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)

UNRWA section. Work out a consensual version

==Allegations of UN bias==

See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

During the present conflict, the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question. Critics allege that the agencies have lost their neutral standing and question their position as unbiased parties. The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict. Some critics contend that the UN agency lacks accountability and transparency with regards to the distribution and use of foreign funds in the Strip and the hiring of individuals associated with terrorist groups. Critics have also pointed to the three instances during the present conflict where missiles were discovered in UNRWA schools and the agency's subsequent handling of the weapons as casting a shadow over the organization's neutrality in the conflict. U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) called for an investigation into the UNRWA's role during the conflict; the U.S. government is UNRWA's leading source of funding. The UN agency OCHA has also been criticized following its publication of causalty figures; critics question the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports. Presently, Israel and the OCHA dispute the number of civilians killed during the conflict. The OCHA has reported that approximately 70% of Gazans killed were civilians, Israel disputes this and maintains that 45-55% were combatants. Critics also point to structural biases in the UN; Arab and Muslim countries number over 50, ensuring a broad coalition criticizing Israel.

• I can't imagine this given the bloated state of the article, running to more than two lines. We all know this is pol-spin crap, and has its due refutations also. But if Shrike wants it, then he should craft a succinct synthesis summing up the charges and rebuttals.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• This paragraph contains repetition of the rockets in the UNRWA facilities and the disputed civilian percentage. IMO both can be safely removed. Whatever remains belongs under "Alleged violations of IHL/Military use of UN facilities" instead of a separate section.- WarKosign (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• The first three sentences are vague, unreferenced (or in one case lightly-referenced), weaselly-worded aspersions like "Critics allege that..." (when, as noted above, "'Israeli commentators' is a far more specific label"). The sentence "Some critics contend that [...] associated with terrorist groups" may be worth keeping someplace, though I suspect that place is [[Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations]] and not this article. Everything from "Critics have also pointed..." to "... neutrality in the conflict" and everything from "The UN agency OCHA..." to "...45-55% were combatants" is duplication of content which is already present (and better-placed) elsewhere in the article, as WarKosign notes. And the bit about what two US senators think is undue (and, as was noted elsewhere on this talk page, probably just spin for domestic consumption) and should be removed like the Irish politician's views were removed some time ago. The last sentence, which suggests certain ethnic and religious groups are inherently biased, and nations where a majority of the population is of such ethnic or religious groups are therefore also inherently going to take certain stances, is problematic for the reasons noted a few sections up. -sche (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a future timestamp so this does not get archived. 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

References

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)

RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox

Should or shouldn't Hamas claims of soldiers killed be included in the infobox? There are two versions which keep getting added and deleted.

• Newer version: HAMAS: 1000 soldier killed, 2000 soldier wounded
• An older version: Hamas:161 soldiers killed

References

Please indicate: Yes or No. If Yes, indicate which version you prefer.

• Comment I have no feeling one way or another. But pinging Zaid almasri since he keeps adding it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• No. The sources are crap, and silly propaganda claims have no place in an infobox, as opposed to a disinfobox.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes The second one. Anadolu Agency is an acceptable source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No one here is disputing it is Hamas' claim, WarKosign, so I don't understand your point. It is therefore it is written: "Hamas: 161 soldiers killed", just as we have IDF's claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't clear that the other number was from the same source as it's different sites but okay then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No. This claim contradicts all the evidence from all the other sources, and in fact implies there is a conspiracy by the Israeli and the international media as well as 930 families of the supposed hidden casualties. This claim belongs with the rest of the dubious claims made by Hamas at the the media sub-page's special section. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Yes The first one (1,000 KIA). While it's a round number it is not unusual for belligerents in a conflict to release estimates of the enemy's casualties, not unlike the IDF also claiming "1,000 militants." DocumentError (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Hamas claim of 1000 soldier dead should be used since it is the newest and the 161 figure is outdated.

both IDF and HAMAS claims of how much they killed from the other side are estimates and of course both of them are inflated and ridiculous , but since it is attributed to them and not stated as a fact but rather as a claim it must be included and i will include it no matter what others do even if i keep adding it daily for one year , i have a very long breath.

If you dont want HAMAS claims so change the title to THE ISRAELI NARRATIVE OF THE 2014 ISRAEL-GAZA CONFLICT.

HAMAS is one of the only two sides of the conflict so not including its claims make the articl out of balance and whatever you feel about them or about palestinians is irrelevant, Imagine if HAMAS were at a justice court wouldnt the judge hear their claims or would he say : listen terrorists i will not hear from you and i will sentence you to so and so

IRISZOOM ANADOLU is the same source for both claims but the 161 is old and this one is newer check this

http://www.aa.com.tr/ar/s/379950

https://twitter.com/aa_arabic/status/504659476260331520

I like the fact that you discribed the agency as an accepted source i guess if you knew that the 1000 figure is also from them you would have changed your mind HaHa.

.Zaid almasri (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No. The infobox is for a quick overview. Sources for info there should have at least minimal reliability. Hamas claims don't have minimal reliability. But including it somewhere in the article makes sense, though I don't think that Islamic/Hezballah/Turkish site is sufficient even for there. I don't know what to make of AlWatan, it would be better if there were English sources for that. ¤ ehudshapira 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Hamas claims don't have minimal reliability." Why? DocumentError (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

On one hand a history of fabrications, and no credible publication even mentions this. On the other, the Israeli info is so much far off from these claims, and so much more reliable and better accounted for, that mentioning in the overview, for the sake of "impartiality", the info from dubious sites that supposedly quote Hamas' claims just makes no sense. ¤ ehudshapira 22:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, don't put it in the infobox, per ehudshapira. Multiple reliable sources affirm the 65–66 number (for which reason I have removed, as others have in the past, the mischaracterization of the numbers as "IDF"); the Hamas claim is an outlier. It's not clear that the sources for it are reliable (i.e. it's not clear they are reliable as sources of the claim "Hamas says X", independent of the truth/verifiability of "X"); even if they are, the Hamas claim of soldiers killed belongs with Hamas' other dubious claims, either in a section of this article's body (as was the case in early incarnations of this article, and should perhaps be made the case once more) or in the separate media article (as is the case at the moment). -sche (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• No - Hamas' data is propaganda. It's not as reliable as the other sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - There are people who say the Earth is flat, but in Wikipedia we don't consider this claim more than a fringe and hilarious theory. Let's keep this article serious and encyclopedic, please.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Neither First off, Hamas is a recognized governmental entity which had been duly and legitimatly elected through Democratic processes and as such numbers that Hamas agencies report have as much weight and legitimacy as any governmental enity (i.e. no legitimacy at all.) Secondly, playing the numbers game is what politicians and corporate entities do, and when it comes to body counts no claim is even remotely accurate regardless of its source. Recommend employing more accurate rhetoric such as "The number of dead terrorists were claimed to be anywhere from xxx to xxx." Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you say. Nevertheless, Israel doesn't lie when it counts its own casualties (both military and civilian). Hamas is a different thing. And with all due to respect to the democratically-elected islamofascist government of Hamas, remember they took Gaza in a bloody coup. I'm just saying... throwing your opponents from the roof is not the most exquisite sample of democracy, if i may say so.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a very neutral argument.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not neutral at all, but doesn't mean it's not true. There is plenty of evidence that Hamas provides wildly inaccurate claims and never bother to correct themselves or explain their mistakes. IDF provides facts that are usually correct and admits and corrects its mistakes when they are discovered. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise ? WarKosign (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The argument is that Hamas are liars but Israel is not. I'm sure someone on pro-Palestine side can spin the Vice versa. I've actually seen the wiki end of this war play out. Just because its not neutral doesn't mean it's true? Perhaps but I'm going bother entertaining your argument because of your inherent bias.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

An article can include both contradictory POV even when it is obvious that at least one of them is false. They have to have minimal credibility. This claim contradics all the evidence of any other source, so it should be treated as a fringe theory - something perhaps worth mentioning, but not at the same level as the respectable theories. For this claim to be feasible there would have to be a huge conspiracy by the Israeli and the international media, as well as the 930 families of the supposed IDF casualties that are suppressed. WarKosign (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's not glaringly obvious. I actually have no position here. That being why I've yet to clarify a position. I'm reviewing some of the comments here and also a number of sources on the subject. In reviewing the comments I came across an editor who seems to push the thought that since Hamas were violent in coup unrelated in every way to this article's subject matter they are unreliable. Really it's off topic BS. In my opinion intellectual dishonesty and as initially said not neutral. When discussing anothers credibility I do find somewhat important not to destroy your own. As I'm sure you're aware consensus is not democracy. [[5]] Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Don't poison the well you drink from.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So it seems the second set of numbers are older. The first set of numbers line up with other sources such as IDF sources. 1000 soldiers per Hamas means the same thing as 1000 militants per IDF. It seems credible to me. It seems also just as reliable as the IDF as a source. Though the reliablity of both parties seems questionable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't laughed so hard in a while. The above discussion is akin to saying the 9/11 Truth movement is as reliable as official US investigations. Sure, both cannot be fully trusted... but c'mon!!! The comparison is too silly. Just look how much space their claims have in September 11 attacks. On this article, we can't ignore the claims completely. But to insist they (e.g. Osama Hamdan, or this "Research the history, my brothers. <antisemitic slogan>" genius on Hamas TV) are in the same ballpark as mainstream sources is hysterical. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion: add your !vote as Yes or No in addition to laughing. If the consensus is clear enough, this can be closed. Kingsindian (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no reason to say yes or no. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I also don't mind if the source is left in or not. That being the first sources. The second source is outdated. The second source would certainly seem unreliable. As far as the above tangent, I'm sorry to inform that I will not take that into account. I wasn't making a comparison to mainstream sources. I was making a comparison to the IDF as a source. IDF (as well as others in Israel) propaganda has been well documented as well. If you insist on using the IDF as a source and these other editors insist on on the Hamas source then I fail to see the issue with it's inclusion. I'm sure you don't like it but it seems the other side doesn't like your views either.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• No I made up my mind. The claims are dubious and the sources are crap. WP:FRINGE applies. This doesn't belong in the infobox. Kingsindian (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: if, when this RFC concludes, there is no consensus on whether or not the Hamas claims should be included, what happens? Is the default that disputed content is omitted unless there is consensus that it should be added, or is the default that disputed content is added unless there is consensus that it should be omitted? -sche (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In the event of "No consensus" it is my interpretation of WP:NOCONSENSUS that it would remain. But then as I understand the inclusion of this source in the article prompted this RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was never a consensus on the inclusion of the edit, so in my interpretation, the status quo would reign, i.e., it would not be included (point 2 in WP:NOCONSENSUS). Kingsindian (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not status quo but to what it was before the RFC was launched. I think this is specifically where the RFC was started. Though you could perhaps count the one edit before it. This being the closest edit to that in the article. It doesn't seem that the information in this RFC is there so yes it seems that this information would removed. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose not always to the state that existed right before the RfC, otherwise one would make a disputed change and immediately launch an RfC on removing it that would end in no-consensus, and voila - the change stays.WarKosign (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be very easy to game such a policy (I don't think that is operative policy). Anyway, let's cross the "no consensus" bridge when we come to it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at other articles, I can say that yes, what matters is not the specific diff that immediately precedes the RFC, but the general status — had the information been stably present in the article for a long time? In this case, no, it was boldly added and quickly reverted (and then edit-warred over). -sche (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• No Since when do we take HAMAS claim as non-fringe?Forbidden User (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• No We have multiple reliable sources citing a different number. There is no reason to include HAMAS' claim. They are the only ones reporting this number and it falls in line with WP:FRINGE. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas Controlled?

The lead sentence of the article says "On 8 July 2014, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched Operation Protective Edge...in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip". What exactly does "Hamas controlled" mean? That's a vague statement. Is it governance? Hamas governs the Gaza strip; however, it hardly controls it. Israel has absolute control over the Gazans' freedom of movement (ie border crossings), the crossing of goods, the airspace, the population registry, the tax system, the coastline, overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade and, of course, is currently besieging the region. It is seriously disingenuous to state that Gaza is Hamas controlled. At best, it must be acknowledged that the situation is more complex than a single entity "controlling" the entire region; Hamas and Israel control it in different ways. After all, Israel is still considered the occupying power of Gaza by most international institutions and human rights organizations. JDiala (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because Israel controls aspects of Gaza such as airspace, borders (Israel doesn't control the Egypt/Gaza border), etc doesn't mean Hamas doesn't control Gaza. During the Afghanistan War, the US effectively had control over Afghanistan in the same respect as Israel does to Gaza, but there were parts that were considered Taliban controlled which is in the same respect as Hamas with Gaza. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with "Hamas-governed", if that is more precise. Kingsindian (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I thing governed is fine. WarKosign (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Make that 4. I agree, also because it is customary in sources. Münevver Cebeci, Issues in EU and US Foreign Policy, Lexington Books, ‎2011 p.147; (b) Sara Roy,Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector,‎ Princeton University Press (2011) 2013 passim, but also p.239 etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with 'governed' is that just recently there were some hard to follow unity chess-games between Hamas and Fatah. To avoid this confusion, which I'm sure even Palestinian "legislators" and "spokespersons" like Osama Hamdan or the shadowy "Palestinian medical officials" (hurray to shabby journalism for never getting a name or a job title even) can't follow, it IS best (and most certainly not "seriously disingenuous" -- what?!) to go with 'Hamas-controlled'. They control the strip itself, while Israel and Egypt apply a US-Quartet sanctioned blockade. That is a very basic and neutral summary of what reliable sources say. All the hubbub about what's exactly controlled by who (e.g. Hamas controls the media and local tax mechanism (Fatah controls the global one, which includes import taxes) and tunnel making and the public executions, etc.) belongs in a whiny section about the economics and how the "illegal" blockade prevents it from growing (that and the spending on 3km tunnels and air-drones (ffs!) to "resist" and "defend" and take back Palestine as imagined by Hamas -- rejecting past agreements and repeatedly attacking a country with a capable army while very few of your allies are willing to help out[6][7][8] doesn't help either). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

All that is pointless, and not the way wiki editors work. We use sources, preferably academic, reliably published ones.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is little argument that Hamas is the elected government in the Gaza strip. As you can see there is argument regarding the degree of control it has. The purpose of this sentence in the lead is to say that the conflict is not between Israel and the Gazan people but between Israel and the authority that claims responsibility for what happens in Gaza (a.k.a. government), and for that "Hamas governed" is precise enough. It is indeed questionable how much control Hamas actually has. In some aspects it has less control than a typical government, being cut-off by the blockade and depending on Israel for infrastructures such as water and power supply; and in some aspects much more control than a typical government, being opaque in almost every regard and performing massive executions of opponents and protesters. I do not believe that every homeowner willingly agreed to store ammunition in their house, knowing that it makes the house a legitimate military target and puts the family at risk - but Hamas did it anyway. WarKosign (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Commendable judgement. I would beg to differ only with the statement:'massive executions of opponents and protesters'. However deplorable that kind of institutionalized thuggery, 'massive' is inappropriate. Clinically examining the period without partis pris, Hamas executed 25 Gazans, Israel has shot dead in what it calls 'riot control' a similar number (32 since June 13, but if you start from July 7, the number is approximately in the mid-twenties) of Palestinians it governs under military law in the occupied territories. Those wounded by IDF gunfire in the West Bank during the Gaza war number 1,397 which means the 'riot control' methods are similar to those that sparked the Al-Aqsa Intifada. And it too is 'opaque' in every regard to the circumstances of each of those deaths. A neutral bystander (not perhaps myself) would think the analogy precise, and perhaps draw similar conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There were more than 25 executed, at least 88 by my count during this conflict, and it is not the first time for Hamas. Arguably shooting and even killing violent protesters is more reasonable than executing hand-cuffed and hooded prisoners in cold blood. WarKosign (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, but of course none of the people Hamas 'liquidated' were children, whereas many children on the West Bank are []http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/palestinian-shot-dead-during-west-bank-raid-201481185550149212.html 'summarily shot dead',] and in democracies civic protests, even if tough, are not put down by shooting people. But we can drop this.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign, it is a misconception that Hamas is the "elected government of Gaza". They were not elected to govern Gaza. They were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council and won the most seats. They ultimately kicked out the rest of the Palestinian Legislative Council, so they are hardly the "legitimate" government in Gaza. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless arguing against sources, which establish usage. If you want to know what really happened, they didn't 'kick out' the PLO. The PLO was being paid to stage a coup, and a counter-coup by Hamas preempted it (See Sara Roy's book above p.43)

Discussion seems to be meandering from the original course. If nobody objects to "Hamas-governed", I will change it. (Or anyone else can). It says the same thing without any issue of vagueness. Kingsindian (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, Read it again. "Governed" is wrong on a number of levels. Hamas-controlled is not only correct, but used by a source I linked to earlier on this talk page when discussing the lead. I guess, editors might like to compile a list of sources to see what is more a common naming convention these days. But, really, it is a matter of accuracy and Knightmare72589 said it well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I can cite several sources which describe Israel as the occupying power with a large degree of control. This, for example, by B'tselem, a reputable Israeli human rights organizations. International organizations explictly describe it as an occupier. The large degree of control Israel has over the Gaza strip is indisputable. Two of your sources were YouTube videos, and the other one was an editorial, and editorials from a partisan Israeli news website (Jpost) are generally considered less reliable than conclusions made by reputable organizations and experts in the field. Also, the editorial you cited didn't even mention the words "control" or "govern. It's absurd. Israel is considered the occupying power of the Gaza strip. It controls it. Quoting Dov Weissglass, an Israeli lawyer heavily involved in the supposed "peace process":[in reference to the Gaza blockade] "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger". If that's not "control", then what is it? JDiala (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

One of my fav. NGO extra-extraordinaire supreme. Not the most mainstream source, but a source non-the less. Jpost, btw, is certainly a proper source. I'd like less blue cheese dressing and more cheddar here. Now that one NGO is used to say something vague about what Israel supposedly does to the Gaza strip with it's blockade -- which means nothing regarding who's in control inside Gaza -- I'd like to see more sources. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is "inside" Gaza a prerequisite? That's arbitrary. During the siege of Leningrad, the Nazis were hardly physically within the city, but they unequivocally controlled it. No, control of a particular region doesn't necessitate physical presence "inside" that region. If you want more sources, there are seven citations concerned with the nature of Israeli control in the second sentence of the "background" section. I'm not saying JPost is inherently unreliable. I'm just saying that it is less reliable than the opinions of reliable, mainstream organizations and expert/scholarly opinion. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP JDiala (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that "Hamas-governed" is a good descriptor, and simpler and more neutral than "Hamas-controlled". Regarding the first criticism of "Hamas-governed", viz. that Hamas took over the government illegitimately: setting aside consideration of whether that claim is POV or not, it doesn't change the fact that Hamas does govern the Strip. Regarding the second criticism, viz. that Palestine is governed by a unity government: that also doesn't change the fact that Hamas governs the Strip. North Dakota's governorship and the majority of seats in both houses of its legislature are held by Republicans, so it is accurate to say North Dakota is "Republican-governed", even though the United States is governed by a mix of Democrats (in the White House and Senate, and some other state governments) and Republicans (in the House and some other state governments). -sche (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The unity issue is so complex I wonder if Palestinians follow. For example, who is the Prime Minister?[9] Who pays salaries? Hamas insisted on keeping control over this while Fatah fought back, trying to retake 'control' over the strip. More mainstream sources -- not silly ones -- tend to use control words rather than municipal ones. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• A member of Hamas, which dominates Gaza. (BBC)
• Hamas, the Palestinian militant organization that controls Gaza. (CNN)

I can also use your same logic. Several sources refer to it as governs; examples being: [10] (Al-Bisan Park is run by Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that governs Gaza); [11] (What are the goals for Hamas, the organization that governs Gaza and is considered a terrorist organization by many Western powers?); [12](...the political demands of Hamas, the militant organization that governs Gaza and that Israel has been targeting since the latest hostilities broke out two weeks ago.)

Considering the fact that the two terms, "govern" and "control" are more or less interchangeable within the media, it is up to us to solve this dilemma. Which word is more precise? Which word is less vague? Which word describes the situation better? Which word is more accurate as per WP:WTW? JDiala (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Who says there has to be a Prime Minister in a government? Let them play the politics and manage their government however they like. One problem I have with "Hamas-governed" designation is that the word "governed" has largely positive connotation, while "controlled" is neutral. There are other neutral synonyms: administrated, managed, regulated, supervised. WarKosign (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fatah has essentially no control in Gaza and most of sources I have seen refer to Gaza as Hamas controlled.--Tritomex (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If there wasn't this ridiculous "unity" occurrence, "governed" would have similar encyclopedic value. But, a problem starts when the current PM is from Fatah (best I am aware) as well as other people who "govern" the strip -- but Hamas still does what they want. They "run the show", launch military campaigns, etc. It is best to avoid this complexity in the lead. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Gaza is "governed" by a united Fatah-Hamas government, but "controlled" by Hamas, so the terms are not interchangeable. WarKosign (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas does not "control" Islamic Jihad and other groups in the Strip. That is of course the rhetoric post April, but since 2007 it does govern the Strip, as it governed elsewhere after the 2006 elections (Jacob Lassner, Selwyn Ilan Troen, Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real, Rowman and Littlefield 2007 p.x:'Hamas,the Islamist movement that presently governs the Palestinian Authority'.)

POV-terrorist obsessives wish it otherwise but we are required to be neutral. 'Control' insinuates that its governance is coercive,(Israel controls (militarily)its border, Hamas 'controls' its territory etc.) and the newspapers that adopt this language do so for a purpose. It is a rhetorical voice employed to accentuate the meme that Hamas are nothing but terrorists, and not a governing body, which however a great number of serious sources state, noting that it runs (a) the civil administration (b)the school system (c) the public health system (d) the judiciary and (e) basic utilities. Together with Münevver Cebeci's, and Sara Roy's study (the latter being one of the foremost academic authorities on Gaza) add

• Marc A. Walther, HAMAS Between Violence and Pragmatism, 2010 pp.17,46,125
• Bernard Reich, A Brief History of Israel, ‎Infobase,(2005) (2nd.ed.)2008 p.285
• Tariq Mukhimer, Hamas Rule in Gaza: Human Rights under Constraint, ‎Palgrave 2012 p.7
• Nathan J. Brown, Amr Hamzawy, Between Religion and Politics, 2010 p.161 ('Hamas has had to shift from a movement that is largely underground to one that governs' esp.also pp.171ff.)

These are specific studies by scholars, who are required as analysts to avoid the incendiary orwellianism of skewing language to get over a POV.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I simply ignore most of what MarciulionisHOF says. The quality of arguments presented do not deserve such replies as Nishidani gave. Too much soapboxing for a simple phrase change, which is utterly reasonable. I will not make any more comments. Kingsindian (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Too harsh a comment based on frustration. I will only say that the phrase change is totally reasonable, the unity govt. notwithstanding. Nobody doubts that Hamas governs the Gaza strip. The analogy with the Republican/Democrat is good enough. Kingsindian (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear, I share your policy and ignore the fellow. My notes were addressed to WarKosign. No sensible objections to 'governed' have been presented. Let's move on.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Here and here Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas presents an objection. He says that Hamas is "running the Gaza Strip" while "The national consensus government can't do anything on the ground." Being the president, he should know who governs the strip, and apparently it is not Hamas. WarKosign (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I am confused. How does "Hamas is running the Gaza Strip" mean that "apparently it is not Hamas" who governs the Gaza strip? Do you mean "apparently it is Hamas", instead of "apparently it is not Hamas"? Kingsindian (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Direct quote: "Abbas accused Hamas of running its own “shadow government” in the Gaza Strip. “They have 27 directors-general of ministries and they are running the Gaza Strip,” he said. “The national consensus government can’t do anything on the ground.”".

My interpretation: The national consensus government (Hamas + Fatah) is the official government, but Hamas's unofficial ("shadow") government is the one that controls ("runs") the strip instead. If this is true, Hamas does cannot govern since it is not the official government. WarKosign (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, Kingsindian, JDiala, Knightmare72589, WarKosign, -sche, Tritomex

• "Hamas-controlled" - The issue of the recent unity government was presented (governing body is mixed, Hamas controls everybody inside the strip and is seen by global powers as the one responsible) and I would like to get a clearer view on how close we are to a consensus. Please respond. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Hamas-controlled". As President Abbas said, Hamas runs the strip while supposedly unity government of Fatah and Hamas governs it. WarKosign (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(WarKosign)That is using 'the shadow government', an 'accusation', not a 'descriptive term' introduced by Mahmoud Abbas just a few days ago. One has to look, not idioms that change from day to day. We are describing what Hamas does in Gaza since 2006, i.e., an 8 year period over which it has 'administered', 'run', or 'governed' the Strip. The PNA itself is, per its constitution, illegal as a government since it has failed, for a variety of reasons, to run in elections, the mandate expiring in 2009. What is sauce for the goose (Hamas) gooses the gander (PNA)

How about "Hamas-run"? Kingsindian (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas-run is factually correct, but less used: there are slightly fewer google results for '"hamas-run" gaza' than for '"hamas-controlled" gaza' WarKosign (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is simply that "controlled" has some other connotations. "Hamas-run" will convey the same thing without those other connotations. If they have roughly the same usage, why not use it? Kingsindian (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO "Hamas-controlled" is the most correct, "Hamas-run" is acceptable, "Hamas-governed" is factually incorrect. I wonder which word Abbas used in the original quite, assuming this is translation from Arabic.WarKosign (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Here he used the word "تقود" which apparently means "to lead". Doesn't seem to help us, "Hamas-lead" doesn't work in English. Anyone here who knows Arabic and can help with literal translation of the quote, in case google translate messes it up ? WarKosign (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Hamas-controlled" is the best term. This phrase is used by many (I would say most) medias and beside that it seems to me as the best reflection of factual situation in Gaza which has both political and military aspect. -Tritomex (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Tritomex. Stating an opinion is meaningless. Usage in wikipedia is based on evidence-based (RS) sourcing, and appropriate arguments.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we are making far too much heavy weather of this. The suggestion of 'control' is unacceptable (mind control, control society (Foucault), etc.) One who governs, administers or runs 'controls' utilities etc, and the term in political usage implies the right that comes from governance, as an administrative prerogative. Asking for 'control' while challenging the political function (administration, governance, rule) from which control flows is just POV pushing.

'Hamas, therefore,came to administer sole power within the Strip,' Paola Caridi, Hamas: From Resistance to Government, Seven Stories Press (the original in Italian is authoritatively published by Feltrinelli 2009) 2012 p.56

'Hamas relies on these funds mostly to continue to administer the Gaza Strip.' Joshua L. Gleis, Benedetta Berti, Hezbollah and Hamas: A Comparative Study,JHU Press 2012 p.143

Israeli newspaper usage is not a good guide to NPOV, since they are embedded in the political conflict, and we should choose from respectable academic sources, which suggest that 'govern', 'administer' and 'run' is fine. The technicalities of who rules, or governs are completely confused, since the PNA has less legitimacy even than Hamas.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said most of medias refer to Gaza as "Hamas controlled. The New York Times says " Hamas, the militant Islamist movement, wrested control of Gaza in 2007". [13] Gaza is specifically defined as "Hamas controlled" in other NYT articles [14] Even Al Arabiya defines Gaza as "Hamas controlled" [15], The Washington Post [16],BBC also refer to Gaza as "Hamas controlled" [17], so does CNN [18] ABC [19], RT (formerly Russia Today) [20] virtually all medias.--Tritomex (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why are we seeing sources from 2 years ago when a new government was selected a few months ago this year? As for mainstream Israeli sources, there is no exceptional terminology which should raise red flags. Less blue cheese spread, more cheddar please. Better yet. Avoid the cheese. Less calories. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the sources I showed are all related to the last conflict.--Tritomex (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I see no consensus for this edit, why did you change it? And what on Earth is that huge footnote doing there. Where on Earth did the rockets come from? I see nothing about rockets in this section. Kingsindian (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have another issue: I don't know what parameters WarKosign used, but I find "Hamas-run" Gaza 198,000 to have more results than "Hamas-controlled" Gaza 175,000. I find Google searches like this meaningless anyway, but still, it is curious. There are plenty of sources which use both, and I don't see anybody disagreeing that "Hamas-run" is accurate. Why choose a word like "controlled" when a neutral "run" is available? Kingsindian (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why its neutral?--Shrike (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Is something not neutral about "Hamas-run"? Kingsindian (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you claim the other one is not?--Shrike (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, this whole section is about that. You can start reading from the top. Some people have problem with "controlled", nobody has problem with "run", why not use it? Kingsindian (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the thread, it is explained in detail. There are editors who keep pushing for their original viewpoint, and editors who negotiate a compromise. That between Kingsindian and WarKosign is a compromise, and that is why it is superior.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

These are the queries I ran last time, now I got same numbers as you did. Last time I think I got slightly more hits for 'controlled'. For 'governed' I now got 20,500 results, so it far less used. I think both run and controlled can do, but the word 'run' has too many different meanings,while 'controlled' has fewer, the first of them being "the power to make decisions about how a country, an area, an organization, etc. is run". WarKosign (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Of course, "run" can mean many things, but it only means one thing here. Nobody can assume it means that Hamas is jogging in Gaza. Kingsindian (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"To move fast on feet" - probably not. "to bring or take something into a country illegally and secretly","to be a candidate in an election for a political position" "to make something lose power or stop working" "to crash into somebody/something" "to use up or finish a supply of something" - all these are somewhat relevant to Hamas in Gaza, but I believe reasonable readers will be able to figure it out. Does anyone object to Hamas-run ? It's not my first choice, but it is good enough. WarKosign (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's inferior to 'administered', which no one has taken seriously, though it is a standard term in the scholarly literature. But I don't object to 'run', and in grammar, context elides the ambiguities a dictionary is obliged to cover in defining a word's uses abstractly.

Okay. Hama-controlled doesn't work because 'control' also implies mastery of events. As numerous sources, familiar to everyone who reads this stuff, one of Hamas's difficulties was 'controlling' several groups, one of them with a strong autonomous militia, Islamic Jihad, so that they wouldn't infringe the cease-fire Hamas had signed. In its rhetoric Israel held Hamas 'responsible' for rocket-launchings, meaning it was obliged to control such things.

The IDF was checking the possibility that the rockets were launched by radical Salafi fighters who do not recognize Hamas rule, or as an act of defiance by the terrorist group Islamic Jihad (8,000 militants, Nishidani), which earlier Sunday announced that it was suspending ties with the ruling Hamas government.The rift came after a confrontation Saturday between Hamas policemen and a senior Islamic Jihad member that the police were trying to take into custody for interrogation. The suspect was killed in the standoff, with Hamas alleging that he had committed suicide.“Islamic Jihad today suspended its contacts with Hamas after police opened fire yesterday on one of the commanders of the Al-Quds Brigades, Raed Jundiya, 38, inflicting serious injuries from which he died this morning,” AFP quoted a leader of the extremist group as saying. ' 'Israel hits Gaza targets in response to rocket fire,' The Times of Israel 24 June 2014.

Thanks to source bias, which insouciantly ignores what the scholarship says, and has the reflex 'rockets=Hamas' narrative twist beloved of our unserene editors here , the significant breakdown over June between Hamas and such militant groups, is being ignored. Most sources state that non-Hamas groups were behind the June Gaza side of the escalation (abetted by Israel's escalation on the West Bank). Fail to observe that are you fail to see the importance of distinguishing 'control' from 'run'/'administer' etc. But, as this and many other incidents of Hamas officials arresting members of groups for rocket launching show, it did not 'control' these significant militias. Its administration tried to control them, which is another matter. Hamas certainly ran or administered the Strip in the more general sense of running its institutions, and representing Gaza in negotiations with Egypt, the PNA and others.

Another nice POV twist is to repeat the official handouts that invariably generalize about rockets 'fired into Israel', invariably aimed 'at Israeli citizens'. A very large part of the mortars, rockets shot hit open areas (google=Most of the rockets hit unpopulated areas and you get 84,000 hits). This is particularly true of the July 2 rockets.Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rockets that are aimed at cities in Israel are targeting civilians. If they were aimed at military targets, even if missed and hit civilians, it would not be a violation of IHL. When they fired on a city, they could say "we are targeting this military base near this city". Hamas doesn't bother making this excuse, as Abu Zuhri said: "All Israelis have now become legitimate targets." They do not hit unpopulated areas intentionally, or they would be aiming all the rockets into the Negev desert or the sea. Israel is also accused of firing indiscriminately, but so far the demographics of the casualties and high correlation of rocket launch/storage sites with damaged areas in Gaza contradict this claim. WarKosign (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My point is one that suggests a defect in reportage that that influences our composition of this article, not an assertion the text must note it. 'Intentionally' begs the question. Israel always specifies that as 'the most moral army in the world' it intends only to strike militants, 'ticking bombs', etc. yet statistically most victims are not militants (since 1987). As the Israeli analysts allow, Hamas fought a war with the militarily ineffective technical means at its disposal, fully aware of its inadequacies. A large amount of the June rocketry was 'demonstrative', and the same is true of that used in the war. Like the declaration, the launchings had an instrumental value to disrupt Israel's economy and cause Israelis to panic, not a military value.

(a) I know the area all along the border very well, inside Gaza and on the Israel side. It is predominantly agricultural, sparsely populated and that is where most Gaza-launched rockets/mortars strike. The rhetoric of Israel's citizens targeted has been invariant since 2001, and yet down to 2008 the vast majority of these explosives were just lobbed over the Gaza frontier line (Byman below) (b) sources make no distinction between major rocketry, medium rocketry (lamp-posts converted into 'qassam rockets') and mortar fire (short range), subsuming the latter under the former (for the historic percentages, 2000-2009) see Daniel Byman, A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism, Oxford University Press 2011 p.183); an overwhelming percentage of Israeli missiles, rockets, artillery. mortars hit with precision the object targeted: an underwhelming percentage of Gaza rockets and mortars (10%) strike somewhere in the vicinity of a city or town. This is spun as 'Hamas targets civilians', 'Israel only targets militants' whereas statistically 1200-1,600 civilians were killed by Israeli fire, 6/7 civilians were killed by the combined force of Gaza rocketry/mortars (I exclude soldiers inside Gaza where direct firefights typical of war caused casualties). That is very simple arithmetic, and that's why all the journalese we are citing for articles has no realistic value for describing the war, which, in my view, should be analysed neutrally strictly in terms of military logic. not the minute-by-minute panic mode hysteria characteristic of war journalism, which has, as you can see in the article, successfully managed to describe farting as a sonic boom, and predominantly dud armaments as an existential threat far more menacing than the massive ultra-efficient pin-point arsenal deployed by Hamas's adversary.

Of course editors are quite in their rights to continue patching this stuff in from 'mainstream newspapers' but the value is zero, apart from the spin effect on a wiki readership. When the strategic, military and historic scholarship starts to come out in terms of what the military conflict entailed, most of the effort here will be, like Gaza, rubble.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are (deliberately?) mixing intention, method and results. The intention of the rocket/mortar file is to terrorize civilians and disrupt day-to-day life of civilians in Israel ([21]) by creating a threat. The method is firing largely ineffective rockets aimed at civilians. The result is a low (relatively to the number of rockets) number of casualties. This number is reduced further by the iron dome, which in a way helps Hamas achieve their intended goal while making the result less deadly and thus making the attacks appear less severe. The fact that the rockets aren't likely to kill someone is irrelevant to the fact that they are fired on civilian population and therefore violate IHL.

Fanatical terrorism cannot be analyzed with military logic. Hamas cannot win by use of force, the logical action for them is to recognize Israel (that is, to declare that under certain conditions they could agree to coexist peacefully beside the state of Israel), negotiate the details and live happily ever after. After the unilateral disengagement was the perfect time to do that.

Instead they chose to continue the rocket fire, with the stated goal of destruction of Israel. The actual result is bothering Israel a little and bothering civilians in Gaza a lot. As long as Palestinians hate Israel more than they love themselves, they will continue to suffer.WarKosign (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sure, yawn. You just about exhausted the hasbara printout sheet there, the talking points mechanically listed for anyone who likes to talk without taking the trouble to think of the implications of what he is taught to recite. I especially loved the allusion to Golda Meir's 'Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.' Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If both Nishidani and WarKosign agree, I will collapse the above discussion, which seems to me tangential to the point. The section is already too long, and I want to keep it focused on "Hamas-run" vs "Hamas-controlled" vs "Hamas-governed". Furious debate on the internet has taught me that nobody changes their mind about anything related to politics. But we can still write WP together. Kingsindian (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, correct call again. This has strayed and you are quite right to keep this focused. Apologies. I would note that people do change their minds. 4 productive editors, Kingsindian, JDiala, Warkosign ('I thing governed is fine.' WarKosign 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)) and -sche, (I agree that "Hamas-governed" is a good descriptor, and simpler and more neutral than "Hamas-controlled". User:-sche|-sche 20:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)) found that 'governed' was a fair precise and neutral term. WarKosign, after some indifferent and distractive editors (Tritomex,MarciulionisHOF,Knightmare72589) dug their heels in with blague-ish objections insisting there is no alternative to 'controlled', changed his mind. A reasonable number of alternatives was then offered: 'run, administered,' and we still have the same stubborn refusal to budge. This (numbers) is not how wiki works. If not 'govern', then neither 'control'. So the option is one of the other terms, already amply surveyed, and attempts to get one's way are just that, attempts to avoid an amenable compromise.Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, Shrike, WarKosign, Nishidani.

Even before making my first contribution, I've learned that a number of editors here choose games and blue cheese spread over anything else. Implicating anyone here as reciting from a printout sheet[22] is, certainly, another aspect of this, and in my own humble opinion, a big no-no even if someone pisses you off by saying (well...) obvious things about what is wrong with the side you prefer in the Israeli-Arab conflict (i.e. you don't need a sheet to state the obvious). On point, Kingsindian, I'd like to massage my brain with relevant mainstream sources to see if it can see the value of "run" vs "controlled" (honestly, I feel there's no justification for governed after the unity gov. was selected -- but I'm willing to listen if you still insist that one is more accurate somehow). For the moment, I am leaning towards control because of a few things: (a) I've seen it far more (text and tv), either implicitly or with variations e.g. "which has de facto control of Gaza" (RT -- link cited on current version[23]), "The Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank, and the militant group Hamas has controlled Gaza" (CNN citation - perhaps, this entire explanation should be on the article note); (b) the Gaza strip is a disorganized mess. No one "runs" it. Hamas runs "the show" (figuratively and literally) and controls the people (read: Gaza) through methods of payment and teaching/indoctrination and intimidation (no one argues against this, Hamas themselves say it is one of their ways) -- groups that "negotiate their terms" under this control suffer results -- a thought came to mind: which word is used in articles about Gang leaders? 'control', 'run', other?. (c) Best I can tell, the terms 'control', and 'run' are not interchangeable in this case and a simple Google search, certainly doesn't address the issue of true usage. For a counter example against 'control' Google counts, I've seen a version which used 'controlled' on the Hamas PR department (a.k.a. Flying Mosque TV) and not about the Gaza strip. This of course, occurs multiple times in the case of "Hamas run" as well. Certainly, if they run rocket production or tunnel production or tax collection inside a biscuit/candy/disability-aid factory -- the term will usually not be 'control' in such an instance. In this respect, a Google count makes absolutely no sense once you consider all the false-positives. This said, an open mind for what mainstream sources say is required. If there's substantial evidence for the 'Hamas-run Gaza' version in mainstream sources (after unity gov selection), then reconsideration is a reasonable request. So, please link to examples if you see substantial evidence for this. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: First of all, I am not amused by your inserting "governed" in the middle of the discussion, while adding a humongous footnote which had nothing to do with the discussion. You should revert it. Coming to your points: of course "run" and "control" are not interchangeable; why would be having this discussion otherwise? The point about Google searches was illustrative: "Hamas-run" is a widely used phrase, so is "Hamas-controlled". The issue is what should we put in an encyclopaedia. As to recent sources using "Hamas-run" see: Yahoo News, JPost, Al Jazeera, Times of Israel, Forward, Voice of America, Business Week. Who controls what is messy business: the borders are controlled by Israel and Egypt, isn't that a form of control? The internal affairs are run by Hamas: this everyone agrees on. Abbas himself is lamenting that Hamas still is in charge. Why not use the neutral word instead of the controversial word? Kingsindian (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the note -- which is most certainly and without a doubt connected with discussion here. A note is the best choice to show that this 'Hamas-controlled' issue is complex. The demand you make here is not only unsubstantiated but, considering I've waited 3 days for a response, is uncivil (putting it mildly). As for the word 'huge', a line and a half of text doesn't qualify as huge under almost any requirement (apologies if citations appear large, but url size cannot be controlled). That said, rephrase suggestions, certainly when backed up by sources, are the way to go if you are unhappy with my efforts. To your links -- I've taken the time to inspect the sources. To be honest, I don't think you've inspected any of them. The first two use 'Hamas run' as a concept of what might happen in the future if Hamas obtains legitimacy. The first link even clarifies this and uses the term 'control' (per "donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there"Yahoo) for what is currently going on, and discusses 'run' as what donors don't wish to contribute to. The second one, an Israeli minister is talking about concerns that Gaza will become Hamas run (if nothing is done to change that -- he's been advocating wiping the Hamas control system, not Gaza itself, off the map). These first two sources were not the end of it. From the 7 sources provided only 2 qualify as (almost) clearly supporting 'Hamas-run Gaza' terminology (al-Jazeera, and Times of Israel). Another, for example, talks about the Hamas' running of the Gaza tunnel construction (they certainly do run in them) as in 'they constructed them before the unity government and "run Gaza <tunnels>" for militancy purposes'. Even the Times of Israel calls it Hamas-run in close context with rocket launching, and most everyone (not repeatedly using sources from 2012 and earlier) agrees Hamas runs that show. I've put in effort to read the whole 7 provided sources which only further substantiate the fact that 'Hamas controlled' is the mainstream view of what is currently going on. We can inspect more, but editors should bother to inspect their own provided sources rather than end up bringing material more material to further bolster the current version than the changes they'd like to see. I am willing to add to the note that there is a concern that Hamas will become a pseudo-legitimate ruler among donors, but honestly, that seems like extending the note too much and could be handled in its own whiny section about who runs the show in Gaza (Hamas, Israeli Mossad Sharks[24], or other) and how everyone sees it as fantastic or disastrous. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I made clear my opposition, one does not have to respond to each point over and over again. If someone doesn't respond, you can't assume that they agree with you. Reading your descriptions of "Hamas-run" and you stating that I didn't read the links I posted, it is clear that no answer I give will convince you. Therefore, I will remove the footnote, leave "Hamas-controlled" in place because that was the way it was before. I will open an RfC to decide "run" vs "controlled". Enough bickering about this. Kingsindian (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, do not remove the citations. That would be rubbish in any situation where the citation is what is used to support the text. As for recent discussion, my apologies I didn't see your suggestion on the recent poll of status as clear objection. Honestly, is seemed more like agreement that 'governed' has source-based issues. Inquiry for objections followed ridicule and 'I didn't hear that' behavior.[25] I trust no one would appreciate this type of shenanigans and poor participation. As for inspecting sources -- please. I'm keeping an open mind. Do explain to me the first source you linked to -- "donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there"Yahoo -- why, based on it, anyone. ANYONE. is supposed to believe the mainstream source-based view is that 'Hamas-run' is more appropriate than 'Hamas-controlled'. Apologies in advance for being inconceivably inconvincible no matter what you do (read sententiously). Though, relevant mainstream sources that say what you want them to say might help convincing. Apologies for somehow making you feel this is not the case. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC) mainstream-based. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have stated already the rationale. There was no footnote on "Hamas-controlled" at the beginning. Nor does it need any - it's a widely used two-word phrase. I have simply gone back to the stable version while the RfC is going on. After the RfC is finished, there can be discussion on whether it needs a footnote or not. Kingsindian (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, How can there be no need for citation if you need an RfC because you "prefer" a different phrasing? (ffs!) If you do not return the note, this clueless behavior (removing citations that support text) will be mentioned repeatedly until the end of time (read: until someone who knows proper Wikipedia etiquette takes the time to review it properly and weighs in). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues with lead

I have two issues with the lead:

1. The second paragraph of the lead says "The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions had begun following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank (sparked by the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by Hamas members)"

What does 'Israeli crackdown' mean? This is rather ambiguous and lacks clarity, and I think it should be changed per WP:WTW. Furthermore, whether or not it was actually a "crackdown on Hamas" is, according to paragraph two sentence one of the 'immediate events' section of this article [26], an Israeli statement ("a large-scale crackdown of what it [ Israel ] called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank"). Therefore, as per WP:INTEXT, that statement ("an Israeli crackdown on Hamas") must be attributed to Israel rather than considered a neutral term. It is considered a neutral/factual term in the lead and not merely an assertion by the state of Israel. Therefore, it should be changed as per, again, WP:INTEXT.

The reason is that this gives the reader, from looking at the lead, the false impression that it was simply an Israeli crackdown on Hamas after the murder of the three teens. However, it was, as the "immediate events" section highlights, clearly more than that: several hundred Palestinians were arrested, ten Palestinians were killed, and several houses demolished, and there is no neutral evidence that it was merely a crackdown on Hamas. Amnesty international and the PA, for example, consider it to have been collective punishment [27], [28]. It was evidently more than a "crackdown on Hamas", according to these those two institutions. Why should Israel's word be taken for fact rather than theirs? NPOV issue.

Another issue is the statement that the murder of the 3 teenagers was done by Hamas. There is, again, (at least looking at the Wikipedia article on the murders) no definitive evidence that Hamas members did the killings. The perpetrators of the crime have not been found. It is unsolved. Again, WP:NPOV issue. Hamas members are suspects, yes, but it is, again, unsolved. Furthermore, this also gives the reader the false impression that, since Hamas members purportedly committed the crime, a "crackdown" on Hamas would be justified. However, there is no evidence that it was ordered by Hamas rather than an individual act by men who just happened to be members of Hamas. The lead fails to clarify these crucial points, resulting in a POV in favor of Israel.

2. Its formatting seems rather odd, and it presupposes that the reader already has some knowledge pertaining to the events that occurred.

For example, consider the first sentence of this article: "On 8 July 2014, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge (Hebrew: צוּק אֵיתָן, Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Strong Cliff"), in the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip". Well, what does that mean? Was it a humanitarian operation? Was it a genocidal operation? Compare this to, say Operation Barbarossa, Operation Torch, Operation Desert Storm, all of which have superior leads, and are much more to the point and give a general, neutral summary as to what the article is about. Furthermore, the title of the article states that it is the "2014 Gaza conflict", yet the first sentence of that article doesn't use that term? The first paragraph more or less states that it was some sort of operation, without clarifying that it was an armed conflict, and during the next few weeks many people died. It failed to name the belligerents, the nature of the conflict, the purpose of the conflict, and even whether or not it was a conflict at all. That is insufficient and inadequate as a general, broad definition and introduction as to what happened. See WP:BEGINNING and WP:LEADPARAGRAPH for further clarification.

To get a better picture of what I'm trying to say, compare this article's opening paragraph: "On 8 July 2014, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge (Hebrew: צוּק אֵיתָן, Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Strong Cliff"), in the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip. Thereafter, seven weeks of Israeli air strikes and Palestinian rocket attacks, in addition to shelling and fighting in the ground invasion and cross-border tunnel attacks, have left more than 2,100 people dead, most of them Palestinians"

to the much better lead on the 2008-2009 conflict: "The Gaza War, also known as Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), was a three-week armed conflict in the Gaza Strip between Palestinian militants and Israel that began on 27 December 2008 and ended on 18 January 2009 in a unilateral ceasefire. At the time, it was also referred to in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎) and by Hamas as the Battle of al-Furqan (معركة الفرقان‎)." JDiala (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

1a. The term 'crackdown' is used by Palestinians as well. What do you propose to write in the lead instead ?

1b. Who kidnapped the teenagers and whether it was with or without the knowlege of Hamas leadership is discussed in the background. The lead only says 'by Hamas members', which is accepted by all sides today. At the time it was disputed, and this is discussed in the background.

2a. I do not think anyone would object to adding "military" to the operation description. Should not be a problem to mention belligerents same way as it is done in OCL. Do you propose to change anything else ?

2b. I always said the article name should be Operation Protective Edge since this is what this article is about. The lead should also provide alternative Arabic names if they were prominent enough. WarKosign (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The word 'crackdown' was how Benny Gantz's words on 8th July were translated from moern Hebrew, and was thereafter taken up by all press agencies irrespective of their editorial slants.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That people affiliated with Hamas killed the 3 is almost 100% certain. The text makes clear the difficulties of, as far as the evidence published goes, assuming what you say is 'implied'. The quality of the arguments from the two to Khalid Meshaal is weaker than the argument that the Kiryat Arba rabbis were responsible for both the Baruch Goldstein massacre and Rabin's assassination.

If there is an agreed on standard Arabic term for the present war, then it should be introduced into the lead after Protective Edge per NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the quote by Benny Gantz anywhere. I wonder what the Hebrew origin of the word 'crackdown' is. At most I see "hitting Hamas hard" and variations of it. WarKosign (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Ways in which Hamas is bad"

I will remind people that the "Alleged violations of international humanitarian law" section is not the "Ways in which Hamas is bad" section. There are plenty of nefarious things which Hamas does, not all of which violate IHL. Some of them are just plain old corruption and domestic issues. And please keep in mind WP:BURDEN when you add stuff. You have to demonstrate some relevance. With that in mind, three edits come to mind. I will gently remind the user of the policy of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE.

• [29] The second paragraph is talking about police actions. Keeping people in house arrests, mistreating them etc. Moreover, the denial by Hamas is not included. Would you let this kind of allegation go unchallenged if it was leveled against Israel? Either it should be moved to the collaborator section and some link demonstrated, or it should be removed.
• [30] This is again talking about internal police actions. Is Hamas expected to release all prisoners from jail because Israel might bomb it? This is the logic being used. There is no proof presented that this sort of thing violates IHL. Again, Hamas denials are not included.
• I can't find the third edit, but it has to do with misuse of humanitarian aid by Hamas, giving it to their cronies. This is corruption, not violations of IHL, and nobody is claiming otherwise. Again, Hamas denials are not included. Kingsindian (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved the accusations of keeping Fatah members under house arrests into the "Forcing/urging civilians to stay in home" section because they are forcing (by shooting and breaking limbs) them to stay in homes, and it puts them at risk. "By doing this, Hamas was putting them under threat of being killed by retaliatory Israeli strikes". This source says "PCHR calls upon the two Palestinian governments in Gaza and Ramallah to stop such human rights violations and to ensure respect for the Basic Law and international human rights standards" - so it is an alleged IHL violation.

Misuse of humanitarian aid is at the bottom of the first diff. It does not seems to belong with alleged IHL violations, I'd move it to Impact on Gaza Residents, where "severe shortage of various categories of medicine, medical supplies, and fuel" is discussed.

If you can find Hamas denials/responses - sure, let's add them.WarKosign (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that Electronic Intifada is now considered WP:RS. Just a joke, but you will notice the irony there. It is indeed WP:RS for this claim. The PCHR source is talking about domestic repression. It is talking about "international human rights" standards, not "international humanitarian law" which is totally different. If this needs to be added, there should be a separate section for "domestic repression" in the article. It goes without saying that if there is such a section, Israeli actions would also need to be included. As to Hamas denials, they are present in the same sources which are cited. Kingsindian (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There were some other, pro-Israel sources that reported these violations, but I preferred to quote EI since you can't accuse it of being biased against Hamas. I would prefer a neutral source if I can find it. International human rights law "is closely related to, but distinct from international humanitarian law". Are you saying we should not list violations of IHR law ? Why one and not the other ? Perhaps the section title should be modified to cover both. WarKosign (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the source is talking about "international human rights standards", not international humanitarian law. The two are completely different. The first means "international standards" of "human rights law". The second deals with armed conflict and so on. As I said, I am fine with including the latter, but it needs to be a separate section, let's include Israeli violations as well. We can start with the protests in the West Bank, but we can go much further. Kingsindian (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote, I agree that they are different. If I understand correctly, International human rights law applies to relationship between individuals and their state, so I believe it's appropriate to apply it to Hamas which governs/runs/controls Gaza and claims legitimacy. The whole "Killing and shooting of Gazan civilians" section discusses alleged violations of this law by Hamas. As you argued before, Israel's control of protesters in the west bank is not policing (state's handling of its civilians) because of alleged occupation, so the IHL applies instead. Human rights law can only apply to Israel's treatment of its citizens - is there anything in this area you consider relevant to add ? Assuming that there isn't, Hamas's killing of Gazan civilians is the only paragraph dealing with the International human rights law, so instead of moving it to a different section I suggest just state it clearly in in the section that it deals with human rights law, and rename the top-level section "Alleged violation of international law" (without "humanitarian"). WarKosign (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole section is dealing with violations of IHL. Changing the section heading to "human rights law" to incorporate stuff like this is a strange way of dealing with the topic: it should be a separate section. All govts. everywhere take advantage of conflict to commit human rights violations. If one wishes to include Hamas domestic repression, one can make a long list of violations in the West Bank during the conflict. The PLO has released a report detailing multiple problems. One can also include many many other things, like this inside Israel. It is easy to multiply examples. Kingsindian (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, according to your own argument west bank may be examined by IHL, but not IHRL. I do not see any mention of 'violation' or 'humanitarian' in your first source, but surely you'll find something. The second quote discusses a violation of human rights of Israeli civilians, so it should be applicable (preferably backed up by a better source than this blog site). As for organization, I see two alternatives. This is what I think you are offering:

• Alleged violations of international humanitarian law

• By Israel

• (everything we currently have there)

• By Hamas

• (everything we currently have there, minus "Killing and shooting of Gazan civilians")

• Alleged violations of human rights law

• By Israel

• (new material on arrests of Israeli Arab protesters)

• By Hamas

• (content of "Killing and shooting of Gazan civilians")

This is what I'm offering:

• Alleged violations of international law

Modify the first paragraph to say "... might constitute war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, or international human rights law.

• By Israel

• (everything we currently have there)
• (new material on arrests of Israeli Arab protesters, mentioning the human rights law)

• By Hamas

• (everything we currently have there, in "Killing and shooting of Gazan civilians" mention the human rights law)

I think my organization is easier to read, considering the two laws are quite similar; both deal with protecting civilian from states. The only difference is whether the protection is from their own or the other side, and use of human shields in IHL already blurs this distinction. WarKosign (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC) WarKosign (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The laws are not similar. They are completely different, despite the similar sounding names. The whole section right now is about violations of IHL - the conduct of either side in the war. The domestic repression by Hamas (or Israel) is not unimportant, but they are of a totally different category. There is nothing to be gained by confusing the two. Why change the name of a section to include 1% instead of keeping it to 99% of the information and making a new section for the 1%? Kingsindian (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If we are counting percentage of casualties (who are arguably victims of violations of IHL or IHRL), then Hamas executed and killed by failing rockets 160-180 people, which constitutes 11%-15% of civilian deaths and not 1% as you claim. We disagree on the best way to organize the data, so let's wait for more people to give their opinions. WarKosign (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas did not execute 120 "collaborators"

"More than 120 youths were killed because they did not abide by the house arrest imposed on them," Abbas said. "This is in addition to the extra-judicial execution of 30-40 people during the Israeli assault."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/42879-140907-abbas-threatens-to-break-up-unity-government "Speaking about the execution of 'collaborators' with Israel that Hamas committed in Gaza, Abbas added 'Hamas conducted atrocities during the war in Gaza, also at its end when it executed 120 people without trial because they breached the curfew placed on them.'" It doesn't say specifically that they were accused of being collaborators, but I think it is implied. What do you suggest to write in the article instead ? WarKosign (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

30-40 were executed for being collaborators. 120 were executed for violating the curfew.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The reports significantly differ on whether 861 Fatah and 50 Hamas members, including 120 Fatah members killed by Hamas for not wanting to be human shields, died during Operation Protection Edge--or if those figures should be reversed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Allegations of use of civilian structures for military purposes" section

I have removed the ITIC-sourced list of people using stuff in mosques etc. There are multiple problems with that. Firstly, it is WP:PRIMARY. Secondly, it is way WP:UNDUE to list individual cases like this. Thirdly, these are statements made under "interrogations", and cannot be stated as fact. Fourthly, the section already includes the different claims of civilian structures being used etc.

Also, I don't know who moved one paragraph from this section to the "civilian deaths" section. I have moved it back. It is talking about this exact issue, not civilian deaths in general. Kingsindian (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. ITIC did not interrogate the militants itself, it is quoting Israel Security Agency (Shabak), so it is a secondary source.
2. I agree that there is too much details, let's discuss how it can be summarized properly. I did not want to include all the names of the militants, left them only so the sentences would be more readable.
3. These are the facts claimed by ITIC and/or Shabak and I thought the attribution was clear in the first sentence ("Interrogations of the arrested militants revealed that:").
4. The section contains generic claims, this section gave specific details. With mosque names and their uses. The last bullet actually belongs in "use of medical equipment"

I moved the paragraph. In it Amnesty International is making a claim regarding Israel killing civilians and there is nothing about Hamas using civilian structures. I think it fits better where I've put it. Why do you think otherwise ? WarKosign (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I will just answer the 2nd part here. The Amnesty international and HRW are talking about cases where civilian structures are targeted. Such targeting is fine if there is a) evidence of military involvement b) they are proportionate and observe the principle of distinction. It is this issue which is being discussed there. The USA today story quoting HRW talks about this specifically. Kingsindian (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the sources talk about civilian structures. We are discussing the paragraph. It says:

• disproportional attacks on civilians are prohibited
• israel's "relentless air assault ... flagrantly disregard[ed] civilian life and property"
• HRW says that israel did not present information that proves there was no violation
• HRW did not find valid military targets

I see how this paragraph is relevant to allegation of excessive force that killed civilians, because it is exactly what it says. What does it have to do with 1) civilian infrastructures and 2) alleged military use of thereof by Hamas ? WarKosign (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see that you have again added the ITIC source. First, please do not add stuff again while we are discussing. As to your points, see again WP:PRIMARY. It is not defined by the number of hops. ITIC has very close links with Israeli intelligence and there is nothing meaningful about them quoting Shabak. Find some mentions of this in the press or other sources and use those. It is also not legitimate to say that "Shabak interrogations revealed". This is a claim made by Israeli intelligence. One cannot use confessions made by prisoners directly.
• The USA today source (quoting HRW) is talking about human shields and cases where it is claimed that civilian structures is being used as military targets. The Amnesty International source is also talking about this. See section "What are the key obligations of the parties to the conflict during the hostilities under international humanitarian law?" Kingsindian (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if you are right and ITIC is a primary source, it is permitted per WP:PRIMARY, as long as it is used for straightforward and descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person. I believe that my paraphrasing meets this criteria. As for attribution - sure, let's try to make it as clear as possible. How about this:

"ITIC reported that interrogation of 150 arrested militants discovered several cases of militant use of civilian buildings. These included use of mosques for militant gatherings, training, storage of weapons, tunnel activities and military observations. According to ITIC, one militant said that he was instructed in case of successful abduction using a tunnel to take the victim to a kindergarten located near its opening."

"ITIC reported that the use of hospitals was often mentioned in interrogation of arrested militants. According to ITIC, one of them said that Hamas leaders are using hospitals for hiding. Their security wears police uniforms and operates the hospital admission desks. Another militant reportedly said that some civilians seeking medical attention were turned down by the security" WarKosign (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not just a matter of attribution. Secondary sources are used to maintain some distance and establish notability. The fact that Israeli intelligence makes claims based on confessions and some entity very close to them repeats them does not make it notable. Since Israeli intelligence is widely quoted by Israeli media it should not be hard to find some source which quotes it. Use those, instead of quoting ITIC. I am sure some NYT report has either already, or will, come along regurgitating the claims. Finally, there are lots of caveats about interrogation and confessions (I don't need to spell them out here). Kingsindian (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Here you go, same report regurgitated to your satisfaction (?) Not NYT, but they have "times" in their name and are NY based.WarKosign (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That is better, indeed, a perfect regurgitation. Use that. Kingsindian (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is somewhat better digested. Haaretz sounds less POV and provides a more useful summary. WarKosign (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid

@Knightmare72589: Your edit is WP:OR. Wikipedia editors cannot interpret ICRC law. This needs to be done by a competent authority and reported by a WP:RS. Many of your edits are like this. See the section [[31]]. Kingsindian (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jq32.htm

"The discussion of the previous chapter clearly shows that the withholding of relief can constitute any of the three crimes considered [war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity], provided that their specific requirements are fulfilled."

It's the ICRC concluding that withholding/stealing humanitarian aid constitutes breaking international law, not me or the editors. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: Please read WP:SYNTH. What you're doing is a classic example. First source says A, second source says B, you conclude, therefore C. A single source has to talk about this. If WP editors could decide which laws apply in which situation, there would be no need for lawyers. Kingsindian (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sure some source will connect the dots soon. Until then the fact of stealing the aid can remain in the article, without connecting it to war crime. WarKosign (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: be aware that the two editors who have comments on your edit are Single-purpose accounts who do nothing but edit this page and attempt to shape it into a form that pleases them. Keep that in mind.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Is it too much to ask that you read Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account#Whom_not_to_tag_.28SPA_tagging_guidelines.29? I frankly don't care if you tag me, but it will save your time for the future. Kingsindian (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Well I can see that since yesterday you've started to edit other pages than those related to Israel and Gaza but otherwise that's about it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Perhaps you might like to take a look at the history of these pages: page1, page2, page3 for stuff before "yesterday". Also I suppose 2005 counts as before "yesterday", so here is the oldest 100 of my edits. As I said, I don't care if you tag me, but it will save everyone's time. Kingsindian (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Um

The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions began following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank after the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members,[38] and which Hamas took responsibility for on 7 July' (launching 40 rockets),[39] after an Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis killed seven of its members.[38][40][41]

I didn't know Hamas took reponsibility for the murder of 3 Israeli teenagers on 7 July. Who's the clunk responsible for this shit, which, despite the parenthesis, insinuates that implication (which properly referring back to rocket fire from Gaza by non-Hamas factions, a nonsense by contextual entailment?Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I rephrased it to that, to clean up this messy edit. I think the "and" (in "and which Hamas") prevents your interpretation of it as saying Hamas took responsibility for the kidnapping. I've dropped the stray comma after "(launching 40 rockets)". Frankly, the entire parenthetical clause could be dropped, and that would make the sentence even easier to follow, IMO. -sche (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The sentence looks really awkward. Too many parentheses and commas. The previous version was much easier to follow (though even that is a monstrosity), and did not have the ambiguity that Hamas took responsibility for the kidnapping on 7 July. As to the "mainly among borders" etc.: that is from the source. One can argue whether it is undue or not. Kingsindian (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think, -sche, your challenge re 'border areas' odd. It is not a POV. It is a well-known, but 'unreported fact', and the journalist I cited it from is particularly meticulous in registered what therather more POV-slanted mainstream press ignores. When you have every other source, and almost every mainstream newspaper, ritually repeating 'rockets into Israel' , and find a very good source that is not copying and pasting text, but knows the subject and takes care to report with precise detail, you should choose the latter. Details are not POV. Ignoring them for generic memes certain bears a much higher risk of POV.

A to my edit being messy. My concern was to eliminate conceptual confusion by providing conscientiously the relevant additional facts to a screwed-up text. I normally don't elide what I consider to be bad or messy edits by others, but try to rewrite the mess with an eye to what sources actually say. That precision of order, and detail, has been constantly under attack.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Description of Gaza in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Gaza be described as "Hamas-run" or "Hamas-controlled" in the lead?

Some discussion about this here. Some people say that one is not acceptable, some people say that both are acceptable, but prefer one over the other. Indicate your preference and say if other is not acceptable. 08:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This presentation of the issue as a request for "preference" is somewhat clueless.

(a) Since when does Wikipedia work by user-preference? Tomorrow, other users will log in and a new preference could be reached. RfC is not to cross fingers (or do worst) and hope the "right" users log in.

(b) I've given examples on how Google counts are pointless for either terminology - Hamas 'runs' the tunnels, 'controls' the PR department (a.k.a. Flying Mosque TV), Street executions[32], etc. Terms like 'de facto control' and 'Hamas led' are neglected as well. After a mindless Google-harvest resulted in "as Hamas remains in control"[33] to support 'run'(?!), Kingsindian obfuscates with removal of citations[34] and a misrepresented RfC.

(c) The reason there was/is a growing consensus for 'Hamas-controlled' is not because of user-preference, but because this is the most dominant terminology in relevant citations - after the formation of the unity government a few months ago. See note.

Fantastic. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Due to recent comment moving I am now opening a dispute resolution thread. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Prefer Hamas-run, other not acceptable: Both phrases are widely used. Hamas-run Hamas-controlled. Main issue is that "control" has connotations that are disputed, because Hamas does not control the borders. While everyone agrees that Hamas "runs" the Gaza strip: even after the unity govt, Hamas is in charge. Best to use a neutral and accurate word. Google search gives slightly more results for Hamas-run, but not much. Kingsindian (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Controlled As Hamas is the sole and de facto government within Gaza, they control its internal affairs totally. Controlled has the appropriate connotations given the absolute power of Hamas within the Gaza Strip, they do not 'run it', they 'control it' in every meaning of the word. Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Hamas-controlled -- (a) See note. (b) A mindless Google-harvest is a disturbing methodology that ignores context. Hamas 'runs' <in> the Gaza tunnels, 'controls' the people and media (["Hamas militants killed seven Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel in a public execution in a square in Gaza City on Friday, witnesses and a Hamas website said." http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/crowd-gathers-watch-executions-suspected-collaborators-gaza-n186716]). Terms like 'de facto control', 'Hamas led' are neglected as well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC) m MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Hamas-controlled is unacceptable (a) Sources and international law say (see below) both Israel and Hamas control the Gaza Strip simultaneously. It is therefore misleading to attribute to Hamas alone 'control'. This problem does not exist for the alternatives (i)Hamas-run' (ii) 'Hamas-administered' (Israel used to 'run', used to 'administer' the strip, but no longer does, hence these alternatives are unequivocal). Wiki guidelines requires both WP:NPOV (dubious for 'control'), accuracy and unambiguous usage. I don't mind which term is used of the several suggested, but control is unacceptable. It is even factually wrong, since the second strongest militia there, Islamic Jihad, acts independently and has refused to bow to Hamas on numerous critical occasions.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Controlled Hamas control every aspect of Gaza life moreover Hamas of course control the borders of Gaza as he decide who goes through Egyptian/Israeli border. Of course Israel/Egypt controls their own border in similar way Canada controls its own border with USA.Though USA may allow some citizens leave the country to Canada. Canada is not obligated to accept them and that is in no way diminish the control of USA government.--Shrike (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perfectly stated + source: "seized control", "hand over the Rafah terminal". MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please desist from forming a rooting squad and wait for neutral third party outside comment. Vote stacking and wild caricature, let alone praising Shrike's comment which reflects his ignorance of international law as applied to the Gaza Strip, is disruptive.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies from the "Israeli ministry.:)".[35] Please address my raised question.[36] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Your style or lack of it (without giving secrets away) totally fails the complex 'profile' test I'm afraid, and thus consider yourself excluded from that innuendo.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, Do you say 'secrets' and 'excluded' like this? Fabulous. On topic: I added a source to support a source-based evaluation. Try to deal with it without being disruptive. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Prefer Hamas-controlled, Hamas-run is acceptable. Run has slightly positive connotations while controlled has slightly negative. Their way of handling the civilians it's more about controlling the strip rather than 'running' everything smoothly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs)

Threaded discussion

The status of the border posts is largely irrelevant in determining whether an entity controls an area. ISIS controls the area it occupies, but has no border posts. Likewise the Assad government in Syria controls areas with very little control on the inflows and outflows of people, there is a war on. The same argument applies to Hamas. They excersise absolute authority on the strip, judge jury and executioner. They control all areas of life and politics in Gaza, they control Gaza completely. Just my 2 cents on the 'border argument' Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't find that analogy persuasive at all. There are of course check-points all over Syria. And the border can shift, based on relative power. The borders here are determined in a totally different fashion, because the relative power basically means just one side. Israel has, for its own reasons, kept to the border, and carries out operations within Gaza periodically. As to controlling all areas of life and politics in Gaza: how can one do that without controlling the borders? Part of the electricity comes from Israel, as does much of what goes in. And there are other militant groups which are not in its control within Gaza, though Hamas has a lot of control overall. Kingsindian (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless arguing with editors who ignore the simple, elementary terms of the only sources that determine things like 'borders' 'control' etc. The legal situation is set forth, to citre one of dozens of book sources, here.

The Goldstone Report (a) p.49 section 187

Under the disengagement plan, however, the Israeli armed forces continued to maintain control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, . . In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, after the implementation of the disengagement plan, Israel continued to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the population registry, and the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory while the inhabitants of Gaza continued to rely on the Israeli currency.

(b)p.74 sections 278-9. Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and Access163) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore, Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.

279. The ultimate authority over the Occupied Palestinian Territory still lies with Israel. Under the law and practice of occupation, the establishment by the occupying Power of a temporary administration over an occupied territory is not an essential requirement for occupation, although it could be one element among others that indicates the existence of such occupation.164 In fact, as shown in the case of Denmark during the Second World War, the occupier can leave in place an existing local administration or allow a new one to be installed for as long as it preserves for itself the ultimate authority. Although Israel has transferred to the Palestinian Authority a series of functions within designated zones, it has done so by agreement, through the Oslo Accords and related understandings, keeping for itself “powers and responsibilities not so transferred”. When Israel unilaterally evacuated troops and settlements from the Gaza Strip, it left in place a Palestinian local administration. There is no local governing body to which full authority has been transferred. In this regard, the Mission recalls that the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, regards the transfer of powers and responsibilities by Israel under various agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as having “done nothing” to alter the character of Israel as an occupying Power.

Given the overwhelming extent of Israeli control, the word can hardly be used of Hamas, which administers, governs or runs whatever is left to manage. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

All this "overwhelming" belongs in a whiny section about Gaza's economy. Despite the not at all possibility of it, Hamas controlling Gaza is mentioned in a multitude of current mainstream sources (See note). Israel and Egypt controlling the US-Quartet sanctioned blockade doesn't change this. I hope to one day say thank you that you've finally stopped using sources before the unity government. On point, mainstream media talking about the latest Israel-Gaza conflict don't call it "Israel-controlled Gaza". They DO they call it Hamas taking control many, many, many times. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Clarify with sources. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked up the word control in a thesaurus and the best synonym for control seems to be rule. Just call it Hamas-ruled and be done with it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I like Hamas-ruled. I think it is as neutral as Hamas-run without sounding awkward. In fact, there are 264,000 google hits for that, more than for Hamas-run or Hamas-controlled. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just listening to it, I'm not sure. I'd like to see a few of those Google hits (time stamp is important as well -- since, currently, there's a joint Fatah-Hamas rule while Hamas is in control -- I raised a thought -- what is the language used regarding Mafia leaders?). I've already shown that is a terrible methodology for any terminology. e.g. Hamas made many rules on what people are allowed to do. Does this translate as "Hamas-ruled Gaza"? Hardly. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with Hamas-ruled. Kingsindian (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me as well. Since there is a POV-clash, some compromise term is the order of the day. Just insisting on one's personal preference is pointless to what this kind of exercise aims to secure, a consensual compromise.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Six months from now (or less), other users will look at a citation-less (i.e. unsupportable), emotion based language and our entire discussion will repeat itself with renewed vigor. Mainstream sources. An explanatory note that the government was changed prior to the Israeli terrorist-targeting operation. This is the best way to ensure longevity. The other POV regarding the blockade belong in blockade discussions. Pushing it as negating use of basic terminology is easily shown as invalid with multiple mainstream sources. As a side note, it is worth-while to note that there is a clear difference between 'rule' and 'control'. The clear difference is why use of the latter is more common. No matter how happy the current participants are with it, unless current mainstream sources show otherwise, the 'rule' language cannot be considered long-term terminology. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Unless someone shows some real body of sources that use Hamas-rule in the proper context, this RfC is a waste of time. A compromise would be nice -- but only if it can be supported by sources. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A single sample: "Lieberman questioned ‘Abbas’s leadership status, suggesting that, at best, he represents “only half the people” since Hamas rules the Gaza Strip" here. You can review as many uses as you like here.WarKosign (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike, Valiant Patriot, and MarciulionisHOF: Can you indicate if you feel that "Hamas-ruled" is an acceptable compromise? If so, the RfC can be closed. Kingsindian (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

'Hamas-ruled' would be an acceptable compromise, yes. Thankyou for conducting this RfC. Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Valiant Patriot, WarKosign, Kingsindian, Shrike, and Knightmare72589: (those in discussion)

That sample is outdated. Hamas 'rules' not benevolently and wisely but through 'control'. This is why when I narrowed the search to the relevant time frame (June 2, 2014 till now), there were less than 5 "Hamas runs <Gaza>" results from mainstream media (I saw 3[37][38][39], but there's probably a couple more). In contrast, 'control' has a wide base of support[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47](list goes on and on) in this time frame. As stated above -- this RfC, if users use "preference" that can't be backed by sources, is a waste of time. 6 months from now (or less), other users will change the citation-less compromise based on what they like. Mainstream sourced citation is the only proper way to go forward. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

See this list of "10 world worst dictators". Most of them are described as "ruling" their countries. The word 'rule' is neutral - one can be a kind and wise ruler, or a dictator who rules the people with an iron fist. WarKosign (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems too there is already a consensus.So I think its ok.--Shrike (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment: While the comparison to dictators is interesting, a gang of many disorganized militants (who's in charge? maybe even the Mossad sharks don't know) resulted in mainstream media using a more accurate and reasonable (read: "not neutral" in this voice) description. A few editors think Wikipedia should not use words like 'terrorist' (except when we're talking about the September 11 attacks) because it is "not neutral" (read in previously mentioned voice). Mainstream media tends to agree and sighting that word takes some special circumstances. This is such a special circumstance where one term is overwhelmingly used, while the other is scarcely used (because it is vague and misleading). Five editors might agree today, but another group might change it 6 months from now (or less) because "Hamas ruled" cannot be properly supported by references. Are you here to make long-standing versions or ones that will last for a few weeks (with luck)? ... Time will tell if this RfC was a waste of time or not. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding stuff in the header of the RfC

@MarciulionisHOF: Please read the guidelines for RfC, in particular point 3: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template". You statement is talking about all kinds of stuff like Google searches, which is nowhere mentioned in the original statement, and why "Hamas-controlled" is superior. This kind of stuff won't do. This is why there is a separate section for discussion there. Please move it back there. Kingsindian (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't find the statement of the issue neutral. Citation removal is at the core of the problem.[48] Another issue derives from the appeal to emotion ("Indicate your preference"). Six months from now, other users will look at the citation-free emotion based language and our entire discussion will repeat itself with whoever happens to be logged on and watching. This is rubbish and clarification is required to anyone naive enough to not understand this. Reinsert the citation that explains the complex situation and shows many mainstream sources use variations of 'Hamas controlled'. Make a note that decisions should be based on mainstream sources for longevity, not personal preference -- and I'll happily remove my clarification that the RfC is poorly constructed. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

8200 letter

@Nishidani: Here you added a paragraph about the IDF intelligence officers (actually reservists) signing a letter condemning civilian casualties caused by IDF bombing on targets that they helped identify. I added a response by the IDF spokesperson and an undue tag, yet I have several problems with this paragraph:

1. It does not belong in the Civilian deaths section since it does not give any details regarding the deaths.
2. It does not belong in the reactions section (actually sub-page) since they began collecting signatures for the letter "nearly" a year ago, so those writing the letter and a large part (possibly most) of those signing it did not do so in reaction to OPE.
3. The letter is already covered in detail in a special page dealing with all such letters by IDF soldiers.

I believe this paragraph should be removed, maybe leaving a short sentence linking to the main article from the Reactions section. WarKosign (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone forgot to insert the Israeli view? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:undue with only tangential relation to the current conflict. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed altogether. This letter has been over a year in the making. The release of the letter pretty much happens to be a coincidence in timing. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Its clearly doesn't belong here. The source quite clearly says it was prepared well before the war and have nothing to do with it.--Shrike (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But Shrike, "[your] ignorance of international law"[49] and "mass civilian deaths"[50]. Naytaining good faith, I hope to learn the latter note was source based. In the meantime, I nominate these two recent posts for 10 Million Theoretical Dollars. Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This editing behaviour, of lockstep naysaying, is close to reportable.

One argument of relative substance has been made, where WarKosign argues that it is perhaps in the wrong section. I can be removed to another section on this page, not shifted out of sight onto a subsidiary page. Most of the 5000 odd targeted strikes are, according to sources, done via the Unit 8200 operational headquarter's information. It plays a key role in any war undertaken by Israel, and it is therefore perfectly approach for the present instance.

The rest of the comments are spurious.

WarKosign's assertion that I inserted a 'paragraph' is patent misrepresentation, setting up a WP:Undue claim. It is a short sentence, and can be further abbreviated by eliding excess contextualization of the Unit.

Knightmare's argument that it is irrelevant, having been drafted a year ago, is false. The primary draft was made a year ago. As the page states, it was retouched in the light of rising casualties in Gaza, and was withheld until after the latest war. Published some weeks after, it refers to the collective punishment of residents in Gaza. Another stated that the latest episode was 'just another chapter in this cycle of violence,' which their action hopes to interrupt.

Plot Spoiler says it's tangential, a subjective judgement (much in the page is 'tangential' in any case). It turns out not to be tangential. See also the testimonies provided in Hayden Cooper,'Israeli soldiers from elite wire-tapping unit refuse to use 'extortion', 'blackmail' on Palestinians,' ABC News 13 September 2014, which, by the way, in contradistinction to what the page tries to assert, shows how easily mistakes are made, because the vaunted civilian/militant criterion is often, where decisions are made, vitiated.

Marciulionis's reference to a lacuna has been resolved by WarKosign's balancing edit.

Distaste is not an argument. Block voting, without proper individual judgements, does not constitute a consensus. It constitutes evidence (the second time on this page) that a POV push may be active, and rallies on crucial questions. If this continues, we'll will have to take it to arbitration.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

2 Questions to activate the imagination and work on accomplishing a source based consensus:

• Where has anyone used "distaste" as an argument? (I will hand out 10 million theoretical dollars for the most creative answer)
• Where is there a mainstream source connecting this supreme letter writing (and all the responses) to the best Operation Defensive Shield?

Fabulous. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If the letter is in the wrong section, it could be moved to the correct section. I have long thought that the stuff about reactions inside Israel and the West Bank should be inside this article, not the "Reactions" article, which is mostly about pro-Israel/Palestine demonstrations and statements by foreign leaders. The first time I added it, someone moved it to the Reactions section, and I forgot about it, and it was moved to a separate page afterwards. I will move the section back here (condensed, there is too much detail), and perhaps this letter can be included in that section? See also discussion here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph vs sentence - you are right. You inserted a sentence which became a paragraph after my attempt to balance its POV. We seem to have an agreement that if it belongs anywhere at all in any form, it would be as a short (yet balanced) sentence in the Reactions section (which is at the moment the transcluded lead paragraph from Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). The two remaining questions are:

• Is it factually correct that this letter was written (mostly) in response to OPE ? How many of these who wrote and signed the letter actually participated in OPE?
• Assuming that it is, is it due weight ? With all due respect to the 8200 officers, how notable are they ? There are plenty of other IDF soldiers who were involved more directly in the operation, are we representing their opinions as well ?WarKosign (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(a) Who said that it was written in response to OPE? Not I. It was, according to sources, drafted before, and then slightly modified during OPE (though I'd like further sourcing for this point than what we have at the moment). As I just edited in at the other page, while none of the signatories were involved in the Gaza war, several avoided service in Operation Protective Cliff, when called in from the reserve, by using pretexts. That establishes a direct nexus, the reasons given in the letter account for their refusal to work in OPE. Secondly the major testifies that very many of his colleagues agreed with the letter, but baulked at signing it because it would be detrimental career-wise. (b) America is rocked when one of its NSA agents blows the whistle, and the 'conversation' rages for years. These guys, like it or not, have done something in unparalleled numbers for the first time in Israel's intel history, and numerous sources are discussing this now. My simple view if, we must cut down our subjective likes and dislikes and simply look at whether sources think the info is important or not. They do, and the interviews make no doubt that a connection with what Israel did in Gaza does exist.Nishidani (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Except the obvious WP:UNDUE issues there is WP:SIZE problem the article already is already too large we should trim it instead bloat it more by WP:UNDUE staff.--Shrike (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The letter is only tangentially related to the article subject matter and has no place in the article. Valiant Patriot (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no direct reference to Operation Protective Edge in the letter anywhere. The authors admit that they wrote the bulk of it many months before OPE. Several also admit not participating in the operation "by using pretexts", hence their views on the operation hold no more value than of any other non-participant. This letter is not a response to OPE, even in small part, hence it does not belong in this article in any way. It is notable enough to be represented together with other similar letters elsewhere. WarKosign (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I require clarification on 3 issues. (a) Where are the interviews where "several avoided service in Operation Protective Cliff"? (b) Where has anyone used the Napoleonesque "distaste" as an argument? (c) Israel did a lot of things, good and bad, in Gaza over the years. What is the relevancy to this article? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Not only there is no direct reference, here one of the authors says "We’ve been thinking about it for maybe a year" "We didn’t want it to be interpreted only in this context. We decided before the recent war to do this. For me there wasn’t any particular trigger. It was a long process of realising" - they say it clearly that the letter is essentially unrelated to OPE and they don't want it to be seen as related. @MarciulionisHOF: "All three are now on the active reserve list and have said they will not do reserve service relating to the occupied Palestinian territories." - I believe it answers your issue (a). It also indicates that they can't have first-hand knowledge of alleged violations of any kind during OPE, rendering the letter even more WP:UNDUE.WarKosign (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read both the text and those sources closely, without choosing some bits and ignoring others. (b) please reply to my specific points which were elicited by various editors' comments or doubts.

• We are not talking only of the letter, but the collection of documents and testimonies attached to it in Cooper (not The Guardian but ABC News). You picked the wrong source. To single out the letter because it doesn't mention specifically this war, but, according to interpretations, may allude to it, and use that as a reason to exclude it from the article, is special pleading, given other considerations. I.e.
• Even the Guardian interviews, construed correctly, underline its relevance. You yourself cite:

We didn’t want it to be interpreted only (не . . только . . . ) in this context.

In English prose this is the absolute simple form of the не только . .но и construction. only here means 'we wanted it also to be interpreted in terms of this conext, but the intention was far more general'. I'm bemused by this looking past the obvious meaning of the sentence. But this is the English wikipedia, and precise construal of source language is obligatory. only is exclusive grammatically, but in such combinations with negatives, has an inclusive function, and here that inclusive function refers to the present war.

• The letter does explicitly mention the collective punishment of residents in Gaza. This statement is generic, and, since the letter was retouched according to a source after the the outbreak of these hostilities ('it was modified in response to the rising number of civilian casualties in Gaza'), the generic reference must be taken normally be taken as not excluding the Israel-Gaza war in its latest, third stage.
• Therefore, your construal that 'they say it clearly that the letter is essentially unrelated to OPE and they don't want it to be seen as related' is contrafactual, given the sources, and by recourse to the adverbial essentially you are misconstruing it towards the idea, which is again denied by sources, that they did not have that war in mind, when the published it immediately after the war ended. One interviewer says this war was illustrative of a more general principle in being 'just another chapter in this cycle of violence.'
• While the illustrations used do not relate to this war, the above evidence shows the connection, one that is confirmed by the fact that several of the signatories refused to comply with their call up by adopting excuses to justify what was in fact, plainly, a refusal to serve in the war. That admission, alone, that several signatories 'dodged' service in the war means again, that a connection is established.
• 'It also indicates that they can't have first-hand knowledge of alleged violations of any kind during OPE.'

This is immaterial. Nowhere in that sentence do I refer to, or make an argument about, 'first-hand knowledge of alleged violations during this war'.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I had added this earlier, but I forgot to save. Oh well. I am really surprised by the reasoning that since they refused participation due to political reasons by using pretexts, their views have no more value than any other non-participant. They are veterans of intelligence service, talking about their own experience: their view (properly contextualized) is much more relevant than the tons of trash based on gossipy news stories in this article. Please start by removing the trash if you feel the concern for WP:SIZE.

• Regarding WP:UNDUE, one has to take the following into account. This will necessarily get a bit WP:SOAPBOXy, because to argue about undue weight, one has to get meta. The letter makes many points, including a "culture of impunity" that exists in the military intelligence service, a point already made in the text regarding the army investigation, and B'Tselem having refused participation with the army on this. (again, this is not talking about whether B'Tselem is right or wrong). In the interviews, the person says that they don't want it to be seen as "just" a response to the war. It is silly to read this to say that it is totally unrelated to the conflict. Also, there is a big section about collaborators currently in the article, and this aspect is specifically mentioned in testimony and interviews. I noted before the issue that direct confessions from militants have been included in the article, without any caveats at all.
• To repeat, whether or not you feel that the people involved are right or wrong, that is not relevant to the issue here. Kingsindian (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thanks for the translation, I believe my understanding of the source is adequate without it. Their statement of 'not only' is the reason I wrote 'essentially' and not just 'unrelated'. You are making a very good argument why the letter and the opinion of the people who wrote and signed it is notable in the context of the whole Israel-Palestine conflict, I completely agree that it should be represented, and there is a very nice article dedicated to just this kind of refusal letter.

We are discussing the relevance of this letter as a response to OPE. There are a few points against it:

• It was written well before the operation began. Even after the modifications OPE is not mentioned, at most it is alluded. How are we supposed to understand that collective punishment refers to OPE and not, say, the blockade ?
• The authors say in an interview they do not want the letter to be as "only" referring to OPE, but to the whole conflict.
• The authors did not participate in the conflict in their military role, rendering their opinion of it (however much of it is represented in the letter) no more valuable than any other left-wing activist (former IDF officer, if you prefer) in Israel. There are many interviews with soldiers who personally fought in Gaza, let's quote interviews with them. We had a quote of Avi from Golani, let's reinstate it and his friend's testimony as well.

Something about this letter can be included in the reactions section. In my opinion, it boils down to "Reserve soldiers of 8200 who wrote a refusal letter several months before the operation refused to serve during the operation and published the letter in slightly modified form after the operation ended." These are the facts that are somewhat relevant to OPE.WarKosign (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your English is excellent, but you still misconstrue both just and not only, the latter in particular cannot be interpreted as 'essentially', as you would affirm, and I think I did explain why. I'll repeat the Guardian passage

For a couple of months friends [have been] joining and [it’s been] growing slowly … most of them are still active. We’ve been thinking about it for maybe a year. It was a difficult dilemma. We were worried that this action would be seen only as a response to the war in Gaza and it is important to us to make it clear this is about the ‘normal’ situation [of the occupation]. A: We didn’t want it to be interpreted only in this context. We decided before the recent war to do this. For me there wasn’t any particular trigger. It was a long process of realising

There is no way that can be construed as not being connected to the war (and it was sent just to weeks after the ceasefire). They decided before the war on the letter, wishing to make a general statement of Unit 8200's role in the occupation of the Palestinian territories, but withheld it as war broke out. It was retouched in the light of the war (evidence given). It was communicated to the relevant heads two weeks after the war, when the ceasefire was holding. When punished they then specified:'Don't read it as a protest against the war in Gaza only: we wrote it before that war, the war obviously is part of our concern in making the protest, but the protest is far deeper, and regards not just 'the collective punishment of Gazans' in that war, but the normal 'collective punishment' in Gaza and the West Bank over time.

The declaration is one of the several element listed which indicate a direct connection to the war.Most of our sources come from people who did not participate in the war. Finally, but most importantly, the premise that the letter must have an explicit reference to OPE in order to warrant its citation in the article would destroy the page, since much of the material covered in the background (as is usual) is sourced. Take notes 50-56 to cite but one example (cf.Note 56 Hillel Neuer says Gaza 'not occupied'; UN disagrees,' January 2012, Jerusalem Post), which all predate the time when this letter began to be drafted. I'll be away abroad a few days. I don't think your proposed draft reflects sources (perhaps:’ Two weeks after the ceasefire, 43 reserve officers in Israel's elite Unit 8200 which provides targeting information informed senior political and military figures, in a letter mainly drafted before the war, they would no longer performed their surveillance functions in regard to Palestinians. They cautioned that letter is not only a response to the war in Gaza, but a larger critique of Israel’s military actions in the Occupied territories. Official responses, including those of many of their colleagues, were unanimously dismissive of the charges made..’). I'll leave it in the meantime, hoping a fair compromise can be ironed out for a one sentence reference to this item on our page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is fully unrelated to this conflict and WP:undue as the majority of participants in this debate noticed. 5 editors and myself (6 editors altogether) shared the same opinion, so the inclusion of this information is clearly rejected by majority of editors. This article needs to be shorter and specific to the subject. --Tritomex (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Tritomex. This is not a voting booth, and opinions particularly unfocused ones ('the majority of participants here'), are quite useless unless they underline the fact that there is a clear majority siding for one POV on key issues, without troubling to take other editors' comments seriously.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Flags in the infobox

@Architect2014: Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes. Flag icons should be avoided in the infobox. Kingsindian (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing RfC for "Hamas run, controlled, governed, ruled, whatever"

Closed the RfC since the consensus was clear for "Hamas-ruled". Any further discussion can be done here. Kingsindian (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Question in hopes to get a long-standing version: If Hamas runs it. What exactly does the unity government mean? The Prime Minister is from Fatah, and Fatah gives the money for salaries (and many other activities). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The operative point here is the status at the time of the operation. At that time, Hamas "ruled" the Gaza strip, and still does, as of this date. As to salaries, they were not paid for several months, even after the unity govt. Kingsindian (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I see the word 'control' twice ("Hamas seized control", "The Hamas-controlled Finance Ministry") but don't see 'ruled'. *so confused* Is this source the one you propose to use for explaining this issue? What do other sources say about the unity government complexity? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The source was simply used to talk about the salaries issue. I will not be responding to anything else here. Kingsindian (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this the source you will be using? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I will answer just one more. I assume that are talking about the source for "Hamas-ruled". I will not be using any source. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations. Statements in the lead do not require any citations in general. It is a widely used phrase, that is sufficient. Kingsindian (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT "a widely used phrase"[51] so what would be sufficient does not exist. This is what happens when editors "simply ignore" the what sources say. On point: What exactly does the unity government mean? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Government of the strip is complicated and we do not want to go into the details in this article's lead. There is a whole other article dealing with it. What if "Hamas-ruled" was to link there, would it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not about my personal preference -- not even in sources (my sense of humor is not mainstream fitting). Let's say I agree and you add the link. What stops 2 editors from changing it 2 weeks from now to "Hamas commands mastery over Gaza"? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I find "Hamas-ruled" a reasonable, neutral wording. "Controlled" continues to be too inaccurate and has too many overtones to work. The above comments requesting "sources" appear to proceed from the erroneous notion that sources are required or relevant when deciding matters of style such as questions of which of several attested, denotatively largely synonymous wordings to use in prose to express a cited fact (viz. that Hamas governs Gaza). -sche (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Numbers in the infobox

@Avaya1: re your question here: it was Zaid almasri in diff who changed the other numbers in a way not supported by the citations, at the same time as edit-warring the Hamas figures back in. I don't know why; perhaps Zaid can tell us. -sche (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Zaid can't tell us, the user was blocked.- WarKosign (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)