Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hamas fired/IDF blog

Hamas fired more than 450 rockets at Israel since the beginning of 2014, by the time Operation Protective Edge began. ("Live updates: Ggaza terrorists fire rockets". Retrieved 8 July 2014.)

This is an improvement from the prior version, reducing the issue to 2014 the relevant time space for the background (start to mention 2001 and you get the counter of the several wars of infrastructural and human devastation, of wars and the ongoing blockage by Israel, and get nowhere)

However

• The source is an IDF blog which cannot be used, as I have noted several times.
• The IDF assertion itself is dubious, since the ceasefire terms of November 21 2012 have been generally observed down to June 2014. Hamas is the elected government of Gaza, and yet does not exercise complete control over the many militant groups operating there (as one saw in the Arrigoni kidnapping and other cases). The various jihadist groups there are generally thought to be behind many of the infractions caused by rocket fire. What the IDF blog did was total up firings from the Gaza Strip for 2014 and attribute them to Hamas, and not to Islamic Jihad in Palestine, various salafist and other militant groups. That is counterfactual. It may be untrue, and still be included, if you can get a mainstream newspaper to repeat the nonsense, and in which case, it must be included with attribution. But at the moment, the statement is contradicted by what Christa Case Bryant reports, and, from experience, she is a very close student of the details.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Implication in Lead

The implication in the Lead is that the Operation is a response to the killing of the teenagers. It's a subtlety, but it's in retaliation to the rocket attacks, that have intensified following the chain of events that can be traced back to the killing of the teenagers, but the causal link is not as direct as we currently state. The results of this error can be seen in the current ITN item on Main Page which boldly states the erroneous cause and effect. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This latest confrontation has roots in the kidnapping and murder last month of the three Israeli teenagers by men in the West Bank who Israel alleges belong to Hamas. That was followed by the kidnapping and murder of the Palestinian teenager, Muhammad Abu Khdeir, reportedly by members of an anti-Arab group of supporters of the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team known as La Familia. Micky Rosenfeld, the Israeli police spokesman, and a lawyer for two of the suspects said Tuesday that they did not know if that was true and that the investigation was continuing.The kidnapping and murder of the Israeli teenagers led to a crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, which in turn appeared to push Hamas to respond from Gaza, which it controls.'Steven Erlanger, Isabel Kershner, Dozens of Gaza Strikes by Israel as Hamas Extends Rockets’ Range,' New York Times 9 July 2014.

It's simply what sources report, and everyone knows.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Another lead problem

a senior Palestinian intelligence official said off the record that the disappearance of the two suspects immediately after the kidnapping constituted: "clear evidence they have links with the abduction".[

This has been inserted into the lead to finger Hamas. The statement was made to link the abduction of the 3 youths with the two missing Hebronites. It was not made by the PNA official to link the abduction of the 3 youths to Hamas, as it has been spun here. This is both POV pushing and a notable WP:OR violation and thirdly, the detail would not even be lead-worthy, even were it true, which it is not. It should be removed immediately.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

8 July amphibious attack

If there were four armed Palestinians, how were both of them killed? Further, both of those numbers disagree with the cited article, which says that five assailants were killed, of an unspecified total number. AudiblySilenced (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Shortly afterward, four armed Palestinians attempted to cross into Israel via the beach at Kibbutz Zikim. Gunfire ensued with the IDF resulting in the death of both Palestinians.

Resolved

 – After researching further, two and four were both earlier published numbers, one more outdated than the other. Corrected both. AudiblySilenced✉ 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please indent and put your response in the proper chronological order on the TP - very confusing otherwise. I fixed it this time.

Non-well-formed sentence in intro

There is a non-well-formed sentence in the intro:

Although there is no evident link tying the Hamas governing body, was shared with the public,[8] Hamas endorsed the kidnapping as a means of securing an exchange of prisoners.

I am not entirely sure what was intended here -- an obvious fix would be to insert "that" instead of the first comma. However, its not clear to me that this fits the source given in the footnote. Someone more knowledgable please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.246.64 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor corrected it..HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User Coltsfan added Military Expert tag ....

Please, when you do this, say so in the edit summary and then come to the Talk Page and note it in the future. Thanks. What particulars do you feel need to be addressed? Without a proper edit summary, just tossing a tag on the article is not the thing to do. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's good to remove if user failed to express the idea of adding the tag. --Anton^Talk 02:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Indian Reaction

Hello, since I am unable to edit the article, would someone be able to add in the Indian reaction to the crisis and operation? Here is the source. http://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/23602/Official+Spokespersons+response+to+a+media+question+on+escalation+of+violence+in+Gaza+and+Israel 184.59.8.225 (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Anton^Talk 06:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

21 children killed

at the moment http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/09/these-are-the-names-of-13-children-killed-in-gaza/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Pallywood

At the top of the Social Media section an anonymous user added a link to the main page for Pallywood which was immediately removed by someone whose entire profile is devoted to Anti-Israel. Seems to me like this was removed solely for political reasons and not for the good of the page. I have never seen anything about Pallywood before. Any thoughts on this? - Galatz (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice how you are tirelessly trying to give an Anti-Palestinian view in the whole article. It is not a crime if I hate the state of Israel. You have no right to intervene in others matters.--Uishaki (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what you mean since its not completely clear, however I have in many instances edited text to make it neutral plus added pro-Palestinian sources. However your point does not address the issue with the removal. It clearly added to the content of the section so why the removal? - Galatz (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Uishaki, the article is very balanced and reflects what the Reliable Sources state. Wikipedia is not a forum or a battleground to work out Arab-Israeli conflicts - keep your personal opinions about people(s) off the Talk Page and supply or discuss Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article. This is an encyclopedia which reflects facts - good, bad or indifferent. Now, to address the issue - not sure what if any value there is to add a link to Pallywood as far as the specifics of this article's topic - no objection to removing it without any valid context. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that those 2 edits[1][2] could be by Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis editing via a proxy. For those unfamiliar with Grawp, he is what I think can reasonably be described as a racist extremist and fanatical Israel supporter. He has been disrupting Wikipedia for 10 years since he was 15 years old. He's issued countless death threats and threats of violence. Exactly the kind of person who would think adding a Pallywood link is perfectly reasonable. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You are *guessing* they *could* be by someone? Well, that seem highly relevant... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.246.100 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant because I will be reverting any edits I see based on my *guessing* they *could* be JarlaxleArtemis and then an admin will probably block the IP as they usually do and maybe even revdel the edits if necessary. Anything else ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is dealing with war. Any attempt by editors to insinuate that one side's casualties are theatrical (Pallywood) should be automatically reverted. Any information emerging that shows photo manipulation, or the dissemination of deliberately falsified information by official bodies should be included. The first victim of war is truth, and there is a lot of untruth here, but we put it in because the majority of sources hammer at it. This is an asymmetric war between two electorally legitimated states technically, and in war, one side should not be called AIF/IDF/soldiers and the other side 'militants', 'operatives' let alone the 'terrorists' which is the default language of IDF handouts and mainstream sources. But since RS maintain this stupid bias, we are obliged to accept it (with the exception of 'terrorists'. ) Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Back ground section

In the back ground, the last paragraph, some allegations related to Iran's equipment support is presented. I reckon that, this claim is not suitable for this section, and this article somehow. May be this should be moved to the main articles. Mhhossein (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Editors should remind themselves that this is not an account of Israel's operations from an Israelocentric perspective (one could easily put in a map showing radiating out from Israel its attested attack capacities from Tripoli to Sudan to Syria and Baghdad). It is an account of a conflict between two sides in a military confrontation, and both sides must be duly represented. The use here of IDF blogs, or other blogs is not permitted. Given that it is just one more I/P conflict, all of the relevant material will be amply supplied by mainstream newspapers and specialist (credited) journals.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Internet blogs are in most cases not admissible sources for articles such as this (see WP:SPS). If you spot any lack of neutrality in the article, feel free to edit. EIN (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is obviously heavily edited by Israeli propagandists. Why are there pictures of damage in Sderot and Beersheba and none of Gaza where the dying is ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.15.38 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't constitute a NPOV issue. Do you have a COPYRIGHT-free image of such to post? Wiki cannot "borrow" photographs from news sources - no legal right. Nor can we make screen-grabs from broadcast news. Until an editor supplies a free-to-use image, and cares to improve the article with it, . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Occupation

The extremely important fact that Gaza is currently under Israeli miltary occupation has been removed from this article without explanation. Can someone revert that disruptive edit. Sepsis II (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In every article written about that, it always says something similar to "its considered illegal under international law, however Israel disputes that." You were just putting the one side, I would suggest putting the other view as a disclaimer and to make it neutral. With the disclaimer there I would think its fine, but hopefully the person who reversed it will jump in as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I was rather hoping you would explain your disruptive edit. "Occupied" Gaza? That is not how the broad spectrum RS are terming it. It is the language of the rejectionist. You seem to be attempting to insert the POV of Hamas or similar radicals. It is my understanding that the 2 State-Solution is still consensus, both in the real world, and on WP. Such POV has no place in mainspace. Irondome (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

And on a rather more real world point, for an "Occupied" territory, it does seem to be shooting rather a lot of rockets indiscriminately at population centres. Rather a lax occupation, to a NPOV observer! Irondome (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Gentleman, you are both wrong and it is rather pointless identifying "Occupied Gaza" as'the POV of Hamas or similar radicals' since this implies that the majority of judges in Israel's Supreme Court are either affiliated with Hamas or are as radical as those folks are said to be. Unlike editors here, those members of the judiciary understand the implications of international law, as evidenced in the judgement they handed down in Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. Israel (Targeted Killings). See Even J. Criddle,'Proportionality in Counterinsurgency:Reconciling Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,' in William C. Banks (ed.) Counterinsurgency Law: New Directions in Asymmetric Warfare, Oxford University Press, 2013 pp.24ff., esp. pp.39ff., where Criddle construes that decision as determining, in line with earlier case decisions, that:-

'these territories (West Bank/Gaza) should be viewed as a single territorial unit under Israeli occupation, notwithstanding Israel's formal pull-out from Gaza in 2005' (p.40)

So Sepsis is quite correct, mainstream and respectful of Israeli judicial opinions, the very contrary of 'disuptive' (read 'politically correct'). On the other hand, it is WP:OR to introduce the term unless some consensually recognized RS states as much in the specific context of Operationb Protective Cliff. If Sepsis has such an authoritative source at hand, it is perfectly within his right to suggest it, and this has nothing to do with pushing Hamas's 'terroristic' beliefs, but the considered opinion of Israel's finest public legal minds, i.e., the 'real world' many editors seem to have no knowledge of. Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to find sources talking on the occupation and it's importance to these attacks.See minute 7+ As long as the occupation persists, it will continue to breed violence, instability and hatred on both sides.... Sepsis II (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an editorial - we need a front-page news story or a scholarly book cited for that point. As far as I know, there are no Israeli troops currently occupying the Gaza strip.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read scholarly works which amèply define a state all of whose borders are patrolled by Israel, its imports and exports restricted at will by the other state, and 25% of its productive agricultural land off-limits on pain of instant death if entered. And the lay of both international and Israeli law determines what we write, not what we personally believe-Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

They are under a blockade and de faco an occupation. According to this link: Naval blockades are acts of war under international law, so one country may legally blockade another only if it is acting in individual or collective self-defense. Many consider Israel's blockade to be on very shaky legal ground [3].--Ezzex (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I lost an extremely long post due to an edit conflict, so I am rather pissed off. My main point was that there are 2 concepts of "occupation" (and yeah I am totally aware of Its usage in Israeli judicial procedure, with sometimes mixed results) The first is the legalistic, International law usage, used within that context, many times. The second is more worrying. "Occupation" is used by rejectionists of a 2 state solution, and Hamas, as shorthand for the very existence of the state of Israel, and to have this "occupation" destroyed. The section as it was can certainly be read both ways, but in this context it is unnecessarily inflammatory and POV. Its not critical to the section anyway. Irondome (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Stating that Palestine is occupied is very npov, you won't get far on wikipedia trying to argue otherwise. As Nishidani states, the only thing that matters here is are RS putting these attacks and the occupation together as related which a quick google search, and the links I posted above show to be affirmitive. Sepsis II (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Irondome, this is no place to discuss theories of 'occupation'. The Israeli Supreme Court defined the meaning of the concept, and had you been familiar with the judgement you would not have written what you wrote. You were wrong, we are all fallible. Life is self-correction, except in the I/P area, where memes substitute for thinking or informed study.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• You are a wise voice. Irondome (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You are evading the point. What constitutes "Palestine"? Please clarify your vague terminology. You seem to be endorsing a view that "Palestine" is Israel. Therefore, it appears to be an attempt via WP to delegitimise Israel. Your advice on how to prosper on WP seems rather worrying, in that case. Irondome (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have a point, you keep going into rants and pretending to be confused about basic facts. Sepsis II (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis. You are again rising to the bait, or bait (that goes for everyone). Stop it, no one listens. One must edit with serenity, even when death is round the corner. Don't use words like 'rant'. Reply to the substance of edits, and ignore the rest.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I was hardly ranting, I must point out. Nishidani, you are a fine Wikipedian. Irondome (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

An important note, but it doesn't have an official place to be put on this article.

For the first time, Arab media is starting to openly criticize Hamas (while still criticizing Israel of course). I think this is important to note, but I don't think it should be put under official state reactions. Maybe create a new place for it in the article?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4541932,00.html

"Like their Israeli counterparts, Arab media outlets have been extensively covering the IDF's Operation Protective Edge. They have also conducted countless interviews with analysts, delivered breaking news and published various international condemnations. Unlike the Israeli media, however, the finger of blame is of course firmly pointed at Israel, while the Palestinian people are painted solely as victims.

But during this operation it has become evident that alongside the standard criticism of Israel, Hamas, which has in recent years lost face among the Arab public, has also been taking quite a bit of fire.

An example of this can be found in the Saudi newspaper “Al Watan”, which published an editorial on Friday that slammed not only Israel, but Hamas as well.

The criticism of Hamas appears later on: “The world does not deal with Palestinians in Gaza and international organizations do not do them justice because Hamas has a bad relationship with the world, and no matter how right the issue is, there needs to be a leadership that can make contact with the world for support.”

The article further explained that among other things, “Hamas’s isolation, its diplomatic impotence, its disconnection from the Authority and rebellion against anyone who is a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people makes it appear as a criminal in the eyes of the rest of the world.”

In Egypt, it was the television presenter and interviewer Amr Adeeb, known for his opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, who took heat for his support for Hamas.

He called on Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to intervene for the sake of Gaza's residents, open the crossing points and provide assistance. However, considering the current atmosphere in Egypt against Hamas, which is affiliated with the commonly despised Muslim Brotherhood organization, the reactions were quick to come and Adeeb was called a Hamas member and a terrorist.

Broadcaster Amani al-Hayat from ON TV, which is affiliated with the Egyptian regime, was one of those who slammed Adeeb. She claimed that Hamas was to blame for Israel’s “massacre” in the Gaza Strip and said that Hamas deliberately created the crisis in Gaza so that the Rafah crossing would be opened." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this aspect will develop. The BBC has already several times alluded to the stagnation of peace talks due to a suspected desire on the part of the Egyptian regime to severly weaken Hamas before negotions begin. It will in time probably become more noticable in RS. I support an eventual additional section if sufficently supported by RS. Irondome (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean cease fire talks? Because Hamas isn't involved in peace talks. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Egypt is dragging it's feet before it decides to be an active backchannel for a ceasefire. The BBC also mentions Kuwait as a potential backchannel, behaving in a similar fashion to Sissi's Govt. Will have to doublecheck that. There also good analysis on Hamas motivations in recent BBC reports Irondome (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Be aware of possible Israeli propaganda groups who target wikipedia

In 2008 the pro-Israel activist group CAMERA launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles to support the Israeli side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 2010 two pro-settler Israeli groups, Yesha Council and Israel Sheli, launched courses to instruct pro-Israel editors on how to use Wikipedia to promote Israel's point of view. A prize was to be given to the editor who inserted the most pro-Israel changes.[4]. I don't know if this is happening here, but everybody should be aware and watch out for this--Ezzex (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This was already removed per WP:TALK. Not sure whether I entirely agree with that, but whatever. Anyway, for what's it's worth, having edited in this topic area for years, I think this is a red herring. Activists/nationalists and many other 'ists' who are willing to ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE don't need to be organized or rewarded in order to fill articles with crap. It comes naturally and it's inevitable. It happens everyday in Wikipedia in all sorts of topic areas. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I will not tolerate that someone remove my post, like Hammerfilms did. This is not acceptable--Ezzex (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan must have decided that the comment met one of the criteria listed in WP:TALKNO, perhaps the last one "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." It's true though that editors here need to be aware and watch out for editors who violate WP:NOTADVOCATE regardless of who they are advocating for. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

An Administrator has already removed one of your posts on here a couple of days ago - if you violate WP:TALK then off it goes. Keep your racism to yourself, and only discuss Reliable Sources to improve the article. Your post does NOT address improvements to the article via a Reliable Source, it is Soapboxing. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You should stay the fuck clear of my post. You can read them and reply, but don't remove them.--Ezzex (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly support the "if you violate WP:TALK then off it goes" approach in WP:ARBPIA, it's debatable whether this comment meets the criteria (and I've seen thousands of comments in ARBPIA talk pages over the years that unambiguously meet the criteria), so it is probably better to leave it alone. The statement "I don't know if this is happening here, but everybody should be aware and watch out for this" is not soapboxing in my view and the statements that preceded it are factually accurate. Actually it's incomplete because NGO Monitor has also targeted Wikipedia and was caught doing it. Then there are the hundreds of sockpuppets that have been blocked over the years and the hundreds that haven't. I could go on. So this kind of thing, partisan editing and advocacy whether organized or not is a real problem, and saying so is not soapboxing. It's a practical problem that directly impacts on the quality and policy compliance of articles in WP:ARBPIA every single day, especially for topics in the news. Editors need to be aware of it and factor it in to their activities in the topic area. That is just how it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not just pro-Israel activists that you need to worry about. Pro-Palestine activists do it too. Palestinian Journalists Syndicate head Abdul Nasser An-Najar said he set up Wikipedia editing groups as well. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately WP:NOTADVOCATE doesn't say 'Having said all that, if you are advocating for XYZ you are good to go', so the beliefs and intent of the activists are irrelevant. There is an interesting debate to be had about the nature of advocacy in the topic area, the methods used by people who ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE and what to do about it, but this isn't the place. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please get involved here??

This is why I usually don't edit IP articles, this talk page has turned into a forum for commenting about the ongoing conflict, rather than how to improve this article, and it really needs to stop. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The large majority of this talk section is still on-topic, save a few minor disturbances. I think the situation is far from needing an admin to be kept under control (at least at this point). --Semper Iustus 16:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper Iustus (talk • contribs)

Genocide redirects here? Really?

I'm not sure what the guidelines are for an article redirect but this seems loaded and highly inappropriate. --46.117.203.210 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Accounts/IPs that make disruptive edits like that over and over again need to be blocked. I've reported it Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Brusselsprouts146. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean. This sort of article gets all sorts of "involved idiots" taking sides and trying to sort out international turmoils on a bloody encyclopedia! Morons. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

An eagle eyed admin blocked Brusselsprouts146 before they saw my ANI post. So my reporting it achieved nothing in practice. You're welcome. Yep, it's a bit odd that out of the ~4.5 million encyclopedia articles, people often focus on the tiny subset where their edits are most likely to be compromised by their personal views and they are most likely to generate/participate in conflicts with other people who hold different views. Still, admins have seen disruptive editing like Brusselsprouts146's in the topic area hundreds of times before so I'm sure they be willing to help brutally suppress it if it's reported. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of the dead and the Israeli massacres!

We want to add images to Israeli crimes. Please do not delete this post. Wikipedia is not an Israeli newspaper!

--الشبح العربي (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have any images that are relevant to the article and which are a part of the public domain, insert them or bring them up in this discussion.

-Semper Iustus 02:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper Iustus (talk • contribs)

This article is about the Israeli military action "Operation Protective Edge" not about some 'massacre' that may or may not have occurred - if you have some sort of Reliable Source which states the facts, please bring the citation to the Talk Page and we can work it in. Be aware that POV-Op Ed sites do not qualify, and copyright-protected photos are not allowed on Wikipedia - they'd have to be independent and freely given to Wiki Commons.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

<-Photos in the WP:ARBPIA topic area largely reflect the constraints imposed by licensing requirements. There are very few Palestinian editors or editors in the Gaza Strip who can upload photos they have taken themselves and few organizations publish their photos with creative commons licences, with the IDF being a notable and significant exception. B'Tselem use CC licences. Their field researcher Muhammad Sabah is in Gaza Strip and may have posted some photos. I haven't checked. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how many people in Gaza or visitors will not have cellphones with cameras - perhaps more than might be thought of at first - all they need to do is send the phtoto to another person if they themselves cannot upload to Wiki. We'll just have to see. Having been in that area of the world before, the most common of people always seemed to have some sort of mobile phone, and television.  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

ok, this site contains pictures of the crimes of the Israeli occupation here, you are an expert on Wikipedia, but you can put pictures barbaric crimes!!!! Or it's about the Zionist lobby and its control over the media!!! You you control public opinion for the benefit of the Zionist entity, unfortunately, say the truth!!

--الشبح العربي (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to "right great wrongs" as you perceive them, nor for soapboxing - please read the pertinent Wikipedia policies on these issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT Keep your comments on the Talk Page on-topic and free from political forum-debate, as the TP's are not a forum (READ the intro to this page at the top ^ please!) This article is about the military operation, not the so-called occupation of Gaza - please provide URL's of the specific photos from your site you wish to add - also, provide a provenance for them so they will pass the copyright questions that will be posed on Wiki Commons.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Those images can't be used in Wikipedia (or Commons). They are copyrighted with all rights reserved by دنيا الوطن. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Iron dome as gamechanger?

Long time reader, first time writer on wikipedia... just wondering, I came to this article via Iron Dome to see how it has played out in the timeline. While it is represented factually, something feels missing. In terms of military history, there is a *major* revolution happening due to the Iron Dome saving lives. If not for that- tel aviv would have been hit several times over, for example. Shouldn't there be a separate section elaborating that somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.30.80 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this article should only deal with it in as much as it relates to this specific military operation i.e. specific interception instances, things like that. It is very easy for articles like this to spin out of control via scope creep as people add information about things (e.g. the blockade, the prisoners, the kidnapping, the occupation, and many other things) that they think are pertinent background but which are best dealt with in other dedicated. The Iron Dome article (and talk page) and to a much lesser extent the Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Iron_Dome section are probably the most appropriate places to deal with the technology itself and its effectiveness etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That information belongs in the Iron Dome article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

On the introduction is mentioned that one israeli death has been reported, while then the information contradicts itself saying that there's no israeli casualties. --190.172.201.52 (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been 1 indirect Israeli death. A woman died of a heart attack while running for shelter. This is probably where the confusion comes from, I'll take a look and clean it up. Thanks - Galatz (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

International Incidents

So far, the only two incidents I've been made aware of that happened outside of Israel/Gaza as a result of the current conflict are these two:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.604572

and

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/woman-kicked-off-plane-at-pbia-after-argument-abou/ngc7Z/

Should these be added? Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

2nd link seems apt for the event. --Anton^Talk 02:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

May I ask why the first link isn't apt? 98.203.107.131 (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism happens not for "Operation Protective Edge" (OPE) even before OPE and would happen after OPE. Otherwise, it could be quoted clearly from Jewish Community Council thru its past experience. --Anton^Talk 03:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right about anti-Semitism happening before OPE and will happen after OPE. However, analysis has shown that during conflicts such as OPE, anti-Semitism has a upsurge. This isn't a coincidence. The victim in this case said that the attackers were yelling about Gaza. I don't think this should be so easily brushed off as just plain old anti-Semitism (in a manner of speaking). There is an article about anti-Semitism during the Gaza War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_incidents_during_the_Gaza_War So I don't see how this is unrelated. 98.203.107.131 (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A Paris synagogue was fire bombed and a 17 year old Jewish girl was attacked. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.604813 98.203.107.131 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

the infobox are overlong

The section Units involved could have been moved to the article. Other sections could have been reduced. Belligerents should have been shorter.--Ezzex (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree a couple things are a bit over flowing. Not sure why it went from just Israel to "Israel, Gaza envelope settlements, all towns within 90 km from Gaza and above, including Ashdod, Ashkelon and Beersheba, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem." Also I think the Flotila13 doesnt need to be broken out since they are a division of the Israeli Navy which is already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Should not use Israel media as references

Editors should avoid using israeli newspapers as references. There are a lot of articles about this issue in British and US newspapers. This article have far to much references from Israeli sources. There are over 100 references and over 50 % seams to be israeli/jewish.--Ezzex (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If they are WP:RS then they are fine. If you are seriously advocating some kind of racial quota on origins of RS, then we have a problem, that strikes at the heart of WP core concepts. Your racism is palpable btw. The concept of Israel or Jewish does not even seem to merit capitalisation in your world view, it would appear. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is just your "no Jews should edit" by another means. I have removed your NPOV tag, as everything is properly cited and the article is balanced. I'm also going to ask for Doug to step in again, please? HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I also did earlier, on his talk page. Im really outraged at this behaviour Irondome (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've also violated the 1RR rule for this article, Ezzex.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What about using Arab media? Is it NPOV? You should not guide apart from Wiki policy. I'd report you if you continue non constructive edit + discussion. Discuss where the article goes out of scope after adding POV. Vague point like "Should not use Israel media as references" cannot be good idea. --Anton^Talk 01:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I vehemently agree with OP. Considering Israeli media as a reliable source for this particular article is akin to considering RT a reliable source for the Ukraine crisis. This article is nothing more than Israeli propaganda attempting to downplay the plight of the Palestinian people. For example, you stated under July 10, "they plan a ground operation to free Palestinian prisoners", according to ynet, an Israeli news outlet. Nonsense. It's nothing but propaganda. The same people who are destroying entire neighborhoods of homes, or confiscating communal farmlands, bulldozing homes, blocking off certain areas, or not allowing civilian populations to leave their houses for extensive periods of time, are going to be "freeing" the Palestinians? The Israelis who torture, imprison without charges or trial, confiscate land, harass at military checkpoints, and often kill and beat innocent civilians are oh so concerned about them now that the international media is paying attention? Simply by using logic and looking at history, it's easy to deduce that the IDF does not care about following international law or basic human decency in its treatment of Gazan civilians. Please, just give me a break. Israeli news websites are obviously going to be highly partisan and are therefore inherently unreliable. Follow WP:NPOV. JDiala (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not want to discuss who is doing good or who is doing bad. The talk page is to improve the article. If you want to see there is a section/paragraph/line goes wrong, bring here and discuss. Generally, no one can deny the sources unless it is blacklisted. Normally, people wouldn't agreed to get Palestinian casualties from IDF sites and Israeli casualties from Hamas. Otherwise you have to mention as "Palestinian clam" or "Israeli claim". If you strongly feel that "Should not use Israel media as references", appeal to administrators by mentioning WP policy. --Anton^Talk 09:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, people like Ezzex are the norm in Norwistan. In Norwistan they brainwash children from an early age to hate Jews.[blogs.timesofisrael.com/norways-annual-israel-hate-day] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.79.150.80 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

These kind of discussions don't change things and make them better. It's pretty obvious that the article should use a balanced sampling of RS rather than give undue weight to information in any particular subset of the media that qualifies as reliable, but complaining about things won't achieve anything and making sweeping statements about the Israeli media doesn't even make sense as anyone familiar with Haaretz will know. Fix the issues yourself by replacing sources with the highest quality alternatives. It's tedious but that is the only way to deal with it. If you see a source (and it's associated content) that you think should be replaced by a better source, replace it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside Ezzex's personal views of the Israeli media (which is too diverse for general statements), I think the notion that editors should be careful about sampling bias is perfectly valid and sensible. Ideally the diversity of the RS cited here should roughly reflect the diversity of the complete set of RS that are covering this event globally. So, if for example, half our sources are Israeli and the other half Palestinian, we are doing something very wrong indeed. Editors in the ARBPIA topic area rarely seem to think about RS sampling issues, I guess because it's natural to focus on the trees rather than the forest, but it would be better if they did. There do seem to be some obvious sourcing issues e.g. Arutz Sheva/INN is cited 6 times, a generally unreliable source for facts that is almost certainly replaceable unless it is discussing something related to the views of representatives of the settler movement. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Injuries

None of the sources cited for the Israeli injuries in the 'Casualties and Losses' section actually verify the claim of 27 wounded. Should this be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitizenTrain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

All the sources state considerably higher, but the count keeps getting edited down to exclude shock which Israel includes in their count. Every time its removed the comments say Palestinians do not include that in their count, but I have no way of verifying it. Shock is a very vague term and could mean anything from anxiety to busted ear drums depending on how its used. Also source documents might change after updated as additional injuries occur. - Galatz (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This is also a propaganda war, and most of the sources on the page reflect the way either Israelis perceive this, or how the news is presented in Israel. It is patently obvious that you cannot enter in shock statistics in hospitalizations in Israel (to get some 'balance' is the reciprocal costs of war - we got shocked, they got dead), if only because there is a cvonsiderable academic literature on war trauma in previous episodes in the Gaza theatre of the I/P conflict, and it shows that shock, trauma, nausea, spontaneous abortions ratchet up every time the area is bombed. To pass of therefore figures for people with shock (mild, serious?) as an injury is wrong, as it is wrong to try and add figures for people spraining their ankles or getting bruised by running to bomb shelters at a siren alert. It is not only hasbara spinning, it is frankly, in the premise of parity between death and blood-letting, morally appalling to make such an equation. We should only include people who sustain injuries directly related in situations of exchange of fire, like the Israeli kid hit by shrapnel, in Ashkelon. Perhaps even the old lady who died of an heart attack while rushing to shelter inI think Haifa. Spraining your foot is not equivalent to being one of 22 people blown to smithereens outside a mosque. If Israel has few injuries it just means it is better at protecting its people.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I.e. you should not put this into an infobox, in short, but such socip-psychological aspects certainly deserve mention in the article body, (along with the fact that 180,000 people in Gaza (10%), according to a Norwegian specialist, will suffer from a large number of symptoms for several months as a consequence of the bombings, to judge from past experience. See Charles Hoyle, 'Gazans face psychological toll as fear of death looms,' Ma'an News Agency 13 July 2014. Neither this fact, nor the shock strains should be in casualty statistics.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

These are all very good points and I agree with them. Shock should not be included, as it is too vague a term to be equated with injury. --Semper Iustus (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Photos

Why does the article contain files that only promote Israel's POV but has no photos of the impact in Gaza? I think these should be removed for now until the others are added. There has to be balance in here. It is also pretty clear that IDF files are flooding Wikipedia, so I expect more of these to pop up in the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. There are 4 photos. 2 are from Israel, 2 are from Gaza. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

B.S. there are two photos both showing the benign damage caused by the rockets from Gaza. Where are the photos showing the destruction in Gaza? Take your partisan crap out of here. NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I added an external link to the Getty Images webpage for photos from Gaza, although wikipedia doesn't have the rights to host these images itself hopefully a link to the gallery is allowed. Hopefully this quells a lot of the problems that Fitzcarmalan has. Unfortunately I doubt wikipedia has many editors that are active in the gaza region that can upload photographs they have the rights to, to wikimedia. However if any editors know of anyone that has photographs their contributions would be welcome to the Wikipedia article. Nrg800 (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, although I still think we should wait till someone uploads the required files.

Also, I don't have "problems". I just have concerns about the article's NPOV and I don't think I'm the only one here. Please be careful with the choice of words next time. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, yes, I reread it and it sounded a lot more aggressive than I meant. I was trying to think pragmatically and I guess the response was too pragmatic. But yes. Hopefully by adding an external link for photos from both sides we can portray this event in a much more neutral way. Nrg800 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what's going on now with photos here. Its gone from 2 Israel damage photos, to 2 and 2, to no photos, to now just being 2 Palestinian Protests. Can we please try and find a way to keep this equal - Galatz (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It should reflect the balance of the coverage by RS as far as possible per NPOV. If it ends up being "equal" that's just a coincidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say though that 2 photos of a protest reflects the balance of coverage, with no other photos present. I am going to remove one unless there is a reason 2 are needed. - Galatz (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already done the edit. User Uishaki however seems to have an issue with the edit, for reasons he hasn't quite explained. My main concern is that two images simply don't fit for a section that is (so far) very small. The result was that one of the two images appeared next to "Media coverage" instead of "Demonstrations and protests". It is, however, fixed for the moment. Semper Iustus (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as well, for now. --Malerooster (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I was reverted, so the photo is still next to the official reactions section, and seemingly out of place. I am not reverting it however. --Malerooster (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Malerooster. There is no need to remove any image without any good reason. If you continue i will report you both.--Uishaki (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned in my edit summary that the photo now seems out of place. Report me and you will probably be blocked, but that's up to you. --Malerooster (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you saying 1 photo doesnt do it justice is an acceptable reason to add 2 photos, thats far from neutral. Also you are in violation of the 1RR rule - Galatz (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Uishaki, I think we have all been very clear about our reasons for wanting to only have 1 photo, while you haven't. I don't think you have any basis to report anybody here - If anybody has been breaking the rules it's been you. But it's your decision and you can go ahead with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper Iustus (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a search of Flickr Creative Commons 2014 photos of Gaza. Right now it mostly has protest photos from around the world. At some point it probably will have destruction photos. Also, these are relevant links on Wikicommons: Operation Protective Edge, Damage Gaza), [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Damage_in_Israel_during_Operation_Protective_Edge Damage Israel.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

<-Galatz, regarding this edit and the edit summary "Calling a photo "The remains of unidentified body, which demonstrates the brutality of Israel" is definitely not NPOV", don't worry about the names of files, just the caption (and the image itself of course and whether it adds value, which this one probably doesn't IMO). File names don't matter. They are often just copied from the source which are usually not going to be neutral, nor do they need to be neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, got it, no problem. The photo also appears based on google to be taken from opednews.com but I cannot find the photo on the site, so I cant tell if its copy written or not. - Galatz (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas involvement in kidnapping

There is some confusion about the sentences

"The IDF claim the two men Israel suspects of having kidnapped the teenagers were known members of Hamas. No evidence of this has been offered by the Israeli authorities..."

• The reference to the second claim says that there is no evidence about Hamas involvement in the kidnapping, it doesn't dispute that Marwan Kawasma and Amer Abu Aysha were Hamas member. I will try to clerify that.
• However, the claim that no evidence of Hamas involvement was offered is based only on one Telegraph article. There are other sources where, for example, Kerry said that "many indications point to Hamas’ involvement." and Israel promissed to share some inteligence on this to other states. (I don't know whether it did or not.) Franp9am (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, of course. Bush and Blair swore to it. Numerous representatives of government made the case for it, and yet at the time, any close reading of the paperwork hinted in real time it was all fudged, as indeed it turned out to be. History tells us that they lied through their teeth. In conflict, esp. lies, misrepresentation, distortions, are the bread and butter of official statements. Nine Fulbright scholars from Gaza couldn't do doctoral studies in the U.S. some years ago because of 'secret information' which said they were security risks. After tough negotiations and public pressure, a few of them were allowed to proceed to their universities abroad. It was all bullshit, of course. Shin Bet knew from the first day that the 3 teenagers were dead, and a political decision was made to make out they were still alive for some weeks, providing the justification for a spurious crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, possibly in order to seize the golden opportunity to wreck the PNA-Hamas unity government, which was a threat to the peace talks, Benjamin Netanyahu to judge from his remarks off the cuff in Hebrew (not translated in the foreign press) has no belief in, since his express intention is to impede the establishment of any form of a sovereign Palestinian state. The best statement I know of of what public knowledge is about this is by Mouin Rabbani 'Institutionalised Disregard for Palestinian Life,' London Review of Books 11 July 2014:'Binyamin Netanyahu immediately blamed Hamas for the three Israeli teenagers’ disappearance. The White House almost as quickly confirmed Hamas’s guilt, which has since been treated as established fact by the media. Yet the culprits remain at large and their institutional affiliation unclear. For its part Hamas, which like other Palestinian organisations never hesitates to claim responsibility for its actions and is prone to exaggerate its activities, has this time denied involvment.' Israel's statement that Hamas is responsible in concrete terms means they have direct proof that this specific act, by two embittered marginals, was directly ordered by either Khaled Mashaal or Ismail Haniyeh, or coordinated by both, and that it was not, as well might be, a rogue operation, as often in the past. If Hamas is behind it, it is an extraordinary piece of political folly, tantamount to deliberate suicide for a group that, like Hezbollah, is very careful in its calculations. It makes no sense strategically.

That comment by Rabbani is as neutral as you get. Israel asserts Hamas was behind it, Hamas has denied any knowledge, and the kidnappers belong, before they belong to Hamas, to the Hebronite Qawasameh clan which has an egregious record for sabotaging not only the PNA but also Hamas directives. They are at large, had personal family reasons for revenge, and, not so much their 'institutional affiliation' but who stands behind their crime, is not ascertained in the public record, whether it is Saleh al-Arouri in Turkish exile, as Israeli sources keep suggesting or someone else within Hamas. The possibility this is a rogue operation is not to be excluded. The triggering factor for the 1982 war was the shooting of Shlomo Argov in London by Abu Nidal, whom the PLO had condemned to death. What was the Israeli response? To make war against the PLO, who had observed a truce for several months. With this sort of dissonance between real political calculations and historically ascertained facts, one should not accept at face value any public declaration by any of the parties involved.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Strength section in infobox

The wrong information is there; the section is intended for the numbers of people involved; not weaponry. If someone could fill in that info, it would be helpful. There are some numbers already for the Israeli side (just the reservists).David O. Johnson (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Shuphel's edit

The inclusion of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 in the See also section is incorrect since it is already in the article, and the rules are, links to wiki articles in the body of the text are not repeated in the see also section. It has to be reverted.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents

I notice that Fatah is in the Belligerents section in the info box. As far as I know they have not been directly involved, just have spoken publicly about it, which makes them no different than the US or any other country. Is there something I am missing? - Galatz (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing should be in the infobox that isn't in the body (with sources)--JFH (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Developments/Updates and Balance

Hi guys,

I don't see that the article mentions new important events that happen (Egypt-brokered cease-fire, the expansion of the war with rockets from Syria and Egypt launched to Israel...Number of dead/injured not updated for the Israeli side since 10th of July etc.

As well, as the previous section mentions up here, the introduction is not balanced, tells much more about one side than the other.

There are at least 1 dead and 34 injured in Israel. I'm in the region since a few weeks and as far as I can see, the Israeli media does not report as much as possible the number of dead/injured (or the rockets that do actually fall down)...possibly not to worry/frighten the already-anxious general population and may be also not incite the extreme-right youth that has become more & more violent towards the Arabs and the left-wingers. (the "why" my assumption)

I'm a Turkish scientist and now I'm in Rehovot. Here, very often there are sirens and a lot of booms. Pieces of one rocket fell down few days ago to the campus of the Weizmann Institute. I've many South American friends and few reporter friends from Turkey all around Israel and parts of the West Bank and I'm following what's going on in here and also partly in Gaza, as much as I can.

I think we should communicate and try to balance/neutralise the article (and the lead) as much as we can. We should update as things happen and always keep a neutral point of approach. In these kind of complicated stuff, nothing is white or black, no one is the devil and no one is angel...There is a war going on and people from both sides are getting hurt and are in danger. There are good people and bad people in both sides. I know it is difficult for very strongly opiniated people, to write NPOV articles...but we should keep these in mind. --Universal Life (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can balance the beach picture here or this Khan Yunis photo here with the photo of similar problems on beaches in Tel Aviv? Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that if not for the Iron Domes, the people in Israel would be exactly in the same situation. Yesterday my friend from Uruguay and many people around her almost died in Tel Aviv, while a rocket was just right above them, it was heading towards them and the Iron Dome destroyed it in mid-air, just above their head. So, just because Israel doesn't have many dead/injured, it doesn't mean it's not attacked, only they protect their civilians through Iron Domes and sirens. On the other hand we have an administration in Gaza that sends deliberately civilians to their deaths...But this is not the issue. I'm against all wars, all untimely deaths...But here we should put our feelings aside and write a lead and an article neutrally, in a balanced way, to show what's going on in all sides...Not putting in the first paragraphs what seems to be the most emotive, sensational or newsworthy. Just because I'm keeping calm doesn't mean I'm non-neutral. --Universal Life (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best not to relate personal stories or personal opinions about events here at all and only make comments that are specifically related to article content. Dlv999 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dlv999, not to be misunderstood; I gave some personal background as to introduce myself and express how&why I was connected to the issue. I also used some personal stories as examples while replying to Nishidani. But you're right. And my message at its core was also article-related. "Put away your personal interaction / feelings and write a balanced, decent NPOV article." :) --Universal Life (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've lived in Israel and travelled extensively from the Golan down through the Sinai and I'm probably the only editor here who has walked through the city when it was once beautiful, and hitchhiked throughout the Gaza Strip, when it was once a garden tilled in Biblical fashion, against the constant warning of Israeli friends and soldiers that I'd be killed if I did so. But, as Dlv states, nothing of this is relevant to the article.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of thoughts on what you said. First, as discussed above in other talk sections, neither Israel nor Hamas have claimed any Israeli deaths. 2 People died of heart attacks while running for shelter, however those are not counted as casualties of war, unless you can find something elsewhere to the contrary. Additionally as for the Israeli injuries, the details and totals are really not released as often for some reason during this operation. Everytime there is an injury they report it, but I haven't seen much with totals, which is probably why the count is stale. I actually looked for an updated article yesterday but could not find one. If you have an RS that states 34, than its a good thing to update. - Galatz (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

After I posted this an Israeli died and all sources are calling this the first death, so the person in Haifa you were probably referring to above definitely should not be counted - Galatz (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers article we had a similar problem, with 2 elderly people dying of heart attacks in the raids. I haven't looked at it again, but I was against their inclusion in the infobox death statistics, it looked to me like casualty inflation to make a point.

Yes, we have hospital reports, name for name, from Gaza, but only totals from Israel (I was a little surprised at this. From memory 3 days into the conflict the total for injuries in the south (Sha'ar ha Negev) was higher than the figure given now, today, and was based on hospitalizations, but I can't find it now. By the way, could you, or someone else fix an edit (WP:IAR and it can't could as a revert for anyone in my book, but I can't do it because I've been accused of a 3R violation and edit-warring today in here) I made today in the lead, which now, with later reports, is inexact?)

I gave a report that Islamic Jihad was unfamiliar with the truce, because that's what Ma'an news said some hours ago. Unfortunately (for the article's aspirations for veracity) that now turns out to be untrue. In the reedited page, 'Hamas heard of ceasefire 'through media' Ma'an News Agency 15 July 2014, we now read at 5 pm

'Islamic Jihad said the group was officially notified about the Egyptian initiative response.'

So my edit is now falsified by the facts within 3 hours, and has to be altered, but if I do, in my count it becomes a second revert and could be used against me over at administration. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I would think edited information, especially self posted info, would not count against 1RR, if its due to updated information. In times of war info changes extremely rapidly.

As for the injured stats, I dont know Israeli medical records laws, but do they have something like HIPAA from the US that would prevent them from issuing that information? In the US deaths are public record but sick is and medical records are not, could be similar there preventing the detailed release. - Galatz (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction is problematic

In my opinion, the number of victims and UN estimates of "how many of them are civilians" do not belong to the beginning of the introduction. This belongs (or at least parts of it) to the "Casualties and losses" section. Also, I miss at least some information on the fact that Israel is fighting Hamas, not "palestinian people" in general. As it stands, it looks like "Israel suddenly declared a war and killed so and so many palestinians already." At least to me, it looks very biased. Franp9am (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The lead summarizes the body of the article, and casualties are a key element in the story. Reality by the way, is often very 'biased'. Ask any Red Indian, Tibetan, Aboriginal, or African, or any European Jew from ca. 1,000 C.E. down to Dreyfus to Hitler.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you talk about, but let's see what others think about it. Maybe it will be cleaned up later after the issue is settled. Franp9am (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, read WP:LEDE, if you can't read my English, which makes the same point.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani's tone is unhelpful, but I agree that the casualty count is a pretty important aspect of the story. --JFH (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that Franp9am means to say that any mention of casualties does not belong in the lead. It sounds like the editor is taking issues with breaking down the combatant–civilian ratio within the lead, as opposed to within the body. The editor may have a point. According to the Associated Press today, "Israeli military officials say the airstrikes knocked out roughly a third of Hamas’ rocket supply and delivered a blow to the group. It says that roughly 90 of the dead were wanted militants, and it has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields."[5] We can add some of this relevant content to the same paragraph, though together it might belong in the body. --Precision123 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The current version is so that if somebody who don't know anything about the ongoing conflict read the introduction, he would probably be confused. The casaulties should be mentioned, but first the context should be introduced (Israel and Hamas are in conflict; Hamas is firing rockets at civilians; Israel is attacking Hamas targets; 180 civilians have died as a consequence.) Later, in the casaulties section, should be the precise number again as well as the assessment (Palestinian: Israel makes genocide, Israels: Hamas is using civilians as human shields, commiting double war crime; there is disagreement between the sources of how many of them are civilians; etc etc). Franp9am (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your are both having problems understanding WP:NPOV. Precision123's suggestion is that the lead include all points of an IDF press comuniqué. The IDF's figures of 90 do not make sense, given the body count of women and children, which is known, but since one side says over 70% and the other side refuses to give a percentage but states a rough figure that in percentage terms is about %50, the IDF is hinting half the deaths are civilian (which of course only happens because fathers and mothers shoved their kids in front of the missiles etc..) B'tselem one of the few reliable sources, says they have identified 10 strikes which are violations of international law, because notable numbers of civilians were killed.So if this hasbara about human shields goes in, it should be balanced by words to the effect:B'tselem claims to have identified 10 bombing incidents which violate international law, since significant numbers of civilians were killed.

Last night the Times of Israel said substantially 90% of Hamas's rocket infrastructure is intact. Within a few hours, this is 66%. I see no evidence of massive explosions over the last few hours to change those conflicting estimates so radically.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my proposal of the lead:

Operation Protective Edge (Hebrew: מִבְצָע צוּק אֵיתָן, Mivtza' Tzuk Eitan, literally "Operation Mighty Cliff") is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, launched on 8 July 2014. The operation follows a recent escalation between Israel and several radical Palestinian factions in the Gaza strip including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. As of 13 July, at least 192 Palestinians have been killed and more than 800 missiles were fired from Gaza into Israel.

The details about how many civilians are killed according to which sources should be moved to the Casaulties sections. The second section of the current introduction Israel struck several sites.. should be now removed completely, because it only covers the first day or so. Can I do it? Franp9am (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of the casualty figure definitely needs to be in the lead. I would suggest not putting casualty claims by participants in the conflict in the lead and simply use third party sources. Claims by Israel Hamas can be included in the appropriate section. Dlv999 (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

See the precedents set in Gaza War, Operation Pillar of Defense etc. This article's lead should not be anomalous, as your suggestions so far suggest it should be. Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that civilian estimates belong in lead, and that claims by participants do not. They are obviously biased and we have independent sources.--JFH (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The information on details "why the various factions rejected the truce" and what are their demands is too long and doesn't belong to the introduction. In later versions of this article, hardly one sentence of all this will survive in the lead.. Franp9am (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We as editors are not to assess whose estimate is "obviously biased" just as newspaper sources do not. NPOV means NPOV. I agree with Franp9am; the lead, as an overview should be simple. Israel accepted truce, Hamas did not. Rationale in body. See newspapers for examples. --Precision123 (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Editorial opinions as sources for events

The editorial opinion from Gideon Levy in the article named "Israel's real purpose in Gaza operation? To kill Arabs" published by Haaretz was used as source for following claim "IDF Major-General Oren Shachor is on record as stating:“If we kill their families, that will frighten them.” This violate WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Editorial opinions do not necessary reflects factual situation. Proper sources and citations would be welcomed. Administrators involvement would be also preferable.--Tritomex (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how this 2 links get here?--Tritomex (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is an editorial opinion. The quotation is not an editorial opinion. To wave numerous policy flags (WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP) without explaining their relevance is quite futile, Tritomex. Why one earth is Oren Shachor's statement a violation of his rights? (BLP) He said it. There are a lot of violations of the biologies of living persons in this war, and Shachor's statement certainly reflects one mentality (and please note that last night after editing that, I fixed some articles concerning Iftach Spector, if only to confirm to myself that Shachor's kind of statement is not shared by everyone in the AIF.

As to what is preferable, your editing of the lead for the Egyptian proposal ignored the fact that all of the Gazan parties said that they had no knowledge of what Israel, Egypt and the PNA had agreed to. It was done, they say, without their knowledge, arguably as a publicity stunt since the terms address none of the grievances of the Gaza party in the war, and secondly, pf all of the possible quotes from several Gazan militant sources, many expressing bewilderment at a truce they say they were not consulted on, you chose to end the lead with:

al-Qassam Brigades, in rejecting the proposal stated: "Our battle with the enemy continues and will increase in ferocity and intensity.

That can't be there, because its intent is to drive home a message by slective quotation. It would be like me trying to end the lead with any number of a dozen Israeli army statements like Shachor's or “We must create a situation such that when they come out of their burrows, they won’t recognize Gaza.” I couldn't remove it, because of Irr but it has to be taken out and moved below.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What a commentator uses to make his argument is not necessarily newsworthy, and what is newsworthy is not necessarily encyclopedic. Basic WP rules. --Precision123 (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Split reactions section?

The article is starting to get too long. Can we move the reactions section into a new article?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC) {{subnst:cclean|utl=http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-conundrum-invade-not-invade-20147118252237390.html}}

Whether the moment is upon us to do so or not, it is certainly worth discussing at what point we should do so (see WP:TOOBIG for guidance), and discussing what should be moved (whether that section or another section) when there is consensus to move a section out of the article. Then again, when I suggested that we split out from the prior/related article 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers ... which is not only an earlier article, but a longer article, I ran into a number of editors who were not keen on it. I think it probably makes sense to address both articles at the same time; that way we can avoid perhaps editors taking one position on one article, and the opposite position on the other. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reaction sections are one of the most fatuously antiencyclopedic things in wikipedia, and could easily be removed without damage. Does the general reader, other than the editor, ever glance through that dump heap of meaningless verbal gestures? As to length, one should try to establish a talk page section on each paragraph, and do teamwork to pare a thing down consensually as each section achieves a degree of finality. This is basically an exercise in narrative précis, rather than the exclusion of anything, i.e., avoiding reduplication, detecting the most cogent facts and material and winnowing out the wank, if any. Quotations showcasing what someone says, except if extremely notable, should be synthesized succinctly, etc.

As it stands length-wise this still compares well to prior articles

Gaza War = 262,312 bytes

Operation Pillar of Defense 153,990 bytes (for a week's duration)

Operation Protective Edge is into its 8th day and is notably shorter 119,602 bytes.

That is acceptable for a war article. (a) and (b) have tags re problematical length up for 2 or 3 years, and it would take a month of talk page discussion to agree on how to get either down to 100,000 bytes, and another month to do it. Unfortunately, we have these problems because the articles are written daily, mostly in order to highlight what one's POV finds important from hour to hour, without regard to encyclopedic aims and narrative readability and historical cogency. Cutting them requires several masterminds, and masterminds, though separately capable of doing it, never agree among themselves.:(Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - About time, because the article is getting longer and longer, and the first thing that should be split is the reactions section. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - As per nomination --Anton^Talk 01:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The articles listed should not be emulated and this flare up is not a "war". Paraphrase the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

casualties

the casualties section in wikipedia for palestine related articles are always wrong and it reflect the israeli position

i will try to keep the numbers up to date and accurate as much as i can and for the palestinian loss i will uew gaza health ministry reports and statements and human right organizations reports as a source.

Note to Admins - the auto-bot(s) are not picking up the IP of this poster ^ - ?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think at this point in time when the numbers change so much its hard to keep them straight between all the sources. Typically once the operation is over everyone reports their beliefs, and there are always differences between the sources. - Galatz (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should focus more on the content of the article than what the bots are picking up. Don't bite the noobs and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Goals of the operation

I completely miss information on the goals of the operation. This is a fundamental point and should be mentioned both in the introduction as well as in a separate section in the article. The sources are, for example:

• ..lounched an operation late on Monday night aimed at ending rocket attacks from Gaza, Algemainer
• .. strike a severe blow against their (Hamas and Islamic Jihad) commanders, operatives, launching capabilities, and production capacity. inns by Amos Yadlin
• Stop rocket fire, and Erode the political clout and the ability of Hamas to act both as a political and military-terrorist movement... cnn

and surely one could find many other sources. Franp9am (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(I can try to include that tomorrow but have only little time for this, so will appreciate some help) Franp9am (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• "[A]s to how we got to where we are, the general context is perfectly obvious for anyone who wants to see it. A unity government was formed between the PA and Hamas. Netanyahu was enraged at this unity government. It called on the U.S., it called on the EU, to break relations with the Palestinian Authority. Surprisingly, the United States said, "No, we’re going to give this unity government time. We’ll see whether it works or not." Then the EU came in and said it will also give the unity government time. "Let’s see. Let’s see what happens."

"At this point, Netanyahu virtually went berserk, and he was determined to break up the unity government. When there was the abduction of the three Israeli teenagers, he found his pretext.....It was just a pretext. The pretext was to go into the West Bank, attack Hamas, arrest 700 members of Hamas, blow up two homes, carry on these rampages, these ransackings, and to try to evoke a reaction from Hamas....

"Anybody who knows the history, it’s what the Israeli political scientist, the mainstream political scientist—name was Avner Yaniv—he said it’s these Palestinian "peace offensives." Whenever the Palestinians seem like they are trying to reach a settlement of the conflict, which the unity government was, at that point Israel does everything it can to provoke a violent reaction—in this case, from Hamas—break up the unity government, and Israel has its pretext. "We can’t negotiate with the Palestinian Authority because they only represent some of the Palestinian people; they don’t represent all of the Palestinian people." And so Netanyahu does what he always does—excuse me, what Israeli governments always do: You keep pounding the Palestinians, in this case pounding Hamas, pounding Hamas, trying to evoke a reaction, and when the reaction comes—well, when the reaction comes, he said, "We can’t deal with these people. They’re terrorists. Norman Finkelstein interview with Democracy Now. (Obviously not a neutral source but if you are going to use biased sources like Algemeiner and the INNS then you are going to have to look at a number of biased sources that have different viewpoints, not only biased sources from one particular perspective.)Dlv999 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We stick with reliable sources holding themselves to a standard of objectivity. Franp9am, here is an example of the purpose: "Israel began its campaign against militants in the Hamas-controlled Gaza last Tuesday, saying it was responding to heavy rocket fire from the densely populated territory."[6] --Precision123 (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said before two of the three sources suggested by Franp9am are heavily biased. Dlv999 (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrative revert of page title

I've reverted the move of this article, restoring the previous title Operation Protective Edge, and I've move protected the page for a week to prevent warring. My guess is that neither title is going to be the end title, but the title "2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza" is blatantly a violation of NPOV. There needs to be a discussion as renaming the article, and if there is a consensus, then the article will be unprotected so a move can take place. Personally, I do not care what it gets named as long as the title is compliant with policy, as previous title was not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Those Israeli IPs are not legal editors and have not shown any impact to enrich the article. They only acts as trumpets for the IDF.--Uishaki (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You guys hash it out, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I will say that your insult here isn't helpful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is funny that you should move it back to an incredibly POV title. And the only user who was blocked was in favour of the current title. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This article should have another name

It's should be renamed the Second Gaza War. Using operational name like Operation Protective Edge is very subjective and I've heard that such names should be avoided.--Ezzex (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: We should not use the titles of the parties to stand impartial e.g. the 2008-09 Gaza War.--Uishaki (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We Wait until independent RS's call it something else. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The media has not generally called this a war, for one thing.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thirded. I have not heard the conflict called by any other name by the media; I have, however, heard the Israeli operational name used multiple times. Wafflashizzles (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, using the IDF name is extremely biased. That US media uses that name does not make a difference, since US media is biased towards Israel. Non-US media does not refer to it as that. Not sure second Gaza war is a good title though, something generic like "2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza" or similar would be better. Most sources refer to this as "Israel's Gaza offensive", not their official mission name. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

calling it "Israeli offensive on Gaza" isn't fair either since it dosn't represent the fact that the Hamas is shooting hundreds of rockets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.153.142 (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

calling it "Israeli offensive on Gaza" isn't fair either since it dosn't represent the fact that the Hamas is shooting hundreds of rockets

But that is what practically all sources refer to this as: Israeli offensive on Gaza. It is up to you to prove otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned comment above. 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict would be neutral. "Israeli offensive" is extremely biased. tharsaile (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) ....And a big thank you to whoever changed it back, even though I don't expect it to stick. tharsaile (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Human Shield

Hello. Why didn't you add that Hamas asked people to go to the roofs of the buildings to use as a human shield? Also, please don't use Haaretz as a source. It is pro-Palestine. Please use a pro-nothing source :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.108.62 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can RS that, stick it in. Remember we use The Guardian as a RS despite it's arguable POV. Haaretz is the Israeli Gruniad. (An old UK joke based on high prevalance of Guardian typos). Just got to grin and NPOV it through :) Irondome (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a Newsweek article about this so I stuck it into the casualties section. - Galatz (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Under "casualties and losses", a user reinstated the following claims:

Many of the civilian casualties have been caused by human shields. Video released shows after Israel's warning shots, instead of people running from the building they run to the roof, a tactic encouraged by a Hamas spokesman. Due to this the US State Department holds Hamas responsible for all civilian deaths.

The Israeli sources the term "human shield" very lightly. Standing on the roof of your own building is now a crime, because the residents have refused to give into the demands of the occupying power. They should have run away in terror while they watch their own home and belongings get evaporated just because. Those murdered by their air strikes should only blame themselves.

I mean look at the language used here: "instead of people running from the building". Is Wikipedia now the mouthpiece of the Israeli army? Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you there.--Ezzex (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

People are asked to leave, and are warned the building will be blown up. Its why its considered a human shield rather than someone just standing on their roof. How would you think it should be worded if you think think that is not neutral? Galatz (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe something like, Palestinians are refusing to leave their homes so that Israelis can blow them up? If Israel said they were about to nuke Gaza would those who didn't move into the sea be human shields? Sepsis II (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the article should call it "encouraged civilian sacrifice" instead of "human shield"? After all, that's basically what Hamas source called it. People sacrificing themselves, which has been proven as a successful strategy, and so Hamas encourages it. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a6_1404940046 Or would something like "super-happy-fun death tease" sound better? --92.36.180.9 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a human shield [7]--Ezzex (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources are misusing the term human shield and should beignored like how we ignore the endless "terrorist" use by anti-Palestine media. The wording also makes it sound like the "human shields" are attacking civilians. People trying to protect their property are not human shields, human shields is when you force a civilian to open a possibly explosive package or you raid a house and force the occupants to remain so that you can shot out but the locals can't shoot back. Also, there is a long standing consensus that Arutz Sheva should not be used as a source. Also, Galatz has broken 1RR and 3RR. Sepsis II (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The source states that Hamas Spokesman encouraged human shields. Are you saying the source is incorrect in stating that? Do you have anything to prove it wrong? If Hamas and Israel are both calling it Human Shields than this should be considered neutral. Galatz (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, why is the wording "human shield" even used in this context? and even if we were to accept that, there is no source for the "many of the civilians" claim. :::As a matter of fact, why on earth is this blame talk being included under the "casualties and losses" section? This section should simply list the casualties and losses. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view it is a disclaimer for the civilian casualties. If you can find a way to break out civilians that were not warned from warned than thats fine, but otherwise I think a disclaimer is important. For example I would also suggest you add something on the people in a cafe hurt while watching the world cup. It shows both sides - Galatz (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a number of changes to the wording to address the concerns here. In addition I added those watching the world cup as well as the Kaware family that Israel said was inadvertent. Thoughts? Galatz (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That does not cut it. Are you going to add that Hamas has warned the Israeli residents? because I'm pretty sure I've read that Hamas has issues "warnings" many times. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than Hamas saying all of Israel is in range what warnings have they issues? If you have a RS that you want to add than add it. No one ever responded to my comment above "The source states that Hamas Spokesman encouraged human shields. Are you saying the source is incorrect in stating that? Do you have anything to prove it wrong? If Hamas and Israel are both calling it Human Shields than this should be considered neutral. " so why would I assume its untrue. - Galatz (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Regarding your concern, the Hamas Spokesman never uses the term "human shield", so your inclusion of his statements in this context is very misleading (and possibly violation of WP:SYNTH). This is enough grounds to remove your content.

2. I watched the video and his statement is literally 3-seconds long...I repeat 3-SECONDS LONG, and only mentioned in passing in what appears to be a (live) interview on TV. Can this be considered "official" enough? I don't know, but reading the current Wiki text, you get an entirely different impression for the circumstances of the statement.

3. The alleged "warning" video released by IDF in question has been disputed by Hamas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TydoLmhMaDo

If you are going to include IDF propaganda, we will have to include the counter-allegations as well per NPOV.

Overall, I think the 2 videos (Hamas spokesman and the air strike video) are questionable at the moment and do not belong in this section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Working on the other page I have found consist misreportage, conflict in information, and distortions that can only be corrected by cross-checking over many articles. This article is based on the broad brush syntheses of mainly Israeli mainstream or foreign reportage. The language of the former, even in liberal venues, closely reflects IDF handouts, which are (not only to me) notoriously pointy and often false (as B'tselem has shown, after strikes, if an error is made, the 'official' version motivating the attack is altered). The incident where Hamas is said to have urged people to go onto a roof has several versions, and the latest one has quite a rational explanation, based on B'tselem's close investigation. There was a warning, people exited the building; waited, saw what looked like a missile strike which however hit their solar panels, and after five minutes, re-entered thinking the strike was over, and as 4 kids reached the roof (probably to check for damage) they were killed by a missile strike (the real one warned about) along with many others. First day sources are immensely confused, and only later groundwork clarifies, and editors must not jump at stuff that looks good for their POV. As to human shields, this has been a widespread practice also in the IDF which has twice been warned since 2005 by the Supreme Court to stop it, but still used it in 2008, and 2012. But in the western press, it is the default explanation spread by IDF hasbara as to why so many innocents are killed. The IDF is unusual in asking a resistance movement to come out into the open fields to fight, where their drones have 24/7 surveillance and automatic targeting, to wage battle with the 4th most powerful, technological army in the world. No one ever said that the Jews defending Jerusalem in the 1948 seige should not stack their ammunition in synagogues or fire from residential areas as, rightly so, they did. This kind of statement, that a resistance on its own territory should commit suicide before the enemy in order to protect its citizens, is folly in military terms, as any strategist will tell you. Precisely because this use of the meme is notorious, it should not be registered here unless very solid independent reports corroborate the hearsay. As to Hamas warnings, they have made several, the latest on Saturday. Noah Browning,'Hamas Takes to Social Media To Warn Israelis — in Hebrew,' The Forward 13 July 2014.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

apropo human shields, that section, I repeat, should be reviewed in the light of what B'tselem says of the incident, which is sourced on the other page. Thirdly, re warnings, in addition to the above text by Noah Browning, Aaron J. Klein and Mitch Ginsburg,'Hamas acting erratically but hardly harmed, sources say,' The Times of Israel 14 July 2014. should be cited in the article, where on the one occasion where Hamas gave an early warning to people in Tel Aviv on Saturday, the Israeli military said to reporters that it was operationally stupid to do so, since the Hamas alert allowed Israel to position numerous fighters over the Strip in time to shoot the rocket sites, immediately identified, as the rockets were fired. The operational logic of IAF warnings is one thing, that of Hamas warnings another. The article is also useful as an early specialist assessment of the technical side of the war.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We have not heard back on this. Removed dubious content per WP:BRD. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A map of international responses

It would be nice and concise to add a world map reflecting international positions and responses to the current crisis. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I've added it to Reactions to Operation Protective Edge. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of Hamas rocket ranges

I attempted to add a map of the ranges of the various types rockets operated by Hamas in Gaza, but it was reverted by Uishaki. A visualization of this nature would help readers to better understand the scope of the area that is being hit by rocket fire. --PiMaster3 ^talk 22:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever seen two images in one infobox in same article? The box becomes very long and cramped.--Uishaki (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there somewhere else in the article you would suggest placing the map that would be better? Or is it better to just use the rocket range map instead of the Gaza map? --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It was originally the lead photo, no idea why it was changed, it seems to me to be more relevant than the current photo because this article focuses on the fighting not the fishing line - Galatz (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue before may have been that the map was from 2012 and did not include the range of M-302 rockets. I have created a new map that includes those, along with other rockets in the Hamas arsenal. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought then, since there isn't much throughout the article, perhaps it should be put in with the 8 July information because thats the date where rocket launch distance is discussed the most. I think its extremely valuable because it gives perspective to readers. - Galatz (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

<-I've removed the map for now because it unambiguously (and I assume unintentionally) violates NPOV, a mandatory policy. See User_talk:PiMaster3#Rocket_range_map. Hopefully PiMaster3 can quickly fix and restore it. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are the articles that show the ranges for M-302 (160 km) [8], Fajr-5 (75 km) [9], Grad (45 km) [10], and Qassam (15 km) [11].

The map was created using an existing SVG map of Israel which I overlayed with the rocket ranges, and I lack the technichal expertise to create an entire map from scratch. However, even if I did have the technical skills to do what you are requesting, I disagree with the basic premise behind your assertion. All maps that display borders are inherently political, and just because a map displays that boundaries of the POV that you happen to be pushing, doesn't make it any more neutral than a map that approaches the situation from a different POV. The only way to make a map completely neutral would be to use a topographical map in which no political boundaries are displayed; although that would also remove some information that is key to understanding the situation. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand but it's not about what you or I think, it's about mandatory policy compliance. A map that shows Israeli occupied territories across the green line as part of the State of Israel does not comply with NPOV. It's inconsistent with the super-majority view of the international community and countless reliable sources and is therefore a NPOV violation. Maps like that are only suitable for representing the view of the State of Israel, the only country that considers East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as integral parts of the State of Israel. Since you are unable to update the map, I will post a (draft) replacement a bit later. I'm a bit busy today so it won't be able to get to it for a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded an amended version File:Rocket range of Hamas from Gaza, July 2014.svg. Helpfully, the application cut off half my notes on the changes, but they went something like this or thereabouts

• "Deal with NPOV issues (East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were shown as part of Israel, a view only held by Israel), use standard coloring as far as possible per WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Location maps, minor changes to labels and add new labels for West Bank/Gaza Strip/Golan Heights, use large icon over Jerusalem to eliminate pointless disputes over the status of the city. Expand legend accordingly. Note that both the ISO 3166-1 standard country name 'State of Palestine' and the still widely used 'Palestinian territories' have been included for the legend". Also, I left an important bit out. I changed the title to Operating Range of Palestinian Rockets rather than Hamas Rockets because Hamas is one of several armed groups firing rockets.

I haven't restored it to the article yet since it is a draft. Let me know if there are any policy based issues with the updated map. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your useage of the term "State of Palestine" is a blatant violation of NPOV and a clear misrepresentation of the facts on the ground. Your changing of the term "Hamas" to "Palestinian" also misrepresents the situation; these are the ranges of Hamas's rockets; not the rocket ranges of Fatah, or Islamic Jihad, or the PFLP. Those other groups only have access to Qassams, while Hamas has access to not just Qassams, but also Grads, Fajr-5s, and M-302s. It is important for this map that the Gaza Strip be shown as distinct from the West Bank because this is specifically about rockets coming from the Gaza Strip. Also, I'm not sure why you removed Damascus and Amman as being capital cities, but I restored them to how they were in the original map. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Hamas and PIJ took joint credit for rockets over Tel Aviv today so its possible the PIJ has them too. It isn't untrue to say its Hamas because we know they have them all. Just saying that perhaps Gazan Rockets would be the most correct because it leaves the possibility open that any group there could have it. Like I said though, its minor this is stated correctly - Galatz (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for this map at this time I've removed it. When there is consensus that it complies with NPOV it can be restored. I shall respond to your comments a bit later when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

<-Okay, let's go through your objections one at a time. There's no rush. We are writing an encyclopedia, not reporting on a conflict. Let's start with

• "I'm not sure why you removed Damascus and Amman as being capital cities, but I restored them to how they were in the original map."

First let me say that I don't care about the original map. It was clearly created by someone who didn't give sufficient attention to NPOV. The reason I made those changes was to ensure that the map did not identify Jerusalem as a national capital for several pragmatic and policy based reasons

1. Jerusalem is not recognized as a national capital by any country other than the 2 countries, Israel and Palestine, that have both proclaimed it as their capital. Describing it as such using what is in effect Wikipedia's neutral unattributed narrative voice via a map is inappropriate and inconsistent with NPOV.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem settled 10 years of dispute in Wikipedia over this issue of the status of Jerusalem. The binding result was summarized as There was a consensus that it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel”, nor is it compliant to state “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such”. There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine. My decision to replace the description 'National capital' with 'Jerusalem' for that icon was guided by that decision. Once I had done that, I needed to replace the icons used for capital cities like Damascus and Amman. There were other ways to do it but either way the benefit, NPOV compliance and avoiding pointless bickering over the status of the city, outweighed the cost of no longer indicating the status of those other cities.
3. If Jerusalem were described on the map as a national capital via the legend, it would need the usual disclaimers to establish NPOV i.e. (disputed) or (proclaimed). I wanted to avoid that and simply say Jerusalem.

TLDR version = Keep the status of Jerusalem off the map. It's an unnecessary and inherently problematic component that isn't pertinent to the information the map is trying to present. The map cannot describe Jerusalem as a national capital and comply with NPOV. They are mutually exclusive. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I standardized all the city icons so that they are all the same. It just seemed strange having Jerusalem in the key with a star, but no other cities the same. I also fixed the issue that Galatz brought up about Islamic Jihad and I changed it from Hamas rockets to Gazan rockets. That should clear up that issue while still being clear that these rockets are only coming from Gaza, not the West Bank. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Background

The New York Times did it better than you and the section should be revisited.

"This latest confrontation has roots in the kidnapping and murder last month of the three Israeli teenagers by men in the West Bank who Israel alleges belong to Hamas, followed by the kidnapping and murder of the Palestinian teenager, reportedly by members of an anti-Arab group of supporters of the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team known as La Familia." -http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/israel-steps-up-offensive-against-hamas-in-gaza.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Such as how? Your anonymous IP statement is far to vague to be of any value.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what was vague about it. An rs provided a perfectly concise paragragh reflected in most other sources while the background here ignored the common narrative to focus on people bein arrested. It looks like someone else agreed and restructured it. If a background section returns then it should follow the example shown in the Times (obviously without ripping it off). I was especially surprised to see no mention of La Familia. Is that clear enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.152 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your one point about La Familia is good. Simply providing an RS without context is of little value for specifics of what needs to be changed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you want context then look at the Times paragraph vs the previous background section. It was a joke. Stop playing coy and just do better at editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

1) I didn't edit the lead. 2) If you want something changed, you need to be specific. Apparently most editors on here were more or less happy with the information you wanted amended, so it is your responsibility to provide what changes you'd like to see OR why not just register and do so yourself? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My concern was already addressed so there is no need to bicker, friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.164 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm writing to prepare an extended "Background". There should be a separate "Background" section due to its importance. This section includes an explanation on short term and long term pretexts of the war and investigates the roots of the current conflicts in Gaza. Mhhossein (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on your talk page with the concerns over your addition and follow-up edits. The copy right needs to be respected. Please edit heavily or remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw the comments and acted according to the Admin'd view! no heavy edition is required. Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• How if we add this line to the background?

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

Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Days of the week

As this has continued more than a week, I would suggest it is time to cull the references to days of the week (e.g., "Over Monday night ... and by Tuesday", in the lede, etc.). And refer simply to dates. Except for those instances, if any, where the day of the week is relevant (e.g., the Sabbath). --Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --Malerooster (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well :) --Universal Life (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ground offensive

The BBC are reporting that the Prime Minister has ordered ground operations. That's it at the moment. My wording is virtually the BBC report at the mo. Irondome (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Update http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28359582 Irondome (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, am I missing your edit, mate? I rewrote the July 17th paragraph about this, using Ynetnews.com[12] as source. Let me know if I messed something up. Strygalldwir (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries mate. I saw your edit and just minutes later I saw the beeb report. I didnt want to mess up any potential eds you were doing re those incredibly stressful edit conflicts :/ Irondome (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, much obliged. Feel free to go on and rework it per the BBC report, if anything's off :) Strygalldwir (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Glued to BBC news24 at mo. Its minute by minute stuff literally. I wouldnt be able to keep up. I am ssllooww still. Would be my first major I/P edits on a ongoing event, and I find the prospect daunting frankly. I will attempt some stuff, but if they screw up, please bear with me and AGF as Im sure you all would. In the meantime, please get it out there everyone. Dont wait for slowcoach. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The story will certainly develop by tomorrow and we will most likely need a new article. Perhaps we can create 2014 Israeli ground offensive on Gaza and ignore the above RM? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Or you can call it 2014 Israeli defense against unprovoced attacks from Gaza. Or you can keep the current title until there is another NPOV title that can be agreed upon.84.111.144.105 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the topic be named Gaza War (2014)? I would say the ground offensive brings the operation to "war" status and must be distinguished from the 2008–09 Gaza War. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the name of the article, these events are just taking place, its better to wait some days and see whats happends next. But the Operation could last longer or have different phases. However i see this far from finished, the mobilization of over 40k men was a clear indication the IDF was ready from a aground ocupation of the Strip. Hope no more people get killed.200.48.214.19 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaza War is still a bad title for the previous fight but operational names by one of the belligerents became a cry for NPOV over common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fix the Map

South Sudan is missing from the map. There needs to be an updated one that includes the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xonden (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

+1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Range map accuracy

I would be interested to know where the sources for the missile ranges came from. Unless I'm missing something obvious, it seems to me that each line of maximum range ought to be equidistant to points along the Gazan border - which obviously isn't the case on this map. Does someone want to have a look at this? 2.218.251.15 (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing something obvious. Put a drawing-compass at each point along the gaza strip, and turn it. The collective furthest points will make something very close to approximating those curves. The lines would only match the general outline of Gaza, if one could only shoot perpendicular to the line, but they can shoot in all directions. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian Man with Boy photo

2 comments on the photo. First the source of the photo appears to be here: https://news.vice.com/article/palestinian-death-toll-reaches-125 so does this violate copyright? Second the photo is from the 12th so if its ok to keep the photo up I propose we move it to that date so its more relevant. - Galatz (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is also that of 4 photos, the infobox photo is of a rocket explosion in central Israel, the second of damage done by a rocket in Sderot, the fourth of a hit on Beersheva. We are not supposed per WP:NPOV to do this, esp. when the overwhelming superiority of strike numbers by Israel on Gaza is controverted by 3 photos proclaiming Israel is the one suffering strikes, and nothing of damage to the Gaza Strip. Further proof that this article is a reproduction of something one would expect from Israel's Foreign Ministry. Editors are failing their job, and there is no oversight on this continual violation of WP:NPOV protocols.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The photo was uploaded by the photographer to his flickr [13], and released under CC, so there is no copyright issue. To Nishidani's point, we do need to balance photos of both sides, although as mentioned above, the Palestinian side is generally not publishing photos in a manner that Wikipedia can use, so we are somewhat constrained. However, to counter his argument, we should be reflecting the weight of coverage in reliable sources, not the percentage of strikes being performed. Fairly or unfairly, the reliable sources coverage focuses more on the Israeli damage than the Palestinian. In any case, there is no policy reason not to use this photo, and a good NPOV reason to use it (Although the original filename and caption (by the photographer) certainly had neutrality issues, but that has been fixed already Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

to counter his argument, we should be reflecting the weight of coverage in reliable sources, not the percentage of strikes being performed. Fairly or unfairly, the reliable sources coverage focuses more on the Israeli damage than the Palestinian.

Nope. RS are not defined as Israeli and Western mainstream press articles. There is an abundance of information on Palestinian casualties in Reuters, B'tselem, Associated France Presse, Al-Jazeera, Ma'an News Agency, which is not being harvested (predictably, I've seen this on several occasions) on this page, compared to the casualties page. That means, editors are picking their information to drive the Israeli POV, and in fact the POV tag should be re-introduced, because, any section by section analyse shows the slanting, and my indications from the first three paras have not been addressed.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is this a joke? 300 dead Palestinians, and all the images in this article show smoke in Israel?! FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No joke. Two maps about Hamas's fire range, reduplicating each other. The one Palestinian photo removed, and two photos of Israel reeling under Hamas's rockets. Per NPOV, both images should be removed to this page, until an adequate balance between photos of the damage Israel does, and the damage Hamas does are found, and the info box requires a split photo showing both sides of the equation. It won't be done. Bad editors have the numbers to keep this farce going.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli Casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"45% were women or children"

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

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

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

Move request 2

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Questionable Wording/Tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 'targeted retaliation,'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Para 2 is the same.

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

Para 3.

• What is junk like

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDF headquarter

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

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

Using the background section to focus on a single assertion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images Only 1 from Gaza

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

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

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

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

I came here to comment to this same fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli Deaths

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

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

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