Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:26, 8 August 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Gaza War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 4 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Military history: Aviation / Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Middle Eastern military history task force

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

A news item involving 2014 Gaza War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 July 2014.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Gaza War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 4 days

Human shields

Our text currently reads that " says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields'; an allegation denied by Hamas. " and "In response, Israel claimed that many civilian casualties were the result of Hamas using the Gazan population as 'human shields' at alleged missile launch targets, an allegation denied by Hamas."

This text seems incorrect, as Hamas has on multiple occasions acknowledged using human shields,both during this conflict, and in general, and praised those who use that tactic as martyrs. (Although they have in other contexts denied it as well) How should we correctly describe this part?

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri: "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes."

"We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be"

• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729#.U8kvA_nP3z4
• http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/hamas-encourages-civilians-to-ignore-warnings-act-as-human-shields-video/
• http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12019

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Better source : http://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-gaza-residents-acting-human-shields-israeli-forces-258223Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sami Abu Zuhri does not use the term "human shield". Besides, the video refers to practice that some Gazan residents have adopted where they would stand on the roof of targeted homes in hopes of preventing its bombing by Israel attacks, which is quite different from the conventional definition for human shield. Nevertheless, Israel continues to use such vague terms and explanations to defend its assault. Naturally, we would have to include the perspective of the other side as well. Hence the video cited for Hamas' denial. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How is that different than the conventional definition of human shield? That seems EXACTLY the definition to me? From the lede of the article you linked "placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Homes are not "combatant targets". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would normally say that is a fair point, except for them being used repeatedly as launch sites for rockets, and the place where the combatants and leaders are. However, in the interest of compromise, is there a way that we could flesh out the current text? Something along the lines of "Hamas has denied used human shields, but has encouraged/praised people to/who go on roofs of homes and buildings to discourage them from being bombed by Israeli forces"? OR some other wording you think accurately captures Zuhri's statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the bombing of the rehabilitation center for the severely disabled that killed 4 patients and their nurse, and it turns out the alleged Hamas member was not even home at the time? I think sentence you proposed is suggestive, and possibly violates WP:SYNTH. Note that the video has been discussed earlier at Talk:Operation_Protective_Edge#Human_Shield. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to justify any side, but what you do is sort of cherry picking. Most of IAF strikes are against legitimate targets (at least according to IDF intelligence), sites that are used as launch sites, hideouts or missile and weapon caches. Once in a while there are mistakes and wrong or unrelated target are being hit, and these do not represent the vast majority of airstrikes. According to IDF, more than 1500 airstrikes were used, and only very little of these actually hit these targets in which "disabled patients or children: were hit. This is a very small number by any means, although these are the only cases that are being shown in the social media, to provoke emotional responses. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"pal watch" is not reliable source, but Washington Times is . However, we all must respect some basic rules, including that this is not a place for discussion, who is to blame for this war. Our personal oppinions on this war are irrlevant for Wiipedia, we must edit without bias. Beside that, there are few other rules 1) 1rr, 2) WP:NPOV, that needs to be respected.--Tritomex (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. My original point was that a statement by the hamas spokesperson about is surely notable and relevant enough for inclusion. Readers can determine how to interpret the statements from the various sides on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Current article text reads " says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields'; an allegation denied by Hamas. ". Some sources (see sources below) have pointed out a video of an interview with Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri which he is quoted (translated) as saying "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes" .

Should this quote or a brief summary of the sources discussing these statements and quotes be included in the context of the allegations of use of Human shields?

clarification The question is not "Should we say Hamas admitted to use of Human shields in video X" but "Should the video be mentioned, in the context that entities/sources X,Y, Z have brought it up in discussions/allegations about IF Hamas uses human shields". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the NPOV, NOR, and RSN noticeboards about this RFC

Survey

• include as proposer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• include. The uncharacteristically bitter and POV tone of your reflections are not helping your cause, N. You usually contribute a well-balanced argument. However, I remain to be ultimately convinced, based on sober language and some bloody good RS. I did not expect the poor argument below from you. That's me editing after 6 cans of Strongbow Cider at 3am. You can do better than that. Please completely rework your argument, and avoid terms like Hasbara. Engage me, don't make me wince. Respectfully, Irondome (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include When I read the quoted sentence, the only message I get is that people are really defenseless and are using their last weapons (lives) to protect their homes, and that, people who are not afraid of death may do every thing possible and hence do every thing to protect their homes. Don Juan says:"When one has nothing to lose, one becomes courageous. We are timid only when there is something we can still cling to." To me, it does not mean that they are encouraged to make a human shield against the planes but to do every thing they can for their homes and not to fear death. Mhhossein (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include. It's relevant and sourced... why not? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment A vague statement encouraging people to "oppose Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone" is nowhere close to a definition of a human shield. It can just as well be read as a defiant attitude towards Israel. There has to be actual evidence of people either forced to, or explicitly being deliberately placed so as to shield combatants from attack, or to shield combat targets, to qualify as human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) --- Update: I have changed my vote to "include" for the reasons given elsewhere. Kingsindian (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) --- Update: I have changed my mind again, mainly due to WP:UNDUE. I am going to simply "abstain" and leave my comment for purposes of discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Include There are well-sourced evidences that Hamas using civilians as human shields. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include the exact quote if properly sourced, but not in juxtaposition to the human shields, as per Kingsindian. If there are reliable unbiased sources supporting the human shields, in juxtaposition to the Hamas denial. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't change/don't include - I've yet to see a black and white statement from Hamas leaders staying "Stay in your homes so that the Israelis will bomb you and you will be our shields" that's cited by reliable sources, or anything like that... what we have here are vague, unclear videos being referred to by mostly unreliable sources (GatewayPundit for once). I agree with Mhhossein and Kingsindian, essentially. For what it's worth, the article already includes the official Hamas line, as taken from CNN, that they encourage people to stay in their homes because they would be as unsafe (or more) if they were in public streets / areas. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include. Of course it's inappropriate to include this. Even putting aside the largely inadmissible batch of sources, there's no reason to think that human shields are what's being referred to here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include explained that it's proof of a "human shield" strategy. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include - The use of human shields is a serious accusation that is backed up by evidence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include It is original research and requires a secondary source to connect the dots. A human shield is a non-combatant and involuntary. People who stood in front of tanks in Tiananman square were not human shields. Had they instead tied up Kindergardeners and laid them in front of the tanks, those children would have been human shields. TFD (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include because in a highly charged context, the quote, whose context and translation are murky, becomes a reprehensible way of justifying the bombing of a civilian population. There's no way to pretend this isn't a political issue. -Darouet (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include as it's WP:SYN to imply that the statement has any relation with Hamas using human shields. // Liftarn (talk)
• Don't include, basically per Liftarn. But. It is an identified ID propaganda meme, not appropriate to historical narrative, except to note that it is an Israeli meme used to sway Western public opinion. It is a vicious 'spin' on complex events, using one obscure quote to frame a battle strategy which has no other option than to fight from urban areas, as in every known war, and as Yitzhak Laor writing for the London Review of Books entitled a similar strategy, the taking point is to drive home to the world that 'You (Hamas) are terrorists, we (ID) are virtuous.' (Vol. 28 No. 16 · 17 August 2006 pp.11-12). Every single meme deployed by Israel's Foreign Ministry, the ID and many users in here to press this 'case' of cowardly warfare by Hamas has been cooked up in defiance of history, Jewish history in its most desperate moments, as Uri Avnery wrote some days ago:

For viewers of the Israeli media, Hamas is the incarnation of evil. We are fighting “terrorists.” We are bombing “terror targets” (like the home of the family of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh). Hamas fighters never withdraw, they “escape.” Their leaders are not commanding from underground command posts, they are “hiding.” They are storing their arms in mosques, schools and hospitals (as we did during British times). Tunnels are “terror tunnels.” Hamas is cynically using the civilian population as “human shields” (as Winston Churchill used the London population). Gaza schools and hospitals are not hit by Israeli bombs, God forbid, but by Hamas rockets (which mysteriously lose their way) and so on.'

If anyone tried to write the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, using the Nazi antisemitic spin that high casualties were caused by the use by the Jewish resistance of women and children as human shields, I'd not only automatically revert it: I'd report him.

The Poles' resistance in Warsaw is a Jewish resistance. Only yids are capable of the blackmail of putting women and children in the front line, to take advantage of the Germans' sense of scruple.' This obscene crap was reliably noted down by Mihail Sebastian Journal, 1935-1944, Pimlico, 2003 p.238, reporting what the antisemite (to the end of his life) Mircea Eliade said at the time.

Worst still, as I have often noted, the Israeli Supreme Court has condemned to IDF for the practice, and with impunity it is known to have consistently used Palestinian children to this end, from Jenin to Operation Cast Lead (see here, only one of numerous cases). Yanir Yagna, a Likud MK publicly called for deploying Palestinian prisoners (many without formal charges against them) as human shield against Qassam rockets. Of course that and dozens of other pieces of rhetorical shit people like myself notice are never worked into wiki pages. Or if they are, it's usually some POV-crank who does it. It was even used of Hezbollah, with even Amos Oz spouting it in 2006 ('this is not always an easy task, as Hizbullah missile-launchers often use Lebanese civilians as human sandbags,') only to be informed, if he ever troubled to follow up the technical literature, that Human Rights Watch in its report on the 2006 found to be completely unfounded, though it did find Israel had both repeatedly bombed both "individual vehicles and entire convoys of civilians who heeded the Israeli warnings to abandon their villages" as well as "humanitarian convoys and ambulances" that were "clearly marked,"(just as here).Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't include - Seems like we'd be extrapolating a bit too much on one comment from one individual. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include per WP:UNDUE. The comment appears pulled out of obscurity, and the secondary opinion/interpretation that it relates to the concept of human shields is extraordinarily inflammatory, and I'm not seeing anywhere near the WP:WEIGHT to include it. Siawase (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include Seems irrelevant what word-spin is going on, and also sources talk more of events and give statements than have cites talking about the wording of the statements so you'd wind up at fringe discussions or OR. Just do not driven there by prominence nor following something so do not go there. Markbassett (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• 3 of the four sources you cite are RS only in the sense of the abbreviation for rat ####. Please read Human shield esp.this section and Neve Gordon and Nicola Peruigini, On 'human shielding' in Gaza Al-Jazeera 18 July 2014. Calls by Hamas to stay on and not flee are identical to the calls by Yishuv leaders to Jews in Kfar Etzion and Jerusalem to stay there and not flee. To spin this, as the IDF press handouts have repeatedly as compelling unwilling people at gunpoint to get killed, while militants hide behind them is, frankly, obscene. There are numerous examples from Masada right down to the present day in Jewish history, and world military history, of what is being spun here as a coerced stay-behind behaviour of civilians. Of course, it would be easier for Israel to request that all Hamas fighters emerge from their tunnels and play by the rules of war, as drones and F4 Fighter planes, and satellites pinpoint them, and the ultra-sophisticated guidance systems of tanks and drones liquidate them. That's the premise. Hamas militants are cowards, whereas the whole army shooting at a safe technological distance of miles is heroic, defending the fatherland while killing what remains of the adversary's.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, there are sources that are not rat ####, and in the other articles, we discuss the actions by Israel in a similar context. So your !vote is an include then? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Washington Post just picked up the hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. No one is editing in significant elements of the damage to the civilian population while people like yourself appear to be avid to press home a known piece of hasbara that implies all civilians deaths are forms of coerced suicide. Israel has, as anyone in the West Bank can tell you, consistently used kids as shields over the last 20 years, it has been condemned by Israel's Supreme Court for doing so, and persists. It now had the shamelessness to accuse Hamas of the very unmanly act its own troops have often employed, even in the last invasion of northern Gaza.

My point is that this is an IDF meme, not an element of the battle front, and the function of the meme is to suggest to readers that the casualties in Israel's onslaught, despite 10 documented cases in the Ist three days which look like war crimes because strike after strike whole families were wiped out, are not Israel's fault, but a result, as the IDF put out in the Kaware's case, of Hamas constraining people to expose themselves to the 'innocent' destruction of houses of human habitation. The article is (I could write 20 pages on this) already like an IDF handout, and further attempts to 'screw' the other POV, almost invisible, are unacceptable, esp. since editors here are wholly disinterested generally in any other story than the one spun by the 4th most powerful army in the world and its ally, (the United States of Amnesia), whose purity of arms every two years consists in massacring a captive population. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My computer stalls whenever I open the Economist. The statement below looks like a reference to the Kaware family incident, it is false, or at least not factual. See under Kaware at List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge.

Seven members of a family were killed when they climbed on the roof of their house to act as a human shield, however, their home was still struck despite their action.(Israelis and Palestinians: From two wrongs, ruin, The Economist)

Sources at the time of the article 12 often repeated this, and the Economist has taken it up. You need in-depth interviews to work what the motives were. In the Kaware case, it appears some children went on the roof to check out the damage to a solar heating device hit by a rocket (which they took to be a near-miss, as the family thought the danger period had passed and reentered the house). Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the addition by Gaijin42 as it violates WP:SYNTH:

• Statement 1: "...Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the storage of weapons in schools, videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings".
• Statement 2: "a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri saying 'The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself'."

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate synth, the very first reference includes all of those points. As for the Kaware family, the New York times has a direct quote from the Kaware family saying "Our neighbors came in to form a human shield" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/by-phone-and-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And I note that your quotes dropped the attribution which was "As evidence of Israel's allegations that Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the" which makes it clear that this is a statement by a party, and not a fact in wikipedia's voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the New York Times. The B'tselem report gives a completely different account. There are in fact several conflicting versions, as one would expect from rapid interviews in an area under bombardment. What is known is that this is a meme strongly favoured by the Israeli government spinning of the high civilian casualty rate, as it has been in the two preceding wars. On the ground interviews with numerous survivors are numerous, and popular opinion in Gaza denies that their relatives, or themselves, are shot at, bombed or killed because Hamas orders them to behave as shields. You can get this in Peter Beaumont's coverage of the famous Beit Hanoun donkey herder, or in Hamas using human shields? Gazans deny claims, or any number of articles. The reasons people stay put include Hamas's desire that they do so, their own preference to stay knit together in their homes rather than outside, their fatalism (Inshallah), the lack of nearby shelters. As one person said:"Where do we go to? Some people moved from the outer edge of Khan Younis to Khan Younis centre after Israelis told them to, then the centre got bombed. People have moved from this area to Gaza City, and Gaza City has been bombed. It's not Hamas who is ordering us in this, it's the Israelis."

Given the ideological spinning, bravery and defiance even, confidence that standing on roofs saved some houses years ago, why not now, with outs, etc. in short cultural practices and beliefs, and physical difficulties in moving round a war zone, the extensive focus in that section on Israel's singular meme is WP:Undue. If the NYTs says one thing, and B'tselem another, on the Kaware family, you just can't cite the former as the true version of people's motives. It may happen to be, indeed, what one member of the Kaware family believed, but that may be an exception. It may be a boast, it may be a way of a survivor proving his loyalty to the Hamas government after a truce, to secure a benefit from Hamas authorities, if he, and they are still alive. Life is complex, motivations idem, and war reportage that ignores these complexities and peculiarities is, just that, POV spinning by military and political parties. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have many issues with Gaijin42's edit. 1. There is a RfC over whether to use the Hamas leader's statement in conjunction with human shields. I opposed it there and still oppose it now. The statement by the Hamas leader is notable, but it is not a call for human shielding, and it certainly does not show that people stayed in their homes because of Hamas forcing them to. I haven't heard any arguments there as to how it counts as human shielding. Even if one calls it "shielding", it does not count as "human shielding" unless the Hamas leader asked them to shield combat targets and not their homes. From the comments there, I do not see much agreement there either. 2. The USA today article simply attributes the "human shields" claim to Israel and mentions the Hamas video and then it quotes the IDF blog directly. It does not render any judgement about whether it counts as human shielding. I don't know if the claim becomes more respectable, just because it is laundered through a source (USA Today) which takes the claim directly from Israel and regurgitates it on the its pages. 3. What about the B'Tselem investigation of the Kaware family mentioned by Nishidani, which deals with this issue in detail? 4. This business of giving warnings etc. There have been reports of Hamas's assurances making people complacent and thus they didn't leave. First of all, the Goldstone commission even last time addressed this issue, saying that in the vast majority of the cases, after the calls to evacuate etc. there was no attack. They concluded it was more of psychological warfare than anything else. This also the point made here: Ordering out 100,000 people from their homes is not a legitimate strategy. Secondly, the responsibility does not end just because you give a warning to evacuate. This has been addressed by B'Tselem in the analysis of the Kaware family. 5. Finally, if this statement is to be included anyway over my objections, I would request that some other word than "evidence" be used since I do not see this as much evidence of human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing "evidence" to some other word(s) that means "this is what israel pointed to to support their allegations"

ordering people out of their homes to wander off from a potential danger zone goes back to the 1948 war, and one reason the city of Lydda was ethnically cleansed was to throw 50,000 people onto the Jordanian army and fuck up its food and equipment logistics for war, by forcing on it the duty of coping with civilians. Numerous other examples come to mind of war tactics. Throwing 150,000 people out of their homes by warnings has all sorts of secondary calculations like these (creating popular disenchantment with Hamas if it can't cope being not the least of them) not only those regarding the need to clear an area so it can be carpetbombed.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to put in sourced arguments or statements to the contrary, do so. But this is a statement by the spokesperson of Hamas, and allegations by Israel that are discussed in numerous top tier sources. If we censored every statement or incident that was disputed by the beligerents it would lead this to be a very empty article wouldn't it? WP:NPOV mandates inclusion of every notable POV. Is it your argument that this POV has not been widely discussed? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My objections have been pretty much conveyed by editor 'Kingsindian'. The current placement of Abu Zuhri's quote is strongly implying that Abu Zuhri (and thus Hamas) are encouraging people to shield combat targets and places where weapons are stored. That is NOT what he said and you know that very well, and no amount of sources making such connection will justify its inclusion in the manner you have put here. Never mind the fact that the usage of "human shield" here is entirely misleading to begin with. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have discussed the quote, directly in the context of the question of if Hamas uses human shields or not. If you have reliable sources disputing this association, please present them and include them as a counterargument in the text. Otherwise your objection is WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Which "reliable reference" conflates between the "storage of weapons in schools" AND Abu Zuhri's call for civilians to stay at targeted areas? While the term "human shields" is used, none of your sources interprets Abu Zuhri's statement as one intended to protect combat targets or storage sites. They all seem to agree that it is reference to the protection of people's own homes (how dare they). The content you added and the way it is presented is implying that Abu Zuhri demanded that people stand firm on top of rocket launchers and accept Israel's air strikes, which is a distortion of what he actually said and I believe that falls under WP:SYNTH. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that you have not responded for days. I removed the problematic content. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of response, I have had various emergencies at work that limited my wikipedia time. I have restored the content. Multiple entities have mentioned the statement, in the context of human shields, along with the other elements discussed. They are not conflated, but they are all discussed as items that people use to back the allegation of human shields. If a source writes a paragraph about each item, and we say "They pointed out A, B, C , and D" that is just WP:SUMMARY not any WP:OR or WP:SYNTHGaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best wording is something like: Israeli has asserted that Hamas uses 'human shields' to defend militants and weapons based on Israeli's analysis of videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings, allegations that Hamas has rejected. Or what would you all suggest?

In terms of Zuhri's quote, it's not clear at all (as referred to by many people in the RFC) that's he calling for people to submit themselves into being shields. Putting that spin on it is, well, just that: a certain Israeli-based spin, which is their legitimate POV to assert but shouldn't be written as just a fact. Word it like: Israelis have also cited __'s comment of "__", which they argue is a call for human shielding but Hamas has disputed.? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarketsObviously various people (including myself) may have issues with some final unknown wording, but I think words roughly to the effect of what you have proposed are workable. Israel (and multiple reliable sources) have pointed to certain events and stated an interpretation. That interpretation disputed. I have no objection to categorizing things as the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV of the relevant parties nor providing space for the contrary POV (assuming such can be sourced)- but several above have stated that the allegations/interpretation cannot even be presented, and that is unacceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

ll of the "sources" used are opinion pieces (and appear to be from highly partisan ones) and therefore not reliable for making the statement that Hamas admitted to using human shields. It is not obvious from the statement that Hamas was admitting to using human shields. They do not say they are forcing non-combatants to stand between them and the Israelis, nor do they say they are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Whether in fact they are using human shields is another issue, but twisting a statement into a confession is tendentious. TFD (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Times, Newsweek, LaTimes (right wing rag if I ever heard of one!), UsaToday are all partisan? In any case, the RFC is not "Should way say Hamas admitted it" but "should this quote even be discussed" - The current article text clearly says Israel alleges Human shields, and as part of that allegation points to the video. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No they are not partisan, but they publish opinions of people of various views, including partisans of both sides. Claiming that an editorial published in one of these sources is a statement made by the publication is misleading. For example you just posted on my talk page a quote that you attributed to the Globe and Mail., which you also cited above, claiming that Hamas had admitted using human shields. The actual source is an opinion piece by Margaret Wente, a highly partisan columnist for the Globe and Mail who, among other things, has written that Canada should become part of the U.S. Do you understand the difference between news reporting, opinions of publications and the opinions of people asked to contribute their opinions to newspaper columns? TFD (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Yes I do. I also understand the difference between trying to say something in wikipedia's voice, and saying that X has made allegation Y and pointed to Video Z as part of that allegation. or that Z exists and people can make their own judgement about what it means. Nobody on wikipedia is proposing saying "Hamas admitted to using Human shields in this video" (although I admit my statement in the section PRIOR to the RFC can be read that way). There are allegations and discussions about human shields. This video is mentioned repeatedly in those allegations and discussions. Should our article mention the video? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with attributing the claim to some proper source, like Israel and some commentators, or something like that. While it is of course preposterous drivel to me, unfortunately a lot of people, like thos who Gaijin42 cited, do believe in drivel; who am I to say they shouldn't get space on Misplaced Pages? Properly attributed, the inclusion is fine. Kingsindian (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian Would you be so kind as to update your !vote to that effect? Once the matter of basic inclusion is settled, I think conformance to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should not be an issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected redirect at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

At the end of the first paragraph, I noticed the sentence quoted. "All israelis are legitimate targets". After reviewing the source, it seems more appropriate if it's read "All Israelis have now become legitimate targets for the resistance". The legimate targets appears misleading because it suggests they are targetted without a common / national cause. "...for the resistance" is an important qualification intentionallly made in the original statement. Mezaanx (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't fully see why "for the resistance" would be added, as neither of the articles refer to Hamas as "the resistance". They merely mention Hamas..... Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

They are calling themselves "the resistance", so all it means is "all Israelis have now become legitimate targets for us" - I think it's obvious from the original quote. Using the word 'resistance' only legitimizes a terror organization. - WarKosign (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So you are in agreement that it shouldn't be added? Jab843 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Time for a Wikinews sister link?

Wikinews:Israel attacks Hamas leadership targets in the Gaza Strip
The page was started 30 July 2014.
199.119.232.209 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My homie fixed the issue below, but what about this?199.7.156.143 (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"The homes of 900 homes"

"138 schools and 26 health facilities have been damaged, the homes of 900 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged and the homes of 5,295 families have been damaged but are still inhabitable."
Someone might want to deal with this redundancy too.
199.119.232.212 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. A bit of googling confirms that it was an error for "900 homes" (the other possibility I considered was that it might be an error for "homes of 900 families"). Fixed. -sche (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

my pleasure.199.7.156.143 (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Israeli calls for genocide against Arabs

• This article, or subarticles, need mention of frequent anti-Arab sentiments in Israel, and calls of genocide of Arabs by Israeli politicians as well as civilians. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• "Marching Israelis In Tel Aviv Chant 'There's No School In Gaza, There Are No More Kids Left" http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/29/israelis-chant-there-are-no-children-left-in-gaza_n_5630601.html
• "Mothers of all Palestinians must be killed – Israeli MP" http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/17/mothers-of-all-palestinians-must-be-killed-israeli-mp/
• "Times Of Israel Publishes Op-Ed About 'When Genocide Is Permissible', Then Deletes It". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/times-of-israel-genocide-article-post-deleted_n_5641971.html FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Its been widely noted that at least the last one was not actually "published by" the times, but it was in their "self publish" area, and done by a guy from New York, and as soon as they were made aware of it, took it down. It may still have value for the article/section, but it should be characterized correctly. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's inherent in the story, and even the headline I pasted. Regardless, it does represent the opinion of many Israelis, even Knesset members. ~~

Okay I added the section but it could use some refinement. --Youngdrake (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Even more: "‘Bomb Gaza’ Google Play app lets Android users carry out Israeli air strikes on Palestinians" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bomb-gaza-google-play-app-lets-android-users-carry-out-israeli-air-strikes-on-palestinians-9647579.html

• This is getting ridiculous: "Israeli official calls for concentration camps in Gaza" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715466/Israeli-official-calls-concentration-camps-Gaza-conquest-entire-Gaza-Strip-annihilation-fighting-forces-supporters.html#ixzz39TwS70nJ FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this and was removed someone else please put it back in. I'm still blocked. Obvious JIDF in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake (talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Turns out he wasn't kidnapped

Obama calls for release of Hadar Goldin, captured Israeli soldier
Soldier believed captured by Hamas was killed in action, says Israeli army
199.7.156.143 (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014

This edit request to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The section labelled "2005 withdrawal" is ill-sourced and advancing an unorthodox theory, and should be removed or altered. The guardian article used as source is from 2005 and thus cannot support the conclusion that in the Guardian's view the **current** conflict stems from alleged ill intent from Israel in the 2005 withdrawal. Furthermore, this is very much a non consensus/editorializing opinion that runs counter to the prima facie thrust of Israels withdrawal, and thus should not be figured prominently in an encyclopedia entry. 2601:6:7F00:3C1:3589:43C5:9E8D:CCEE (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"please change X to Y" so am removing. Brought up earlier on the page, has had little dispute, and the reasoning is per policy.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Background for discussion on this. Kingsindian (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the IP's analysis above, and hence agree with this (second) removal of the section. -sche (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Thetwentieth (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Images not verifiable

All the images that are not coming from WP:RS are not verifiable we have no way to know where they where taken and if the captions are true.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits which were due to alleged WP:SYNTH

@Mhhossein: I am not sure what you mean by WP:SYNTH in the two cases mentioned below:

• Edit: The whole paragraph is based on the Nathan Thrall reference in LRB. Not sure how it counts as WP:SYNTH; what two sources am I synthesizing, when there is only one source cited? And how is it WP:OR? The whole argument comes straight from the source.
• Edit: How is that sentence WP:SYNTH? The argument is that Israel conducted its operation to disrupt the unity government. This whole argument is made by both Marwan Bishara and David Hendrickson. I am not taking something from one source and another thing from another source. And how will moving the sentence from one paragraph to another avoid WP:SYNTH? Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Hi! These are only some points considering WP:SYNTH. POV may arise from the removed paragraph. However, at the moment, we are discussing WP:SYNTH, so I'd like to take your attention to the following points:

• Second Hamas–Fatah reconciliation subsection, using WP:RS, Is trying to express how the reconciliations could trigger the conflict. The paragraph you added had no direct relationship with the reconciliation and its effect on the conflict (I'm not talking about the source, but about your edition). So, it seems that you are trying to make a connection between the fact that Mohammed Morsi was ousted and the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
• On the other hand, as you know, this subsection is not trying to say why Hamas and Fatah started the peace talks and this article is not a suitable place to explain these issue. So, there's no need to have such a paragraph in this subsection.
• Without using the statements by Marwan Bishara and David Hendrickson, I'm doing OR because other sources are just saying that Israel opposed the peace talks and none of them made connection between this reaction of Israel and the current conflicts in Gaza. To conclude that Hamas-Fatah reconciliations was a cause for war, a source exactly claiming this fact is required, one of which is that of Marwan Bishara. In Fact, without them, this is me who is analyzing not the sources.

So, as I said before, you can have another subsection dealing with the effect of Egypt's recent upheavals on the current war using suitable sources and considering WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Mhhossein (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

• You make some good points. I was only confused because you gave the reason as WP:SYNTH. This is not the case. I am not synthesizing any sources. I am only using one source. The LRB article by Nathan Thrall is the one which argues that that the coup in Egypt and Syrian civil war were major factors in Fatah-Hamas reconciliation.

• Your second reason is more to the point. You can argue that the reason for Fatah-Hamas reconciliation is not relevant to this section. Perhaps you are correct in that. I will need to think a bit more; I will leave it like this for now. Kingsindian (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thanks for your polite reaction. It seems that the LRB article is a very good source which would better to be used in articles related to Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Mhhossein (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. It is the most comprehensive background piece to the conflict, directly analysing all aspects of the conflict, so far flagged. It could well supply all of the information we have variously sourced, save that from the Guardian. The writer's credentials are impeccable. The details can be used in other articles of course, but the essential reconstruction of the 'background' should be summarized succinctly here, esp.

As it became clear that unrest in Egypt wouldn’t lead to Sisi being ousted or to the return of the Brotherhood, Hamas saw only four possible exits. The first was rapprochement with Iran at the unacceptable price of betraying the Brotherhood in Syria and weakening support for Hamas among Palestinians and the majority of Sunni Muslims everywhere. The second was to levy new taxes in Gaza, but these couldn’t make up for the loss in revenue from the tunnels, and would risk stirring up opposition to Hamas rule. The third was to launch rockets at Israel in the hope of obtaining a new ceasefire that would bring an improvement in conditions in Gaza. This prospect worried US officials: it would undermine the quiescent Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and disrupt the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that John Kerry had launched in the same month as Sisi’s coup. But Hamas felt too vulnerable, especially because of Sisi’s potential role in any new conflict between Gaza and Israel, to take this route. It was sure that the peace talks would fail on their own. The final option, which Hamas eventually chose, was to hand over responsibility for governing Gaza to appointees of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, despite having defeated it in the 2006 elections.

y the way what is that stupid link and content from Alan Johnson's blog doing there. It just expresses his personal opinion about one aspect of the thesis, and is way below the quality we usually expect. There is no evidence or reasoning in it, except a dopey smiley quote from Ariel Sharon that is contradicted by numerous scholarly books on what Sharon's real purposes consisted of.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, fiddling pretence to use a source while inserting WP:Or

In the time line the phrase:'it is widely accepted ' is not in the source (Griff Witte and Sudarsan Raghavan,here) Nothing like that is in the source which gives both versions: ('Hamas insists the incident occurred before the cease-fire took hold and that it was Israel that broke the terms of the truce.'), and the phrase has apparently been screwed in to create a 'factoid' to buttress the Israeli version of events. It should be removed immediately, just as editors should control sources and signal similar problems.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to eliminate the weasel words by attributing the claim to "several news organizations" and then citing two of them: . -sche (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: The CNN source attributes the 90 minute claim to the Israeli military.

The pause appears to have eroded after about 90 minutes in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, with the attack on Israeli soldiers. The soldiers were working to destroy a tunnel built by militants to breach Israel's border when a militant emerged from it and detonated a suicide bomb, Israeli military Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told CNN's Wolf Blitzer

As far as I know, all news organizations attribute the claim to Israel. There is no independent verification. Kingsindian (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I found a source that attributes the claim to Israel even more directly/clearly than that CNN article, and I have inserted it. Curiously, it says the attack was at 9:20 (the truce was at 8:00), which is actually only 80 minutes. -sche (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of homes/financial damage

@Nishidani: I have moved some of your edit to the "Financial Impact" section and kept the part which gives number of people rendered homeless. Kingsindian (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sensible move. I'd thought of it myself, but needed a nap.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested in consulting the World Bank report just issued, which has an extremely low figure for housing damage, based on dated reports perhaps but well sourced. When I see round figures (10,000/40,000) I am always sceptical: bombing runs, even intense ones, never leave a landscape with round figures. Its figures jar with those given from Gaza sources, which therefore must be referred to with attribution, (as possibly 'rubbery') Mind you, the World Bank has no good reputation, but at least half of its Palestine-directed funding does go to the Strip.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualties in the West Bank

We should include the events on Jerusalem, the bulldozer attack on a Bus and the shooting of a Soldier on the west bank.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/04/world/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Maybe more attacks could take place, dont know we should have a section of violence related to the Gaza offensive on the west bank.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the 3 attacks on israelis on the West bank is mentioned in the article, we should mention them, since are contemporary events.200.48.214.19 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hugely annoying removal of content by Plot Spoiler

@Plot Spoiler: Regarding your edit here. Are you aware that there is a big discussion on the talk page about the background? Yet you come in and remove a huge portion with no justification at all, except for your assertion that it is tendentious and POV. This is hugely annoying, when one works on a page for hours and someone just parachutes in and removes a big portion in one fell swoop. Editing in ARBPIA, I am afraid to revert such things, because I am afraid of getting blocked. I have 3 other edits which I am afraid to revert for just this reason.

Your reasons in the edit summary are also without merit. Even in the section, there are other sources, like the Nathan Thrall article which notes that in the first three months, there was almost no rocket fire from Gaza, while there were a lot of incursions from Israel. The figures in the Ben White article come from OCHA and are partly compiled from media reports, as mentioned in the article itself. Kingsindian (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's pointless framing your remonstration like that. Plot Spoiler is a serial revert/deletionist specialist, rarely visits talk pages or ignores them, and simply uses false edit summaries to remove good and bad sources indifferently. He's one of the major problems of the I/P area, and the only recourse is either to gather evidence of his consistent misuse of policy in false edit summaries for a report to A/E or to simply bide one's time and revert the damage he does. It is a mystery as to why his presence is still tolerated here.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Тhis opinion pieces we can't use it for statements of facts--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If either Plot Spoiler or yourself believe that version of policy, you would have both removed Alan Johnson's hilariously dumb comment, which however survived Plot Spoiler's scissors. Must be a coincidence that it blathers on about Ariel Sharon's wonderful vision of happy people in Gaza. The fact is that Ben White's reconstruction for Al Jazeera is fine as attributed, but the Monitor citation is dubious. No discrimination was used, unless to save the pro-Israeli comment by Alan Johnson from the scythe. It's a typical POV-pushing edit, ridding the text of what you dislike while ignoring material that violates the principle cited when it favours your own POV.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I only commented about the removed opinion pieces by PS I if there are similar opinion pieces they should be removed

too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Re: your point, the statements are not asserted as facts, they are correctly attributed to Ben White in the first paragraph, and Middle East Monitor in the second paragraph. The second paragraph is more debatable than the first, for sure. The picture in the first paragraph, attributed to Ben White, is basically same as the picture given by the Nathan Thrall reference. Nobody disputes the facts themselves, because they are true. As I said already, the figures in the Ben White article come from OCHA and a compilation of media reports on the truce violations. Kingsindian (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The opinion pieces are essentially WP:SPS and in my opinion shouldn't be used at all.If the facts come from WP:RS we rather use them and not opinion piece--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected redirect at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

IDF: 700–900 militants killed since ground invasion Spaskiba (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

//As of 5th of August IDF spokesman Moti Almoz declared the number of dead militants is between 700 and 900 since the ground invasion. He said this on Israeli Channel 2 News between 20:00 and 21:00. Please note these numbers are estimated since the ground invasion of IDF.

Any 'guesstimate' whose margin of error is in the area of 25% is not worth reporting. The IDF have very specific techniques for putting names to their enemy-soldier count, and since all the casualties are being studiously listed by a variety of independent organizations, if they can identify anything there as a militant, they would have a closely proximate figure, which the figure cited isn't. So it's just, for the moment, spokesmannish rubbish, and unusable.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

About Israel having their Shin Bet, military facilities, etc near civilian areas

It's being argued that it's undue weight, which I agree. It's irrelevant to bring this up because even if Hamas wanted to specifically target military facilities, their rockets are incapable of doing so. This isn't comparable at all. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: If you read the source cited (article by Amira Hass), it makes this exact point. Does co-locating military and civilian structures become ok if the enemy can't hit you precisely? If anything, it would make even more logical sense to locate these structures still farther from civilian populations, if the accuracy of the enermy is lower. And, suppose if Hamas did have the ability to bomb them, and then by accident hit the shopping mall next to them, then it would be ok? This is the logic which is being used to justify, rationalize or mitigate the civilian casualties. Kingsindian (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Except even if Hamas had the ability to do it, they would target the civilians either way. The fact that Hamas knows they are using inaccurate weapons shows that they do not differentiate between civilians and soldiers. Like I said, it's not comparable at all. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything except assertions I'm afraid. There is plenty of evidence of Hamas not targeting civilians and prefering military targets, like the tunnels. No civilian has been attacked through a tunnel. Here is one article for the motives. If you just want to assert the opposite, it is hard to argue in any meaningful way. Kingsindian (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone arguing that Hamas doesn't target civilians. Also, I don't know why you are bringing up tunnels. And please read your own source. It says "Asked whether Hamas’s goal might be soldiers rather than civilians, an army spokesperson said, “We expect that they are trying to abduct or kill civilians but will make do with a soldier, too.”" Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You are free to not take me seriously. I have indeed read my source. Obviously you want to take Israeli army spokesperson at face value and not read what the intelligence source is saying, the exact point made in the article. Moreover, you have managed to completely miss the point. The point being made was that Hamas showed discrimination between military and civilian targets when it had the capability, like if someone emerged through a tunnel. The point being asserted by you, without any evidence whatsoever, was that it doesn't matter, because Hamas doesn't care at all, and will randomly kill civilians or military, whichever they lay their hands on. And here is another example of Hamas going into Israel, and waiting for 6 hours to ambush a military convoy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Windbaggery and war propaganda by either side is useless. Kingsindian (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you should read your own source. It goes on to say: "The source made clear that Hamas operatives are not opposed to the killing of civilians and that the random rocket fire into Israel over the past three weeks is more than ample expression of that fact; he also noted that intent aside, any infiltration represents a grave risk to civilians, but indicated that, for reasons of prestige, Hamas, which appears to be striving to emulate Hezbollah in all elements of its combat doctrine, seeks a soldier and not a random civilian." He is saying, that they want to appear legitimate, but still would kill civilians. And it's not too surprising, that during a conflict such as this, killing soldiers benefits them in the short term, since it is the soldiers they are fighting.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/all-israelis-will-be-targeted-says-hamas-as-israel-ratchet-up-offensive-in-gaza_945928.html

"The Khan Yunis massacre... of children is a horrendous war crime, and all Israelis have now become legitimate targets for the resistance," the AFP quoted Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri as saying.

And if you want to listen to unnamed security sources, maybe you'd want to hear this one.

http://www.jta.org/2014/07/28/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/report-hamas-planned-rosh-hashanah-attack-through-gaza-tunnels Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in fighting with you. I have indeed read the source and it says exactly what I claimed. You said this in your first reply: "Except even if Hamas had the ability to do it, they would target the civilians either way" which is flatly refuted by the article and more importantly, the practice. When Hamas had the ability to discriminate, like the tunnels, they always targeted soldiers, never a civilian. Rest of your stuff is blowing smoke and merits no comment. Kingsindian (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

False, it was not refuted. You assume I said they would only target civilians. Your own source says they attack both. As for your tunnels, if you want to take serious one unnamed security source, then you need to take serious another unnamed security source that says the tunnels were planned to be used in a massive attack on civilians. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding hamas fabrications in the infobox

@Johorean Boy: Please stop adding the numbers that hamas makes up. Presstv is not a RS. Electronicintifada is not a RS. Once you have a reliable source, please go ahead.

Militias is a neutral term. Terrorists or freedom fighters is not. Do not engage in an edit war if you don't want to be blocked again. If you have something constructive to say on the subject, please do it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs)

@WarKosign: I have started a section on WP:RSN on whether PressTV is reliable. As far as I can see, they are just reporting the claim from Hamas about the number of soldiers killed. If there is some fabrication, it is from Hamas, and PressTV is simply reporting their claims. I am not sure if anyone really doubts that "Hamas claims 145 people killed". It is another question whether Hamas claims belong in the infobox or not. Kingsindian (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: There were several discussions, including this one https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#Casualties_infobox, but there was no clear consensus. What is the proper way to proceed in your opinion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs)

@WarKosign: If there is no consensus, the usual procedure is to open a Request for Comments. Kingsindian (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and WarKosign: If I remember correctly, it was determined, that overall, pressTV is not a reliable source. Also, it is common knowledge that it is both owned and run by the Iranian government. Jab843 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed state-owned media, but theoretically independent. How independent, I don't know, probably not much. Anyway, the issue here is not its overall reliability, but its reporting of the claims of Hamas regarding number of soldiers killed. Is there some other source which disputes the reporting? As far as I know, nobody in English reports Hamas's claims. Perhaps someone who knows Arabic can check their site. Kingsindian (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful in deleting/reverting stuff

@WarKosign: Please be careful in deleting/reverting stuff. Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is a 1RR rule, one revert every 24 hours. Reverting does not have to mean using the "undo" button. If you remove all of the edit of some other user, you are reverting them.

You have already effectively reverted 4 times, here, here, here and here. I am not saying all the edits are wrong. The rule is there to have some discussion on the talk page, not continuous edit warring. Kingsindian (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: Thanks, you are correct. I attempted discussions with this user several times, and only got threats on my talk page. Please see section above. I would like to see other people's opinions whether hamas's numbers are properly sourced and should appear in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs)

@Johorean Boy: Please use the talk page to discuss your edits instead of continuous edit warring. If you continue to do this, you will be reported. Kingsindian (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: At 16:29, 7 August 2014‎ WarKosign (talk | contribs)‎ . . (137,111 bytes) (-552)‎ . . (Undid revision 620249311 by Erictheenquirer without any discussion in Talk, supplying as justification "POV" and "the referenced source does not contain any of the claims". I strongly object that WarKosign has once again made a complete deletion of an edit without any discussion whatsoever on the Talk page and without even the courtesy of notification. Regarding "POV" I want WarKosign to point out exactly where I inserted a point-of-view in the text that he/she reverted. I also totally dispute his/her claim that the reference that I supplied did not support the claims made. If not forthcoming I intend to revert the deletions. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on journalists

@WarKosign: Regarding your edit here, the second source attributes the claim of "Hamas threatening journalists" to Israeli officials. In the first source, the threats are from other people on Twitter, and not Hamas. The original phrasing of the statement "Israeli officials have stated that Hamas is threatening reporters in Gaza critical of Hamas with retaliation" was correct. Kingsindian (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The first source quotes the journalists directly, so while the original phrase is not wrong, it's not as exact as it can be. It's not just a claim by officials, it is what the journalists themselves say (assuming jpost is reliable, of course).

Pictures removed

I noticed that the article was littered with pictures tagged with no sources. Misplaced Pages is not a gallery of loose images WP:NOTGALLERY. If you want to make a photo gallery and cite the pictures feel free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I do not know wikipedia photo policy, but this issue has already been discussed here. There are few photos available due to copyright, so people upload to commons and editors take from there. It is almost impossible for anyone to verify that "this really happenned". See also Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Original_images. Kingsindian (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of pictures in the article already, just because someone uploads some to the commons does not automatically make them free to post on Misplaced Pages. Pictures on commons get reviewed and this can take a bit at times so it is important to get photos that are indeed free use. As for captions that is policy as I pointed out as this is an encyclopedia and not a photo gallery. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I am very confused. Why did you remove the pictures, exactly? Are you concerned about verifiability or copyright? You said that you removed pictures based on "citation needed" tags. Shrike put citation needed tags (edit here) based on verifiability, not copyright use. Kingsindian (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Per discussion above. I am restoring the photos. Kingsindian (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

At what point do we consider this conflict over?

If at the end of this 72 hour ceasefire, the fighting has subsided, is it the beginning of the 72 hour ceasefire or the end of the 72 hour ceasefire that is considered the end date of the conflict? Knightmare72589 (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Today is the day they might pull out completely from the Gaza strip

--Bdwolverine87 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The article's title says '2014', so there is still time. Seriously, once the operation is officially over the article should be renamed. So far the only available official name is Operation Protective Edge, but there are some talks about announcing that it was a war. - WarKosign (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of unverified claims by Hamas

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There are numerous claims by Hamas reported by sources affiliated with them, such as presstv or electronicintifada. Other media sources often report that Hamas did make these claims, but do not approve the information itself. Here are a few examples:

• F16 shot down
• 150 IDF soldiers killed
• Captured a live soldier
• Flying an UAV over Tel Aviv
• Destroying two IDF tanks
• There were a few more that I can't find links to now, including scoring a direct rocket hit to IDF HQ.

Some users repeatedly insert these false claims into the infobox. I believe the fact that Hamas makes false claims should be reported somewhere in the media section, but the claims themselves cannot be used as facts since they lack a reliable source. Any opinions ? - WarKosign (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If the sources are RS, it can inserted like "So and so claimed/stated" in the body of the article. We cannot say any thing about the "truthfulness" of a claim. If there are RS stating the claims are false, it can be inserted subsequently. For infobox we need RS. Are there any RS quoting the source of the claims? --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 10:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there is no problem to include Hamas claims as we include IDF claims too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a section in the article detailing those claims. My original question was - should these claims appear anywhere else, such as in the infobox ? - WarKosign (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You have put too much detail into the request. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues especially point 3. You have raised so many different issues that it is hard to comment on them. If you want to create a request for comment about the infobox, in my opinion, you should only include a short statement, "Should Hamas claims for Israeli soldiers killed be included in the infobox". That is the only part at the moment which is controversial and is leading to edit-wars. Kingsindian (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to insert this material in the subsequent paragraphs, and say that they are claims made by Hamas and organizations linked to Hamas, then that's fine. But to put it in the infobox is wrong. It should not be inserted in the infobox. There are NO OTHER REPUTABLE RELIABLE journalistic organizations that come up with those figures. If there are 1,000 journalism organizations reporting about the war including Press TV, and 999 do not report those stats, then there's obviously an issue with the legitimacy of the figures claimed by a propaganda organization like Press TV. Can any person here supply even ONE reliable source other than a political organization connected with Hamas that can verify those claims? Guduud (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Background

I agree that the Background section is a mess. Perhaps this is a consequence of the topic being one which is currently evolving. In fact, I do not see how there can be any real logic to having an intricate Background section in an Article that is essentially an Annual timeline. And as you noted, the timeline is thoroughly messed up. If one were to step back, there seem to be a few fundamental "bits" that contribute to the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict: 1) The November 2012 Ceasefire: How did in progress in 2014?; 2) What were the lesser violations that did not result in week/month-long conflict; What was the detailed timeline within the continuous conflict that started in early-May; how did the chain-of-events evolve? There is much merit in adding the Israeli 'Operations' into this section rather than to slice them out as events that somehow are unrelated. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If we want to keep a background section, we have to start somewhere as Gaijin42 mentions. I suggest that we start after the 2012 ceasefire. That should be a logical starting point. We can then give some criteria about what to include in the background. The logical things which should be included, seem to me these: we can summarize the violations of either side in a systematic and neutral manner. Right now, it's not clear to me what is the criteria for inclusion of most of the incidents. The killing of the 2 kids near Ofer prison seems notable because of RS mentions, but is it representative in some way? And how is it related to the current airstrikes etc.? The shooting incident, sadly, just seems to me just one in a long series of Israeli actions in the occupied territories. The second thing to mention is the Hamas/Fatah unity deal and Israel's reaction to that. The third thing is the kidnapping of the teenagers and subsequent Israeli activities in the West Bank. The fourth should be Hamas/Israeli actions which triggered the airstrikes. These are the four important things which around which the section should be based. What exactly to mention in each category can be discussed, but there should be some logic to inclusion of various incidents. Kingsindian (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you have pretty much got an excellent framework outlined there. Agreed about the start point. So background is Nov 2012 to 31 Dec 2013. Thereafter the ‘relatively’ detailed timeline starts. Regarding what to include, it should preserve a level playing field. I do believe that is imperative to summarise the reason for the start of the June rocket fire from Gaza even if that reason originated outside of Gaza. There is already an article on the kidnapping of the Israeli teens. We can discuss ‘wrinkles’ on Talk as we go along. Many thanks for your positive contribution. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

<------- (Merging a section from below)

This section needs trimming of all accessory irrelevancies. This is my suggestion.

The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014. Following the Israeli threats regarding Fatah-Hamas reconciliation efforts during April 2014 the pattern of relative calm since late 2012 changed abruptly. On May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed, one certainly by live ammunition, by the IDF during the Nakba day commemorations, and video evidence revealed that they had posed no threat at the time. On May 22, the UN released a report of a sharp recent increase in Palestinian casualties, and the same pattern continued through June. Soon after abduction of three Israeli teenagers took place on 12 June. This last incident, it is also argued, formed the essential background for the conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately blamed Hamas, of which the two kidnappers were known members. No evidence of Hamas involvement was forthcoming Hamas leaders denied any involvement. and its political chief, Khaled Meshal could neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping, though he did congratulate the abductors. Further, the alleged murderers belong to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel. Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank, ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians died in numerous raids, and several hundred senior figures and Hamas representatives were arrested, . among them many of those recently freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron. Israeli authorities appear to have known almost from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping, and it later emerged via Micky Rosenfeld that Israel police work on the assumption that the abductors were a lone cell operating independently of the Hamas leadership.

The BBC reporter has now revealed that the Israeli authorities do not believe Hamas was behind the kidnapping, though blaming Hamas was a crucial element in the leadup to the war.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The above seems fine to me. I will put it in the background section provisionally. If we have more issues, we can discuss later. Kingsindian (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian & @Nishidani The new background although has the benefit of being short, has some major problems which should be modified:

• POV problem arises from the SHABAK source which is used here to show how the situation had been quiet after 2000! in this regard, the editor has mentioned " rocket attacks from Gaza" as a criteria to prove the claim which is an obvious POV.
• The readers need to know how the Hamas-Fatah negotiation could be regarded as a factor for moving toward the conflict. Hence, we should present the reactions to these talks. The new version only has one sentence in this regard which might be disputable without other completing sentences.
• The part talking about the chain of the events right before the conflict is very brief, we'd better have some of the former materials for this part. Even we might have a time line table for showing the major effective incidents from the peace period up to the conflict.
• The citations are really used in an awkward manner.

In whole, I believe that this version plus this analysis makes a better background considering the current one. Moreover, The peace periods after the 2012 cease fire can be mentioned using WP:RS without mentioning any data or report from the sides-related sources. The new edition needs to have all of the parts in a rational order. Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein. I rewrote one part of the background because it was written in bad English, had excessive incidental details, and irrelevancies (Michael Oren) etc. What appears to have happened is that the part I copyedited, with an adjustment, has been used to replace the whole background, which is what this version you prefer retains. I have no problem in restoring all of the matter in that version, preferably keeping the changes I made in my copyedit. This has a long history, as one of my edits from that Guardian article showed before it was removed, and as

• Ehab Zahriyeh 'Citing past failures, Hamas demands an enforceable cease-fire,' Al-Jazeera 16 July 2014

and *Idan Landau 'The unfolding lie of Operation Protective Edge,' +972 Magazine July 15, 2014

J.J. Goldberg's piece in The Forward, "How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza"

show. The background should, as before, start with the Guardian analysis, use sources like Zahriyeh and Landau to show the firing patterns, the November 2012 ceasefire and its violations, then deal with the second Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Netanyahu's vehement opposition. The section I rewrote is essentially the short term, immediate background to the event, dealing with the attempt to blame Hamas for the kidnappings. I suggest therefore that you ignore the section I proposed and be adopted, and rewrite or repaste for comment nd eventual inclusion here your preferred version of the 'older background'.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein & @Nishidani & Erictheenquirer My apologies, I misunderstood the part which had to be replaced, and drastically changed the background section. I am fine with including the Guardian view etc. Kingsindian (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani That's a good Idea, I'll take care of that and paste my proposed version here. By the way, I think the first paragraph in the current version contains OR and hence should be reverted. Mhhossein (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No need for apologies. It is difficult enough handling the flurry of changes, let alone trying to read and think through RD. We now have

• Ehab Zahriyeh 'Citing past failures, Hamas demands an enforceable cease-fire,' Al-Jazeera 16 July 2014
• Idan Landau 'The unfolding lie of Operation Protective Edge,' +972 Magazine July 15, 2014
• J.J. Goldberg's piece in The Forward, "How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza" Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As to OR, just cite the sentence(s) here. If no one can back the content up with a ref to both the operation and its background where that content is mentioned, we will drop it immediately. All this can be done rapidly by simply addressing everything, issue by issue, here. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Mhhossein: Just FYI, I had already added JJ Goldberg's Forward's piece as a source for the sentence that Israel knew about the deaths of the teenagers almost from the beginning, when I put in Nishidani's ce. So it is already present in the article. Perhaps more stuff from there can be included. Kingsindian (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Kingsindian: This is just an example; this sentence: The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014, is an obvious OR, the source has presented only the data, the editor is analyzing the data! whole paragraph should be replaced by a correct and suitable one. I'll take care of that. Mhhossein (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it out then, but since several of the sources we have speak of 2013 being a period when Hamas rocket activity, and rocket firing from Gaza was at an all-time low, just substitute it, when you do your general edit, with one or two of those sources mentioning that fact as they discuss the present war. WP:OR is avoided by simply finding a source which connects the data on the rocket lull prior to the war underway.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: My proposed background is ready and available here. It contains 2005 withdrawal, violation of peace 2008-2012, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation and immediate events as was discussed before. Please make comments on this essay. The background will be replaced by the proposed one. We even have the option of making a daughter article as "Background of 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict". Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: A general comment. As I mentioned above, in my opinion, the background should more or less start with 2012 ceasefire, with some major things from earlier periods included from before. Specific comments: 1. I am fine with including the Guardian view that the roots are in the 2005 withdrawal 2. I am skeptical of including all the ceasefire violations etc. going back to 2008 in detail. One can mention that there were two prior ceasefire agreements in 2008 and 2012, but to have sections for them seems not correct to me. 3. The 2008 and 2012 wars/massacres already have articles for them. And they have their own summary of the ceasefire violations prior to the wars. The sections for the 2008 and 2012 wars are quite far from the sections in the articles for those wars/massacres and will inevitably be seen as violating NPOV. 4. I do not see any references for the 2008 violation and for the 2012 violations, there is only one reference to Israeli violations. Again, this will be seen as violating NPOV. 5. The last two sections are more or less ok. However the statement by Moti Almoz was uttered on July 8, after the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. It belongs in the last section. Kingsindian (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thanks for your review and your useful comments. Truce violation sections, as you said may be summarized while keeping the major points (what are these points from your viewpoint?). Do you have any Idea for mentioning the trend of cease-fires? please include it at the very bottom of this page. I tried to use WP:RS for writing these sections and have mentioned each side's justification for violations to maintain NPOV. However, I'll search for more sources dealing with violations. By the way, I'm in agreement with moving statement by Moti Almoz to its suitable section. Mhhossein (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think it is ridiculous to use the Guardian piece as it is editorial and does not offer substantial evidence for its claims, which run counter to prevailing wisdom. It is unworthy of its current prominent place in the article, which is the first non-intro section. Thetwentieth (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth and -sche: Can you explain what exactly runs counter to prevailing wisdom in the stuff mentioned from the Guardian piece? Why do you think it should not be included? Kingsindian (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The prevailing wisdom is that the Gaza withdrawal was part of unilateral plan by Sharon to end the occupation. This view is reinforced by the fact that he staked his career on a followup disengagement plan from the West Bank which was to involve substantial dismantling of settlements. There are perhaps any number of ways to interpret Sharon's actions, but what that guardian article offers is pure speculation and editorial perspective. Edit: The guardian article is essentially the opinion of its author. The paragraph that sche removed was holistically poorly written, as it was of limited relevance and involved an "appeal to authority" fallacy of quoting the guardian author's opinion to advance an opinionated narrative of events within the text itself. Thetwentieth (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A source from 2005 can tell us nothing about this war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• As the IP who posted #Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014 noted, the Guardian piece which was cited dates to 2005, and so cannot support the conclusion that the root of current conflict lies in 2005. (Also, @Thetwentieth, note that I'm not the one who removed the section, that was TheTimesAreAChanging; I merely commented that I thought it was the right move.) Furthermore, every move by either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is generally asserted to be a response to some previous move by the other side, so the most practical course of action seems to be to limit this article to only the immediate background and leave the rest to be documented by the main article on the ] (which is appropriately prominently linked-to from the top of the ==Background== section). -sche (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• @-sche: You are mistaken about the date of the Guardian piece. The piece cited is this, which was published on 25 July 2014. I think the confusion comes from the fact that an Independent piece from 2005 was cited to establish that Israel continued to control the borders/sea etc.
• You are of course correct that each side asserts that the response is a move by some other side. Most of the background section deals with post 2012 period. The Guardian piece was only quoted to establish the context of the 2005 withdrawal, and the split between Hamas and Fatah in 2007. Every analyst agrees that these are very important events which form the basis of the conflict today. I think one short paragraph outlining this should not be undue weight. Kingsindian (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a section mentioning the 2005 withdrawal and subsequent major events would be valuable here. But the guardian article is not a valuable source and was being used improperly. Better to start from scratch with that section. Thetwentieth (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: You are confusing public boilerplate statements of facts with actual policy. Here is Dov Weissglass, Ariel Sharon's chief of staff on the withdrawal. You can read it on the wikipedia page as well:

The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.... When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.

The occupation never ended. And all the international community, the EU, the US, the UN, the Red Cross, all consider Gaza to be occupied. Here is one source, but can be multiplied easily. Also, there is no evidence that West Bank settlement were to be dismantled, in fact West Bank settlement expanded after the Gaza withdrawal. Kingsindian (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You essentially cherry picked the most damning part of that article, (which admittedly is certainly more substantive than the guardian article). Elsewhere in that article, you can see that the disengagement was widely hailed by international figures as a courageous step in the direction of peace. (There was an element certainly of sharon seeking to conclude the peace process on his terms, but discussion of his motivations should be carried out with reference to well sourced material). While Gaza has legally been considered occupied do to the israeli control of its waters etc, much of the indignation concerns the closing of borders to trade/blockade. However, the Rafah crossing was actually open for many months after the withdrawal (until the shalit kidnapping) with the acquiescence of Israel. Hence the blockade is much better seen as a response to circumstance than israel's plan all along. Also, you are wrong about the West Bank settlements. Sharon founded the Kadima party to contest the 2006 elections essentially in order to push thru West Bank disengagement and was expected to win an unprecedented victory until he was felled by a stroke. The fact that settlements increased in recent years has nothing to do with the intent of the PM w.r.t. the gaza disengagement. Thetwentieth (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: You and I are just handles on wikipedia. Our opinion carries little weight in itself. Again, you make the mistake of taking at face value the pronouncements of leaders as though they determine policy. Sharon's public pronouncements are not important. What is important is what happenned and what was planned. Pretty much every scholar understands that the role of the 2005 withdrawal was not to end the occupation but to freeze the peace process. Is is even a question, looking back now, 8-9 years, that the peace process was frozen? I of course "selectively" quoted Dov Weissglass (hardly arbitrarily, he was the Sharon's eminence grise) and did not quote the boilerplate public statements by EU/US etc. which are meaningless for policy. As to settlements, they are not mentioned in the parts quoted from the Guardian, so it is not important here for our purposes. Kingsindian (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Most of the content of the my above paragraph are facts, not my own opinions and can be easily sourced. You ask "Is is even a question, looking back now, 8-9 years, that the peace process was frozen?" Just because the peace process has stalled does not mean this was the intent of the gaza withdrawal. Things might very well have gone differently if Sharon had not been incapacitated. As I say, the West Bank withdrawal issue was THE MAJOR issue of the Israeli 2006 election discourse and the reason for the founding of Kadima. Would Sharon have split his party from its right wing in a convoluted cynical ploy to destroy the peace process? The quote from his aide is one circumstantial data point but not the whole story. I do not believe that you have the sourcing to support your assertion of a scholarly consensus that Israel was seeking to undermine the peace process, but by all means please produce them. Also I was not taking the official statements as a substitute for policy, but merely as a gross readout of the sentiment the withdrawal elicited, but that is neither here nor there.Thetwentieth (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: It is easy to provide sources. Here are two, in the New York Review of Books even before the disengagement here(he again quotes Weissglass, among others) and London Review of Books by Sara Roy, the leading academic specialist on the economy of Gaza here. Here is a quote from the latter: "Whatever else it claims to be, the Gaza Disengagement Plan is, at heart, an instrument for Israel’s continued annexation of West Bank land and the physical integration of that land into Israel". Perhaps you can start with some of your own sources now. The fact that the 2005 disengagement was a major issue in Israeli elections in 2005 is not important. There is a very broad consensus in Israel for continuation of occupation and keeping settlements. This is why it has endured for 47 years. You again mistake theatrics for the reality. Kingsindian (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The NYRB article's opinion rather hinges on the notion that Israel would not disengage with the W. Bank and was trying to create 3 "Bantustan" cantons, which was invalidated by Sharon's later move towards disengagement. c.f. "Apparently Weissglas was concerned that there might be Israelis who, even after his interview, may still believe that the disengagement from Gaza and a few West Bank settlements proposed by Sharon might lead to further disengagements in the West Bank". In this context, we can see that he is putting undue stress on the Weissglass quote, who could easily have been pandering to his base etc. Haven't gotten a chance to look thru ur second source yet, will do so later. What claims would you like sourced from above? Thetwentieth (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: As for your second source, you quoted the most relevant section. She states that Israel is intent on annexing west bank land and backs this up by quoting an israeli govt report which refers primarily to keeping the major settlement blocs on the israeli side of the separation barrier, which are still expected to mostly be in israel in a final settlement. Her reading of this as a broader endorsement of annexation is again further belied by Sharon's later plan to withdraw from almost all settlements beyond the W. Bank barrier. What you have cited are opinion pieces which do not provide strong evidence on this issue, let alone evidence of academic consensus. Sharon's W. Bank disengagement plan and the upheaval it caused in israeli politics are facts, not opinion, and powerful counterevidence to such highly uncharitable readings of the Gaza withdrawal imo.Thetwentieth (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: I am afraid that assertions by handles on Misplaced Pages that Sharon planned to do this, he planned to do that, carry little weight. I have given, by my last count, 4 sources to demonstrate the validity of the Guardian editorial's points that the 2005 withdrawal was intended to keep Gaza controlled and blockaded, while expanding settlements in the West Bank and freezing the peace process. I see nothing except assertions disputing this. Kingsindian (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Sharon's plan for west bank disengagement and founding of Kadima is a basic fact of israeli politics during that period and i was not sure you were disputing it. You can find some sources in the second paragraph here: and further evidence at although that article is admittedly not as detailed as it should be. I can find plenty more sources where those came from. Thetwentieth (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: Perhaps it is useful to point out why you think I am disputing something which I am not disputing. There is no logical contradiction between expanding settlements in the West Bank (the area one wants to keep) and withdrawing from the rest of the West Bank. And note the "unilateral" part in both the disengagement of Gaza and the (hypothetical) disengagement of the West Bank. This is the same point being made that the "peace process" is frozen. By definition, if you do something unilaterally, you do not negotiate with the other. Kingsindian (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:If you don't specify what it is you want a source for, you may not get the exact source you want. At any rate what I cited is relevant because doubt over whether Sharon would ever do a west bank withdrawal was a key facet of those sources you cited, and Sharons west bank disengagement is strong prima facie evidence against those sources and the Guardian's argument. The west bank withdrawal was not to be mutually exclusive with a negotiated settlement. Would Sharon frontload the most painful concessions required for a peace agreement (ie the dismantling of settlement blocs beyond the barrier) in an effort to stop a peace agreement to stop such an agreement from ever happening? If this was such a brilliant ploy why wasn't Israel's right wing in on the plan?Thetwentieth (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: Recall the issue we are discussing. It is the Guardian editorial. The paragraph makes the following 3 points:

1. Sharon in withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 envisaged that Gaza would be controlled and surrounded. You do not dispute this, because this is true and this is what happenned. This is what the NYRB and LRB sources say.
2. That disengagement from Gaza would freeze the peace process, or at least get concessions on the West Bank. This is what happenned. Both the NYRB and the LRB sources say this, as does the quote from Dov Weissglass. Both your sources talk about unilateral annexation of (at least) the territory behind the wall, while withdrawing from the rest. Well, that is already 10% of the West Bank. And notice the "unilateral". This means no negotiation, and no "peace process". This means that Israel will annex (at least) 10% of the West Bank unilaterally. Giving up 90% of somebody else's land is not "generous". And notice this is the "best case". If everything went to plan, and Sharon had not been incapacitated from a stroke (comes in the "oh if only Kennedy had lived!" category) etc.
3. The last point it makes is that Hamas won the 2006 elections and the 2006-7 conflict and Hamas takeover of the Gaza set the stage for the current conflict. This, again is true.

Can you tell me what exactly is it that you dispute? Kingsindian (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I found this article very good on the background. This is by a mainstream political scientist in the "realist" school. Kingsindian (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand why "first Hamas-Fatah reconciliation" section is removed, while you are just discussing the "2005 withdrawal". The lay out of the "Background" was set according to our previous consensus which should be respected by the editors. Mhhossein (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree I can't see any discussion relating to the removal. Dlv999 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How can that be, Dlv? -sche, Shrike, Thetwentieth, IP 2601:6:7F00:3C1:3589:43C5:9E8D:CCEE, and myself have all gone on the record challenging the use of these editorials, and the removal of the text was initially stable. Naturally, when Mhhossein and you return days later to cite an older discussion for consensus, your claim strikes me as rather weak.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of the second part of Mhhossein's edit, because it was not alluded to in his usual boilerplate edit summary and I did not bother to check.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A comment here about the removal of the Guardian text. The removal of the text was certainly not "stable". The text was removed, first by User:Cptnono, reverted by me, pointing to the talk page, and then by TheTimesAreAChanging within 24 hours. I could not revert it again due to ARBPIA sanctions, and there was a mass of other stuff I had to revert later. Neither User:Cptnono, nor User:TheTimesAreAChanging have participated in the above discussion as to why it should be removed. I would be happy if they would. Kingsindian (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I don't see any consensus in removal of the Guardian text. The only thing was to modify this section, as I see. So, this and other sections (first reconciliation) should be restored, then we should discuss how this section (2005 withdrawal) should be, if there is any opposing opinion. Of course editions for improving the article is admirable and you may search for WP:RS related to this issue. In fact we should not act solely based on our own decision in such hot topics. More reversions may rise the risk of war editing and hence should be avoided until next consensus on the topic. Thanks every body! Mhhossein (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we should restore the text, since it was editorial and citing an editorial source. We should report facts first, opinion and analysis from respected sources later. I think the Gaza withdrawal is a reasonable first event to include in the background. Other reasonable things to include are certainly the nature of Gaza's occupation status, the multilateral agreement over the Rafah crossing, the problems with implementing that agreement, hamas's election, hamas/gaza conflict, hamas clashes with israel, etc.Thetwentieth (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Egypt listed along USA for aiding Israel?

Although no source claim that Egypt provides any military or financial aid to israel, so this listing is absurd. More so, a fuss note was left bellow asking not to remove specifically Egypt "until the discussion on talk page is ongoing" There was no discussion on this issue, as even the source does not claim anything related. The question of political support is debatable, yet we do not list there the political views of all 200 states. Please, someone to remove this absurd and unsourced claim regarding Egypt.--Tritomex (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Any party that is not providing military aid should be removed. I think that includes Turkey as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well, there is no point in having countries listed as simply "politically supportive" of one side or the other. If we were to do that, we'd have to list just about every country in the world. Not to mention that a lot of countries have, at times (including the US), condemned actions taken from both sides. -- Kndimov (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well and i think we should delete both US and Egypt as allies or supporters.barjimoa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose deleting the US as an ally of Israel. They send billions of dollars in military aid to the country every year and have served as the country's guardian angel in the UN Security Council for decades. -- Kndimov (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2014

This edit request to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

you forgot to mention the tunnels in the introduction as a reason for the operation 24.246.75.72 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The tunnels were not a reason for the operation. The rocket attacks were. Once ground operation began, IDF used the chance to remove the tunnel threat, with other terror infrastructures. If you think otherwise, please provide a source. - WarKosign (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Civilian fatalities statistics are mis-referenced in the introduction

I just read the actual reference for the "OCHA" civilian fatalities claim that is in the introduction. It appears in the original report with an footnote stating "Data on fatalities and destruction of property is consolidated by the Protection and Shelter clusters based on preliminary information, and is subject to change based on further verifications." None of this was mentioned in the article until now. Also it looks like the source "Protection and Shelter clusters" is not the actual name of any organization but perhaps a misspelling of Protection Cluster or Global Protection Cluster. Ether way I don't think this information is meets the Misplaced Pages standards of reliable information especially since neither of these groups has a Wiki page currently, since OCHA misspelled their name to begin with and since we have no idea how they actually collected this information.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can I ask how you determined that they were quoting protectioncluster.org or Global Protection Cluster?
• The figures are present in the OCHA report, they should be attributed to OCHA. The report itself mentions that the figures are compiled in collaboration with other humanitarian organizations. Presumably they have a process there for collecting the information.
• I have many other problems with your edit to the lead, for that a new section Kingsindian (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The OCHA report statement is given above. It says that their data comes from "Protection and Shelter clusters." I don't know who that is but since it's capitalized I assume it's the name of an organization. It's not OCHA giving these statistics and therefore it should not be attributed solely to them, to do so would be deceptive.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: If I understand you correctly, you just took a guess that the organization mentioned in the UN report is this particular organization. This is the definition of WP:OR. All the figures are mentioned in the OCHA report. They have their own way of compiling the figures. If they put it front and center, it means they are giving their authority to it. These figures should be attributed to OCHA, not some organization which we are not even clear is the same organization. Kingsindian (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: How is including the name of the organization that OCHA is quoting original research??? If someone at the UN decided that it was correct to accept this information from this source then there is absolutely no reason why it can't be made clear on Misplaced Pages that it is the source of these statistics. If I understand you correctly, you believe the best solution would be to misrepresent the information by claiming that it comes directly from the UN even though in the UN report itself on its first page places an asterisk and a footnote next to the statistic and states that the information is "preliminary" and comes from a third party. I believe I have improved the sentence significantly. If anything, it would probably have been justifiable to remove the statistics since the text does not properly describe the given source. Moreover the information has difficultly meeting verifiability requirements since there is no mention of how the statistic is actually derived, and, like I said earlier, the source is not widely known. By keeping the statistic and including the additional information on its source and status my edit provides clarity and balance.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I can only repeat my points. As I mentioned above, we have no evidence that this particular organization (protectioncluster.org) is being used by UNRWA. This is what I said is the definition of WP:OR. All information OCHA puts out in emergency reports is preliminary, I am fine with including it. The figures are prominently displayed on the front page of the report. OCHA of course works with many organizations on the ground, as they state in the report. But the figure is put out by them. They should be attributed to OCHA, not some organization that you have no evidence is putting out the figures. Kingsindian (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Thai farm worker mentioned under 'Casualties and losses' was killed 23 June, which was before the conflict according to the articles date (8 July 2014 – present). Please see this link for clarification: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/victims%20of%20palestinian%20violence%20and%20terrorism%20sinc.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

@Monopoly31121993: Regarding your edits edit1 and edit2 and edit3

• Let's start with the easiest, edit3: I am not sure why you put citation needed tags for each of the statetements. The source for the whole paragraph is the OCHA report, cited at the very end of the paragraph.
  • Every sentence, especially in the introduction needs to have citations. Things get added/removed and moved around all the time so there's no way to have it without citations. That's why I did that.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding edit1 and edit2, can I ask you, on what basis do you determine that the quote "There is no safe place for civilians in Gaza" does not belong in the lead, while you determine that a long elaboration on "human shields" belongs in the lead? The reason you give in the edit summary for edit1 is: "removed a quote from an OCHA spokesperson from the introduction, it belong in the text on Palestinian civilians". Keeping in mind that there is a whole section below on "Human shields" wouldn't this argument apply with even greater force to your added content in edit2? WP
  • WP uses NPOV in its text so subjective statements like "There is no where to run to, no safe place to hide, etc." don't belong in the introduction of WP articles. This is clearly the opinion of one person, even though he's a UN employee. Without balance the statement shouldn't been in the introduction.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The lead is already too long. It should contain no more than a summary of various events. Moreover, you should not be changing the lead by a significant amount before discussion on the talk page.
  • I added a neutral perspective to the topic of human shields. The UN and EU's reporting the storage of weapons in civilians areas and condemning calls for civilians to serve as human shields is perfectly reasonable to include in an introduction to this topic.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Solution suggested: The lead already mentions the allegations of "human shields" and Hamas' denial. It should stay that way, without this added content of edit2. Regarding edit1, the quote by the OCHA spokesperson "There is no safe place for civilians in Gaza", should be reinstated. It is a short, pithy quote, accurately summarizing the situation in Gaza, and carries no undue weight. All the "citation needed" tags in edit3 should be removed, as I mentioned in the first point. I would have dealt with all of this myself, but under ARBPIA sanctions, 1RR applies. If you could revert/modify your edits yourself, it would be good. Kingsindian (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think removing the UN and EU's perspectives and just keeping Hamas' denial is a balanced POV at all. I will keep try to check as many of citation need marks right now but it takes time to fact check every unreferenced sentence so please be patientMonopoly31121993 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I tried very hard to work on this right now but there are A LOT of problems with paragraph as it currently stands. whoever wrote it clearly had an agenda and they introduced a lot of bias into it. Frankly the whole thing should probably be deleted and re-written but I was able to added a little bit of citation and I'll keep working on it later. When you're 24 hours are up feel free to go back and actually check between what is written in that report and what is currently written in that paragraph, you will see very quickly that they are hardly the same thing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:

• I do not know where you got the idea that every sentence in the lead should have a citation. Please read Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations.
• NPOV is not the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All your reasons are based on "I don't like it" and no other reasons. NPOV means giving all points of view their due weight. A short statement by the OCHA spokesperson accurately describing the situation in Gaza is not undue weight. A very long edit describing "Human shields" is indeed undue weight. What is undue weight finally is decided by consensus, not just unilateral decisions by an editor just because he feels there is bias for some reason he can't explain.
• I will be reverting these edits tomorrow, if I don't hear any better reasons before then, or they are not changed by someone else. There is already a section on the lead in the talk page. You can discuss your proposed changes there, instead of making large scale changes like this. Kingsindian (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• My above comments were a bit harsh. I will address one of the points you made which deserves a response. The rest of my response stands.
• Regarding edit2: You say, removing UN and EU's perspective and keeping Hamas' denial is wrong. First of all, Hamas' denial was already present, and it is still present after your edit. Secondly, you have not answered the point I have made above. Recall that your the edit summary for edit1 was that the OCHA spokesman's statement belonged in the Palestine section and not in the lead. By the same logic, why should the human shields part belong in the lead when it has its own, very long section? Thirdly, you only quote the statement critical of Hamas in the section there. The UN statement is available here, as you can see, it contains much else. Fourth, if you look at the human shields section, it contains a lot of discussion about pro- and con- for each side. Do you really believe that the edit you made (every sentence you added was critical of Hamas) is a fair summary of that section? Kingsindian (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian remember to assume good faith. I'm working very hard to check this information and to add citations. I have had to change significant amounts of the text of that paragraph because the information was WRONG. Example: 1) report states that 1.5 million are affected by a lack of water NOT 1.8 which was written there when I placed the tag. If you're upset that there are tags then I encourage you to do the same thing as I am and check the source for yourself and see if you can actually verify the information currently in the text.

Also, your claim that the UN and EU statements are "critical of Hamas" is not at all correct. Neither quote even mentions Hamas...

Finally, the anecdotal statement that "no one is safe in Gaza" by the UN coordinator is not something that any neutral editor would say exhibits enough NPOV to include in the introduction to an article but in the interest of keeping information in the article I have moved the quote to the appropriate section. More generally I suggest you calm down and assume good faith.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I have of course assumed good faith. I have only responded to your points so far. Your response above does not address any of the points raised

• It is fine to correct errors, nobody is challenging that. From 1.8 to 1.5mil is fine. I did not challenge that. I said, the whole paragraph is footnoted right at the end, with the OCHA report. One does not need to footnote each single sentence to say that the whole paragraph is from a source. I do not know where you got the impression that this needs to be done.
• You say the UN and EU statements you cite are not critical of Hamas since "don't even mention Hamas". Oh it's true they don't mention Hamas...by name. Let me quote them in their full:

n 17 July UNRWA strongly condemned "the group or groups responsible" for placing the weapons in one of its schools and on 22 July the European Union condemned all "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields."

• The main issue with the "human shields" part which you quoted is it is not a NPOV summary of the "Human shields" section in the article itself. The lead is supposed to be a summary, not your own research. You do not address this at all.
• Your response to the OCHA spokesperson's comment "There is no safe place in Gaza" is pure WP:JDL. The fact that you don't like it is not important. It is sourced, concise, notable and described accurately the situation in Gaza. Being NPOV is not the same as being blind or bland. Kingsindian (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I reverted your revert of my edits. Like I mentioned in my edit summary the OCHA quote was moved to the section in the article on Palestinian Casualties and Loses. It is still in the article and doesn't add anything but a very clear anecdotal POV to the introduction. Considering that we already have nearly half of all content in the introduction from OCHA, I think we have their perspective well covered. And your edit also reverted the UNRWA and EU quotes which DONT even MENTION HAMAS. You have not provided any reason why that is biased against Hamas and frankly, a statement of facts by the UN or EU is impossible to claim as biased. To me your edit could easily be seen as vandalism.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of statements which are repeated in the article. I have been telling you to read WP:LEAD and it is clear from your points here that you have not read it.
• The important point for the human shields claim is that it has a whole section devoted to it. You cannot pick two arbitrary points from that section and put it in the lead.
• Your arguments are not consistent. If the OCHA statement does not belong in the lead because it is there in a section below, then the other part should also not be in there. The rockets in UNRWA school also has a whole section devoted to it.
• The part you quoted from UN/EU does not mention Hamas (BY NAME). But it is obviously talking about them. Are you telling me that a statement condemning putting rockets in schools and using population as human shields is not criticizing Hamas? Who is it criticizing then?

Kingsindian (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I have no idea who put weapons in a school. That doesn't change the fact that it happened and was condemned by the UNRWA or that the EU observed a call or calls to use civilians as human shields and condemned it. The summary is a statement of facts and to me those are clearly neutral facts made by third party sources without any specific reference to Hamas or anyone else. Since I can see that we have a a tough disagreement here I think the only solution is to either request a dispute resolution or a third opinion. If you agree please go ahead and add this to the talk page on one of those pages. Thanks for taking this seriously and being polite in your many comments. Hopefully we can sort this out that way quickly.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I have added a request on the third opinion page here.Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion Kingsindian (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Human shields

Some evidence to consider:

• On 31 July, militants fire a rocket while France 24 correspondent Gallagher Fenwick is giving a live report on the conflict.
• On 1 August, Finnish reporter Aishi Zidan of Helsingin Sanomat reports that Hamas militants fired rockets from the Shifa Hospital parking lot.
• On 4 August, NDTV reporter Sreenivasan Jain and cameraman Sanjay Mandal film militants in civilian clothes assembling and firing a rocket meters away from a hotel housing foreign media. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the Finnish reference is already present in the "human shields" section. There are already other mentions by other reporters in the same section that Hamas fired rockets from near civilian structures. Kingsindian (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There's also al Jazeera journalist Nicole Johnston who was startled by a rocket being fired next to her. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

IDF's Youtube channel has tons of examples, like IDF Soldiers Find Mosque with Weapons and Tunnel Openings, 12 Examples of Hamas Firing Rockets from Civilian Areas, Terrorists use ambulance for transportation in Gaza (successfully preventing an IDF attack), ect. This video supposedly shows Hamas beating Gazans who heeded Israeli warnings, although the motive for the beatings cannot be verified. I don't want to get too involved with Israel articles, because from what I've seen anti-Israel editors can be incredibly vituperative to anyone less sanctimonious than they, but its worth noting that Hamas leaders chose Shifa Hospital as their headquarters. More here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As IDF is a part in the conflict they can not really be considered a reliable source. // Liftarn (talk)

Updating what?

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Care to explain this edit? What exactly are you updating? All I see is removal of sourced content. Kingsindian (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced, previously tagged sentence along with the claim that Israel had presented "no evidence" of Hamas involvement (beyond the claim that the kidnappers were Hamas members), while adding the news from a few hours ago that the organizer of the attack has been arrested and stated it was financed by Hamas members.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:My mistake, I did not see the part below. Kingsindian (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, this is a minor point, all things considered, but why do we need some journalist's statement that Israel did not immediately and publicly disclose all of its evidence regarding the possibility of Hamas involvement? Would you expect otherwise? If this article was not documenting recent events, would the article really frame the narrative that way? Isn't it enough simply to present both sides without that type of interjection?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I am not sure I understand you. What journalist's statement are you talking about? The fact that Israel, before the war, did not divulge any evidence of Hamas involvement in the kidnapping is surely relevant. This is why I put it back again. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a criminal matter--what would you have expected them to say? The kidnappers were Hamas members, Netanyahu said the tactics were similar to Hamas. Why do we need that sentence?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I already said why I think we need that sentence. Let call "fact": "Israel did not provide evidence of Hamas involvement in the kidnapping, before the war". This "fact" has been noted by multiple sources here, here, here and here, among many others. I included this fact, because it is notable and relevant. My own thoughts are beside the point, but I would have preferred that Israel announce on July 11 that they had arrested this man. They waited one month, till the war was over. But I stress, my thoughts are beside the point here. Kingsindian (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas rockets

This source on Hamas' rockets should be used somewhere. Kingsindian (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece. The author thinks it's ok to live when rockets (crude and inefficient) may injure and kill you or your family at any moment. People in Israel think otherwise. Is there some information in this article that is not covered elsewhere ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The point of the Qassam rockets is that they are easy to make, relatively cheap, and quick to set up and launch. This way, they can make a bunch of them, and fire them off simultaneously. Instead of being a sniper rifle which is precise, the Qassam is like a shotgun, spreading out to try and hit as many things as it can. The purpose of Qassams is obviously to kill people, but it has many other goals. To disrupt daily life, to cause panic, to cause anxiety, etc. Hamas would like to have more sophisticated and powerful rockets, but they know Israel can stop them from coming into Gaza because of the blockade or Israel can destroy where they are being stored. As the saying goes, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't decided how to use this source. This was more or less just meant as a note to myself and any others who might be interested. It is of course an opinion piece, and not a news piece. The author is a well-known scholar of Hamas and PLO and has had many formal and informal contacts with both factions. It appears in Foreign Affairs, a very reputable and mainstream journal put out the Council on Foreign Relations. Kingsindian (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of homes

@WarKosign: Regarding your edit here and here. You must surely be aware that there is a whole section devoted to human shields, which contains all the claims you include here and their responses? Why are you repeating the arguments from there, and moreover, doing it in a clear POV way? Why are you only including claims of "human shield", weapons storage, and Hamas directing people to stay in their homes, and not including the contra arguments?

If you want to repeat stuff from that section, you need to provide a neutral summary. Not a one-sided culling of facts. When I created that section, I only provided the barest summary because these issues about human shields are already discussed above.

You have done many good and fine edits. But please keep in mind that this is not a place for advocacy. This is a long term pattern of your edits on this page. I will just document a few of your past edits on this page in the same vein. I do not say all the edits are wrong, but they show a clear advocacy, pushing the POV of one particular side, minimizing the effects of one side and maximizing the other:

• edit edit edit They are of course all "relevant facts", each of them just happens to favour the Israeli claims. The relevant facts from the other side are not included, as mentioned in the human shields section.
• edit Most of the section is talking about Israel's attack on journalists, yet you rename the section "Hamas attacks on journalists"? Also, the Jerusalem post source is not saying that several reporters claim Hamas is threatening journalists. Those are just tweets they received on social media. Nowhere do they claim that Hamas is sending those tweets. You against changed a direct attribution to Israeli officials to "several journalists"
• edit you first remove a statement quoting the economist source and then add edit "since Hamas did not keep the previous ceasefire" based on no source at all.
• edit Fixing a spelling error, that is fine, but rewording a claim attributed to Israel ("Israel claimed tunnels were destroyed) to a statement of fact ("after destroying the tunnel network")
• I have already discussed on the talk page about the edits adding of the tunnels to the violations of international humanitarian law section.

Again, there are many other edits which are fine. You have discussed many things on the talk page, which is again, good practice. We all have biases. But, this kind of advocacy based editing will not do. Kingsindian (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: It's hard to separate the violations of international law (real and alleged) into clean separate categories. Destruction of homes is caused by use of homes for military purposes. Killing of civilians in the homes is caused by urging/causing civilians to stay (human shields) and destruction of homes. Now that I wrote it I see a way to organize the section: list each violation separately, detailing only this violation, and linking to other relevant violations that cause/are caused by it.
  
• IMO destruction of tunnel network is not a claim but a fact backed by many independent sources. Do you think otherwise ?
  
• Someone added to the background the argument that the violence was caused by the blockade. The blockade in turn was caused by the violence, which I added. A source was indeed needed - but now the point is moot as the background was rewritten, as I'm sure it will be several more times.
  
• I try to keep neutral POV, but just as there are pro-hamas editors using terms like 'resistance' for 'terror organization' I may not be completely objective. There are other people to try to keep balance. So far the balance seems to be on the pro-terror side.
• As for 'relevant facts' favoring Israel - the section is already full with unfavorable claims/facts. I added some neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 08:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosignn: A general comment:You should read WP:NPOV again, especially the section on Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance. NPOV does not mean that if there are 5 unfavourable facts about Israel, you add 5 favourable facts to balance it out. It should be based on the actual situation. Now to your specific points:

• Of course the violations cannot be separated out into clean separate categories. That is not the issue. The issue is when you add the "human shields" reference and the "weapons stored in civilian structures" reference and "Hamas encouraging people to stay" reference, there is a whole section dealing with these things. You cannot just add these things from that section. If you want to include "human shields" you need to write a summary neutral NPOV, with arguments from that section of all sides, given due weight. A simple way to see this is just consider your own edits as a section in itself. Would that count as an NPOV summary of the "human shields" section?
• The edit about the Hamas not maintaining the ceasefire, is from the lead, not the background. And you say that you know the source was indeed needed. Well, you don't add statements based on your own thinking. You find a source for it, and only then add it. What you did is the definition of WP:OR.
• Regarding the tunnel edit. It was only a minor point, but illustrative: The issue is not what you believe, but what the source says. The source says: "Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, an Israeli military spokesman, confirmed the bulk of ground troops had been pulled out of Gaza after the military concluded it had destroyed most of the tunnel network." You have no way to know that the tunnels are destroyed or not. Just report what the source says.
• You did not respond to my other points. I did not criticize your edit for changing "resistance" to "militant" and so on. I think that was a proper edit. Not sure why you bring that up.

Again, many of your edits have been fine and proper. But, as I said, editing like an advocate will not do. Kingsindian (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I have removed all details except the barest claims. And linked back to the other sections, as you suggested elsewhere. Perhaps this is not the perfect solution, we can discuss it further. Kingsindian (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-organization of the 'Violations of international humanitarian law' section

Currently the section is not organized clearly, with sub-section arranged without any apparent order and containing duplicate information. I suggest to have each sub-section deal with a single alleged violation by a single side, linking to other violations that are potentially causing or are caused by it. For example these could be some of the section names with these causality links:
=> means 'claimed to cause', <= means 'claimed to be caused by'

• Rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians

• => use of civilian infrastructure

• Use of civilian infrastructure for rocket attacks

• <= Rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians
• => destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure

• Destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure

• <= use of civilian infrastructure for attacks
• => attack on civilians

• Urging and/or forcing Gazan civilians to remain at homes

• <= Use of civilian infrastructure for rocket attacks

• Attack of Gazan civilians by Israel

• <= Use of civilian infrastructure for rocket attacks
• <= Urging and/or forcing Gazan civilians to remain at homes

Opinions ? - WarKosign (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who's sockpuppet you are as a 2008 sleeper account (who empied its talkpage today; hint: look for other contributors), but this attempt to divert the warcrimes to the receiving party, we should not take too seriously. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree with Wickey-nl. The proposed restructure is too biased and puts blame on Gazans remaining at home, storing weapons in civilian areas, etc. No mention of violation of human rights by the aggressor. Also your current scheme of =>/<= is confusing. --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 14:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The example is partial and is not intended to represent the content, only the structure. Looks like you don't find it easy to read. How about this:

• Violation 1 by ...

• Claimed to be caused by:

• Violation 2 by ...
• Violation 3 by ...

• Claimed to cause:

• Violation 4 by ...
• Violation 5 by ...

Details of violation 1 with references

As for being a sleeper account - I don't owe anyone an explanation. I rarely edited in the last few years, and then didn't bother to log in until this page got semi-protected. You are welcome to look at the previous version of my talk page, there was nothing except some threats by a terrorist supporter. Who are you sockpuppeting for ? - WarKosign (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wickey-nl: Please do not resort to personal attacks. If you have any evidence of sock-puppetry, report it.

@WarKosign: I agree with some of the substance of User:Wickey-nl and User:Stannic tetramuon. I will answer your points made here and elsewhere.

• When you say "civilian deaths" are not violations unless they are intentional, this is not correct. Disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks resulting in civilian deaths are also unlawful.
• The "human shields" and "using civilian structures for military purposes" are the reasons given by Israel for the civilian casualties in the section. This is why they are sub-sections.
• The destruction of homes section refers back to these sections, and there is a case of making it a sub-section of "civilian deaths". I am inclined not to do it, because there are other issues there. As mentioned there, destruction of homes has been condemned as collective punishment, which is a separate issue. And the second reason is that in the early part of the war, Israel destroyed homes based on them being "suspected militants". After they were criticized for collective and disproportionate punishment, they made another claim that they are "command and control centers" etc. This part has been linked to the section above. See the source quoted there. The other part about "command and control" etc. falls into the using civilian structures for military purposes, this is why I linked to that section.
• The reporting about al-Shifa hospital (in particular the Finnish reporter) is already included in this section. Kingsindian (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: There is circular dependency between violations, so it would be a very long argument why each proposed structure that puts one violation under another won't do. See my reply to you in another thread as an example. In order to avoid these arguments I propose to list each violation separately, at the same level. Relation between them can be maintained via links and not via hierarchy. Here is one possible list of violations, each should be duplicated for each side as applicable:

• Intentional or indiscriminate attacks of civilians
• Intentional or indiscriminate attacks of civilian structures
• Use of civilian infrastructures for military purpose (including UN facilities)
• Forcing or urging civilians to remain in danger
• Attack of UN facilities
• UN providing military support to either side
• Attacks and threats of journalists
• Use of children under the age of 18 in military actions

Before someone accuses me of bias - this is by no means a complete and final list, only a draft. Please respond with corrections and/or completely different lists. Obviously many of these items can be argued to be caused by others, but this causality should not affect the structure of the list, only the links between the items. - WarKosign (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No responses so far, I began work on the re-organization as a separate sub-page. Once there is a reasonable consensus on the content there, we can replace the current section with a link. Everybody are very welcome to contribute.- WarKosign (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I completed the initial creation of the new violations page. There are very little additions/deletions, mostly moving the statements around into sections that seem far more clear to me. Please check it and say what you think. I would like to switch to the new page as soon as possible, to avoid merging modifications from this page to the new one. - WarKosign (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

• I already said that I am not in favour of reorganization like this. Just having "links" between different sections A caused by B etc. is not a sufficient way to discuss the context.
• There is no duplication at the moment, currently, if we move the "destruction of homes" into the civilian section (that should be separate in my opinion, but we can discuss it).
• What happenned to the "Infrastructure" section?
• The violations need to be put in context, this is why I had made one big section with "human shields" and "using civilian structures for military purposes" etc. It discusses all the issues in one place. For example even if there are say, sites near hospitals used to fire rockets, I quote (amnesty or hrw, I forget) saying that there is still no justification for hitting hospitals. Moreover, all the response needs to be "proportionate" and should follow "distinction", the basic principles of international humanitarian law. These things should all be mentioned in one place, not like this. Kingsindian (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: My main problem is with putting one violation under another. This implies that the top one is worse or more important than the one inside, which is a matter of opinion. I can argue that the use of human shields should be at the top level, with attack on civilians and hospitals underneath it since human shields are the root cause for the rest. In order to not have these arguments, I listed all 3 at the same level, and they can reference each other without implying importance or severity of each violations. I don't think there is evidence of specifically targeting infrastructures, so I bundled damage to them with the rest of attack on civilian and civilian structures, but if you see a reason to split them - I don't mind. - WarKosign (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: There is no question of prioritizing violations. They are put in one section because they are all related in a fundamental way I made this point many many days ago. They cannot be isolated without losing all sense of context, or duplicating information. This is why I put the arguments concerning human shields and "using civilian structures for military purposes" in one place. That is the key part and the most contested and is the largest section by far. I do not see any question of it minimizing or prioritizing the violations. Kingsindian (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding POV and unbased information in the infobox

@Johorean Boy: You added unsourced information in the infobox, again. The article already lists all the claims that hamas made here, this information does not belong in the infobox. Information by emergency relieve coordinator is based, but it belongs in the "impact on residents" section, and there was a link from notes that you deleted.
Unless you can explain how your biased and unsourced edits improve the article, they will be removed. If you continue edit warring, your account will be blocked. - WarKosign (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:Please refrain from removing contents without providing a strong reason. --Johorean Boy (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Johorean Boy: Since you refuse to provide any commentary to your edits, I can only treat them as vandalism. - WarKosign (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign is correct. If Hamas claims are not sourced or the source is unreliable, don't put it in the info box. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed duplicate section

I have removed the duplicate section "Militant use of mosques schools" etc. All the information there is already present in other sections, namely the "human shields" section, "using civilian structures for military purposes" section and the "united nations" section. They are discussed there in much more detail and with all sides of argument presented.

There is one sentence from this section, which I was considering to include in the "human shields" section. The report that that Al-Shifa hospital is being used as "de-facto headquarters" of Hamas. I have not included this for the following reason: The washington post is talking about ministers from Hamas. There is no suggestion there that those were bringing weapons into the hospital etc.

See this link for a discussion on this topic. Kingsindian (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you deleted important information. Use of human shields and use of civilian infrastructures are two separate violations of the international law, and it is possible to commit one without the other, so since there are claims (and counter-claims) for each of them, both should appear. Since many violation are related I suggested to list them, detailing them one by one and only linking to arguably related violation. Specifically for the hospital - why not include the claims that you deleted followed by the counter-claims from this link ? - WarKosign (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I don't understand your point. I said that the section duplicates information present in 2 other sections: "human shields" (and its subsection "using civilian structures for military purposes") and the "united nations" section. Kingsindian (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: at the moment "human shields" and "Use of civilian structures for military purposes" are subsections of "civilian deaths". This implies that they are violations because they cause civilian deaths. This is not correct: both are violations even if they do not cause death. Causing the death of civilians is a violation, but only when done intentionally. "Warnings by Israel" is also a subsection, but is not a claim of violation but rather a counter-claim for intentional targeting of civilians. It also contains some information that actually belongs in "urging or forcing civilians to stay", which should be merged with "human shields"

I think each of the alleged violations should be listed on the same level, with claims and counter-claims detailing each of them separately. The fact that they are related can be reflected by listing links to other violations relevant for each of them. If there is a agreement on this framework I can suggest a list of violations and we can argue over it. Once agreed, we can talk about the content of each and links between them. - WarKosign (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: It seems to me that you are mixing up two issues here. First is "Does this section duplicate content from elsewhere? The answer to me, is yes, for reasons mentioned above. The second issue is whether the organization of the section "Violations of international humanitarian law" is good, or it can be improved. I will answer those comments in the other section. Kingsindian (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I think it mostly duplicates, with some information that should be recovered. The duplications will be resolved the moment there is a clean and unique section for each violation, and then we can recover the missing info. - WarKosign (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the photos of the destruction in Gaza ?

There is almost no photos in the article of all the destruction in Gaza because of this war. I think it's fair to say that 95% of the damage where in Gaza.--88.91.235.110 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And wheres the NPOV in that? Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa!! I think the Israeli finth columns needs a Barnstar for such a important work they have done erasing all the evidence of the Gaza bombardement.200.48.214.19 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's best to keep Neutrality in articles like these, as this is a current and ongoing conflict. Secondly all the pictures of the destruction in Gaza are biased and depict the IDF as the antagonist in this conflict. --Prabash.A (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course most of the death and destruction was in Palestine. DUH !!! -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's not NPOV to not show the photos of the destruction of so much of the Gaza strip. Or, stated another way, it's definitely POV to not show those images. There is a serious issue of proportionality. If we show "equal amount of photos from both sides", then we grant undue weight to the side with the less damage, as if they had more. Also, I disagree that images of destruction in Gaza are biased by their very nature ("All the pictures", as quoted above), and neither do they depict anything but destruction. The images can't paint Israel or the IDF more specifically as aggressors. That's false logic. Hires an editor (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The page used to have lots of photos of all kinds, but they were removed (I hope) due to a misunderstanding. I have restored the photos. See this section for details. Kingsindian (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of David Norris

Here is the analysis of David Norris about the conflict, as expressed in a speech at the Senate of Ireland: Video on YouTube. Maybe this could be used a a source for the reactions in other countries?

Sedarr oup gr (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Attack on UN installation in Rafah on Aug 3

This needs to be mentioned in the section on UN. Someone should do it. I might get around to it at some point. Kingsindian (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop changing the info box with unreliable information.

Can someone warn Johorean Boy. He keeps changing the info box to include unreliable information about Israeli tanks being destroyed. He is using this website as his source. It's an unreliable source, the dates are inconsistent since the article is dated July 12th, yet the ground invasion did not start until the 17th. The pictures he's using are also supposedly dated from before this conflict found here. Knightmare72589 (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

He also keeps adding Hamas claim that it killed 161 IDF soldiers. There is no source that verifies this claim or anything near it, all the other sources contradict it absolutely. There is a section with all the other less-than-perfect-truth claims that hamas made, and this is where it belongs, definitely not in the infobox. - WarKosign (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Zionist can not fool all of the people all of the time. --Johorean Boy (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Johorean Boy: I suggest you do your homework. None of those videos show the tanks being destroyed. The anti-tank missiles were actually intercepted and destroyed by the Merkavas Armored Shield Protection-Active Trophy (also known as Windbreaker) as shown here and here. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Protests against Hamas in Gaza.

Hello can someone please provide video/photograph in regards to protests against hamas in Gaza?. these two sources are referenced to such claims and , both of them cite undisclosed sources and provide no evidence (other than font of text of accusation). Can anyone provide any actual evidence and if not can the subject of protests agaisnt hamas in gaza be placed for review?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.169.29 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol this is a big lie. 3bdulelah (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few sources

• http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Report-Hamas-executes-alleged-spies-shoots-protesters-in-Gaza-369331
• http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/29/hamas-police-shoot-kill-starving-gazans-a-day-after-executing-protesters/
• http://www.jspacenews.com/hamas-executions-palestinians-gaza/
• http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/29/Report-Hamas-Killed-20-Palestinian-Anti-War-Protestors-in-Gaza

Don't expect to find much media coverage, considering how Hamas was reported to threaten journalists and how it evidently treated protesters. - WarKosign (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/pictures-defiance-gaza-pro-hamas-rallies-1495148155
• http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/07/374390/palestinians-rally-in-support-of-hamas/
• http://guardianlv.com/2014/08/hamas-winning-the-gaza-public-opinion-war-against-israel/

--Johorean Boy (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Announcement from the Ministry of the Interior in the Gaza Strip

There is a report by ITIC that the Hamas-controlled ministry of the interior in the Gaza Strip issued a warning not to divulge information about terrorist operatives killed in Operation Protective Edge. This is done so more of the killed military operatives would appear in the casualties list as civilians rather than militant. I think this is very notable and important, but don't see where exactly to add this information. Does it belong before/after the casualties table ? Media ? Separate section ? - WarKosign (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't find this information in any RS. Definitly not notable. --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 11:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Ministry of the Interior Facebook page. Translated it says:

"Calls upon the Ministry of Interior and National Security, the children of our people and the resistance factions to the attention concerning the dissemination of information and pictures martyrs of the resistance and the details of martyrdom and places targeted, as the occupation is collecting all this information and testimonies and used as evidence to justify its crimes against civilians and the destruction of homes, as well as benefit the security of it, and singled noteworthy activists of social networking and media of the resistance factions, have been spotted during the past few hours many of the advice that provide sensitive information harmful to our people and their resistance, though stated Championships martyrs and Mqaomina should not be a reason to make a greater harm, because the battle of our people with the occupation is still ongoing." Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

More journalists are reporting being threatened or intimidated now that they are out of Gaza

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4556016,00.html

Now that they're out of the Gaza Strip, the reporters are revealing what Hamas tried to prevent the world from seeing. An Indian reporter, for example, documented how Hamas militants launched rockets from a post right outside the window of the hotel where he was staying in the Gaza Strip, shortly before the ceasefire came into effect. The video aired only after the reporter left Gaza. When asked about it, he replied: "There's a conspiracy of silence rooted in fear – no one want to report in real-time".

Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati also told the truth about Hamas once he left the Strip, no longer under their threat. In a tweet, Barbati said: “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamasretaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday (yesterday) in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.” He added: “@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not #Israel behind it.”

Another foreign reporter said that it is an open secret that Hamas uses Al-Shifa hospital as its command center, but that reporters in Gaza would not report that out of fear that it would endanger them.

However, not only foreign reporters were afraid of Hamas' potential revenge. Palestinian reporters also suffered threats when they attempted to criticize the terrorist organization and give truthful reports.

Local Palestinian reporter Radjaa Abu Dagga, for example, reported that he was summoned for questioning at Al-Shifa hospital, where armed Hamas militants attempted to determine whether he writes for an Israeli newspaper. Abu Dagga said that his passport was taken from him, and he was prohibited from leaving the Gaza Strip. Later he published an article in French newspaper Libération, but was forced to remove it after receiving threats.

Reporters in Gaza were subject not only to threats but also to Hamas' manipulations. The Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan detailed how the organization's men staged the IDF attack scenes: he said that he was taken to photograph a mosque that had been bombed, and discovered that someone had "prepared" the scene and placed a prayer mat and burnt Quran pages.

He later reported that it was obvious that someone had put them there to create empathy for the Palestinian struggle.

The CBN news website said that apart from mosques, Hamas is also using church compounds to launch attacks. In his report, journalist George Thomas said that Gaza's most prominent Christian leader, Archbishop Alexios, "took CBN News to the roof terrace outside his office to show how Islamists used the church compound to launch rockets into Israel."

The Archbishop explained that "Islam is the rule of this place and whatever Hamas says we must obey or face consequences," Thomas added.

I think the parts in this article about journalists need to be cleaned up. There are bits and pieces about journalists all over the place despite there being a section about journalists. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead

The first paragraph of the lead is an embarassment and the ongoing battleground for everyone on all sides to get as much of the "relevant background", as they see it, to the conflict as possible into the lead. I propose that there should be a clear starting point, and some consensual criteria on what to include. Otherwise, it will continue to spiral out of control. Kingsindian (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is about Operation Protective Edge, but even the title refuses to admit it. "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict" title is vague, and most of the events in the background happened in 2014 and they are part of the conflict - why are they background and not part of the article ? If the article is about a military operation, than clearly the beginning point is the end of the previous operation and the background is everything that happened between them. - WarKosign (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas' conditions for a truce

@Monopoly31121993: Your edit here. It is hardly a secret that Hamas' main condition for a ceasefire was ending the blockade. This can be confirmed by hundreds of sources. Even in the source cited, apart for a couple, all of them refer to the blockade and Gaza's economy. And you can't just count them, they all have different weights. The main thrust was to end the blockade.

More importantly, you need to read again WP:SS and WP:LEAD. The lead is the place for a summary, not for including all caveats. All sentences in the lead need not be footnoted. The summary "mostly centered on ending the blockade" for the truce is accurate.

I cannot revert this edit based on ARBPIA sanctions, but it would be good if you reverted it, and discussed it first instead of removing it. Kingsindian (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, editors should not be making judgements about whether Hamas' 10 demands for a truce were "mainly about ending a blockade" or not. If the source didn't say that then it shouldn't be there.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As an example of a different opinion - Hamas demands are mainly about their ability to re-arm. - WarKosign (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

More Hamas executions

Starting to think Hamas executions deserves it's own section if this keeps happening. Knightmare72589 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

POV fork

Why is there a separate Operation Pillar of Defense‎ article? FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably because they are separate operations? Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Hard to tell one euphemistic IDF operation title from another. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Colonel Kemp's statement

@WarKosign: Regarding this edit. What does this have to do with the section on "Warnings by Israel"? Neither the quote nor the source talks about any warnings. There are many other problems with the quote. Why is the opinion of one man important? You can find hundreds on either side who support or oppose Israel's tactics. Kingsindian (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: There are many quotes from people. In this case, as a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan he seems to be knowledgeable on the subject. His quote belongs in the section because he provides a fact - no army ever did more to protect civilians than the IDF in this conflict by warning them, which is the subject of the section. Currently the section consists of 3 paragraphs - first is about Israel giving warning, second is about Hamas telling the people to ignore the warnings, third is about the effectiveness of the warnings.

Hamas' rocket fire on Israel

Why is it not mentioned in the lead that Hamas has not fired back since 2012? Hamas operatives launched rockets for the first time on June 30 in responce to Israeli airstricks and the arrests in the West Bank. I think it's highly important since the lead makes it seem like they never stoped, hence misleading. AcidSnow (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: This is mentioned in the background section. The lead is a mess right now, especially the first paragraph. If you have any comments about it, please leave them here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that makes sence. But what does not makes sence was the removal of the "Anti Palestinian/Arab sentiment" section. But this should not be disscused here but the section above (here). AcidSnow (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

The current caption for the first image reads "Iron Dome shooting down a rocket from Gaza". In the image, only one rocket is visible. Any thoughts? --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 14:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

is it wikipedia or zionist propaganda encyclopedia?

I am confused.. wikipedia itself is not reliable sources..

• Editing Courses Launched by Zionist Propaganda Machine
• exclusive: a pro-Israel group’s plan to rewrite history on Misplaced Pages
• http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/archive/index.php/t-144259.html
• Damned Lies, and Misplaced Pages
• Zionist propaganda body seeks volunteers to distort Misplaced Pages input on ME
• Control of WikiPedia

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests