Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 19 September 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)

Beyond numbers of casualties given by Hamas health ministry, the numbers claimed by Palestinian presidentMahmud Abbas must be included.--Tritomex (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

,--Tritomex (talk) 12:57, 7 September 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.

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)

@WarKosign: There is a considerable difference, both legal and ethical, between a government being responsible for every criminal act "that occurs on its soil", and it failing to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts of its soil. The former is deliberate and calculated criminality; the latter is generally the result of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency or simply turning a blind eye. It is not synonymous to actual legal responsibility under international law, unless you have sources which disagree with me. Regardless, the idea that, if non-Hamas affiliated elements are firing rockets, you can blame Hamas because "they're responsible for every act that occurs on their soil" is akin to suggesting that the we should directly blame the US government for, say, the Ferguson murder? It's absurd. JDiala (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: I could agree with you if Hamas made some effort to stop the rocket fires, or even payed some lip service. Instead it continues praising the heroic action of firing on civilians. How many people were arrested in Gaza for firing on Israel during the ceasefire ? This article says they made some effort, but is there a single result they can show ? Is there a single statement by Hamas that it's wrong or at least that it's against "the Palestinian interest" at the moment ? WarKosign (talk) 08:03, 2 September 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)

Noam Chomsky says "Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7... Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8". See Outrage, written on 2 August 2014 in Z Communications. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox

Should or shouldn't Hamas claims of soldiers killed be included in the infobox? There are two versions which keep getting added and deleted.

• Newer version: HAMAS: 1000 soldier killed, 2000 soldier wounded
• An older version: Hamas:161 soldiers killed

References

1. http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2014/08/28/hamas-our-sources-indicate-that-there-are-over-1000-killed-over-2000-wounded-israeli-soldiers-officers/
2. http://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2014/08/28/583978.html
3. "Gaza offensive 'fiercest,' 'deadliest': Israel". Anadolu Agency. 5 August 2014. Retrieved 6 August 2014.

Please indicate: Yes or No. If Yes, indicate which version you prefer.

• Comment I have no feeling one way or another. But pinging Zaid almasri since he keeps adding it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• No. The sources are crap, and silly propaganda claims have no place in an infobox, as opposed to a disinfobox.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes The second one. Anadolu Agency is an acceptable source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No one here is disputing it is Hamas' claim, WarKosign, so I don't understand your point. It is therefore it is written: "Hamas: 161 soldiers killed", just as we have IDF's claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't clear that the other number was from the same source as it's different sites but okay then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No. This claim contradicts all the evidence from all the other sources, and in fact implies there is a conspiracy by the Israeli and the international media as well as 930 families of the supposed hidden casualties. This claim belongs with the rest of the dubious claims made by Hamas at the the media sub-page's special section. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Yes The first one (1,000 KIA). While it's a round number it is not unusual for belligerents in a conflict to release estimates of the enemy's casualties, not unlike the IDF also claiming "1,000 militants." DocumentError (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Hamas claim of 1000 soldier dead should be used since it is the newest and the 161 figure is outdated.

both IDF and HAMAS claims of how much they killed from the other side are estimates and of course both of them are inflated and ridiculous , but since it is attributed to them and not stated as a fact but rather as a claim it must be included and i will include it no matter what others do even if i keep adding it daily for one year , i have a very long breath.

If you dont want HAMAS claims so change the title to THE ISRAELI NARRATIVE OF THE 2014 ISRAEL-GAZA CONFLICT.

HAMAS is one of the only two sides of the conflict so not including its claims make the articl out of balance and whatever you feel about them or about palestinians is irrelevant, Imagine if HAMAS were at a justice court wouldnt the judge hear their claims or would he say : listen terrorists i will not hear from you and i will sentence you to so and so

IRISZOOM ANADOLU is the same source for both claims but the 161 is old and this one is newer check this

http://www.aa.com.tr/ar/s/379950

https://twitter.com/aa_arabic/status/504659476260331520

I like the fact that you discribed the agency as an accepted source i guess if you knew that the 1000 figure is also from them you would have changed your mind HaHa.

.Zaid almasri (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No. The infobox is for a quick overview. Sources for info there should have at least minimal reliability. Hamas claims don't have minimal reliability. But including it somewhere in the article makes sense, though I don't think that Islamic/Hezballah/Turkish site is sufficient even for there. I don't know what to make of AlWatan, it would be better if there were English sources for that. ¤ ehudshapira 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Hamas claims don't have minimal reliability." Why? DocumentError (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

On one hand a history of fabrications, and no credible publication even mentions this. On the other, the Israeli info is so much far off from these claims, and so much more reliable and better accounted for, that mentioning in the overview, for the sake of "impartiality", the info from dubious sites that supposedly quote Hamas' claims just makes no sense. ¤ ehudshapira 22:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, don't put it in the infobox, per ehudshapira. Multiple reliable sources affirm the 65–66 number (for which reason I have removed, as others have in the past, the mischaracterization of the numbers as "IDF"); the Hamas claim is an outlier. It's not clear that the sources for it are reliable (i.e. it's not clear they are reliable as sources of the claim "Hamas says X", independent of the truth/verifiability of "X"); even if they are, the Hamas claim of soldiers killed belongs with Hamas' other dubious claims, either in a section of this article's body (as was the case in early incarnations of this article, and should perhaps be made the case once more) or in the separate media article (as is the case at the moment). -sche (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• No - Hamas' data is propaganda. It's not as reliable as the other sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - There are people who say the Earth is flat, but in Misplaced Pages we don't consider this claim more than a fringe and hilarious theory. Let's keep this article serious and encyclopedic, please.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Neither First off, Hamas is a recognized governmental entity which had been duly and legitimatly elected through Democratic processes and as such numbers that Hamas agencies report have as much weight and legitimacy as any governmental enity (i.e. no legitimacy at all.) Secondly, playing the numbers game is what politicians and corporate entities do, and when it comes to body counts no claim is even remotely accurate regardless of its source. Recommend employing more accurate rhetoric such as "The number of dead terrorists were claimed to be anywhere from xxx to xxx." Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you say. Nevertheless, Israel doesn't lie when it counts its own casualties (both military and civilian). Hamas is a different thing. And with all due to respect to the democratically-elected islamofascist government of Hamas, remember they took Gaza in a bloody coup. I'm just saying... throwing your opponents from the roof is not the most exquisite sample of democracy, if i may say so.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a very neutral argument.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not neutral at all, but doesn't mean it's not true. There is plenty of evidence that Hamas provides wildly inaccurate claims and never bother to correct themselves or explain their mistakes. IDF provides facts that are usually correct and admits and corrects its mistakes when they are discovered. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise ? WarKosign (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The argument is that Hamas are liars but Israel is not. I'm sure someone on pro-Palestine side can spin the Vice versa. I've actually seen the wiki end of this war play out. Just because its not neutral doesn't mean it's true? Perhaps but I'm going bother entertaining your argument because of your inherent bias.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

An article can include both contradictory POV even when it is obvious that at least one of them is false. They have to have minimal credibility. This claim contradics all the evidence of any other source, so it should be treated as a fringe theory - something perhaps worth mentioning, but not at the same level as the respectable theories. For this claim to be feasible there would have to be a huge conspiracy by the Israeli and the international media, as well as the 930 families of the supposed IDF casualties that are suppressed. WarKosign (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's not glaringly obvious. I actually have no position here. That being why I've yet to clarify a position. I'm reviewing some of the comments here and also a number of sources on the subject. In reviewing the comments I came across an editor who seems to push the thought that since Hamas were violent in coup unrelated in every way to this article's subject matter they are unreliable. Really it's off topic BS. In my opinion intellectual dishonesty and as initially said not neutral. When discussing anothers credibility I do find somewhat important not to destroy your own. As I'm sure you're aware consensus is not democracy. ] Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy. Don't poison the well you drink from.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So it seems the second set of numbers are older. The first set of numbers line up with other sources such as IDF sources. 1000 soldiers per Hamas means the same thing as 1000 militants per IDF. It seems credible to me. It seems also just as reliable as the IDF as a source. Though the reliablity of both parties seems questionable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't laughed so hard in a while. The above discussion is akin to saying the 9/11 Truth movement is as reliable as official US investigations. Sure, both cannot be fully trusted... but c'mon!!! The comparison is too silly. Just look how much space their claims have in September 11 attacks. On this article, we can't ignore the claims completely. But to insist they (e.g. Osama Hamdan, or this "Research the history, my brothers. <antisemitic slogan>" genius on Hamas TV) are in the same ballpark as mainstream sources is hysterical. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion: add your !vote as Yes or No in addition to laughing. If the consensus is clear enough, this can be closed. Kingsindian (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no reason to say yes or no. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I also don't mind if the source is left in or not. That being the first sources. The second source is outdated. The second source would certainly seem unreliable. As far as the above tangent, I'm sorry to inform that I will not take that into account. I wasn't making a comparison to mainstream sources. I was making a comparison to the IDF as a source. IDF (as well as others in Israel) propaganda has been well documented as well. If you insist on using the IDF as a source and these other editors insist on on the Hamas source then I fail to see the issue with it's inclusion. I'm sure you don't like it but it seems the other side doesn't like your views either.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• No I made up my mind. The claims are dubious and the sources are crap. WP:FRINGE applies. This doesn't belong in the infobox. Kingsindian (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: if, when this RFC concludes, there is no consensus on whether or not the Hamas claims should be included, what happens? Is the default that disputed content is omitted unless there is consensus that it should be added, or is the default that disputed content is added unless there is consensus that it should be omitted? -sche (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In the event of "No consensus" it is my interpretation of WP:NOCONSENSUS that it would remain. But then as I understand the inclusion of this source in the article prompted this RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was never a consensus on the inclusion of the edit, so in my interpretation, the status quo would reign, i.e., it would not be included (point 2 in WP:NOCONSENSUS). Kingsindian (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not status quo but to what it was before the RFC was launched. I think this is specifically where the RFC was started. Though you could perhaps count the one edit before it. This being the closest edit to that in the article. It doesn't seem that the information in this RFC is there so yes it seems that this information would removed. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose not always to the state that existed right before the RfC, otherwise one would make a disputed change and immediately launch an RfC on removing it that would end in no-consensus, and voila - the change stays.WarKosign (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be very easy to game such a policy (I don't think that is operative policy). Anyway, let's cross the "no consensus" bridge when we come to it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at other articles, I can say that yes, what matters is not the specific diff that immediately precedes the RFC, but the general status — had the information been stably present in the article for a long time? In this case, no, it was boldly added and quickly reverted (and then edit-warred over). -sche (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• No Since when do we take HAMAS claim as non-fringe?Forbidden User (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• No We have multiple reliable sources citing a different number. There is no reason to include HAMAS' claim. They are the only ones reporting this number and it falls in line with WP:FRINGE. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus. -sche (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Usually RfCs run for 30 days, though they can be closed before if consensus is clear. I have put a do not archive template to prevent archiving now. Kingsindian (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Um

The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions began following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank after the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members, and which Hamas took responsibility for on 7 July' (launching 40 rockets), after an Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis killed seven of its members.

I didn't know Hamas took reponsibility for the murder of 3 Israeli teenagers on 7 July. Who's the clunk responsible for this shit, which, despite the parenthesis, insinuates that implication (which properly referring back to rocket fire from Gaza by non-Hamas factions, a nonsense by contextual entailment?Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I rephrased it to that, to clean up this messy edit. I think the "and" (in "and which Hamas") prevents your interpretation of it as saying Hamas took responsibility for the kidnapping. I've dropped the stray comma after "(launching 40 rockets)". Frankly, the entire parenthetical clause could be dropped, and that would make the sentence even easier to follow, IMO. -sche (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The sentence looks really awkward. Too many parentheses and commas. The previous version was much easier to follow (though even that is a monstrosity), and did not have the ambiguity that Hamas took responsibility for the kidnapping on 7 July. As to the "mainly among borders" etc.: that is from the source. One can argue whether it is undue or not. Kingsindian (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think, -sche, your challenge re 'border areas' odd. It is not a POV. It is a well-known, but 'unreported fact', and the journalist I cited it from is particularly meticulous in registered what therather more POV-slanted mainstream press ignores. When you have every other source, and almost every mainstream newspaper, ritually repeating 'rockets into Israel' , and find a very good source that is not copying and pasting text, but knows the subject and takes care to report with precise detail, you should choose the latter. Details are not POV. Ignoring them for generic memes certain bears a much higher risk of POV.

A to my edit being messy. My concern was to eliminate conceptual confusion by providing conscientiously the relevant additional facts to a screwed-up text. I normally don't elide what I consider to be bad or messy edits by others, but try to rewrite the mess with an eye to what sources actually say. That precision of order, and detail, has been constantly under attack.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, I have restored the original non-ambiguous version, without the "mainly along the borders" part. Which can be discussed further if needed. Kingsindian (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

8200 letter

@Nishidani: Here you added a paragraph about the IDF intelligence officers (actually reservists) signing a letter condemning civilian casualties caused by IDF bombing on targets that they helped identify. I added a response by the IDF spokesperson and an undue tag, yet I have several problems with this paragraph:

1. It does not belong in the Civilian deaths section since it does not give any details regarding the deaths.
2. It does not belong in the reactions section (actually sub-page) since they began collecting signatures for the letter "nearly" a year ago, so those writing the letter and a large part (possibly most) of those signing it did not do so in reaction to OPE.
3. The letter is already covered in detail in a special page dealing with all such letters by IDF soldiers.

I believe this paragraph should be removed, maybe leaving a short sentence linking to the main article from the Reactions section. WarKosign (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone forgot to insert the Israeli view? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:undue with only tangential relation to the current conflict. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed altogether. This letter has been over a year in the making. The release of the letter pretty much happens to be a coincidence in timing. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Its clearly doesn't belong here. The source quite clearly says it was prepared well before the war and have nothing to do with it.--Shrike (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But Shrike, " ignorance of international law" and "mass civilian deaths". Naytaining good faith, I hope to learn the latter note was source based. In the meantime, I nominate these two recent posts for 10 Million Theoretical Dollars. Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This editing behaviour, of lockstep naysaying, is close to reportable.

One argument of relative substance has been made, where WarKosign argues that it is perhaps in the wrong section. I can be removed to another section on this page, not shifted out of sight onto a subsidiary page. Most of the 5000 odd targeted strikes are, according to sources, done via the Unit 8200 operational headquarter's information. It plays a key role in any war undertaken by Israel, and it is therefore perfectly approach for the present instance.

The rest of the comments are spurious.

WarKosign's assertion that I inserted a 'paragraph' is patent misrepresentation, setting up a WP:Undue claim. It is a short sentence, and can be further abbreviated by eliding excess contextualization of the Unit.

Knightmare's argument that it is irrelevant, having been drafted a year ago, is false. The primary draft was made a year ago. As the page states, it was retouched in the light of rising casualties in Gaza, and was withheld until after the latest war. Published some weeks after, it refers to the collective punishment of residents in Gaza. Another stated that the latest episode was 'just another chapter in this cycle of violence,' which their action hopes to interrupt.

Plot Spoiler says it's tangential, a subjective judgement (much in the page is 'tangential' in any case). It turns out not to be tangential. See also the testimonies provided in Hayden Cooper,'Israeli soldiers from elite wire-tapping unit refuse to use 'extortion', 'blackmail' on Palestinians,' ABC News 13 September 2014, which, by the way, in contradistinction to what the page tries to assert, shows how easily mistakes are made, because the vaunted civilian/militant criterion is often, where decisions are made, vitiated.

Marciulionis's reference to a lacuna has been resolved by WarKosign's balancing edit.

Distaste is not an argument. Block voting, without proper individual judgements, does not constitute a consensus. It constitutes evidence (the second time on this page) that a POV push may be active, and rallies on crucial questions. If this continues, we'll will have to take it to arbitration.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

2 Questions to activate the imagination and work on accomplishing a source based consensus:

• Where has anyone used "distaste" as an argument? (I will hand out 10 million theoretical dollars for the most creative answer)
• Where is there a mainstream source connecting this supreme letter writing (and all the responses) to the best Operation Defensive Shield?

Fabulous. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If the letter is in the wrong section, it could be moved to the correct section. I have long thought that the stuff about reactions inside Israel and the West Bank should be inside this article, not the "Reactions" article, which is mostly about pro-Israel/Palestine demonstrations and statements by foreign leaders. The first time I added it, someone moved it to the Reactions section, and I forgot about it, and it was moved to a separate page afterwards. I will move the section back here (condensed, there is too much detail), and perhaps this letter can be included in that section? See also discussion here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph vs sentence - you are right. You inserted a sentence which became a paragraph after my attempt to balance its POV. We seem to have an agreement that if it belongs anywhere at all in any form, it would be as a short (yet balanced) sentence in the Reactions section (which is at the moment the transcluded lead paragraph from Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). The two remaining questions are:

• Is it factually correct that this letter was written (mostly) in response to OPE ? How many of these who wrote and signed the letter actually participated in OPE?
• Assuming that it is, is it due weight ? With all due respect to the 8200 officers, how notable are they ? There are plenty of other IDF soldiers who were involved more directly in the operation, are we representing their opinions as well ?WarKosign (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(a) Who said that it was written in response to OPE? Not I. It was, according to sources, drafted before, and then slightly modified during OPE (though I'd like further sourcing for this point than what we have at the moment). As I just edited in at the other page, while none of the signatories were involved in the Gaza war, several avoided service in Operation Protective Cliff, when called in from the reserve, by using pretexts. That establishes a direct nexus, the reasons given in the letter account for their refusal to work in OPE. Secondly the major testifies that very many of his colleagues agreed with the letter, but baulked at signing it because it would be detrimental career-wise. (b) America is rocked when one of its NSA agents blows the whistle, and the 'conversation' rages for years. These guys, like it or not, have done something in unparalleled numbers for the first time in Israel's intel history, and numerous sources are discussing this now. My simple view if, we must cut down our subjective likes and dislikes and simply look at whether sources think the info is important or not. They do, and the interviews make no doubt that a connection with what Israel did in Gaza does exist.Nishidani (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Except the obvious WP:UNDUE issues there is WP:SIZE problem the article already is already too large we should trim it instead bloat it more by WP:UNDUE staff.--Shrike (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The letter is only tangentially related to the article subject matter and has no place in the article. Valiant Patriot (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no direct reference to Operation Protective Edge in the letter anywhere. The authors admit that they wrote the bulk of it many months before OPE. Several also admit not participating in the operation "by using pretexts", hence their views on the operation hold no more value than of any other non-participant. This letter is not a response to OPE, even in small part, hence it does not belong in this article in any way. It is notable enough to be represented together with other similar letters elsewhere. WarKosign (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I require clarification on 3 issues. (a) Where are the interviews where "several avoided service in Operation Protective Cliff"? (b) Where has anyone used the Napoleonesque "distaste" as an argument? (c) Israel did a lot of things, good and bad, in Gaza over the years. What is the relevancy to this article? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Not only there is no direct reference, here one of the authors says "We’ve been thinking about it for maybe a year" "We didn’t want it to be interpreted only in this context. We decided before the recent war to do this. For me there wasn’t any particular trigger. It was a long process of realising" - they say it clearly that the letter is essentially unrelated to OPE and they don't want it to be seen as related. @MarciulionisHOF: "All three are now on the active reserve list and have said they will not do reserve service relating to the occupied Palestinian territories." - I believe it answers your issue (a). It also indicates that they can't have first-hand knowledge of alleged violations of any kind during OPE, rendering the letter even more WP:UNDUE.WarKosign (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read both the text and those sources closely, without choosing some bits and ignoring others. (b) please reply to my specific points which were elicited by various editors' comments or doubts.

• We are not talking only of the letter, but the collection of documents and testimonies attached to it in Cooper (not The Guardian but ABC News). You picked the wrong source. To single out the letter because it doesn't mention specifically this war, but, according to interpretations, may allude to it, and use that as a reason to exclude it from the article, is special pleading, given other considerations. I.e.
• Even the Guardian interviews, construed correctly, underline its relevance. You yourself cite:

We didn’t want it to be interpreted only (не . . только . . . ) in this context.

In English prose this is the absolute simple form of the не только . .но и construction. only here means 'we wanted it also to be interpreted in terms of this conext, but the intention was far more general'. I'm bemused by this looking past the obvious meaning of the sentence. But this is the English wikipedia, and precise construal of source language is obligatory. only is exclusive grammatically, but in such combinations with negatives, has an inclusive function, and here that inclusive function refers to the present war.

• The letter does explicitly mention the collective punishment of residents in Gaza. This statement is generic, and, since the letter was retouched according to a source after the the outbreak of these hostilities ('it was modified in response to the rising number of civilian casualties in Gaza'), the generic reference must be taken normally be taken as not excluding the Israel-Gaza war in its latest, third stage.
• Therefore, your construal that 'they say it clearly that the letter is essentially unrelated to OPE and they don't want it to be seen as related' is contrafactual, given the sources, and by recourse to the adverbial essentially you are misconstruing it towards the idea, which is again denied by sources, that they did not have that war in mind, when the published it immediately after the war ended. One interviewer says this war was illustrative of a more general principle in being 'just another chapter in this cycle of violence.'
• While the illustrations used do not relate to this war, the above evidence shows the connection, one that is confirmed by the fact that several of the signatories refused to comply with their call up by adopting excuses to justify what was in fact, plainly, a refusal to serve in the war. That admission, alone, that several signatories 'dodged' service in the war means again, that a connection is established.
• 'It also indicates that they can't have first-hand knowledge of alleged violations of any kind during OPE.'

This is immaterial. Nowhere in that sentence do I refer to, or make an argument about, 'first-hand knowledge of alleged violations during this war'.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I had added this earlier, but I forgot to save. Oh well. I am really surprised by the reasoning that since they refused participation due to political reasons by using pretexts, their views have no more value than any other non-participant. They are veterans of intelligence service, talking about their own experience: their view (properly contextualized) is much more relevant than the tons of trash based on gossipy news stories in this article. Please start by removing the trash if you feel the concern for WP:SIZE.

• Regarding WP:UNDUE, one has to take the following into account. This will necessarily get a bit WP:SOAPBOXy, because to argue about undue weight, one has to get meta. The letter makes many points, including a "culture of impunity" that exists in the military intelligence service, a point already made in the text regarding the army investigation, and B'Tselem having refused participation with the army on this. (again, this is not talking about whether B'Tselem is right or wrong). In the interviews, the person says that they don't want it to be seen as "just" a response to the war. It is silly to read this to say that it is totally unrelated to the conflict. Also, there is a big section about collaborators currently in the article, and this aspect is specifically mentioned in testimony and interviews. I noted before the issue that direct confessions from militants have been included in the article, without any caveats at all.
• To repeat, whether or not you feel that the people involved are right or wrong, that is not relevant to the issue here. Kingsindian (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thanks for the translation, I believe my understanding of the source is adequate without it. Their statement of 'not only' is the reason I wrote 'essentially' and not just 'unrelated'. You are making a very good argument why the letter and the opinion of the people who wrote and signed it is notable in the context of the whole Israel-Palestine conflict, I completely agree that it should be represented, and there is a very nice article dedicated to just this kind of refusal letter.

We are discussing the relevance of this letter as a response to OPE. There are a few points against it:

• It was written well before the operation began. Even after the modifications OPE is not mentioned, at most it is alluded. How are we supposed to understand that collective punishment refers to OPE and not, say, the blockade ?
• The authors say in an interview they do not want the letter to be as "only" referring to OPE, but to the whole conflict.
• The authors did not participate in the conflict in their military role, rendering their opinion of it (however much of it is represented in the letter) no more valuable than any other left-wing activist (former IDF officer, if you prefer) in Israel. There are many interviews with soldiers who personally fought in Gaza, let's quote interviews with them. We had a quote of Avi from Golani, let's reinstate it and his friend's testimony as well.

Something about this letter can be included in the reactions section. In my opinion, it boils down to "Reserve soldiers of 8200 who wrote a refusal letter several months before the operation refused to serve during the operation and published the letter in slightly modified form after the operation ended." These are the facts that are somewhat relevant to OPE.WarKosign (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your English is excellent, but you still misconstrue both just and not only, the latter in particular cannot be interpreted as 'essentially', as you would affirm, and I think I did explain why. I'll repeat the Guardian passage

For a couple of months friends joining and growing slowly … most of them are still active. We’ve been thinking about it for maybe a year. It was a difficult dilemma. We were worried that this action would be seen only as a response to the war in Gaza and it is important to us to make it clear this is about the ‘normal’ situation . A: We didn’t want it to be interpreted only in this context. We decided before the recent war to do this. For me there wasn’t any particular trigger. It was a long process of realising

There is no way that can be construed as not being connected to the war (and it was sent just to weeks after the ceasefire). They decided before the war on the letter, wishing to make a general statement of Unit 8200's role in the occupation of the Palestinian territories, but withheld it as war broke out. It was retouched in the light of the war (evidence given). It was communicated to the relevant heads two weeks after the war, when the ceasefire was holding. When punished they then specified:'Don't read it as a protest against the war in Gaza only: we wrote it before that war, the war obviously is part of our concern in making the protest, but the protest is far deeper, and regards not just 'the collective punishment of Gazans' in that war, but the normal 'collective punishment' in Gaza and the West Bank over time.

The declaration is one of the several element listed which indicate a direct connection to the war.Most of our sources come from people who did not participate in the war. Finally, but most importantly, the premise that the letter must have an explicit reference to OPE in order to warrant its citation in the article would destroy the page, since much of the material covered in the background (as is usual) is sourced. Take notes 50-56 to cite but one example (cf.Note 56 Hillel Neuer says Gaza 'not occupied'; UN disagrees,' January 2012, Jerusalem Post), which all predate the time when this letter began to be drafted. I'll be away abroad a few days. I don't think your proposed draft reflects sources (perhaps:’ Two weeks after the ceasefire, 43 reserve officers in Israel's elite Unit 8200 which provides targeting information informed senior political and military figures, in a letter mainly drafted before the war, they would no longer performed their surveillance functions in regard to Palestinians. They cautioned that letter is not only a response to the war in Gaza, but a larger critique of Israel’s military actions in the Occupied territories. Official responses, including those of many of their colleagues, were unanimously dismissive of the charges made..’). I'll leave it in the meantime, hoping a fair compromise can be ironed out for a one sentence reference to this item on our page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of "not just 'the collective punishment of Gazans' in that war, but the normal 'collective punishment' in Gaza and the West Bank over time. " that you are quoting or paraphrasing. Where did it come from ? Even assuming that they indeed say that, it is only one interpretation. What makes you think they meant this any not something else entirely ?

"Not only in the context", in my opinion, obviously means that the letter refers to the whole conflict and they see OPE as a part of the conflict, and given the timing their letter would be likely misinterpreted as referring (mainly) to OPE while it refers to the whole conflict, OPE being one of the events in it. They intentionally make it abundantly clear that the letter is not about the operation despite the timing. WarKosign (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is fully unrelated to this conflict and WP:undue as the majority of participants in this debate noticed. 5 editors and myself (6 editors altogether) shared the same opinion, so the inclusion of this information is clearly rejected by majority of editors. This article needs to be shorter and specific to the subject. --Tritomex (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Tritomex. This is not a voting booth, and opinions particularly unfocused ones ('the majority of participants here'), are quite useless unless they underline the fact that there is a clear majority siding for one POV on key issues, without troubling to take other editors' comments seriously.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the letters' authors and the commenters above that the letter is only tangentially related to the conflict, and hence I agree it should not be mentioned in the article. -sche (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The letter does not belong to this article per undue. Besides, the main content of the letter is not even related to this particular war.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You keep reading not "just" related to the conflict as "not related to the conflict". I have given multiple reasons above as to how this is relevant, the main being that they dodged military service in this conflict due to political reasons, and I will not repeat them here. To Tritomex, WP:DEM. Kingsindian (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are clear consensus that the letter should not be included please readWP:IDHT.--Shrike (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I keep reading 'not only' as 'not referring only to the last operation, but to the whole conflict', presumably equally. Obviously they are not saying 'our letter does not refer at all to OPE', but they are also not saying 'the letter refers to OPE more than to any other event in the conflict'. I did not yet see any reason to believe that they are treating OPE in any special way in the letter, they do not mention it in the letter at all and are specifically saying otherwise in the interviews. Their refusal to serve during OPE is notable in relation to this article, and this is why I mentioned it in the mock draft. The letter itself is not notable in relation to this operation and should be only mentioned essentially as "8200 people who wrote that letter refused to serve during OPE" (obviously after proper rephrasing). WarKosign (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing RfC for "Hamas run, controlled, governed, ruled, whatever"

Closed the RfC since the consensus was clear for "Hamas-ruled". Any further discussion can be done here. Kingsindian (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Question in hopes to get a long-standing version: If Hamas runs it. What exactly does the unity government mean? The Prime Minister is from Fatah, and Fatah gives the money for salaries (and many other activities). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The operative point here is the status at the time of the operation. At that time, Hamas "ruled" the Gaza strip, and still does, as of this date. As to salaries, they were not paid for several months, even after the unity govt. Kingsindian (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I see the word 'control' twice ("Hamas seized control", "The Hamas-controlled Finance Ministry") but don't see 'ruled'. *so confused* Is this source the one you propose to use for explaining this issue? What do other sources say about the unity government complexity? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The source was simply used to talk about the salaries issue. I will not be responding to anything else here. Kingsindian (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this the source you will be using? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I will answer just one more. I assume that are talking about the source for "Hamas-ruled". I will not be using any source. See Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations. Statements in the lead do not require any citations in general. It is a widely used phrase, that is sufficient. Kingsindian (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT "a widely used phrase" so what would be sufficient does not exist. This is what happens when editors "simply ignore" the what sources say. On point: What exactly does the unity government mean? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Government of the strip is complicated and we do not want to go into the details in this article's lead. There is a whole other article dealing with it. What if "Hamas-ruled" was to link there, would it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not about my personal preference -- not even in sources (my sense of humor is not mainstream fitting). Let's say I agree and you add the link. What stops 2 editors from changing it 2 weeks from now to "Hamas commands mastery over Gaza"? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I find "Hamas-ruled" a reasonable, neutral wording. "Controlled" continues to be too inaccurate and has too many overtones to work. The above comments requesting "sources" appear to proceed from the erroneous notion that sources are required or relevant when deciding matters of style such as questions of which of several attested, denotatively largely synonymous wordings to use in prose to express a cited fact (viz. that Hamas governs Gaza). -sche (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas ruled/controlled/etc are all fine and any issues with them are equally applicable to all of them imo. Whatever influence Fatah/Unity has affects all of those terms, likewise whatever control Israel is exerting. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Land expropriation

@KingsIndian: Please explain what it has to do with the conflict?And how does sources discuss the connection?--Shrike (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave the connection. The EU called it terrible timing and warns of renewed violence in Gaza. It is mentioned in the "Timeline" section (post-conflict). I also gave the connection with the three teenagers killed which started this whole business. Finally, this is part of the settlement expansion as detailed in the PLO report. The sources are all there. I can add more if needed. Also see this discussion about the West Bank. Kingsindian (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gideon Levy or OCHA

@Wlglunight93: Are you suggesting with this edit that Gideon Levy could be lying that he got the figures from OCHA? If so, please remove all the newspaper sources on this page. Kingsindian (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying that an opinion article written by a controversial individual like Gideon Levy can't be used as a source for facts. If is true that OCHA released those statistics, I'm sure you won't have any problem to find the original source.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried looking for any source providing these numbers and couldn't find one.WarKosign (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93: Have you heard of "fact-checkers" used by newspapers? Gideon Levy is a longtime journalist with Ha'aretz. Why would he fabricate numbers from OCHA, which can be easily checked? Please use some common sense. Moreover, it is not the correct procedure to cite OCHA, which is WP:PRIMARY, but a WP:RS reporting on the statement. This is why you see "according the IDF" sprinkled all around the article, but it is citing a newspaper source. Kingsindian (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The numbers don't have to be fabricated to be incorrect. It could be a honest mistake. The article uses primary sources for casualties numbers, so why trust a single journalist on this one ? WarKosign (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: That is a strange standard. So any source quoting the IDF or Gaza Health Ministry, or OCHA elsewhere should also be attributed to the reporter instead to the IDF etc.? It is silly to assume that a reporter is so "controversial" that he can't relay simple figures in his own newspaper. Kingsindian (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Because this is not opinion piece.The numbers from the news reports are OK but the problem with opinion piece they can be manipulated to better support the opinion of the author. --Shrike (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "opinion" part is when Levy states that this is the "real face of IDF". That is an opinion. The figures from OCHA are facts. If you have any contrary data, feel free to include them. I regard this as simply an attempt to shoehorn Gideon Levy with his supposed "controversy" into the article. Kingsindian (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Levi is an exceptional case. There's been articles attacking his poor fact checking (and it's commonly noted that he never learned Arabic). There's multiple cases of massive public outcry about him (and other writers of Haaretz, but mostly him). I recently saw a friendly interview of him by Shay Shtern (not this show, but he's on chapter 27 here), where he smilingly responds to a question on how far he is from consensus by saying he'd probably lose a vote in his own home. In the episode 27 (which I checked briefly) he calls a purchased home "stolen property" and compares it to knowingly buying a stolen BMW. Not exactly a good source for anything other than his own extremist views. On the same level, I'd advocate to make an effort to avoid a source using terms such as "bloodthirsty <insert race/denomination>" for any statistics since it is an extremist source that is hard to take as generally reliable. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You mentioned that you did not find data which Levy is quoting. Here it is. Just one data point: Report before Operation Protective Edge, says 17 killed in 2014. Latest report says 40 killed in 2014. 40 - 17 = 23. The reports also mention how many are injured, and the number by live fire. Anyone who wishes can check them. Can we please now quote OCHA? WP:CALC? Kingsindian (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thank you, I think this is a reasonable calculation so with these sources and a comment, at least in the wikicode, on how the calculation was made the numbers can be attributed to OCHA. Is there a reliable source for the fire percentage?WarKosign (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The reports give all the counts, killed, injured, injured by live fire. Kingsindian (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I still can't find it in the report. What am I missing ?

The report currently appears twice, once transcluded in "international reactions" and once directly in "reactions in Israel and the west bank". The problem is that the international reactions is transcluded from "reactions" article, where it is reasonable to have it, so it would be wrong to just delete it there. WarKosign (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: First point: from the report I linked: "These operations triggered violent clashes with Palestinian residents, which resulted in the injury of 32 Palestinians, including six with live ammunition and 18 with rubber-coated bullets". This can be done for all reports. But that is not the point. This is what journalists are paid for. Let them do the work and use them as WP:RS. The issue is simply that the citation should be verifiable. As to the second point, it can be easily handled by using "noinclude" tags. I will do it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Gideon Levi has a problematic reputation so it's hard to trust facts that he publishes without some verification from another source. WarKosign (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Citing CAMERA for anything is very silly. Most of the stuff on that page is simply CAMERA's interpretation of what it says is wrong. There can be mistakes, sure. Ha'aaretz has a fact-checking department and can issue corrections if discovered. This is in fact one of the main attributes of WP:RS. It is not legitimate to second-guess sources like this. I am not paid to track down every source for Misplaced Pages. I did it this time, in exasperation. If people have a problem, use WP:RSN for this. Kingsindian (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A board member that writes whatever he wants on a weekly basis since the 1980s is not the best source. "Levy had violated articles of the ethics code that mandate fact-checking, objectivity and loyalty to the truth"..."Haaretz’s editors had not made sure the facts were checked" MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Per the above discussion, I have added, after the citations of the secondary RSes, also a citation of the OCHA data. I added an HTML comment to make clear that Misplaced Pages doesn't even need to CALCULATE the "23" figure, etc, because the secondary RSes already do that math, the OCHA citation is just there to confirm those RSes. -sche (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation timeline section

@TheTimesAreAChanging: The operation timeline section transcludes (see WP:TRANSCLUDE) the "overview" section of the other article. Any changes must be made there, and they will be visible here. I have added a comment in that section for future reference. Kingsindian (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Tower Demolition

Towards the end of the Operation, Israel decided to take down a couple towers. I haven't seen any input on this in the article. Here's a couple sources - , . Hamas response: . And aftermath: -- MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: Sounds like you have everything you need to make a bold edit to the article and add this section. It could fit either in the timeline (note that it's a different article then) or in "Destruction of homes". WarKosign (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what else others might like to add. Perhaps a personal attack? Why deny someone this privilege? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I know the story, and I considered adding something on it myself: however, I was not sure what to add. A section on highrises is not needed, since it only happenned on one day I think. I'm not sure, but it was not the widespread practice, usually apartments were targeted, not highrise offices etc. Kingsindian (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read it was residential apartments that according to IDF were used as "command and control posts" (and according to the neighbours contained electronic equipment that Hamas abandoned once the operation began) and IDF destroyed the whole building. The fact that it was highrise may have been the reason for Hamas to use it (as an observation post), but this is my speculation. Otherwise it seems to be to no different from the rest of the residential buildings IDF destroyed or damaged. WarKosign (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What WarKosign said. Knightmare72589 (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The towers were a relatively big deal in mainstream media as was the killing of a 4 year old just prior to it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Peripheral stuff

There needs to be some appreciation for WP:UNDUE. The passage about refugees fleeing is one hop from the Gaza conflict, so it is in the reactions in Gaza section. What happenned to some of the refugees (drowned) is another hop, but drowning is what makes them notable, as the Ha'aretz article notes. Unfortunately, in the world that we live in, unless lots of people die, nobody cares about them, and they are not notable.

The circumstances of the drowning (some competing smugglers rammed them) is another hop. The machinations of Fatah and Hamas, trading insults, and the corruption and/or smugglers smuggling people and taking money etc. is another hop and not relevant to this page. It can be added in the Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels page.

There has to be some control over stuff sprawling here. Already the article is huge. I will try to attack the various sections at some point. Right now, the article just seems to be a dumping ground for some tidbit people find from some place. That probably applies to some of my edits as well. Kingsindian (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV either we mention circumstances of the drowning of we don't mention it at all.--Shrike (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how WP:NPOV applies. What are the two points of view, one of which is being suppressed? Kingsindian (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The smugglers are possibly connected to Hamas by use of Hamas's tunnels. According to some sources that I did not quote yet these possibly-hamas-connected-smugglers drowned their own ship on purpose after the refugees refused to move to a smaller vessel they deemed unsafe, with 300 refugees trapped inside and drowning. Other sources say that refugees were escaping "Hamas Devil" or "Gaza hell". I deem these fact notable. Perhaps the paragraph indeed doesn't belong in this article, since they do not say specifically that all of this happened in reaction to OPE. What would be the right place to put it then ? "Ways in which Hamas is bad" article that you suggested (in jest?) begins to sound like a good idea. WarKosign (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested that the stuff about the $2,500 bribes etc. be put in the smuggling tunnels page. I am not sure where to put the "drowned their own ship" or "conflict between smugglers" stuff. Not sure an article exists dealing with that kind of stuff. Kingsindian (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole paragraph belongs in the smuggling tunnels article - smuggling people (and then drowning them) is just another use of the tunnels. WarKosign (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Wars create refugees, this is normal. In Gaza, they can't flee without using tunnels. The tunnels are mentioned only in passing. The drowning is only mentioned briefly, one sentence, because that makes the story notable, as I said above. The issues are always complex, not every refugee has the same motivation. I can add a couple of statements to that effect if needed. Kingsindian (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a single package - refugees escaping by ship + use of hamas tunnels + bribes/payment + smugglers fighting between them and/or killing refugees. All of these should be mentioned together at the same place. I think the tunnels article is the right place to describe the whole story - unless there is something connecting it specifically to OPE.WarKosign (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely, the tower issue was a mainstream story line and not a silly no-one-cares type of report (remember Avi and his night-vision story? ... ffs!). Unfortunately, I really don't know how the cheese-players here pick and choose but it is not by mainstream (who in the mainstream cared about someone drowning?) Haaretz is one source. No more, no less. I'm sure they have articles with other "notable" examples... maybe even AyatollahTV and Hamas PR department noticed a few of those *yay!* (Has any major network made it into a major story? I doubt it) On point. I'm glad you noticed a problem might exist. I'm hoping selection of material will not be based on supervillain methodology (read: personal preference) but on mainstream notability. -- MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC) m MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The subject about the drownings doesn't belong on this page. It was not part of the conflict. It should be added to the Gaza smuggling page. Just because something is remotely related to this page doesn't mean it needs to be added. Knightmare72589 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You reverted my addition to your paragraph per BRD. How does BRD apply here ? Your addition of the section was the Bold change which I did not accept fully and tried to fix. Had I Reverted your change, it would be clear, but it looks now that if there is no agreement here the default would be to your first Bold edit, and it seems just wrong. It is similar to what happened with 8200 letter. One solution I see is never to try correcting previous edits but to always revert them, but it's counter-productive. WarKosign (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my first edit, we can discuss it. And if there is consensus to not add it, then it will be removed. There is no default here that it would stay. That is of course the problem with an active article being changed all the time, and under 1RR restrictions. I have at least 10 edits that I want to revert. Things will stabilize eventually. Kingsindian (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I had a problem and added more stuff to fix it. Now you reverted it, I have the same problem again. This is what we're discussing above - my comment here is on the technicality of "BRD" : BRD is ok, but BBRDRD might be frowned upon, despite being more productive. WarKosign (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have self-reverted while this discussion goes on. Can we agree on the fact that people fleeing Gaza is important to be added in the reactions section? What else needs to be added, can be discussed. Kingsindian (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My take on that either we include all the details or we only include a short line that people fleeing from Gaza.--Shrike (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a short and neutral mention that links to more detailed information elsewhere? WarKosign (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree--Shrike (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So where to put the main paragraph ? Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels#Transport of people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here it says that some of the refugees on a ship that (was) drowned left Gaza 2 weeks before OPE. Unless there is a source that provides specific connection, it shouldn't be even mentioned here. WarKosign (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Since story is relatively new, not much details on the motives of the refugees. I will hold back on the entire thing it becomes clear. Some people say it was because of war, some say it was long term. See this.Kingsindian (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What does the fox say? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold change to the lead

Not sure what discussion is being referred to. I don't see what was wrong with the previous version which didn't meet WP:LEADSENTENCE, nor why the "non-Hamas factions" part has been removed. I have reverted the edit. As to following the structure of some other page, that is neither necessary nor desirable. See WP:OSE. The lead has been crafted over many weeks of painful discussions. Give a version here before making bold edits. Kingsindian (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"crafted over many discussions" is an quite the edit summary for a non-stable article (read: public plea to be a WP:DICK). Read the edit summary: follow WP:LEADSENTENCE. Please read it. Then read the text and explain what you are objecting to (changes were pretty simple) -- or you can also "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert.". MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the only thing that bothers you the "non-Hamas" thing or is there anything else? The lead was a disaster. I'm not the only one to state this sentiment on this talk page. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold changes to the lead that has been edited, discussed, tinkered with, and generally stable, are simply not acceptable, Don't repeat this behaviour. Your manner of engaging on the talk page itself is problematical. Please desist.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: The non-Hamas thing bothers me yes. As to the other things, I have indeed read WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:DICK. I however, don't see your point, so please be explicit. The lead is pretty awkward, sure, but in contentious areas, there has to be some sacrifice of cogency for other issues, like NPOV. It can be improved, and copyediting is always welcome. However, one cannot just remove some portion of the stuff while copyediting, nor should one fix things which are not broken. I would prefer if you just wrote a different version either here, or use WP:Drafts. Kingsindian (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

While the rest of the article is a patent POV mess, the lead at least must strictly conform to WP:NPOV and simple arrange the main thematic elements, with equal weight to the positions of both parties. That cannot be done under the conditions of continual edit-warring, and is the reason why suggestions to alter its substance or significant parts, should be done by copying the lead as it is, and then opening a discussion, or outlining an alternative that meets the above conditions and finds consensus (not in numbers, which is the major defect here of discussions) but by a mutual acceptance by those who have taken care to get each side duly represented. In ideal conditions, that would take some days, perhaps a week. In the present editorial atmosphere you are looking at a month or so.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "On 8 July 2014, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge " is a better phrasing than "Operation Protective Edge is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation ". I also think that having one paragraph and indeed one sentence that conveys the complete thought "The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which " is clearer than splitting that thought across several places, such that one paragraph says " officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the stated aim of ending Palestinian rocket fire from the Gaza strip into Israel, later expanded to include the aim of destroying Gaza's warfare tunnel system", and then only after another subject has interpolated itself does another paragraph handles the increase in rocket fire. (PS note the missing "and" I've supplied in square brackets and italics.) I also think the information on the sequence of who acted when (wrt rocket fire) is important enough that it should be retained. However, I think the last of the changes is an improvement, particularly if we can add a few words to (IMO) improve the flow of the new sequence. -sche (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties (a note)

One has to be careful about final lists, which are stable after registering a total of deaths in the war, but implicitly exclude deaths in its immediate aftermath that are consequential on strewn and embedded ordnance blowing up, as here. '2 killed, 3 injured by unexploded Israeli ordnance in Shujaiyya,'. The articles shows that

A 2012 report published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said that 111 civilians, 64 of whom were children, were casualties to unexploded ordnance between 2009 and 2012, reaching an average of four every month in 2012.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• 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