Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:04, 30 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

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.

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!

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

Requested move

This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead and background

The article is about the "Operation Protective Edge" (or whatever you prefer to call it, if you dislike the IDF name). Acting boldly, I have removed a big chunk of the lead, because it is hugely awkward, and properly refers to the background. Every one of the events in this chunk is mentioned in the background section. And the treatment of those things are much better in that section, instead of a litany of incidents in the lead with no logic for inclusion/exclusion. Already multiple battles are being fought on the this part of the lead including here, here, here, here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the circumstances of there being recurring, ongoing disagreement about what to include in the 'background' part in the lead (as recently as right now), and the lead being really long, your bold move of the information to the article body (which I polished up in these edits) was probably for the best. -sche (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:After our positive interchanges, I am somewhat disappointed that you continue to refer to this article as being about "Operation Protective Edge". The title shows that it clearly is not = "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". We need to achieve closure on this issue because it is leading to grossly inefficient editing by all concerned and a waste of individual time.

I have previously suggested that, if you want to preserve an article named "Operation Protective Edge" then I would fully support that. But then we must DO that, and move the bloated detail about "OPE" to its own page, replacing it with a synopsis in the 2014 overview. In a day or two I will propose a draft Background section that does not violate the subject matter of the current article.

@Erictheenquirer: As you can see on the top of the talk page (and I have also mentioned this in our earlier conversations), there is a 3-month moratorium on moves on this page, therefore, it has to stay with an unsatisfactory title. I did not move the article, but we are stuck with the title name, unless someone puts in a move review request. However even a casual glance at the article shows that 95% (if not higher) of the article is about "Operation Protective Edge". Everyone in this article has been editing as if this deals with "Operation Protective Edge", not the whole of 2014. Most of the issues were with the lead section, which I have trimmed massively. Right now, I do not see much confusion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:I accept that. Please see my conclusions at Talk: POV Tag Needed for Article Lead above, where I will continue the discussion.

@Somedifferentstuff: Could you elaborate on why you went back to the previous version? Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Move Review

As indicated in Talk:"Requested Move" and in Talk:"POV Tag Needed for Article Lead" this article is being considered for a move to Gaza War (2014). I am not against such a move and title change. It is clearly a world-shattering event. However, the move and the suggested new title of "Gaza War (2014)" creates a topic that is not all-encompassing of the 2014 Israel-Palestine conflict.

But this brings with it a potentially grave problem. According to Talk discussions to date, the Gaza War (2014) article resulting from the move will be more specific than (and in fact a subset of) "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict". This means that a number of 2014 events may no longer have a home without a "2014 Conflict" article, since the build-ups of tensions and the outbreaks of conflicts or continuing conflict issues that cannot be directly assigned as causes of the War with WP:RS, will disappear from Wiki content and not just from the article. It is obvious from past edit history that, even with the current 2014 Conflict title, any contribution that illustrates the build-up of 2014 Israel-Palestine tension but has not been directly related to Operation Protective Edge, is subject to removal. Examples are the 2014 continued Gaza blockade by Israel, the restrictions by Israel on Gaza fishing rights, the attacks by Israel on Gaza, the executions of Palestinian leaders, the continued settler violence, etc. With the change in title it is reasonable to expect that even more will be excised.

I therefore conclude that there are two options:

1. To create a second article on the cause-and-effect chain of conflict (preferably in a time sequence), which will contain the Gaza War (2014) in summary form (since it is a sub-set of the 2014 conflicts) and have a background that starts with the November 2012 Ceasefire Agreement and ends with 2013, or
2. To give Gaza War (2014) ample leeway to have detailed 'Background' and/or 'Precursor events and On-going Conflicts' sections which only have to demonstrate the build-up of tension, and not necessarily be sourced as a specific contribution to the War with WP:RS

Should a solution to a full description of the 2014 cause-and-effect chain of tensions along these lines not be implementable, then I would not support the move because it will distort the historical record, and to request that the current title be fully respected. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There may not be a "cause-and-effect" chain that led to this war, not that we can discern, anyway. I don't think "the historical record" would be distorted by properly focusing this article on the actual war itself, without the "c-a-e" thing. That's a bit of an over-generalization. Hires an editor (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: Perhaps your own envisaged contribution fits here. Kingsindian (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Many thanks for pointing out the precedents for other years. Indeed my envisaged article can go there, but only its summary. As you can see, those previous years had a main article and I cannot think of a better one that "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflicts". Thanks you for pointing this out. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:I regret that I couldn't disagree more with your implication that wars start out of the blue. That YOU cannot discern a chain-of-events leading to them is interesting but inconclusive, and should not prevent any other editor from offering detail to the contrary. That you don't "think" that the record would be distorted by focussing just on the war and not also providing the precursor events is obviously a POV. I "think" otherwise but I am furthermore prepared (and fully intend to) to substantiate my "think" by providing full detail in support of my view and to see data offered to the contrary. Selective memory or cherry-picking are not one of my favourite routes to a full historical appreciation - and I hope that I am correct in presuming that that is the objective of such a Wiki article, and not a one-sided surgical excision of anything that does not promote a favoured result.Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I would ask that if you disagree, you be careful to be civil about it. I certainly don't appreciate that you're accusing me of being clueless ("YOU cannot discern"), nor that I'm pushing a POV here, when really, I'd like to limit the scope of the article, and so far the events leading up to the war are in dispute, and undecided upon. Too many different sources say too many different things regarding why Israel decided to invade at the time that it did. Correlation does not imply causation - this is why I say it's difficult to know. I realize that for other wars it's easy to figure things out, but this particular war it's not the case. I also object to the way you seem to discredit "thinking" with scare quotes. Your sarcasm and arrogance are insulting, and no one needs that. I don't have an opinion about this except that it accurately reflect reality, and this topic finds itself very clouded as it relates to reality, since the various sides/factions/actors/commentators/observers feel so strongly about it, and have different and opposing agendas. Hires an editor (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:Admonishments accepted.

Back to process and content. I agree that the facts as to the origin of OPE are cloudy. I also agree that there are many issues and events which may have led to an escalation of tensions and conflict but which cannot be attributed WP:RS to be direct causes of OPE without challenge. But that editorial dilemma is nothing new to Wiki. Some comparable Wiki articles contain such chains-of-events (without direct causative links to the main offensive) within the text of the main article - examples: the Tet Offensive; Operation Desert Storm; United States invasion of Panama; Operation Cast Lead; Yom Kippur War. Others have separate articles concerning the lead-up to major conflicts such as Origins of the Six-Day War; Lead-up to the Iraq War; Events leading to the Falklands War; Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Precursor 'events and issues' are therefore a well-established Wiki precedent, demonstrating that the choice between the options (within or separate) is a question of preference and not of Wiki-validity.

Additionally: Inconsistency 1 - The fact is that the title of the article still is "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict", and that is far more ample that just the bare operation itself. Yet many of my contributions under the actual title have been reverted because they are not specific to OPE, even though they were specific to '2014 Conflict". Hence my frustration and snapping. This anomaly in the form of an existing title that does not reflect what some 'reverting' editors consider the piece should be titled (but is not) is, to say the least, disruptive as we have seen.

Inconsistency 2 - There are certain precursor events which ARE currently in the "2014 Conflicts" article, even though there are also disputes regarding the directness of their contribution. A classic case is the allowance in text of one out of three sets of Teenager killings during the precursor period, with the other two being absent. In strictly rejecting events whose contribution to OPE are not unanimous could mean that there can be only one precursor event to OPE, namely the dramatic increase in rocket fire from Gaza on 7 July. In ruling out earlier events whose direct link to OPE are disputed, we would therefore be obliged to leave out the IDF strike on Gaza of 6 July because it cannot be directly related to OPE, but only to the increase in rocket attacks earlier on the day of OPE initiation. Given this dilemma and the Wiki precedents previously noted, my conclusion was that 2 articles would be warranted: One would keep OPE confined and detailed with specifics, as you suggested, and the other could be "Lead-up to the Gaza War (2014)" or "Origins of Operation Protective Edge", or "2014 Israel-Gaza tension escalation" or .. etc. I am personally amenable to either option, although I have a preference for an (eventual) Operation Protective Edge that is not too bloated.

@Hires an editor: @Kingsindian: @Nishidani: Any comments, particularly on Wiki precedents for wars both 'large' and 'small', as support for a "Lead-up" article, or is the concept accepted? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to be careful of forking for POV reasons. I'm not totally rejecting the idea a fork, since there are forks all over the place regarding this subject. I'm just saying we need to be careful. It's difficult to reach consensus, I understand. I think we might want to editorialize (which I don't think it totally violates WP:SYNTH) to say there were events before the war started, but that few and/or none can be considered directly attributable to the start of the war. We know what the stated aims of the war are, based on statements made by both sides, but what actually prompted Israel to invade at the exact time it did will likely remain in doubt (only because sources don't seem to agree). I don't agree that an OPE article is warranted, since that is really the Israeli name of the war, and the examples you cited earlier all relate to place naming the conflicts; additionally I believe that there is further discussion on this topic elsewhere on this talk page (or in archives) that relates to proper naming not including one side's name for the operation. Neither could I easily find a WP guideline for a naming convention regarding the name of military conflicts of various stripes (what constitutes a skirmish/conflict/war? And at what point do they get names?). So, having said all of that, I think "Gaza War (2014)" should be the title of the article, and that should help narrow the scope, and prevent the background section from getting too long, and make the article be about something specific, and remove questions of what is this article about...

And by the way, we may want to request more editors to get involved in this page, since I was seeing maybe 4 people making regular contributions, and I think that can lead to some undesirable outcomes as it relates to bias. Hires an editor (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:Many thanks for that positive explanation. I read the definition of forking and I believe there is zero probability of that happening in this case. From the Move debate, I am fully supportive of the move and the title Gaza War (2014). I would suggest that there would be little disagreement that the Gaza War (2014) started on 6 July with the IAF air strikes on Gaza, followed by the Gaza rocket barrage and then OPE. The article that I am proposing ENDS on 6 July, and will almost certainly start on 25th November 2012 = no possibility of forking. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza War 2014 works as a more neutral alternative to the arguably loaded name Operation Protective Edge. However:

• How can one say if it is a war or not ? There is warfare going on, but isn't a formal declaration by either side, and least retroactively, needed to call it a war ? Maybe we can use some other term between war and conflict, such as fighting or hostilities until this is officially a war ?
• Lacking a formal declaration of war, who said that 6th of July is the start date ? Does it not constitute OR to pick a date arbitrarily ? Arguably, there were events before the 6th that are as relevant. One point I see is July 8, when Operation Brother's Keeper ended and OPE began. Since there is no dedicated article for OBK, it can be bundled in as well - then the starting point would be the kidnapping of the teenagers. WarKosign (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You do not have to declare war for it to be classed as a war.Gaza War 2014 is a good neutral title.GGranddad (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:GGranddad - also, the Wiki precedents are copious. Regarding the "start", both in the Talk sections on this page and in Misplaced Pages:Move review there is consensus that the moved/renamed article should be directly related to the War. It has been repeatedly emphasised that if conflicts that are not part of the War are included, it opens the door once again to circuitous debate as to which "non-attacks" might be "more pertinent" that others with the risk of the Tyranny of the majority (sensu Olson). The first actual 'noteworthy' attack as such occurred on 6 July. This does not mean that I disagree with you that there are pre-cursor issues that should be recorded in Wiki, just not in this article, and particularly not in detail. There are ample Wiki precedents for this type of a redirect to a "Main" article for the Background summary. And I would suggest that such a summary should indeed correspond to any separate article, but in much abbreviated style. Such precedents in Wiki are provided on this Talk page and in Misplaced Pages:Move review. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on journalists

Can we please keep some perspective on this section? Nobody claims that there was no intimidation whatsoever by Hamas. But please, think a bit about what you're doing. The killing of 8 journalists gets one line in this section, while the intimidation of journalists goes on and on and on and on and on, taking up a full page. Please have some perspective. In my view the intimidation part needs to be drastically condensed, with pro- and con- presented, to one paragraph, not more than half the total section at most. I have discussed this at length on this page before, but people keep insisting on adding more and more stuff. Kingsindian (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That can be objectively dealt with also by creating a subpage for attacks on journalists, not by selectively removing some of many attacks, (which allegedly included even physical torture) on journalist during this war. Also there are similar problems with other sections. Third, if 8 journalist were killed, this needs to be written in the article too (as it is not), expanded, with reliable sources (which is missing). Currently there is just one source, the Maan agency, documenting the death of 3 journalists of Hamas Al Aqsa TV. The 3 foreign journalist who died while Hamas operatives tried to defuse the unexploded Israeli bomb, did not die as a result of attacks on journalist, so this does not belong to this section.--Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas Al Aqsa TV is designated by USA as a "terrorist entity" According to US Al Aqsa TV is part of "terrorist infrastructure" and "USA will not distinguish between a business financed and controlled by a terrorist group, such as Al-Aqsa Television, and the terrorist group itself, . I do not want to take side on this question, but the article must come clear, that there is not a universal understanding that the 3 Al Aqsa TV operatives were just journalists.Tritomex (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Similar labels for Al Aqsa TV, were given by the government of France.

@Tritomex: Of course a section can be made more balanced by a) expanding some things or b) condensing some other things. If you feel that there should be a separate article on "Attacks on journalists", go ahead and create it. Right now, I see this section as taking more space than "rocket attacks on civilians", "destruction of homes" and "infrastructure" sections combined. This is wildly WP:UNDUE. In my opinion, condensing this section is correct option. Kingsindian (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex:So what's that got to do with the price of fish? Al-Aqsa tv is a propaganda channel for Hamas, just as Arutz Sheva is for settlers, or the New York Times for middle class morons who want to feel comfortable about bad things their government does. It is absolutely pointless trying to use sources to make some idiotic statement like the one you propose. What the US might think of al-Aqsa TV is immaterial and undue. It does not recruit, train and engage in terrorist acts.Who gives a fuck what that government happens to say it thinks (it doesn't) of an hardly notable Arab tv channel?, itself a state that defies international law, consistently subverts other states, has launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, of the 248 conflicts since that date, has been formally condemned for its violation of Nicaraguan sovereignty and has . Even its defenders treat the argument that its behaviour fits its own definition of a rogue state seriously. Not for that do we rush round plastering 'rogue state' refs for every article on the US. As A.B. Yehoshua says, calling Hamas a 'terrorist organization' is pointless. Such attribution of absurdly subjective external 'state' opinions serve only to insinuate trivial nonsense.

If you want to fuss up a full length article, go ahead, and take care to mention both sides. I.e., numerous attacks on journalists and artists protesting the war in Israel. Israel was condemned by Human Rights Watch for unprovoked attacks on Palestinian journalists during the 2012 war. Just as Reporters without Borders has complained of attacks on journalists within Gaza this time round, as they complain of Israel's firing at journalists covering the West Bank. Sayed Kashua has people threatening to break his legs or kidnap his children for what he has written recently on the war, so he has broken with the state in whose language he writes so eloquently, and has felt he must expatriate and learn to write in English. Gideon Levy of Haaretz is under 24/7 armed escort because of numerous death threats from Israeli groups for the way he covered the war: his death has already been forecast by an Israeli activist attorney on Facebook. There are dozens of examples, if you really want to push this.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing Misplaced Pages is not a WP:FORUM for your views.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, of course is right about the issues, and gives a lot of sources to include in any separate article. However, I want to keep the current section focused on condensing the section in the current article, which is grotesquely bloated. If everyone agrees on that, I will replace the section with a condensed summary, hopefully in a day or so. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, read WP:NPOV and try to edit accordingly. My views sum the sources given and they were provided to intimate to Tritomex that, as Kingsindian suggested, he's only digging a hole for himself if he pursues expansion, since there is a mass of evidence that could be, but that I for one won't add, on Israeli pressures on journalists, and that jumping at a few articles referring to Hamas and journalism to spin a government line while ignoring these would both violate WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. Lastly, it's often forgotten that this is a global encyclopedia, and that what the US or Canada or others spin is, to billions of people, boring or a sheer hypocritical pretext for the assertion of power interests. Many users have to be reminded of that, because they tend, in their edits, to confuse mainstream information with what a few outlets in interested western countries say. It is not to abuse WP:FORUM to remind editors to drop our provincialism, and read more widely. Meaning here, that Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization by a lot of countries: al-Qaeda expelled the future founders of ISIS because its leaders found them too 'terroristic', and in respect of those two vile organizations, Hamas is, in non-Western terms, quite 'liberal' (Christians live under its sway), as compared to a Western 'ally' like Saudi Arabia. I commend therefore attempts to sum this section up in a few balanced, well sourced lines, that cover complaints about Israel and Hamas equally.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times or Arutz Sheva is not considered by USA and EU, as "terrorist entity" while Al Aqsa TV is considered as such, and the USA officially declared all Al Aqsa TV operatives as "terrorists" This can be seen from official US government sources mentioned above. I do not take sides on the question whether this Al Aqsa TV operatives are journalist or not, for huge part of world they are not considered as such, and this can not be just left out of the article. For the rest I can fully agree with Shrike, this is not the place to discuss unrelated issues. There are relevant articles and sections where such issues could be mentioned. If eventual Israeli attacks on journalist happened during this war, this must be also added to this section as per WP:NPOV if it is not done yet.--Tritomex (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section. I condensed it and removed one clearly undue bit about someone being threatened on twitter, and sorted the information into:

• one paragraph on journalists' deaths,
• one long paragraph on Israel's and others' views that journalists are subject to intimidation,
• one paragraph on views that journalists are not subject to intimidation,
• one paragraph containing a Hamas spokesperson's comment that it questions journalists, and
• one paragraph on Israeli attacks on media stations.

-sche (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Needs much more condensing, especially removal of individual names (French journalist, FT reporter, RT reporter). Can't go on enumerating all the cases like this. Are we going to list every reporter Haaretz spoke to, or every reporter that was killed? This is not a correct procedure. A general statement about this should be enough. Also the Hamas spokesperson has a very long quote, it should be summarized, saying that they did not like reporters reporting on military or intelligence matters and they interrogated/questioned/told them about it. If someone else wants to do this, they can, otherwise I will do it tomorrow, because of 1RR restriction. Kingsindian (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to remove the names, especially not the reasons and circumstances of the attacks. This are very important issues. In my view this is now fully WP:NPOV and objective as all events and sides were given equal cc space. Additional changes would make it unbalanced and would require additional chamnges.--Tritomex (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Reasons for not removing the names? As I mentioned already, we can't enumerate all the cases like this. What issues are the names adding? They are all mentioned already (intimidation, threatening of journalists, etc.) Kingsindian (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why not to add specific attacks on journalists. This is the subject of this section. We already went to individual narratives (on less important issues) when we added "Jodi Rudoren, who wrote "every reporter I’ve met who was in Gaza during war says this Israeli/now FPA narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense.” The Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed many foreign journalists and found "all but a few of the journalists deny any such pressure". They said Hamas' intimidation was no worse than they have gotten from the IDF, and said no armed forces would permit reporters to broadcast militarily sensitive information. Furthermore, most reporters seldom saw Hamas fighters, because they fought from concealed locations and in places that were too dangerous to approach." So selective removals are not justified.--Tritomex (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding sources, but due to 1RR i have to wait additional 10 hours to fix it. --Tritomex (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the text of the piece which quotes Rudoren since it is behind a paywall, but I would be happy to include instead, a generic statement saying that many people disagree with the FPA assessment. I do not know why the Haaretz report is called "individual narrative". Having a section "Attack on Journalists" does not mean one has to enumerate all the attacks on journalists. Obviously we are not listing all the people Haaretz talked to, or all the Palestinian journalists who are killed, or their circumstances. I have put a draft of the section here. It addresses all the issues raised above but is condensed. Anyone can comment or put it up, or I can put it up tomorrow. Kingsindian (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rudhoren quote without attribution would look even worse than it looks now. Factual and documented attacks on journalists are much more important for this section, than one newspaper point view based on interview with some unnamed journalist. However, my suggestion was to leave this section as it is. --Tritomex (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I have removed the Rudoren quote entirely in my draft. As to your second point, you have got it entirely backwards. The quality of the Haaretz evidence is much higher than the individual cases. If you want to know the scale of intimidation etc. of a population of 700 journalists (being threatened etc.), there are two ways of doing it. One is the Haaretz way, talking to a sample of journalists and asking them what their experience was. All of them reported little or no intimidation. The second way is to look at a self-selected sample of journalists who reported intimidation. Neither is a scientifically precise method, but the first is much better methodologically. It is fine to include the concerns raised by the 2nd group, but it is not legitimate to enumerate all of them. Kingsindian (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your draft is not in line with WP:NPOV , and such huge rewriting of entire section needs consensus per Misplaced Pages rules.

International humanitarian law is not subject of this section. Palestinian media news, is not reliable source regarding the number of journalists killed, especially regarding AL Aqsa TV operatives. Specific attacks on journalist can not be censored. (btw attacks on journalists were not self-selected). The fact that foreign media association condemned some of this attack, does not mean that they shouldn't be mentioned in this section specifically dedicated to this topic, in the same way as other condemnation of attacks by international bodies, does not mean that those attacks shouldn't be mentioned. The death of 3 Italian journalists is unrelated to this section. They did not die as a result of attacks on journalists. The compromise done by -sche has my support.--Tritomex (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: The search for consensus is precisely the reason I made a draft and did not edit in the main space. I hardly rewrote the entire section. I only expanded slightly the first paragraph and condensed the last. The killing of the Italian journalist is already present in the current version. If someone wants to make an argument as to why it should be removed, I am open to it. I have removed the "Palestinian News" source because it is not needed. If he wishes, -sche can state his opinion about whether the draft I made is better than the current version. I will wait for 24 hours for people to incorporate anything from my draft which they see fit. If, at that time, I still consider the section unsatisfactory, I will open an RfC. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I notice your draft combines "Israel has bombed Hamas' Al-Aqsa radio and TV stations" and "Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver" into one paragraph. I'm not sure what the logic of combining those subjects is; I think grouping "Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver" and " Hamas intimidates journalists in Gaza", as the article currently does (due to me) makes more sense. I am fine with moving the "Israel has bombed..." paragraph to be above the "Israel has made foreign..." paragraph (indeed, that makes sense, since it puts it next to the other paragraph on journalists being killed), but I think they should be separate paragraphs. (Perhaps "Israel has made foreign..." and " Hamas intimidates..." should also be separate paragraphs.) I think you did a good job summarizing/condensing the Hamas spokesperson's comments. I'm not sure wholesale removal of the comments by specific journalists is desirable, though I agree that they need to be shortened. There's probably a middle ground between removing them entirely and retaining them intact; I'll take a stab at it in a moment. Have other members of the FPA besides Rudoren (and the unnamed reporters she says she talked to) criticized the FPA's stance? If so, I could see saying "Members of the FPA are divided over the statement regarding Hamas harassment, with one saying the 'narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense'." But if not, then (a) it's not accurate to generalize to "members" plural, and (b) it makes sense to retain Rudoren's name. Your changes to the first paragraph were extensive and I'll give feedback on them in a separate comment. -sche (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm having a harder time than I thought I would figuring out how to shorten the comments by specific journalists. I notice that of the three citations which had been given for those comments, one didn't actually contain relevant information, and the other two have been flagged as having POV problems. -sche (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks for the comments.

• There is no real logic in the way I combined the waivers. I just wanted to keep all the criticism against one side together. I had initially put the sentence in a paragraph by itself, but it seemed too awkward. It belongs in a paragraph by itself, I think. It is not directly related to intimidation.
• Regarding the FPA statement, I just used the title of Haaretz's report: "Foreign press divided over...". The article is behind a paywall and I do not know what details it gives. But the title is indicative of the disagreement with the FPA statement. The quote by Rudoren also emphasises that she has talked to other journalists. We can assume that she is not lying about this.
• I will add, though this is not relevant to your points, that the inclusion of this particular FPA statement in this section is disturbingly selective. Just take a look at the list of FPA statements in 2014 here. Every statement except this one is criticizing Israel...yet it is the only one included. There is a specific statement on July 23, probably referring to this Avigdor Lieberman criticized Al-Jazeera, and next day, their offices were hit. The statement refers specifically to "incitement" though it does not name the party, all the examples given deal with Israel.
• Regarding the individual journalists. Firstly, my reasoning was that it would simply be WP:UNDUE to talk about individual cases like this, instead of the issues. If we list all the cases of harassment by Hamas, we have to give perhaps 10 times (at least) the space to list all the cases of killings by the other side, given the severity and the number of violations. Secondly, all the issues raised by the individual journalists, namely intimidation, deportation and interrogation, they are all presented. Adding in the individual cases adds nothing at all to the section, except bloat and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping out of this thread for a while; I got distracted in real life. I see that the information has been split into two sections (seems like a good move) and rewritten (looks fine). Cheers, :) -sche (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Subtle anti-Arab racism

"Critics also point to structural biases in the UN; Arab and Muslim countries number over 50, ensuring a broad coalition criticizing Israel"

Very prejudicial statement. I'd suggest rewording it to sound less racist. This assumes that some countries have some sort of inherent bias or disingenuousness in their treatment of Israel on the international stage only because demographically they happen to have Arab or Muslim majorities. JDiala (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But that is not all. The subsection Talk:"Allegations of UN Bias" is the worst case of bias that I have seen during my (admittedly brief) period as a Wiki contributor. It contains text without references; text written in the passive voice; vague allocations such as "critics" when "Israeli commentators" is a far more specific label; it misquotes references; and when only lesser portions of a reference support the article's bias, the alternative view is not mentioned. Just a few examples are:

1. Quote: “The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict.” The supplied citation in fact focusses on the anguish of a UNRWA official at the situation in which “the rights of Palestinians – even their children – are wholesale denied”. The only mention of criticism of UNRWA are in uncited third-party references.
2. The i24 reference is equally appalling, since its lead criticism is based on: “I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll … and I don't see that as a crime.” The same point is raised in another citation as a reason to suspect UNRWA’s trustworthiness. Let us not forget that in the 2006 elections Hamas gained 48% of the vote, probably higher in Gaza due to the number of refugees there. Presumably UNRWA would therefore become more ‘trustworthy’ if it started employing discriminatory hiring practices.
3. Another Asaf Romirowsky piece is quoted as “casting a shadow” over UNRWA, that wording presumably having been chosen because the cited reference uses the word ‘apparently’ to make its most telling point.
4. If those weren’t enough, the Claudia Rosett references take the cake. UNRWA is guilty of bias against Israel because it provides social services to Gaza and thereby relieves Hamas of the burden of having to do so. No … I am quite serious, the UN agency is suspect because it provides humanitarian aid.

Furthermore, the section is justified in the Operation Protective Edge article by “During the present conflict the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question”. May I be permitted to introduce a section named “Western Media bias” by starting with “During the present conflict the impartiality of mainstream Western media sources have fallen under question”? I suspect that I will be reverted before I can wipe my nose.

I suggest that it is this entire subsection that displays an astonishing bias, and not UNRWA. Unless this hopelessly one-sided bigotry is addressed, plus its existence properly justified, I intend to trash the lot. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Take it all out. The amount of time spent challenging the bona fides of a group that has provided sustenance to the poor for 60 years, educating, clothing and feeding them, not only in Gaza, is frankly obscene. It's WP:Undue also for the fact that if one wanted, for every googlable criticism of UNWRA one could google up hundreds of criticisms of parties actually engaged in militarily supporting one or the other side, and cram the text with it, spamming this article into impossible limits. These articles should be stringently wooed to the facts of what happened, the background, the outcome, established by fairly good reportage.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for 24 hours to see if someone wants to defend the guilty subsection as it is.Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read further, and here are some more howlers from the current text and citations:

1. Next are the missiles discovered at an UNRWA school that was in recess. In detailing UNRWA's 'untrustworthiness' the citation uses words such as 'apparently','presumably' and 'unclear', the Wiki text turning these into supposed fact = rank bad text and/or citation.
2. Next, the claim that Ocha has been criticised regarding "the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports". The Algemeiner reference provided to support this notes that the sources of the OCHAO data are B’Tselem (an Israeli human rights group established in February 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members), the PCHR (established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists), and Al Mezan (funded by official Dutch, Swiss and Swedish agencies) – "all of which are 'political' NGOs with a less than pristine record on impartiality in Israel-related matters." No mention is made of the fact that the data for Israeli casualties and attacks from Gaza come from the Israeli Security Agency, a 100% Israeli government institution, and that such a source is not required to be subject to any test of 'bias'. This playing-field has a 45º slope.

Forgot to sign Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala, Erictheenquirer, and Nishidani: This has already been brought up here. The whole section needs to be rewritten, at the least or simply dumped. Nobody has yet done so. If you want it to happen, you should be WP:BOLD and do it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The section is well sourced if someone have reliable sources for "western media bias" go ahead and add such section.--Shrike (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Sourcing The fact that it has sources is not enough. This section was added more than a week ago, as I indicated above, by I.am.a.qwerty. It is fundamentally flawed, and 6(!!) people have noticed its fundamental flaws. The original poster has made no replies, nor has (s)he bothered to improve it. It is a mass of scattershot statements attacking the UN on mostly silly charges, all of which have been answered, and none were seen fit to be included by the original poster. There is a whole article on all the criticisms and their replies, if anyone wanted to add it. Unless the original poster tries to at least attempt to fix some of the problems, it deserves to be junked. Kingsindian (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, you reverted without apparently consulting the page or the earlier section where its inadequacy was noted. It's not our burden to perfume POV crap, - I note you haven't trouble to actually improve it, i.e. do some editing on it- the original editor plunking it in there did a poor job, and the best that can be done for it is for it to be excerpted and placed here to be reworked until a consensual version is worked out. This page is already burnt out with bad material, poor organization, over 400 sources, and close to 200,000 bytes which is three times what a comprehensive well-tuned article usually should aim at. So it is self-evident, severe pruning is required, and Eric did so after gaining the approbation of editors on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: They were editorials written by journalists, and even though Misplaced Pages is open to reporting different viewpoints, if a particular statement which is made is unsubstantiated, erroneous or unencyclopedic, there is no reason why it ought to be included. JDiala (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: et. al. The section title alleges "subtle anti Arab racism" a claim not substantiated in the discussion. I don't see how those who point to structural biases in the UN (50+ Arab countries, likely to be more sympathetic to Palestinian causes over Israeli ones vs. a sole Jewish state with few allies other than US, Canada, Australia etc.) as subtle anti-racism. You've got no basis to say that a criticism of an organization's structural and procedural design, intended or not, is somehow "racism."

Its an ethnic conflict, the fact that the voting patterns have consistently been all Muslim and Arab countries voting against a Jewish state embroiled in a long term conflict with an Arab minority is not "racism." I don't see how dropping allegations of racism furthers the development of this article.

You somehow turn the conversation into the reliability of sources criticizing the UN. That should be done under a seperate section. The fact that you combined the two shows you seek to maximize your argument by mixing "racism" and "reliability" in an effort to create a subtext that all critics of the UN are somehow racist. And using such descriptive terms such as "obscene" "POV crap" "hopelessly one-sided bigotry" is an appeal to emotion rather than logic. I say until this discussion can be conducted without polemical manipulation, we keep the text as it or scrap this discussion until editors can think clearly and remain cool headed. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty: First of all, the organizational and structural construction of the UN is not of concern. However, suggesting that the racial and religious aspects of the organizational structure are the cause of the structural bias, and that these alleged casual factors are important enough to be considered encyclopedic is another story. That would require justification of the former point, and also justification that the influence of the Arab countries, who are a minority in the UN, overshadows the influence of non-Arab/Muslim countries. Concerning the usage of the term "racism", I don't find it incorrect. The article singled out Arab countries as the source of the alleged UN bias, even though, for example, India, China and Latin America also consistently vote against Israel in general assembly resolutions. Furthermore, certain groups voting for or against something does not imply "structural bias". Every country, other than the ones who abstain from voting, are biased. However, this has nothing to do with their race or religion. If you invoke ethnic background into the discussion as the cause and the source of perceived bias, then that is racial. The statement had racial connotations; it assumes that Arab and Muslim countries possess some sort of inherent bias or disingenuousness in their treatment of Israel on the international stage only because demographically they happen to have Arab or Muslim majorities. That claim needed to be substantiated, which was never done.

Also, your assertion that it's an ethnic conflict is irrelevant. There is an ethnic role, yes, but ethnicity plays a role in almost all conflicts other than maybe civil wars. Ethnicity is a social categorization. You just defining various subsets within the human species (Arab, Jew) in such a way that smaller subsets(Palestinians, Lebanese, Saudis) are a part of the same larger set (Arab) so you can misleadingly assert things like "Arab countries voting against a Jewish state embroiled in a long term conflict with an Arab minority" without acknowledging the fact that the small subsets have their own unique ethnic identity independent to that of a supposed pan-Arab identity, and that there is no evidence that being a part of a greater pan-Arab set is the cause of alleged UN bias or preferential treatment of the Palestinian minority in the land of Palestine. If this were the case, why has the "Arab" Egypt country practically abandoned the Gazans now? Why have the Saudis not played a major role in any aspect of the conflict?

Were "white" countries the source of "UN structural bias" for, say, the fact that it permitted the War in Afghanistan because the United States is also predominately white? The degree to which race and ethnicity play a role in this conflict relative to other political or social variables is debatable. Furthermore, the statement also mentioned religion. If Indonesia votes against Israel, a country which has historically had nothing to do with the conflict, is it because it has a structural bias because of its religion? Again, that's an unsubstantiated assertion and claiming that race and religion are the prime motivating factors of certain countries to vote for or against a particular country in the UN is inherently racist and prejudicial. JDiala (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the section has been moved to the talk page while there is an invitation to work on it. It needs a lot of work before it can be classified as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Kingsindian (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The underlying assumption that Arab/Muslim countries are biased against Israel does sound racist (whether or not it is true http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1359197/k.6748/UN_Israel__AntiSemitism.htm). How about mentioning that there are 32 UN members that do not recognize Israel ? Is it ok to assume they are biased ? WarKosign (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The site you linked is a partisan source. It does not seem scholarly or WP:Reliable, nor does it have a bibliography to substantiate its assertions. Nevertheless, that is in my view a fair point. You can mention something like "a certain number of countries within the UN do not recognize Israel". Regardless, you still obviously need to prove that these countries, which represent a clear minority relative to the nearly 200 countries within the UN, create some sort of "structural bias". The Goldstone report, for example, was written by a South African self-recognized Zionist. Ban-ki Moon is a Korean. The degree to which the countries which do not recognize Israel affect the UN's reports is most likely negligible. My main point was that there is no need to invoke religion or ethnicity into it. That's all I'm trying to say. JDiala (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA section. Work out a consensual version

==Allegations of UN bias==

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (August 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. ^ McCoy, Terrance. "The controversial U.N. agency that found rockets in its Gaza schools." The Washington Post. 1 August 2014.
2. Romirowsky, Asaf. "UNRWA, UNHRC: Fighting for Human Rights or Supporting Terrorrism?." Israel Channel 24 News. Accessed 12 August 2014.
3. Rosett, Claudia. "The U.N. Handmaiden of Hamas." The Wall Street Journal. 7 August 2014.
4. Rosett, Claudia. "Gaza Bedfellows UNRWA And Hamas." Forbes. 8 January 2009.
5. Joffee, Alexander and Asaf Romirowsky. "From Welfare to Warfare." Mosaic Magazine. 2 August 2014.
6. Derby, Kevin. "Marco Rubio Wants John Kerry to Look at UN Role With Hamas." Sunshine State News. 7 August 2014.
7. "Uncovering the Sources of Jeremy Bowen’s BBC Gaza Casualty Figures." The Algemeiner Journal. 15 July 2014.
8. Cite error: The named reference OCHA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference ynetnews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Betsy Pisik. "WAR OF WORDS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND UN CONTINUES." The Daily Beast. 9 August 2014.
11. "how the United Nations was perverted into a weapon against Israel." The New York Post. 26 July 2014.

Gazan tunnels

I've decided to remove some of the irrelevant sentences from this paragraph. This section has multiple issues which should be resolved. Mhhossein (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I have replaced the Gazan tunnels section with the lead for the "Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip" section using Misplaced Pages:Transclusion#Partial_transclusion. The problems with this section are longstanding. See discussion here for the basic discussion. Just search "tunnels" in the archives for plenty more discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The section makes sense now. You are doing the energy demanding job of taking care of this article. Thanks.Mhhossein (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Indispensable section removed by Avaya1 without discussion. To be expanded.

Added to the main article with some expansions and changes like including Gazan tunnels inside this section

Gazan rockets The number of rockets used by Gazan militias vary in range, size and lethality. They include the M-302 which is Syrian made (based on a Chinese design), and the locally made M-75 which have the range to target Tel-Aviv. Other rockets include the Soviet Katyusha and Qassams. Hamas has also used a "crude, tactical" drone, reported to be Iranian-made and named "Ababil-1". Palestinian militant groups have also used anti-tank rockets and anti-tank mines against armoured personnel carriers. Lethality According to Theodore Postol, the vast majority of Gazan artillery rocket warheads contain 10- to 20-pound explosive loads. Postol states that these missiles are incapable of causing damage to well-sheltered people. Mark Perry states that "Hamas’ arsenal is considerably weaker today than it was in 2012" and that "Hamas’ Fajr-5 guidance system was crude, at best, and its warhead nearly non-existent." Israel This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. − Israel has used air, land and naval weaponry. The artillery includes Soltam M71 guns and U.S.-manufactured Paladin M109s (a 155-mm howitzer). The aerial weaponry includes drones and F-16 fighter jets. Drones are used to constantly monitor the Gaza strip. Israel's early warning sirens and extensive shelters have been an effective defense against Gazan rocketry. They are less effective against short-range mortars because of less time to react. References "Syrian made M302." The Jerusalem Post. Accessed 12 August 2014. "Long range Hamas rockets." IBTimes. 10 August 2014. "Hamas firing chia designed rockets." NBC News. Accessed 12 August 2014. "M75 strikes Tel Aviv." Maan News Accessed 12 August 2014. "Hamas produces rockets as fighting winds down." The Guardian. 13 August 2014. "Hamas Rocket Arsenal." Business Insider. July 2014. Smith, Alexander (15 July 2014). "Hamas' Drone Program Will Not Worry Israel, Experts Say". NBC News. ^ Perry, Mark (27 August 2014). "Why Israel's bombardment of Gaza neighborhood left US officers 'stunned'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 28 August 2014. "IDF releases details on Shejaiya battle in which 7 soldiers died". The Times of Israel. July 20 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system is an ironclad success | The Great Debate Mark Perry (3 August 2014). "Gaza's Bottle Rockets". Foreign Affairs. http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/israeli-drones-buzz-ghost-towns-gaza-24628058 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140721-gaza-strip-tunnels-israel-hamas-palestinians/ Theodore Postol, Explanation of the Evidence of Weaknesses in the Iron Dome Defense System MIT Technology Review 15 July 2014

I have added the military section to the main page. There have been some expansions. Also included tunnels inside the section. Kingsindian (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The lethality of rockets isn't really relevant to the article. I'm sure the families of those killed by rockets and those who live under constant rocket fire would disagree that they are "harmless". Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the section does not call them "harmless". Indeed, since 7 civilians have been killed, they're not harmless. The section only quotes two scholars describing the capabilities and the size of the warhead. One of them calls it "incapable of harming well-sheltered people". That is his judgement, properly attributed. If you have contrary information about the size of the warheads etc., you can add it. The section needs expansion. Kingsindian (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That is essentially what it is saying. That they are basically harmless. Also, it doesn't say what "well-sheltered" exactly is. Is it a shelter that has a roof or a bomb shelter? If it's the latter, then that is the point of a bomb shelter. The bomb shelter is what saves lives. To shelter people against bombs. The type of warhead is perfectly fine. But the opinion of how lethal they are is just that, an opinion. Knightmare72589 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Improving the "Alleged violations of international humanitarian law" section

I see the following problems and would like to hear objections to the changes I intent to make before I proceed. The main problem is that titles of the violations do not correlate directly to International humanitarian law. Are there other, more specific laws/rules that we can use to assign each violation to the specific rule it violates ?

• Violations by Israel:
  • Civilian Deaths - an alleged violation is of Principle of distinction and/or Necessity and proportionality.
  • Destruction of homes - ditto.
  • Shelling of UNRWA schools - ditto
  • Infrastructures - ditto
  • Attacks on journalists - I don't see it covered by IHL.I know it's "wrong" to attack journalists, but which law does it violate ?

• Violations by Hamas:
  • Human shields and its sub-sections - obviously Principle of distinction
  • Intimidation of journalists - same question as above
  • A missing section - use of militants in civilian clothes. It is mentioned in passing as a part of intimidation of journalists.

- WarKosign (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I am not sure what exactly you are trying to do. IHL has two basic principles. Proportionality and Distinction. That is correct. But what does this have to do with this section? You are not making judgements based on these principles, the various organizations are. One should mention the various areas which are notable and let the various organizations given their opinions in each area. Kingsindian (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I'm trying to find a list of applicable laws and rules. Area being notable or not is subjective. A set list of rules is an objective way to list all the violations. There is this list, for example International_humanitarian_law#IHL_provisions_and_principles_protecting_civilians, but it also doesn't cover UN or journalists. Or, for example Perfidy - is it a violation of IHL ? is it a war crime ? WarKosign (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: As I said, it is not up to you or me to determine which laws were broken. At the moment, there is no comprehensive report of all the alleged violations, like the Goldstone report, for example. One could have used that as a source in the 2008-9 war. Right now, we have to go by notability, and what the different organizations say about each topic. Kingsindian (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Attacking journalist violates the Geneva convention obviously as they are civilians. GGranddad (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is illegitimate, as proposed, it involves WP:OR. We are not in here to adjudicate what international law says and then evaluate these instances. We are here strictly to transcribe what mainstream news sources report. That is all. There is no margin for working our way round or out of what sources state.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think there is enough space to list all international law issues related to attacks on journalists. For huge part of world, including official US and EU governments, Al Aqsa TV operatives are not considered to be "journalists" but "terrorists" I cited an official US government position, that all employed by Al Aqsa TV should be considered "terrorists". I do not take stand on this issue, and I think no one should take position siding with one or other view. This issue previously raised a huge polemic However this contradictory views on Al Aqsa TV operatives have to be make clear, when they are mentioned in this context.--Tritomex (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The word terrorist is a bit of joke, it is used by state actors to diminish the people who are fighting against them. The Nazis used to call people fighting against them terrorists as well. Also just because America considers someone to be a terrorist does not make it true. Fact is that most of the entire world do not consider Hamas to be terrorists. Anyway these two guys were journalists and deserve the protection under the law.Amnesty and HRW actually considers the bombing of media outlets in Gaza as a war crime.GGranddad (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You have right for your personal opinion and even bias on this issue, outside Misplaced Pages. For Misplaced Pages articles, neutrality of editing and respecting all relevant views is a must. Our opinions are not sources for any claims. The opinion of USA government and EU governments, and others is however something that must be taken in consideration when balanced WP:NPOV, edits on this issue is being made. Otherwise anyone could claim, on any subject, whatever is his/her political attitude. its not upon us to judge on Al Aqsa TV operatives, but to present all relevant views.Tritomex (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, we can put forward that the USA and Israel consider all Hamas media workers and journalists are terrorists while stating that the entire rest of the world does not think so.GGranddad (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, pending that you have reliable source that the "entire rest of world" does not think so.Tritomex (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tritomex, please desist. When Israel wiped out the 42 graduates of a Gaza police academy in the first hour of the 2008 operation, and then murdered another 200 while bombing police stations, international law experts said that this was a violation of international law. The Goldstone report, to cite one of many that distinguish police from the military in a state, found:

The Mission examined the attacks against six police facilities, four of them during the first minutes of the military operations on 27 December 2008, resulting in the death of 99policemen and nine members of the public. Overall, the approximately 240 policemen killed by Israeliforces constitute more than one sixth of the Palestinian casualties. The circumstances of the attacks seem to indicate, and the Government of Israel’s July 2009 report on the military operations confirm, that the policemen were deliberately targeted and killed on the ground that the police, as an institution or a large part of the policemen individually, are, in the Government of Israel’s view, part of the Palestinian military forces in Gaza. 34. To examine whether the attacks against the police were compatible with the principle of distinction between civilian and military objects and persons, the Mission analysed the institutional development of the Gaza police since Hamas took complete control of Gaza in July 2007 and merged the Gaza police with the “Executive Force” it had created after its election victory. The Mission finds that, while a great number of the Gaza policemen were recruited among Hamas supporters or members of Palestinian armed groups, the Gaza police were a civilian law-enforcement agency. The Mission also concludes that the policemen killed on 27 December 2008 cannot be said to have been taking a direct part in hostilities and thus did not lose their civilian immunity from direct attack as civilians on this basis. The Mission accepts that there may be individual members of the Gaza police that were at the same time members of Palestinian armed groups and thus combatants. It concludes, however, that the attacks against the police facilities on the first day of the armed operations failed to strike an acceptable balance between the direct military advantage anticipated (i.e. the killing of those policemen who may have been members of Palestinian armed groups) and the loss of civilian life i.e. the other policemen killed and members of the public who would inevitably have been present or in the vicinity), and therefore violated international humanitarian law.

To be a member of Hamas is not to be a terrorist, except as a POV. Terrorist organizations do not sign documents, as Hamas just did, which allow the ICJ to bring any of their members to justice, if they are accused, as the US, Eu, and Israel may wish to do, of terroristic acts. As is well known, the US itself has granted exemption from prosecution to many convicted terrorists, and refuses to sign precisely the protocols that would open its own actions in foreign countries to prosecution for terrorism.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention to discuss 2008 or 2012 events, nor I wish to take stand what Hamas is. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. I would like to have the exact list of each country standing on this issue, to know exactly what neutral editing on this subject requires. As far as I found only 2 countries outside Arab and Islamic world, explicitly stated not to consider Hamas a terrorist organization (Russia, and China) while inside Arab world, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan banned or designed Hamas as terrorist organization, as did all EU countries, Australia, Japan, United States, New Zeeland, Canada and Mexico, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia) I do not have knowledge about the position of other countries (South American states, Africa, South Korea, and even other Arab countries for example). If someone knows reliable source on this issue, it could be helpful, for all editors.

What I want to ask everyone, once again, is to adhere to 1RR, as there were again serious breaches of this rule, in last few days.--Tritomex (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR. One comment: anyone can sign a paper. Even a law less terrorist organization like ISIS or Hamas. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

55 total Palestinians have reportedly been executed by Hamas

75+ if you count the Palestinian protesters being killed. If this reaches a certain number, should this get it's own section under Palestinian casualties? Maybe be called "Palestinians killed by Palestinians (or Hamas)" Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: There is a section, feel free to add relevant information backed by reliable sources. WarKosign (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for at least 3 separate waves of executions and another killing of 20 demonstrators in july and early august.--Tritomex (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, be kind and add it to the casualties template at the head of the article. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It sums up to 88 or 113 people:

• 20 + 30 on July 30
• 2 "a few days later"
• 3+18 on August 21 and 22
• 4 more on August 23
• Strangling Necks" on 21 and 22nd of August - 25. Is it the same as 3+18 above ?
• 1 - hamas co-founder
• Hamas's rockets falling short - at least 10

Currently the casualties table contains a note with a link to this section. I would prefer to add the number of casualties there, but it probably goes above permitted by WP:CALC. WarKosign (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: This kind of thing would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The information comes from different sources, and is of varying quality and reliability. One cannot simply lump them all together. There needs to be a reliable, secondary source doing the calculation, not editors. Kingsindian (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6

Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6.

• The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge."
• Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge."
• Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught."
• New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. "
• The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge"
• Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire."

I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions.

J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over"

Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Misplaced Pages's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Al-Aqsa

@WarKosign: Your edit here is not to the point. Whether the US govt. defines Al-Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is beside the point of whether targeting them is legal or not. Kingsindian (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Why not ? Argument: Israel attacked journalists, which is an alleged violation of IHL. Counter argument: some international bodies, including the US government consider them terrorists, which makes them a legitimate target. WarKosign (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing alleged about it, if you attack journalists then you are breaking the law. I believe Israel killed about 9 journalists in Gaza this time around.Can you show us a link from some international bodies that states that journalists are terrorists? Thanks. GGranddad (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No one, other than ISIS, attacked journalists. A TV station is not a journalist and journalists do get killed in war zones even without being a direct target. To the point -- if ISIS TV station is attacked, certainly, it merits to add that it is considered a terrorist body regardless if ISIS "journalists" are killed in the process. (read: replace ISIS with Hamas -- there's not a huge difference anyway ) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS? Please try and keep to the topic, this is about Gaza and journalists there. HRW and Amnesty have both accused Israel of attacking journalists and media outlets in Gaza illegally.GGranddad (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: Sure it is alleged. You are alleging it now. Wishing or believing it very strongly doesn't make it absolute truth. Do you have on you undeniable proof that the event happened, that they were indeed journalists and not terrorists in disguise, that they were killed by IDF and that it happened intentionally ? We are not here to decide whether the allegation are correct or not. We are only to report them. We do have proof that such a claim was made, hence this section. WarKosign (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not alleged that it is against the law to attack journalists, it is against the law.You stated that attacking journalists was allegedly against the law, you are wrong, it is against the law.GGranddad (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This from HRW. “Just because Israel says a journalist was a fighter or a TV station was a command center does not make it so,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Journalists who praise Hamas and TV stations that applaud attacks on Israel may be propagandists, but that does not make them legitimate targets under the laws of war.”GGranddad (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To the point of this section (legal debates are a waste of time) -- a gazillibillion NGOs and their failed electornic-intifada contributors (see section about Ms Awad), are not more important than the tiny insignificant government called USA. If they say something about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or about the Hamas run PR department called Al-Aqsa TV) it belongs in the article's body. Yes. It does. In fact, it should probably be placed before NGO allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Your added statement makes no reference to the legality of targeting them. It simply says that the US govt. does not distinguish between Hamas and al-Aqsa television station as terrorist. The relevant policy is quoted by GGranddad, however, that comes from 2012, so it cannot be directly included here. I am still waiting for HRW etc. to write a comprehensive report, but for the moment, I have included Reporters without Borders statement and Al-Haq statement affirming the illegality of targeting journalists even if they are propagandists or belong to a so-called terrorist organization. To MarciulionisHOF, I have ignored you till now, and will continue to ignore you. Please read WP:FORUM. Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have stated it was from 2012 but it obviously points out HRW opinion on the law relating to events and the same events happened in 2014 Gaza war.We need to wait for the NGO reports from this conflict of course.GGranddad (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:. Sources "affirming" and "plastering" and all that jazz are indeed foruming. US gov perspective is not foruming, though. I hope these points are clear enough so that no one will ignore them. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Once it established (that some people believe) that Al-Aqsa TV journalists are member of Hamas, attacking them is as (il)legal as attacking any (other) hamas member. This source mentions that IDF believe this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/20/israelgaza-unlawful-israeli-attacks-palestinian-media. I will add it, does it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot add it, it is from 2012 war not this one and so is your link.GGranddad (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Indeed as GGranddad mentions, the report is from 2012. In any case, the Israeli statement about why they targeted the TV stations is already present. There does not need to be anything else. And, as I said, the US position on whether they consider Al Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is not relevant here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is that a leading global power (read: the USA, not a silly NGO) and Israel, stating a long term perspective on the Hamas PR department (Flying Mosque TV) is most relevant to avoid any instances of plastering affirmation. Adding long-standing, mainstream views is the encyclopedic thing to do. Removing them based on disliking the mainstream views (a gazzillibillion NGOs and their fantastical names put aside) is bad jazz. I do agree, that outside long term perspective of the global powers, sources should show as much relation to the recent dance-fight rather than articles from 2012. However, if an Israeli or US official has a statement, it should be noted (with the relevant time-stamp). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In between the vast amount of WP:FORUMing one can detect some small argument by MarciulionisHOF. However, it is without basis. The statement by the US Treasury (in 2010) about Hamas ties, says nothing at all about whether it is legal to target Al Aqsa TV station. To put it in this section is wholly WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages wouldn't wish to plaster its articles with worthless/meaningless NGO flamings without some real world notable perspective next to them. Common sense basis, is to include the US view on the Flying Mosque TV station. The initial edit pasted on this topic seemed quite normative to me and objections have been on technicalities, rather than substance. Should there be found a specific source? Where the US talks specifically about a journalist or two that got hurt during an attack in the vicinity of Hamas PR department? Just to counter every NGO out there? That is absurd. The US repeatedly talk about how Israel has the right to defend itself and only counter instances where the case in unclear. In the case of the Flying Mosque TV -- the case IS clear and we have a source to boot. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: "Hamas' station plays a "central role in managing the media battle against the Israeli lies," the Bloc said." --- Journalists, yes? If anything is undue is Reporters Without Borders (a useless organization when dealing with law-less militants like ISIS and Hamas) using something from 1999 to make bogus allegations against a portion of the IDF's statement (ignoring the part about Flying Mosque TV being used to parlay orders to operatives seems relevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) : retouch MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It has to be made clear, per WP:NPOV, when Al Aqsa TV and its operatives are mentioned, that for huge part of the world, Hamas political wing, including organizations run by this wing, (to which Al Aqsa TV belongs) are considered a terrorist infrastructure. We should not take stand on this issue, but we are an explicit claim that the US does not distinguish between "armed terrorists" and Al Aqsa TV operatives does not mean that the US thinks that Al Aqsa TV is legitimate target. Well, this is not correct as the US means exactly that,. as "terrorist targets" are considered legitimate targets by international law. More so, other states which declared Hamas political wing, and all of its institutions as a "terrorist organization" and this includes 40+ countries, legally do not consider Al Aqsa TV as legitimate media, nor they consider its operatives as journalists.--Tritomex (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to see some sources directly justifying the targeting of Al Aqsa journalists, not handwaving. All I see right now, is a US Treasury statement saying that Al Aqsa TV and Hamas are intimately tied and thus both are terrorist. Fine, but nobody is denying that. Just being a member of Hamas does not make targeting them legal. Hamas' politicians are not considered militants, for example. (This is why the Washington Post passage added by Tritomex is also irrelevant). Kingsindian (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, There's a mistake in your argument. An operational affiliation with Hamas means you are a legal target. There is not a single reputable source saying that killing Hamas operatives is illegal. As for Flying Mosque TV, Israel made a statement (e.g. used to parlay Hamas orders). The US will, obviously, not address each and every case and, certainly, won't use big words like 'illegal'. They have made a general statement that the Hamas PR department, in charge of "managing the media battle against the Israeli lies", is a terrorist body (which lies under legality definitions even if unmentioned directly). Israel and US views about the Flying Mosque TV are not hand-waving even if the word 'legal' was not dropped in. Hamas' "politicians" ARE considered legal targets by both Israel and the US due to their association with what both consider a terrorist organization. Certainly, countries have a bigger say (or at least, similar article space) than a gazzillibillion NGOs vying for extra prominence through sensationalism and wanton allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The 2010 treasury article is a primary source talking about ties. And it makes no determination for the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV. There needs to be a reliable secondary source reporting on the Treasury report, and connecting it to targeting of TV station during a war. Without that, it is WP:OR. I have added tags. Kingsindian (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I can understand your concern but disagree with an original research tag (which part of that policy fits here?). The article does not include original arguments, not listed in the references. Certainly, mainstream views on the legal status of the battle station is pertinent to any NGO silliness. While we don't have another source and we remain in disagreement, it might be interesting to hear views on this from more editors on the best way to present the varying perspectives on the legal status of the battle station (i.e. based on mainstream views). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: From WP:OR. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Kingsindian (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, but no one will say "it IS legal to attack XXX". We certainly have (a) reliable source. (b) no new conclusion is implied -- just the basic, mainstream one. (c) directly related to the legal status of the battle station. I hope, even if you disagree, that you can at least see my point. Since I'm not certain you are convinced or that you understand where your demand for a source responding directly to an absurd NGO (usually, even more absurd NGOs do that -- e.g. CAMERA, Honestreporting.com, etc.) is hurting a very normative presentation of the mainstream views. 'JWB say X, the US and Israel see it differently'. I urge you to reconsider. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, with MarciulionisHOF, no one details the legality of this particular military action, but the designation of Al Aqsa TV as a legitimate media, and its operatives as journalists which is a hotly disputed and polemic issue. Per WP:NPOV, we should not take a stand on this issue, but present all relevant views. This has nothing to do with OR and directly supports the material being presented .Tritomex (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF and Tritomex: I have no idea what you mean by "no one will say it is legal to attack XXX". Of course many orgs specifically render opinions on when it is legal to target and when it is not. Under certain circumstances, it is ok to target press installations. The circumstances have already been mentioned in Israel's justification, namely, if they are transmitting military codes or something. It is fine to mention that. And the press-related and human rights organizations have condemned it on the basis that they have determined (they don't take Israel's claim to have any basis in fact). I have no issue with including anything which is relevant. This Treasury stuff is not relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, The US treasury is an extension of congress. This source can be added: -- basically speaking, the US is a spec more notable than silly NGOs (Can we at least agree on that?). If they have a legal position on something, it is relevant. I hope, the added source helps validate that this is not coming from some pencil pusher in the treasury, but is an official view of the US gov. Btw, current phrasing is problematic. e.g "Journalists are considered civilians and should not be targeted under international humanitarian law." (no attribution given). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have no idea how that new source (Arutz Sheva) is important. The notability of the US Treasury report has already been established by secondary sources added by Tritomex. I am not disputing that. I am questioning the relevance. So far, no relevance has been established. I need direct relevance, a source directly addressing the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV, as the Reporters Without Borders and Al Haq source do. Kingsindian (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I've been saying the past few replies that your request is unreasonable because no one says "its legal to ...". NGOs likes to use big words like 'illegal', and states like to use general terms like 'terrorist', which imply legality. The only ones who attack NGO silliness are even sillier NGOs like CAMERA. On occasion, you get an expert who says 'Israel has the right to defend itself', but it is simply unreasonable to expect a one to one ratio between the words 'illegal' and 'legal'. Do we have any other examples where these 'illegal' allegations were met with the word "legal" instead of a more complex term such as "terrorist"?

It's not a position of the government unless it's actually stated by the government. The fact that no statement has been issued means the government has no official position. Saying that it follows logically from previous government opinions is WP:OR and misleading, as it implies that government positions are always logically self-consistent, which is patently false. Governments are not like individuals, who can hold opinions without stating them. The US government isn't "thinking" anything right now. That's why they use such nebulous terms, because they don't want to have an opinion until they have to. In the absence of an actual statement of opinion, no opinion exists. Anything else is WP:OR. 162.157.79.24 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The introduction does not summarize the contexts of the article

The introduction does not summarize more than half of the article, while the impact on Gaza civilians was given unproportionally huge section of the lead, practically copying the test already written beneath.Tritomex (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC) The article has 8 sections, so the introduction should consist of 2 to 3 sentences from each section as a summary.--Tritomex (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. There is no reason why the two largest paragraphs are simply parroting each other and restating the same information twice (just one being figures provided from the UN and the other being figures from the Gaza government Ministries. both neutral sources, of course...). I would suggest re-writting this without any statistics other than very broad things like "thousands of Palestinians have been killed or wounded and dozens of Israelis have been killed in the conflict. As a result of the conflict hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced." This covers the topic without removing anything except the many figures (which need to be changed by the hour) and also the amazing publicity and advertising it provides for the ongoing UN Gaza fund raising campaign. So be bold but remember W:NPOV and try not to remove valid references whenever possible.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, that there is lot of duplication in the last 2 paragraphs, though it would be too bold to rewrite the lead directly. See WP:STATUSQUO. I will put up a draft of the lead here (or someone else can do it), and people can make changes on it. With a rough draft which seems a bit better than the current one, we can put it up. Kingsindian (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft of the lead

Operation Protective Edge (Template:Lang-he-n, Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Strong Cliff"), is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, which escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip on 6 July.

By August 5, Israel's combined ground, air and naval forces had struck 4,762 targets in Gaza, while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired over 3000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel. Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires (including one on 5 August, during which all Israeli soldiers were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip) fell apart or expired, before an Egyptian proposal for a 72-hour ceasefire was accepted by Israeli and Palestinian officials on 10 August.

On 10 August, another Egyptian proposal for a 72-hour ceasefire was negotiated and agreed upon Israeli and Palestinian officials, and on 13 August it was extended for another 120 hours to allow both sides to continue negotiations for a long-term solution to end the month-long fighting. On 19 August, a 24 hour ceasefire extension renewal was violated when 29 Hamas rockets were fired into Israel, and the Israeli Air Force carried out airstrikes in response, killing 9 Gazans. Peace talks subsequently fell apart.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada, though both the exact number of deaths and the percentage of the dead who were militants as opposed to civilians have been in dispute. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, 2,104 Gazans have been killed and 10,500 have been wounded, of which 80% were civilians. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 1,444 (72%) of 2,042 deaths they documented were civilians, of whom 724 (35% of all deaths) were women or children. According to the Israeli government, 40%-50% of Gazan fatalities have been combatants. 64 IDF soldiers have been killed, as well as two Israeli civilians. The Israel Defense Forces have stated that Hamas has used civilians as "human shields"; Hamas has stated that it does not use human shields.

As of 5 August 2014 an OCHA report stated that in the Gaza Strip, 520,000 Palestinians (approximately 30% of Gaza's population) may have been displaced, of whom 273,000 were taking shelter in 90 UN-run schools. UNRWA has exhausted its capacity to absorb displaced persons, and overcrowding in shelters risks the outbreak of epidemics. On at least six occasions Israeli artillery shells have hit UNRWA schools that were serving as shelters. 1.5 million people in Gaza have limited or no access to water supplies. 26 health facilities have been damaged, 17,200 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes have suffered major or minor damaged but are still inhabitable. More than 485,000 internally displaced persons are in need of emergency food assistance. In Israel, an estimated 5,000 – 8,000 citizens of Southern Israel have fled their homes due to the threat of rocket and mortar attacks.

References

1. Arnaout, Abdel-Raouf (9 July 2014). "From 'Shield' to 'Edge': How Israel names its military ops". Anadolu Agency. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
2. Ghert-Zand, Renee (9 July 2014). "Name 'Protective Edge' doesn't cut it". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
3. Kordova, Shoshana (19 July 2014). "Why is the English name of Operation Protective Edge so different from the Hebrew version?". Haaretz.
4. Protective Edge by Numbers,' ID 5 August 2014.
5. Why are so many civilians dying in Hamas-Israel war? By Ashley Fantz, CNN, August 6, 2014
6. "New Gaza cease-fire begins as Israel withdraws troops". 5 August 2014.
7. ^ Daraghmeh, Mohammed (10 August 2014). "Israel accepts Egyptian ceasefire proposal". Globalnews.ca. Associated Press. Retrieved 10 August 2014.
8. "29 rockets in 20 minutes: Israel, Hamas ceasefire breaks down". CNN. 19 August 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
9. Al Jazeera English, US: 'little doubt' Israel bombed Gaza school
10. Steven Stotsky (29 July 2014). "How Hamas Wields Gaza's Casualties as Propaganda". Time Magazine. Retrieved 31 July 2014.
11. Cite error: The named reference blows was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. Cite error: The named reference continues was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
13. ^ Cite error: The named reference OCHA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
14. Laub, Karin; Alhlou, Yousur (8 August 2014). "In Gaza, dispute over civilian vs combatant deaths". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 9 August 2014.
15. "Israeli soldier 'captured in tunnel attack' by Gaza militants named by IDF". Retrieved 1 August 2014.
16. Josef Federman and Maggie Michael (14 July 2014). "Egypt proposes cease-fire between Israel, Hamas". Associated Press.
17. Al Jazeera English report; accessed 22 July 2014.
18. "Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency" (PDF). 5 August 2014. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
19. ^ "Gaza Emergency Situation Report" (PDF). United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Occupied Palestinian Territory. 3 August 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
20. ^ Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan. "Israel, Palestinians launch new three-day truce." Reuters. 10 August 2014.
21. ^ ARON HELLER. "Associated Press: Southern Israelis cautiously prepare to head home." Fairfield Citizen. 6 August 2014.

The problem with this proposal is that its not very much different than the current introduction. The Impact on civilian population of Gaza can not take 40% of introduction, when we have 7 other sections which all need to be mentioned equally. My proposal was to give 2-3 sentences about each section. I will try to make a proposal as soon as I will have enough time.Tritomex (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: That counts as a "Duh!":) It is "not very much different" because...it is in fact identical. I just copy pasted it from there to serve as a starting point. Kingsindian (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph suggestion

I hope most editors can agree that the lead is a hot mess. I propose we start on writing/agreeing on a basic lead paragraph. A short introduction with no background which explains the topic of the article. In that regard, I made an attempt which is wholly based on the current version of the lead paragraph of Operation Defensive Shield. Give me your thoughts so I know if it can be inserted......

Operation Protective Edge (Template:Lang-he-n, Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Strong Cliff"), is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the stated aim of ending rocket fire from the Gaza strip into Israel, It was later expanded to include the destruction of tunnels used by militants for cross-border attacks.

Reworked to include BBC and tunnels. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Arnaout, Abdel-Raouf (9 July 2014). "From 'Shield' to 'Edge': How Israel names its military ops". Anadolu Agency. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
2. Ghert-Zand, Renee (9 July 2014). "Name 'Protective Edge' doesn't cut it". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
3. Kordova, Shoshana (19 July 2014). "Why is the English name of Operation Protective Edge so different from the Hebrew version?". Haaretz.
4. {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)

Comments

Each event in this area has the problem that each side will find a previous infraction for which the action is a "reaction". Basic fairness at least requires one hop for each and no more -- the rest can be in the background section. I suggest: "expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, which escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip." For establishing the starting point, consult the section Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6 Kingsindian (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

But if we do that, we have to say why Israel killed those 6 martyrdom seekers in the first place. My suggestion explains the Israeli claims for a wide-scale "operation". Would it be better if we remove Israel's stated reasoning for recruiting 40,000 reserves as well in the name of avoiding back-and forths that go on to the days of Muhammad slaughtering and beheading the Jews of Yathrib ... because they made fun of him? On point, a few extra rockets are not much of an escalation. The killing of 6 or 3 or 1 whatever on whoever's side are not lead paragraph material, but background material. OK. Assuming you disagree. Let's try to be be encyclopedia -- what do mainstream sources say? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I just added a source (BBC), which in my understanding, uses the same phrasing as I suggested. It does not have mention of any 6 militants - because doing that is C-R-hey-ZEE... kidding. Hope that BBC can be accepted. I remind: my structure is based on the existing structure of Operation Cast Lead, which I'm sure survived many eyes - so it makes good sense to consider it as a good long term structure. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: No, we don't have to do anything. I already said, one hop from each (and no more) is basic fairness and NPOV. If you mention rocket attacks and tunnels, and don't mention the airstrikes, it is not acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So the BBC is unfair? Misplaced Pages should add a non-notable to the 1st sentence? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether BBC is unfair or not is irrelevant. BBC is not Misplaced Pages. There is no reason to hew to its phrasing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF:: @Kingsindian:

So let us try to combine all views for introduction: " Operation Protective Edge (Hebrew: צוּק אֵיתָן, Tzuk Eitan, il "Solid Rock"),is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, Although rocket attacks by different militant groups from Gaza occurred during entire year, it escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip on 6 July.

Note I checked the numbers of rocket atacks: Januar 22, Februar 9, march 65, april 24, may 7, June 62, July 1-9, July 2 -18, july 3-13, july 4 25, july 5-17.Tritomex (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: The story with the rockets is much more complex than that. See the background section for details. Rockets continued at a very low level all the way after 2012 ceasefire. There was a small escalation after the crackdown in the West Bank, when non-Hamas factions started rocket fire, and a major escalation after the airstrike on July 6, when Hamas itself started. Virtually all analysts single out the July 6 date as important; there was a major barrage. I have already written a separate section giving all references. Kingsindian (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing complex about rockets launched at your 4 year old girl - you pick her up in her sleep and take her to the hallway because you don't have a shelter and the hallway is relatively speaking the safest place in your house. If doesn't matter if its one rocket or more as long as there are rockets. On point -- please provide a few examples of these analysis sources that think 6 unknown Arab Liberation Militants in Gaza are super-important. The BBC's article (here again:) about the ending of fighting does not mention this. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

France 24, doesn't care about 6 nobody's either - MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft proposal (2)

The long term conflict between Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and Israel escalated on july 8. Israel launched (Hebrew: מִבְצַע צוּק אֵיתָן, Mivtza' Tzuk Eitan, ("Operation Protective edge"), to stop rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip which Gaza based militant factions had undertaken allegedly in response to an Israeli crackdown on Hamas members and institutions on the West Bank, which Israel claimed to carried out as a response to the kidnapping of 3 Israeli teenagers, by Hamas militants. Hamas leadership, claimed responsibility for the actions and praised the act, although denied prior knowledge and authorization of it, a position rejected by Israel

Israel's combined ground, air and naval forces had struck 4,762 targets in Gaza, while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired over 3000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel. Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires (including one on 5 August, during which all Israeli soldiers were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip) fell apart or expired.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada, though both the exact number of deaths and the percentage of the dead who are civilians has been disputed. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 1,454 (72%) of 2,076 deaths they documented were civilians. According to the Israeli government, 40%-50% of Gazan fatalities (900-1000) have been combatants. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, affiliated to Hamas, 2,134 Gazans have been killed and 10,915 have been wounded, of which 80% were civilians. 64 IDF soldiers have been killed. Three Israeli civilians and a Thai worker were also killed. Al least 25 Gaza civilians, accused of collaboration with Israel were killed in Hamas summarily executions. Israel claimed that Hamas has used civilian infrastructure such as homes, hospitals, schools, UN facilities and mosques for attacks, and civilians as "human shields" a claim that Hamas denied.

In Gaza 17,200 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes have suffered major or minor damaged but are still inhabitable. More than 485,000 internally displaced persons were in need of emergency food assistance. In Israel the combined direct and indirect demage stood between $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion. as of august 11.

@Kingsindian: @Monopoly31121993:

Here is my provisional proposal for the lead.Tritomex (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: There are too many drafts now (three). Regarding the first paragraph, I have stated my opinions in the "comments" section above. Each event can be seen as a reaction to a previous event. I proposed that there should be exactly one hop from each and no more. The phrasing I prefer is given above. Kingsindian (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft proposal (3)

The conflict between Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and Israel escalated on July 8 when Israel launched "Operation Protective Edge".
Operation Pillar of Defence and alleged violations of its ceasefire by both sides since led to the conflict.

Israel struck thousands of targets in Gaza while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired thousands of missiles into Israel.Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires fell apart or expired.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada.

There was severe damage to homes and infrastructures in Gaza, as well as impact on Israel.

A number of legal issues concerning the conflict have arisen during course of the fighting.

I propose this much shorter version - a single sentence summarizing and linking to every major section. The selection of the major sections and the wording of the sentences is not final, it's just a suggestion for a way to guarantee a much shorter lead - don't duplicate information from the article itself, announce its existence and link to it. WarKosign (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Although unconventional proposal, for the reasons stated as well as because I am afraid that any detailed wording will not lead to consensus, I can accept your proposed draft as a compromise solution. --Tritomex (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but I don't know of any articles constructed like this. What about a similar construct, only without the in-article links? Any thoughts on my suggestion for first para? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with repeating stuff in the lead which is there in the body of the text. In fact, that is the correct practice, per WP:LEAD. The lead is meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole article. Many people just read the lead, and nothing else. So this proposal is not good. Kingsindian (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the shortened version that has been posted here. The whole idea of the lead is to summarize what is in the article.GGranddad (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas leaders in hospitals

@Tritomex: Re your edit. This Washington Post report has already been discussed before. It only talks about Hamas political leaders visiting hospitals, which does not make them a military target. Putting this in the hospital section is WP:OR. There is no connection made that this makes the targeting of hospitals legal. The claim that Hamas uses Al-Shifa hospital as a militant base comes from an Israeli official and it should be properly attributed. There is plenty of testimony to the contrary, if such a statement is to be included. You can't just include every claim like this. Kingsindian (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I gave precise quote from Washington Post under quotation marks. The Washington Post explicitly says that the "Shifa has become a de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." So this is is exact quotation and not anything even close to original reaserch.--Tritomex (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I did not fault the edit based on whether you quoted the Post accurately. I asked what relevance does it have to the section on attacks on hospitals. Unless you can find a reliable source to document the connection, it is WP:OR, in my opinion. Or call it WP:UNDUE or whatever. Just that there is no connection at all to the section. (added) Kingsindian (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Well your claim that "it only talks only about political leaders" needs some source. If you have a source that this refer only to "visiting Hamas leaders", which is totally contradictory to what the Washington Post says, I will remove this quote. Second using hospitals as "de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders" is violation of international law, weather they are military or political leaders in question. Third I properly attributed the claim to Washington Post, which means I did not presented it as an established fact.--Tritomex (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I checked it again, I placed this quote in the section detialing aleged violations of international law in Medical facilities. Having headquarter in hospital is considered a serious violation of international law, concerning political or military leaders.--Tritomex (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Excuse me, the Washington Post article itself only names Hamas politicians vising the hospitals. "The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." It does not state anywhere that Hamas militants have been inside the hospital. I do not need to provide a source, it is your own source which says this. Secondly, the claim that using hospitals is "de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders" is a violation of international law needs to be established by a WP:RS, not asserted by Misplaced Pages editors. Third, there is no third, since I did not raise the point at all. Kingsindian (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Thanks for the revert while we discuss. Unfortunately the statement left is problematic as well. The article quotes a French newspaper writer who claims to have seen combatants interrogating journalists, though the article was removed afterwards at the request of the author. This kind of evidence is not to be given too much weight. If it is presented, the contrary view, that these allegations are not substantiated should also be presented, and the statement of the director of the hospital quoted. Here are two sources: this and this. Kingsindian (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The report on Hamas interrogation in Shifa, was covered by plenty of sources, all over world, so it has enough weight. If Hamas, or the hospital management responded to this particular incident, I agree that this should be included too.--Tritomex (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this image factual?

The image File:Map-of-rockets-launches-from-gaza-from-2014-07-08-to-2014-07-31.jpg is being used with the caption "Map showing rocket launch sites in Gaza". That's inaccurate. As it currently stands, the image is of an IDF propaganda poster that contains what the IDF claims is a map of rocket launches from Gaza. So really the picture would belong in the 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Media_coverage or some place like that. The picture contains the statement "Hamas fires rockets from everywhere in Gaza", which is incredibly POV.VR _talk 06:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have another source providing a map ? Do you have a source saying that this map is incorrect ? You can't ask to remove the facts just because you don't like them. Why aren't you claiming that the map of damaged houses in Gaza is propaganda and POV ? WarKosign (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The map of damage in Gaza is from the UN, the map of rocket attacks comes from one side in the conflict,Israel obviously. I think the caption on it should read claimed rocket sites map from the IDF or something like that.Also, just because Israel releases a map does not make the content of it a fact.GGranddad (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of ten images showing the israeli POV, atleast six are taken from IDF blog. The rocket range map was created by original research, while the source of the shelter sign is unknown. Picture of siderot factory is own work and Helsinki protests is from a news source.

As per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, the blog images do not qualify.

Out of the ten images showing the Palestinian POV, three are from btselem, three are own works, one is a video grab {from moigovps), two are own works based on UN satellite info, one is from flickr. --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 15:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I took the photo of the shelter sign when I was at the airport last week. It is the first time I uploaded an image, is there something wrong with it ? WarKosign (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the rocket map launch with a cropped version that does not have the "Hamas fires from everywhere" statement. The statement is an exaggeration, otherwise whole map would be red. As for the map coming from a single side, a) Is there a map of launch sites published by Hamas or the UN ? b) the caption clearly says that this is an IDF-released map. WarKosign (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

barnstar for the editor who managed the most devious link on this hopeless article

I've taken it out - mot of the article should be taken out, or hit with an IAF missile, thanks to the sedulous POV pushing, - but this takes the cake and the night vision goggles made everything look green. Could all editors respect the talk page and not permit shit like this, or dubious IDF posed photos, to sneak in?Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just do your best. After all, getting a NPOV is never perfectly possible so if you're trying to get there then you're way ahead of half the people who have edited/created this page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

IAF missiles are expensive, are you prepared to pay for one ? Qasam rockets are far cheaper. Not sure which article you will hit, though.
The quote by the soldier about the goggles was undue weight, imo. Now it appears there are quotes from two different soldiers, while in the source it's same Avi in both. As for the link - militants dressing up as civilians IS perfidy by definition, and the whole quote actually belongs to the human shields section. WarKosign (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign, is that an admission that you made that link, dribbling in a moral judgement to a narrative that must be NPOV? You are obliged not to edit in the interests of a government here, I would remind you. If you think soldiers/militants dressing in civvies is perfidious, I expect in terms of coherence that you will now go and edit all of the articles dealing with the assassination of Palestinians on the West bank by Sayeret Matkal and Yamas, like for example, Abdullah Qawasmeh, the uncle of one of the two thugs who killed the three Israeli teenagers this year, who was gunned down in Hebron, unarmed, by 13 Israeli undercover agents dressed in Palestinian clothes in 2003? What is a standard assassination tactic in the IDF is a perfidious use of human shields in Hamas? You've got a lot of work on your perfidy pushing: there are hundreds of such cases. 'Witnesses said a dozen Israeli troops disguised as Palestinian labourers waited in a van with windows blocked by boxes of diapers and two other vehicles bearing local licence plates, as worshippers left the mosque after Saturday evening prayers. According to local resident Bassam Hassan, Mr. Qawasme “was hit in the leg, ran to the other side of the street, and the Israelis finished him off.” (AFP, DPA, Reuters).' Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: In editing in such a sensitive area, you should never substitute your own judgement. "Perfidy" is a legal term - you are a WP editor. Find a source which says this particular act is perfidy, and add it if you wish. This is the minimum. Of course, as Nishidani says, one can find plenty of perfidy on the other side, which you should consider adding, if one is to follow WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Meshaal's denial

As a general point, I would be careful about Misplaced Pages uncritically accepting and putting undue weight on Meshaal's denial that Hamas political leadership were aware of the kidnapping, as if this proves the organization's innocence. Meshaal is an exiled political spokesman, mainly for Western audiences, and the degree to which he controls Hamas military operations is highly dubious. For example:

disclaimed any direct responsibility for the Hamas suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians during the 1990s and 2000s. "I'm a political leader, and I do not interfere in military affairs," he said. "What the Palestinian people do in resisting occupation are details that I do not get myself involved in."

He took a similar position when pressed about the onslaught of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, a stance that raises questions about just how much control the group's political leaders have over its military wing. He acknowledged that in the past, Hamas got its rockets and weapons from "different sources" — an apparent reference to aid that the group's military wing has gotten from Iran. "Now it's becoming very difficult to move these rockets through, and we manufacture most of them, if not all of them, in Gaza," he said. "We depend on ourselves in making our weaponry."

Meshaal was asked how many rockets Hamas has. "I don't know," he said, smiling. "I'm the head of the political bureau...I direct the policies and the positions. But not the details when it comes to military issues."

Meshaal did acknowledge that Hamas members were behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers hitchhiking on the West Bank in June but said Hamas political leaders did not know about the operation "in advance." Still, he justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands. "Our view is that soldiers and settlers in the West Bank are aggressors, and they are illegally living in these occupied and stolen lands," he said. "And the right to resist them is the right of Palestinians."

Just a concern of mine.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The person who took credit for the kidnapping is also a person in exile in Turkey, isn't he? See here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if I was him I would not be claiming I was responsible for any attacks at all being as he has just signed up for the Palestinians going to the ICC.Have you ever thought he was not really being honest in that interview for personal safety issues, like not doing 30 years in prison for war crimes?I think the piece about him in the article is fine, it is sourced from main stream media and meets wikipedia standards.Why do you not believe him when he says he did not know about the kidnapping but believe him in the article you posted? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me..GGranddad (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian, yes, as Misplaced Pages emphasizes, without using similar language in reference to Meshaal. @GGranddad, I don't know what you're getting at.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source on the power struggles within Hamas.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't second guess sources. A large amount of fabrication, falsification, cover-ups and dubious formal statements characterizes both sides, and much of the press which recycles official handouts. Many Israeli journalists have stated that the way their press, radio etc has fallen in lockstep with government propaganda is disgraceful, and of course we have a huge section ignoring this, but focusing on what those handouts insinuate, and Hamas threats to journalists. I can't be bothered doing such a section, but trying to say Hamas is exceptional in not admitting what an interested party its adversary insinuates, is a bit silly, esp. given the fact that all great powers lie through their teeth, as historians are required to tediously note in books no one reads.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of soldiers + child in the timeline section

That photo has been criticized as dubious many times. Here is a better one. Please, someone replace it with this. Kingsindian (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons so I restored it. What is dubious about it? WarKosign (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Here are some criticisms. Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#WP:CLAIM. Apart from the dubious way in which the photo has been taken, it is best to simply avoid photos from either side. The photo I have given is not contested by anyone and shows the same issue: rocket attacks on Israel. Kingsindian (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I see that the criticism is that we have no way of knowing it wasn't staged or faked. Same criticism can be applied to every single photo. How do we know that the people in the picture you are suggesting aren't actors in a studio ?

Most of the pictures taken during fighting will either be taking by people representing a side and released as PR and thus subject to based claims of POV or by journalists and therefore copyrighted. WarKosign (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the picture in question of the Israeli soldiers shielding a kid is staged and most pictures taken in conflict come from photo journalists who put their name to them.Is there any name attacked to that picture? I see nothing wrong with replacing it with the other picture or another one.GGranddad (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It was reproduced in defiance of an earlier discussion which cast serious doubts on its authenticity. When in doubt, esp. with the propaganda war also being waged, one is obliged to not touch questionable 'stuff' with a 10-foot pole. I think requests were made for detailed information on who took it, where, and at what time. No one replied. No one replied to the criticisms of what looks to any practiced eye like a staged event. These considerations alone mean no one should put it back unless they can satisfy the suspicions over it.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked the photo up. It is credited to Li Aviv Dadon, who is apparently the kid's mother. http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/in-israel/local/soldiers-protecting-a-child-6527 Not an IDF photo, and no evidence of it being staged - no more than any other photo. WarKosign (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Is there some special reason you want to use this particular photo? The photo is from IDF's Flickr account. As I said already, the photo is demonstrating rocket attacks on Israel. The photo on the right is by Reuters and freely available, demonstrating the same thing. Why not use that? As to staging, there are many questions about the photo. Virtually every photo you will see, will have people lying flat on the ground to avoid rocket fire. The kind of behaviour shown in the photo is very unusual. It is best to simply remove the IDF photo and use the Reuters photo which is better in every way. Kingsindian (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I was just wondering why these Israeli soldiers were protecting this kid supposedly from rocket fire while his mother stood there taking a picture, was she not worried about rockets? Sounds staged to me frankly.GGranddad (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Um. Well, could be true, but that is a very strange account, apart from the oddness of the postures and the lighting. The mother says the 'door' jammed, in a car in which she, her husband and her 4 and a half year old child were travelling. The husband and wife couldn't get out of the car with the 'jammed door', but a door near the child could be opened. That means he was in the back seat. But why is it that both husband and wife had trouble with a 'jammed door', when there are two doors, one for either side of the front seats? Very very strange, as strange as the handkerchief or paper under the soldier's right knee and the curious lighting. Know how long it would take a young dad to dive into the back seat and grab his son as he got out of the car in a situation of threat? About3 seconds. No, the two parents struggled with 'one' of the two doors in the front as their kid managed to open by himself the back door, get out and toddle away. Sure. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What is also strange is that she says she was panicked, sirens going off,jammed doors, rockets coming in,people running for the shelter but she stops to take a picture. GGranddad (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I personally like this picture. There are countless other pictures of people flying on the floor between their cars or taking shelter in staircases inside buildings, but this shows the human element. If there is still a consensus against this picture with valid reference - sure, let's replace it with any of the boring ones.

@GGranddad and Nishidani: No mention of running to a shelter anywhere. "Jammed" probably means "didn't open on the first try". The instructions for alarm while driving is to stop the car, exit it and lay on the floor. Depending on their location, they had between 15 seconds and 2 minutes. She probably panicked about her kid running off by himself, so once she saw him safe she could take the picture. Objectively, lying down doesn't reduce the danger by much. Whenever the alarm caught me in the middle of the road I stopped the car, exited it but remained standing up and looked for a smoke trail in the sky. If I'd seen something as interesting I would've surely try to take a picture. This is probably where most of the published pictures of Iron Dome interceptions (smoke trail ending with a little cloud) came from. WarKosign (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your disingenuousness began when in reply to Kingsindian's question you wrote above:

:I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons so I restored it. What is dubious about it?

Out of courtesy I did not note immediately that 2 weeks ago you asked me why I removed the picture, on my talk page. I duly replied with details and a reference to the fact it had been discussed. You did not reply, and it appears, just reintroduced the picture here, surreptitiously, because it did technically require that, given both the earlier discussion and my own answer, it required consensus. Bad, bad manners. The woman admits that the photo was posed, whatever the circumstances, unlike Kingsindian's alternative which is in real time.

In one version it was uploaded by the IDF in this version; it was uploaded by the mother.

If anyone can make sense of the sequence of events in this they are better readers of narrative sequence than me.

(a)It happened yesterday at 1pm, Lee Aviv Dadon – 34 year old, and her husband Barak drove with their child, 4.5 years old, when suddenly an alarm went off, the door was jammed and the parents panicked. Yair managed to get out of the car through another door, and then the couple witnessed an emotional sight, home front command officers grabbed and embraced the son to protect him. The mother took footage of the incident and uploaded the picture, which caused a lot of positive feedback.

(b)“As we entered our neighborhood in Rehovot the alarm went off.” Said Dadon. “We stopped at the side of the road, a vehicle in front of us also stopped, and 4 officers from the home front command exited the vehicle, and instead of protecting themselves they protected my son.” Her husband took the baby out of the car, and asked her wife to help Yair out of the car. “Everyone were hiding in cover, it was very stressful while I struggled with the car door, and when he ran for cover. I suddenly saw two home front command soldiers embracing him, it was simply amazing, and I asked them for permission to photo the moment.” The soldiers who do not know the family, simply acted on instinct to protect the child, and even after the alarm they spoke with the child to make sure he is relaxed and calm. “I thanked them, I was really emotional, Yair was calm”. Immediately after the event, she knew she has to do something, and uploaded the picture, “I wanted everyone to see the true face of our moral and human(e) soldiers who protect other(s) instead of themselves.”

In (b), the husband is outside the car with another baby, and asks his wife to get out of the car to look after Yair. The wife has her door stuck, and doesn't think of getting out of the other. The husband lets Yair wander off. Soldiers protect the child. The mother, with sirens screaming, thinks, 'what a lovely shot' and asks them to 'photo the moment'. I.e. the siren's blaring, her husband is somewhere with their baby, and she asks them to hold the pose. Even that is an admission that the photo is posed, and is not an incidental snap of something as it occurred (she asked permission, as the siren blared, as missiles could be striking etc.) and, obtaining it, calmly took the shot. Pull the other one. None of this makes sense, but even if it is just a confused woman, she admits the snap we have is one that was posed for once she obtained permission.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: We should not be making judgements based on "I like this" or "I like that". The photo shown is completely unrepresentative. This is not the way people protect themselves from rocket attacks. They lie flat on the ground. See the photos here and pick one you which is less unrepresentative. I will upload to commons if you like. link Kingsindian (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I noticed you removing the picture and asked you the question, but then I went on a vacation for a week. Once I returned I did not remember whom I asked and did not check your talk page, so I did not see your reply until now. My bad.
Two accounts are indeed somewhat different, but not completely contradictory. What is contradictory about "driving" and "entering their neighbourhood in Rehovot" ? Who and where says that the photo was staged ? BTW, Rehovot gives us a time frame - about a minute warning time. These reports are probably by different reporters, translated from Hebrew. Here is her own account in herbew: http://www.newz.co.il/news/%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%92%D7%A9%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%95-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%96%D7%94-%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%90-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%95. You can try google translate on it, but this is what I can tell she wrote "What an amazing army we have ! On (our) way home with the kids we were caught by an alarm. A car with home front officers stopped next to us and we all left the cars to take shelter. These two amazing officers caught my 4 year old son and protected him with their bodies. A picture is worth a thousand words." Here is a more detailed account of who went out first and which door was jammed: http://www.ch10.co.il/news/52459/#.U_uKr7vf44c. I don't think this is of critical importance for the authenticity of the picture. Handkerchief or paper under the soldier's right knee - this is clearly a piece of trash that happened to be there. The soldiers are wearing field uniforms that are used for crawling in dirt if need be, so nobody in his right mind would bother intentionally protecting it during a staged photo. Unless you find a smoking gun, assume good faith.
@Kingsindian: From what I've seen and did, this is more typical: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fedweb-assets/cache/fed-24/2/Operation_Protective_Edge1_resize508__1_1.jpg, and some people are laying down while others are crouching or standing or sitting. btselem's pictures are from the southern Israel, where the danger is far greater. Of course soldiers hugging and calming a child down is unusual - but so are most of the pictures on the page. "Ruins in Beit Hanoun" surely shows one of the most damaged houses and not some random house. Photo of the destroyed ambulance in Shuja'iyya is surely unusual - most of the other damaged cars are probably less damaged and are not ambulances, so why not replace them with more representative and average pictures ?
As for my personal preference not being a reason - you are correct. I like this picture and think it is notable. Each picture in the article is supposed to be truthful, relevant and noteable, and I think this one is better than the others you suggested. If my opinion is not in consensus I can live well with that. WarKosign (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Unfortunately, it is clear to me that no matter what argument I give, you will not agree. So no point in arguing further. I will just note that the picture had been removed earlier and was put back without discussion. This is not the correct way to do it. One is supposed to present arguments for adding disputed content, and failing a consensus, either start an RfC or some other method for adding it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure if there is a policy based argument for "unusual pictures" as this is very subjective perception. Most of the pictures here are quiet extraordinary and have high probability of being taken exactly because of this reason.--Tritomex (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I did put it back without discussion, because I did not see the discussion that resulted in the decision to remove it. Now there is (disputed) evidence that the picture is genuine. I would like to wait a few hours to give more editors chance to offer their opinion, and as I said, if I'm in minority - I'll remove the image.
@Nishidani: Knowing the mother's full name and city of residence, I found her home address and phone number. Would you like to call her and ask what exactly happened to satisfy your curiosity ? WarKosign (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the policy based argument for removing this picture? Because I do not see any.--Tritomex (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Policy based argument is simple. Use independent sources, like Reuters, when you can. This is not to say that the other points I raised are not important. Kingsindian (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign. The photo we have is not of what actually happened; by the woman's own account, something of this kind happened, and she asked permission to to photograph it, and the soldiers agreed and posed for the photo. It doesn't matter that something like this might have occurred. As anyone with an eye for these things knows, the body positions are all posed. Secondly the woman's photo was uploaded to make a point about the IDF. So it restaged an act and was uploaded to make a propaganda point. Misplaced Pages has zero tolerance of using its mainspace to make propaganda. As Kingsindian notes there are numerous photos of people fleeing or ducking under sirens, and this is not acceptable, as was your behaviour in ignoring editorial concerns. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are hyperenthused about the photo and want it to stick, get a RfC on its inclusion. That is standard procedure.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)to th

Just by way of noting a coincidence, an identical incident occurred yesterday. Instead of a mortar or siren, a couple and their baby child from an area notorious for the most vicious settlement policies and apartheid, the South Hebron Hills, specifically from Beit Yatir(Ariel Bardi, +972 magazine, March 20, 2012) had their car hit in a rock assault. Succour came from other Palestinians who happened to be passing by, who picked up the child and held him while the others extricated the family. No photo op of course: Palestinians do not belong to an army noted for its purity of arms. (Akiva Novick, Palestinians rescue settlers after West Bank attack Ynet 25 August 2014)

@Nishidani: As I already wrote, I agree that I should not have restored the picture when there was consensus on removing it. I expected to see a notice when I got a reply, did not remember whom I asked so I did not check your talk page. Indeed bad manners on my side and I apologize. However, the consensus was based on the assumption that this is a staged IDF photo. We already established that this photo is not by IDF. You are insisting that the author admits staging it. Can you please refer to the quote ? Everything I've read so far says that it was on the spur of a moment. Your analysis of body language or who left the car through which door is pure original research.

The news item - nice, too bad (but understandable) that there is no picture, and of course not relevant to the current article. Maybe you can add it to the general Israel-Palestinian conflict. It's nice to see that some Palestinians don't let their hatred strong (and sometimes justified) dislike of Israelis prevent them from doing the decent thing. I wonder what was there first, attempts to murder drivers by throwing boulders on moving cards, or separate "apartheid" road network. WarKosign (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to see that some Palestinians don't let their hatred strong (and sometimes justified) dislike of Israelis prevent them from doing the decent thing

(Not relevant to article but that's an disreputable piece of comment, implying there are 'most Palestinians who do' and 'some who' don't, let a putative universal hatred of Israelis, influence them. People who hate, hurt. People who don't hate, settlers included, do the right thing, and that has nothing to do with ethnic origin. I.e.Meir Yehoshua from Kfar Etzion did the same kind of gesture for the Abu Jayada family back in 2012 when their car was firebombed from Bat Ayin.) Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My analysis is commonsense, and is confirmed by what the photographer says, which is that she saw a scene of IDF soldiers with her child, and got out her camera and asked them if she could take a shot. That translates as restaging an incident, and posing for a photo, not 'on the spur of the moment'. The fact that it might have been taken in those circumstances is irrelevant. The positioning of the soldiers and the boy perfects corroborates that it is a posed shot, since as numerous comments have remarked, you do not in standard procedure in Israel protect children that say (he is not protected). It can't be used because of these significant and confessed facts.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking for permission to take a picture and re-staging it is not the same thing. A 4.5 year old isn't likely to co-operate with a staged photo. Anyway, since there is no overwhelming support for my position I switched to the oneKingsindian offerd. WarKosign (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: B'Tselem's account is as follows: they got warning at 1:30 to evacuate, they evacuated. At 2:50, a missile was fired, hitting the solar water tank on the roof. People went up to investigate, then another missile hit at 3:00 while they were on the roof. The IDF claimed that it was too late to stop the second missile, (a claim B'Tselem rejected, but that is not relevant here). This is in no way an account of human shielding. The sources you quoted were all very close in time to the attack, when things were unclear and Israel was itself either not sure, or spinning this (take your pick based on your estimate of how nefarious they are). It is not fair to present this as uncontested fact, since this is obviously a loaded accusation. As to the voluntary human shielding by activists, that should be separated out clearly, since as far as I know, nobody has died. Kingsindian (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

International law Professor Ed Morgan of the University of Toronto, likewise, noting that it is clear that Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict, which has been noted by the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, wrote that a blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic. He pointed out that it is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter, and is similarly set forth in Article 539 of the Canadian Forces manual Counter-Insurgency Operations. He wrote:

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be 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.

• 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
• Pages at move review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment