Talk:Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

South Sudan[edit]

South Sudan needs to be in the map. It is currently a UN recognized country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xonden (talkcontribs)

State of the article[edit]

Having spent a long time editing the main section, this article is WOEFUL. Issues in the section are needs clarification as countries don't make statements but people (or ministries) do (case in point, the Bosnia split), there are unquoted words of "strongly" etc which appears as if we are emphasizing it an dis then SYNTHESIS, WTA, we need consistent ref formatting, there [were] redundant names when the flag is already there for states, grammar needs a SOLID check, apparently it is copy+pasted from sources. overall it needs consisetency.Lihaas (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Lihaas (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, what he said. I will do some copy editing (slowly) and also try to find the copyvios and get them fixed first. Just a reminder to editor's who copy and paste from sourcing - Stop It - your edit may be removed for copyright violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Image concern[edit]

The image needs to be fixed. As shown by the sources provided, Mexico condemns the actions of both Israel and Palestine. (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also a few new ones were added: Estonia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, etcLihaas (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Why Argentina is red?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by דן234 (talkcontribs)


Australia should be yellow. "The media release called on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid a further escalation of violence." (talk)


What happened to the map? I thought it was a great addition. 2607:F470:12:A:189D:1013:2F24:84CA (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It was apparently removed without comment or discussion, but I can certainly see why - It was continually out of date, and generally turning into all the same color since most countries have at this point put out some criticism directed towards both sides. Not to mention evaluating those statements is WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The map is the epitome of WP:OR. --Malerooster (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I found the map very useful early on in this operation, and I think I know how it can still be useful. We should find or create an early version of the map, perhaps from July 8th or 9th, to show the countries that promptly issued responses to the conflict. The map could be titled: "International reactions to Operation Protective Edge (or the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) as of 8 July 2014". That map would not have the problem of countries "turning green" due to eventual overall criticism, and it wouldn't have nearly as much interpretation - at the beginning of the conflict, most countries were very strong in support of Israel or Gaza, and the equally-critical nations were quick to strongly condemn both for violence. I'd say there's hardly anything to interpret there. And then readers would still have a map to see generally what areas are more pro-Israeli or pro-Gazan, and the general number of countries supporting each side. Let's do this for the readers.--ɱ (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a wider discussion going on at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Israeli.2FGaza_reactions_image. I would remind participants in this discussion that this area is subject to sanctions, and specifically a WP:1RR restriction. I believe people on both sides of the map debate are in violation of 1rr from yesterdays removals and restorations and that even a "slow-moving" edit war has often been cause for blocks or other editor sanctions. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


I have added level markers per MOS:SECTIONS. We do need it, as otherwise the subheadings do not appear in the table of contents and the section hierarchy is not clear. HelenOnline 08:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

David Norris quote[edit]

@AcidSnow, Number 57, and Dt Mos Ios: Regarding your edit here. Pputting a long quote from one person in this section is WP:UNDUE. How does the opinion of one man compare with major human rights orgs and Red cross etc. and why does it deserve so much space? Kingsindian (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see, Kingsindian. Should it be fixed so that we keep only the important parts or can it be moved under "Ireland" since he is a member of parliament there? P.S, lol every time I try to respond you make another edit cutting me off. AcidSnow (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@AcidSnow: It is not clear that it belongs in the Ireland section. The countries section only carries the official reaction by the govts. David Norris is not in the govt. is he? Perhaps he can be put in the "celebrities" section, though the whole section should perhaps be dumped as WP:UNDUE. Are the tweets of Rihanna worth including? Kingsindian (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: David Norris is a member of the Senate of Ireland, which makes him a member of the countries parliament and govermental official. So he should defently be included. LOL, it's a no to Rihanna. AcidSnow (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@AcidSnow: I was aware of his being a member of parliament, however, an official govt. statement is different from a statement from a member of parliament. As to Rihanna, she is already mentioned here in the celebrities section. Though I have put an undue tag on the section for now. Kingsindian (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that makes since since he is not a Govoner which is definitely a "govermental official". Anyways, should his info be cut down to size to fit? AcidSnow (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @AcidSnow: As I said, it is not clear to me that he fits at all. There are tens if not hundreds of members of parliament in every country. We can't include all of their statements. I suggest just keeping the David Norris quote out, unless there is something especially notable there. I think the celebrities section should be dumped as well, but for now, I have put an undue tag on it. Kingsindian (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead of this article[edit]

I envision the lead for this article being used as a summary on the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict page for the "Reactions" section. I have added stuff from that page here. Some of the stuff is duplicated, sorry about that. I will try to remove the duplicate stuff as soon I can.

The lead needs to be expanded thoroughly, in a WP:SS manner, so that it can serve a good introduction to this article, as well as serving as a summary for the main article. I have added transclusion tags in the lead, which, as long as nobody messes with them, should create no problems.

There have been many concerns on the other page that the article had become too bloated. This will kill 2 birds with one stone, removing the bloat on the other page, as well as improving the lead for this page. Kingsindian (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Are reactions from celebrities really necessary?[edit]

I feel it is undue weight. Reactions from world leaders? Absolutely. Celebrities? Not so much. And if it is not undue weight, it should at least have the same amount in support as opposed. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and removed it entirely. Really, tweets from Rihanna do not belong on WP. Kingsindian (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Glad we agree on something. We as a society give celebrities more credit than they deserve as is. Don't need to give them even more. Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

EU statement[edit]

@Wlglunight93: As you can see, the EU statement talks about all sorts of things. In the same point where it talks about "human shields" it talks about civilian deaths, humanitarian situation and conduct of war etc. The lead is a place for a summary: this is currently rendered as "The European Union has condemned the violations of the laws of war by both sides". It is not correct to simply include condemnation of one side. Kingsindian (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but it's not neutral to talk about the need to lift the blockade of Gaza without demilitarizing the terrorist groups, which was a condition set by the EU.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wlglunight93: Please discuss first, instead of adding stuff again. Where in the EU statement does it say that disarming groups is a condition for the lifting of the blockade? It states: "It reiterates its call for the immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from the Gaza Strip, in line with UNSC resolution 1860 (2009)" Kingsindian (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't relate both issues (blockade and demilitarization). But it says "all terrorist groups in Gaza must disarm." That's what I added. Nothing more, nothing less.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wlglunight93: Please revert while we discuss this: this is not acceptable procedure. Do you agree that there is no linkage between the two issues? If so, keeping in mind that the lead is a place for a summary, one cannot include all things in the EU statement. One-sided mentions like this are not acceptable. Here is the point which contains the "disarming" part.

The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and militant groups in the Gaza Strip, directly harming civilians. These are criminal and unjustifiable acts. The EU calls on Hamas to immediately put an end to these acts and to renounce violence. All terrorist groups in Gaza must disarm. The EU strongly condemns calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields. The EU condemns the loss of hundreds of civilian lives, among them many women and children. While recognizing Israel's legitimate right to defend itself against any attacks, the EU underlines that the Israeli military operation must be proportionate and in line with international humanitarian law. The EU stresses the need for protection of civilians at all times. The EU is particularly appalled by the human cost of the Israeli military operation in Shuja'iyya, and is deeply concerned at the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation. All sides must meet their obligations and immediately allow safe and full humanitarian access in Gaza for the urgent distribution of assistance. The EU calls on all sides to implement in good faith an immediate cease fire.

It is not legitimate to just pick out one part from the whole thing. Kingsindian (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the part because there was no response and no removal. Kingsindian (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Images of pro-Palestinian protests[edit]

I think all those images don't belong to this section (demonstrations are covered below). I was going to remove them (except for those in the proper section), but first I want to hear other opinions.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of them can be removed, especially the ones in Europe. A couple, such as the one in Australia and Morocco can be moved to the other section in interests of diversity. Kingsindian (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What happenned to my suggestion of keeping the Moroccan and Australian photos? Kingsindian (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I didn't take the time to select the pictures. Currently there are images from Paris, Dublin and Berlin. I found nothing wrong with them. If you want to change one or all of them, I have no objection. But I think three is more than enough (in the pro-Israel camp there are two).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Not much use of asking if you were going to do it anyway. Still, no matter. I have added two pictures. The idea was to show diversity: there is no requirement to have the same number of pictures for either side. Kingsindian (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wlglunight93: I am not sure you realized that the Helsinki picture is commented out because it is already present in the section below. This is why I removed it. Also, this habit of rapid edits to an area where there is 1RR is very annoying. I can't revert your change even if I want to, while you go merrily along ignoring it. The rule exists for a reason: if you wish to make changes, discuss them. Kingsindian (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge 2014 Sarcelles riots here[edit]

It seems that the other article is just a stub. Can be merged in the anti-Semitism section here. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, the event is clearly a separate notable series of incidents and is referenced as such in the sources on the page. I will add a further tag to the existing text.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Disagree, newsworthy riots can have their own pages.ShulMaven (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Public figures, Tutu, Al Quds day[edit]

I believe a section regarding the comments of celebrities and public figures could be the place where different oppinions could be mentioned. I removed the single selective comment, as there were many others who expressed their oppinion and are n0pt mentioned, nor we have the section where we can mention them. The annual Al Quds day is not related directly to this subject, and although it could be mentioned in the sections regarding demos, no separate section is needed, especially not with the list of places where this annual even was held. --Tritomex (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC) If there are no objections, I will remove Al Quds day anual event from this article.--Tritomex (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


About this reversal by Mevarus. Mevarus reinstalled the paragraph they added themselves a day earlier. 1. Claiming that I did not read the source is bad faith. 2. The pieces does name-dropping, but none of these peolple have any connection to the subject (unlike, say, diplomats or inhabitants). Nor does their connection being "Hollywood" (mentioned in the title) is a grade of connection. 3. The statement, which is quoted in that source is not specific to the 2014 Gaza war, except for the opening line that does not take side. 4. I don't see why the source [1] qualifies as a RS in this topic. -DePiep (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


seems we can get rid of the onlyinclude/noinclude stuff since this is not transcluded anywhere. Frietjes (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 29 external links on Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)