Talk:2022 Gaza–Israel clashes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Change Category:Battles in 2022 to Category:2022 airstrikes; this was an airstrike rather than a battle. UncleBourbon (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The opening strike was an airstike, but it was followed up by rocket fire from Gaza and arrests in the West Bank which are not airstrikes. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 airstrikes added. Selfstudier (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Israeli casualties

3 Israelis wounded. On TV as of now, looking for a source. Lilijuros (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bj0sm9o6c 79.180.38.101 (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Added to infobox. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

statistics

For example: yesterday, The IDF reports that a volley of 80 rockets was fired into Israel. 46 reached the territory of the country and 33 were intercepted. At every escalation, the organizations in Gaza fire rockets. Some of them reach the territory of Israel and the others land in the territory of the Gaza Strip. The matter is not often mentioned. https://www.zman.co.il/live/330698/ 15:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier2A00:A040:184:2F80:BCFF:D366:8378:2781 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Blog is not a RS. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier, IT IS NOT BLOG. It (https://www.zman.co.il/330486/popup/) is live news, such as https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/ . More sources: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkndf09a5 . today (18:15): "In total, more than 400 rockets have been fired at Israel so far, about 100 of which fell in the Gaza Strip, most of the rest were intercepted by Iron Dome or fell in open areas..." https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001420547 --2A00:A040:184:2F80:5069:3F2F:F831:5694 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:EDITREQ / Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

statistics

• What I think should be changed:

For example: yesterday, The IDF reports that a volley of 80 rockets was fired into Israel. 46 reached the territory of the country and 33 were intercepted. At every escalation, the organizations in Gaza fire rockets. Some of them reach the territory of Israel and the others land in the territory of the Gaza Strip. https://www.zman.co.il/live/330698/ --2A00:A040:184:2F80:7159:491C:FB2E:5825 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why it should be changed:

The matter is not often mentioned. it influence the operation.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

More sources: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkndf09a5 . today (18:15): "In total, more than 400 rockets have been fired at Israel so far, about 100 of which fell in the Gaza Strip, most of the rest were intercepted by Iron Dome or fell in open areas..." https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001420547 https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2022_q3/Article-35f83d6b9447281026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802

2A00:A040:184:2F80:7159:491C:FB2E:5825 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier 2A00:A040:184:2F80:7159:491C:FB2E:5825 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sky (an RS) Today 20:45 UK "Palestinian militants have retaliated by firing at least 200 rockets at Israel" Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC) ToI 350 rockets AJ Over 400 We should wait for consistent reports. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier, It is possible to note the statistics of the first day where there is more consistent reports.https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkndf09a5 https://www.zman.co.il/live/330698/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-estimates-that-pij-fired-80-rockets-at-israel-after-terror-group-said-it-launched-100/ https://twitter.com/barakravid/status/1555626542037958662 2A00:A040:184:2F80:B9D1:889E:5C2C:60CB (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I will let someone else decide about it, please wait for an editor to review your request. Selfstudier (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion general statistics are useful. Obviously the rocket launch numbers are increasing day to day. However, sources are covering the high failure rate. The Washington Post says that a third (out of 449, when they were writing) of the rocket launches by Palestinians fell inside Gaza. This is a significant amount of explosives falling on Gazan homes, being fired by Gazan themselves.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Wrong local time for truce

At the end of the intro it says "A truce has been provisionally agreed to go into effect as of 20:00 (1900 GMT) 7 August, 2022." This is incoherent; 1900 GMT is 10pm in the middle east (22:00). I would fix it, but it's locked. The correct time is 22:00 local time (1900 GMT). Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egyptian-mediators-propose-gaza-truce-1900-gmt-source-says-2022-08-07/ Cheers. Drbobpgh (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier, This is the the true agreeed tine https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2022_q3/Article-b3831b055c47281026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802 2A00:A040:184:2F80:6D49:B254:716C:61C6 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Background rocket attacks

The fact that PIJ used rocket attacks against Israel prior to the operation is a key factor that is not mentioned yet. Bageralg (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Source? All reporting so far says that Israel acted preemptively. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

why are the 2 Israeli wounded called IDF when the attached article seems to say they were in their HOMES? 213.8.65.165 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The source says later on that two soldiers were wounded by mortar fire. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

POV

A less POV description of these very recent events is available at Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022. The editing, together with the non NPOV name, are unacceptable. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the POV problem? The Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine is a designated terrorist organization all over the free world. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Grandiose names for military operations such as killings/assassinations, until such a time as they pass into the history books, are just euphemistic titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The killing of Osama bin Laden is just the Killing of Osama bin Laden, that just so happens to be code-named "Operation Neptune Spear" by the US. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

We had the same argument in 2021 with pro Israeli editors trying to name 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis as Operation Guardian of the Walls, the IDF name for their operation and now a redirect.Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Selfstudier is removing link to this article from Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022, see talk page there. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's an unbalanced stub ... if you want to redress this, and have time on your hands, please feel free to expand it from the Arabic version. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In order to expand this article and make it balanced, editors need to know that it exists. How does removing links to it helps in changing it from being an unbalanced stub? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A. There is a clear NPOV dispute here, removing the tag requires consensus when that is under discussion. B. framing the events as a military operation and not an extrajudicial killing is non-neutral. You cant simply take one sides framing and adopt it as Wikipedia's. nableezy - 22:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the content is reasonable at this point though. The title not as much. nableezy - 23:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The IDF is an army, so the killing was a military operation. The only question is whether it was extrajudicial, but I'm not sure that that term is relevant here. 3skandar (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

A targeted assassination is in essence, extrajudicial.Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with 3skandar. To term an operation conducted by a military as a "military operation" is not POV-charged, nor is it mutually exclusive with the term extrajudicial, nor should we focus on using the term extrajudicial. Take the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani as an example - was that an extrajudicial killing? Unquestionably; the UN concluded that it "likely violated international law". Even then, its Wikipedia article doesn't ever use Wikipedia's voice to say that it was an "extrajudicial killing." It's just not a term that we use often to my knowledge.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Inquiry

What exactly are the main POV issues that need to be addressed before it would be appropriate to remove the orange tag? (Asking in a fresh sub-heading because the above discussion is not structured enough to realistically expect much to come of it)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The title and the framing of the conflict as Israel attacking the PIJ and not attacking Gaza. nableezy - 00:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The title is under discussion, but as for the framing of the conflict as Israel attacking the PIJ and not attacking Gaza, the opening sentence states that Israel launched airstrikes on Gaza. I'm not sure I understand what you want to see changed with regard to that. Listing Gaza itself as a combatant wouldn't make sense, both because it's a location and not a polity, and because Gaza's governing entity (Hamas) is not a belligerent. The discussion below in your "combatants" thread suggests that the status quo is more agreeable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The other issue is the clear POV pushing in using only material selected for use by the IDF in the media. We now have 3 propaganda pieces in this article, with users continuing to add more. nableezy - 14:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

first day

• What I think should be changed:

firt attack at the operration.

• Why it should be changed:

At the same time as Jabri was killed, the deputy commander of the anti-tank formation of the Islamic Jihad, Abdullah Kadum, was also killed, two squads he commanded were on their way to carry out an attack using an anti-tank missile. The head of the observation array in the northern Gaza Strip was also killed in the attack, which lasted less than three minutes.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://news.walla.co.il/item/3522509 2A00:A040:184:2F80:B9D1:889E:5C2C:60CB (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This does not seem particularly notable.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Other sources disagree with this framing. Not done. nableezy - 15:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Rocket failure during Al-Jazira's Broadcast

Please add this media

[[File:Failed launch of PIJ missile in Gaze strikes urban area 2022-08-07.webm|thumb| PIJ missile failure hits Gazan urban area during live broadcast]]

File:Failed launch of PIJ missile in Gaze strikes urban area 2022-08-07.webm

PIJ missile failure hits Gazan urban area during live broadcast

Kuketski (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps later, a picture from the "other side" would be better at the moment. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty relevant media. You are wrong about this being Al-Jazira, it is Al Mayadeen. PrisonerB (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Relevant to what? The question of including "misfire" media is already being discussed above. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Should be removed, and the editor reinserting it without consensus should read WP:ONUS. This is not a propaganda piece of the MFA, we have 3 images released by one of the combatants in this article. nableezy - 13:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

But this is the imagery from the other side, isn't it what you've wanted? Kuketski (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Its also a clear COPYVIO. nableezy - 14:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No sourcing for commanders/leaders in infobox

Only the mentions of Tayser and Khaled are sourced on the page - where is the other infobox material on leaders coming from? This should be op-specific, not general. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Media: The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya

The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya.

Please add this media file.

[[File:The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya.webm|thumb|The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya, killing Palestinian civilians, including children.<ref>{{Cite web |title=IDF publishes video of alleged deadly rocket misfire in Gaza |url=https://www.rt.com/news/560394-israel-idf-video-strike-missile-gaza/ |access-date=2022-08-07 |website=RT International |language=en}}</ref>]]

Thank you, —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 13:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know this video shows a misfire but not the killing of Palestinians. BBC and Al Jazeera say they have not been able to independently confirm that (I assume they have seen this video). Do you have a reliable independent source (RT is not reliable) confirming that this video proves the killings? Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

A pinch, just for example, that shows that even quality sources that are considered very neutral (not necessarily objective) write that:

• “The fatal strike occurred an hour and 10 minutes after Israel’s last activity in the area, a spokesman said, while aerial reconnaissance images and intelligence findings show the trajectory of a rocket launched from an Islamic Jihad location.” --WP.
• “Israel said some of those children were killed on Saturday night when an Islamic Jihad rocket misfired and fell short in the northern Gaza Strip. The Israeli military said it had not been operating in that area at the time. Islamic Jihad has not commented on the Israeli claim.”--NYT...

. —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 14:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Our article already reports the Israeli claim. That's not what I asked, I asked whether you have a source confirming that the video proves that the misfire killed Palestinians. The caption on that video says "The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya, killing Palestinian civilians, including children" Says who? Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I understand. We can add the media with the caption:
  “The PIJ's Rocket Misfire in Jabaliya, which according to the IDF killed Palestinian civilians, including children.”

*“Our article”? Seriously and respectfully, please change the wording to “The article” (WP:OWN...)
Thank you, 🙏🙂 —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 14:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, our article already reports the claim as well as the fact that it has not been independently verified. The video adds nothing to that. If the caption is changed to "Video of a misfiring rocket" then perhaps it can be used but I will let someone else decide about that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

“PIJ's misfiring rocket in Jabaliya” is possible for me, but it should be taken into account that it does not present the full explanation of the claims regarding that specific launch.
*Thank you for ignoring my request to give up the oppressive feeling of possessiveness of the articles. —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@מקף: thank you for uploading this video which has been shown by media outlets from all around the world and illustrates Palestinian misfires very well.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The video added to the article contains an unproven unreferenced claim by the IDF and with no reference to the fact that the claim has not been independently verified. You may wish to self revert. Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Correction, a reference has now been added, notice that the reference says "alleged" misfire. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The entire sentence has "according to the IDF" on it.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have tagged the section as POV. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We saw...
We saw that even though the entire article was already tagged, you also tagged this paragraph, despite the double edification in the caption of the video, which makes it crystal clear that the IDF published and the IDF said. —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 15:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have explained why above. I suggest we let other editors opine. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of the PIJ's reaction only because simply "Islamic Jihad has not commented on the Israeli claim" (--NYT). —מקף⁻ණ‎‏ (Hyphen) 15:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This failture happend today, [[1]]. you can add.(2A00:A040:184:2F80:6D49:B254:716C:61C6 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this is another PIJ rocket failure, which also killed Palestinian children. There was more than one lethal rocket failure by the PIJ, including one yesterday and some today. MathKnight 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

there were more then one failtures, i mean. i offer to add the other regardless of the discussion 2A00:A040:184:2F80:6D49:B254:716C:61C6 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This other faiture was publish at ynet. It https://m.ynet.co.il/articles/skpgacta5 04:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no nothing wrong with the addition of the IDF video and the paragraph accompanying it. Various media sources confirmed IDF report. MathKnight 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is already absurdly skewed in the imagery used. I oppose yet another IDF propaganda piece being prominently displayed in this article. nableezy - 00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

References

There's nothing wrong with inclusion if per NPOV we provide the statistics about IDF missile strikes. Usually in this war reportage, a huge amount of attention is given to the number of 'firecracker' rockets (as they are often called) fired towards Israel (most with little technical chances of hitting any target beyond the desert). The media generally counts Hamas/PIJ firings meticulously, - as if numbers were the decisive fact, not the lethal (in)capacity of the missiles used - with no accountancy of how many IDF rockets were fired unerringly into Gaza's built up areas over the same period. The bias, and silence regarding what the other side is shooting, is where such sections show decided imbalance. So, if someone can source how many missiles and bombs were dropped on the Strip by the IDF, how many of the casualties were caused by them, with accompanyuing photos, then this pic re PIJ backfiring and killing Gazans can be appropriately contextualized per NPOV. If not, then its inclusion alone simply means: 'civilians in Gaza are killed more by Palestinian rocket engineers' incompetence than by the highly competent rocket scientists the IDF relies on (whose expertise still leads to massive civilian casualties).Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a concerted effort to emphasize the possibility that a failed rocket launch led to some civilian casualties (including children). Since the major press are being rather cautious in picking this up, the current "messaging" is that it is not only Jabalia but in other places as well. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The video is of obvious relevance. This isn't "messaging", misfires haves been captured on video, including video by pro-Hezbollah Al Mayadeen. Bild has reported that the deaths were caused by a rocket launched by Islamic Jihad terrorists. PrisonerB (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

ToI thinks it is messaging "Israeli messaging on deadly Jabaliya explosion makes inroads on international media". Nor is anyone disputing that there were misfires. Bild is WP:GUNREL at WP:RSP Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The video has been readded against consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove it please, WP:ONUS is not optional in an article with discretionary sanctions. This clear POV-push of attempting to turn this article in to a piece produced by te Israeli MFA violates our standard discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. If there is secondary source references to the messaging point used by the IDF it should eventually be added. In war every side prevaricates or lies to win the public eye, and editors must assess material in awareness of this. Wikipedia is not a playground where the facts are overlaid by the manipulations they are subject to in press releases by all parties to a conflict.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There has to be balance in the images too, you cant push a narrative that is non-NPOV through the images in a page. nableezy - 14:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a good video, and is analyzed by secondary references [2][3]. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The analysis of it is that Israel is claiming this. No independent confirmation, and beyond that you are not addressing the NPOV issue in having three pieces of IDF released material as the only media in this article. It is an absurd imbalance. nableezy - 17:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There There is no independent analysis of Hamas/PIJ reported numbers of dead/wounded and their affiliation, which is a greater issue. You also wrong these three are IDF releases, one of them is a police release. You repeat that these are the only media in the article, but the solution for that is finding relevant Palestinian media. The Arabic page also has three pieces of Israeli media, with no Palestinian media at all, because Palestinian media is not available right now on Wikipedia. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, ok IDF and Israeli police. This isnt the Arabic Wikipedia, I edit the English Wikipedia, and we have a core principle called WP:NPOV. The numbers of dead/wounded are from the Ministry of Health, not from the PIJ. nableezy - 18:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Associated Press writes "according to an Israeli military assessment that appears consistent with independent reporting by The Associated Press" - https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-tel-aviv-403d37366347e0f2446e2f90a9b0d02f | MK17b | (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I added that to the section, thank you. nableezy - 01:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• User:מקף thank you for placing this video here, it was shown by many TV stations and should be in the article. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Many TV stations also aired a prior video, per ToI Israeli media outlets initially aired a video shared on social media that it said appeared to show the failed launch, citing the time and location it was taken. But it did not match up with the video published by the IDF. Maybe that one should be in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Images and POV

See for example NYTimes showing the balance in imaging. There is a clear POV push in using images released by Israel as part of its propaganda campaign in this article. We currently have 3 images/videos showing only what Israel would like people to see. Not the widespread devastation of its hundreds of missile strikes, but damage to an apartment in Israel, and one of the comparably minute number of Palestinian rockets that landed within Gaza. This is absurd and it is an abuse of Wikipedia and its policies and it is a violation of the discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 14:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

A third of the Palestinian missiles fell inside Gaza, hundreds. It is significant. There's room in the article for more images, if images showing damage in Gaza are uploaded to Commons they can be added. PrisonerB (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats according to the IDF, and the damage from the rockets is insignificant compared to the damage from the IDF missiles. You are violating WP:ONUS and WP:TE and I am of a mind to report it. nableezy - 14:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Independent media has covered it. If you have a source comparing IDF inflicted uninvolved casualties to PIJ inflicted uninvolved casualties that would be a good addition. However you slice it, given then high percentage of missiles falling into Gaza itself and the high interception rate by Iron Dome of Palestinian missiles arriving at Israeli population centers, the amount of damage inflicted inside Gaza by Palestinian missiles is much larger than the damage inflicted inside Israel. DW.COM says that "Twelve of those in Gaza were killed by misfired rockets in Gaza, Islamic Jihad said." That's a significant proportion of the casualties. PrisonerB (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"Islamic Jihad said 12 of those killed were militants" Maybe wait a bit and see if we can get confirmation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The ABC piece covers misfired rockets as well. PrisonerB (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does but not in the same way, the DW is probably a misquote, let's just wait and see, if they said it, then the major news outlets will pick it up. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Added it anyway? Seems a bit impatient. I tagged it ftb, till we get confirmation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The DW carries AFP/AP attribution, I haven't found it there or anywhere else as yet. I have found many quotes similar to ABC otoh. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems almost certain that the DW material is a mistake or misquote by them, it is not being repeated anywhere else that I can see, would someone remove it, I used up my revert for the day already. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

A later AP article now in the article appears to be the source of the incorrect DW report, @PrisonerB:, will you please remove this.Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are essays, not guidelines. PrisonerB's editing and stance have been per the sources, anyway. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, nope. WP:ONUS is policy, and WP:TE is an explanatory essay about another policy, WP:DE, which is referenced repeatedly in the arbitration decision. The sources do not support the idea that all the damage in this has come to Israel or from faulty Palestinian rockets, and that is an absurd claim to make. See, again, the NYT images. See how the balance of destruction is shown in actual sources. And not propaganda pieces released by the IDF. nableezy - 14:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't you locating some Palestinian images, without copyright issues, uploading them, and posting them to the article? No one disagreed so far for an image addition from the Palestine side. The IDF video belongs because many media pieces contain it. Other images, from the Palestinian side, also belong if you can get them uploaded without copyright issue. PrisonerB (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Palestinians dont have a government agency dedicated to promulgating its propaganda by releasing images with the explicit aim of their being used to further its interests. That Israel does that does not relieve you of the requirement to edit according to WP:NPOV and all aspect of this article, including the imaging, must abide by that core requirement. nableezy - 15:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If Israel does have a government agency to promote its propaganda, then they are doing really crappy job. Media-field is dominated by media images from Palestinians and overall sentiment is that Israel is guilty by default.

This claim goes both ways, all militant groups in Gaza are investing heavily into the PR. And even here, on Wikipedia I see people twisting news to make them look worse for Israel.

Why do you claim that Israeli strikes did more damage than Gazan missiles falling short of the border? Based on which report? Previous investigations made by american military assessment NGOs showed that Israel is making unprecedented measures to limit number of victims.

Hamas and Gazan Police on the other hand are employing kids to assist in dragging out faulty Al-Quassams out of the urban centers Kuketski (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on what? Based on things like the NYT showing the wide devastation of Gaza's infrastructure. The rest of your comment belong on a forum, not Wikipedia. Please review WP:NOTFORUM before continuing. nableezy - 16:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for being neutral! Look at my contributions history. Last year I was in conflict with nableezy (Personal attack removed) and various other Wikipedians. nableezy (Personal attack removed), you can also see this by how they claim Israeli primary sources to be "propaganda" and outright bashing anyone who doubts the illegitimacy of Israeli primary sources, and you can see it by their threats that they are "of a mind to report [violating WP:ONUS and WP:TE (14:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC))]", and such. Primary sources are great for providing citations for claims made by sources, to compensate for imprecise interpretations by secondary sources, and secondary sources are great to compensate for bias in primary sources. Outright claiming that the IDF is pushing propaganda ("communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information"). I wish there could be a way to report nableezy and block them for their (Personal attack removed). Their conduct is not at all civil, I've experienced it myself last year. But there's nothing I can do regarding them. Furthermore, as it became apparent to me last year, there are ArbCom sanctions preventing me from participating in editing since I'm not registered. nableezy: You wanna block me? Go on and do it you (Personal attack removed). 85.64.76.29 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You somehow think when the IDF releases specific images it isnt doing so in furtherance of its public relations goals? Ok, cool. Ive redacted a bit of the personal attacks in your post, but honestly I dont care enough about what you write to try to get you blocked. nableezy - 17:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that you were still around, I reported it at ANI already. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ther problem with this page is not the images, but the incapacity of editors to focus on the facts, which are the only thing which should interest us. I.e. writing, unlike the mess and repetition we have, what happened when, in chronological sequence, with as much factual detail and precision as can be mustered. The obsession with images reflects the idea that a story is told via snippety impressions rather than by the objective data. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats not the problem, but it certainly is one problem. nableezy - 15:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

perhaps I misphrased that. Making images the centerpiece of the article is wrong. To do so is to engage in a media manipulative game that trumps clear historical narrative. Wikipedia must stress the facts, not play into images that, by their nature, tend to lend themselves to abuse. That rockets misfire and kill one's own through friendly fire occurs in every war, and often in that enclave. If an Israeli or Western power kills its own via technical failure, all reports will announce it as tragic friendly fire. If this happens with any adversary, the word 'friendly fire' is noticeable for its absence from mainstream reports, which prefer to use the incident to blame the 'militants' for even the casualties the invading armies cause. The only way to avoid this manipulative gaming of readers' thinking is to concentrate on the factual details, as I have often argued in similar earlier articles, and leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Using a video for a minority of the damage and casualties, on top of it being the third (!) piece of Israeli propaganda included in here, is non-neutral. I agree the text matters, but you are understating the importance of imagery. It is why Israel releases these videos, because they know it furthers their hasbara goals. Ignoring that isnt either a good idea or following NPOV. nableezy - 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It does not break neutrality if NPOV shows that launching garage-made unguided missiles from densely-populated urban areas is dangerous regardless of which side launches them. Kuketski (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It violates NPOV to insert 3 propaganda pieces by a combatant in an armed conflict while not showing the widespread and widely reported damage by that combatant. nableezy - 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeating the word propaganda over and over doesn't lend credence to your argument. I searched Commons and the Arabic article for images from Gaza itself, sadly they haven't been uploaded yet. When they are uploaded they can be added too.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You havent addressed the point at all. Using this article to present a distortion of the weight that sources give in imaging is a violation of NPOV. Beyond that, WP:ONUS is exceptionally clear that challenged material requires consensus for reinsertion. And it is obvious that is not true here. nableezy - 18:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

As a parallel, would anyone unquestioningly upload unverified footage on the conflict in Ukraine from the Russian or Ukrainian armed forces? This is primary content. It is a normal part of warfare to manipulate imagery and push out propaganda campaigns. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The video should be restored. Facts don't violate NPOV policy or other ONUS falsely invoked to remove uncomfortable facts, although they were widely reported and also confirmed by Palestinian eye-witnesses. It seems that Nableezy is against the majority in his objection. MathKnight 18:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that it is anyway, not a vote, I don't think that is true, there at least 5 editors objecting. It seems that you must begin an RFC and achieve consensus if there really is a concern about an image of a rocket misfiring. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In what world am I against the majority? And yes, having 3 images all from one of the combatants in this article is a POV violation. That has nothing to do with "facts dont violate NPOV". nableezy - 18:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It has always been agreed on that in this I/P area, image-use must reflect parity between the two sides. Frankly, saying that, as Reseacher does, we have so far good stuff already from Israel and the Palestinians haven't uploaded their stuff yet, so we stay with an imbalance, is absurd. All of these conflicts involve media manipulation, and we should be strict in avoiding any temptation to privilege one side over another. This is especially true of the present case where the aggressor freely admits it triggered the conflict, and uses images to mock a primitive technology of response (and I have no sympathy for PIJ or Hamas). One at a time for each side is obligatory per NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean hiding facts with the excuse of balance. Should we give an equal weight to anti-vaxxers in COVID-19 vaccine because of NPOV and have 50% of the article saying that vaccines are conspiracy? NPOV means giving the true facts, not hiding them in the name of "balance". MathKnight 19:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What an absurd analogy. NPOV means not misrepresenting the issue through images that all the damage in this conflict was caused by Palestinians. It means not performing a propagandizing role of pretending like this is not a more representative image for this conflict than the material the IDF has been releasing, and you so helpfully uploading, to burnish its image. This articles images must also abide by NPOV, and pretending like this is on the order of anti-vaxxers, when in fact your contributions here are pushing that level of FRINGEy material through the imaging, is as absurd as the idea we should only be carrying images released by one of the combatants. nableezy - 19:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the criticism about the selection of images is justified, though I'm unsure yet (delete or wait?) about the best solution, if we not have better or more of a balance of material available. Generally should material from a force in a conflict imo be attributed (in this case like "video by the military of Israel", maybe also "photo by Israeli Police") already in the description in the article, if they are included. And such material should not be in the infobox (that should be reserved for overview pictures like a map of where the conflict is or a collage of images). --Casra (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's very troubling that you felt it was appropriate to make an analogy between the Palestinian and Israeli sides of the conflict — one of the most delicate subjects we describe on the encyclopedia — and anti vaxxers versus pro vaccine individuals in the fight to stop COVID-19, where there is objectively and empirically a wrong and right side. The POV of the page is effected by the images and videos that we choose to present to the reader, and including a large amount of media from one side when there's none from the other side would very much violate NPOV.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

↑This↑. NPOV means we need to balance perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. Such perspectives exist across the range of political "sides" on I/P issues, but so-called vaccine hesitancy perspectives are very hard to find within high-quality secondary sources. Cross-domain analogies generally don't work that well here. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• The argument in this section is hollow. If there are no Palestinian pictures available with a free license, it means all other images must be removed? The article needs more images, not less. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Not all other images have been removed, and you are arguing against a strawman. You cannot overload this article with images from one of the combatants, especially given the images in the article are disproportionate in showing damage caused by Palestinians or against militants, when the majority of casualties are civilian and the majority of damage inflicted by Israel. nableezy - 20:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

As there are zero Palestinian images now, any number of non-Palestinian images, even one, would be infinitely larger than the number of Palestinian shot images. A significant number of casualties and damage inside Gaza were caused by Palestinian rocket fire. The UN envoy said 20% of 1,100 rockets fired by Palestinians fell inside Gaza, a video illustrating this significant cause of casualties is illustrative nomatter who shot it. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but in case you havent noticed we still have two images released by Israel and its agents. Yes, a significant number were caused by Palestinian rockets. An even larger number by Israeli bombardments. To skew the balance of the imaging even further violates NPOV. nableezy - 20:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The current balance is infinitely skewed due to zero Palestinian images, adding additional images does not change that. 1/0=∞, 2/0=∞, 3/0=∞, 4/0=∞, 5/0=∞, ... , 999/0=∞ ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, the absence of Palestinian images does not mean that it would not in any way affect the POV of the article to include 999 Israeli media files published by the IDF. This would obviously skew the POV of the article to an unacceptable degree. Completely irrelevant side-point, but a number divided by zero is not infinity. This has nothing to do with the argument, I just felt like pointing that out  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The root cause

Although the fighting was concentrated in the Gaza Strip, the root causes may be traced to Jenin where the PIJ has a strong presence.

This is a remarkable sentence to the lead.

• It is an opinion, apparently in two sources (I haven't yet checked) passed off as a factoid.
• may be is ambiguous. Contextually, that can mean either (a) one can trace the 'root cause' to Jenin or (b) perhaps the root cause lies in Jenin.
• That is indeterminate then,- (a) implies certainty (b) possibility - except for the fact that the sentence espouses an Israeli POV in either case. I.e., the 'PIJ' in Jenin caused Israeli to strike Gaza City, for example. Preemptive political or strategic actions are always a matter of choosing from many options, ranging from opportunism or (political) convenience to perceived necessity (all of these are indirectly alluded to in reports I have read). To illustrate heuristically this point: In his posthumous Silverview Le Carré writes of what the narrator considers a US 'habit of launching a new war every time it needs to deal with the effects of the last one it launched'.
• The 'root cause', if any, is never, historically, reeducible to a single factor, except by simpletions.
• As it stands therefore, it violates somewhat outrageously, NPOV. I said earlier, more than once, that the lead should stick to established facts regarding the salient features of the unfolding event, without intrusions of opinions. That is not just me, it is what leads should do. Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, I agree. Using "root cause" is odd, the "root cause" of the Arab-Israeli conflict? The "root cause" of war between humans? It may have been the "proximate cause" or a recently connected even that led to PIJ escalating and then Israel counter-escalating, but "root cause" is too much. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 22:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I already deleted the complained of sentence in the body, the sentence deleted in the lead was a summary from the material in the body. Perhaps you may find another way to summarize that material. There are actually 3 refs, Reuters, Time and Jewish currents. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a principle of historical thinking that causes roots or otherwise, cannot be ascertained within 24 hours of a major event. And there is never one cause, associated with one side. That notion should not be in the lead in any case. It is very late here, and I haven't the time to check through the sections and those sources. I guess we'll end up at this point saying that the root cause was the Israeli killing of two of the Jenin leader,Bassam al-Saadi's sons back in 2002, or some cleric's medieval gloss on the Qu'ran, or Arthur Balfour's wondering whether contenting Weizman by offering a country GBritain had no jurisdiction over to bury the embarrassìng fact he was an antisemite, or some Jewish scribe's romantic fantasy in Babylon ca.400BCE about the obligations to history that stem from a Joshua's putative invasion of Canaan under the aegis of Yahweh, El or Elohim etc,.etc.etc.Yawn. Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's gone now, proximate cause or something else would have been better, not going to disagree about that. Perhaps I will have another crack at a summary tomorrow. Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever, but you cannot place in the lead any material summarizing a unilateral and reductive viewpoint arguing that one side caused the conflict, no matter how many sources repeat the mantra. Were yyou tempted to do so, you would have to find sources that give an alternative 'cause' (i.e., the political opportunity as elections loom, for a politician lacking accreditation as a hawk, to use this to prove to the electorate he is tough). I don't believe that is the cause either, but is one of several reasons ('causes') given for the strike. You'll only get a quagmire whatever you do. The 'cause' cannot possibly be said to 'lie in Jenin' since the PIJ is all over the landscape, and strongest in Gaza. The intensity of sudden interest in this event on wiki is quite extraordinary, and the amount of rubbish in sources commensurately large. We can mention attributed views, by all means, but WP:Due and commonsense should not allow one to showcase crap. Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as an argument that one side caused the conflict, not sure where you are getting that idea from tbh, perhaps when you have time read those refs. Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That is the way I read the sentence, and I sketched a careful construal of the grammar to show why I read it that way.Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll clarify that, not grammatically, but logically. Ehud Barak once said that had he been born Palestinian, he'd have become a terrorist. That means, he recognized that given what Israel does, it is logical to respond the way, say Jenin militants do. To state that the 'cause is in Jenin' only elides from view Barak's logic, the fact that Jenin is as it is (a centre for violence against Israel) can be correlated by a mirroring logic that would make Israel a centre of violence against Palestinians. Saying 'Jenin' is the cause means there is no prior history that can account for those circumstances in Jenin, that the PIJ is an ex nihilo phenomenon, and everything else that Israel does is a 'response'.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand that but the article body which was what the lead was supposed to be a summary of (I agree that my summary was poorly worded), explains that it is a two sided thing with Palestinians from Jenin killing Israelis in Israel leading to attacks on Jenin resulting in deaths of Palestinians there. It is clear from the refs that the PIJ soup simmered first in the West Bank and the Gaza attack was an extension of it. It is not correct to say that this is just Gaza, the PIJ in the West Bank are taking advantage of an unpopular PA to bolster their standing there, to the irritation of Israel and the PA and to a lesser extent Hamas as well. As Ian Bremmer in the Time article said "It’s never easy to pinpoint exactly when and why a flare-up in fighting between Israel and Palestinians begins. Before this month’s violence, at least 53 Palestinians were killed between March and July, including Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. During the same period, a spate of attacks by Palestinians killed at least 19 people in Israel." Selfstudier (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

is a two sided thing with Palestinians from Jenin killing Israelis in Israel leading to attacks on Jenin resulting in deaths of Palestinians there.

That is the Israeli POV. I'm sure you read Israeli newspapers every day, as I have for 20 years. Everyweek, one or two Palestinians are shot dead. Every day, some 'incident' of land theft is attempted, every autumn, their crops are plundered, burnt or stolen, and in every case, the IDF plays an active role in 'settling' 'clashes' by driving the complaining Palestinian villagers off, or uprooting as it is doing at Masafer Yatta, whole communities from their traditional lands. What you have is a slow war of conquest. In 99% of these 'incidents' (which go down to separating permanently by expulsion orders married couples with different papers found at a checkpoint) there is no reaction by the affected Palestinians. On those rare occasions (statistically) where militant groups (with whom I have no sympathy, but understand) react, PIJ Hamas or whoever) enact violence, plan and execute lethal operations targeting Israelis, military or civilian, all of a sudden the press gets excited and talks about Israeli attempts to put and end to the violence, and restore the 'order' of quiet, continuous theft, expropriation and violence the state of Israel sustains in the West Bank. Here, PIJ has a strong base in Jenin and ran a number of operations against the occupying power that supports the continual systemic violence against Palestinians and their territory. But the 'cause' is not there. This is not foruming or soap-boxing, to anticipate objections (not from you) but a clarification of why that kind of statement you proposed in good faith draws on sources that appear to selectively ignore the obvious while espousing an identifiable national POV of just one of the parties in conflict. Karl Kraus once wrote that the madness of the world and its wars was caused by the inability of the commentariat to write correct, precise prose reporting the circumstances leading up to them. I share that obsession.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have already agreed several times now that my original summary was poorly worded no need to belabor that. As for my aligning with the Israeli POV that is not my usual position as you well know.

The Israeli POV involves distracting everyone from what is going on and asserting that the Gaza operation was only a matter of dealing with some bad guys there (in Gaza only), that is also what the combatant and naming arguments up above are all about. It is widely reported that the PIJ arrest in the WB was the spark for the Gaza operation, I want to clarify that (per sources) it is rather more than that and began before that. Search "Breaking the wave" or "Breakwater" + Jenin. (Breaking the wave is another propaganda phrase for the recent WB operations).

Yes, I know, one can say that the whole thing began in 1917 or whenever, that's not what I am aiming at here. Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound like I am bludgeoning. You've read more sources. I followed your tip and surrendered throwing my hands up in despair. The first I got was an 'explainer' the Breakwater operation from 124 which states:-

Since its establishment, Jenin has been a significant source of tension

Obviously the moron who wrote that cannot distinguish the Jenin Refugee Camp from Jenin, and knows zilch about the latter. Reading in this area is a form of penance for god knows what crime, the quality is so poor, except when you get empirical analysis from bodies like B'tselem or historically contextualized analysis from the Nathan Thralls out there. 'spark' by the way is unacceptable. The Israeli attack on Jenin sparked, not a reprisal from Jenin, but a further Israeli attack on Gaza. In normal language, that is called 'provocation' (which happens to be a part of what Israeli strategy is often about . That's why I prefer to wait until strong analytical sources come in for some addition like the one you proposed for the lead.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It will be some time before we get analytical sources, it's been a week. This what I want but it is opinion Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps this but again it is opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Richard Silverstein is not for wiki a reliable source but his blog often has very good inside information reflecting personal contacts within the security establishment and his familiarity with Israeli Hebrew newspapers. He writes as follows, and perhaps it is worth following up via RSA.

A final word in this update on the video the IDF is circulating alleging that it shows an IJ rocket landing on the five Paletinian children murdered. There are several glaring problems with its claim: first, the video has no time stamp. It could have been filmed yesterday or 2014 or any time; second, we don’t know who fired the missile; third, we don’t know where it was fired from; fourth, we don’t know precisely where it landed; fifth, we don’t know if this particular rocket killed or injured anyone. About the only thing we can say for sure is that it is a video. Which isn’t saying much.

combatants

placing the PIJ as the combatant here is a POV violation, it is portraying Israel's framing as an attack on PIJ as fact. Sources are reporting Israel attacked the Gaza Strip, so either State of Palestine or Gaza Strip should be placed as the combatant. Ditto for commander, hard to say somebody assassinated in his sleep was "in action", and he wasnt a commander for Gaza in any way. nableezy - 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In his sleep? The strike was a bit after 4 pm local time. He was commanding anti-tank squads from his hidden location. Gaza Strip isn't a combatant so far, the Hamas is staying out of the fighting so far. -----Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy (As for now) The conflict is strictly between the PIJ and Israel. Hamas has stated their will to stay out.I believe it is wiser to address the PIJ as such and distinguish the rest of the terrorists organisations with their great differences. 2A06:C701:9C72:C500:55C1:2907:215B:F503 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the conflict is not just between the PIJ and Israel. The 21:23 update to the article points out that Gaza Strip is also being attacked. This is a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, not just the PIJ as you seem to want to frame it as. And I would suggest you learn how to respond to comments here instead of just repeating yourself. 3skandar (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

But the Gaza Strip is the location, not the belligerent, correct? The Gaza Strip is not itself a political entity, so it would not be appropriate to list it as such. Yes, this is part of the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, as opposed to simply being an Israel-PIJ conflict, and the attacks took place on the Gaza Strip, and the casualties were largely non-combatant Palestinian citizens as opposed to the PIJ. But the article already states all of this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Then change it to Palestine. But this framing of Israel performing some surgical strike against PIJ targets but somehow not attacking Gaza is literally Israel's POV. And it is not how non-Israeli sources are largely reporting it. nableezy - 01:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)x

We do state that Israel's strikes are attacking Gaza, though. To reiterate, this is what the very first sentence of the article says. I'm assuming you're referring to the infobox and not the actual text of the article?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, the infobox. nableezy - 02:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've modified the infobox in a way that you may find agreeable. I personally believe that the previous version was more accurate as it currently implies that the PIJ is necessarily part of the Palestinian government or military as opposed to being an independent militant organization acting in the name of the Palestinian cause, but this format is what the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis page did, so there's precedent for this. Hopefully this satisfies some of the POV concerns.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats better yes. nableezy - 02:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

2/3 of the casualties were combatants, so it's really not "casualties were largely non-combatants". Also, the fact that innocent people get killed doesn't make them the target - PIJ's misfired rockets killed a bunch of innocent Gazan civilians, I don't suppose you would describe the PIJ as attacking Gaza. The operation was most clearly a fight between the State of Israel and the PIJ, with the sovereign of Gaza, Hamas, not taking part. Any description of the conflict as an attack against Gaza wouldn't be NPOV. 80.178.95.33 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, reliable sources routinely refer to Gaza being attacked. NPOV is determined by the sources, not by what some random person on the internet wants to say. And where are you even getting the material on 2/3 of the casualties were combatants? That isnt borne out by any source, with it being reported almost half the dead civilians, and I see no reporting on the injured being mostly combatants either. Just making things up is not an acceptable practice here. nableezy - 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble why did you remove the Palestinian flag? nableezy - 16:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Here are some sources specifying Israel attacked Gaza: The Economist: The latest Israeli offensive against Gaza , Al Jazeera: since Israel began attacking Gaza on Friday. Let me know if youd like more. nableezy - 16:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Given there being no response from Dunutubble, the version by Vanilla Wizard should be restored. nableezy - 00:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Dunutubble did not provide an edit summary and we have spent a period of time discussing this change here, I believe it would be acceptable for us to restore the version which more closely resembles the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis infobox.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• In my opinion it is worth considering placing Gaza and Hamas as a third combatant. Hamas sat this out, and Gazan civilians were hit both by misfired Islamic Jihad rockets and by Israeli strikes directed at Islamic Jihad inside Gaza. There were three parties to this conflict. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• But Hamas, as you put it, sat this one out. So why are they a party to this conflict?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Vanilla Wizard: civilians in Gaza live under the Hamas government. Civilians in Gaza were hit by both Israeli and Islamic Jihad fire. I would place Hamas with the Gazan civilians as the governing faction of the territory in which most of the damage and casualties took place, though the territory itself remained neutral in the conflict. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't entirely understand this rationale. Hamas does de facto govern Gaza, but that seems like more of a reason to not list Hamas and Gaza separately here. Listing Hamas separately implies that the organization did something in this conflict, when in reality it did not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  A favorite Israeli occupation is Hamas bashing, whether or not they participated. Israel’s attack has its roots in events outside the Gaza Strip. Jenin, to be precise.

  Away from Gaza, Islamic Jihad digs in against Israel on West Bank JENIN, West Bank -For the masked gunmen in Jenin refugee camp, Israel’s unannounced strike against Islamic Jihad in Gaza on Friday can have come as little surprise after months of clashes that have steadily lifted the profile of the Iran-backed militant group. and

  The Israel-Gaza Truce Is Holding. But Another Deadly Showdown Looms The analysts are starting to look more closely at the cause/impetus for this "It’s never easy to pinpoint exactly when and why a flare-up in fighting between Israel and Palestinians begins. Before this month’s violence, at least 53 Palestinians were killed between March and July, including Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. During the same period, a spate of attacks by Palestinians killed at least 19 people in Israel."

  It doesn't bother me personally who is listed as combatant, this is just the same old (55 or 74 years according to the way one looks at it) Israeli Palestine conflict. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hamas specifically did not engage with Isreali forces and in fact demanded that PIJ agree to the ceasefire. If there was some other group that sources say engaged the Isreali's during the conflict, they can be added, but none of the other major militant groups other than PIJ were involved so the sources say.XavierGreen (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right, the New York Times ran the headline: Another Gaza Conflict, but With a Difference: Hamas Sat It Out. with the byline "In the weekend battle with Israel, Hamas left the fighting to Islamic Jihad, another militant group, highlighting differences between them over how best to combat Israel." PrisonerB (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Gaza is what was attacked, and the sources all support that. I provided several of them above. Hamas isnt listed, making that strawman just that. nableezy - 16:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy: Everyone in this talk page section is either neutral or opposed to your insistence that Gaza was a combatant. Drop it. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats a bald faced lie, given the other editor who added that. Drop it yourself. nableezy - 20:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Vanilla Wizard compromised with you, when they were the only one arguing with you, but they said when they compromised: "I've modified the infobox in a way that you may find agreeable. I personally believe that the previous version was more accurate as it currently implies that the PIJ is necessarily part of the Palestinian government or military...Hopefully this satisfies some of the POV concerns." Since then, additional editors have disagreed with you. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Counting: Nableezy 1. Opposed to Nableezy: 5 Dunutubble, PrisonerB, XavierGreen, 2A06:C701:9C72:C500:55C1:2907:215B:F503, and myself Lilach5. Neutral: Selfstudier. Compromised with Nazbleezy, but believe otherwise: Vanilla Wizard. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Vanilla Wizard made the edit and reverted to it. Dunutubble made no comment, simply reverted without comment. And by the way, Ive provided reliable sources saying Israel attacked Gaza. Do you have any that dispute that? The IP's reason were also plainly false, 2/3s of the casualties were not combatants. nableezy - 20:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You're outnumbered. The PIJ also attacked Gaza, according to the UN the PIJ fired more than 200 rockets that fell short in Gaza territory. User:PrisonerB brought the NYT headline Another Gaza Conflict, but With a Difference: Hamas Sat It Out. with byline "In the weekend battle with Israel, Hamas left the fighting to Islamic Jihad, another militant group, highlighting differences between them over how best to combat Israel." So reliable sources not a difference in this conflict. If Gaza is listed, it needs to be in a third category, not on PIJ's side and not on Israel's side. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Friendly fire is not generally discussed as an attack, and beyond that youd need a source saying that. Hamas isnt listed, so I again fail to see the relevance to your claim. The sources Ive offered say Israel attacked Gaza. Do you have any sources that dispute that Israel attacked Gaza? Nobody is disputing Hamas did not participate. Thats why Hamas isnt listed. nableezy - 20:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Some more sources demonstrating the POV issue in claiming that this was purely an attack on PIJ: NPR: Israel unleashed a wave of airstrikes in Gaza on Friday that it said targeted the Islamic Jihad militant group. You are attempting to make this article parrot what reliable sources report as an Israeli claim, that the only thing attacked was the PIJ. But those sources clearly support that Gaza was what was attacked. nableezy - 21:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You also seem to have missed 3skandar saying No, the conflict is not just between the PIJ and Israel. The 21:23 update to the article points out that Gaza Strip is also being attacked.. Wonder why. nableezy - 21:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Attacks in Gaza targeting PIJ are not attacks on Gaza. There is also the complication that anti-PIJ arrests were made in the West Bank. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ive given several sources that say the Gaza Strip was attacked by Israel. You have provided none in response. Ive tagged the infobox and added to the lead citing those sources. nableezy - 21:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@לילך5:, my count is different than yours. Nableezy is not outnumbered. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but my reading of the situation is:

• 1 support (Nableezy)
• 1 neutral but ultimately leaned towards supporting (myself)
• 2 uninvolved editors (PrisonB, XavierGreen)
• 1 opposed but lacks much weight (IP editor)
• 1 opposed (you)

PrisonerB only said that Hamas was not involved, they did not !vote. XavierGreen also only said that Hamas was not involved and did not !vote. The IP editor agreed with you on this, but we don't usually give much weight to them on Israel-Palestine discussions. I did not count Dunutubble per WP:NOTVOTE as they not only didn't participate in the talk page, they didn't even provide an edit summary, so no one knows what their reasoning could have been.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the vote count, keeping in mind WP:NOTVOTE, Ive provided a number of sources that say that Israel attacked the Gaza Strip. Not simply PIJ. No source has been provided that refutes this. It is purely an Israeli POV that the combatants were Israel and the PIJ. And it is refuted by third party reliable sources, making the parroting of that claim a NPOV violation. nableezy - 21:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Vanilla Wizard, User:XavierGreen made an edit removing Gaza as a combatant that Nableezy reverted and stated in edit summary: "There are no sources stating that any other Gaza strip group was a belligerent other than PIJ, in fact Hamas specifically did not engage and told PIJ to agree to the ceasefire". When I read Hamas, I see Hamas=Gaza government. What Hamas does represents Gaza. XavierGreen repeated here more or less what they said in the edit summary when they removed Gaza. I think other editors are meaning the same when they say Hamas. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Then I assume it is accurate to state that XavierGreen is okay with this, but would not be okay with adding Hamas as they've argued against that here. I also want to add that you had previously in this discussion expressed support for including Gaza in the infobox, but only if Hamas was also included. I'm curious to know why you (if I am not mistaken) believe that the next best option is only including the PIJ but not Gaza. I've already expressed my own rationale here in detail, as I was concerned that including Gaza as a combatant made it look as if the PIJ was a part of Gaza in the same way that the IDF is a part of Israel, and I was mistakenly of the belief that including the location as a belligerent would be odd, but what swayed me was the precedent for including it (key example being the 2021 crisis article). I don't strongly prefer either including Gaza or not including Gaza, but I don't find the arguments from other editors for only including the PIJ to be convincing, either.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I supported including Gaza, with Hamas, as a third party. Neither PIJ nor Israel, but as a combatant3, which would have civilian deaths in Gaza and the non-PIJ Gaza impact. I feel it is incorrect to list PIJ as subordinate to Gaza in the infobox, as the Hamas government of Gaza took a neutral position. The result would be more than two parties, this happens on other articles too, like Syrian civil war which has too many parties to count, but in this case it would only be three. Gaza could be added as combtantat3 without Hamas, I think Hamas should be listed as the governing party, but that is secondary to the Gaza government being a 3rd party in the conflict. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

PIJ is clearly subordinate to Gaza, as it having been noted Hamas essentially ordered them to agree to a ceasefire. This argument that PIJ also attacked Gaza is nonsense, there was no intentential attack on Gaza from PIJ. Yes some of its rockets aimed at Israel struck Gaza, and yes almost certainly that caused some number of casualties (id say AP has the most authoritative view here on the number), but that does not make it an attack on Gaza. Again, friendly fire is not an attack. And beyond it being nonsense, it is not supported by any secondary reliable source. nableezy - 21:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree Gaza should be excluded as a combatant. It wasn't a combatant. The fighting was between Israel and PIJ, mostly in Gaza. This is supported by sourcing. The Hamas government of Gaza sat out. Gaza did not attack Israel, PIJ in Gaza fired at Israel, there is a difference between where a conflict occurred and who is a party to the conflict.— Preceding unsigned comment added by חוקרת (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the cited sources, claiming they say it was an attack against PIJ in Gaza when they say it was an attack against Gaza, That is WP:TE and I will be reporting it if not reverted. nableezy - 11:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree the sources above show this is between Israel and PIJ. PrisonerB (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources stating the conflict is between Israel and Gaza were removed. 3 of the 4 replacements also include statements along those lines: Bloomberg "The latest Israel-Gaza confrontation began last week" , Haaretz "Jerusalem is typically a flash point during periods of cross-border fighting between Israel and Gaza.", F24 "the worst violence in Gaza since an 11-day war between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in May 2021" It is quite ridiculous to assert that the attack is only on PIJ, what about the dead civilians and children? Bomb London, yes, one is bombing London but one is also bombing England and the United Kingdom at the same time, the reason why it is being done doesn't change the fact.Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between in and against. Sources also say that the PIJ was fighting Israel and that what stopped it was a truce between PIJ and Israel. Sources also sat that the Gaza government decided to sit this conflict out, so it was not a part of it. Also, source say that the PIJ killed significantly more Gazans, apparently more than twelve, than it did Israelis, zero. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I provided a number of sources that say it was against the Gaza Strip. And your last bit of propaganda is just that, as the numbers show that Israel killed considerably more Gazans than PIJ did. nableezy - 14:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hass report

Even if it came from Icewhiz, Im adding the report from Amira Hass on the casualties to the infobox. nableezy - 14:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Partly overtaken by Israeli admission that the 5 Jabalia on Sunday is down to them and not PIJ. See above. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned briefly down the page in the list of incidents. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent death toll

@Selfstudier:, you asked where the inconsistency was so I'll tell you here rather than revert you again as the page is under 1RR. The infobox says 14 [were killed in Gaza] by misfired Palestinian rockets. The body of the article says The Islamic Jihad said that "Twelve of those in Gaza were killed by misfired rockets in Gaza". The use of {{inconsistent}} is appropriate.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard: That sentence in the body was tagged by myself a while back. I am certain that Islamic Jihad said no such thing but it is sourced and I have tagged it as dubious and not only because it says 12. I have no objection to you or anyone else removing that sentence altogether. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed that sentence from the article. If there are any editors who do object, I politely ask that they reply with additional sources to corroborate the dubious claim and strengthen its verifiability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)