RR or something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing your tag - you are using the TP as a WP:SOAP - so far, everything is properly cited.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course this article is Pov. A lot of IDF-people work on it. Not many Palestinians.--Ezzex (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're using "IDF" as a euphemism for "Jew" (as in your recent edits) it's still unacceptable. If you think any individual editor has an unacceptable COI, you should address it. Otherwise, address the issues, not the editors. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I use the term jewish people in the sense that they usually are more emotional connected to this conflict than non-jewish Brits, Americans, French etc. They should therefore stay away or be more aware of the problem of subjectivity.--Ezzex (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Address the issue, not ethnicity or editor. Wiki does not encourage such complain. --Anton^Talk 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree with that. Ethnicity is sometime relevant, especially here. By using that name on the article, Operation Protective Edge, you already feel that the director is IDF and it's henchmen.--Ezzex (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor, not like your own restriction, which is against to Wiki. Do you have Wiki reference to say "Jewish editors should not don any edits on this article"? --Anton^Talk 08:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't "forum" this discussion with asking for some non-existent Wiki policy - your first comment was enough to make the point. The Administrator is already watching and will act accordingly again if necessary.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about policy in debates. I've been on wikipedia for years and will express my opinions as i wish.--Ezzex (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I sat in the pov-tag. This article is simply too much from a israeli viewpoint.--Ezzex (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I strongly protest the use of all the Israeli/jewish sources in this article. This is outrageous and a proof that english wikipedia have sunken to a level that is beyond any belief. You have finally became a tool for Israel.--Ezzex (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What are "Jewish sources"? sources that eat kosher foods? And maybe you don't notice the many links in the article to Al-Jazeera and Maan News i.e. "Arab sources". Yuvn86 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I also strongly object to the distinct pro-Israeli bias introduced into this article, and will make it my mission to strive to a more level playing field. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a Wikipedian reader passing by. I'm French, none Jewish and none Muslim and I am strongly protesting the bias of the article. "Facts" coming from Israeli websites are presented like historical truth, and they might become such if nobody does anything. This article presents Israel like the victim of Gaza rockets (just take a look at the picture of IDF soldiers protecting that kid, the same soldiers killing dozens of children on the other side!!! or just read the many phrases presenting Israel like only defending themselves, like that sentence telling that Palestinians militants broke the truce... sourced by an Israeli website!!!) whereas they are almost always blocked by the Iron Dome, and yet seems to ignore the unfair and inhuman offensive "response" of Israel. Ask Palestinians if phosphorus bombs dropped onto their houses are inefficient. Ask them if living in an overcrowded, blockaded, bombed, occupied and now invaded territory seems like not willing to respond with fire, no matter how ineffective this fire be. It's an evidence that most editors of this page are Pro-Israel or Israelis themselves, maybe full-time paid for that job. Pro-Palestine editors trying to sneak their way into that page are no match. If you argue that we should not discuss ethnicity of editors on Wikipedia, then you clearly accept bias articles on Wikipedia. I hope true Wikipedians willing for the truth will manage to get this article cleaned from such incredible propaganda. 216.45.141.215 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@ 216.45.141.215 - My impression, after a few years of following middle east wiki shenanigans, is that pro-Palestinian propaganda groups put quit a bit of time and money into skewing Wiki articles. However they have been unable to compete with the massive resources of the professional and volunteer Pro-Israeli groups who have often been allowed to ride roughshod over attempts to balance middle east articles. Very sorry to say but if you want unbiased information on the middle east Wiki is not great. You could try editing articles yourself to try to rebalance them but expect to be viciously attacked, and unless you are extremely shrewd and careful you will be gamed into an editing ban Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prunesqualor Thank you for your intelligent answer. It's indeed highly probable that Pro-Palestinian groups have done the same attempts to put their propaganda on Wiki, but as you said they couldn't compete. Plus, it is like the war going on: how to say who shot first? We can't, but what we can is telling who is dominating and trying to crush the opponent, and try to evaluate the morality of their intentions. The result is that articles dealing with Middle-East subjects involving Israel are always biased, presenting them like the "good" side (as if there still was good and bad in this world of interests... there is however still persecutors and persecuted). My main concern is that, while contrary to you or me who are able to recognize (for some after much efforts) when some information is biased on the internet, most people are not. Wikipedia should spread facts (thanks to the system of sourcing which should allow every reader to check the information, maybe multiple sourcing from independent publishers should be required in that kind of articles?) or scientific knowledge! 216.45.141.215 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just adding how many rocket attacks come from Gaza to Israel would fix this POV problem in the opening. increase in rocket attacks did it go from 2 to 6 or 100 to 900? The open is very one sided.Telecine Guy 21:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Casualties

Should the Israeli count be updated from none to one? The woman who died in Haifa was running for shelter at the time she collapsed. I haven't heard a cause for the collapse, but to me this implies its indirectly related to the rocket fire from Gaza. - Galatz (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would lean toward yes but it would be better to had a source saying 1 dead Israeli or first Israeli dead. --JFH (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually can't find any that specifically say that, everything I am finding just says that she collapsed and died. - Galatz (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not! There have been tens of Palestinians dying from heart attacks, delayed regular medical care, etc. and they are not counted! Quit judging Israeli suffering with a different standard than Palestinian!

It's probably misleading to count people who die from heart-failure as having being 'killed' by the conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, that was my concern. It could be argued that the heart issue was indirectly related to the operation, but that probably cannot be concerned. I think for now it makes the most sense to leave it at zero, especialyl since neither side is claiming its the first death.Galatz (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If she did die from a heart attack as a result of rocket fire, why wouldn't it be added? In the Gulf War article, it highlights Israelis who died from heart attacks as a result of Scud missiles fired from Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

100s of people are dying of heart-attacks every day. The direct cause is heart-disease, and the stress (such as is caused by air-raid sirens) is merely a trigger.Avaya1 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

after the end of the war i will quote the latest up to date number for casualties and how many are civilians from reliable sources but i will not doit now because it needs daily udate and i dont have the time, so keep lying and searching for the best numbers that suits you propaganda for now but i will settle this soon.Zaid almasri (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC) the isralis who died of heart attack or while running for shelter must be counted , if you object then mention the cause between quotations.and also the two israelis who died in the west bank must be counted also.Zaid almasri (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2 Israelis died of heart attack after hearing the missiles warning and another two while running for shelter and one soldier in nablus after his vehicle turned over because of stones thrown by Palestinians protesting the Israeli crimes in GazaZaid almasri (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC).

Lead

As we read in the lead section manual of Style, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. But, the lead section here, mainly focuses on the background and does not reflect other parts of the article. So, there should be a "Background" and the lead should be edited to contain all important points. Mhhossein (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It should also be free of citations, but the article is too new and the event has not yet settled down, at which point more refinement of the article will take place.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It likely won't. These articles tend to be over sourced since there is so much contention. The lead will not meet the MoS unless there is a constant attempt to follow the style guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@HammerFilmFan:I found it in lead section manual of Style:"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Mhhossein (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Move request 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 Isreal–Gaza conflict. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict – I moved this article from the incredibly biased use of the official IDF designation, to what most sources actually call it: 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza The lead should be changed accordingly, but a random Israeli IP reverted me.[6] FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC) How is the new page name not biased ? Israel is under attack by rocket fire from Gaza, yet your title implies that Israel attacks Gaza. At very least the title should be about bi-directional violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But that is what practically all sources refer to this as: Israeli offensive on Gaza. It is up to you to prove otherwise. Furthermore, your argument doesn't make sense in relation to the new title, since the former title, the official IDF name, solely focused on the offensive as well. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• 2014 israel offensive on gaza - 60 millions hits on google.
• 2014 gaza offensive on israel - 60.5 million hits on google
• 2014 gaza israel violence - 65 million hits

How exactly are you determining what "practically all" sources refer to ? The article's name doesn't have to be IDF's operation name, but it can't be refering only to the reaction ignoring the original violent action. This is as biased as you can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Your second example is fallacious, since you need to keep the order of the words used in mind. Use citation marks in your next search to get the correct order. Anyway, anything would be better than then official IDF name. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine, with quotation marks:

• "2014 israeli offensive on gaza" - 7 results (not 7 millions).
• "operation protective edge" - 4.5 million
• "2014 gaza offensive on israel" - 60 millions
• "2014 israel defense against gaza" - 53.8 millions
• "2014 gaza israel violence" - 65 millions.

IMO the last one is the least biased, since it indicates there is violence between two sides without assigning fault. If you prefer, I can live with "gaza offensive" or "israel defense". Current title is the most irrelevant and most biased of the lot.

All the articles about the previous operations in Gaza are also called by the operation name. The move is clearly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.218.244 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

They aren't. And the fact that some of them are shows we have more to fix after this one. Wikipedia is neutral, remember? Also, you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists Furthermore, your search results are not reproducible. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the WP:SOAPBOXING. Keep the soapboxing off the page and focus on making policy based content decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Aww, it served more as an embarrassment than anything though. As for search results, most sources obviously don't use the year in the name when they refer to this as the "Israeli offensive on Gaza", so the year needs to be kept outside the citation marks. Oddly enough, the first result is from FoxNews, a friend of Israel: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/09/israeli-military-says-palestinian-rocket-attacks-decline-on-second-day/ "Israel's Gaza offensive" 2014 also gets many hits. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC),

Previous conflicts of the Gaza–Israel conflict are named:

• Operation Rainbow (2004)
• Operation Days of Penitence (2004)
• Operation Summer Rains
• Operation Autumn Clouds (2006)
• Operation Hot Winter (2008)
• Gaza War (2008/9) IDF name "Operation Cast Lead"
• March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes IDF name "Operation Returning Echo"
• Operation Pillar of Defense (2012)

So why would you think that "Israeli offensive on Gaza" in is any way unbiased on representative of anything other than your own view? Also it clearly ignores that there's an exchange of violence between both sides, with hundreds of missiles fired from Gaza on Israeli cities. I suggest naming this either "Operation Protective Edge" as it was originally called, or find something more unbiased like "2014 Israel-Gaza Fighting" or whatever. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists Those titles should all be changed as well. They are extremely biased. And yet again, even FoxNews refers to "Israeli offensive on Gaza", and that's hardly an anti Israeli source. We go by what most reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not an IDF propaganda mouthpiece. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You are stating your own opinion on a convention/consensus of Wikipedia articles dating from 10 years ago until today. They are not biased because they are articles about a military operation that has a name. Calling it "Israeli offensive on Gaza" is biased since it places one side as the aggressor and another as the victim while ignoring that there is an ongoing conflict between two sides. This is the definition of bias. Also, nobody cares how "even FoxNews" referring to it, especially considering that there is an Israeli offensive on Gaza, and a Gaza offensive against Israel happening in the same time. Wikipedia is not a place for you to shove your own opinions about political/military conflicts, same as it is not an IDF mouthpiece nor a Gazan mouthpiece. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I repeat what I said above: your argument/objection doesn't make sense in relation to the new title, since the former title, the official IDF name, solely focused on the offensive as well, not on Hamas rockets. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The former titles talks about an operation which is both offensive and defensive. You may rename the article to something unbiased, but don't just come and rename it to something one sided just because you feel like it. At the least, use the Talk page to suggest a move, get suggestions and votes, and move then to a new name that is acceptable upon everyone. And at any rate, this article is about "an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, launched on 8 July 2014." which is named Operation Protective Edge. It's not about a so called "Israeli offensive on Gaza" which does not represent anything but a very specific bias. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The current title is less biased than then old one. Naming the article after the official IDF name is akin to naming the Iraq war article "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which was the US army name. And yet again, most sources call this a Israeli offensive against Gaza. That is a fact you need to deal with. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a fact, this is your (very biased) opinion, and you are clearly not in consensus. Most sources do NOT call this an Israeli offensive as I showed above, but you chose to ignore this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How come I can not reproduce your search results? Is FoxNews biased against Israel? Look at the sources used in this article. They mostly call it Israel's offensive. And what is it on? Gaza. The exact sequence of words is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

ETTENTIO PLEASE

"Israeli offensive on Gaza" has 348,000 results in google

"Operation Protective Edge" has 4,530,000 results in google

LOOK HERE IF U DONT BELIVE

IT IS THE REAL RESULTS BECOUSE ITS INCLUDE Apostrophes IN THE SEARCH CODE

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=%22Israeli+offensive+on+Gaza%22

https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=OlfGU_raKIyh8wep4oDoBg&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Operation+Protective+Edge%22

46.120.172.91 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

All sources obviously don't have "Israeli" directly in front of "offensive on Gaza", as this is inherently known by the readers. 2014 Israeli "offensive on Gaza" gives 1.490.000 hits, for example. There are many combinations, that give the same general title. Anyhow, consider the Iraq war analogy again. IDF operation names are biased towards Israeli POV. And please tell me how FoxNews is anti-Israeli. FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying the same as FoxNews. Is FoxNews anti-Israeli? FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Either the article is mainly about IDF operation called Protective Edge, or the article is about the current round of violence between two sides. Either way, just calling it "Israel's offensive" implies that there is one side to the offensive while the other side is a quiet victim - which is very biased and plainly wrong.

FunkMonk's POV change of the article seems to have been reverted, but I still see the wrong (changed) article name. Anyone understands what is going on ? 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been reverted, only the intro. My "POV" is apparently the same as FoxNews', deal with it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that if your POV is same as Fox News', you're probably wrong ;) -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you are not willing to discuss, only to force your biased POV. I suggested several alternatives, you are not willing to consider any opinion but your own. No point talking further, only to repair the damages you are making to the page until an administrator resolves the problem.

2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, anything is better than IDF operation names. Gaza conflict or whatever is better. But we need more opinions. So far, only Israelis have commented. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How about "July 2014 round of violence between Israel and Gaza" ? It avoids IDF's name of the operation and shows that both sides hold part of responsibility for the damages. At the very beginning of the article both side's names for the event should appear. 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Round of violence" would imply something much milder than what we're seeing now. Like simple street clashes or something. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Violence, attacks, offensive - pick any word, as long as it applies to both sides. 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the current title ('offensive' is commonly used by sources), though I think it should have been moved through a proper RM. The use of "between Israel and Gaza" is incorrect, the violence is between Israel and Hamas, and Gaza is paying the price. Your proposed title, IP, doesn't reflect the real damage on the civilian population. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Current title implies that the offensive is unidirectional, which is very biased and simply wrong. Hamas is Gaza's elected government, so any attack initiated by Hamas is attack by Gaza. I can live with "July 2014 offensive between Hamas and IDF in Gaza and Israel", although technically it is not correct. 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving the title to something completely POV without even discussing in the talk page is out of line in my opinion. As many people have stated most articles are under the Operation name because thats the best way to relate to it. Your title includes everything from 1/1/2014 to 12/31/14 however this is about a 10 day period thus far. We need an admin in here to revert this back unless an agreement can be made on something else. Your change has gone against the way Israeli Palestinian conflicts have been captured here for 10 years. Plus only Pro-Palestinian newspapers would call it Israel offensive in Gaza because Israel considers this is defending its citizens. Your move is 100% POV. - Galatz (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

+1, 100%. This move is 100% POV, misleading, unprecise and uncorrect. 95.224.3.17 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• It seems most commenters here are Israelis, so of course you all think the title is POV. But obviously focusing on the IDFs own designation is extremely POV. So we need a compromise, and we need opinions of non-Israelis as well. Otherwise we can just go head and retitle the Iraq War article "Operation Iraqi Freedom". FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not Israeli so there you go, you have my opinion. Its 100% POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This should be resolved be sampling high quality reliable sources. Google counts are worthless. No one should even need to voice their opinion about whether a title is neutral. Neutral here is by definition "what most reliable sources say" as FunkMonk said way up the top of this section. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Let me offer an outsider perspective from someone that doesn't edit any on Middle East topics. I'm neither Muslim, Christian nor Jewish. The current title (2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza) is amazingly POV and inaccurate, just using the sources as it makes it sound like Israel just up and invaded Gaza the other day. Whatever you change it to, the current title is completely unacceptable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I support the current title of the article, this is a fierce Israeli attack targeting civilians in primarily. We should not lose sight of this.--Uishaki (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the fierce attack by Hamas on Israel ? Hundreds and thousands of rockets fired on civilian population without any prior provocation. What makes you think that ignoring this is NPOV? NPOV would be acknowledging that that attack is going in in two directions, and letting the reader decide based on the facts which side began and which side is at fault.2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• So now the article was moved back with the rationale "Move was contentious, caused blocks and a firestorm" Erm, the person who was blocked was in favour of the IDF title, so how can the move be blamed for his misbehaviour? And an invasion of IPs (not regular editors) is a "firestorm"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who dislikes the Operation Pillar of Defense title can explain to me rationally whats not POV about it. Its the name of the Israeli operation yes, but Hamas doesn't have a name for it. Plus even Maan seems to call it that. A quick search of their website shows it http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=711222 none of the articles on Maan seem to call it what you are proposing. I don't actually see Al Jazeera calling it that either. Please provide evidence of how virtually all are calling it that. - Galatz (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Should we rename Operation Barbarossa to 1941 Germany-Russia conflict?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we rename "Iraq War" to "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Agree, should be moved to a more neutral name.--Ezzex (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. A two-sided conflict needs a two-sided name for NPOV. – Ypnypn (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The POV of the current title is far worse than the weak POV of which entity is named first in the proposed title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Israel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew into "Operation Protective Edge" to give the operation a more defensive spin: "The name of this operation ["Protective Edge"] was modified in English to give it a more defensive connotation," says Israeli military spokesman for Arab Media Avichay Adraee. (http://www.timesofisrael.com/name-protective-edge-doesnt-cut-it/). Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is the name used in the media. BlueHorizon (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The name is referred to in the media, when mentioning Israel's offensive, but the 'conflict itself is not called that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as the article is about more than the Israeli operation. // Liftarn (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support -its a POV title - the media only use it, when I hear it used , with the preface 'Israel says its Operation protective edge is designed to..whatever' - it isn't the name used in the media when introducing its general coverage of the conflict Sayerslle (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• support it is clear that this article is covering more than just the IDF operation. However, a redirect should be left behind not the nodredirect as specified in the MR. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Such as...? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Another reason why the the proposed title (2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) is inappropriate is that it is misleading. The Gaza–Israel conflict has been going on since 2006. The latest fighting is part of that conflict; the latest fighting is not a new conflict. Also, no good argument has been provided for how the current title (Operation Protective Edge) violates NPOV. We have articles for Operation Overlord, Operation Torch, Operation Barbarossa, Operation Pillar of Defense, etc. Our policy states that we should use a name that is commonly used in the sources, and Operation Protective Edge is the most common name. "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict" is not a name. We don't title the Barack Obama article 2009-2017 United States president. Something like the latter should only be used if a proper name does not exist.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

just a top of my head thought reading that, - operation Barbarossa , that began as a clear-cut one way street - Nazi Germany launched an attack on its erstwhile Stalinist ally - but this isn't just a one-way street is it - as Israels leaders never tire of pointing out - they are being attacked from gaza - and how is 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict misleading - its not a new conflict you say but it is this years distinct manifestation of an underlying conflict - I think its fine as a title - and i'm sure I've seen it, or very close approximation, used as titling for reports on the conflict - the IDF name is not used except when introducing one sides stated objectives kind of thing - I don't see channel 4s news on this titled 'operation protective edge' - not at all, - you don't see that - it would be wrong because it would look like channel 4 was kind of letting Israel frame , and subliminally justify, the conflict for it Sayerslle (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. OK, pretty clear consensus against this proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza – First of all, this is how the majority of reliable sources describe it. Per some points in the above discussion, we should avoid official one-sided names like IDF ones. There is much more to the story than this operation. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support You can not compare the Israeli attacks and airstrikes that has resulted in killing dozens of people with the amateur and domestic rockets of Palestinian groups killed one person so far.--Uishaki (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It certainly needs a move, but it is more likely that there will be consensus for a title like 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not about who has the bigger guns and who has the better defense. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (A) The title "Israeli offensive on Gaza" is a POV, putting one side as sole aggressor and another side as victim, while the situation in reality is part of an ongoing conflict between two sides (Israel and Gaza) in which both sides attack the other, each for their own reasons that are justified in their own eyes. A more NPOV would be something like 2014 Israel-Gaza Violence (or something of that sort).

(B) I haven't seen that this is "how the majority of reliable sources describe it". I've seen various references, but nothing consistent. The only consistent references I could find is the mention of the IDF operation name ("Operation Protective Edge") in various international sources. (C) Almost all of the previous clashes in this conflict are using the IDF operation names, mostly because other than the ongoing tit-for-tat, the significant rounds of violence started when IDF declared its going to retaliate against rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli cities. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A Using the name of the article is consistent with how the vast majority have been referred to, unless there is a clear cut other name. Additionally the person who changed it keeps saying "how the majority of reliable sources describe it" however I see now proof of this. The only constant I see the operation. Operation Brother's Keeper was not called that because there was another clear name that could be used, there is no other clear name.

B The proposed name signifies a year's worth of violence, however this article is about what is currently a 10 days escalation. Pages already exist for that, showing attacks from one side at the other C The proposed name clearly shows a one sided offense, when this is not the case. The only reason Israel does not have more deaths is due to the Iron Dome. - Galatz (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Galatz, point C. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The title must either not mention the attacking vs attacked side at all, or mention both since there is offensive going on from both sides. Number of victums is irrelevant - Hamas's use of human shields vs Israel's defense systems is the reason for difference. If one of hamas' "crude home-made rockets" managed to hit a kingergarten and kill tens of children - would it change the situation in any way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.144.105 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the convention Wikipedia uses for naming these articles. --Dweller (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per much of Galatz's rationale. This is a war. Hamas are using missiles imported from Iran and Syria which are targetting Tel-Aviv and beyond. Iron Dome is stretched to its technical limits in intercepting them. Hamas are attempting to hit Israel with full force. Hamas commenced massed rocket barrages in the last days of june, which was an act of war, targetting population centres without any attempt at discrimination. In fact a war crime of the first degree, or in old skool terminology, terrorism. Using your logic, we could just as plausably term it Hamas offensive on Israel 2014. The name of the operation should be retained as title at this point. Irondome (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The politics behind the nature of the offensive perhaps should be covered in other relevant articles or its own article - this article was begun as an article on the military operation. In fact some of the "article creep/bloat" could be cut from it and used elsewhere. P.S. FutureTrillionaire's rationale ^ is blunt-object logic, also. It's just a name for a military operation - trying to read too much into it is unproductive. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others above. Faizan 14:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support – The present title fails WP:NPOV entirely. While there are problems with the proposed title, it is better then what we have now. No one can deny that this is an "offensive". "Protective edge" itself clearly implies that it is an "offensive". RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose One-sided POV, just like the current title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support – The current title is 100% one-sided. 3bdulelah (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others above. Flayer (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Wikipedia should use the name used in secondary sources, i.e. not Israeli military. Current name is no more than propaganda.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Current name is IDF propoganda and should be changed to a more neutral one such as suggested --Youngdrake (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Considering what Galatz pointed out.Direwolf484 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Direwolf484
• strong oppose due to WP:NPOV issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• strong support Part of this "Operation article involves the background or what led up to it. When this is "salamied" out, the Operation loses its complete context. Electing the 'start' to be the kidnapping of the three Israeli lads, and slicing out conflict immediately prior to that, autopsy confirmation of the deaths of two Palestinians (also teenagers) by IDF live fire 3 days before the kidnappings, causes the article seriously to lose value. So one option is to expand the article back to the preceding period of significant calm. Failing that, then the article should be merged as suggested. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• It is clearly against WP:NPOV to keep the current name. Hamas has also given a name for the operation against Israel, called "al-Asf al-Makoul" (العصف المأكول), why can't that be the name of the article? Keeping the current name is akin to calling the Gulf War article "Operation Desert Storm".--Aa2-2004 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

In my opinion, the current state of the article is not written from a neutral point of view.

• It is not mentioned at all why this operation was launched, i.e. to stop the rocket attacks. Since the beginning of 2014, around 450 rockets were launched from Gaza before the beginning of the operation Protective edge (compared to around 36 in 2013). The last days before the start of Protective edge, the intensity was approaching 100 rockets per day. Moreover, increased rocket fire was already before the abduction of those 3 israelis. The current version looks like "Israeli army invaded Gaza and started killing civilians". In fact, more than one third of the rockets and rocket launchers has already been distroyed and the goal is clearly not to hit civilians but to weeken Hamas ability to hit Israeli people. This can be found in a number of sources but not here.
• It is never mentioned in this article that Hamas and Islamic jihad are targeting civilians (including the international airport, which is a "school-book" example of international terrorism), while Israel is targetting military objects, munition, Hamas members and selected houses after warning the civilians. The word "terrorism" is not mentioned in this article at all.

I'm not saying that the palestinian viewpoint should be excluded from the article, but currently it seems to be the only one (in most parts of the article, if not in all). Franp9am (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point about flight disruptions from Ben-Gurion, and the potential danger of neutral fatalities is valid. We can discuss that. However on the whole this article is developing well. Do not mistake consensus for agreement ;). We have a core group of true wikipedians of differing POVs who are keeping it from walk-away-from-it stressful chaos. Please pitch in and help, but leave your POV at the door as much as possible, as all eds of G.F are attempting to do here. Irondome (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that firing at Ben Gurion is valid and definitely important to include. I would include it if you can find an RS that states Hamas took credit credit for aiming at it. When the article was original built it had facts like the 450 you mentioned and the 8,000 fired since the beginning of the operation, however most have since vanished. Again if you can find a good RS that has those stats, its probably good to add into the Long Term background section. - Galatz (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this work? [7], it doesn't say Hamas aimed for the airport, per se; rather, that it intends to do so. Strygalldwir (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, it does say they claimed at least one rocket was fired at the airport. Strygalldwir (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please IMPROVE the article with Reliable Sources material rather than throwing a tag on it. Everything in the article is well-cited at this time, and it is obvious to me why the military mission is taking place from the article. I'm going to remove the tag - this article has been worked on by many editors and I see no bias at all at this point. Of course, personal feelings and the pro/con's of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of some editors are seething under the surface, but that is the domain for blogs and op-eds, not an encyclopedia. Remember, the article requires solid RS's to be used and if they don't support one's POV, that's just life. Wiki uses Verifiability not Truth as it's SOP.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answers. I have to admit that at least the introduction looks a bit better than yesterday. Please keep an eye on this article and I will try to help when I find some time. Franp9am (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Despite what you think this is still clearly not neutral. The number of pictures of isreal under attack and the amount of coverage is laughable. It shows massive amounts of bias in its self. The rocket range picture does as well. It plays up the threat that they pose. They are firing unguided poorly armed rockets into a contry protected by anti missile systems. Compared to them getting bombed on a regular basis with no means of defense. --Youngdrake (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"45% were women or children"

Why are women grouped with children? Maybe say 27% were children. "Women or children" is a strange way to group people.135.0.167.2 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I whole heatedly agree with your notion that at this point shouldn't even be considered "progressive". RS uses women and children combined since women are typically no combatants in that region and because it adds shock value.

In most of the world men's lives are valued less by the public than women and childrens. It's a sad fact of life. --Youngdrake (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Background

I am removing a signifigant amount. It was still too close to the original plagiarized piece in structure. The paragraph also used sources predating the conflict to justify an assertion made in the copy righted opinion piece which lead to a form of original research. An attempt to disrupt the combined government might very well be part of the reasoning behind the conflict (I don't know either way) but it did not deserve that much weight. Plagiarism, original research, undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No one should be tampering grossly with the lead or background without first addressing the talk page. The lead summarizes the article and yet the second major paragraph has no connect with the background, in fact it contradicts it.

By 7 July, 100 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israeli territory, towards Beersheba, Ashdod, Ofakim, Ashkelon, and Netivot, and Israel struck several sites in Gaza.[10][11][12] Overnight, Israel hit 50 targets in the Gaza Strip,[13] and by 8 July, Palestinian militants in Gaza had fired over 140 rockets within 24 hours into Israel, as far north as Hadera, beyond Tel Aviv. Israel's counter-rocket defense system, the Iron Dome, intercepted about 30 of the rockets. Israel also thwarted an infiltration from the sea.[14] Israel commenced the major military response on 8 July. On the same day, Hamas declared that "all Israelis" had become "legitimate targets".[15][16].

The background showed once that exchanges of IAF attacks and Hamas rocketry had been going on for a week before the decision to conduct an operation against Gaza. That is nowhere in the lead, as opposed to the background. Instead we have a list of Hamas actions provoking Israel. It violates WP:NPOV by following the IDF Israeli official line, and is a disgrace.

This also, in the background, is POV pushing:

however, Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said that he can neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping of the three Israelis, and congratulated the abductors

('however' here is editorial nudging to suggest 'whatever Hamas says, they wouldn't come clean'). Meshaal's statement was made to stress that, since they had (their public position which is all that counts for us) no knowledge of the incident despite Israeli accusations of responsibility, they could neither confirm or deny the facts. In several statements Hamas and other groups said they were reading the kidnapping as something staged by the IDF to provide a pretext to hit Gaza. Silly, but that is one impression they had, given some credibility because everyone knew that the government pretended the boys were alive for three weeks in order to provide the ratio for a massive crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, a crackdown that, in strategic terms, left Hamas in the dilemma of either not defending their own, or retaliating. Hamas formally broke its Nov 2012 agreement with Israel after an IAF attack on one of its rocket squads on June 29, by relòeasing a rocket barrage on June 20. Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe any of your suggestions are related to my edit so all I can say is be bold and fix what you see needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.160 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They are all related to your edit. You removed substantial text that had been stable, and then alerted the talk page. One is not supposed to do that. This is supposed to be a (ha!ha!) consensual drafting, not an obiter dictum followed by an executive expunging of text no one till you found problematical.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It was by no means stable. The edit went through by a single editor before the ground operation started and we saw increased traffic on the page. It was reported to a noticeboard within 24 hours of the original insertion since it was in obvious violation of copyright. Pardon me for being dense, but I still don't see anything I removed as being at all remotely related to your tl;dr personal blog/attempt to start a debate for the fun of it/diatribe. I'm not engaging in an argument with you. Fix it or don't. Just make sure to not copy and paste a single source in then add unrelated sources throughout in an attempt to make a point. Have you even looked at the dif from the edit or were you too busy trying to convey your own point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I expect rational discussion to make analyses, compare them to relevant policy issues, link to relevant noticeboard discussions, etc. You haven't done that here. You made assertions. Document them closely and they will be examined.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Completeness of "Background": Quote: "The operation follows a chain of events that began with the abduction of three Israeli teenagers Naftali Fraenkel (16), Gilad Shaer (16) and Eyal Yifrah (19) in the West Bank in June 2014, for which Israel blamed Hamas." Why start there? Why not step back slightly and look at the full picture since the start of the recent tension, because that start was NOT as the article currently states. Here is the sequence as I have gleaned it:

http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/EnTerrorData/Reports/Pages/default.aspx

2013: No Israeli fatalities from Gaza during 2013 January 2014: Shabak – 11 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) February 2014: Shabak – 7 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) March 2014: Shabak – 22 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) April 2014: Shabak – 10 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) May 2014: Shabak – 4 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths)

During early/mid May 2014 twelve Palestinians were wounded by the IDF in a series of events http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10331 Then, on May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed by the IDF and eight civilians wounded during commemorations of Nakba day. On May 20 video evidence became available showing that the youths were posing no threat at the time - http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/20/palestine-teenagerskilled.html. The USA called for an inquiry. The IDF reported that “live fire” had not been used, a claim refuted by B’Tselem. On May 22, as Michael Oren (former Israeli ambassador to the UN) suggested on CNN that the boys may not be dead, the UN released a report of a sharp increase in Palestinian casualties over recent periods [8].

June 9: The body of one of the teens, Nadim Numara, was exhumed and an autopsy performed which found that a live bullet had killed the boy. “The willful killing of civilians by Israeli security forces as part of the occupation is a war crime” Human Rights Watch -http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/09/israel-killing-children-apparent-war-crime. A senior Palestinian official called the killings a "deliberate execution" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27488135

On June 12, three days after the official autopsy result, three Israeli teenagers are kidnapped in the West Bank. Is this pure coincidence?

The rest of the saga DOES appear in this article. I believe the full lead-up needs to be laid out, and not one of selective memory. Any objection to this being done?Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue I see with these additions is that there are many reliable sources linking the conflict and the kidnapping. Are there reliable sources that are discussing the timeline as far back as you have in the context of this conflict? If not, it is WP:OR to say they are linked. IF there are, then we get into an issue of WP:WEIGHT regarding what perponderance of reliable sources make that linkage. If such sources exist of sufficient number and reliability making that linkage I have no objection, but if not, any point to start is just as arbitrary as any other. We would end up recounting back to the 60s, or the 1600s just as easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil response, Gaijin42. You are correct that there are reliable sources linking the conflict to the kidnapping of the Israeli teenagers. I am pointing out that there was also an earlier event, only days before, not decades before, involving deaths of Palestinian youths, that is also part of the post April flare-up. You ask for sources linking the current period of conflict back to before the kidnapping of the Jewish lads. Sure there is - the whole screed of bellicose events that I listed from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. The fact that Hamas or others did not go on a mass revenge operation as Israel did, and hence make copious amounts of news, in no way detracts from the cause-and-effect chain. Regarding proof that the kidnapping of the Israeli youths was related to the deaths of the Palestinian boys, since the perpetrators of those latter kidnappings have not been found, their motivations are equally speculative, yet the article presents these copiously without censure. Why the bias?

The most obvious way to reconcile our differences is to support the merger of this Operation as per the "Move Request 1→ 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict", something that you have opposed. You seem to support a salami tactic in the current flare-up. You claim that “we could end up going back to the 60’s". I suggest that is a red herring, because the flare-up that started in early-May and continues to this date was clearly preceded by a limiting period of months of relative calm that even the Israeli Security Agency noted.

So, unless the facts from a fuller timeline are allowed to be presented, without any POV commentary, in the “Operation” article, I have no option but to support the incorporation of this Article into the broader 2014 conflict. Salami tactics rarely assist an honest evaluation of history. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section added to "Background" Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand much of the earlier discussion. But I fail to understand Erictheenquirer's edit, and moreover, this whole "Background" section is a mess. I do not exactly see where the "proposed section" was proposed. No doubt there is a lot of background, and I am not unsympathetic to including some of it.

• The statement "We have been instructed by the political echelon to hit Hamas hard." is spoken on July 8, much after the kidnapping of the teenagers. Why is it in the first paragraph?

• I fail to see the criteria of inclusion of things in the Erictheenquirer's edit. And there is all kind of incoherency in the whole section. It jumps around chronologically all over the place. And what kind of language is this: "The pro-Israeli version is that..."

My head spins just trying to read this Background section. Kingsindian (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Background section is a mess. Perhaps this is a consequence of the topic being one which is currently evolving. In fact, I do not see how there can be any real logic to having an intricate Background section in an Article that is essentially an Annual timeline. And as you noted, the timeline is thoroughly messed up. If one were to step back, there seem to be a few fundamental "bits" that contribute to the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict: 1) The November 2012 Ceasefire: How did in progress in 2014?; 2) What were the lesser violations that did not result in week/month-long conflict; What was the detailed timeline within the continuous conflict that started in early-May; how did the chain-of-events evolve? There is much merit in adding the Israeli 'Operations' into this section rather than to slice them out as events that somehow are unrelated. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If we want to keep a background section, we have to start somewhere as Gaijin42 mentions. I suggest that we start after the 2012 ceasefire. That should be a logical starting point. We can then give some criteria about what to include in the background. The logical things which should be included, seem to me these: we can summarize the violations of either side in a systematic and neutral manner. Right now, it's not clear to me what is the criteria for inclusion of most of the incidents. The killing of the 2 kids near Ofer prison seems notable because of RS mentions, but is it representative in some way? And how is it related to the current airstrikes etc.? The shooting incident, sadly, just seems to me just one in a long series of Israeli actions in the occupied territories. The second thing to mention is the Hamas/Fatah unity deal and Israel's reaction to that. The third thing is the kidnapping of the teenagers and subsequent Israeli activities in the West Bank. The fourth should be Hamas/Israeli actions which triggered the airstrikes. These are the four important things which around which the section should be based. What exactly to mention in each category can be discussed, but there should be some logic to inclusion of various incidents. Kingsindian (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you have pretty much got an excellent framework outlined there. Agreed about the start point. So background is Nov 2012 to 31 Dec 2013. Thereafter the ‘relatively’ detailed timeline starts. Regarding what to include, it should preserve a level playing field. I do believe that is imperative to summarise the reason for the start of the June rocket fire from Gaza even if that reason originated outside of Gaza. There is already an article on the kidnapping of the Israeli teens. We can discuss ‘wrinkles’ on Talk as we go along. Many thanks for your positive contribution. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

<------- (Merging a section from below)

This section needs trimming of all accessory irrelevancies. This is my suggestion.

The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014. Following the Israeli threats regarding Fatah-Hamas reconciliation efforts during April 2014 the pattern of relative calm since late 2012 changed abruptly. On May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed, one certainly by live ammunition, by the IDF during the Nakba day commemorations, and video evidence revealed that they had posed no threat at the time. On May 22, the UN released a report of a sharp recent increase in Palestinian casualties, and the same pattern continued through June. Soon after abduction of three Israeli teenagers took place on 12 June. This last incident, it is also argued, formed the essential background for the conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately blamed Hamas, of which the two kidnappers were known members. No evidence of Hamas involvement was forthcoming Hamas leaders denied any involvement. and its political chief, Khaled Meshal could neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping, though he did congratulate the abductors. Further, the alleged murderers belong to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel. Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank, ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians died in numerous raids, and several hundred senior figures and Hamas representatives were arrested, . among them many of those recently freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron. Israeli authorities appear to have known almost from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping, and it later emerged via Micky Rosenfeld that Israel police work on the assumption that the abductors were a lone cell operating independently of the Hamas leadership.

The BBC reporter has now revealed that the Israeli authorities do not believe Hamas was behind the kidnapping, though blaming Hamas was a crucial element in the leadup to the war.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The above seems fine to me. I will put it in the background section provisionally. If we have more issues, we can discuss later. Kingsindian (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian & @Nishidani The new background although has the benefit of being short, has some major problems which should be modified:

• POV problem arises from the SHABAK source which is used here to show how the situation had been quiet after 2000! in this regard, the editor has mentioned " rocket attacks from Gaza" as a criteria to prove the claim which is an obvious POV.
• The readers need to know how the Hamas-Fatah negotiation could be regarded as a factor for moving toward the conflict. Hence, we should present the reactions to these talks. The new version only has one sentence in this regard which might be disputable without other completing sentences.
• The part talking about the chain of the events right before the conflict is very brief, we'd better have some of the former materials for this part. Even we might have a time line table for showing the major effective incidents from the peace period up to the conflict.
• The citations are really used in an awkward manner.

In whole, I believe that this version plus this analysis makes a better background considering the current one. Moreover, The peace periods after the 2012 cease fire can be mentioned using WP:RS without mentioning any data or report from the sides-related sources. The new edition needs to have all of the parts in a rational order. Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein. I rewrote one part of the background because it was written in bad English, had excessive incidental details, and irrelevancies (Michael Oren) etc. What appears to have happened is that the part I copyedited, with an adjustment, has been used to replace the whole background, which is what this version you prefer retains. I have no problem in restoring all of the matter in that version, preferably keeping the changes I made in my copyedit. This has a long history, as one of my edits from that Guardian article showed before it was removed, and as

• Ehab Zahriyeh 'Citing past failures, Hamas demands an enforceable cease-fire,' Al-Jazeera 16 July 2014

and *Idan Landau 'The unfolding lie of Operation Protective Edge,' +972 Magazine July 15, 2014

show. The background should, as before, start with the Guardian analysis, use sources like Zahriyeh and Landau to show the firing patterns, the November 2012 ceasefire and its violations, then deal with the second Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Netanyahu's vehement opposition. The section I rewrote is essentially the short term, immediate background to the event, dealing with the attempt to blame Hamas for the kidnappings. I suggest therefore that you ignore the section I proposed and be adopted, and rewrite or repaste for comment nd eventual inclusion here your preferred version of the 'older background'.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein & @Nishidani & Erictheenquirer My apologies, I misunderstood the part which had to be replaced, and drastically changed the background section. I am fine with including the Guardian view etc. Kingsindian (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Wording/Tone

Many of the sections on each day end with a phrase along the lines of "By day's end, Israel had struck # targets in Gaza, resulting in # deaths. From Gaza # rockets were fired toward Israel, resulting in # deaths." - this phrasing just seems a little off, especially seeing that it regularly uses "...0 deaths..." as supposed to "...zero/no deaths...". Additionally, the repetition/grammar of the phrase just seems a little propagandistic to me - I'm not that familiar with the MoS, but thought I should point it out for a more experienced editor to have a look at. - Stephen1133 (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It comes straight from the New York Times, which has a pro-Israeli spin. If you are worried about propaganda (no one else seems to be), the whole article is more or less that, particularly the lead, since the assumption of drafters and of most RS is that there is a state actor under attack from non-state 'terrorist' rockets. Hamas 'militants' are simply soldiers defending their homeland, or what remains of it, yet we obligatorily stick to that dubious contrast because almost all RS use that language. It is quite impossible to edit this rationally, because the title says it is about what Israel does, not about, unlike the Gaza War, how both sides call the conflict and saw it.

Most of the sources are Israelocentric. The whole article illustrates the success implementation on wikipedia of the fact that so far So far, Israel has done a far better job than the Palestinians making a case for war even when it's the occupying power. This is reinforced by the ABC-type western news media, that shows Israel defending itself against the aggression of the besieged Palestinians, even when the evidence or images tell otherwise.

• 'Due to the consistent rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, the Israeli government closed all summer camps within 40 km (24 miles) of Gaza and universities canceled their final exams.'

No balancing statement. Several teenagers in Gaza also missed their final exams because they were killed by bombs launched on their homes.

• This was followed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu instructing the IDF to "take their gloves off" against Hamas and instructed them to take any means necessary to restore peace to Israeli citizens.

No balancing statement, except for the next para:'Late afternoon, Hamas announced that all Israelis are now legitimate targets.' I.e. Israel is engaged in restoring peace (by initiating a devastating bombing campaign on an occupied country): Hamas in targeting Israeli citizens'(while defending itself from the devastating bombing campaign). Nice, lads.

• 'targeted retaliation,'.

This like 'human shields' is as hasbara meme. Israel retaliates when Hamas attacks. It never initiates military strikes, though it does so as frequently as Hamas.

• the home of senior Hamas member Abdul Rahman Juda, who was using his home as a control and command center. The only scientific study of Israeli-Gaza interactions in terms of cause and effect completely deconstructs this meme:Johannes Haushofer, Anat Biletzki ,Nancy Kanwisher, 'Both sides retaliate in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. August 25, 2010, yet it still dominates hasbara-filtered reportage in RS (systemic bias).

In any case, the statement should have been with attribution 'Whom the IDF says was using his home as a control and command center,'.

• 3 paragraphs then follow with details of rockets and guerillas attacking Israel

No details of such strikes as those where 8 members of the Kaware'a family killed, or 6 members of Hamad family killed, that day. We get this in day 3, wrongly, two days late:

'Eight of those killed were members of the Kaware family. Israel announced that although the family was warned, and they did leave the house, they returned after the warning shot hit the house.'

IDF propaganda. The warning 1.30. They obeyed it and waited for 1 hour 20 minutes outside, then saw a missile (the roof knock destroy their solar panels. They waited still, and then went to check the damage, and precisely at that moment, with Israel's excellent drone video's watching the street and house, were hit. B'tselem stated after detail research that the family was contacted by the Israeli military to leave the premises at 1.30 pm., and they evacuated it, gathering outside. At 2:50 pm, a drone missile struck the solar water tank on the roof, and after several minutes, the family went back inside, and 4 were on the roof, while several were in a stairwell or courtyard when the 3 pm missile struck.

On 8 July 2014, at around 1:30 P.M., the military called the Kaware’ home, informed the family that the house was to be bombed, and instructed them to leave the premises. The three-story building, owned by Ahmad Kaware’, consists of seven apartments belonging to Kaware’ and his sons. One son, ‘Odeh Kaware’, is an activist in Hamas’ military wing. At first, the family members obeyed the instruction to leave the house, but they gathered outside it with dozens of other persons. At approximately 2:50 P.M., a missile fired from an unmanned aerial vehicle struck the solar water tank on the roof of the building. Several minutes later, family members and neighbors began to go up to the roof. At 3:00 P.M., a missile was fired at the building from an F-16 fighter jet. At that stage, four persons were on the roof and other people were in the stairway or in the courtyard, on their way to the roof. The roof collapsed under the bombing, killing eight people, six of them children. Another 28 people were injured, ten of them sustaining severe injuries.

The IDF then reported that Hamas had ordered them back in to act as 'human shields', which our text loves to assert as well.

Para 2 is the same.

One or two passing mentions of a few casualties, then numerous mentions of Gaza rockets aimed at Israel.Note that numerous Israeli cities are named, whereas the IAF's numerous strikes of Khan Yunis, Gaza City, Rafah, Beit Hanoun etc., remain vague without geographical specificity.

Para 3.

• What is junk like

'Four US Senators Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, Kelly Ayotte, and Chuck Schumer, put forth a resolution expressing support for Israel as it defends itself against Hamas and ensure the survival of the State of Israel. Additionally, it condemns the unprovoked rocket fire at Israel, calls on Hamas to immediately cease all rocket attacks against Israel, and calls on Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the unity governing arrangement with Hamas and condemn the attacks on Israel'

appropriate to a responses section if barely notable since these kind of things are utterly predictable, and only ask that per NPOV, one line up a dozen global prominent analysts declaring that it is just another example of shooting with bazookas into a fish bowl? Neither the latter nor yawningly proedictable boosts from the US senate should be in this narrative.

In the early afternoon, at an IDF checkpoint on Highway 5, a car with Palestinian plates carrying Palestinians Arabs was stopped. The car contained two cooking gas tanks connected to what is believed to be a detonation device. Shin Bet is investigating the incident that is believed to be a car bomb.[91] One of the two suspects later confessed they intended to perpetrate a terror attack

This datum is correct, but there is no balancing mention that the same day three families were hit, the Malaka, al-Masri, Hamad, al-Nawasra, Qannan families, with 16 children and 10 women identified by name hit in strikes that same day. Whatever details fits the terror pattern for Israel is selected: whatever details reflect the Palestinian perception of being hunted by a war machine is elided, swept under the carpet, or glozed over. On that Wednesday,the IAF targeted a beach cafe where 13 young men were watching the world cup semifinal was blown up by a missile, killing 9, no mention.

These are just a few sparse notes on just the reportage of the 3 days. All I can see here is a successful reproduction of Israel's point of view, systematically suppressing the other narrative on the ground to highlight Israel under attack. Editors should be awarded medals by the Israeli Foreign Office for their excellent reproduction of the official line, even if it is all done unwittingly. Given the huge quantity of newbies and IPs constantly editing here, sane NPOV description is all by impossible. But in wikipedia we have a pillar called NPOV which in active page editing means that each section must be carefully assessed, when two parties are in conflict, to assure the neutral representation of both versions of a common interlinked story, and there is no trace of awareness of that pillar here. It was probably demolished during Operation Pillar of Defense.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, particularly the timeline is heavily weighted toward israeli perceptions. We either need more sources on palestinian experiences or we need to re-word the timeline. Zkbt (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Human Shields

Our text currently reads that "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. " and "In response, Israel claimed that many civilian casualties were the result of Hamas using the Gazan population as 'human shields' at alleged missile launch targets,[196] an allegation denied by Hamas."

This text seems incorrect, as Hamas has on multiple occasions acknowledged using human shields,both during this conflict, and in general, and praised those who use that tactic as martyrs. (Although they have in other contexts denied it as well) How should we correctly describe this part?

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri: "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes."

"We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be"

• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729#.U8kvA_nP3z4
• http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/hamas-encourages-civilians-to-ignore-warnings-act-as-human-shields-video/
• http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12019

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Better source : http://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-gaza-residents-acting-human-shields-israeli-forces-258223Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sami Abu Zuhri does not use the term "human shield". Besides, the video refers to practice that some Gazan residents have adopted where they would stand on the roof of targeted homes in hopes of preventing its bombing by Israel attacks, which is quite different from the conventional definition for human shield. Nevertheless, Israel continues to use such vague terms and explanations to defend its assault. Naturally, we would have to include the perspective of the other side as well. Hence the video cited for Hamas' denial. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How is that different than the conventional definition of human shield? That seems EXACTLY the definition to me? From the lede of the article you linked "placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Homes are not "combatant targets". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would normally say that is a fair point, except for them being used repeatedly as launch sites for rockets, and the place where the combatants and leaders are. However, in the interest of compromise, is there a way that we could flesh out the current text? Something along the lines of "Hamas has denied used human shields, but has encouraged/praised people to/who go on roofs of homes and buildings to discourage them from being bombed by Israeli forces"? OR some other wording you think accurately captures Zuhri's statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the bombing of the rehabilitation center for the severely disabled that killed 4 patients and their nurse, and it turns out the alleged Hamas member was not even home at the time? I think sentence you proposed is suggestive, and possibly violates WP:SYNTH. Note that the video has been discussed earlier at Talk:Operation_Protective_Edge#Human_Shield. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to justify any side, but what you do is sort of cherry picking. Most of IAF strikes are against legitimate targets (at least according to IDF intelligence), sites that are used as launch sites, hideouts or missile and weapon caches. Once in a while there are mistakes and wrong or unrelated target are being hit, and these do not represent the vast majority of airstrikes. According to IDF, more than 1500 airstrikes were used, and only very little of these actually hit these targets in which "disabled patients or children: were hit. This is a very small number by any means, although these are the only cases that are being shown in the social media, to provoke emotional responses. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"pal watch" is not reliable source, but Washington Times is [9]. However, we all must respect some basic rules, including that this is not a place for discussion, who is to blame for this war. Our personal oppinions on this war are irrlevant for Wiipedia, we must edit without bias. Beside that, there are few other rules 1) 1rr, 2) WP:NPOV, that needs to be respected.--Tritomex (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. My original point was that a statement by the hamas spokesperson about is surely notable and relevant enough for inclusion. Readers can determine how to interpret the statements from the various sides on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Current article text reads "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. ". Some sources [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] have pointed out a video of an interview with Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri which he is quoted (translated) as saying "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes" .

Should this quote or a brief summary of the sources discussing these statements and quotes be included in the context of the allegations of use of Human shields?

Survey

• include as proposer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• include. The uncharacteristically bitter and POV tone of your reflections are not helping your cause, N. You usually contribute a well-balanced argument. However, I remain to be ultimately convinced, based on sober language and some bloody good RS. I did not expect the poor argument below from you. That's me editing after 6 cans of Strongbow Cider at 3am. You can do better than that. Please completely rework your argument, and avoid terms like Hasbara. Engage me, don't make me wince. Respectfully, Irondome (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include When I read the quoted sentence, the only message I get is that people are really defenseless and are using their last weapons (lives) to protect their homes, and that, people who are not afraid of death may do every thing possible and hence do every thing to protect their homes. Don Juan says:"When one has nothing to lose, one becomes courageous. We are timid only when there is something we can still cling to." To me, it does not mean that they are encouraged to make a human shield against the planes but to do every thing they can for their homes and not to fear death. Mhhossein (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include. It's relevant and sourced... why not? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include A vague statement encouraging people to "oppose Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone" is nowhere close to a definition of a human shield. It can just as well be read as a defiant attitude towards Israel. There has to be actual evidence of people either forced to, or explicitly being deliberately placed so as to shield combatants from attack, or to shield combat targets, to qualify as human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include There are well-sourced evidences that Hamas using civilians as human shields. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include the exact quote if properly sourced, but not in juxtaposition to the human shields, as per Kingsindian. If there are reliable unbiased sources supporting the human shields, in juxtaposition to the Hamas denial. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't change/don't include - I've yet to see a black and white statement from Hamas leaders staying "Stay in your homes so that the Israelis will bomb you and you will be our shields" that's cited by reliable sources, or anything like that... what we have here are vague, unclear videos being referred to by mostly unreliable sources (GatewayPundit for once). I agree with Mhhossein and Kingsindian, essentially. For what it's worth, the article already includes the official Hamas line, as taken from CNN, that they encourage people to stay in their homes because they would be as unsafe (or more) if they were in public streets / areas. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include. Of course it's inappropriate to include this. Even putting aside the largely inadmissible batch of sources, there's no reason to think that human shields are what's being referred to here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• 3 of the four sources you cite are RS only in the sense of the abbreviation for rat ####. Please read Human shield esp.this section and Neve Gordon and Nicola Peruigini, On 'human shielding' in Gaza Al-Jazeera 18 July 2014. Calls by Hamas to stay on and not flee are identical to the calls by Yishuv leaders to Jews in Kfar Etzion and Jerusalem to stay there and not flee. To spin this, as the IDF press handouts have repeatedly as compelling unwilling people at gunpoint to get killed, while militants hide behind them is, frankly, obscene. There are numerous examples from Masada right down to the present day in Jewish history, and world military history, of what is being spun here as a coerced stay-behind behaviour of civilians. Of course, it would be easier for Israel to request that all Hamas fighters emerge from their tunnels and play by the rules of war, as drones and F4 Fighter planes, and satellites pinpoint them, and the ultra-sophisticated guidance systems of tanks and drones liquidate them. That's the premise. Hamas militants are cowards, whereas the whole army shooting at a safe technological distance of miles is heroic, defending the fatherland while killing what remains of the adversary's.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, there are sources that are not rat ####, and in the other articles, we discuss the actions by Israel in a similar context. So your !vote is an include then? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Washington Post just picked up the hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. No one is editing in significant elements of the damage to the civilian population while people like yourself appear to be avid to press home a known piece of hasbara that implies all civilians deaths are forms of coerced suicide. Israel has, as anyone in the West Bank can tell you, consistently used kids as shields over the last 20 years, it has been condemned by Israel's Supreme Court for doing so, and persists. It now had the shamelessness to accuse Hamas of the very unmanly act its own troops have often employed, even in the last invasion of northern Gaza.

My point is that this is an IDF meme, not an element of the battle front, and the function of the meme is to suggest to readers that the casualties in Israel's onslaught, despite 10 documented cases in the Ist three days which look like war crimes because strike after strike whole families were wiped out, are not Israel's fault, but a result, as the IDF put out in the Kaware's case, of Hamas constraining people to expose themselves to the 'innocent' destruction of houses of human habitation. The article is (I could write 20 pages on this) already like an IDF handout, and further attempts to 'screw' the other POV, almost invisible, are unacceptable, esp. since editors here are wholly disinterested generally in any other story than the one spun by the 4th most powerful army in the world and its ally, (the United States of Amnesia), whose purity of arms every two years consists in massacring a captive population. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

IDF headquarter

Some information. IDFs headquarter are located in central Tel Aviv. The largest city in Israel. In Gaza there are difficult to find locations for military equipment that are unpopulated or densely populated, simply because of its limited size.--Ezzex (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(at least according to IDF intelligence)That made me laugh. I bet according to hamas all the rockets have hit the targets! Like seriously man getting your information from one side is gonna be problamatic.--Youngdrake (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Should not use Arab media as references

WP:FORUM. One side doesn't want to use arab sources. One side doesn't want to use israeli/US sources. Both sets of sources have value, and both sets have flaws. Make policy based arguments about specific content and not borderline racist WP:POLEMICs and it will serve better

Editors should avoid using arabian newspapers as references. There are a lot of articles about this issue in British and US newspapers. This article have far to much references from Arabian sources. There are over 100 references and over 50 % seams to be arabian/muslim. Examples: Al Jazeera, The Gulf Today, Ma'an News (terrorist hate site). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.107.191 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Idiotic. Sorry, but that's exactly what your blanket-statement is. If the source passes RS muster, it is valid.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Ma'an News (terrorist hate site). Translation:'Ma'an reports the bare facts and details of Palestinians who are killed in war and under the occupation, and these occupied people are by definition 'terrorists' because, like the fathers of most of Israel's elite, they fight to obtain independence for their country. All of the Biritsh-denominated 'terrorists' of the Irgun and Stern Gangs were awarded medals as heroes of the struggle for independence afterwards, and several became Prime Ministers.No such parity is permitted to Palestinians who imitate the lesson, nor to organs that describe neutrally the facts of their 'evil' struggle.Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Nishidani: The original comment didn't justify a rational response. Your time would have better spent educating the new editor or simply ignoring. 186.93.107.191: Please see WP:RS and point out specific sources that are biased. Arab media is valid. A larger concern should be Western blogs attempting to mimic RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC) redacted comment by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (removed by Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)) This is an unfortunate suggestion. Are we to not even consider Al Jazeera or Daily Star of Beirut?Dogru144 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the background section to focus on a single assertion

I appreciate that he copyrighted material was not reintroduced. However, the background is continuously being used to assert that the conflict is based on the Palestinian factions uniting. That is a valid point per some RS but it is far from the primary reasoning according to most RS. Go ahead and write a line or even a paragraph but the background section needs to stop leading the reader to the conclusion that it is the mos prominent reason for the fighting. Kids got killed and fire was exchanged. That is clear. Some sort of conspiracy of political maneuvering needs to take a back seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not focusing on a single assertion. In fact, killings effectively triggered the flames of war but the background should not be ignored. Please notice that, the long-term pretexts are even more important as the WP:RSs say. However I appreciate your attention on the issue and would like to keep on the discussion and suggest you to continue using a registered account. Mhhossein (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The background material is supposed to capture the key events preceding the escalation that broke out into war on July7/8. What are most RS and some RS is an impossible thing to determine. The major events from the establishment of the Unity government and Netanyahu's dual attempts to smash it (appealing against it to the US and the EEC, the using the Qawasme murderers as a pretext to destroy Hamas as responsible when that association is deeply problematical ) are relevant. Despite the media hullaballoo these events continue in the context of political and strategic calculations, and this is no historical anomaly, and the reader had a right to see the background from both POVs.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the argument has been made and love to see it in. However, it is given too much weight with a long and possibly synthy paragraph. It overshadows information more commonly considered the primary reasoning by rs. 1-2 lines and a link to the specific article would work.

It's normative for these articles. See the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which is huge compared to this, and still needs work. I haven't the time at the moment, but it would be very easy to source this background even more thoroughly, and one can expect analysts' studies will be forthcoming in abundance quite shortly. What everyone knows, from Norman Finkelstein to Yuval Diskin, is that this is a war dictated by political calculations and infighting within Israel's Likud alliance, intimately connected to the fall of the elected Egyptian government and the replacement of Morsi by al-Sisi, who has shared geopolitical and business interests with Israel, and has nothing to do with the pursuit of its public claims. I think the wise thing however is to wait for the specialist essays on this. It is not a bad start, in my view.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

you are jumping all over the place. It would be better to stay on task. You do seem to agree with my request. A long winded paragraph that shovels synth into the artcle should be removed until more sources go into detail.

Two editors disagree with your impression, which you have not justified by evidence and argument. So, the suggested edit has not consensual warrant. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Down below you express your concern with the short term/long term style and in this very section you mention the need to hold off until deeper analysis is provided. So it really still sounds like you agree with me.

regardless of that, I will be removing all of the lines only supported by refs that predate the conflict. I'm likely not going to list them here as your evidence of synth since you can check the yourself. Furthermore, your consent isn't required to ensure that the section is within Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

UPDATE: I actually am going to provide a list of references used. I assumed that I could reduce the size of the paragraph while still keeping the initial theme in the section. However, not a single source currently provided actually discusses any link between the unified government and the current conflict (I recall seeing one. Where did it go or did I miss it?). This is WP:SYNTH and forbidden per the policy No Original Research. Specifically: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." So someone needs to find RS to make the attempted assertion or it needs to be removed.

• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• makes no mention of a link

The background articles in I/P conflict pages are frequently sourced to articles which predate the conflict, because the run-up to a conflict predates the conflict

• Al-Aqsa intifada
• Operation Pillar of Defense
• 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talksetc.etc.etc.etc. Until books appear in a year or two on this, we naturally give the background according to sources written immediately preceding the event. This is normative for background sections for breaking news of major importance, and has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with @Nishidani, because the background has really nothing to do with WP:SYNTH. Firstly, the links are following a rationale political order toward a conflict and they should predate the conflict and secondly, the exact conclusion of this par is mentioned by some sources. such as:

According to Al Jazeera, Israel hopes to disenfranchise the Palestinian national unity government between Fatah and Hamas by this assault.

I have brought this up at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. I honestly don't see how the section is acceptable and really had hoped that ehe solution provided in an edit would do the trick. I also can't argue with you since it is obvious that we are not going to agree on wording that is acceptable. So off to the noticeboard it unfortunately goes. We should both know better by now.

Images Only 1 from Gaza

Whole article has just 1 image from gaza compared to 3 others. This needs to be fixed. 39.55.51.201 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It can only be fixed with free/legal images, as has been stated about a dozen times on this TP already. This is not 'bias,' this is copyright law. If someone has images, submit them to Commons and we'll incorporate them (up to a limit).HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

there are CC licensed images available39.55.51.201 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"CC licensed"? Anyway, point us toward said images.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I came here to comment to this same fact.

Why on earth or there more images of the horrible situation in Gaza than the horrible situation Hamas inflicted on Israel?

Hamas is the perpetrator of this war, they were the one's who started it, and they were the ones who did not accept the cease fire.

And I don't give a damn how many Palastenies were killed versus how many Israelis were killed. Less Israelis were killed because - frankly - they are better at it than Hamas. Hamas, if it had the power to, would wipe Israel off the map. And Israel, HAS the power to wipe the entire Gaza strip off the map yet refrains from doing so because it actually values humans life.

Additionally, I am unsure how biased cartoons made it's way onto this page. Should we place every cartoon that is going around these days? You might as well just insert a link to Google images.

The fact is that whoever inserted that cartoon was seeking to interject their own one sided baise.

JIDF please go --Youngdrake (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Summary style example

According to The Forward, Brigadier General Moti Almoz, the chief spokesman of the Israeli military, used an unusual language for a military mouthpiece and said: “We have been instructed by the political echelon to hit Hamas hard,” showing how politics triggered an unintended war in Gaza

This is (a) misplaced, because it refers to July 8, but is placed before the kidnapping events (b) is too long. It should conclude if retained the final paragrpah of the Background, and read something like this

The IDF was instructed by the political echelon "to hit Hamas hard".

I'd do it myself, like a lot of other obvious changes, but the anal reading of 1R, in the wrong hands of those who track editors whose work they dislike, is such that if I make more than one retouch a day, I'm dead at AE. I hope editors will look into this.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Chronological and logical place should maintained in each paragraph. Don't consider both of them together, because the first refers to the long-term pretexts and the second one refers to the short-term pretexts. Mhhossein (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Long term/short term are strange devices introduced here (long term would mean 1917 and the Balfour Agreement, or at least the Israeli colonization of 25% of the Gaza Strip with a handful of settlements, the Intifada, and Israel's transformation of the place into a Middle eastern version of the Warsaw Ghetto (the metaphor is that of an officer serving in the IDF in 2001). By the simple change I advocated, both form a seamless narrative chronologically and narratively, from April until July 2014, and the text ris itself of useless verbiage.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

However, what you said about Long-term/Short-term is an idea against which some opinions do exist. Read this article to get familiar with these two titles. Mhhossein (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Link to Marwan Bishara's article (thanks) shows he is thinking of long term and short term prospects, whereas I was commenting on the past. 'Background' concerns the past and has distant and immediate elements in a causal chain. 'Short' and 'long-term' in Bishara and your comment refer to the objectives sides hope to obtain in the future. This background section deals with the chain of incidents and events that informed the decision to go for war. Of course, the decision for war in turn has possible short and long term calculations of cost/benefit, which Bishara analyses. These political calculations, in so far as known rather than inferred (as the probable reasons for war), are appropriate to para 2, not one, since they inform the rationale for adopting a war resolution in the immediate prelude to July 8: Israel jumped at the chance to play the terror card to sink all possibiities of a peace settlement, and Hamas broke its truce (under bombardment) to place the PNA in a position of being Quislings, to secure terms that would enable it to survive as the legitimate authority in Gaza, and of course, get the funds to pay its monthly stipends to its men, which Israel thwarted after the solution was found in the April Unity Government.Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you when you say :"'Short' and 'long-term' in Bishara and your comment refer to the objectives sides hope to obtain in the future." But why should not we regard these objectives as the elements of the background for this war. Para2, mainly focuses on political causes of the war and helps the reader to understand the fact that besides the recent kidnappings and killings, other factors should be taken into account although there might be, as you said, other reasons rooting from the past events. For including further analysis we can replace the title (background) with another suitable one and write things like what you said in your last 4 lines. Mhhossein (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As I read it the 'background' means events from the April Unity Government down to the kidnapping of three teenagers (omitting the immense rage felt throughout the West Bank that the Beitunia killings of two youths in cold blood by the IDF caused on May 15, which can't be yet cited because we deal only with Israeli motivations, since that is all that appears to interest most sources, Israeli and Western. The next para deals with the killings of the youths and the chain of events leading down to the decision to go to war. Thus you have the large background and the immediate background contextualizing the war in chronological order. That these two together form the long and immediate background in two short paragraphs appears to me to be orderly, logical and immediately relevant as per sources.

Other things enter into calculations but are not yet on the general record: the big picture of the Sunni sweep through Iraq to Syria, means the Sunni Palestinians are interpreted by the paranoid politicians as possible pawns in a pan-Islamic encircling of Israel; Egypt's return to a pro-Israeli military government and the shared hostility to Muslim Brotherhood; Egypt's dread of the increasing Bedouin destabilization of the northern Sinai; Netanyahu's refusal to take John Kerry-Martin Indyk's American lead peace proposals seriously because it means giving up the real biblical real estate for nothing but 'peace'; and having to share the West Bank water sources equably which would be a major net loss for Israel, and the fact that in any case that the 1.8 million people in the Gaza Strip will have no water by 2020, unless the repeated pattern of smashing their infrastructure stops to allow them to develop the area, which might translate into major relocation of the refugees from the Gaza Strip (Jordan? the historic area the integralist camp in Israel has always aspired to resolve its internal Arab population 'threat')- these all enter as well, but RS are far too focused on the thrill and tremor of slaughter and fear to mention them.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani Thanks for yor comprehensive analysis on the issue. The problem is that an IP has smashed the glass of our discussion by omitting the whole paragraph and insisting on doing it. Mhhossein (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Deaths

Is there any reason to break out the Jew vs Bedouin death? I know they are all Israeli citizens however Hamas' goal is only to attack the Jews. The Bedouin who died was not their target. - Galatz (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's of course an Israeli death, specifically Bedouin, and must be classified as such. By the way, you made a terrible slip in your comment. Hamas did not say it was attacking Jews: it said all Israelis were targets, which means even Palestinian and Bedouin Israelis. That is evidence of intent to commit a war crime, because it does not distinguish between soldiers and citizens. Israel, more aware of the legal sanctions that may (but never do) follow from public statement, formally makes the distinction in all of its handouts, but of course is completely indiscriminate in practice, since, as on the West Bank, it consistently refuses to apply the rule of war and shoots civilians indifferently, and that, as B'tselem is documenting constitutes evidence of war crimes. Both parties ought to be hauled before the International Court of Justice, and be made to respond legally for their insanity.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is reasoning if RS provides the context. I assume the rocket was intended for the Jewish population but that is how killing people works sometimes. Ignore the reasoning and potential implications and follow the sources.

Help

I am a new user who still quite ignorant on Wikipedia policy, though I'm trying to learn. Needless to say, I found this link regarding munitions found in a UN school, is it okay to add, and if so, could someone more experienced help out? Link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/unrwa-investigating-20-rockets-empty-gaza-school-palestinian Direwolf484 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Direwolf484

I think it's in there. Search the page for "194". That's the note number. tharsaile (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are there claims of how many IDF soldiers were killed according to Hamas, but not the claims of how many civilians killed according to Israel?

It's not a very NPOV if only one side's view of how many civilians are killed is expressed, is it?

IDF's policy is not to release information about casualties until the families are informed, in this case it took a while to recognize all the soldiers so there was no official IDF statement. Now the article is more updated. There is more information being released about the exact events. As far as we know there were no civilian casualties today.WarKosign (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

==and hamas has no policy ,they might give the wrong number just for publicity , you should balance it out with the israeli number .

Field hospital

Hello. As you can see, my English sucks. Therefore I ask you to write that the IDF opened a field hospital to treat wounded Palestinians in Gaza. Here are some sources: http://www.haaretz.com/1.606129 (12PM section) http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/IDF-sets-up-field-hospital-at-Erez-border-crossing-for-injured-Palestinians-363541 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/idf-to-open-field-hospital-for-gaza-civilians/2014/07/20/

I know that all of those are Israeli sources, but I can see that you allow using Haaretz.

I'm sure a photo will pop up as it did at Qalandiya checkpoint, before being removed, where Israel regularly shoots demonstrators and provides medical care for some of those who survive.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought this talk page was supposed to be about improving and maintaining the article, not expressing cynical viewpoints by bringing up a separate place or event. If there's a RS about a field hospital, the answer is yes, mention the field hospital. Right? tharsaile (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source

I see that RT.com is used as a source. Is this really a good idea considering the nature of this network? Eik Corell (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• What is wrong with RT? It has not been wikibanned as others have. It is therefore valid until otherwise decided by committee.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

RussiaToday is by its own admission a propaganda tool of the Russian government. It's widely known for its pro-Russian bias, not just cultural as one might levy against sources like CNN or other such Western outlets, but specifically pro-Russian government. Instead of going into the many examples, I think the proof is in the pudding here in the light of all the reporters that have left the network as of late due to its unbriddled propaganda in the Ukraine conflict. Other than that I think the Wikipedia article's "criticism" section highlights the problems very well. Eik Corell (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Presstv is also a terrible source, I suggest removing it

RT isn't a particularly great source by any means, but I believe that consensus Wikipedia policy on multiple articles is that it can be cited so long as the information is particularly linked to them- Arguing at RT.com, journalist Tom Thompson stated etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Percentages?

Can someone do the math and convert the 68% Civilian casualties into a number, for militants and civilians.

It'd be better to grab a number from a news article or somesuch. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Q. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The current percentage of civilians killed is based on a very outdated death count. The implication is that 72% of the 508 who have been killed are civilians. However, the 72% figure comes from 375 killed. Maybe this is the best way to do it, it just seems misleading.

Image vandalism

Someone keep an eye out please. [15][16]Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Tineline section

This is just horrendous for a quality article. Let's move the timeline to another page and put some encycloaedic prose here. Better than a daily logLihaas (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

+1

according to hamas?

I was unaware that OCHA was speaking on behalf of Hamas. nableezy - 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Media claim shouldn't be attributed to Israel

We have a number for casualties which we are calling an "Israel claim" when it is actually being reported by Haaretz without being qualified as an Israeli claim. --JFH (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Involvement of PFLP/DFLP

The PFLP and DFLP are listed as combatants, but what is their involvement in the conflict? I think perhaps there should be a source, for their inclusion in the wikibox. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Their involvement will be the same as other Palestinian armed forces i.e. participation in the fighting and the ceasefire negotiations. See [17][18] for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a citation, in the wikibox. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Sean. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

This needs to stay up. It's clear this article is not NPOV but the tag is being deleted so the bias of that article is not as well known. If you check this page and see that NPOV is not up please put it up as vandals are taking it down. --Youngdrake (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Every time its put up someone comes to the talk page, addresses their concerns, and then they are addressed. You did not do that, so please explain so they can be addresses, dont just put it up and walk away - Galatz (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a list of imbalances in just three day sections, and they were ignored. I don't see the major problems being addressed here. To repeat, there are two parties (at least). Statements about one side's strikes or declarations require balancing statements about the other's, cited neutrally. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see they were "ignored," just not supported very highly. Anyway, cut-paste your concerns again, please, but Youngdrake is really the editor who needs to do this. I personally see no bias in this article, as many neutral news sources are used, facts are stated dispassionately . . . I wish everyone would just look at the facts and set their personal politics aside, as an online encyclopedia is not the place to battle it out, and anyone that gets their personal motivations inspired from Wiki articles, quite frankly, needs to seek counseling. As has been stated, this is not the place to right great wrongs as various editors may perceive them.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"following an increase in rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas' militants." This over plays the threat they posed considering they did not even get a kill before israel invaded. "The Israeli government declared acceptance for the proposal, and temporarily stopped hostilities in the morning of 15 July." Does not mention that they continued sniper attacks on palestinian civillians during this time. Video exists of them shooting the wounded during the ceasefire.

"Violations of the truce" The graph is not done properly. The side bars are not overtop the graph.

"Similarly, according to The Jerusalem Post, Palestinians in Hebron cheered as Gazan rockets were fired at Tel Aviv" Why is this even included? The other source was credible and did not take a side. This one is a jewish newspaper with jewsih intrests. Youngdrake (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that a newspaper or news source with any connection to Jews is somehow inherently lying and wrong in everything they say, as you assert, is simply wrong as well as, frankly, racist. It's completely a spurious objection.

You have the news organizations Al Jazeera English and Ma'an News cited in this article, as they should given that they have reported breaking news pretty well / credibly, and those groups are mostly run by people with Arabic blood. Are we supposedly supposed to strip out those references to, by your logic, since the writers' Arabic blood makes them inherently untrustworthy? This is nonsense. Utter nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Background graph

The top graph is broken and shows no information. --Youngdrake (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to that Shin bet analysis meant to show only that the terms of the November 2012 truce were broken by rocket fire from Gaza? I have no problems with such a graph, as long as it is accompanied by a balancing graph indicating that Israel broke the terms of the truce around 300 times in the same period. Unless that is done, the graph is just a violation of NPOV, and is being used to make a unilateral case for Israel, and should be removed until a balanced graphic representation of the violations by both sides is forthcoming.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevant balancing graph can be found here (Middle Eastern Monitor) which remarks 'just 17 of the nearly 120 Israeli ceasefire violations over one year following the 2012 ceasefire were reported on by the New York Times' or

here, 'Ceasefire Dynamics Nov.2012-May 2014.(Gaza Cease-Fire Dynamics Explained: What Cease-Fire will Work? The Jerusalem Fund 15 July 2014)

As to Shin Bet, 'The Israeli human rights group B'tselem, citing the Israeli Shin Bet, notes that nearly 14,000 projectiles were fired from Gaza from 2005 to 2013. UN OCHA noted that Israel fired about the same number of artillery shells into Gaza in 2006 alone.'

So attempts to jigger the narrative by prioritizing Israeli official statistics that exclude the statistical work of the Palestinian version of this history are unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This might simply refer to the fact the graph is visually broken. The hatch marks, labels and legend are offset a notable distance to the top (or the bars and axes to the bottom). At least, this is the case in my Firefox and Internet Explorer. 82.166.114.239 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

^ This it is visually broken the legend and labels are seperated on my browser.It makes it unusable. --Youngdrake (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks correct for me in chrome, but indeed is broken in the latest IE. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Same in Firefox :P Strygalldwir (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have various problems with the Background subsection, mostly relating to the breaking of the November 2012 ceasefire. There is text relating to these violation in the text prior the "Violations of the truce". There is duplication of content. There is conflict of information with at times Israel having seemingly justified Operation Protective edge because of the teenager kidnappings/killings and at times because of rocket fire from Gaza. I also have a logic issue with "violations of the truce" because it refers to the ceasefire with Hamas, and then provides evidence which includs the west bank over which Hamas has little practical control. In fact, a graph of rocket fire from Gaza shows that Hamas was remarkably successful in curbing attacks from the area under its control. This needs serious attention. I propose an enitely new section named "Violations of the ceasefire", with all material pertaining to that contained within this proposed section, and with evidence, references and graphs that are pertinent to the content. I will endeavour to provide a draft soon Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Casualties infobox

People keep adding Hamas's disinformation about 32 soldiers killed and 1 captured into the infobox. Hamas is known to wildly inflate the casualties numbers, both on their side (calling everybody, militants or civilians "palestinian") and on the Israeli side. Until there is more official information I think it's ok to mention hamas' claims, but it's wrong to use it as a primary information, or even to put it on par with the official IDF's announcements.WarKosign (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, do not try to delete the information by other users unless there is no reliable source. --Johorean Boy (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source ? All the sources I've seen so far are affiliated with hamas.WarKosign (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, there's no place for Hamas's disinformation in Wikipedia. Flags-Chaser (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia should write the facts and not write Hamas' lies as truth. Hamas and Iranian PressTV are not a RS. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also no place for IDF and Zionist disinformation in Wikipedia. :)

My sources: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/20/372091/hamas-lunches-counter-attacks-on-israel/ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/07/21/world/hamas-says-israeli-soldier-captured-toll-bloody-gaza-fighting-surges/#.U80BAvmSyiY http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/21/Hamas-armed-wing-claims-capture-of-Israeli-soldier.html http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/07/21/world/hamas-says-israeli-soldier-captured-toll-bloody-gaza-fighting-surges/#.U80BAvmSyiY --Johorean Boy (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

All the sources say that this is what hamas claims. None of them says as a fact that a soldier was captured or that there were 32 casualties.

There is a mention of the claim in the timeline, on June 20th. I believe that unapproved information does not belong in the infobox at all, but I could agree to have the official number followed by another one that hamas claims. Let's see what other users think. Meanwhile, please stop this edit war. WarKosign (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How can we compare the media of a Democratic state to the media of a terrorist group? in all the previous operations we specified only the official Israeli claim. Flags-Chaser (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The casualties numbers are in total mass. Nothing there is based on the source cited, nor the UN estimates, nor the IDF estimates. Nothing specify the time of each data, but even worst, it looks like even the sources provided are not cited correctly. Please, everyone must adhere to Wikipedia editorial policies. --Tritomex (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of disinformation in the box. For example Israel doesn't claim 130 militants killed. It says 160 terrorists killed SINCE ground operation. There have been at least 200 or so before the ground operation.

hamas claims that they killed more than 100 israeli not to mention other groups there must be three number mentioned one claimed by israel and one by hamas and one by UN iwill do that at the end of the war so zionist can keep lying but i will settle every thing at the end with reliable sources.Zaid almasri (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I remove hamas's claims about israeli casualties for now - the only reference was a site that contained no such information.

my friend you this website alqassam.ps is hamas official website and if you read arabic you will know that what you said above is completly wrong and intentially misleadingZaid almasri (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do people mention ITIC as asource although it has ties with the IDF and the american jewish congress and it doesnot have any representatives on the ground so they take israeli claims and repeat it, if you keep using it i might add my grandmother assesemnt since it has the same credibility as ITIC, i beleive that we should put the IDF claim,Hamas claim, and UN claim .....thats it check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIC .Zaid almasri (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli-based independent research group. Also, their figures differ from the IDF. The IDF has claimed 300 dead militants, while they counted 200. EkoGraf (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

it is linked to the IDF (check wiki) and it does not have any presence in gaza so based on what have they been giving their number, by the way i can bring tens of research group that give values different than theirs.

most of the 150 Palestinian captured were released so using this number is misleading (on purpose) and they are suspected militant and not militants , check the refference, the same thing happened in lebanon war were israel captured hundreds and after the war they released all except a handful who were militants.Zaid almasri (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation Brother's Keeper

Regarding the following reverts (1, 2), I'm waiting for Monopoly31121993 to define "better sources" for us and explain the removal of the figures for the number of Palestinian arrested (500 - The Economist, 600 - Maannews). He also claimed that the previous wording was not neutral. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I only reverted your revert of my edit, the other one was my own. What I did was to add three sources to the text which had 0 sources before. The previous text which you reverted claimed that 10 people were killed during the operation without any citation. The source I believe you wanted to use but didn't was Maan News but since they were they only ones making that claim in an article it's not enough to include it in the introduction section.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean about the 500 figure. That, you are correct should be changed. my appologies, I thought you were referring to the 10 deaths figure provided by Maan.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to make that change to the "at least 500" figure.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How can you claim that the text had "zero" sources, when all your edit summaries clearly acknowledge the existing sources? You did say that your sources are "better" and the existing Maannews is unreliable. Therefore, the citation did have a source and you know that very well.

Maannews is reliable. Any objections? raise a case to the WP:RSN and come back with consensus that it's unreliable. Only then you are able to remove it. In the meantime, we will continue to work with the existing consensus, that it is reliable. The statement is to remain with attribution, along with the other sources. And for the record, you did revert my changes twice ([1 and 2]). Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Like, I said, I support re-introducing those figures from Maannews. I think it should say " 5 to 10 Palestinians were killed" with the Maan reference for the 10 stat but still keeping the 5 since that was also cited. I was the one who initially moved the Maan reference to that sentence as it was previously without any citation. I then edited my own edit although I can see now how you would think it was yours because you wrote the initial text without leaving the proper citation. I, of course, hadn't checked that edit (from 18 July) when I added the citation. Anyway, I think we could have avoided this by using the talk page first. I'm sorry about that but I appreciate your efforts to resolve this quickly and and hopefully this will get changed right away. I'm not able to edit the page currently so I hope another editor sees this and does that.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to rename it the second Gaza-war

The second Gaza-War seams like a good title by me.--Ezzex (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources calling it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I bother talking to you about it.--Ezzex (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have RS? If not, its just OR. Coltsfan (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it should stay the way it is. Calling it by it's name no more implies sympathy for one side than calling Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union "Operation Barbarossa" implies pro-German sentiment Costatitanica (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an archived move-request discussion already - more than one, actually. Consensus was leave it the way it is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the consensus can change. This isn't carved in rock.--Ezzex (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus changes when reliable sources start call it something else. It may be years before analyst give a historical name to the operation/conflict. —Farix (t | c) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and I would probably weakly support a name change (depending on what the proposed name is of course) - but making move requests when the previous one closed just a few days ago can be disruptive. As there is not an obvious "correct" title, it does no harm to let this one sit until there is either a very clear majority of titles used in netral reliable sources, or until there is an much greater momentum for change by the editors. Per Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES mostly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with BB and Coltsfan. Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

We should not start down the road of using "claim" on the various side's statements. There are plenty of accusations in both directions that events are staged or played up for the media. Its an endless rabbit hole. Particularly in this case as there is no source commenting that this is a mere "claim" rather than an authentic incident. "Photo released by the IDF showing Israeli soldiers shielding a 4-year old boy during what is claimed to be a Hamas rocket attack.". Should we be adding similar "claim" annotations to all photos? I don't think so. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

comment moved by Gaijin42 to merge sections

One photo caption has the phrase "what is claimed to be" in its description. Is that something we intend to insert in all images, where the caption is based on on a "claim" (claim is perhaps an overly strong word unless there is cause for it, such as articles indicating "claims" of similar articles are fabricated). If so, let's put the phrase in similar articles. If not, let's delete it. But whatever we do, let's be even-handed, unless there is a top-level RS report that suggests that a "claim" is questioned. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

See, bolstering and expanding upon my points above, wp:claim. Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source confirming that the photo was taken during a Hamas rocket attack? It was uploaded from the IDF's Flickr account.[19] Here is the caption (exactly the way it was released) before rewriting it:

IDF officers shield a 4-year-old boy, protecting him with their own bodies during a Hamas rocket attack 15.7.2014

This is how I rewrote it:

Photo released by the IDF showing Israeli soldiers shielding a 4-year old boy during what is claimed to be a Hamas rocket attack.

But some editors insist that it should go like this, even though it doesn't address the issue:

Photo released by the IDF showing Israeli soldiers shielding a 4-year old boy during a rocket attack.

I didn't want to repeat 'IDF' twice, but if you want to avoid weasel wording, we can write it like this:

IDF-released photo claiming to show Israeli soldiers shielding a 4-year old boy during a rocket attack.

In my opinion the last one looks more accurate and complies with NPOV. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The same problem exists with photos published by Hamas interior ministry, which are presented without attribution to Hamas. Even bigger problem is with self published photos, whose specific data can not be verified, and this goes for most of the photos. If we start to use the term "claim" we will have to use it in most of photos.--Tritomex (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources confirming all of the Palestinian photos are taken the way they are described? The government is not an unreliable source (although it certainly does have its own POV and agenda). That is a problem shared by all of the Hamas-sympathetic photographers too, and there are multiple historical instances of them staging photos. We must take both sides statements at face value unless quetioned by a reliable source. For us to question ourselves is pure WP:OR. Are the two "wounded child" pictures only claims of wounded children? The guy laying on his back with guys holding submachine guns behind him - is he just claimed to be wounded? We cannot apply this type of reasoning only to one side. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Do any RS use the photo ? It seems that it's only used by Israeli embassies and pro-Israel organizations. I assume that's because it is quite a good example of effective war propaganda (which doesn't mean it's not true of course). Obviously we can't participate in that PR effort so I can understand the concerns about using Wikipedia's narrative voice to, in effect, speak (via their photo descriptions) on behalf of Hamas, the IDF or any of the organizations trying to kill eachother. Perhaps a compromise might be IDF photo captioned "Yesterday, IDF officers used their own bodies to shield a 4 year-old boy from a Hamas rocket." or something along those lines. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Again the same criticism can be said of all of the Palestinian photos sourced to Basel Yazouri's flickr account. They are also quite effective propaganda photos that may also be true. Due to the difficulty of obtaining photographs, wikipedia explicitly has a more lax standard on photographs as outlined in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. We cannot apply a standard to one set of photographs and not the other. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There was no criticism intended in anything I wrote. I haven't said anything about any other photos because this section is about this IDF photo. I'm not likely to object to separating the encyclopedia's voice from the source's voice for other photos because I support attribution in the topic area when it's clearly required, given the topic's contentious nature. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

At least the ones depicting the damage in Gaza look legit, and if some of them don't, then feel free to fix their issues. This one in particular does not look significant enough to prove or even slightly suggest that it was during a "Hamas rocket attack". It could have been taken anywhere (even a studio) and it looks, in a way, like an advertisement. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume Basel Yazouri is the photographer who publishes via Activestills.org. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sean solution is on the right lines

IDF photo captioned "Yesterday, IDF officers used their own bodies to shield a 4 year-old boy from a Hamas rocket."

Captioned replaces claims. The photographer wasn't worried about being blasted by the mortar/missile that was about to his the vicinity of the boy. In fact he was so cool, unperturbed he got the perfect shot. It translates, within the context of IDF propaganda about Hamas cowardly using 'human shields' to save their skins, 'on the other hand, we of the IDF use our bodies to save (Israeli) lives, esp. those of children.? Bravo. Crap. Not bravura crap because whoever set up the photo did not know that in posing the soldiers to the left and right of the boy, so that the photographer could get a photo from the front showing the left-right shielding, the point was to falsify the natural reflexes of protecting someone. If you shield a person, you do not expose the person's flank to the threatened shrapnel. You enveloppe his/her body so that it is invisible, totally shielded from the incoming fire, which however would ruin the propaganda angle by making the child invisible to the photo lens. Anyone familiar with the history of pictoral conventions can see that give-away hint of a posed picture at a glance, and it's, frankly, an embarrassingly incompetent piece of fabricated propaganda on technical grounds, unless (not to be ruled out) it was a complete fluke, a lusus naturae, which I for one doubt. Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor editing query

"Iron Dome" or "the Iron Dome"? I haven't looked at it closely enough to have a view. Though this press release by the manufacturer suggests the first above construct. But I think we should be consistent (we're not presently). On this, at this point I care mostly about consistency. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

After quickly reviewing the sources in the Iron Dome article, it seems that "Iron Dome" is the name of the system, but "the" is added if it is a phrasing such as "the Iron Dome system" There are also uses of the term as an adjective or collective noun - "another Iron Dome battery was added" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a closer look. It's not consistent. The very first appearance of it, in the lede, says "Israel's counter-rocket defense system, the Iron Dome". --Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is written both ways. Is there a point to the query tho? do you think something needs to be changed somewhere? It would be interesting to see if the definite article is used consistently or not in Hebrew, but thats a ways beyond my ken. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Just consistency. Which in general is a goal of ours at the Project. See WP:ARTCON. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Resident

There is absolutely no need to add a citation needed tag to the nonsense that states something like 'rockets are sent by Gazan residents (other than Hamas et al)'. This is egregiously stupid English, and can only be explained by suggesting what whoever penned it lives in Jerusalem where Eastern Jerusalem Palestinians/Arabs have 'residence' or are 'residents'. If you are an American, or English or Italian or whatever, you are not a 'resident' in your native country. You are American, English or Italian (who may reside in New York, London, or Milan). To use the word 'resident' of the population of Gaza implies they are not legitimate citizens of the Gazan Strip, but have been provisorily given permission to reside in that sector of what some extremists consider to be The Land of Israel. If one sees obvious crap, esp. tweaked POV-insinuating language intended to delegitimate a people while confusing militants and civilians, so they're all targets, one removes it. One does not place a tag on it. One gets a shovel and moves the shit off the page. Good night Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't read it with that particular tilt (regarding non-citizenship). The implication to me is that it is the general populace firing the rockets rather than just the Hamas militia. that does raise the issue you have mentioned though of possibly describing all people legitimate targets (much as the statements from Hamas have done for Israelis). Due to that concern, and that the source currently linked there is specifically attributing the rockets to Hamas, I will remove the offending bit. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The simplest editing principle is: add nothing unless you have an RS source verifying the statement, at your elbow, preferably having read it. If that statement was entered as appears unsourced, or failed verification, it goes out. One doesn't beat about the bush. This is a hard article and requires stringent control over the manifold abuses of irresponsible editing. And, please familiarise yourself with Israeli-English usage (and I appreciate that you have removed it).Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the citation needed tag because I felt that the claim, that rockets were being fired by average Joes and Janes in the Gaza Strip, needed a reference. I've never heard of this before. It had nothing to do with the word resident, and I don't feel that that word is particularly actionable. Resident seems like a pretty neutral word to me, because we have no way of knowing whether or not the people firing these are all actual citizens of the Gaza Strip. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ergo of the 788 dead, only a dozen are known citizens of Gaza, so the default term for Gazans, is 'residents of Gaza'. The word 'resident' in the I/P context bears this specific connotation, and it is not neutral. Secondly, to repeat. A controversial point raised by phrasing which cannot find a correlated grounding in available texts should be removed. One must write according to what one reads, and refrain from temptations to make claims that google searches cannot corroborate quickly but which stay in because they are 'tagged'. Tagging here, rather than deletion, favours the incompetence of the original drafter, who could not supply a textual warrant for what he or she wrote. This is basic editing practice.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Misleading infobox stats

As currently presented, the infobox stats are misleading.

They indicate a number killed, as reported by source x, and then a "percentage civilians". But that "percentage civilians" number comes from a source that says the number killed (448) is very much below the number claimed in the first source (572; a 28 per cent increase over the number used to calculate per cent civilian casualties). It's a bit of apples and organges. Which the scientists among us, at minimum, would see as very misleading. There are various ways to address this, but however it is done I would urge that it be done. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Total casualties are reported much more frequently than civilian counts, so reporting the outdated absolute number of civilians next to the up-to-date total casualties is misleading. --JFH (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The percentage number source is updated at the morning of each day and it updates with numbers from the previous day, while source x is updated almost every hour. So in essence, nothing strange about one being lower than the other since the source for the lower number can be late by a full 24 hours in updating. Also, the percentage number source itself notes the number is preliminary. EkoGraf (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The IDF's figures till this morning gave 180 Hamas militants dead. The number of Palestinians dead rose to 604.The IDF is therefore saying it can identify less than one-third of those killed as Hamas members, which, again, looks like confirming the 70% calculation for civilian casualties. This is evident from the same source, and the inference is hardly WP:SYNTH, just obvious arithmetic. One might also add that the Hamas killing of Israelis shows the opposite proportions: 27 soldiers dead, and 2 civilians.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The IDF figures say 183 dead since the ground operation began which only covers the last four days of the conflict, it does not include the claim of 100 Hamas members killed during the initial phase of air strikes. Why are references to this continuously being removed? 86.145.120.6 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a firm view as to how it is fixed. But it should be fixed.

It's clearly inaccurate in what it suggests. It suggests that x percent of group y were civilians. But all we know is that x percent of group y-124 were civilians.

We don't know that the same percentage of civilians were killed in the most recent 124 killings. The infobox suggests we do. This broad error is not "fixed" by the use of the word preliminary ... which relates of course not the additional 124 killed, but to the initial 448 killed.

We have no reason to believe (other than OR) that the percentage remained the same. And as the course and method of fighting changes, it is certainly appropriate to not assume that the percentage will remain the same. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Should we request for semi-protection for this page to avoid those IPs manipulate the article? Mhhossein (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed they removed it - yes, I would also support the return of semi-protection - an article like this is just too 'hot' with too much potential for POV-pushing and vandalism - at least while the military operation is still current.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd also support it. Anyone who has something of value to add can get autoconfirmed, or make an edit request. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand against this not only because there aren't many problems with IP edits so far, but also because there are so many active registered editors currently maintaining it that the number of IP vandals is hardly whelming. Check the revision history - not a single IP edited today (unless I missed one), and only one IP edited yesterday, and it was a good edit.--ɱ (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Not sure if this has been addressed already, but I think we should start considering making a timeline article, like Timeline of the Gaza War. You know, the article's pretty lengthy and will only grow; there's no end in sight for this conflict yet.--ɱ (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow! great minds think alike! merging my section from just below! Gaijin42 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we are there yet, but at some point if this conflict continues longer we are going to have to move to a much more WP:SUMMARY style rather than detailing every WP:NOTNEWS encounter on each day. While at a human level each attack and death or wounding means a great deal I'm not sure of the lasting encyclopedic value of that level of detail. Perhaps a timeline article would be more appropriate for some of that level of content (but still probably not all) - and the main article should be a much higher level summary. Think how long the articles on other wars (or even individual campaigns and battles) would be if they were discussed at this level of detail. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's yet responded, so I'm going to "be bold" and do it. The article already passed the 50kB readable prose size recommendation for splitting the article.--ɱ (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was considering making the bold move today since no one had commented so you beat me to it - Galatz (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

17 july reference inaccuracy

"Israel claimed it had given the hospital multiple advance warnings to evacuate their 17 patients before attacking a weapons storage facility at the hospital." The referenced article for that statement (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/uk-palestinians-israel-idUKKBN0FM2ME20140717) doesn't say anything about a hospital or weapons storage facility. Is it the wrong ref? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

For addition to the "media coverage" section of Operation Protective Edge.

Criticism of the Reuters' Coverage

On July 14, it was revealed that the senior Gaza correspondent to Reuters was a Palestinian named Nidal al-Mughrabi. Since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge, Mr. al-Mughrabi's articles were overwhelmingly anti-Israel in nature. Of his 27 articles written since the beginning of the conflict, 21 were slanted in favor of the Palestinian cause.

References

PDX1989 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You have not provided any sources discussing this issue, nor stating any criticism from reliable sources. The links to the WP:PRIMARY sources where presumably you counted and evaluated them, is WP:OR 18:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Hamas claimed they counted 52 dead Israeli soldier since the beginning of the ground offensive. Mohmeida (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Hamas's Palestinian Health Ministry?

(Department of silly affairs) According to Moomima (talk), it is necessary to call the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza as "Hamas's Palestinian Health Ministry". This seems very dubious to me. Firstly, the phrase is incoherent, ambiguous (does it only treat Hamas members?) and awkward. Secondly, the justification given -- that Hamas is one of the belligerents, so it is important to specify this to "avoid bias" -- seems very unpersuasive to me.

Hamas is an organization and also the government in Gaza. One does not need to put "Hamas" before every institution inside Gaza. The Health Ministry is not fighting -- it is civil service/bureaucracy. If one needs to put "Hamas" before such entities, God only knows where it will end. I fail to understand the insistence on this. Kingsindian (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kingsindian (talk) that putting "Hamas" before every institution in Gaza may be inappropriate. However, in this situation, in which casualty statistics are compared from various sources, I feel that it's relevant to make clear to the reader what the source of said statistics are. United Nations is clear, Israel Defense Forces is also clear (as affiliating with Israel), while "Palestinian Health Ministry" may be misleading, as it doesn't make it clear that they are a part of Hamas's government. It is especially important to site Hamas here because they are belligerents in the conflict. To make my point, say the Israel Defense Forces where simply called "Defense Forces" by Israel, I would also argue that it should be referred to as "Israel's Defense Forces" or something along those lines. The exact wording isn't important to me, what is important is that both Israel and Hamas are clearly understood to be the source of the information. Moomima (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Palestinian Ministry of Health is the Ministry of Health for the State of Palestine. The notion that everything in Gaza = Hamas is fine as a simplification for public consumption as part of Israel's PR efforts but it has no place in an encyclopedia. Ashraf Al-Qedra "Gaza Health Ministry spokesman" is a doctor at Al-Shifa Hospital, the largest hospital in the Gaza Strip. He is spokesman for the Ministry of Health for the State of Palestine in Gaza. That is who he speaks on behalf of. The causality figures should simply say where statistics come from no matter whether that is the the IDF, B'Tselem, MoH SoP, UN or any other organization. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

All newspaper sources either refer to it as the "Palestinian Health Ministry", or Gaza's Health Ministry. I think the term Gaza's Health Ministry (as used in this BBC article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28431945) should be good enough. Elsewhere in the article, this seems to be the preferred phrase, or "Gaza Health Ministry". I have added a wiki link to "Governance of the Gaza Strip" to the phrase in the table, and in the lead. I don't think there is much chance of it being misleading, as there are multiple references elsewhere to Hamas control of Gaza, including in the lead and background section. If you are unhappy with this, we can discuss more. Kingsindian (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Specifically in the case of casualties, I agree with Moomina for the same reasons. Moreover, Gaza's administration (Hamas) is separate from the West Bank's administration (Fatah) in practice, even though they have recently declared a union government. So, in practice what's called Gaza Health Ministry has been found by Hamas and called that way by Hamas, simply accepted by the same nomination in the media. So, even though it's ok to normally call it that way...when comparing conflicting number of casualties by parties or subdivisions of those perties involved in the conlict...in the name of neutrality and balance, I think it's important to outline, who are the sources: UN is known, Israel's Defence Forces, Hamas' Health Ministry...Furthermore, those institutions such as the Gaza something Ministries, do not represent the people of Gaza..as there's no true democracy or freedom in Gaza. They are highly motivated by Hamas' ideologies, founded by Hamas...This is my point...Again wording could be improved, but I think, the fact that it belongs to Hamas or that it represent Hamas' ideology should somehow be expressed by proper wording at least in this specific case of casualties. --Universal Life (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Health Ministry was not founded by Hamas, see establishment of Palestinian Health Ministry. Secondly, I am not sympathetic to this kind of vague reasoning that they are "motivated by Hamas's ideology" or "Gaza is not a democracy". That may be true, but ideology is irrelevant to the naming of the source. One does not call any Israeli source "Likud's whatever". I think it is sufficient to name it "Gaza's Health Ministry" and wikilink to "Governance of the Gaza Strip" for anyone who is interested further in the source. If you have any suggestions for the wording, please state them explicitly, so we can evaluate them. Kingsindian (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether this issue is resolved or not, it seems clear to me that the way in which sources seem to usually put this is 'Gaza's Health Ministry' or something like that. That we use that wording is the right way to go. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014

Unfortunately, I would like to add a template to te Background section([20]) due to the noticeboard discussion initiated here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.13.2 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is making this request? Please sign in, or someone figure out why the IP address is not appearing above ^.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have tagged the Background section for you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on this talk page and there seems to be a consensus among editors that using sources that pre-date the conflict is appropriate for the background section and in common with other background sections of similar articles. Dlv999 (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a rabbi

The first Israeli civilian casualty wasn't, as the article says, a Chabbad rabbi. Please remove this note. He was indeed providing food and sweets to the soldiers at the Erez crossing. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4544237,00.html 81.218.206.82 (talk)

Hamas/Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades strength

Our Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades article gives estimates of "several hundred" "trained" plus ~10,000 "reinforcements". But these estimates a) seem old (2008, 2011 etc) and b) seem to be estimates from Israel. Obviously as they mostly wish to remain anonymous and are not organized in the same way as a traditional military, and fighters may include spontaneous volunteers from the civilian population, firm estimates are going to be hard to pin down, but is anyone aware of any reliable sources documenting/estimating the size of the Palestinian forces at this time? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Infobox

The current Haaretz livefeed (9:28 pm http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.606735) is reporting 150 Palestinians arrested in Gaza, this should probably be included in the infobox.

Additionally as the IDF is treating the missing soldier as dead should the infobox say missing presumed dead.

I also do not understand why the foreign worker (farm worker, although the article says aid) is being counted distinctly to civilians, should the casualties on the Israeli side not just say 3 civilians - if deemed to be relevant details about their jobs can go later in the article, not the infobox 86.145.120.6 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The missing soldier is presumed dead, but per the IDF, until confirmed, he is officially missing. The beligerents in this conflict are Israel and Gaza. The worker is not an Israeli civilian, but a foreign worker. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

Typo to correct: "to remain in their homes despite warnings of immanent airstrikes"

Should be "imminent" 184.175.45.197 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I re-worded it per the source cited. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

Israel had supported and created Hamas according to American Politician Ron Paul, Israel wanted Hamas to destroy Fatah and hence supported Hamas. Israel then turned on Hamas after they betrayed them. Homous888 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC) returning references to where they were.Dogru144 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done YouTube is not a reliable source. Mike V • Talk 15:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

How am I blocked? Censorship?

How am I blocked? I find something about edit conflict. These edit conflicts can happen all the time. This seems unfair, and possibly POV and censorious to block an editor. Please inform me what offence I did by adding this? How did this result in my block?

and US Airways said it would renew flights.

This is an ongoing news-driven page, and the block prevents users from adding valid content. Dogru144 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:EDC. Th4n3r (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Article has serious typo in its name

Has anyone noticed that the title is 2014 Isreal–Gaza conflict, and that it should be Israel?

How can this change be made? I don't want to get blocked.Dogru144 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

By an admin. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. My sincere apologies for screwing that up. Jenks24 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

This is to go to the end of the section on Flight cancellations, to resolve the airline carriers announced they are renewing the flights[citation needed]. (Actually just one carrier is resuming flights.) and US Airways said it would renew flights. Dogru144 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) I've put references back where they were.Dogru144 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

War ?

It's more appropriate to call this a war, rather that a conflict. What do you think?--Ezzex (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, wars are largely called that after a long time of fighting. This event is a conflict that may be ended with a ceasefire sometime soon. I highly doubt Israel's going to stop otherwise, and I also doubt Israel will actually attempt to fully defeat Hamas and take the Strip in this conflict. Anyway, I'm not sure that the media calls it a war yet, that's really what convinces editors to change the article title.--ɱ (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't call it a war, and neither group has formally declared war (which may not be technically possible since they do not have diplomatic recognition) (Gaza/Palstine's as an unrecognized state in general may also cause difficulty in using that definition) Also since Hamas is a party not a country itself also makes that complicated. Many of the terms of diplomacy and war are going to be tough to apply correctly due to non-state actors, recognition etc. Similar problems occur in other conflicts elsewhere - the terminology was set up to describe WWI, WWII, and the prior historical wars, not this type of thing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As this conflict resembles the Gaza War of 2007-2008 maybe we can call it Second Gaza War Helliko (talk) 2:49 pm, Today (UTC−4)

No, that's probably considered original research. Articles are named by their common name; what other sources call them; not what we want to call them.--ɱ (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been very few declared of war since 1945. --Ezzex (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why was the title changed from "Operation Protective Edge" ?

There were two move requests, and both were declined.

Then suddenly I see this title, and in the history Jenks24 writes about requested move and refers to the talk page. Where is the requested move that was accepted ?

Generally I don't think the current title is biased in any way, but it's too general - since hamas has the declared goal of destroying israel and killing everbody in it, they are in perpetual state of conflict through 2014, even when they are not acting on it. This article is more specific - it's about acts of violence that hamas committed in june 2014 and how israel retaliated.

WarKosign (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the crap I somehow added to the page - no idea how it happened, I thought I only edited the 'war?' section. WarKosign (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested the Admin to move it back - this article is about the military operation - aka 'Operation Citadel' and so on. Another article about the wider-political connotations of any war can be written, if need be. Then some of the information on this article could be moved off here and over to it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, this is not an IDF propaganda site. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed as disruptive; moratorium on move discussions for three months. A move has just been closed less than twenty-four hours ago. Although consensus can change, seeking to immediately reverse it is disruptive. If people disagree with the outcome of an RM they can seek review at Wikipedia:Move review. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Operation Protective Edge – page was moved without consensus - previous two move requests were declined-this article is about the military operation. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• speedy close/oppose There was consensus although it was not an overwhelming one and it was evaluated by an uninvolved admin. A move request so soon again is disruptive a bit. Let it sit for a while before asking again. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WHERE?? I don't see it here on the TP - there were two previous ones and both resulted in no move! ?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Move_request_1 Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

" The result of the move request was: not moved. OK, pretty clear consensus against this proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza ... " - um, what? Looking back, someone re-activated a more or less closed discussion - the 2nd move request says NOT moved - this is a mess. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• support Concensus was reached, twice, not to move the page from 'Operation Protective Edge', so now it should be moved back to the agreed title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy oppose and impose a RM moratorium on this article. The move requests above ran in parallel, and were simultaneously closed by User:Jenks24 in favor of the current title, with a clear consensus that it should be moved away from "Operation Protective Edge":

The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 Isreal–Gaza conflict]. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict –

The result of the move request was: not moved. OK, pretty clear consensus against this proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza –

 : No such user (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close/oppose First of all, the page was not moved against consensus. Secondly, it is advancing a particular POV to use one side's operation name as the title, especially when the operation's name is deliberately worded to advance a POV, in this case that the operation is defensive in nature.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Using one side's operation name is one side esspecially when it is a slanted name like protective edgy which implys they are invading defensively.--Youngdrake (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Weakly oppose I was very surprised that the page was moved because I could not see any consensus on it. I agree with HammerFilmFan that this is a mess. However, the new title is not too bad, and should not be confusing. At this point, back and forth moving of the name would only create more confusion. Can decide on the move later when things are more stable Kingsindian (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Support Although the discussion was closed, I would like to add my support for the move. For the reason given by the one who started the request and also because the previous operation - Operation Pillar of Defense - the article was titled after its name. --Midrashah (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

crap UNIQ edits

Were due to a wikimedia bug, that has now been rolled back, so the problems should be gone now. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA rockets

i.am.a.qwerty (talk) is against the inclusion of a quote from UNRWA spokesperson mentioned in the "Daily Beast" article here[21], saying that the transfer of rockets to local authorities is "According to longstanding UN practice in UN humanitarian operations worldwide". The reason given is that it is giving undue weight to the UN. I do not see why an explanation of the standard operating procedure is seen as given undue weight to the UN, when the UNRWA spokesperson himself gave the statement in answer to the allegations against UNRWA. Kingsindian (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the quote. This is not giving undue weight to the United Nations. Anti-UN sentiments should not cloud edits here.Dogru144 (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including a short quote that would provide coherence to the article. But to put a lengthy quote, naming the spokesperson and their agency all to provide their side of the story is clearly undue. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty Thanks. The version right now seems to meet your requirements, I believe. If there are any issues, let me know. Kingsindian (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of international reactions removal

I Removed the "Map" as there are far too many errors, a file with this amount of errors cannot seriously be used on this page, I was going through it and literally three out of the first three countries I looked through (Venezuela, Uruguay and Ireland) contained errors, the map should return but only after every country has been checked and errors correctedGuyb123321 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the map is a faithful reflection of Reactions to Operation Protective Edge, which is pretty exhaustively researched and cited. When it's this easy to cross-reference the map information to (often) a primary source, we should definitely try to improve it rather than condemn it arbitrarily.

To revisit your three examples:

Ireland: Foreign Ministry "equally condemns" both rocket attacks from Gaza towards Israel and air strikes by the Israeli military = green. CHECK

Venezuela: President "vigorously condemns the unfair and disproportionate military response by the illegal state of Israel against the heroic Palestinian people" = red. CHECK

Uruguay: Foreign Ministry "strenuously condemns" Israel's attacks against Gaza for the death toll of civilians, including women and children; calls them a "disproportionate response" - red. CHECK

Honestly, we'll have to find at least one genuine error before pulling this kind of stunt; and even then, a good-faith course of action would be to discuss the issue and reach an agreement. If you do find any errors, please share them here as I would be happy to do additional research and upload a correction forthwith. Albrecht (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There are many problems with the map. Most countries have released multiple statements (either from multiple people, or from the same entity) at this point, and most of them give at least lip service to criticizing both sides. Picking which statement from a country to use to render the map is WP:OR and going to be inherently out of date and subject to WP:NPOV issues. Also the map cannot render both the individual states, and the various collectives (UN, EU, g8, v4 etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, let's discuss specific cases. As far as I know, the map accurately reflects the complexity of each country's position where conflicts exist, i.e. France went from blue, when President Hollande expressed his "solidarity with Israel," to green, when Laurent Fabius criticized the Israeli ground offensive and condemned the excess civilian casualties. Conversely, Egypt and South Africa went from red to green as their position evolved. As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxon countries (blue) have refused to soften their pro-Israel stance, while the bulk of the Arab/Muslim world and Latin America maintain their traditional Third-Worldist, pro-Palestine position. None of this should be particularly surprising or controversial; and again, it's quite easy to cross-reference with Reactions to Operation Protective Edge. Albrecht (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies: I found the source of the confusion: some vandal switched the colours on the legend, so the map effectively would'v made no sense. It's fixed now. Thanks for spotting that it was, indeed, "full of errors." Albrecht (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Who "created" this map? Seems like the essence of original research. Nice colors but seriously do not include. --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an exception for WP:OR for images since they are not generally freely available, but imo that applies only to cases where the underlying facts are not in dispute. In this case there is a bunch of OR in the selection and evaluation of the facts themselves which makes this particular image verboten. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The map is based on Reactions to Operation Protective Edge, which is extensively cited. Are any facts actually in dispute? i.e. can we find at least a few cases where the map is not faithful to the international reactions as stated by the foreign ministries or heads of government? Albrecht (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the exception explicitly reads " Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy" - What is the single source (WP:SYNTH!) providing the data for this image? An image based on the dozens and doezens of sources self selected by wikipedia editors is very clearly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)The map is the epitome of original research. Who created it and how exactly? --Malerooster (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Israeli.2FGaza_reactions_image to gain a wider consensus on this question. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, since I originally requested a map [where'd that talk section go?] for a clear and concise picture of world reaction at a glance, and was grateful for it's inclusion. Now I'm a bit PO'd. If it was inaccurate feel free to fix it! Naa, far easier to throw out someone else's work, disregard it rather than improve it- Jerk! Just pulling the map is the lazy way out. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's about whether it's consistent with policy. That's all. Don't take it personally. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

KEEP. Why are we not abiding by Wikipedia conventions? The page should have debates over major items. This is a helpful page. Any map errors should be corrected, and then the newer page should be uploaded.Dogru144 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that such useful tools for an average reader whom might not want to digest entire article like 'flags' or 'maps' are dis-regarded and shunned. I've witnessed across Wikipedia they are so pointlessly suppressed. Puritans would have only text. This is the internet after all, how does the inclusion of a map or flag remove from an article? I find that such dismissal of someone's contribution, with no attempt to correct any inaccuracies, disgusting. I have a right to take it personally since it was my input that contributed to someone taking the time and effort to make it happen. When you do not collaborate on what is already included in an article it undermines the very power Wikipedia gives us. I find myself rather exhausted of the issue and it will be whatever you editors decide. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24 Beit Hanoun shelter bombing

This topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions. One of the obligations that places on editors is "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions". The reliability of news sources varies of course from the very many respectable mainstream sources covering the conflict, to the other end of the spectrum, the dog shit sources that should be avoided like the plague. Given the plentiful supply of high quality sources there is no reason for anyone to use sources that fall towards the dog shit end of the scale. And yet it happens, over and over again.

With that in mind, here are some comments on the so-called "July 24 Beit Hanoun shelter bombing"

• Do any sources, perhaps sources with a novel approach to the English language, call this a bombing ? If not, why are we calling it a bombing ?
• The Daily Beast, a source towards the dog shit end of the RS spectrum, is being used to provide WP:V compliance for a piece of information in the section but says nothing about the event, unsurprisingly, because it was in fact written 4 days before the event even happened. This is an example of using a shitty source, when much better ones are available, in a way that defies the laws of physics and is genuinely puzzling. I tried to remove it but it was restored.
• The Jewish Press, is being used. This source is well into the dog shit territory of RS space. There is no reason at all to use partisan unreliable sources like this.
• The Washington Free Beacon and The Algemeiner Journal. Again, partisan rags. Don't use them. Use Reuters, AP, BBC, CNN, Haaretz, NYT, JPost and countless other mainstream sources

Editing in ARBPIA is not easy and it's not for everyone. Editors are required to be competent and understand policy. They are required to edit neutrally. They are required to never violate WP:NOTADVOCATE. They are required to use the best sources available, not the worst sources available. The July 24 Beit Hanoun shelter bombing section is an example of what happens when things go wrong. It needs to be fixed with the best available sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I can at least clear one part of the problem (already did). The Daily Beast reference was a mis-direct to an earlier reference about rockets in UNRWA schools (both were named "unrwaRocket"). I have fixed the link by renaming the earlier reference as "unrwaRocketGunness". The link now correctly points to the Al Jazeera source here[22]. Kingsindian (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the following fix for the first part of that section, removing dopey sources and replacing them with secure ones, while filling in the actual background details missing (the schools were vacant, not schools like the one that was shelled) and removing irrelevancies like a reaction coda (the State Dep.said it was okay, Canada (predictably) was worried. Just the facts.

Some 117,000 Palestinians are sheltering in more than 170 schools across the Gaza Strip. The UN agency UNRWA has a number of institutions and schools in the Gaza region, and as of 24 July, 23 had been closed, 77 damaged in the fighting and three Palestinian UNWRA employees killed, two at home and a third while walking home from his work place. Hamas took advantage of the closures to employ some of these vacant UNWRA buildings as weapon storage sites. UNRWA officials, on discovering that two such vacated schools had been employed for storing rockets, condemned Hamas's actions. UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon ordered an investigation after Israel alleged that UNWRA transferred the arsenals to Hamas. UNRWA denied the claim, stating that the armouries had been transferred to local police authorities under the Ramallah national unity government's authority, in accordance with "longstanding UN practice in UN humanitarian operations worldwide".

If this finds approval, anyone can pop it in.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I have posted the above verbatim, just added an "allegedly" before the claim that Hamas took advantage of the school closures etc. I am not sure "allegedly" is the right word, but the Foreign Policy article does not give any evidence, just makes the allegation. Kingsindian (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also replaced Daily Beast source with Times of Israel source for "longstanding..." comment. Kingsindian (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also removed references to Algemeiner, reworded and referenced CNN instead here[23]. Kingsindian (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think 'allegedly' should be put before the Hamas use of schools. That is what UNRWA men in the field reported, and like other independent neutral observers of what actually happens on the ground, we should just say that. It was the UNRWA people who found these armouries, secured them, and handed them over to the Palestinian authorities, and therefore it is not IDF hearsay, or the usual junk reportage in virtually every newspaper allegding 'stuff'.

All this hot-air about Hamas's 'terroristic' use of tunnels and civilian areas for arms caches is of course completely hypocritical, since it is modelled on an old Israeli pattern, like much else in Palestinian tactics, terroristic or otherwise. But of course the world's journalists are too busy respouting official handouts and the terms in which the narrative is supposed to be spun, or in joining the bums' rush of copycats in their industry to ever read the actual history of the area. What Hamas does is exactly what the Yishuv did during the period of British rule, when it kept 1,500 weapons caches in kibbutzim, moshavim, cities and towns Identical. As the author of a thorough Hebrew language book on the caches said:

"The point of departure for those in the Jewish Yishuv who hatched the idea of building weapons caches in places such as synagogues, women's rooms, children's houses was that British officers and troops were gentlemen who wouldn't dare to search in such places."

Make your own conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeking to resolve Airlines stop flights section issue

A sentence remains hanging, awkward. It still reads, and the airline carriers announced they are renewing the flights[citation needed]. The flights that have resumed includes US Airways. I gave the documentation above. So, can it not be allowed? (Since then, Air Canada, Delta and United are returning.)Dogru144 (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there aren't any remaining issues.

Human shield again

My computer stalls whenever I open the Economist. The statement below looks like a reference to the Kaware family incident, it is false, or at least not factual. See under Kaware at List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge.

Seven members of a family were killed when they climbed on the roof of their house to act as a human shield, however, their home was still struck despite their action.(Israelis and Palestinians: From two wrongs, ruin, The Economist)

Sources at the time of the article 12 often repeated this, and the Economist has taken it up. You need in-depth interviews to work what the motives were. In the Kaware case, it appears some children went on the roof to check out the damage to a solar heating device hit by a rocket (which they took to be a near-miss, as the family thought the danger period had passed and reentered the house). Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the addition by Gaijin42 as it violates WP:SYNTH:

• Statement 1: "...Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the storage of weapons in schools, videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings".
• Statement 2: "a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri saying 'The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself'."

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate synth, the very first reference includes all of those points. As for the Kaware family, the New York times has a direct quote from the Kaware family saying "Our neighbors came in to form a human shield" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/by-phone-and-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And I note that your quotes dropped the attribution which was "As evidence of Israel's allegations that Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the" which makes it clear that this is a statement by a party, and not a fact in wikipedia's voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the New York Times. The B'tselem report gives a completely different account. There are in fact several conflicting versions, as one would expect from rapid interviews in an area under bombardment. What is known is that this is a meme strongly favoured by the Israeli government spinning of the high civilian casualty rate, as it has been in the two preceding wars. On the ground interviews with numerous survivors are numerous, and popular opinion in Gaza denies that their relatives, or themselves, are shot at, bombed or killed because Hamas orders them to behave as shields. You can get this in Peter Beaumont's coverage of the famous Beit Hanoun donkey herder, or in Hamas using human shields? Gazans deny claims, or any number of articles. The reasons people stay put include Hamas's desire that they do so, their own preference to stay knit together in their homes rather than outside, their fatalism (Inshallah), the lack of nearby shelters. As one person said:"Where do we go to? Some people moved from the outer edge of Khan Younis to Khan Younis centre after Israelis told them to, then the centre got bombed. People have moved from this area to Gaza City, and Gaza City has been bombed. It's not Hamas who is ordering us in this, it's the Israelis."

Given the ideological spinning, bravery and defiance even, confidence that standing on roofs saved some houses years ago, why not now, with outs, etc. in short cultural practices and beliefs, and physical difficulties in moving round a war zone, the extensive focus in that section on Israel's singular meme is WP:Undue. If the NYTs says one thing, and B'tselem another, on the Kaware family, you just can't cite the former as the true version of people's motives. It may happen to be, indeed, what one member of the Kaware family believed, but that may be an exception. It may be a boast, it may be a way of a survivor proving his loyalty to the Hamas government after a truce, to secure a benefit from Hamas authorities, if he, and they are still alive. Life is complex, motivations idem, and war reportage that ignores these complexities and peculiarities is, just that, POV spinning by military and political parties. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have many issues with Gaijin42's edit. 1. There is a RfC over whether to use the Hamas leader's statement in conjunction with human shields. I opposed it there and still oppose it now. The statement by the Hamas leader is notable, but it is not a call for human shielding, and it certainly does not show that people stayed in their homes because of Hamas forcing them to. I haven't heard any arguments there as to how it counts as human shielding. Even if one calls it "shielding", it does not count as "human shielding" unless the Hamas leader asked them to shield combat targets and not their homes. From the comments there, I do not see much agreement there either. 2. The USA today article simply attributes the "human shields" claim to Israel and mentions the Hamas video and then it quotes the IDF blog directly. It does not render any judgement about whether it counts as human shielding. I don't know if the claim becomes more respectable, just because it is laundered through a source (USA Today) which takes the claim directly from Israel and regurgitates it on the its pages. 3. What about the B'Tselem investigation of the Kaware family mentioned by Nishidani, which deals with this issue in detail? 4. This business of giving warnings etc. There have been reports of Hamas's assurances making people complacent and thus they didn't leave. First of all, the Goldstone commission even last time addressed this issue, saying that in the vast majority of the cases, after the calls to evacuate etc. there was no attack. They concluded it was more of psychological warfare than anything else. This also the point made here: [24] Ordering out 100,000 people from their homes is not a legitimate strategy. Secondly, the responsibility does not end just because you give a warning to evacuate. This has been addressed by B'Tselem in the analysis of the Kaware family. 5. Finally, if this statement is to be included anyway over my objections, I would request that some other word than "evidence" be used since I do not see this as much evidence of human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing "evidence" to some other word(s) that means "this is what israel pointed to to support their allegations"

ordering people out of their homes to wander off from a potential danger zone goes back to the 1948 war, and one reason the city of Lydda was ethnically cleansed was to throw 50,000 people onto the Jordanian army and fuck up its food and equipment logistics for war, by forcing on it the duty of coping with civilians. Numerous other examples come to mind of war tactics. Throwing 150,000 people out of their homes by warnings has all sorts of secondary calculations like these (creating popular disenchantment with Hamas if it can't cope being not the least of them) not only those regarding the need to clear an area so it can be carpetbombed.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to put in sourced arguments or statements to the contrary, do so. But this is a statement by the spokesperson of Hamas, and allegations by Israel that are discussed in numerous top tier sources. If we censored every statement or incident that was disputed by the beligerents it would lead this to be a very empty article wouldn't it? WP:NPOV mandates inclusion of every notable POV. Is it your argument that this POV has not been widely discussed? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Logic and Reason in this article

By the very nature of the title "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict", this article is a sub-section of an even higher-echelon subject - "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", and as such there is potential, even just within 2014, for confusion, overlap and other information weaknesses because the title suggests that it should be separate from any Israel-West Bank conflict. In the other direction it contains potential for some logical sub-sets, such as Progress of November 2012 Ceasefire; Incidents of Minor Lasting Consequence (such as those on 28 February, 12 March, 14 March, and 11 June) and Operation Protective Edge (OPE). And on this level there is ample scope for confusion since there is a link between OPE and the earlier Operation Brother's Keeper (no Wiki article) which started in the West Bank, other Wiki articles such as " 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers", which were immediately preceded by the deaths of two Palestinian teenagers in the West Bank on 15 May and the publication three days before the kidnappings of an autopsy report corroborating eye-witness and video evidence) proving that one death was from live IDF fire.

As it stands there is a confusion regarding the cause-and-effect relationship between the West Bank "teenager" deaths on both sides, the arrest of Hamas leaders, Hamas rocket fire from Gaza, and the escalation into Operation Protective Edge Erictheenquirer (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer(Regarding your last two lines) I reckon reading the background from the very beginning will helps a bit with clarification of cause-and-effect relationships between the mentioned events. Mhhossein (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the "Israeli academics" say ... from the lead

I am removing this from the lead: "Some Israeli legal experts have declared Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians to violate international law and constitute war crimes. Israeli academics have debated whether or not the UN agency, UNRWA, who are alleged to have returned rockets to Hamas, have violated international law and therby committed a war crime."

I think these are WP:UNDUE.

• The first sentence is based on Israel Democracy Institute's report which has been hardly covered outside of very marginal sources. The source cited is "Washington Free Beacon" who as someone said is well to the "dog shit" end of the spectrum. Moreover, the allegation that Hamas committed war crimes is already present in the previous sentence.
• The second sentence is a discussion between a couple of Israeli academics on whether UNRWA committed war crimes in relation the rockets, one of which is again the Israel Democracy Institute. Only cited in Jerusalem post. We can agree that Jersualem post is RS. However, I do not see how this belongs in the lead. The statement is very vague and there does not seem to be agreement on whether UNRWA did commit war crimes. Just a discussion or debate between Israeli academics carries little weight. There might be a case to put the statement in the UNRWA rockets section, though I seriously doubt that this is worth including even there.

--Kingsindian (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

While I don't know what the consensus view of editors are in that particular part of the lead, I agree that the sentence about Israeli academics was right to be removed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Kingsindian had removed sourced content from article summary rather than move that info to the section that deals with the subject in detail. In doing so, the neutrality of this article has been compromised by removing sourced content that would provide a range of views on the subject of international law and war crimes. Those edits are entirely unhelpful and risk the article being tagged as biased in favour of one party. I will be correcting these errors by re-adding the sourced content to the article'a section on the topic. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty My apologies: if you believe that some material should be included in some other section, go ahead. I just didn't think it belonged in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Airlines stop flights section again

So the whole section on "Airlines Stop Flights" is WP:UNDUE and does not reflect WP:SS - there should be maybe a few sentences to reflect the mass change in flights from one airport to the other or overall mass flight cancellations, but the way all of this is listed is atrocious, and just plain looks bad. Hires an editor (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree totally. Kingsindian (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What was once a reasonably sized section seems to have been bloated up for little reason, and it needs to be changed. Indeed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I question the relationship of the "Airlines Stop Flights" section in an article titled "Israel-Gaza" conflict, it isn't strictly necessary or related. This is discussing the conflict, not other situations. Yes it is related, but if everything related was contained in this article, it would be 50+ pages long. Please comment on the validity of even having this section, let alone what it has become. Jab843 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a section devoted to the comments section of a news article?

In the section under social media, it talks about how comments on the website Walla! praised the killing of the Palestinian children on the beach. Is this really necessary? It should be common knowledge that the comment section of any website will have trolls and offensive comments no matter what the issue is. There's probably an infinite number of examples we could use of these kinds of posts for both sides of this conflict, so why have this specific example in here? Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that since an article by Gideon Levy in Haaretz mentioned the Walla! incident, it is notable. Kingsindian (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

But like I said, there's an infinite number of examples from both sides. In the comments section of news articles about an Israeli being killed, I've seen many people say things such as praising Hitler and calling for another Holocaust. It's not more noteworthy or informative just because it was mentioned in an article. Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's undue weight, and it shouldn't be included. We've seen pretty horrible things said about this conflict by various online trolls on various comment sections all over the place. There's zero reason to give this such space. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Walla! site cites social media reactions, just as other things in that section do. What the problem?Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Posting a hateful comment on a blog anonymously is quite different than actual social media where people post images, use their own names, etc. I could add quite a bit of material on nasty things, say, that anonymous people claiming to be Palestinians have posted on 4chan and tumblr I guess, but it wouldn't be encyclopedic either.

Are you saying people can't make up identities on social media? It doesn't take much to take a photo from Google and come up with a fake name. Trolls from social media/comments sections of news articles are hardly noteworthy and giving them press on such a huge site like Wikipedia is honestly just feeding them. Also, just because a news site comments section has social media integration doesn't automatically make what is said in the comment section a social media reaction. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the above is policy-based but expresses only distaste for the content regarding Israeli social media.

Well, I posted it because I saw the following unchallenged note in the social media section:

Similarly, according to The Jerusalem Post, Palestinians in Hebron cheered as Gazan rockets were fired at Tel Aviv. People reportedly stood at rooftops chanting "Allah Akbar" at the sight.[240]

(a)Shouting one's schadenfreude from rooftops is, technically, not engaging in 'social media', neither is the Sderot bit above it (in Israel this is called slangily 'Sderot cinema'). Social media are electronic. However, rather than complain, I adduced an actual bit of evidence of what one side's social media is revealing, impeccably sourced. Now, none of the objectors noted this anomaly, but instead, complain that it's unseemly or undue or whatever to cite RS on what happens in Israel's social media. No objection to the anomalous entries on Sderot or Arab rooftops in Hebron, neither of which reports social media, but nervous nelly moves to remove the one piece of data that fits the criteria of the section. I see a decidedly POV leg being flashed in this objection. This kind of stuff is at 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers

In the Gaza Strip, families of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel celebrated the kidnapping by handing out sweets to passersby from a protest tent that had been erected to express solidarity.[209][210] Gazan Palestinians also released a song on social networks mocking the kidnappings, and called for additional abductions.[211] A Palestinian group mounted a video on YouTube parodying the abduction, in a fictional scenario featuring an "Abu Saqer el Khalili Brigades, the Kick Ass Branch", apparently taking the event to be a Israeli plot with Arab complicity while mocking Islamic extremism.[212]

And no one objects, because it's well documented. But of course what's acceptable in reporting Palestinian pathologies, is not acceptable if the pathology is Israeli.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating things that happen socially with social media. If a news site reports on something that happened socially, that is not social media. That is a news report. However, if a journalist reports something by using social media, that is much more credible and noteworthy than if, for a lack of a better word, "a nobody" from social media does something. Just because Gideon Levy mentions something that was said in a comments section of a news report does not give what was said any more validity in it's importance over equally terrible things that he did not report by the other side, of which there are many examples. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please reread my comment, which you misconstrue, while sidestepping the gravamen of my point, i.e., what is being objected to is something that perfectly fits WP:RS and the content of the section. Other things there do not meet the second criterion, and the difference is, the thing you want removed reflects as badly on some vein of Israeli popular opinion as the hurrahs from rooftops reflects badly on Palestinian popular opinion. The balance is fair.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to another article and complaining about that other article is both childish and irrelevant. It's the argument equivalent of yelling 'Squirrel!'

And the central issue remains: What we have here is a bunch of information given undue weight that isn't well-sourced and is basically irrelevant. A side reference made in the middle of an opinion post that isn't even freely availible for viewing isn't that much of a a source. And the reader has no reason to care about non-notable Israeli trolls posting racist anti-Arabic comments, non-notable Palestinian trolls posting Nazi Germany based memes as they love to do, non-notable American trolls mocking both sides with terrible Photoshops, etc posted on various troll-heavy websites such as 4chan, tumblr, comment sections, etc.

This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the wall of a men's room. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading when I read 'a bunch of information given undue weight that isn't well-sourced and is basically irrelevant', which shows ignorance of policy, unfamiliarity with I/P RS criteria, and an inability to see that what is objected to fits the section theme better than several other items there no one objects to.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The information has been selected by a notable Israeli journalist, perhaps Israel's most notable journalist, and published by a reliable secondary source. That is why having this specific example in here is consistent with policy. Why he selected those particular comments out of the large set of comments is not our concern. Our role is to reflect reliable sources without whining about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What he reported is completely irrelevant. Just because he says something does not mean it's automatically important enough that it needs to be on Wikipedia. What trolls say on a comments section of a news site is not noteworthy or newsworthy, especially when equally bad things are said on the other side and it is not on Wikipedia. Do anti-Semitic things said in the comment sections of news sites not exist because they aren't constantly reported on by journalists? Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you want it removed because you think it makes Israelis look bad ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed because it's completely irrelevant. The comments section of a news article isn't important enough to be on Wikipedia. Comments sections of any issue will have trolls and offensive comments. If it's about Obama, it will have racist comments about black people. That doesn't mean it should be added to a Wiki article about Obama. If it's about gay people, it will have homophobic comments. That doesn't mean it should be added to a Wiki article about gay rights. If it's about illegal immigration, it will have anti-Mexican comments. That doesn't mean it should be added to a Wiki article about illegal immigration. If it's about Israel, it will have anti-Semitic comments. That doesn't mean it should be added to a Wiki article about Israel. None of those are relevant or important enough to warrant being on Wikipedia. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your argument for removal doesn't make sense and it isn't consistent with policy. Firstly, we can't dismiss a source written by a notable Israeli journalist published by a reliable source as "completely irrelevant". Secondly, it clearly is noteworthy and newsworthy because a notable Israeli journalist wrote about it and it was published by a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia is built from these things. We cannot sample the comments made by readers. Reliable secondary sources have to do it for us. We reflect those reliable sources. There may be other sources out there that have sampled comments and written about ones that they regarded as important in some respect. If the reports make Israelis or Palestinians or anyone else look bad or look good in someone's eyes, it doesn't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So what is to stop someone from using the comments section itself as a source? Just because a notable person cites it, does not mean that it suddenly becomes important enough that it has to be on Wikipedia. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What stops us is the WP:V policy, "Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources", and the fact that we are not reliable sources. Nothing has to be on Wikipedia. In this case there are policy based reasons to include it. There haven't been policy based reasons to exclude it, yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the objections so far has been argued on policy grounds, other than WP:Undue which is not an heteronym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Teen Kidnappings Was From 'Lone Cell'

Right now, we have it in the article that: Israeli police officials later admitted that the kidnappings did not occur on the orders of, or with the knowledge of the Hamas leadership and that the crime was the action of a "lone cell". 1 2

Other than that I want to get the references formatted differently in this article, I think this is just fine. Does anyone feel that the 'Lone Cell' revelation should be worded differently? Expanded into more words? Are there any sources that dispute all this? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The only thing is I might tweak it to: Israeli police officials later admitted that the kidnappings neither occurred on the orders of the Hamas leadership nor with the leadership's knowledge, with the crime being the action of a Hamas-connected "lone cell". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait for an actual confirmation from Israel instead of hearsay. A bunch of unknown and unrelated terrorists groups have claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, but have never given proof of doing it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel Police Foreign Press Spokesperson was quoted in a tweet by BBCs Jon Donnison - 'Israeli police MickeyRosenfeld tells me men who killed 3 Israeli teens def lone cell, hamas affiliated but not operating under leadership' 1/2 12:28 PM - 25 Jul 2014 Sayerslle (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't note this while rewriting the section of the background where it fits in, but one can also glance there at a possible context and reformulation. This is news only in so far as an official spokesman is now saying what has been bruited about among Israeli journalists for well over a month, even before the three teenagers were discovered. It could not be reported because of a gag order. It was known as soon as the evidence from the burnt car went through laboratory tests, showing DNA, much blood from the boys, and several shells.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no confirmation by the Micky Rosenfeld himself. It should be noted that this is based solely on the BBC reporters word. People were asking for information, and this is what he says: "For those asking, I stick by 100% tweets regarding comments made to me by Israeli police spokes Mickey Rosenfeld. He said it. Period." He deleted his original post that made the claim as well. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Still no confirmation by Micky Rosenfeld, and no other major news site seems to be reporting it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested background section ce with one major addition

Merged with "Background" section above:

That Graph

So, in the "Violations of the truce" section, I think it's fair to say that both sides have violated the truce. How could anyone deny that? But the problem is the graph showing the Palestinian violations - the way this is presented is WP:UNDUE. It makes these violations seem outsized, and much more important or a larger contributing factor...in addition, it has been removed several times, which I believe should be subject to arbitration remedies. And it's part of why I note it here. I believe that the graph should be removed and not brought back. Hires an editor (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You're quite correct. There is a graph in Pollock's article and details related to Israeli violations in the sources cited above, but I don't know anything about copyright on these matters, or how to create a variation on one to upload in order to maintain discursive parity. I think, if no Palestinian graph can be found that that eye-catching blob should be taken out and replaced with the same kind of textual explanation we have for the Palestinians. Can anyone manage to sort this out?Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and this should be obvious to any competent editor in WP:ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire Agreement Section/Sub-Section to be included?

I seems that it would be advantageous to include a subsection on the ceasefire agreements that have happened thus far in the conflict. However, I don't want to add extra info to an article that already contains a fair about of unnecessary sections/content. Please express your ideas. Jab843 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The removal of "claim" under Casualties and Losses from Hamas and Israel figures

After re-reading the site, it seems odd to me that the under the Casualties and Losses section in the infobox, Israel's and Hamas' number are followed by the word claim while none of the other agencies are subject to this lack of neutrality. This seems like a violation of WP:NPOV. Either all of the organizations have the word claim following their name, or none of them have that statement. Could someone please justify otherwise if I am missing something. Jab843 (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans

The flight ban is worth including, but I'm not sure that it warrants its own entry. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See commit message here for the reason why I made a new article. Hhm8 (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, the subject in question is barely relevant to the current article, adding more will do nothing more than clutter the current article that we are trying to craft. If anything, this section should be reduced to 3 sentences and a redirect to the other article. Jab843 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The separate article 2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans should remain, because the information for that subject is changing frequently. The article 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict should have a section that summarizes the subject, but not have information that needs to be updated frequently. Obankston (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As argued below, the section here breaks WP:Undue, since the article prioritizes a minor blip in a war lastying over three weeks. Everything else, the political negotiations truce proposals, background, actual war, has been drastically edited out and this section is anomalous given its triviality. It may be important to tourists, it is not an important part of the war. At most one can write (with an in-line link to the new article)

Flights to Ben-Gurion airport were interrupted for some days (link to new article) after a Hamas missile struck an area in its vicinity.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Clever, very clever

Incrementally, the article changed from one on an operation extending to three weeks, with a background section, into an article without (a) narrative of the events over the 3 weeks of conflict (b) without the November 2012 ceasefire background and (c)without the April background section and instead (d) we have magnificent sections on (a) the Costs to the Israeli economy and (b) Airport disruption which occurred for 2 days over a 21 day period. Obviously the major concern of editors is to write an article about the difficulties tourists are experiencing in going on holidays to Israel. Well done, hats off.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Tourism is indeed important. Seriously though, this article needs a major rewrite, but I think some sort of consensus should be reached here before removal of a significant amount of content. I for one, think that it either needs to be broken up into other articles, or just removed from the current article. If we come to an agreement as to what is important relating to what Wikipedia stands for as opposed to a lumping together of a bit of this and a bit of that so that people's own biases are highlighted, it would be very helpful. Comments are appreciated! Jab843 (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If tourism is important, then all background articles mention that Gaza since 2007 has been a gulag/fenced in camp where no one can get in or out without exceptional ties or luck. If you mean the right to visit Israel was interrupted for a day or two is important, then obviously the right of Gazans to fish in their own territorial waters, re-use their international airport which Israel has never failed to bomb to smithereens, exploit that 25% of their richest land banned from use by Israeli border shooters, the right of people like myself to revisit it, or of Palestinian Fulbright scholars to go to the US instead of being blocked as linked to terrorists, because they are Gazan, or the fact that the total of Israeli bombs on the area in 2006 exceeded the whole total of lamppost rockets shot into the Negev desert in the 5 preceding years....The maximum coverage for the disturbance at airports in an article like this which has, unlike its predecessors, eviscerated all narratives of the war and its devastation, is one line. I.e.

Hamas rocketry one two occasions fell close to Israel's Ben-Gurion airport, interrupting services for two days.

Anything longer than that contextually is suggesting that Israel's economic returns for a few days is more important that several thousand tons of bombs destroying a large part of the infrastructure of the contiguous territory which both Israel and Egypt deny any form of economic development, trade, and is, frankly, obscenely WP:Undue. The crap section on this can be removed to the useless page created on what is, per wikipedia, not-notable, to register it.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, sorry I thought it was evident that I was being sarcastic in my opening sentence when I followed it up with seriously.... I agree, this section is irrelevant and should be re/moved. Jab843 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if other editors concur, that it should be removed, on the several grounds noted.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Intro currently appears written from a pro-Israeli apologist point of view

The intro begins with an assertion that the current conflict began 'with the breakdown of talks in May.' This is a specious way of dating the beginning of the conflict, as the "conflict" here indicates the period of time when people have been killed. The real beginning of the conflict appears to be the kidnappings of the three Israeli teenagers, which promoted an Israeli military search, which resulted in several Palestinian deaths, and then the murders of the three Israeli teenagers appear to have been retaliatory for the Palestinian deaths. - Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Or was the real beginning the Beitunia killings that preceded the kidnappings of the the Israeli teenagers ? Or was it when the international community welcomed the Palestinian unity government ? Who knows, but the killing of the 3 Israelis wasn't in response to killings of Palestinians by the IDF during Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank because they were almost certainly shot the same day they were abducted, probably during the emergency call to the police.[25][26] It's probably going to be difficult to find consensus on "the real beginning" as it probably varies somewhat from source to source. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Hamas-Fatah April 2014 accord is the direct antecedent. A few minutes after it was signed

an Israeli aircraft fired two missiles at a motorcycle in Beit Lahiya. The “target” was not hit. In its stead, seven passers-by were injured.

This exactly repeats what happened in early 2011 when Abu Mazan declared he would go to Gaza and sign a unity agreement with Hamas. Almost immediately

the IDF killed two Hamas activists in Gaza, in an action authorized by the highest levels – the minister of defense and the IDF chief of staff. The killing was portrayed as a response to the launching of a single Qassam rocket, which hit no one, but some, like Yedioth’s Alex Fishman, understood that this had been a “premeditated escalation” by Israel. The following day, March 17, Netanyahu came “full circle”, clarifying to those who had not yet understood: Palestinian unity is a red line, as far as Israel is concerned.

The parallels are made by Israelis like Idan Landau and Alex Fishman, to name a few. It's not liked by the Western commentariat, because they don't use a stop-watch or clock the succession of events. On each occasion, a declaration by Palestinians of Hamas-PNA unity is met by an incident that leads to an escalation which ends up in a war waged to 'stop rockets from Hamas terrorists from striking Israel'. It is one analytic perspective of many, and should be attributed.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just as that let to escalation and finished in the Pillar of Defence operation, so too

Attempts to use RS which look into the background, like the Guardian background piece, seem to get shot down. It's not that we don't have sources on the nexus of past and present. It's that attempts to write from these sources are subject to sniping, and snipping to destabilize them. The solution, as in the background section above is to write the section on events from 2005 to 2012 as they are covered by, and linked in, articles dealing in this war's background, and once consensus, which should be rapid, is gained, to stick it on the page. That translates as, any disturbance of the section is subject to automatic revert because it violates a talk page consensus. So, if people want a decent neutral additional background section, one para, they can just add their comments and suggestions to that section.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's important to mention antecedents, but it's also important not to confuse the beginning of major hostilities which is the current "conflict," and major international news event for about two months running now. The current conflict clearly begins with the kidnappings of the three teenagers, probably motivated by the Beitunia killings of late June. -Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Egypt be added to the list of combatants/casualties?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4550797,00.html

Egypt's army said Sunday it has destroyed 13 more tunnels connecting the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip, taking to 1,639 the overall number it has laid waste to.

The Palestinian militant group Hamas, which is the main power in Gaza, reportedly uses the tunnels to smuggle arms, food and money into the blockaded coastal enclave.

Cairo also accuses of Hamas of being involved in militant attacks inside Egypt, which have multiplied since Morsi was toppled.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4550220,00.html

Possible Gaza rockets hit Egypt, highlighting growing tensions between Egypt and terrorists active in Sinai and Gaza.

Four children were killed on Saturday in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula when a mortar round hit their home, in an apparent attack by militants targeting soldiers, security officials said.

The attack took place in the northern Sinai town of El-Joura, believed to be a bastion of Islamist militants who have killed scores of policemen and soldiers over the past year.

Soldiers and police had been combing the area a day after militants shot dead two senior army and police officers as they were driving home. Four people were wounded in the blast, the officials said, adding that the children were all under 15 years old.

Meanwhile Saturday, soldiers killed 12 suspected militants and arrested 11 others in the northern Sinai, according to a statement on the official Facebook page of military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mohammed Samir. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Egypt vigorously supports Israel in the war, like the United States, and has arrested or shot Hamas militants in separate operations against Bedouins before this war, but it is not a legal belligerent. The United States arguably is a tacit belligerent, in so far as Israel can tap the latter's stockpiles of arms and weaponry in Israel if needed, but that is not relevant since it is an hypothetical situation.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly interview should be used

Hussein Ibish, Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, has been interviewed on the background, and raises several points not commonly seen in newspaper reportage, though I have mentioned the points off the cuff here. The analysis is of the 'realist school'. Note also as possibly worthy of conclusion his judgement that the crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank had nothing to do with its proclaimed aim, since it was known to the government that the children were dead. Hamas and the battle for Gaza. The interviewee is not identifiably Pro-Palestinian, but an analyst of the American realist school.Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Protests in Israel and West Bank

I have created a new section "Protests in Israel and West Bank". I don't know how much weight it should be given, but I've put in all I know about the topic. Kingsindian (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)