Talk:2014 Gaza War

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: Close per three month moratorium on move discussions set at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 2#Requested move. Repeated move discussions in very close succession are disruptive. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Future date stamp to keep this from being archived for the duration of the moratorium. Advance Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of sources appear to be calling this a war by now, many by the term "Gaza War". There was a Gaza War in 2008, but perhaps we should name this article to something similar sooner or later. Here are some sources:

• The New York Times
• The Wall Street Journal
• CNN
• New York Post
• Gannett
• Haaretz
• USA Today

There's likely a lot more.--ɱ (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Conflict" is a serious understatement. But first you need to submit a formal move request.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the above is mainly just to draw people's attention to the necessity. I don't personally want to be active in such a move debate.--ɱ (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Would "Second Gaza War" be the likely title destination? Tandrum (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "Second Gaza War" is currently being used by sources. "2014 Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2014)" will probably be the likely titles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War (2014) – Per the above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:34, 2 August 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.

Lead and background

The article is about the "Operation Protective Edge" (or whatever you prefer to call it, if you dislike the IDF name). Acting boldly, I have removed a big chunk of the lead, because it is hugely awkward, and properly refers to the background. Every one of the events in this chunk is mentioned in the background section. And the treatment of those things are much better in that section, instead of a litany of incidents in the lead with no logic for inclusion/exclusion. Already multiple battles are being fought on the this part of the lead including here, here, here, here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the circumstances of there being recurring, ongoing disagreement about what to include in the 'background' part in the lead (as recently as right now), and the lead being really long, your bold move of the information to the article body (which I polished up in these edits) was probably for the best. -sche (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:After our positive interchanges, I am somewhat disappointed that you continue to refer to this article as being about "Operation Protective Edge". The title shows that it clearly is not = "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". We need to achieve closure on this issue because it is leading to grossly inefficient editing by all concerned and a waste of individual time.

I have previously suggested that, if you want to preserve an article named "Operation Protective Edge" then I would fully support that. But then we must DO that, and move the bloated detail about "OPE" to its own page, replacing it with a synopsis in the 2014 overview. In a day or two I will propose a draft Background section that does not violate the subject matter of the current article.

@Erictheenquirer: As you can see on the top of the talk page (and I have also mentioned this in our earlier conversations), there is a 3-month moratorium on moves on this page, therefore, it has to stay with an unsatisfactory title. I did not move the article, but we are stuck with the title name, unless someone puts in a move review request. However even a casual glance at the article shows that 95% (if not higher) of the article is about "Operation Protective Edge". Everyone in this article has been editing as if this deals with "Operation Protective Edge", not the whole of 2014. Most of the issues were with the lead section, which I have trimmed massively. Right now, I do not see much confusion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:I accept that. Please see my conclusions at Talk: POV Tag Needed for Article Lead above, where I will continue the discussion.

[1],[2] @Somedifferentstuff: Could you elaborate on why you went back to the previous version? Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Beyond numbers of casualties given by Hamas health ministry, the numbers claimed by Palestinian presidentMahmud Abbas must be included.--Tritomex (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

[3],[4]--Tritomex (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6

Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6.

• The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge."
• Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge."
• Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught."
• New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. "
• The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge"
• Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire."

I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions.

J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over"

Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: There is a considerable difference, both legal and ethical, between a government being responsible for every criminal act "that occurs on its soil", and it failing to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts of its soil. The former is deliberate and calculated criminality; the latter is generally the result of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency or simply turning a blind eye. It is not synonymous to actual legal responsibility under international law, unless you have sources which disagree with me. Regardless, the idea that, if non-Hamas affiliated elements are firing rockets, you can blame Hamas because "they're responsible for every act that occurs on their soil" is akin to suggesting that the we should directly blame the US government for, say, the Ferguson murder? It's absurd. JDiala (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: I could agree with you if Hamas made some effort to stop the rocket fires, or even payed some lip service. Instead it continues praising the heroic action of firing on civilians. How many people were arrested in Gaza for firing on Israel during the ceasefire ? This article says they made some effort, but is there a single result they can show ? Is there a single statement by Hamas that it's wrong or at least that it's against "the Palestinian interest" at the moment ? WarKosign (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Wikipedia's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky says "Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7... Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8". See Outrage, written on 2 August 2014 in Z Communications. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

People seem to be missing a really simple point here, which is that rockets are not like pistols or knives, that is, weapons that may be privately owned and distributed. They are a form of artillery, and are therefore mostly used and deployed by state actors, or quasi-state actors like Hamas. To say that non-Hamas sources fired some rockets is therefore absurd; Hamas builds and pays for the rockets, therefore, when they are fired, it is highly unlikely that Hamas knew nothing about it, or had nothing to do with it; rather the opposite. In other words, it is a distinction without a difference. Hamas fires the rockets, one way or another, all of them. Theonemacduff (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This article says "Hamas and its affiliates had been firing rockets off and on throughout June", which contradicts the official story that Hamas began firing only as a response to Israel's aggression. “WarKosign” 08:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Category about terror attacks

@WarKosign: you inserted the category but it's about specific terror attacks, not a whole conflict like this one. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: Each rocket fired indiscriminately into general population is an act of terror. Over 4,500 such acts of terror were committed, which makes this conflict one of the biggest terror attempts in the human history. “WarKosign” 04:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't address my point. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I did - the whole conflict/war/operation was one big act of terror, consisting of thousands of attacks. Would you rather add a separate article for every rocket fired and add them to the category instead ? “WarKosign” 04:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant articles are already categorized, see Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups. 14 articles on Palestinian rocket attacks. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the word "terror" or "terrorism" cannot be used to describe Palestinian rocket attacks (except when quoting others) per WP:NPOV and WP:WTW JDiala (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As I see - can: List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Need more materials showing Palestinians casualties to keep neutrality of the article

The death tolls of the Palestinians were over 2000 among them hundreds of children, However this article just contains one image of an INJURED Palestinian child. Also, The photos intended to show Palestinians damages, are all long-shots that does not depict any human death or injuries. They only show derbies of the buildings and smokes, So they do not clear the situation properly.
There are some Israelites who are badly terrified when heard a rocket alarm, and thanks to wikipedia, we can see their sufferings. On the other hand, There were some Palestinians who feared when they saw, with their own naked eyes, a missile is directed toward them and then, we know nothing more of them. It was sad but still true (at least relevant in this article) when some great guy said "All animals are equal, but some of them are more equal than the others".
Please add some photos that depict casualties of the Palestinians especially children. Thanks. Qudas (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the causalities were militants, followed by children and adult civilians. To be representative, images of dead Hamas militants are needed first. “WarKosign” 15:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of 'keeping the article neutral.' The major overseer here is WarKosaign, most of whose edits are not neutral.

And again there are problems of arithmetic and English.

Please add some photos that depict casualties of the Palestinians especially children.'Qudas.

Most of the causalities were militants, followed by children and adult civilians.WarKosign[[

The word 'most' in English is not a synonym of 'minority'. The article reads:

UN:OCHA:2,189 killed, of whom 1,486 are believed to be civilians (513 children, 323 boys and 190 girls,70% under 12), 269 women), 557 identified as militants

IDF: 2,127 killed (55% civilians, 45% militants),[26] 250 captured (159 identified as militants

I.e. in WarKosign's interpretation 557 in the OCHA figures constitute 'most' of the 2,189 dead.

Even if we look at the IDF fiction(roughly 25% being militants vs roughly 70% of civilians), 45% is not 'most' of 100%. So what's going on? Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Let's go over the math again. According to ITIC (which is an up-to-date source that explains its methodology and doesn't use numbers provided by Hamas blindly), out of 2,157 causalities approximately 1,056 are militants, which constitutes the largest group. Of the remaining ~1100 civilians 513 (according to OCHA) constitute children, and the remaining ~600 are adult civilians. My bad, children are not the second largest group - they are the smallest.

If you take all the numbers from OCHA - 2189 total, out of which 146 are unknown. Out of the known 2043 they report 973 adult civilians, 557 militants and 513 children. Again, children are the smallest group. Even ignoring the evidence that some of these so called civilians and children were in fact militants, surely it is more DUE to represent the more numerous dead militants than the children. It won't help Hamas's cause as much, but what can you do - we are here to represent the facts, not to promote a specific agenda. “WarKosign” 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, man. I guess editorial fatigue is at play here.

OCHA

2,189

minus 146 =2,043 whose status is believed to be known

of these, 1,486 are believed to be civilians and 557 identified as militants

What you do is (a) elide the comment on civilians, reduce the whole analysis to children versus militants, and then state 'Most of the causalities were militants'!!! (the assumption being that all adult civilians killed aren't countable as civilians) Everybody can see the trick. It would be obvious to any child. You can't talk your way round the nonsense your selective manipulation of the data produced. Forget it. You have used the ITIC's numbers blindly and even there you make the wrong deductions.

The ITIC is a notoriously bad source for anything, its methodology is sheer nonsense. It's a propaganda pipeline, according to Yossi Melman Its methods are duplicated by no neutral internationally recognised body, and your deductions from it are totally screwed up in any case. ('The opponents argue that Military Intelligence should not be connected to a propaganda body, at the expense of objective and ideologically unbiased professional analysis'). That is what many intelligence experts in israel think of the ITIC. It probably shouldn't even be used on this page, given it has no value officially, but is a private propaganda body staffed by the IDF's oldboy network. It is so imcompetent that even a month after the end of hostilities it still can't figure out the identities of 60% of the dead, and even juggling its own data, can only come up with a statistically silly 51% civilian, 49% militant (vs OCHA 73% vs.27% ratio), which means, again, you are stating 49% is more than 51%. So, if you screw up as you have here and elsewhere, just leave it at that, and don't waste time trying to justify the error. It sits badly with the declaration that

'we are here to represent the facts, not to promote a specific agenda.'

There is no trace in your editing history on this article that this intent has been operative. Throughout, the page has been worked to provide overwhelming weight to one POV, Israel/IDF.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right that 'most' is not the correct term here. I meant "militants are (arguably) the largest group, with adult civilains contending it for the first or the second place, and the children are the smallest group, therefore children do not need undue representation.

ITIC may not be the best source, but it's no worse than the Hamas-controlled health ministry, which so far:

• reported duplicate names to increase the number of casualties
• misrepresented the ages of the militants to hide the facts that some "children" were fighting
• routinely reported militants as civilians
• did not mention a single victum of hamas's rockets failures or executions

So sure, ITIC has an agenda - but so far it was not caught lying to promote the agenda, so it is far more reliable than GHM.

Apropos promoting an agenda - it is quite clear to see the pattern in your edits, there is one very specific agenda that you are promoting. My goal here is making this article NPOV. Many editors keep adding to this POV mess, and I try my best to correct it. “WarKosign” 13:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please learn elementary set theory and elementary school math. Militants are not the largest group. (Adult) Civilians are the largest group. Repetition of your inability to see the obvious is no argument.

I don't know why you are obsessed with Hamas. I no more trust Hamas handouts than I do that of the ITIC or the IDF. Hamas is neither more or less reliable than the latter two agencies: the mendacity of the IDF official handouts day by day is something of a joke among reporters and analysts. Both Hamas and the IDF are interested parties, and I don't take anything seriously with regard to statistics other than what Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, B'tselem, or the various UN agencies report. As to agenda pushing, in the war Israel waged, 2187 Palestinians were killed, of which roughly 1,500 were civilians and 600 soldiers, and complaints were made of the methods used by the IDF. These are covered by 11,432 characters. In the war Hamas waged in which 6 civilians died and 66 soldiers, complaints were made of the methods used and we devote a third more space to this, 18,549 characters. That is the result also of your dedication to doing your 'best' to achieve NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It took you a few tries, but looks like you finally understood my math. As I said, children are the smallest group, therefore they do not need undue representation with pictures. It is arguable whether adult civilians are the militants are the largest group, and it's curious how you claim to distrust both Hamas and IDF, but insist on using Hamas's numbers. In the same way, your claims of distrusting Hamas do not go well with your insistence to automatically blame IDF for the death of Hamas's human shields and their other victims. The war Hamas waged killed 1000 to 1500 Gazan and 6 Israeli civilians. Hamas had many chances to accept a ceasefire and avoid most of the bloodshed but chose not to. You admit using only organizations that support Hamas's propaganda (HRW, amnesty, b'tselem) as your "only" data source, and the result shows. “WarKosign” 19:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you are saying is obtuse, whatever your, I have no reasonj to doubt it, sincerity. If you cannot parse the simple meaning of the following, you have deep problems in understanding elementary logic.

If of the set 2,189 killed

Subset (a) 1,486 are considered civilians

Subset (b)557 are defined as militants.

it follows that the constituents of (a) and (b) are mutually exclusive, and added together =2043

The difference between the set total (2,189) and the sum of subsets (a) and (b) is 2,189-2043=146

In OCHA that difference is explained as 'the identity or status of 146 is still being verified.'

Therefore, on these statistics it is not arguable whether adult civilians are (sic = or) the militants are the largest group, except if you don't understand simple addition and subtraction.

The number of adults who are deemed not militants in OCHA's figures are 1,486 - 513 children=973

The number of male civilian adults is obtained by 973-269 =704

The number of children and women killed under the banner of 'purity of arms' was 513 children+ 269 women = 782

Thus your original claim that 'Most of the causalities were militants (557 militants) is sheer crap.

Since 'most of the casualties were civilians (children, men and women)1,486

Since '557 militants' is less than the number of women and children 782

Since the number of militants (557) is less than the number of male adult civilians 704.

BSince far more women and children were killed (782) than militants (557), the original point raised regarded photographic representation of the realities of the war.

There are 22/24 photos

14/16 deal with Israel

1 Iron Dome in action; (defensive warfare)

I of Israeli artillery in action (offensive warfare)

2 Sderot photos+ Yehud house destroyed: (targeted civilian infrastructure =3)

3 of kidnapped teenagers; (innocent victims prewar) (can be counted as 1 perhaps)

2 shelter/shelter sign (shelter)

I Israeli playground bombed;(school)

1 kindergarten with children sheltering (school)

I pro-Israel demo; (international support for Israel)

I Israel demo against the war (Israeli democratic criticism of war).

I religious banner in support of war;

1 IDF soldier examining a tunnel (discovering enemy means of attacking Israel)

8 deal with Palestine

1 Gaza home bombed

1 West Bank street after IDF raid (nothing to do with Operat5ive Protective Edge)

I wounded man on a stretcher

Ruins of an area in Beit Hanoun

Shaymaa al-Masri wounded Palestinian 5 year old

pro-Palestinian demo (international support for Palestine)

People and a bulldozer in Bit Hanoun (ceasefire photo)

Destroyed ambulance (ceasefire photo, ambulances are civilian vehicles)

So, chief, you have a gross photo imbalance with 14/16 vs 8 in Israel's favour. In infrastructure representation, Israel boasts of highly specific individual sites, the Sderot meme is highlighted, and schools and children/youths are given pride of place. All photos of damage to Gaza are distance shots and area-generic, no schools, and just one piece of civilian infrastructure, and one child casualty. One photo has nothing to do with the Gaza Strip, and therefore the actual representations of the Palestinian side of the war =7 photos, of which I shows a victim.

One more example of why you, and everyone else involved so far in this article, myself included, should resign and let an independent, neutral third party copywriter of experience rework it. The footnotes are mostly replicative nonsense, the weighing absurd, the photo manipulation egregiously manipulative etc.etc. it's a disgrace.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "majority" was a wrong term. According to ITIC and IDFs data militants are the single largest group, while according to GHM or OCHA militants are the second largest. According to all the sources the children (not children+women) are the smallest group, as I wrote repeatedly.

It was already argued that the picture of the artillery serves to promote the Hamas POV: Israel is an agressor. If you think otherwise, let's put multiple pictures of Quasam, Grad, M-302, M-75 rockets to promote Hamas POV. Your count missed maps - there are 3 maps showing the damage/closure in Gaza, and only 2 maps showing the rocket launch sites and the rocket ranges. Similarly, the pro-Hamas demostration photo hardly serves to promote Israeli POV - otherwise let's replace it with a parallel photo in Gaza (of Hamas about to execute the protesters, I suppose). As I count, there are 14/16 vs 13 images, the skew is recent and originates from the picture(s) of the kidnapped teenagers being added to the timeline article. Let's see what would be the best way to balance it. “WarKosign” 21:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. You refuse to understand the point, or thed data. I gather there's a fatigue factor here - i dislike speaking about 'disingenuousness'. Consider taking a break, because this arguing against the obvious is also introducing serious misrepresentations.

(a)Most of the causalities were militants, followed by children and adult civilians. To be representative, images of dead Hamas militants are needed first.WarKosign 15:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Here you stated as a fact what is an opinion

(b)'According to ITIC and IDFs data militants are the single largest group, while according to GHM or OCHA militants are the second largest.'

I.e. your initial assertion of a 'fact' turns out to be just an echo chamber for what is the POV of the ITIC and, you add incorrectly, the IDF. Your statement of the facts of the case is just a representation of one party's point of view. As an editor, you are obliged to keep distinct your personal beliefs from the precise paraphrase of what sources, from each relevant POV, state.

Secondly, you even get Israel's official POV wrong. The IDF figures do not state that militants are the single largest group.

IDF2,127 killed (55% civilians, 45% militants). Fa Chrissake, 45% does not represent the single largest group. You can twist and turn and spin and backflip figures all you like, but the distinction is betwen civilian versus militant groups, and the latter are, in the IDF's own figures, the minority group. To try and tweak one's way around this by breaking 'civilians' down into 'children, women, adult males' etc., doesn't alter their collective status of civilians. So drop it, this would be infantile were it not utterly ridiculous. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Nishidani and Qudas. I too have noted a serious POV issue with the images. Aside from the casualties issue, why is a sculpture built from Hamas rocket debris needed? It's completely extraneous and irrelevant. The images misrepresent the nature of the conflict, of which the Gazans, mostly civilians, have been, by quite a large degree, the main victims of. We have an image of the three kidnapped and murdered teenagers, yet no mention of the several Palestinians who were killed in the ensuing operation by the IDF, and Mohammed Abu Khdeir, who was savagely burned alive in the revenge killing. There are a total of eight images relating to the "rocket" fire, even though the rockets have only killed a total 6 civilians during the operation and have caused negligible harm to Israel. There's also an image of a tunnel. The Israeli attack on Gaza, however, is remarkably hardly shown, even though it has resulted in 2000+ deaths; there's only two images showcasing the destruction of Gaza, and only two images of Gazan casualties. This is absurd. The war was exceedingly disproportionate, and by far the main "battleground"(though there were never battles, just aerial bombardment) was Gaza. The images must reflect this. JDiala (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This creates a false balance. It's a similiar POV issue with Mahmoud Abbas' statements here, when he says something negative about Hamas in this war, it's added, but nothing about what he speaks mostly about, namely Israeli actions in this war. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Negligible harm? see 2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans, the main airport in Israel was shut down for a few days. The economy of southern Israel was almost ruined and millions in the south and center heard sirens and ran to shelters many times a day. Also, of course there were ground battles, otherwise how were 60+ IDF soldiers killed. Yuvn86 (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

'Negligible' is comparative (compared to what has happened three times in 6 years, and most devastatingly this year, in the Gaza Strip). Disruption of a nice life style is one thing, massive death and the systematic destruction of a whole economy, sewage, electricity, water utilities, housing, agricultural production, with forseeable consequences for 20 years is another. Someone with a sore toe would be indelicate were (s)he to whinge about it to another person who has battled ravaging cancer for several years (at least, in normal human discourse this is understood by almost everyone.)

Ok, simple set theory. The universe of all Gazan casualties can partitioned into 3 complementing sets: militants, adult civilians, children civilians. The sources more or less agree on cardinality of the universe: ~2150 people. There is disagreement on cardinality of the group of militants, with different sources putting it between 643 (OCHA) and 1,056 (ITIC). Cardinality of the group of civilian children is given by OCHA as 513, therefore group of civilian adults numbers between 994 and 581.

ITIC: 1056 militants > 581 adults > 513 children OCHA: 994 adults > 643 militants > 513 children

Therefore, as I wrote so many times already, militants and adult civilians are in the first and second places (it's arguable which is which), with the group of civilian children unarguably being the smallest. It does not mean the children should not be represented, only that they should be represented proportionally to their number among other casualties.

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You essentially talking to yourself because I've stop listening. You are now arguing in bad faith. 'ITIC: 1056 militants' is an extrapolation, using ITIC 'unique' (pseudo-)methodology) from the 49% of militants of 721 dead whose identities they claim to have established. They are so inept that whilst OCHA can identify 557 militants, ITIC can't get beyond identifying 354 militants!!!!!!!!!!!!, and can only nudge that figure up to the mythical 1056 by an exptrapolation based on a combination of guess-work and wishful thinking. You like it, fine, but such statistically crapulative gamesmanshit coming from that private corporation has no place on wikipedia. You might get a hearing from Professor Ratbaggy, but no one else who understands statistics and is tone-deaf to propaganda gamesmanship. As was noted, ITIC in intelligence circles in Israel is considered unreliable. (And drop the set theory. I already told you you are creating spurious set definitions (militants vs children, militants vs adults, militants vs women) to cancel what all sources denominate as the fundamental sets of the class of casualties namely militants vs non-militants, and the proportion are 27/723 (OCHA) or 45/55%, in each case, the majority of casualties are civilians. Don't reply. Because my toleration of nonsense threshold has long been breached.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• "As was noted, ITIC in intelligence circles in Israel is considered unreliable." - Nishidani

It's only your and Yossi Melman private opinion and no more. Even Melman wrote about "several members of Malam and Military Intelligence" in his article. It's seems as he doesn't like that "the Arab Bank would stand trial for funding terror attacks in Israel".  :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I will soon begin a new section to discuss what the main conflicting POVs actually are and how they should be represented neutrally. “WarKosign” 16:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You are complicating this simple issue. Most of the casualties were civilians. What you're trying to do is break down the civilian casualties into smaller subsets[ie "child" civilians; "adult" civilians], and then compare each of the subsets to the whole set of militant casualties. That's silly. 55% of the casualties were civilians, thus at least half, or slightly more than half, of the images should be focused on the civilians. It's quite simple. If you want to be mathematical about it, around 32 Palestinians died for every Israeli. And around 233 Palestinian civilians died for every Israeli civilian. Trying to create a false balance by focusing on the "rockets" rather than the war in Gaza itself is simply disingenuous and unequivocally POV. Regarding the neglibility of Israeli suffering, running to shelters after hearing sirens, airport flight bans, and minor economic problems in Southern Israel are inconveniences. They are negligible relative to what the Gazans went through, many of whom were killed or have lost their entire families. JDiala (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDial: I agree with you - according to all the sources there are more civilians than militants among the casualties and it should be represented in a balanced way. This section was opened by Quadas writing "Please add some photos that depict casualties of the Palestinians especially children", and my reply was that Gazan children are not the largest group of the casualties, with militants (arguably) being larger, therefore the children do not need special treatment. Some editors keep arguing against this obvious and simple fact and admit refusing to listen. “WarKosign” 07:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: It doesn't necessarily have to be children, in my opinion. I just have an issue with, in general, how the images are so focused on the Hamas "rockets" and less focused on Gaza - which was where most of the violence occurred. JDiala (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC at Google Scholar

Simply to remind (copy from Nishidani's rollback - 20:20, 19 October 2014 & addition to my post of 08:31, 20 October 2014 above)

• ++ FYI: "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", scholar.google.com, terrorism-info.org.il

--Igorp_lj (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert

• How is this relevant? And why do you continue to use non-RS like Richard Silverstein's blog?

This edit summary is (a) accompanied by no comment on the talk page.

(b) It is answered by the article itself, which uses blogs 14 times, most of them being pro-war Israeli sources, and including several references to the idf.blog, which, by the record, has less reliability than Richard Silverstein.

(c) Challenging Richard Silverstein as not RS (to be demonstrated) for his own widely read opinions is silly but

(d) the edit summary is a pretext, because Plot Spoiler reverted not only my reference to Silverstein, but also to Uri Avnery (former Knesset member, writer and distinguished commentator) and Gideon Levy (a highly notable Israeli journalist), the last of whom was writing for Haaretz, a mainstream Israeli newspaper. That Uri Avnery posted his comments on Counterpunch is neither here nor there. His views are quoted for what he thinks, not what Counterpunch proposes.

As to the relevance, the page has made intensive efforts to showcase Israel's thesis, all over the world press, that there is something unusual in Hamas having weapons in schools, mosques, hospitals, kindergartens etc. We have given numerous sources stating this thesis. Per WP:NPOV it is perfectly fair to present the opposite opinion, one indeed widely known in Israel, i.e., that the IDF rhetoric contradicts the history of the IDF, since in its early manifestations as the Palmach/Haganah, in a similar struggle for independence, it used all of these civilian facilities to hide its weaponry from the British.

The edit therefore was more than legitimate. It is obligatory, and Plot Spoiler's revert is in line with his long history of reverting me, and many others, on pretextual grounds (WP:RS) which (as in his simultaneous elision of Haaretz) are belied by what he he actually does, which is rather explained by WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There are ample historic precedents of military use of civilian facilities, including by the founders of the modern State of Israel. If you want to be picky, they were not violating the Geneva convention since the principle of distinction was only added by Protocol I in 1977. Even if they were - they were risking exposing the civilian facilities to legitimate military response. There are many other cases worldwide, and all of them are WP:UNDUE here, since they are different cases. They are all cases of guerrilla warfare, and there is no reason to list other, unrelated cases here. What does this paragraph serve to say ? "Hamas doing something wrong is OK because ~70 years ago Israel did something similar" ? “WarKosign” 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparing something that Jews might have done almost 100 years to what Hamas is doing now is completely irrelevant. If that was considered relevant, these kind of articles would be absolutely filled with tu quoque arguments. Just about no one from that time is alive anymore and they are certainly not in charge. It would be like saying Germany shouldn't be allowed to condemn genocides happening today because Germany committed genocide 75+ years ago. Knightmare72589 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If we are quoting opinion pieces comparing events during OPE to historic precedents, why not this or similar ones which compare Hamas rocket attacks to The Blitz ? “WarKosign” 21:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign, Knightmare.That 3 commentators make the same point in challenging the IDF/Israeli version of rockets signifies that one POV needs balancing by its contrary. Both of your comments consist of second-guessing or disputing RS, and neither of you have the right to do that. WP:Undue has nothing to do with this, WP:NPOV has everything to do with it. Please think before bantering (Cf.Protocol I in 1977. Look up rule 25 (1907) of the Hague conventions on rules of land warfare and the concept of proportionality, certainly applicable to the artillery bombing of Rafah, Khuza'a and Shuja'iyya. We have no right to make such points, because this is challenging RS on the grounds one dislikes the point of view they represent).

I have no problems with citing the hyperbole likening the Blitz to Hamas (Joseph Klein), or what Hamas did in grazing Sderot with several rockets to the Rape of Nanking, which elicited the just response of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Seth Lipsky). I gave a detailed analysis of what is incorrect in Plot Spoiler's functional role here as acting to revert things without explanation on the talk page, or recourse to wiki rules. He excised an article in Haaretz, which is indisputably RS, as is Uri Avnery, adducing the fact that Richard Silverstein's identical remark comes from a well-known blog, (and yet the article cites many pro-Israeli blogs). So please address the issues and try to avoid irrelevant opinions that express your personal views about history.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not say anything about RS, only about UNDUE. There are many comparisons that can (and surely will) be made between OPE and historical events, more and less justified, by more and less notable sources. They are made in reaction to the conflict, so if they are prominent enough they may deserve a mention in the reactions article. What is their purpose here ? Are they providing new information on some event during the conflict that is missing otherwise ? “WarKosign” 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How can a POV be undue, if the other POV is amply represented, without a balancing comment? The absence of a balancing statement makes the excessive detail on one side's POV, itself, undue. That's obvious. Charges are made about Hamas using civilian facilities for weapons all over the page, and therefore it is obligatory to note that Israeli critics themselves respond to this by noting that the same thing claimed of Hamas, has precedents in Israel's comparable war for independence, in comments bad directly with regard to these Israeli governmenbt talking points. Refuse the balance, and you violate NPOV by allowing only one version of things on the page. It's obvious.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What other POV is amply represented ? That the Jewish settler's use of guerilla tactics in the land of Israel was not a violation of any law ? It is not a different POV, it is simply irrelevant, just like comparing Hamas's rockets to the blitz. “WarKosign” 20:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Good grief. The whole article on the use of civilian infrastructures by Hamas to store weaponry is tghe 'other POV'. The balancing POV is that which notes this same practice formed an integral part of the Yishuv's tactics in fighting for an independent state of Israel. The point is widely noted in Israel, and it represents a balancing perspective to the one highlighted. Israel's case against Hamas is that it uses civilian infrastructure in an armed revolt: Israel's independence was based on using civilian infrastructure in an armed revolt. The analogy is local, historical and an integral part of the debate. To suppress it is to spin one version of a complex narrative as the only story in town. Yawn.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an "integral part of the debate". It happened almost 100 years ago and it's has no impact on the current situation. You're essentially making a tu quoque argument. So what if Jews might have hid weapons in civilian homes almost 100 years ago? How does that make what Hamas is doing now any less wrong? Like I said, it's like saying that Germany shouldn't be allowed to condemn genocides today because they committed genocide 75+ years ago. If you want to dig up old events, why not make the argument that Jews had a right to return back to the land since they originated there? The Arabs were the ones who conquered the land in the 7th century. This is basically the slippery slope you are going down. Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading when I read the first sentence:

'It (IDF hiding weaponry in synagogues, in women's clothes, under childrened, in kindergartens etc) almost 100 years ago). 1947 was 67 years ago. When editors collapse figures for rhetorical effect to skew arguments one doesn't take them seriously. When editors 'historicize' as something a century old, remarks made recently, over the past two months, then it is pointless taking them seriously.Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Haganah and other groups in pre-Israel did not hide thousands of rockets and mortars to fire at British civilians and British territory to protest the Mandate authorities. So no, not really similar. Also, claims that Hamas actions are all about "seeking independence" is an opinion, they never said such thing, at most they speak about a long ceasefire (unless, of course, if to radical-left ears replacing all of Israel with an Islamic state sounds like independence). Yuvn86 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply to remind about British reaction in 1940th: British Troops Invade Tel Aviv in Hunt for Floggers; Jew Doomed for Attack on Police Hq --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

So? Take it up with Levy, Avnery, Silverstein and Ross Singer. Complain to Nir Mann (Nir Mann, 'Does the presence of the IDF's HQ in Tel Aviv endanger the city's population?,' Haaretz 9 June 2012) for documenting what has been, in these Israeli polemics over the last two months, the talking point about why the IDF has fought for several decades to keep the Kirya base, its headquarters, in the heart of Tel Aviv, where, in a future war, its presence there will mean exposing the civilian population to the threat of heavy casualties. The IDF makes a huge talking point of Hamas placing military installation in civilian areas, while doing exactly that in Tel Aviv, and Israeli critics rightly make the comparison. Mention the IDF's hot air as thoroughly as we do, and we are obliged to note what these critics see as a contradiction in principle.

As editors we can talk all we like about our personal opinions as to the accuracy of RS. But in the RS, this point is made, and the article must reflect it like it or not. Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

So what's the criteria for inclusion ? Anything that anyone said in relation to OPE should be represented here ? Or only undue analysis that happens to match your personal opinions ? “WarKosign” 15:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

One analyses concretely. If a major section deals with IDF/Israeli accusations of Hamas's dual civilian/military use or military installations in civilian areas, it is obvious per NPOV that the counter-claim by critics merits a mention, i.e., that Israel did, and in the case of Kirya still does, the same thing. I donb't know of an article where a hostile claim about a party or person does not document the responses to the claim. It is absolutely normative to do this. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

So far @Nishidani:, you have failed to explain what Jews possibly did pre-Israel has to do with anything today. You so far have failed to answer this question: Is Germany not allowed to condemn genocides today because they committed genocide 75+ years ago (roughly around the same time this possibly happened)? You are using a tu quoque fallacy to justify including this into the article, possibly to downplay the fact that what Hamas is doing now is wrong or to discredit the fact that they are doing it. The bit of info in this article that says Israel has military installations near civilian areas is already categorized as possible undue weight. This issue is no different, and is actually even worse since at least the bit of info in the article is talking about the present day while this issue is before Israel was even created. Just because people on news sites or blogs mention it doesn't mean it's relevant or significant enough to be included in this article. As I said, all this is, is a tu quoque fallacy and is quite childish. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you take the trouble to note that I am not mentioning the analogy, but RS are. I'm under no obligation to explain, and then be accused of 'failing to explain' why Uri Avnery, Ross Singer, Richard Silverstein, Gideon Levy and many others discuss this analogy. It is part of an Israeli polemic, and obviously challenges the government line. It is notable, balances the official line, and its authors are Israelis. What else is required?Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are under no obligation to answer the question, but you look bad for not doing so. Like I said, people can talk about it on news sites and blogs, but it has no relevance with what is happening today. You (and the people you are referencing) are saying two wrongs make a right. Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

restored compare source and paraphrase

Text

Meshaal, who has headed Hamas' exiled political wing since 2004, denied being involved in the "details" of Hamas "military issues", but "justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands."Isikoff, Michael (2014-08-25). "In personal plea, top Hamas leader calls on Obama to stop 'holocaust' in Gaza". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2014-09-02.

Source He called those charges "lies" and disclaimed any direct responsibility for the Hamas suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians during the 1990s and 2000s. "I'm a political leader, and I do not interfere in military affairs," he said. "What the Palestinian people do in resisting occupation are details that I do not get myself involved in." As reported by Yahoo News on Friday, Meshaal did acknowledge that Hamas members were behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers hitchhiking on the West Bank in June but said Hamas political leaders did not know about the operation "in advance." Still, he justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands. "Our view is that soldiers and settlers in the West Bank are aggressors, and they are illegally living in these occupied and stolen lands," he said. "And the right to resist them is the right of Palestinians." Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A disclaimer about knowing anything about the kidnapping operation in advance of its execution is here spun to be a denial of involvement in the details. Clever in a stupid sort of way.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How exactly would you like it changed? JDiala (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Khalid Meshaal acknowledged that Hamas members were responsible but stated that its political leaders had no prior knowledge of the abduction, were not involved in military details and learnt of it through the ensuing Israeli investigations. While Hamas was opposed to targeting civilians, he understood that Palestinians frustrated with oppression were exercising a legitimate right of resistance against the occupation by undertaking such operations. 'Hamas:We wouldn't target civilians if we had better weapons,' Haaretz 23 August 2014/."Isikoff, Michael (2014-08-25). "In personal plea, top Hamas leader calls on Obama to stop 'holocaust' in Gaza". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2014-09-02.

The point is, a denial of being involved in 'operational details' is not a disavowel, which Mershaal made, of knowledge of the operation. A leader can give the go-ahead for an operation and leave the details to his field agents or tacticians. The Haaretz paraphrase is much clearer on this.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The current summary is fine: "Meshaal, who has headed Hamas' exiled political wing since 2004, denied being involved in the "details" of Hamas "military issues", and stated that Hamas leadership was not aware of the kidnappings in advance, but "justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands." After all, his denial is not unique, and if he really had nothing to do with any other Hamas terror attacks in the group's history then he would be a mere figurehead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani that the suggested wording is better because it makes it clearer that Meshaal denied involvement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Meshal makes statements that are detached from reality. "While Hamas was opposed to targeting civilians" is a poor choice of words. On the ground, Hamas TV says: "Our doctrine in fighting you (the Jews) is that we will totally exterminate you."[5] And Hamas official spokesperson talks about "Our rockets are aimed at the Hebrews".."our missiles accurately target the homes of the Israelis"[6] Meshal's exaggerations (e.g. "new holocaust, even worse than the holocaust perpetrated by Hitler."[7] - doesn't he know the Nazis systematically killed 11 million people?) and media misdirection such as this one don't pass the straight face test. I'm not against changing '"details"' to 'operational details'. That would be better. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Nishidani. It ought to be altered. Also, Marciulionis, what Hamas purportedly says with regard to the rockets is irrelevant for this discussion. We are concerned solely with whether or not Meshal had knowledge of the kidnappings. Not whether or not Hamas is a moral organization; that is a separate issue. JDiala (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

I think it is agreed that this article suffers from POV balance issues. It is not agreed which way the balance is leaning too far, so it is not obvious how to correct it to everybody's satisfaction.

I think most of the core facts are agreed upon by any non-fringe source:

• Dates
• Nature of attacks (rockets, airstrikes, tunnels, mortar shells, artillery shells, etc)
• Numbers of killed and wounded (not their distribution)
• Chain of events leading to the conflict (mostly)
• Impact on the residents

It is important to describe these facts in a neutral manner. Most of the media (images + maps) should serve to illustrate the core facts and not the POV-prone disagreed facts/claims.

There are a few facts that are disputed:

• was the kidnapping+murder of the teenagers ordered by Hamas leadership, or where they aware of it at the time
• Khan Yunnis incident - were the militants killed by an airstrike or by their own triggering of explosives
• percentage of the militants among the casualties and the cause of the death of the casualties.
• alleged humanitarian law violations
• probably some more that I'm missing

I think that by simply describing the core facts in a neutral manner we will already have a balanced article that describes most of the conflict. The disputed facts can be described in the lead in a neutral manner (3 teenagers were kidnapped by Hamas members, 7 militants died with Hamas blaming Israel, ~2200 people died, many of them civilians) and then the each of the conflicting versions described in more length in an appropriate section.

The tricky part in my opinion are claims made by each side and outsiders. It is trivial to prove that A made claim B. The trick is to ensure that the claims that are represented are relevant and balanced, and here I don't have a suggestion for a magic formula. 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I forgot writing the most important point: what are the two conflicting POVs ?

As can be seen above they are mostly not about the facts but about their interpretation.

• One POV: Israel is oppressing the Gazan people. Hamas is fighting to free Gaza. Israel bombed their homes, schools and mosques with the intention to kill as many civilians as possible, while Hamas tried to stop it by using anything it its disposal. Israel dropped the equivalent of 20 nuclear bombs on the tiny and densely populated Gaza.
• Another POV: Hamas is using the Gazan people as human shields and is fighting to destroy Israel. Israel bombed military targets often hidden in homes, schools and mosques avoiding killing civilians as much as possible, while Hamas fired at Israel anything in its disposal. Hamas's failing rockets and executions killed many of the civilians.

Do you agree in general that these are the two viewpoints taken to extreme ? Is there someone not agreeing that the truth must be somewhere between the two ? Is there another viewpoint that we should consider balancing ? “WarKosign” 08:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a war, with two parties. Israel put out a narrative (official POV), Hamas also put forth its version. A large number of mainstream sources siphon, reflect, tweak or support the first narrative. A much smaller number of mainstream sources echo the Hamas or/and generic Palestinian narrative, often unthinkingly. I am interested in neither 'POV'. I think articles should be written from secondary sources that show independence from official narratives, which are basically things spun to legitimate one's actions. Your juxtaposition of POVs is inadequate because the sources I respect would say neither that Hamas is fighting to free Gaza, or that Israel's main purpose was to kill as many citizens as possible, nor that Hamas used the civilians as human shields and is fighting to 'destroy Israel' (patently/blatantly silly). Thrall, for one, would not endorse any of those caricatures. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the different POV issue, there is a simple way to solve that: attribute biased claims to people who make them. If Israel says Hamas uses human shields, or was planning a coup, say that Israel said that. If Hamas says that it had no knowledge of the murders, say that Hamas said that. That's why words like "allegedly" are crucial. Uncontroversial statements, like, for example, the date and time of the conflict, things like that, they can be said without attributing POV. A problem is that most NPOV organizations, like the UN, NGOs and Human Rights Organizations, also tend to have a pro-Palestinian bias, so thus naturally the article will also tend to that direction. And, by the time the UN Fact Finding Missions releases its report, the international law questions will be much more clear. Regardless, we shouldn't try and create a false balance, but only go by what the sources, reliable sources, say; sometimes, reality often isn't NPOV (see WP:VALID) JDiala (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that UN and NGOs are NPOV ? There are many NGOs with clear bias.

Correct attribution is critical, but it's not enough. For each POV statement there is the question whether it is DUE and how much room it deserves. Give significantly more room for statements with a particular bias and you have a POV problem. However, I don't see a clear objective way of telling what is balanced - it can't be a simple matter of counting words or characters because some statements may need more room to be expressed than others. “WarKosign” 20:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Then what is NPOV? Every source will, for this issue in particular because it's quite controversial, will be slightly partisan. Sources from respected and reliable NGOs and human rights organizations, and international governmental bodies like the UN, are what we should ideally go by. I don't think the due issue is quite complicated. The kidnapping/murder is represented satisfactorily in the immediate events section, giving due weight to the argument that Hamas did know and that they did not know, and also the operation which followed it. The human shields issue, which is also disputed, seems fine; it accurately represents both the Israeli argument and the Palestinian/NGO arguments. It's the same with the tunnels section, and the legality of the blockade which we have previously discussed and reached consensus on. Are their any specific WP:NPOV or WP:DUE complaints you have? I haven't read through the entire article, but I can't find any conspicuous, extreme cases of POV. Possibly the casualty statistics have a POV problem, but there is little we can due about that; all of the sources available are considered POV. The best solution, as done in "casualties and losses" section, is juxtaposition of every different available source. JDiala (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: I think facts, such as the casualties do not pose a big problem - represent each major take on the facts, and you're good. I began this section to discuss the proper way to represent opinions. There is a wide range of lengthy opinions with varied level of relevance to the article (which is also subjective). Ideally I would like to have a rule of thumb that sets a criteria for inclusion or omission of a statement: "You must be this tall to ride". Of course exceptions after a discussion here will be possible, but for majority of the article the criteria would make a clear cut. IMO the criteria can be based on notability, briefness, relevance. For example: The person or the organization making the statement must be proovably notable - for example Avi from Golani may be a very nice guy, but I do not think his opinion bears much weight. Perhaps only take people/organization that are notable enough to have a wikipedia article (that existed for at least N months) ? Briefness - each statements should be shorter than N words/lines, with total number of statements representing a side taking at most 120% of those dedicated to the opposite side in the same article section. I do not have an idea for any objective criteria for relevance at the moment. “WarKosign” 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, WarKosign. You've been editing for some time this page. Please don't trot the nonsense one has to ask newbies to guard against, like saying sources are NPOV. They are not, by definition. I did not say the UN or NGOs were NPOV. I said to get NPOV it is sufficient to give the UN and IDF figures impartially, since they are the major official sources of data.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: : Do I understand right and you by yourself think that Hamas not "used the civilians as human shields and is fighting to 'destroy Israel' (patently/blatantly silly)" (@Nishidani) ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My Irish forebears defined us thus: an Irishman is like a mushroom: we're raised in the dark and thrive on bullshit. I'm beginning to see it's not limited to spud-chompers. I don't believe what newspapers recycle. I listen closely to what people like Yuval Diskin say, and have been saying, it all falls on deaf ears, since 2005. Hamas has for a decade has no other interest than securing a long-term truce with Israel. Everyone except wiki editors, and the usual journalist hacks, knows that.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So it was very interesting to learn smtng new about Irishmen, less about Diskin whose POV I already know as well as opinion of other experts, but as already :( usual I cannot find any answer to my question. Sorry. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yuval Diskin is not representative of the general opinion. Hamas's demands that you bothered to detail in the article can be summed up as "make it easier for us to finish killing you off later". If Hamas wanted to reach a real truce, they could begin with saying "under certain conditions we are OK with you breathing". “WarKosign” 07:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'general opinion' as Nietzsche remarked 130 years ago. Public or general opinion is what people disattentively watching TV and scanning newspapers get an impression of. In all countries, this is uninformed, vague, emotive and generally silly. In understanding history (as wikipedians should), one does not conduct an opinion poll, unless you want a dull predictable section on trivialities: one asks historians. In understanding why political decisions are made, one doesn't ask a bus driver for insight. One waits for insiders to leak 'the inside dope' which is far closer to the realities that the doped opinion. Your remark about Hamas's opinion being:'"make it easier for us to finish killing you off later" is popular pabulum for idiots. Please don't recycle it before editors familiar with the area, who will only be tempted to attribute to Israel the declared intention of keeping Palestinians suspended in formaldehyde, with just enough food to survive on for an indefinite period (Dov Weissglass), or that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, most widely respected rabbinical figure among Oriental and Sephardic Jews publicly advocated the genocide of Palestinians and indeed all Arab people (I have a large list of such Israeli declarations, so it's pointless trying to say there is something peculiar in the Hamas record). Anybody can play that game, which has a function in moulding public hysteria, not analysing history. All such quoting declares is what those who repeat it, embracing a moulded piece of hasbara, like to think. It makes a crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim of a demonically evil, ug, what is that wonderful Yiddish word?,nebechdicker . Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the silliest news story ever. 40% of Israelis accept Hamas's demands, yet the newspaper takes that to mean "almost no support". LOL! JDiala (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: this clarifies it: "Meanwhile 41% think Israel should respond positively to those Hamas demands that are still reasonable in terms of Israel’s national security." 41% thought that some of the demands (which in their opinion do not endanger Israel) can be met, leaving 1% to unconditionally accept the demands. “WarKosign” 12:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Nishidani, Weissglass's words were taken out of context. Here's the discussion with Minister of Transportation, MK Meir Shitrit explaining the matter.[8] In respect to WP:ARBPIA#Decorum, could you please remove the offensive text against the good people of the Israeli military and the needless use of Yiddish? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC) p.s. here's an article about the Ovadyah quote.[9] Once again, taken out of context (Note: Weissglass says nothing about food). Feel free to drop by my page so we can sort out which of the quotes is actually genuine and in proper context. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No-one actually believes the nonsense about the "dire humanitarian situation" in Gaza. You'd probably gain weight if you consumed 2,279 calories of food each day, not that that guideline was ever implemented. The lies about Israel are absolutely transparent. The far left oscillates between condemning the allegedly stunted growth of Gaza's children and using the exact same statistics to justify a Palestinian state: "In terms of indicators of early childhood nutrition, WB&G is an outstanding performer. Among children under the age of 5, only 11.5 percent suffer from stunting (low height for age) and a mere 1.4 percent from wasting (low weight for height). In the average middle income country, 3 out of 10 children are stunted, i.e. more than three times the figure for WB&G. Performance in terms of wasting incidence is even more compelling: one in 10 children in a middle income country suffers from wasting, i.e. the rate is 7 times lower in WB&G. Thus, judged by anthropometric outcomes, WB&G performs better than most other countries in the world, irrespective of income. Though this benchmarking exercise does have data availability limitations, it is important to note that the pool of countries in the sample includes a variety of middle income countries from the region, such as Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco -- and WB&G fares better than these in terms of early childhood nutrition indicators. In addition, overall incidence rates of stunting and wasting have been relatively stable over time." Likewise--even though Hamas also prevented Gazan civilians from heeding Israeli warnings with an official curfew enforced at gunpoint, and killed many dozens of Fatah members for their reluctance to die--the refrain that coercion is required to meet the definition of "human shield" is pure revisionism. Human Rights Watch, among others, literally changes their definition of human shields when Israel is involved. When it is (say) a US drone strike, merely using the presence of civilians to deter attack qualifies, even if no force is used.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Except the entire world. I don't deny the validity of your sources, though the second one seems to be a blog/editorial thing. The first one even admits that "In a U.S. diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks last year, American diplomats quoted their Israeli colleagues as saying the blockade was meant to push the area's economy "to the brink of collapse." Furthermore, the idea that 2200 calories/person is enough ignores simple physiology; many Gazans are, I imagine, laborers, so per the Harris-Benedict equation they'd need more than 2200 calories. Also the idea every person will be fed 2200 calories/day assumes that the food will be evenly distributed; last time I checked, Gaza is not a communist society. Aside from all of that, to make an accurate conclusion on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, we have to look at the broader picture rather than individual, fringe studies. We must look for consensus among reliable sources. See WP:FRINGE. There's general consensus that the blockade has lead to various humanitarian issues. Here are sample sources. There are many more, I imagine, but these are some I found after doing some digging. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. If you personally believe that these organizations are biased or unreliable, that is your opinion. One's personal opinion is irrelevant (see WP:NOTFORUM). We look at, again, the reliable sources and make make conclusions based on them. The same thing goes for the human shielding question. At best, the evidence from reliable sources that Hamas uses human shields is sketchy; at worst, it is nonexistent. If you have a critique of HRW's methods, that is interesting, though it's not for here (see WP:OR). If it was just HRW, I could take you seriously, but the idea that every NGO, every human rights organization, the UN, scholarly sources, and a number of reliable media outlets are all engaging in a diabolical, leftist plot to demonize Israel is just silly. You accused another user on a separate topic of being a "single-purpose POV-pusher" who "arouses suspicion". I can say the same thing about you. JDiala (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala and TheTimesAreAChanging: Don't forget that almost half of Palestinians are children under 14, who normally need less than 2000 calories per day, leaving more for the rest. “WarKosign” 12:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Well, it's somewhat more complicated than that. If the average child requires 1500 calories and adult 2400 calories, the mean is 1950 calories. That's only a 300 calorie surplus assuming even distribution, which, as I mentioned, is simply unrealistic. Regardless, this is, again, a WP:SYNTH, mathematical issue. There is also the issue that malnutrition encompasses more than just calories. You must also take into account food quality and nutritional value (vitamins/minerals). The sources are clear: there is a food crisis in Gaza. It's by no means mass starvation, that was never implied, but it's unacceptable and evidently a humanitarian issue. JDiala (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not an official of anything and never been to Gaza, but it is really not the desperate place many think it is. Look it up, there are hotels in Gaza, restaurants, rich neighborhoods, big markets, shopping malls, even a zoo. Territories with deep humanitarian issues don't have much of these. Daily lives there seem to be very different than what the media decides to show. Yuvn86 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC - (analysis of Gaza Health Ministry's data only)

@WarKosign, pls paid attention that ITIC doesn't approve the number of "2,157 killed". As I see, it's their database for analysis only :

• "The number of names of those killed, examined by the ITIC to date, based on the Palestinian Health Ministry’s lists, is around 900, i.e., about 42% of the number of Palestinians killed (a total of 2,157, according to a report by the Palestinian Health Ministry issued on September 14, 2014). From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception)..." [24]

This is the reason why I've added the "(analysis of Gaza Health Ministry's data only)". --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: I based on "From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception)" to say that they don't base their report (only) on GHM. Now I understand what your disclaimer meant - you were referring only to the total number, not to all the numbers by ITIC. They do say, however "After these adjustments, the total number of fatalities examined by the ITIC to date is 1,017, i.e., approximately 47% of the total number of fatalities." - I think we can CALC that ITIC believes total number of fatalities to be 2164 and update the two mentions of it accordingly. “WarKosign” 11:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I'd wait till they finish the work and will publish its results with their CALC numbers. What'd be added at the moment is that they work with somebody's list(s) and count the percentage, not absolute numbers. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Currently their partial report is in the article with the disclaimer that it's not final and the numbers are extrapolated. Unless we remove it completely, better at least use the correct total number of casualties that they provide. “WarKosign” 11:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the statistics here should be those of tjhe IDF and those of OCHA/UNWRA. The multiplication of Palestinian official or semi-official sources adds nothing. Nor does ITIC help, since it an (un)educated or (dis)interested guess, and a private body. These OCHA/IDF figures 73 vs 55 show the range. Within a few months, when neutral sources publish their results, the picture will be clearer. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: UNRWA with its HAMAS' personnel and "Rockets-inside" - as NPOV source? Are you serious? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please think before you write my way. No source is NPOV. NPOV is what emerges by presenting all relevant POVs and analyses per WP:Due. And it would help improve your approach here if you grasp the fact that you are under an obligation as a wikipedian to see that, regardless of your personal views, both Israel and Hamas are represented not by rhetorical caricature, but neutrally. The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty. Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but after such your comparison as "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" I only have to return your "Please think before you write", "you are under an obligation as a wikipedian to see that, regardless of your personal views", etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Don't be silly. Of course Hamas is not reliable. Only accomplished researchers that happen to agree with Hamas are reliable sources. “WarKosign” 06:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I only adopt to the case of Hamas & IDF what I wrote in the "daughter" topic about what is so similar to attempt to equate Israel with Nazis : :

if "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" would be true

... then we would not met in Wikipedia due to the lack of "Gaza problem", because Arabs would not be longer in Gaza. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC, who admits to ignoring most of the data on casualties while adding 100 non-existant militants to further bias its "reports" is a horrific source. We should not even contemplate using such propagandic arms of the Israeli military. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the data comes from the Hamas health ministry, which has been caught double- or even triple-counting the same names with slightly different spelling dozens of times. It is the international news media which should be ashamed for failing to conduct the kind of detailed, independent studies the ITIC has. BTW, while you have a history of arbitrarily reverting anyone who you feel "looks like a paid editor", it is your edits as a likely sockpuppet and single-purpose POV-pusher that arouses suspicion from my perspective.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: according to No personal attacks, "we should not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. We should comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Mhhossein (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: - again, it's you opinion only. See from "ITIC at Google Scholar" subtopic above:

• "++ FYI: "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", scholar.google.com, terrorism-info.org.il"

It's your own wp:OR till you bring serious RS with ITIC's critics, as well as your repeatable reverts in List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict seem as wp:WAR. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute ITIC's ability to spread its propaganda, I wouldn't even doubt that a number of editors here work for the organization or affiliates. No honest third party could see value in a source which adds 100 non-existant militants while ignoring most of the data on civilian deaths to get an ideological answer to the ratio of resistant:civilian kills. Israeli organizations often screen data to give ideological answers, just ask Israel's Population and Immigration Authority what's the most popular name in Israel. To "Thetimesareachanging", if thousands of bombs were dropped on my home town I'm sure the victims would share names; I know a few people with identical names. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: Perhaps you should read ITIC's methodological notes before you announce that they add "100 non-existant militants". Hamas has an official policy of concealing names of dead militants, and ITIC adds names of known dead militants that Gaza Health Ministry "forgot" to mention. The names are in the lists ITIC publishes, as far as I know ITIC is the only organization that is transparent enough to provide complete list with names, classifications and often pictures of the casualties. GHM is openly a propaganda tool of Hamas, yet we give it due place in the article, so whatever you opinion of ITIC is - no reason not to have it too.

Name duplications: names of the Palestinians usually consists of two first names, father name and a last name - total of 4 names. It is not impossible to have duplications, but the chance of having dozens of double of triple accidental duplications in a list of 2200 names is extremely low. You can see for yourself if you bother reading any of the ITIC reports before criticizing them.“WarKosign” 18:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care how many anti-Palestine hate-blogs you link to. I did read the ITIC methodology; it's brutally clear that it is a terrible resource; they add non-existant militants and they classify all government workers as terrorists. It is their job to spin the slaughter, it's their sole reason to exist. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles:: "I wouldn't even doubt that a number of editors here work for the organization or affiliates." - IMHO, so insistent repetition of the charges is another violation of the rules (wp:GF as min). --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be a clear conflict of interest for members of the organizations spoken of in this article to edit the article. I realize you will not enjoy this fact and will continue to attack me for reminding editors of this fact. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Assuming good faith is not a policy but a recommendation. Not assuming good faith by itself is not a violation, but is likely to lead to uncivil behavior such as personal attacks or edit warring, which are violations of a policies.

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: Thank you for reminding us of Conflict of Interests, it is an important policy to keep in mind. Let me remind you that attacking the character of your opponent instead of responding to their argument is not a good way to resolve disputes, in fact it is only one notch better than name calling. “WarKosign” 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never attacked any editor's character nor do I have opponents. ITIC openly ignores data, makes up numbers, and defines all government workers as terrorists. There is no way such an organization should have their reports included within an encylopedia alongside serious organizations' reports. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a paid editor as a part of an argument is an attack on their character. If you have real grounds for concerns, you should take them with administrators. Try to understand that not everybody believes that Hamas is holier than the pope, and not everybody believes that Israel and IDF are the spawn of Satan, even without being paid. You repeated for at least three time that ITIC ignores data and makes data up, without providing any facts. Can you or any source point to any name that ITIC made up or ignored? Repeating this statement doesn't make it any truer - ITIC is an NGO, like many others quoted on this page, so we have to consider it as reliable as Al Mezan or PCHR who also clearly have an agenda. “WarKosign” 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issues yet to be dealt with.

• Complaints about Israel section runs to 11,432 characters. Complaints about Hamas section runs to 18,549 characters. Why the imbalance?

• Photo imbalance

There are 22/24 photos

14/16 deal with Israel 1 Iron Dome in action; (defensive warfare) I of Israeli artillery in action (offensive warfare) 2 Sderot photos+ Yehud house destroyed: (targeted civilian infrastructure =3) 3 of kidnapped teenagers; (innocent victims prewar) (can be counted as 1 perhaps) 2 shelter/shelter sign (shelter) I Israeli playground bombed;(school) 1 kindergarten with children sheltering (school) I pro-Israel demo; (international support for Israel) I Israel demo against the war (Israeli democratic criticism of war). I religious banner in support of war; 1 IDF soldier examining a tunnel (discovering enemy means of attacking Israel)

8 deal with Palestine 1 Gaza home bombed 1 West Bank street after IDF raid (nothing to do with Operat5ive Protective Edge) I wounded man on a stretcher Ruins of an area in Beit Hanoun Shaymaa al-Masri wounded Palestinian 5 year old pro-Palestinian demo (international support for Palestine) People and a bulldozer in Bit Hanoun (ceasefire photo) Destroyed ambulance (ceasefire photo, ambulances are civilian vehicles)

Either parity, in which case we need at least 6 more photos of Gazan situations thematically parallel to those highlighted here, or we reduce the Israeli photos by that number.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You forgot the maps, there are 4 maps of Gaza and one of Israel. Let's remove Israeli artillery in action, demonstration against the war and replace the photo of a soldier examining the tunnel with one without a soldier but with weapons found in the tunnel (Hamas war technology). Then we'll have 12/14 images dealing with Israel and 13 dealing with Palestinians. “WarKosign” 18:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a picture taken in Gaza that we can add to the article to somewhat fix the POV. “WarKosign” 19:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You have three photos of Sderot and Yehud (Israeli sites attacked) and at least two of schools with the implication of children being targeted, plus one of children in a photo of people running to a shelter. That's fine, but the same thematic elements from the Palestinian side are required. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

By my rough estimate, about 25% of the material in "Violations by Israel" defends Israel or blames Hamas, while about one-third of the material in "Violations by Hamas" defends Hamas or blames Israel.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So what's the result ? How much of the whole "alleged violations" section is dedicated to blaming side A + defending side B, vs the opposite ? “WarKosign” 21:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The approach that Kingsindian and I took was to make sure the text was accompanied by relevant images, so when the prose is balanced so will be the images (more or less), but let's see which pictures have no thematic equivalents:

• Infobox - Kwara house,iron dome in action. I think they balance - without ID there would be significantly more destroyed houses and families in Israel.
• Background/violations - map of blockade on gaza, sculpture in sderot representing continued rocket fire. Both represent alleged violations by each side.
• Immediate events - fire on a street in ramallah, fire in a factory of sderot. Both represent violent and fiery events during OBK.

• Transcluded operation timeline overview - for some reason the section is missing now, but it contains the following: kidnapped teenages, wounded/dead person in Shuja'iyya, Ashkelon residents running to shelter, map of attacked sites in Gaza + map of launch sites in Gaza - also balanced. Image of playground that had rocket shards fall on

(*) 2 unbalanced pictures for Israeli side. An image of Mohammed Abu Khdeir could be juxtaposed with the Israeli teenagers, if it's available. So far his own article even in Arabic only has a mourning tent. Playground is redundant, even though I took this picture myself.

• Impact on gaza residents - map of damage, ruins in beit hanoun, image of Shaymaa (that for some reason doesn't show on my computer - do others see this problem as well ?) 3 images representing physical destruction of homes and injury.
• Impact on Israeli residents - picture of children in a kindergarten (representing alarms disrupting life, a source that is probably not reliable enough to use summed up the alarms to be about 90 per day on average, with most of them concentrating in the south. I took the image of the shelter sign in TLV airport to represent the banned flights - it's hard to depict planes not flying.

(*) 2 vs 3 Impact images, 1 more for the Palestinian side. I think it's fair, considering the life in Gaza was disrupted far more. A picture of a destroyed mosque could be in order near the paragraph dealing with their destruction and military use.

• International Reactions - protests, 1 for 1. can't be more balanced.
• Reactions in Gaza - no images. Are there any images that can be used here ?
• Reactions in Israel - 1 protest against, 1 sign for. If you don't like religious subtext, there are several other images available.
• Alleged violations - one image of destruction for "destruction of homes by Israel". Another with ambulance for "medical facilities and personel" which discusses both allegation of their military use and their unlawful attacks. The image serves to illustrate both. One image of destroyed house in Yehud in "rocket attacks on Israeli civilians". 3 Images, 1.5 for each side.
• Military: 1 map depicting ranges of rockets fired from Gaza, one image of attack tunnel. One image of M109. If anything, Israel is underrepresented here. Some images of quasam rockets ready on a launch stand as well as more Israeli weaponry would be in order if this section grows.

It looks to me more or less balanced, and when it's not I suggested how to fix it. “WarKosign” 21:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

memo to restore

this revert. With the edit summary ‘RV Nishidani--Random blog by assistant professor tentatively recounting a "very convoluted" Arab media report that also mentions Hamas' repeated public statements rocket fire would continue until the end of the blockade is undue.’

TheTimesAreAChanging

Please examine edits before eliding them on spurious grounds.

• Allison Hodgkins (PhD, 2010) is an Assistant Professor of International Security and Conflict Management at the American University of Cairo, and is a graduate of one of the most prestigious schools worldwide for international relations (The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy)
• She summarized Asmaa al-Ghoul, 'Gaza’s armed factions coordinate response to Israeli attacks,' Al-Monitor 7 Jul 2014

Al-Monitor is an RS source.

Rather than use the primary source, I used Allison Hodgkins' summary of the text. It is not important where a professional area specialist publishes her work (a blog or otherwise. Protest the blog, and one can use the primary source Al-Monitor, but that is not helpful to readers, whereas Allison Hodgkins's paraphrase is. I prefer Hodgkins. And by the way the article also says that 'The rockets fired from Gaza in recent days have largely been the work of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which is what Nathan Thrall and many others are alluding to, and which many of you found objectionable.

Dislike of a scholar's summary of a text, which she can access also in Arabic as well as other sources in her remarks, is not a prerogative of wiki editors. She is an expert on the region, which neither you nor I are.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Planned abduction/murder of civilians via attack tunnels

Mhhossein,TheTimesAreAChanging: Will these sources work for you ?

"Hamas had a plan," he said. "A simultaneous, coordinated, surprise attack within Israel. They planned to send 200 terrorists armed to the teeth toward civilian populations. This was going to be a coordinated attack.

"The concept of operations involved 14 offensive tunnels into Israel. With at least 10 men in each tunnel, they would infiltrate and inflict mass casualties."

“WarKosign” 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which newspaper is abused to further Israel's war on Palestine, with all the statements that have been proven false previously any reports coming from Israeli militants and officials should be ignored. WarKosign, are you one of the editors affiliated with the IDF? If you are you would have a conflict of interest and should not be editing articles dealing with IDF's offenses.Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign and TheTimesAreAChanging: Both of the sources are quoting what IDF has verified. Clearly, you should seek a third party source for such a challenging claim. You may also find many Hamas oriented sources denying such accusations. Who is right, really? Besides, no real proof is presented on what the Hamas militants aimed to do, even if we accept the news. Did they aimed to kill civilians or militants? were they going to make them scared or did they really aimed to make operation? How do you know? So, more reliable and documented sources must be presented. By the way, we'd better also ask other editors such as Nishidani and Kingsindian. Mhhossein (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein's revert is unacceptable. Since he has opted to call in the cavalry rather than defend his inexplicable classification of Vanity Fair as "fringe", I will note that Nishidani used it to source the US arming of Fatah in 2008.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, yet another outrageous accusation of paid editing by Dr. R.R. Pickles, which I will strike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Thanks, but I think Dr. R.R. Pickles should take the claim back themselves. I haven't had the pleasure of working with this user so far. If the personal attacks continue, I will consider measures that are in my disposal.“WarKosign” 08:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What kind of third party source do you imagine we can use ? Some military expert with access to all the data (with full cooperation by IDF and Hamas) that examined the situation and determined that such an attack was indeed planned or not ? Even if there was such a source, it would be immediately contradicted by another expert saying the opposite. I think the best we can do here as with many other subjects is to give enough room for properly attributed claims by both sides as provided by reliable sources. “WarKosign” 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, denial by Meshal is already in the VF article:

Mishal insists that “the tunnels may have been outwardly called ‘offensive tunnels,’ but in actual fact they are ‘defensive’ ones.’” When pressed to explain why most of the tunnels actually ended up under or near civilian communities or kibbutzim—not military bases—he concedes, “Yes, true. There are Israeli towns adjacent to Gaza. Have any of the tunnels been used to kill any civilian or any of the residents of such towns? No. Never! . . . [Hamas] used them either to strike beyond the back lines of the Israeli army or to raid some military sites . . . This proves that Hamas is only defending itself.”“WarKosign” 08:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This story emerged during the war, presumably from 'interrogations' and the usual methods. At the time it was largely ignored by mainstream newspapers. Other than the IDF confirming now its story, in what mainstream Western newspapers, written by competent journalists, is this revelation mentioned? Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Ciralsky in Vanity Fair (magazine) for one.“WarKosign” 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Here and here are a couple more. Enjoy your reading. “WarKosign” 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent change - another source

I noticed this revert. Without getting into whether or not the way the argument is presented is correct (I haven't fully checked), would USA Today be accepted? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The new wording that I removed was sourced to The Washington Free Beacon, an organization far from journalism. I do not see your source including any statements on what Abbas believes to have been the overall effect of the attacks on Gaza on Hamas. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit is not only a revert, it is a bulk POV push - it includes a revert of my edits yesterday (without providing any reason), as well as removing ITIC, which violates 1RR and contradicts the existing consensus on representing all the different POVs on the numbers/percents of casualties.

This USA today's article may be usable somewhere in the article, but not as a reference for this statement. In the 3 new sources I added yesterday Abbas says that he doesn't believe Hamas won (never actually says that it lost) and Hamas did not gain anything. In this new source he says that Hamas could avoid all the casualties. Taken together I understand them to mean that in his opinion Hamas caused (or did not prevent) death and suffering in Gaza for no gain, but this is WP:OR or WP:SYN unless there is a reliable source that makes this connection. “WarKosign” 07:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)