Misplaced Pages

• Agreed. Pillar of Defense is clearly most common English-language title. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the official name Pillar of Cloud in Hebrew ?! Unflavoured (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but per WP:COMMONNAME we use the common name in English language sources. The official name in Hebrew doesn't matter. The article would mention the Hebrew name and the English translation for that, but the title should be the English name. Ryan Vesey 04:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of official sources (scroll above to view) are using Pillar of Cloud, as per the official name of the operation. That is to say: It is not just the quantity of sources, but the quality. Unflavoured (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Only consider the name(s) used by official sources. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – while I personally like Pillar of Cloud more (to avoid confusion, since this is the correct translation of the real name), the official name is actually Pillar of Defense. See http://www.idf.il/english/ . —Ynhockey 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support the move. Use the authorized name in English rather than a literal translation of the authorized foreign (here, Hebrew language) name. Explaining the latter in the lede is warranted and sufficient, plus a #REDIRECT page, of course. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support the move, too. official name always better than anything else. Soosim (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Google news results supports this: -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, Google News generates far more results for "Gaza offensive" . Perhaps, per WP:commonname, after this move, we move the article to 2012 Gaza offensive? Not all operation articles need to have official names. See Normandy landings. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support "Operation Pillar of Defense" seems like the most appropriate title. I suggest that this move take place shortly rather than wait the 7 days. It appears to be an uncontroversial move to a more accurate title. Seen as this is a massive story it should not be at the wrong name for days. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Futuretrillionaire: Should be named 2012 Gaza offensive. Many RS reports on the topic do not mention the official name the Israelis have given the offensive. Dlv999 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's probably better to do one move at a time, the current title is clearly not a good one. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

- I oppose that proposed title. This is a situation involving attacks on Israel too not just Gaza, so the "Gaza offensive" is not an all encompassing title either. Also 2012 Gaza Conflict would be more neutral and probably the most widely used of those two proposals. We should make the basic move of this article to the correct official title of the operation.. which appears to have support. Then immediately start a full discussion on a wider change of the article title/scope. If we did make this current proposed move (to defense rather than cloud, i do totally agree that it should not be seen as justification for no additional move to a wider title afterwards. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

- Support that is a more neutral title than the current one --130.88.99.220 (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with 'Assault on Gaza'? There are various names circulating in Palestinian circles, of which that is the most neutral. I see no reason to use on side's nomenclature over the other's. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The name is dependent on how we frame the article as a whole. What is our frame of reference? If we mean to say that the assassination of Jabari is the beginning of this conflict, then the military operation is probably appropriate as a name, in which case it should match the most common English name in secondary sources (Operation Pillar of Defense). However, if we want to place it in a larger context of recent exchange of fire, we could expand the time frame all the way into October (see background section in article). At that point, we'd have to make it something like "October–November 2012 Gaza Conflict." We will probably have to wait a little while to see what actually happens with this conflict, and if a larger time scale is appropriate. --Jprg1966  18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We could take it back months and months, because the conflict between Israel and Gaza is constant. But that would be silly. We alredy hav' two articles about the constant tit-for-tat between Israel and Gaza. It's better to hav' a focused article about a particular military operation than an unfocused one about months and months of tit-for-tat. ~Asarlaí 18:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. My point is that our frame of reference for the title must also match up with what's in the article. --Jprg1966  21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In regards to anything related to Gaza offensive and assault on Gaza and similar things. I haven't seen any reliable sources referring to the name of this as the Gaza offensive. It is a Gaza offensive so it is likely that there will be many sources talking about the Gaza offensive; however WP:COMMONNAME doesn't tell us to use the most common description of the subject, it tells us to use the most common name. A similar thing would be President Clinton. His official name is William Clinton, his common name is Bill Clinton, but he is also commonly referred to as President Clinton. We use Bill Clinton because it is the most common term used to name him. (Note that this is my interpretation and I'm certainly open to someone's point if they feel mine is wrong). Ryan Vesey 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• To add a little bit of support to my statement that Gaza offensive is used as a reference not as a name, note this Reuters article. It refers to it as the "Gaza offensive" (note that offensive is lowercase so it is not a title) it also mentions that it was Operation Pillar of Defense. A blog from Foreign Policy Magazine does the same. The Daily Beast refers to it as an Offensive in Gaza in the title of the article and uses the lowercased offensive when mentioning the operation in the article. This source, although it uses Pillar of Cloud rather than Pillar of Defense, uses the lowercased offensive. The Times uses lowercase offensive as does Haaretz (which also uses Pillar of Defense). Ryan Vesey 19:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - "Operation Pillar of Defense" is the one being used on the IDF website. It also gets more Google hits than both "Operation Pillar of Cloud" and "Gaza offensive" (remember to search from 14 November 2012 onward). I think we should avoid vague names like "Gaza offensive" or "Gaza conflict". Israel has launcht other offensives in Gaza this year. This article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to that operation. Using the IDF name doesn't make us "pro-Israeli" (likewize, calling an article Operation Barbarossa or Operation Overlord doesn't mean we're taking sides) . ~Asarlaí 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree that the article has to be renamed to the Gaza offensive 2012 and why should the page be named with an israeli name, it would be better to rename it with a general name for the article.Alhanuty (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why should the page be named with an Israeli name? Because otherwise we are making the name up. Reliable sources have referred to this as a Gaza offensive, they don't call this the Gaza Offensive. See my explanation above. Ryan Vesey 19:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation is unconvincing because you only discuss one or two sources. You only mention sources that use both terms, but there are four times as many sources using the term "Gaza offensive" than there are using "Operation Pillar of Defense". This shows that the majority of sources do not use the official Israeli term, thus it is not the common name, nor is it a neutral description of the article topic - so not a suitable name for the article. Also a lot of sources Dlv999 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean one or two sources? I mentioned 6 and a few of them didn't mention Pillar of anything. My point was that those using Gaza offensive is mentioned as a description not a name. I can take some time and explain 100 more if you want, but that is why Google search results don't work well. Has anyone produced a single source that refers to "Gaza Offensive" as the name of this? Ryan Vesey 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that "Gaza Offensive 2012" isn't a very useful name, but keep in mind that Operation Cast Lead ended up just being called the Gaza War. --Jprg1966  21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• No opinion on whether Operation Pillar of Cloud or Operation Pillar of Defense should be used, but I think that regardless of which is chosen both names should be mentioned in the lead. --Yair rand (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I prefer "2012 Gaza clashes" or "2012 Gaza war" etc. Some sources don't mention "pillar of cloud" or "pillar of defence" at all.VR _talk 05:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Other articles on the same sites use Pillar of Defense 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Support google search for operation pillar of defense = 102,000 results. google search for gaza offensive 2012 = 63 results. It's not about what a few people prefer, it's about what it's name actually is. This is about a specific operation, not attacks generally. I also don't see why this should take a full week. 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Why has this topic been split into one article for each belligerent's operation? Surely that's going to create some serious overlap in scope. Where is the central article for this particular clash? Osiris (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what other article you are referring to. Capscap (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'm trying to work out. Is this the article for the actual clash – the event currently unfolding? Or is this article about the Israeli side of the operations? Because the page's title and introduction would suggest the latter, but the rest of the article is a mish-mash of scope (a lot of it seems to describe the outbreak of violence in general, not specifically the Israeli offensive). If the topic is split into one article for each belligerent's operation, then why are we using {{Infobox military conflict}} and not a {{Campaignbox}} template in this article. Why isn't there just an article describing this particular clash as a whole? Surely that's more manageable for the reader than having one article about the Israeli campaign and another about the Palestinian campaign. Osiris (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the IDF military operation that began on 14 November, and Hamas's response to that operation. The background section is just that: the background to the operation. ~Asarlaí 15:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Then does anyone here mind if we create another article where the whole event is covered (not just one belligerent's operation)? Something like "November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes" similar to other articles. Osiris (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I just explained that this article does cover the whole event. The event is an IDF military operation. One military force (the IDF) has taken action agenst another military force (Hamas), which has responded. This article covers actions by both sides. In 1941, the Wehrmacht began a military operation agenst the Red Army, which responded. That's all covered under Operation Barbarossa. ~Asarlaí 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but the IDF military operation is obviously in response to a bigger event yes? As you explained, the background – detailing the violence that leads up to it – is not part of this particular operation. The German invasion of the Soviet Union is widely known as Operation Barbarossa, but in this case – are they calling the wider events of November "Operation Pillar of Cloud/Defense" in the media? To use a similar set of examples, the Gaza War is not widely known by the codename for the Israeli offensive (Operation Cast Lead), and by having the article at Gaza War, the perspective and scope is broadened to include the entire event rather than fixing it on one belligerent's operation. Osiris (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: We seriously need to sort the title issue out because it is having effects on the article. An editor recently deleted material relevant to the background of the current out break of violence, claiming WP:SYNTH because the article did not mention the Israeli code name for its operation "Pillar of Defense". This is absurd, because the majority of articles that are reporting on the topic do not specifically mention the Israeli code name; it is not the common name for the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong and Speedy Support, it should still be mentioned of course that the translation of the Hebrew is "Cloud". --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 09:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, this move should definitely be made. It is the appropriate name in English and there is no reason for Misplaced Pages to just translate the Hebrew name to English - especially when the correct term is used across the world, in all respectable news agencies, etc. Itamarm10 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Israel chose to represent the title of this operation in one way in English and another in Hebrew - for a reason. "Pillar of Cloud" is a Biblical reference to divine wrath raining down on Egypt and would be offensive to many in the international community. See http://gawker.com/5960562/israel-names-its-new-war-after-biblical-story-about-god-terrorizing-egyptians Changing the original Hebrew title may introduce serious NPOV issues. "2012 Gaza offensive" or somesuch would be an acceptable compromise, but please keep in mind that "Pillar of Defense" is Israeli PR and an attempt to duck reaction to the name the operation is referred to domestically. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The commenter avove (Cjs2111) shows that he has a very weak understanding of Misplaced Pages policies with his argument. The fact that he doesn't like "Israeli PR" has nothing to do with how we choose article titles on Misplaced Pages. Pillar of Defense is the official ENGLISH name of the operation, it is the most commonly cited ENGLISH name of the operation in media and other reliable sources, and therefore on ENGLISH wikipedia we must use that name. On Hebrew wikipedia they can worry about the Hebrew name. Just like the name of our article on Bat Yam is Bat Yam, and not Daughter of the Sea or Mermaid. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Pillar of Cloud is the correct translation. Gaza offensive is POV. If this escalates further, Second Gaza War or 2012 Gaza War may be more appropriate.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This is ENGLISH wikipedia and we are using ENGLISH LANGUAGE Sources which use Pillar of Defense far more often. However, considering Interior Minister Eli Yishai state on the goal in Gaza: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years." it may take on quite another name by the time this is over. CarolMooreDC 05:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This really seems to be more of a technical error. The debate here is misplaced and should be dealt with after. But on the topic of that debate, as of now, Pillar of Defense is the best title according to the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Maybe it will come to be called something else in the aftermath, but currently, Pillar of Defense is the prevalent, common name. The fact that the alternative name varies for each person that opposed only supports this. Capscap (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as Pillar of Defense fits WP:COMMONNAME, while Pillar of Cloud does not. --hmich176 11:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as per "Pillar of Defense" fulfilling common usage criteria, while maintaining "Pillar of Cloud" as an alternate name in the article's lead paragraph. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support "Pillar of Defense" - this is the more common name. Inkbug (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support "Pillar of Defense" - per common name. Ankh.Morpork 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it's time we make the move. It's been three days and "Operation Pillar of Defense" is the most popular choice by far (17 for, 5 agenst). ~Asarlaí 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed.: I'd do it but I'm not autoconfirmed. Not to mention that I think there's only maybe 1 vote in favor of the current title. Capscap (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I feel strongly that using the "official" English name does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality. The fact that there are two official names, one in Hebrew and one in English, is not neutral, it is value-laden. To support one of these names would be complicit with a deliberate technique of double-meaning. It should not be named Operation Pillar of Defense, and there should be a section on the politics of the name. Mahosian (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.52.58 (talk)

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.

POV title

Note: in this thread, "support" means you support renaming the article and "oppose" means you think it should stay at "Operation Pillar of Defense".

Please choose a more neutral title, this reflects just the Israeli POV.--193.225.200.93 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Suport: It's a blatant violation of neutrality. --Polmas (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suport: There is a precendent in WP when these types of conflicts were named without bias. Operation Cast Lead was rightfully changed to Gaza war. This is the same conflict, just different date. It should be named in similar fashion: Gaza war 2012. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is about an Israeli military operation (and, obviously, Hamas's response to that operation). I don't see how it's POV to hav' the operation's name as the name of the article about the operation, especially when it's being widely used in the media (see WP:COMMONNAME). ~Asarlaí 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, i do not accept the current title is biased, however i support a change to the title to pillar of defense as is being debated above. After that requested move is resolved it will be a chance to discuss if there should be an additional requested move. This is certainly not the way to propose a change to the article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The Israeli code name for its operation is not even the common name, the majority of articles that cover the topic do not even mention it, and when they do it is usually attributed as the Israeli code name for its operation. Dlv999 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Article title is fine the way it is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The requested move above is to a reasonable and better title. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Who ever moved that new section on a change to the title up to this section has rather complicated this requested move. This is about a move to Operation Pillar of Defense. it is not appropriate for random additional non specific proposals to be made which people say they support. Lets deal with this current requested move, then start a wider requested move after this one has been resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I asked this in my question above, it certainly seems confusing for the reader to have the whole event covered under one of the belligerent's codenames. It'll be fine if and when the clash becomes commonly known by that name, but it doesn't appear to be. Osiris (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think calling it 2012 Gaza War is a correct name change at this time. As it wouldn't be following WP:COMMONNAME. I second BritishWatcher's comment that we should handle the current requested move above, and start the wider move after that.

• Support: If we are supposed to be serious about WP:NPOV it should be called "2012 Attack on Gaza". PerDaniel (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't, because (1) Israel has made other attacks on Gaza this year and (2) that name ignores Gazan militant attacks on Israel. ~Asarlaí 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

One has to see the irony when someone complains about being serious on WP:NPOV then suggests an emotive word in the title like "attack" and a clearly one sided title. If we are going to change from going by the Israeli military operation title, it will need to be a title that clearly reflects both the situation in Gaza and Israel and the fact more things have happened in 2012 in this area than the the last few days. BritishWatcher (talk)

Asarlaí, your first point is a good one. I don't agree with your second one. Renaming it according to my suggestion is not ignoring the attacks from Gaza. But as over 90 % of the deaths have been on the palestinian side, that should be reflected in the name of the article. BritishWatcher, do you have any suggestions for "a title that clearly reflects both the situation in Gaza and Israel and the fact more things have happened in 2012 in this area than the the last few days", that are shorter than the article itself? PerDaniel (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Current name of the article is the name of the Israeli operation. This would be ok if article describes only this operation. However, this article describes conflict between some Gaza-based forces and Israel, not to mention that they have names for their involvement in this conflict too (Operation Sajil Stones and Operation Blue Sky). Therefore, it would be better to use an neutral name for this conflict, such as "2012 Gaza-Israel conflict" (which might become renamed "2012-2013 Gaza-Israel conflict" if it lasts long enough), or something better. Any thoughts? --93.139.191.200 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the only conflict that has taken place between Gaza and Israel this year. ~Asarlaí 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, though "war" might be more accurate if there is a ground invasion - see 2008-2009 Gaza War. ypnypn (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article is about Pillar of Defense operation and this is the official name of the operation. Additionally unless you can come up with a better name, this not a move request, but complaining that you dont like the current name.--Mor2 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to that operation. One military force (the IDF) has taken action agenst another military force (Hamas), which has responded. This article covers actions by both sides. In 1941, the German Army began a military operation agenst the Red Army, which responded. Our article about it covers both sides and is named Operation Barbarossa, which was the German codename for the operation. Naming it Operation Barbarossa doesn't mean we're taking the German side. Likewize, naming this Operation Pillar of Defense doesn't mean we're taking the Israeli side. The name is being widely used by news outlets thruout the world. Also, we must think about the long-term. Years from now, do you really think historians will be calling it the "November–December 2012 Israel–Gaza conflict" or somesuch? Look at all the past IDF operations in the occupied territories – today they're commonly known by their codenames. ~Asarlaí 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is the most common name and more specific than the alternatives. Plus, most of the alternatives offered have huge POV issues. A lot of the debate seems to result from the fact that Israel originally came up with and spread the name that is now commonly used, but it's not our job to judge the name based on where it originated. Capscap (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: It is too early to tell. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Using the name of the Israeli operation and one that by its definition introduces bias is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, one which the site is constently and currently making efforts to protect. This policy clearly outranks WP:COMMONNAME. Nickyfsm (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)nickyfsm
• Oppose: This article should be on the Israeli operation since that is how the article was set up. Ryan Vesey 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This RFC is redundant and inappropriate considering the finalised one immediately preceding it. Ankh.Morpork 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Suport: I fully agree with users Hillock65 and Nickyfsm, there is important precedent here, and WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME. Whatever the name becomes, it cannot remain Operation Pillar of Defense. This makes Misplaced Pages complicit in linguistic war tactics. --Mahosian (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that this argument was already addressed:

  The commenter avove (Cjs2111) shows that he has a very weak understanding of Misplaced Pages policies with his argument. The fact that he doesn't like "Israeli PR" has nothing to do with how we choose article titles on Misplaced Pages. Pillar of Defense is the official ENGLISH name of the operation, it is the most commonly cited ENGLISH name of the operation in media and other reliable sources, and therefore on ENGLISH wikipedia we must use that name.

• To accept the official ENGLISH name of the operation is to wrongly assume that the operation was officially named in a neutral, value-free way. There is enough dissent in this RFC to suggest that many wikipedia users feel that it is not neutral.

  Misplaced Pages's naming policy states that "Notable circumstances under which Misplaced Pages often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." The fact that the wikipedia page on the previous conflict is not named "Operation Cast Lead" suggests that we can expect something similar with this conflict. Further, the naming policy states that "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." A comparison on Google Trends shows that "Gaza war" and "Israel War" are respectively 8 times and 22 times more popular current search queries than "Operation Pillar of Defence". --Mahosian (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I believe this was addressed as well

  ...Operation Barbarossa, which was the German codename for the operation. Naming it Operation Barbarossa doesn't mean we're taking the German side. Likewize, naming this Operation Pillar of Defense doesn't mean we're taking the Israeli side. The name is being widely used by news outlets thruout the world. Also, we must think about the long-term. Years from now, do you really think historians will be calling it the "November–December 2012 Israel–Gaza conflict" or somesuch? Look at all the past IDF operations in the occupied territories – today they're commonly known by their codenames.

  --Mor2 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• But you cannot draw from other contexts. Operation Cast Lead (which did not have two separate names) was not the title for the wikipedia page on the conflict four years ago - it was named Gaza war. I've already provided evidence why it likely won't be named Operation Pillar of Defence four years from now, and I've already provided evidence why most users don't refer to it as Operation Pillar of Defence now. And while most of the English-language media uses Operation Pillar of Defense more often than they use Operation Pillar of Cloud, they use neither way more often. --Mahosian (talk) 3:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think it all depends on what the scope of the article ends up being. If it is about the IDF operation, the name is just fine. If the event broadens into a war or something and this article ends up chronicling that as well instead of another article being created for the war, then it should be rename to reflect that. Jonathanfu (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

By now the article has already gone well outside the scope of the Israeli operation. ypnypn (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How so? The article is about the IDF operation and Hamas's response to the operation. Military operations almost always involv two military forces fighting each-other and/or attacking each-other's territories. ~Asarlaí 18:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Busha5a5a5 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should use WP:COMMONNAME and the name of operation is used by most of the sources--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: this is now being discussed in the section below. ~Asarlaí 17:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to 2012 Gaza Conflict

It has been proposed in this section that 2012 Gaza War be renamed and moved to 2012 Gaza Conflict. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Operation Pillar of Defense → 2012 Gaza Conflict –

Four reasons why this should be renamed as 2012 Gaza Conflict:

• Many users have expressed concerns over the name's neutrality.
• Misplaced Pages's naming policy states that "notable circumstances under which Misplaced Pages often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." The wikipedia page for the last conflict between Israel and Gaza is not named "Operation Cast Lead" because it is not commonly known as such, and we should accept precedents from Misplaced Pages.
• Misplaced Pages's naming policy states that "article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." Google Trends results for both web searches and news searches indicate that "Gaza Conflict" is being used significantly more often than either "Operation Pillar of Cloud" or "Operation Pillar of Defense." It is thus the most appropriate name.
• While "Gaza War" is marginally more popular than "Gaza Conflict," some users have expressed concern that "war" is not as of yet acceptable for the current events. If the conflict escalates, someone should request a name change to reflect this, but right now, the current name is not acceptable as per wikipedia's standards. Mahosian (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Supporters and Opposers should reference Misplaced Pages policy Mahosian (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the above statement. The current title is bowing to Israeli propaganda. Boleslaw (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)db

• Support. What the Israeli side or the Gazan side call the conflict should not dictate our title. It surely has two names, and either name is subjective and internationally poorly known. *2012 Gaza Conflict* is a much more suitable name. --Gerrit 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As per WP:COMMONNAME. If not, change it back to the official name: Pillar of Cloud. Unflavoured (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's not precise enough under Misplaced Pages:PRECISION and is certainly more likely to need to be changed than the current title. There's already March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, which is a separate event. Regarding precedent, it cuts both ways. Capscap (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: It is too early to tell whether this will be an accurate name. As of now, "Pillar of Defense" is sufficient. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 09:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Pillar of Defense is the official name of the operation, it is the most commonly cited name of the operation in media and other reliable sources. There's already an article for the whole conflict and all of 2012 clashed, this page is about this specific event and responses to it. To claims that the name of the operation pertain bias is redicules as much as calling Operation Barbarossa biased and renaming it to German-Soviet June 1941 conflict.--Mor2 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree: Pillar of Defense is one of two official names of the operation, and it is not the most commonly cited name, as already indicated in the move request. And in looking for precedent, Gaza War is more appropriate than Operation Barbarossa. Mahosian (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• We are at the English Misplaced Pages and 'Pillar of Defense' is the official English name of the operation and is the most common cited name. Similarly to Operation Summer Rains (2006). While Gaza war gained its name following the ground operation and we are not there yet.--Mor2 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since there is already an article under the name March 2012 Gaza-Israel clashes, the article name is not precise enough per WP:PRECISION. I also oppose the name change under the basis that there is a precedence that other articles be named by their mission name within the Gaza-Israel conflict: Operation Summer Rains, Operation Autumn Clouds (2006) and Operation Hot Winter. --hmich176 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - There have been many clashes and incidents in Gaza in 2012, it would be too simplistic to call this the 2012 gaza conflict. It also fails to cover the whole issue, seen as the article relates to attacks on Israel too. The current military operation title is the best article title for the time being unless this becomes a far larger operation and conflict. -hmich176 above also makes a very good point about past precedents of Israeli military operations article titles. There is also no single term used by numerous sources. A quick look on my tv i see BBC calling this the Gaza Israel conflict, and online they use "Israel-Gaza violence". There is no one term uses throughout the media, so the official military operation title makes the most sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the entire conflict, not just the israeli side of the conflict, therefore it makes no sense to use the IDF's codename unless we remove all mention of rockets from Gaza and israeli casualties.PerDaniel (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The conflict is an IDF operation and Hamas's response to the operation. That's what this article is about. When a military begins a military operation it almost always involvs two military forces fighting each-other and/or attacking each-other's territories. ~Asarlaí 13:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Using the IDF's codename is not in line with WP:NPOV. If there is a possibility of confusing it with other conflicts in Gaza this year, it could be named "November 2012 Gaza Conflict" or "Late 2012 Gaza Conflict". I would also note that the norwegian newspapers that I am reading avoids calling the conflict by any name. PerDaniel (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support. It is a patent violation of WP:NPOV to use the Israeli army's name for its military operation in the Gaza Strip as the objective term for the conflict underway. This is core policy. You cannot denominate a conflict between two parties in the preferred language of just one of them. Unless this obvious violation of neutrality is recognized, I think administrative oversight will be required to ensure that unambiguous policies are applied here.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong? replay, Its an article about the operation and the responses to it, so the official and most cited name for it seems appropriate. If you are interested in the wider conflict see Gaza-Israel Conflict, you can start there a section on the conflicts in 2012, including infarmation on both this operation, March 2012 Gaza-Israel clashes and other events that took place thorough out 2012. --Mor2 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Operation Overlord biased because it uses the allied name for the operation? There are numerous examples of military operation articles having a military operation title, including as mentioned above previous israeli military operations. It does not mean it is biased or unacceptable on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Current name is not neutral and not the common name of the topic. The majority of sources reporting the topic do not even mention the Israeli code name for its offensive. Dlv999 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Operation Overlord not a neutral title? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a relevant question to this discussion. Just because certain code names in historical military operations meet WP:COMMONAME requirements, it does not mean this code name does. The majority of sources that cover the topic do not even mention the Israeli codename for their operation (In the past week 3,120,000 hits for "Gaza conflict" ; 70,800 for "Operation Pillar of Cloud ) , so it is not the common name for the topic. It would not be neutral for us to adopt the Israeli perspective by using this title when it not supported by source evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two different issues here, there is the question of commonname, which is open to debate as there are a number of different terms being used by the media, which is why using the official military name makes sense. The other issue is the claim that by having the military title of the operation we are not being neutral. That clearly makes articles like Operation Overlord relevant because there are numerous military operation titles on wikipedia, including ones by Israel in recent times. Making this title perfectly justifiable. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken, please read WP:POVTITLE. A non-neutral name such as Operation Overlord is acceptable when it can be shown to be used by "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources". In this case "Gaza conflict" is vastly more prevalent in RS discussing the topic than "Operation Pillar of Defense" (see my previous comment for links), and it is also a far more neutral term. Thus in our case the current name is not the common name, nor is it a neutral name for the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As per WP:COMMONNAME. Inkbug (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the reasons I gave above: This isn't the only conflict that has taken place between Israel and Gaza this year. This article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to that operation. One military force (the IDF) has taken action agenst another military force (Hamas), which has responded. This article covers actions by both sides. In 1941, the German Army began a military operation agenst the Red Army, which responded. Our article about it covers both sides and is named Operation Barbarossa, which was the German codename for the operation. Naming it Operation Barbarossa doesn't mean we're taking the German side. Likewize, naming this Operation Pillar of Defense doesn't mean we're taking the Israeli side. The name is being widely used by news outlets thruout the world and meets WP:COMMONNAME. When trying to find which name is more common, remember to serch from 14 November onward. Even then, terms like "Gaza conflict" may be referring to the conflict as a whole rather than this particular operation. Also, we must think about the long-term. Years from now, do you really think historians will be calling it the "November–December 2012 Israel–Gaza conflict" or somesuch? Look at all the past IDF operations in the occupied territories – today they're commonly known by their codenames. ~Asarlaí 13:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You say it's the Common name, but that simply is not consistent with the evidence. (In the past week 3,120,000 hits for "Gaza conflict" ; 70,800 for "Operation Pillar of Cloud ). Using a WP:POVTITLE, like one sides codename for an operation could only be justified, as in the case of Operation Barborossa, when "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" use the title. In this topic, that is clearly not the case. We are writing this article based on the source evidence for this article, not source evidence for Operation Barbarossa, or any other historical operation. Also I don't think it is useful to speculate on how this event will be viewed in years to come. We should represent sources available to us now, as more sources become available over time, we shall amend the article appropriately. Dlv999 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, when trying to find which name is more common, we should be serching from 14 November onward for "Gaza conflict", "Conflict in Gaza", "Pillar of Defense" and "Pillar of Defence". Even then, the first two could be given as descriptions rather than names and be referring to the conflict as a whole rather than this particular operation. We can't know unless we read thru them all. However, with the last two, we know they can only refer to this operation. ~Asarlaí 13:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This operation is part of the wider Gaza–Israel conflict, so simply quoting the number results for Gaza conflict compared to the operation name is not fair or precise enough to justify changing this article title. We have a precise and accurate title of a military operation, which is what this article is about. Can you say with certainty that every single one of those results for "gaza conflict" is a reference to this specific military operation? and many are not talking about the wider dispute or past conflict? I can find Pillar of Defense referenced in numerous english language articles, including it being mentioned by major news organisations. it is the commonname for this operation, the article details the operation, the causes that led to it and the response by the palestinian militants and views of the international community on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Ankh.Morpork 13:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per the proposer's reasons and WP:COMMONNAME. Let me humbly suggest that proponents of "Pillar of Defense" search Google News with "Gaza Israel pillar" and "Gaza Israel -pillar." My quick survey suggests that Israeli and some Jewish news sources are using the Operation's name, while the much of the rest of the English language press do not use it to refer to the conflict. If necessary, "late 2012" could clarify the title.--Carwil (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the wrong way to serch. That will bring up every reference to Israel and Gaza in the past few weeks or months. ~Asarlaí 15:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Stong support -NPOV is vital here. The conflict began before the Israeli operation. Also many news sources don't even mention the name of the operation. We should follow WP:commonname. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The conflict began years ago and has been constant ever since. This article is about an IDF operation (which began on 14 November), which Hamas has responded to. Hamas's response is a part of the operation. Events before 14 November ar' only here as background info. ~Asarlaí 15:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - current title is one-sided. It would be okay if the scope of the article was only this operation, but it is about entire conflict that started in November 2012, and this operation is only one side's part of it. Other have names for their operations in this conflict. Therefore, keeping the current title would be serious violation of WP:NPOV. Also, comment: something like November/Late 2012 Gaza(–Israel) conflict/clashes would be better title name in order to avoid the confusion with March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. --93.136.113.166 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, this article is about an IDF operation (which began on 14 November) and Hamas's response to it. Military operations like this always involv two military forces fighting each-other and/or attacking each-other's territories. Hamas's response is a part of the operation. Events before 14 November ar' only here as background info. ~Asarlaí 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"this article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to it." Then why would we use a name that accounts only for one of those two halves? Mahosian (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because, as I said, Hamas's response is a part of the operation. When Military A launches an operation agenst Military B, Military B's response isn't part of a different conflict. Furthermore, the name "Gaza(–Israel) conflict" makes it seem as if both sides started the fighting, when in truth it was started by an Israeli military operation. ~Asarlaí 20:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - the fact a lot of media are now reporting that there will be a ceasefire highlights Operation Pillar of Defense is the appropriate name for this article. As has been pointed out above, this is a military operation of the IDF, which is part of the wider Gaza-Israel conflict. If there is a ceasefire and in 6 months time a new military operation kicks off it will be a new article, it will not be continued on this page. (and that would be the case had it been in the same year too). These are all part of the wider conflict, i think a lot of those who are demanding this article be changed are getting confused on this important distinction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

BW, in your post I changed "this is the appropriate name" to "Operation Pillar of Defense is the appropriate name", just to avoid confusion. ~Asarlaí 16:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that is clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No source use name 2012 Gaza Conflict but many sources mention the Israeli operation name hence per WP:COMMONNAME the title should stay.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have already provided evidence why Operation Pillar of Defence is not the most common name. Media sources don't use "2012" but they do use "Gaza Conflict," however "2012" is necessary to distinguish on Misplaced Pages. Users must provide evidence, not simply state an unsupported argument. Mahosian (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Somewhat support: The conflict has escalated beyond the original operation and immediate results. If all fighting would stop tonight, it might be okay to leave the name as is, but in all probability things will get worse. In any case, it might be better to wait a few more days to see how much things escalate further. If there is a ground invasion, then it should definitely be changed. ypnypn (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Using the Israeli name for an operation just as biased as using the Hamas name would be, even if Main Stream media does it. We can't repeat obvious mainstream bias. Actually, we should rename a number of these articles, using relevant months when there are more than one. (See Template:Gaza crisis which I have just criticized on this and other POV issues.) However, since there IS March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes we might wait and see if it ends in November and name it November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes CarolMooreDC 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NPOV. Hamas also has a name for these hostilities. "2012 Gaza conflict" is an uncontroversial, accurate and neutral name. If a ground offensive follows, then we could change "conflict" to "war." --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC) (relocated)
• Support rename per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Using the Israeli name for the operation presents significant POV issues. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

*Support - makes a lot of sense, as the article does cover both Israeli operation "Pillar of Cloud" and the Hamas rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip, while the current name has some unfortunate implications in that regard as if the IDF were the only side which resorted to the use of arms. (I still have some minor issues though, because of the subject of the article being essentially a current event, it remains essentially open to another renaming in the future).-Hon-3s-T (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Nixed by myself-Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Further comments: After some consideration, I tend to agree with the above comment by Carolmooredc - November 2012 Gaza-Israeli conflict is much better in a way of description of the conflict without regard to the designations of the respective sides to the conflict, while still describing in high degreee what the fight was about. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Motion: For an autoconfirmed user to make the requested move. Majority are in support, given Misplaced Pages's policies. Also: I would suggest that the name remains 2012 Gaza Conflict until the dynamics of the conflict change significantly. It ought to be changed to "War" rather than "Conflict" if there is a ground operation or if either beligerent openly declares war. Further, both "Operation Pillar of Cloud" and "Operation Pillar of Defense" should redirect to the newly named 2012 Gaza Conflict. Mahosian (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As myself and other editors noted, this isn't the only conflict that has taken place between Gaza and Israel this year. See March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012. Thus "2012 Gaza Conflict" is misleading. Also, for the sake of fairness we should let the poll run for at least three days – the same length of time as the last poll. ~Asarlaí 22:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that a slight majority is in support, see WP:VOTE. Until almost everyone agrees on moving, we should keep things as is. ypnypn (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't believe that there's really enough support for the Pillar of Cloud/Pillar of Defense name (which somewhat implicates the sole responsibility of the Israeli side for the current developments of the armed conflict) of the article at the present time - even if the poll would run for some time - on the other hand, I'd suggest some postponment of the article move, as the "2012 Israeli-Gaza conflict/clashes" name is not entirely supported by neutral sources, given the fact of existence of the March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no justification for making a move at this time, since the vote is very split, there is not even a majority in favour of the proposed change at this time if you actually read what some of those who have said support actually said. This request has lasted less than 24 hours, there are stil 6 days left for this RM to continue. Also i must say, whilst you seem to want to bypass the basic terms of a requested move, you seem to know alot about wikipedia terminology for an account that has been active less than 2 days, and has been entirely focused on this article. What was our old account name? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Has discussion even been open for 24 hours yet? Don't you see the part about 7 days in the template? and have you even read the wikipedia policies or are you just making them up now? Try reading about determining consensus. The fact that the supporters for the change don't even agree on what the change should be calls into doubt any notion that the name complies with WP:COMMONNAME Capscap (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that the move to "Operation Pillar of Defense" was made when no consensus was reached. Mahosian (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, there is nothing with the current title that violates WP:NPOV. Ryan Vesey 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as the current name is POV (shows only one side's perspective), and not very commonly used. Nearly all media outlets use "Gaza conflict" (or a similar form) to describe the events, but a a large number of articles don't use "Operation pillar of cloud/defence".VR _talk 06:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article about the Gaza–Israel_conflict and more specifically about the various Events (2012 Events), this article deals with this operation, which is notable enough. The title '2012 Gaza conflict' ignore other events that happened during 2012 like the March 2012 clashes and violates POV , presenting the conflict as Gaza conflict, rather than Gaza–Israel conflict.--Mor2 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME which trumps WP:COMMONNAME, for the very simple reason, there is 'no commonname by definition for a term invented by one party to the conflict a few days ago. Isn't this overwhelmingly obvious? The abuse is obvious, and this repeated employment of Israeli titles for major clashes between two parties in a conflict is a stain on wikipedia's core policy of neutrality. The sister article on the 2008 Gaza War started off as Operation Cast Lead, which meant a huge quabble with the other POV title (Gaza massacre) leading to the compromise of Gaza War (2008). The discussion we are having is only repeating the Requested Move there and again here. The same principle should apply here. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Mor2 is arguing on my talk page that I have double voted. In my understanding I voted (a) for a name change earlier (b) Here for a motion that the change be effected, two quite distinct issues. Ryan Vesey appears to have done the same above. If there is no distinction between a vote for a change, and a vote for a motion to effect that change, please ignore the vote above as inadvertent doubling. But it should also apply to Ryan's comment above. If someone could clarify where wikilaw applies, I'd welcome such a neutral third party call and apply it, whatever the verdict.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ryan voted once in this RM, and once in the section above which was a general conversation attacking the title, rather than a formal RM. Different things. Your explanation is valid about supporting the motion, however it will have appeared to many that it was a vote for the RM itself rather than the motion,. So it is right that this has been clarified incase the RM closer misread. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishidan, I nixed the "Support" in your last post as you'd alredy voted "Support" further up and we don't want a miscount. ~Asarlaí 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, where does anything say that WP:MILMOS#CODENAME trumps WP:COMMONNAME? The paragraph does state that operational codenames generally make poor titles; however, it does say there are exceptions. Considering the importance of COMMONNAME, one of those exceptions is when any proposed title would completely violate WP:COMMONNAME. If there are two titles that are both used, of course the non-operational title should be used, but in cases when the operational title is the only widely used one, that's what we go with. See my comment below. Ryan Vesey 07:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As per WP:COMMONNAME. It shouldn't be limited in scope to just an Israeli security operation, there are wider issues here as well. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - General we don't name large conflicts by the operational name that one side has assigned to the conflict. See Operation Desert Storm for example. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We do if it's the common name (not a common description). See Operation Barbarossa, Operation Overlord, Operation Summer Rains, and hundreds of others. ~Asarlaí 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name "gaza conflict" does not take into account Israeli civilians taking the brunt of the indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets by rockets launched by Islamic Jihadists and Hamas. For the same price User:NickCT could name this page "2012 palestinian suffering under inhuman zionist occupation and bombing". Tkuvho (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

re Tkuvho - For the same price User:NickCT could name this page "2012 palestinian suffering under inhuman zionist occupation and bombing" - No offense mate, but that's pretty obviously not what I was suggesting or implying. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title is appropriate for now, and the proposed change is far too vague. Lucien504 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is Misplaced Pages giving in to Israeli war propaganda? Is Jimbo a Zionist like everyone else in the media?24.231.78.74 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope - we're discussing the best name possible for the article. Many different opinions have been expressed, based upon many different approaches to the subject given, in accordance with different rationales given by the editors involved. And ... no one going under name Jimbo is involved in the discussion at all, neither he's anything like an "editor-in-chief" of the article.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • Comment: I retract my support for the move - I still believe that the "Operation Pillar of Defense/Pillar of Cloud" name lacks much to the desired, as it - by using the IDF codename - essentially assigns the whole guilt for the conflict on the Israeli side only, but I really can not support the move to the proposed 2012 Gaza Conflict as this name does not describe the situation as a whole adequately. The November 2012 Gaza-Israeli conflict or November 2012 Gaza-Israeli clashes would be much better as per my previous contributions here. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose move. This is the official Israeli name for the event, and also is the name referenced most in the US news media. We have to go with most sources say it is, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. Also, this name is not, imo, against neutrality because it is the official name used.. It's not like we made this name up, as then the may be some neutrality issues with it. Also, sorry for any formatting or other errors here, I'm editing from an ipad right now on the road. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the above statement. The current title is an Israeli title and Misplaced Pages should be neutral as the conflict envolves two sides militarily. Cutedoctor (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• SUPPORT Don't use government-issued marketing/propoganda names to describe these things. Call it the 2012 Israel-Gaza conflict or something like that. Also "Pillar of Defense" and "Pillar of Cloud" are both bad, you'll be choosing one of the marketing term over the other, Cloud to represent destruction (for the domestic audience) and Defense to represent people's right to defend themselves (for Americans mostly). "Desert Storm" is now called "Gulf War" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is now "Iraq War" so there's precedent for using better names.

64.134.223.194 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Operation Pillar of Defense has now come to an end. It would seem inappropriate for the article title to be changed to 2012 Gaza Conflict when this was an 8 day event, especially as there had been previous violent outbreaks between Israel and Gaza in 2012. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: We need to ensure that we are not making up a title. Say what you wish about Pillar of Defense being Israeli propaganda, the proposed title and some similar ones suggested in this discussion are not being used in sources. In an overwhelming majority of sources, Gaza conflict is used only to describe what the event was, not to name the event. Misplaced Pages has never created titles. Supporters are pointing out Desert Storm/Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom/Iraq War; however, both of those situations are ones where there is a common name other than the name of the operation. In this case there is none. Ryan Vesey 07:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Furthermore, google search trends don't give any indication of what the common name is. We use the common name used by sources, not by people looking for the topic, that's what redirects are for. Ryan Vesey 07:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• This is a good point. However, when doing a search of English-language news for the past 8-9 days, "gaza israel conflict" is much more popular than "operation pillar of cloud" (about 1.5 million compared to 20 thousand)

• That's because when you search for gaza israel conflict, you are finding all articles with those words in them. This was a conflict between Israel and Gaza, of course there are going to be a lot of hits. What we need to do is find articles and what they are naming the conflict. In the requested move above, I laid out a few examples of how this has not been named the "Gaza Conflict" and quite a few that showed that it has been named Operation Pillar of Defense. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Im not seeing 2012 Gaza Conflict being used widespread here, agree that this title is too broad and goes against WP:COMMONNAME for the current title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Current name is a violation of NPOV and furthermore the article has clearly grown into a much bigger description of events than just that particular Israeli military operation. I believe November 2012 Gaza-Israeli conflict would be better tough than just 2012 Gaza conflict. Regards Gaba p (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article has grown too large, with many unrelated out of scope events pushed in, which should be moved to the Gaza–Israel_conflict#2012_Events, which deals with the conflict as whole, dealing with additional events that happened before and during 2012, not just this operation. --Mor2 (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support: It is inevitable, in any given conflict, that all parts taking part in it will engage in deliberate distortion of the truth so as to improve its strategic position. Part of this campaign is the spinning of one's own objectives and war conduct. Israel's branding of this latest offensive as a "Pillar of Defense" is, no doubt, an attempt to distort truth (bear in mind, I think Palestinian militants have tried the same) and control discourse on the war by assuming as given what is at best a controversial statement (that the war is about self-defense). Guinsberg (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No reason why it should. It should only focus on Military aftermath and Political aftermath of the operation. Any "strategic position" should be discussed within the Gaza–Israel_conflict#2012_Events, where additional context is provided. Also as mentioned before the suggested title violates WP:NPOV by reducing the 'Gaza–Israel conflict' to 'Gaza conflict'. It also inaccurate, since this is not the only event that took place during 2012.--Mor2 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand me. The name Israel gave to its offensive itself hides strategic and geopolitical considerations — it is an attempt to skew discourse on the war to its own favour. There's no reason why anyone not working for an Israeli government agency should abide to this plan. Guinsberg (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per reasons above and WP:COMMONNAME. Using one side's military name for its operation does not violate WP:NPOV (see Operation Overlord, Operation Barbarossa) Merrybrit (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree: The operations you have listed did not have two official names in different languages. You cannot equate them here. Mahosian (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• This operation has one official name in English - Pillar of Defense. Since this is English Misplaced Pages, other languages are irrelevant. See discussion above of the previous move. Merrybrit (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• There has been much published arguing why this is not irrelevant but is a deliberate strategy of double meaning that favours one side. Given that this is a calculated alter-translation, it is entirely relevant. Mahosian (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME and as my predecessor. MathKnight 18:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have already provided evidence as to why this is not the common name. See above. If you have contradictory evidence, please provide it. Mahosian (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: There is no 100% consensus, but there is majority in support. Given that some partially support the move but only with added specificity ("November 2012 Gaza-Israel Conflict"), and given that the added specificity does not conflict with the reasons provided by other supporters, this requester would support this amendment. Mahosian (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. When you are searching on Google for "gaza israel conflict" or "gaza conflict" etc., you are finding every single article with those words in them, including articles from yesterday, and articles from 1990, and articles from 1980 (just random years). When you Google "operation pillar of defense", you get articles from only about this particular conflict. It makes sense that you'd get more hits with a more general search term such as the first two I mentioned. If you watch TV, read newspapers, and look on online news media, every single one of them that I've seen refers to the conflict as "Operation Pillar of Defense". Not as "conflict". They may use the word conflict to tell the reader what the operation is, but they don't use conflict to name the event. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this name should stay as it is the name the news media is using to refer to it in their broadcasts/artcles/etc. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Background (everything about the background goes here)

previous to November 10

it should be mentioned that previously to November 10 the palestinians also put road side bombs injuring an idf soldier along with firing some 20 rockets into israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.212.164 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

How recently before November 10? --Jprg1966  21:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

4 days prior.Ankh.Morpork 21:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

i believe rocket attacks began from october 24th with 65 frockets fired on israel on that day http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/article/five_hurt_as_gaza_rockets_pummel_israels_south , and subseqently continued and escalated on nov 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.46 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

not a big event firstly, i don't think that other sources said about this,thirdly pro israeli source talking about the conflict aren't that reliable Alhanuty (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This conflict started October 24th There can be no question about it. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-of-south-describe-near-death-hits-children-out-of-school-and-non-stop-missiles/

This conflict started when Israel killed children playing football. The source for that is CNN and it was on of many edits that were mysteriously removed. --Moemin05 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article at http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/15/israelgaza-avoid-harm-civilians from Human Rights Watch that is an analysis of the news reports (which incidentally begins by imploring Palestinian groups to halt rocket attacks) and seems quite unbiased, states the following: "The current round of fighting began on November 8, during an incursion by Israeli forces into southern Gaza, east of Khan Yunis". scottwilleke (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Gaza's economic and humanitarian position has been perilous since Israel enacted its closure policy on the enclave in 2007." I think this violates NPOV - this is Hamas's position, which is denied by Israel and many other people. Inkbug (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be denied by Israel, but it is supported by other, more independent sources, such as the UN: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7247786.stm PerDaniel (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, GAZA economy were completely dependent on Israel in employment, exports etc and following the disengagement, they economy plummeted. Unlike the PA in the west bank, Hamas spend little on housing, educational and civilian infrastructure. The hamas tries to pin this on the naval blockade, but it only server to minimize weapon export, food and other exports are freely flowing from Egypt and Israel.
So I would ask to refrain from things that are out of scope of this article and thus cannot be explained from all POV and stick to the leads of the conflict and the previous operation.--Mor2 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

--Mor2 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You have no right to censor us on here, Mor2. Gaza's humanitarian situation is a relevant factor in these events.--212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not out of the scope of this article, Mor2 as it is referenced by one beligerent as part of its motive for its attacks. One can follow this with "Israel denies these claims," but the starting point is 100% relevant.

As for the starting date, there are many antecedents, but I reluctantly admit that this timeline should begin on November 14. --Mahosian (talk) 3:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"background"

In this edit User:Dlv999 reinserted material in violation of WP policies -- namely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We can go back in time forever for "background" but we are limited to what the reliable sources consider the "background", not our OR or synthesis. I invite User:Dlv999 to defend her actions or to self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This might help settle what specific date should be the start: "The strikes came after five days of rising tensions along the Gaza border which began on Saturday when Palestinian fighters fired an anti-tank rocket at an army jeep, sparking Israeli fire which killed seven." Israeli sources also mention the jeep attack as being a sort-of starting point: "The violence was renewed when Islamic Jihad terrorists fired an anti-tank missile at an IDF Jeep carrying out a routine patrol on the Israeli side of the border on Saturday, striking the vehicle directly and wounding four soldiers." Therefore, I think specific events before November 10 should not be included and the subsection should start with the attack on the jeep. Capscap (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If we have a cut off date then fine, but as it stands the article documents rocket attacks by Palestinians in October and a Palestinian road side bomb on 5th of November. The material Brewcrew removed was about an Israeli attack on the 5th of November. Deleting material describing violence from one side while leaving earlier violence from the other side in the article is not consistent with WP:NPOV.Dlv999 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also For WP:NPOV on the starting point see: :"Israel claims the flare-up began Saturday when Palestinian militants fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli jeep on the Gaza border, injuring four soldiers. Israel shelled Palestinian targets in response, after which Palestinian groups launched their barrage of rockets into southern Israel over the next two days, with Israel shelling still more targets in Gaza."

"Hamas says the violence stemmed from an Israeli incursion into Gaza two days earlier. Four tanks and an armoured bulldozer drove 100 to 200 metres into central Gaza Thursday in order to root out explosives in a tunnel that had been unearthed. During the action, a 13-year-old boy was killed when the Israelis returned fire from Palestinian fighters. That incident triggered a series of small attacks leading to the Saturday anti-tank firing, Palestinians say."Dlv999 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote abouve, this started back in late October. Arguments about November's activities are meaningless. 85.64.234.46 (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including both versions, assuming it is similarly reported as such in other sources, but DLV's edit did not include both versions and remains unsourced specifically as to the background.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All I did was revert your edit. You deleted reference to an Israeli attack on the 5th of November while leaving in material related to October rocket attacks and a November 5th attack by Palestinians. Dlv999 (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed unsourced material and you reinserted unsoured material. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

.This is not an effort to politicize, but I am having significant trouble with newspapers to figure out when rocket-fir began to escalate. I had to read pretty far into the Wiki. The following passage is non-specific, has a typo, and uses an ambiguous antecedent: "The purpose of the operation is to halt the flow of rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian populations. This operation comes after several Israeli air strikes on Gaza and Counterattack by Gazan missles." I propose changing it to this: "The purpose of the operation is to halt the flow of rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian populations. Israeli newspapers report increased fire from Gaza on November 10 and 11. Operation Pillar of Clud comes after initial Israeli air strikes on Gaza and Counterattack by Gazan missiles." Lysis.strata (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone has made an edit and improved the sentence in question along the lines you suggested. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Speculation in Background?

Regarding this section in the Background section:

Israel will hold elections for the Knesset on 22 January 2013, and some sources (including Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan) suggest the operation was timed to improve the current government's electoral prospects. Israel denies that the operation is related to the elections.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, should this person opinion be in the background section?

He is the PM of a powerful neighboring country, and NATO member, so I think his opinion is interesting, regardless of whether he's correct. Ketil (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Opions are like.. lets just say that everyone has them, but this is not background information at best it is motives, where you can place those speculations. As for Erdogan, lets just say that he is a powerful and he is needed. As for his opinion and my interest in them, I think that the wikilekas from two years ago hit it on the head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Turkish PMs view is totally inappropriate for the background section. It would be notable for the table on international reaction, but not in the background section. Support someone making the necessary changes. Will make them myself tomorrow if this has not been addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The material is cited by a number of RS as one of the factors involved in the buildup to the current outbreak of violence. RS report it as relevant to the buildup therefore per WP:NPOV it should be discussed as a significant viewpoint in the build up. Misplaced Pages reports all significant views, not just the ones that happen to fit with the official Israeli narrative. Dlv999 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A Turkish politician's unfounded suppositions are not lead-worthy. They can be included in the table of responses if at all. Ankh.Morpork 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is not going to be just one long tract explicating the Israeli opinion. We report all significant views published in RS. If you check the cited sources as well as Erdogan, RS report that analysts have also listed the Israeli election as a factor in the outbreak of violence. Dlv999 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Many unrelated foreign parties have accused Israel of doing this for the elections. Would you like a list? --Moemin05 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to someone adding claims about the election into the international responses table. But it is totally inappropriate to include 1 leaders views in the background information section. Otherwise why cant others be included too? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not one leaders views, please read the article and read the cited sources. Having a discussion about what editors erroneously believe is in the article is not a productive way to move the article forward. Erdogan was among the people who have expressed this viewpoint, he is not the only person to have expressed it. It is clearly a significant view about the background to the violence and should be included per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In politics views are motivated by self serving interests. Evener since Erdogan failed to join Turkey with the EU, he has been trying to gain more influence in the middle east, using several tactics to gain more popularity with people of the region. I can make a magic 8 ball from his opinions. Regardless, Why is Erdogan reaction shouldn't be placed with the rest under the International reaction section? --Mor2 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Deal with the point we are raising. Many unrelated parties have related this event to the elections. It is not Erdogan alone. You are capable of googling this yourself. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And other unrelated parties attribute it to the hamas and they are all gathered in the international reaction section. You are capable to scrolling down yourself. --Mor2 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That opinion is represented already - your POV refuses to acknowledge the other's, and refuse to include the numerous parties who accuse the Israelis of destroying Palestinian lives so they look good in the elections. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Background section

I posted the following for Vice regent, but he wants the discussion to be here so I will move it here.

I don't understand your edit, . You write "Israel occupied Gaza Strip after the Six Day war, although it removed all settlers from Gaza in 2005." Could you please change it to "Israel has occupied the Gaza Strip ever since the Six Day war". The second clause is of no relation to the first. The removal of Israeli settlers has no bearing on the 45 year military occupation of Gaza which continues unabated. Please edit it to remove the connective "although". Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli occupation of 1967 is different from today's occupation. Back then, Israel literally occupied Gaza. Today it only controls Gaza's airspace and coast. The 2005 disengagement significantly reduced the level of Israeli occupation.VR talk 04:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how your response answers my points. Your opinions on the level of occupation is irrelevent as you are not a source on the matter of Israeli occupation. According to bodies like the United Nations or the USA, Gaza is occupied by Israel and has been for 45 years now. . Sepsis II (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Israelis view Gaza as occupied. Can you suggest a neutral way to include the fact that the US and UN both consider Gaza as still occupied?VR _talk 05:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The following quote is from the Gaza Strip article, "The UN, Human Rights Watch and other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea (only by land)." Could we not add this how it is? Sepsis II (talk)

I removed that part and rewrote the intro for that section. Why? Because this article is not the main war article. This article is about a recent operation and info from 1967 is completely unnecessary. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what? The occupation is ongoing, today Israel occupies Gaza, just because they have been occupying Palestine for 45 years running does not decrease the significance that Israel occupies the Gaza Strip. Sepsis II (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That info belongs in the Gaza-Israel conflict article, not here. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The occupation is of extreme importance to this article, it is a very large part of the answer to "why are these entities fighting in the first place". Please try to give a reason for the removal of the information rather than just stating as fact how you want it to be. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should mention that both the US and UN currently consider Gaza to be Israeli-occupied territory.VR _talk 16:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We do not appear to highlight that the European Union and United States consider HAMAS a terrorist organisation in this article either.. that would seem relevant too? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably that would be covered when we state that Hamas has fired rockets into Israel. But if you want to specify that, go for it.

But I do think its important to state that Gaza is still Israeli-occupied.VR _talk 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Now the background section says that Hamas hass called for the destruction of Israel since 1988. That information is too much for this context. We removed mentions of Israeli occupation of Gaza Strip in 1967, so we shouldn't be going as far back at 1988.VR _talk 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The term "occupation" as used here is a political term. Occupation is hardly ever used unless, Israel being the exception. In fact every similar case that I can think of, back from ww2, was never officially and consistently regarded as occupied. Also according to the letter of the law, Gaza was never occupied, but this was solved just as the Palestinian refugees, which has a unique definition on the UN page, set apart from the rest of the world. More to the point, with the removal of Israel troops and population, GAZA can't be called occupied territory, the current definition worked by US/UN and other countries regard Israel as an occupying power, to tie the gaza future with west bank, forcing Israel to work toward a broader peace solution. --Mor2 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Also, its unfair to say that Israel has had no military presence in Gaza since 2005. In the Gaza war, Israeli troops did invade Gaza, and there have been periodic incursions.VR _talk 23:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Military clashes in Gaza doesn't Constitution Israeli occupation, otherwise there is an occupation of Israel by Gaza. Furthermore, Israeli presence have been removed from gaza in 2007 and the authority over it have been handed over to the Palestinian Government in 2007. Similarly when Coalition forces in Iraq handed over authority to the Iraqi Interim Government, Iraq was no longer considered occupied. --Mor2 (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Occupation is a legal term. Anyway, Vice regent, your last edit was incorrect regarding the US considering the Gaza strip to be occupied. The article you cited from 2009 does not say that the US position in 2009 was that Gaza was occupied. Additionally, the sources mentioned in the article have been updated (i.e. the CIA world factbook no longer says what CNN cites. Capscap (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN used two sources: CIA Factbook and US State department. The US State Department seems to classify Gaza Strip as "Occupied territories" in this recent report.VR _talk 03:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Elections

The information on elections was removed. This is information widely stated in the media. This should be restored either to the background section, or another section below.VR _talk 23:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also entirely unfounded, and wikipedia is not the place to explain Israeli politics. 212.29.253.97 (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is well-sourced, and we do seem to explain Hamas politics, and list the countries which do and do not recognize Hamas as terrorists.VR _talk 13:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Information not in source

Here is a direct quote from the intro "The stated aims of the operation, which began after several days of violent exchanges in which Gaza militants fired over 100 rockets at Israeli cities and towns and Israel launched strikes on targets in Gaza leading to the death of 6 militants, are to halt the rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip and to disrupt the capabilities of militant organizations". None of the claims made including the firing of 100 rockets or the death of the 6 militants are mentioned in the sources numbered 14 and 15. Obviously this entire line about the goal of the operation needs to be deleted since the editors are simply "paraphrasing" stuff out of the blue. 142.150.206.130 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if you should spam the lead with source, but this information is sourced. The section of the lead provide a summary of events from the 'Pre-operation events' section. For example the '100 rockets' part is mentioned in sources numbered 75 80(hit Ctrl+F - 100 rockets).--Mor2 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Demand for end of blockade

Hamas has repeatedly demanded that Israel lift its blockade in exchange for ceasefire with Israel. They indicated this in June 2008, December 2008, January 2009 and December 2010. This should be stated in the background.VR _talk 06:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

POV as NOPOV

Regarding this contribution "for balance". This is the background section for the Operation, not about Hamas/Israeli military strength and arsenals. Israeli stated aims of the operation are to halt rocket attacks against civilian targets originating from the Gaza. While hamas focus on the blockade and occupation. As such Hamas acquisition of Fajr 5 rockets, is not inventory check, but increase their range vastly since the gaza war, placing additional millions of civilians life at risk. While listing F-16/f-22, Apache, tanks or the atomic bomb is as irrelevant to the background as much as the caliber of Hamas/Israeli munition. (the only change there is what the IDF did to improve precision and reduce collateral damage, but I doubt that this is the "balance" that editor was looking for).--109.64.246.102 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV (everything about NPOV goes here)

Unacceptable Bias

I made additions to the opening paragraph to complement the Israeli view, and they were removed 'because they were not neutral'! What is neutral about this article right now? It is unacceptable to remove facts backed up by reputable news sources because certain editors on here insist that this article be biased against the Palestinians. I demand a reasonable explanation concerning the removal of these two edits. The sources are reputable and back up the content, the formatting is fine, it is necessary to convey the other side's view:

• 1
• 2

This encyclopaedia must not be allowed to become a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The second of these is not my edit, but was removed for 'violating neutrality'. So now we can't even mention the victims of this attack? It is a statement of fact not an opinion. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless the deaths are of notable figures, we do not go into details for the deaths of people on either side. It's completely WP:undue weight. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why are "unkown name" people listed as being killed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that clarification. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• What is the justification for reverting the first edit? The Palestinians identify that point as the start of the skirmishes. And the Egyptians consider Israel to have broken the ceasefire they brokered. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• - correction - the second edit --130.88.99.220 (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

for the israeli ambassador leaving Cairo suddenly,it is a fact,and the egyptian government spoke man said that israel has violated an egyptian brokered truce,is also a fact . Alhanuty (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is no mention made of the 300+ targets that the IDF has destroyed inlcuding a UAV program, and Fajr5 missle depots? This article seems to only care about people killed when the entire point of the military action is to destroy the rockets that have been fired into Israel since Oct 24th http://en.rian.ru/world/20121114/177463736.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the point of this military operation is not to destroy the rockets that have been fired into Israel. The point is to try to stop more rockets from being launched -- that is by destroying the sources of these rockets. The rockets that have already been fired are presumably exploded or lying around on the ground.... to destroy them, you'd send in a bomb squad or something. No airstrikes needed.

Terrorists or Militants

I'm pretty sure there is a Misplaced Pages policy about this, but should we use militants instead of terrorists when referring to people fighting in the conflict? Dhawk790 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We should use terrorist, provided it is sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place for Israeli propaganda. We should stay neutral. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Militant seems more neutral, but still has negative connotations. Per WP:TERRORIST, we need to have in-text attribution when using the term "terrorist". But it's best to not use it at all, for the sake of avoiding edit wars. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the term "militant" sounds just as bad as "terrorist" and is also inaccurate and misleading. Hamas, claiming to be the legally constituted Palestinian government, should have their forces referred to as "soldiers." We wouldn't call IDF forces "Israeli militants." By further comparison, in the entry FARC, FARC fighters are referred - in several places - as "FARC Soldiers." That said, I wouldn't object to calling non-Hamas Gaza-based forces and independent operators, like the Popular Resistance Committee, as "militants." BlueSalix (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

However the term "soldier" holds several implications (some of them codified into int'l law) that afaik don't apply to Hamas fighters, like being organized into a regular army with identifiable uniform and rank, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.68.212 (talk • contribs)

this article has to stay neutral,and propaganda can't be accepted at all only facts are,and nobody are to write in favor of any side Alhanuty (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

by the way using the term terrorist is very pro-israel,i agree with the term militant or using the term Hamas fighters .Alhanuty (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The term terrorist is not pro-Israel. Is referring to al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization Pro-US? It would only be pro-Israel if we referred to the people as terrorists and the media hadn't. That being said, I'm willing to accept militants as a compromise. Ryan Vesey 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How about fighters? I think that's more neutral than militant. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Plenty of sources use the term militants and indeed terrorists. Secondly, fighters is an inaccurate term since it connotes two active participants, which is not the case with the rocket fire directed at Israeli civilians. Ankh.Morpork 20:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a contentious label (WP:TERRORIST), especially considering that Hamas was democratically elected, and are the current government. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So terrorist organization can't be elected though popular vote? History and logic might disagree with you. Also while hamas was democratically elected, they also made a little armed coup, overthrowing the Palestinian security forces and the other party members. Which is why atm the Palestinians have two presidents, the Hamas in Gaza who are shooting rockets on civilian population in Israel and the PA in the west bank, who recently built the first Palestinian city and working toward recognition through diplomatic means.--Mor2 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think the Israelis are the terrorists. Is it pro-Hamas? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

the bottom line is that the article has to stay neutral . Alhanuty (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

the word terrorist shouldn't be used at all . Alhanuty (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians should be labelled as terrorists (or freedom fighters), there can be no compromise on this. I believe soldiers to be technically incorrect to describe Palestinian fighters, I think forces, such as "Hamas forces launched..." would be optimal, or perhaps "armed forces"/"armed forces member", militant is okay, but sub-optimal. Sepsis II (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Hamas forces sounds the most neutral. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

nordon 1990 i meant the using of the word terrorist on Hamas Alhanuty (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The word terrorist doesn't belong in this article, unless it's clearly being used to express the opinion of an explicitly named source. Something like "IDF Spokesman Example McExampleson said that IDF forces launched a number of attacks against terrorists," would be acceptable (if it had a source confirming it of course.) Something like "IDF forces launched a number of attacks against terrorists," as a statement of fact would not be. We don't even call al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden terrorists; we just say they have been described as such by particular groups. I think militant would be okay although not ideal, as would fighters. I don't think Hamas' forces generally meet the criteria to be described as soldiers (and they aren't generally described as such in reliable sources,) although I do have some qualms about describing members of an official wing of the ruling government of a territory as militants. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about militant vs. terrorist, but I don't even get why it's an argument when both terms objectively describe Hamas. (See Terrorism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hamas is officially listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Therefore, refering to Hamas members as "terrorists" is accurate. -- 152.132.9.132 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not just the united States, the European Union too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Militant is appropriate throughout the article, with terrorist used where directly quoted. Strongly oppose attempts to water this article down by using terms like "HAMAS Forces". They are clearly militants at the very least and numerous sources use that term. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

According to international law, armed resistance against an occupying force is legal. Hamas has killed civilians, IDF has killed more. Were they specifically targeted? We cannot tell and thus the term 'terrorist' should be out of the question. Bauey (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh you absolutely can tell. The relative paucity of female casualties strongly indicates who is being targetted. Women generally dont fight.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Forces is definitely best word to use to avoid reader confusion and WP edit wars and only when a specific term or phrase is used in some important quote or context should more controversial terms be used. CarolMooreDC 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes "against an occupying force" not civilians. We call hamas terrorist not for attacking Israeli military, but for targeting civilian population. while civilian casualties are mounting on both sides, there is a huge difference between unfortunate collateral damage to civilian life and intentional targeting them. If Israel has been targeting civilian population like the hamas, we wouldn't be speaking about dozens of victims but tens of thousands(after all simple explosive shells are much much cheaper than precision strikes)--Mor2 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because civilians are the primary target doesn't mean that either forces are terrorists. Armies have attacked civilian populations throughout history, but for different reasons. Hamas may have been labelled "terrorists" by several major world powers, but Gaza had continually targeted Israel for over a decade, despite a 6-month cease-fire. In addition, it's been made clear that Hamas has been allied with PIJ and PLFP in this conflict, and any question of individual affiliation on their end is hard to quantify. Jscorp (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag. The article currently presents exactly the POV of the Israeli military. Many facts have been removed along with the reliable sources provided. These facts are not even included as "Palestinian opinion but removed completely. Check edit history for constant and obvious Israeli military soapboxing. Mr G (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, explain what part of the article is not neutral. The article presents the exact POV of the IDF? Prove it. I think the article is well-balanced — using sources from Israel, the Arab world, and the West. It presents a wide range of international opinions on the conflict and a reasonably neutral chronology of events.

It is absolutely essential that we assume good faith here. Please don't accuse the editors here of soapboxing without good evidence. --Jprg1966  02:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

POV is a serious issue. If you see something specific that strikes you as POV, please inform use, so we can discuss how to fix it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to all three comments above, there are several times when I came across the article when it mentioned Israeli casualties, but not Palestinians. It would also refer to Israeli civilians, but not to Palestinian civilians. There was a point where the article elaborated on how schools in Israel were shut down, but stayed mum on the effects of the Israeli bombings. There is (or was) a concerted effort to show that 100% of all Israeli actions are "retaliation" or "in response", and that implies Palestine is the one starting this. There is bias in the article, and the evidence is that nearly everyone on the Palestinian side gets referred to as "terrorist" at one point or another, and someone has to come along and fix this. While some efforts are there to correct this bias, it is more often the case that the article is pro-Israel biased than it is neutral. I suggest locking the article if this continues, and to semi-protect it in the mean time Unflavoured (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Locking the page would be totally counterproductive. --Jprg1966  03:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I will suggest semi-protection, so that IPs and SPAs can chill for a while. Most of the POV-pushing seems to come from IPs. Unflavoured (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So is there any consensus to keep the tag on the page? Ryan Vesey 03:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to discuss specific language issues first and then, if no consensus is easily reached, to add the POV tag. --Jprg1966  03:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the tag, until a reasonable amount of editors can concur that it is neutral. As an example of bias: The second paragraph in the lead tells us that Palestinians fired 300 rockets into Israel. It does not tell us how many bombs Israel dropped, or even how many raids it conducted. The paragraph after it tells us that some countries condemn Israel's operation, but some countries condemn Palestinian actions... with the added "Israel has a right to defend itself." I am not going to go through every paragraph pointing out bias, but the picture is clear. And no, I cannot fix it all by myself, especially when the article is not protected at all, and is currently attracting tonnes of edits. Why remove the POV tag when the POV is obvious and provable ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

When a country takes action against a terrorist organization, of course that country is going to look better. If you feel like we haven't written enough about Israeli actions, then the article is incomplete, not POV laden. Ryan Vesey 03:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And how do you complain about the second paragraph? It precedes the statement you referred to with "the IDF killed 16 Palestinians, including 8 civilians". Ryan Vesey 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Unflavored, the second paragraph begins with the casualty count of of the Israeli bombings. I don't see bias. --Jprg1966  03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that no mention of Israeli raids/bombings/methods is there, while it is very explicit with the Palestinian side is doing. Just because Palestinian casualties are mentioned first, does not mean that this removes the bias. Unflavoured (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You removed the POV tag, after only 1 hour of it being added, when there are two editors saying it is POV and two saying it is not ?! This is not how consensus is reached. And worse, you removed the POV tag whilst in the midst of the discussion. Unflavoured (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you reread. You were the only editor who said there was POV. With FutureTrillionaire asking for evidence, Jprg1966 saying he didn't see bias and mentioning that the tag should be added if consensus was that POV existed, and I have failed to find any POV. If consensus can be found that there is POV, the tag can be restored. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow your own advice and re-read. It was not I who added the POV tag, or created this section. Your decision to ride rough-shod over my voice and remove the tag even though we were clearly not done discussing it is not civil. A POV tag does not need consensus to be added, but it does need consensus to be removed. The article has blatant POV issues. I am going to assume good faith and say that you were not aware that more than one user sees the article as being biased. Now you are aware. Act accordingly. Unflavoured (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list:

• The lead says number of missiles fired into Gaza is "300+", but not the number of airstrikes made by Israelis. I'm not sure that airstrikes/rockes should even be mentioned when there are no casualties, since it is easy to deny or invent numbers for missiles that don't hurt anyone.

Because something failed or targeted an object rather than a person doesn't mean that it is insignificant. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "insignificant". read again. Mr G (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What - you only want to list attacks that kills somebody? How is that NPOV? That would make Israel's claim to target infrastructure look false, and also diminish the apparent rocket threat by Hamas.

• Partisan Israeli sources like "algemeiner.com" and "Israeli National News" are included while equivalent Palestinian sources (I think much more reliable, at least equally reliable) like "pchrgaza.org" and "maannews.net" have been removed along with the claims that they make.

I think this can be addressed in the context of specific edits/changes like the one you mentioned below regarding the 13 year old. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This point alone is sufficient to render this article unacceptably biased and therefore unreliable and a form of Israeli misinformation and propoganda --130.88.84.38 (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• The section name "Background" is euphemistic. It was improved, then reverted.
• The "Background" section begins with "Rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel continually throughout 2012." This is a clear attempt to imply that Palestinians "started it". An accurate way to begin would be to state the number of civilian casualties on BOTH SIDES for the preceding month. (I'm guessing zero, and first civilian casualties in November were Palestinians on November 5 and November 8)

I don't think anything is intended by it other than providing a general background. I think it's better than a recitation of specific rocket attacks on a daily basis. Also, the first sentence of the article/lead says that the operation was launched with the IDF assassination of Jabari. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Partisan claims from "Israeli National News" are stated as fact such as the unverifiable claim that a rocket hit Israel on November 4, hurting nobody. *Reliably sourced Palestinian POV on the November 5 and November 8 attacks have been removed. The wording of the Israeli military claims have been changed so that they are now stated as fact. For example, the Israeli that the 13 year old was killed when troops were "returning fire" is stated as fact, where as the Palestinian claim that the boy was playing soccer, for which there a multiple sources, is not even stated as opinion, and all the sources were removed. Ludicrous fringe claims like that the militants were using the 13 year old as a "human shield" are included, while believable claims by Palestinians witnesses have been removed.

It looks like this was fixed. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• This fact, sourced from the BBC, was removed "An Israeli strike on November 15th resulted in the death of the 11-month old son of a BBC Arabic World Service cameraman in Gaza City."

This also looks fixed, although perhaps more detail can be added in the casualty section. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely, this is is anti-Israel POV? The article is a pure propaganda piece, and we only have their (unfounded) claim that it was an Israeli round.

• The language is POV too. Hamas is described as a "regime".

I can't edit it, but I agree that the word regime should be dropped. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

By now the word regime is not in the article. Inkbug (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the material in the lead comes from Algemeiner and Jerusalem Post. None of the material comes from equivalent Palestinian news outlets. Mr G (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I just reread the lead and I don't think it says anything controversial. I can't edit it, but if this is an issue, I'm sure you can find everything there in third party sources. Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• The statement in the lead that the Israeli airstrikes "targeted dozens of rocket launching pads, weapons depots and facilities" is the official IDF position, so the lead is effectively being used as Israeli military press release. Mr G (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this factually incorrect? Capscap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a verified fact. It is official Israeli position. Palestinians argue the military is targeting civilians, since most people killed have been civilians, including two children. Mr G (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the civilian targeting bit is clearly false. A military superpower like Israel doing hundreds of attacks on densely populated areas with poor infrastructure, and what, 20 civlians killed so far? It'd be nice to cite a third party analysis, though.

I'm too tired to keep going, knowing that in the past such NPOV fixes have been temporary and quickly returned to Israeli POV, but here are a list of sources that have been removed:

Reliable sources for factual statements that have been removed:

• Mezzofiore, Gianluca. "BBC Arabic Worker's 11-month-old Son Killed in Israel's Airstrikes in Gaza". International Buisness Times. Retrieved 15 November 2012.
• "Three Israelis killed by Gaza rocket as violence escalates". BBC News. Retrieved 15 November 2012.
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/egypt-israeli-air-strikes-gaza-morsi
• http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=535378 (November 8)
• http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=533909 (November 5)
• http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8978:new-israeli-escalation-against-the-gaza-strip-7-palestinians-including-3-children-killed-and-52-others-including-6-women-and-12-children-wounded-&catid=145:in-focus (Summary)

Notable opinions:

• http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-shattered-gaza-truce-leading-escalating-death-and-tragedy-timeline
• http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/maureen-clare-murphy/linguists-including-noam-chomsky-condemn-reprehensible-gaza-coverage

The above articles from electronicintifada.net are blogs, so don't qualify to be used as factual sources, but it is illustrative to the failing of U.S. media that no timeline of comparable accuracy and has been produced by any of our American "reliable sources" or even by the BBC. These timelines in my opinion are highly accurate and balanced, but it highly unlikely that Israeli militants will agree. In any case they should at least be included as "Palestinian claims" and some of the claims should be placed in an "media criticism" section.

Mr G (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The POV-pushing by IP continues: . This should be enough to convince anyone that this article has serious POV issues. This page seriously needs semi-protection. Unflavoured (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

From my skim of the article as it now stands, it looks like the issues have been addressed. 128.103.7.171 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of them have. Most of them haven't. Try re-reading my list and double checking the article. For each improvement, other things have been changed for the worse, so I will continue adding items to the list. Mr G (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the Arutz Sheva link is only being used to justify the article title as it stands. It's not being relied upon for a neutral account of the chronology. --Jprg1966  08:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Houses in Israel were destroyed and schooles were closed as of Oct 24th 2012. The Fact that Israelis were able to reach bomb shelters quickly enough and not get killed is not a reason to ignore the events. Ignoring this makes the article a joke. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-of-south-describe-near-death-hits-children-out-of-school-and-non-stop-missiles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That attack was separated from the current conflict for cease fire which lasted for about 10 days, and which was broken by the Israelis on November 5 and followed by a second attack on November 8. Rocket fire from the Palestinian side recommenced sometime after November 5 and before November 10, so the current conflict begins on November 5. Mr G (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to second the part about ignoring rocket attacks or airstrikes just because there were no casualties. Because something failed or targeted an object rather than a person doesn't mean that it is insignificant. Capscap (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What cease fire? There were rocket attacks on Oct 24, 25th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, and Nov 4th. There is no 10 day period from Oct 24th that a cease fire existed. This is blatant bias and POV. Oct 30th even has a recording first use of a 45KM range missile from Gaza beign fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012#October For any factual claim of a cease fire to be made, both sides need to actually cease their firing! Such an event NEVER took place since the 80 rocket bombardment on Oct 24th. 85.64.234.46 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wat is the source for the November 4 claim? Mr G (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There definitely seems to have been a spike in drama on 5 November, with the shooting of the man at the border and the roadside bomb that struck the Israeli soldiers. As it stands now, the article mentions the rocket fire in October as a lead-up to the 5 November incident. I don't see a blatant bias against Israel. --Jprg1966  08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You can read the wiki article I pointed to and follow the sources if you need. There was a spike in Drama in late october when schools in Bear Sheva were closed and the Mayor complained that they were told to act normal. The events in October is what lead to the creation of operation pillar of defense, not the events in November. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4297621,00.html Or perhaps it was Oct 30th when a first time long range rocket was shot at Demona, where Israel's nuclear research is. (google chrome translates the page into English) http://www.mivzaklive.co.il/archives/41865 85.64.234.46 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is not biased as claimed. The POV tag should be removed. Its not possible for everyone to be entirely happy with everything in the article on something like this. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In its current state, I would not call this article NPOV. As one example: it's mentioned in two places in the article that Israeli schools near Gaza have been closed. It's not mentioned anywhere that all UN schools in Gaza have also been closed, despite this being mentioned in numerous RS'es. This is far from the only example where information about how Israelis have been effected is included whereas comparable information about how Palestinians have been effected has not been included. Even if all of the Israeli information is accurate and belongs in the article, the omission of the same information about Palestinians creates a POV problem. I'll probably fix an occasional such thing as I see it, but don't have the willpower to get in to the shitslinging match that trying to balance this article would inevitably end up turning in to. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's blatantly POV. Very few of the issues I raised above have been fixed, and in many ways the article has gotten worse. The second sentence of the lead is directly stating the Israeli military press release as fact. The removal of the tag is in itself proof of the huge Israeli bias here, since the tag only states that NPOV is in "dispute" which it clearly evident here on the talk page. Mr G (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, stating the Israeli position as fact and ignoring any other viewpoints is entirely inconsistent with WP:NPOV a core policy of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that the removal of the NPOV tag is proof of Israeli bias. As already discussed this could have been done by somebody who has not understood the rules in relation to removing the NPOV tag and we must assume good faith.

Even if the second sentence of the lead is the Israeli military press release, I do not believe this implicitly makes the article non NPOV. The page is called "Operation Pillar of Cloud", which is Israel's name for the operation. I would assert that adding Israel's stated intention within the lead, helps to clarify the Israeli position on the matter and provide context for the reader. This does not imply that the Israeli operation is moral or justified, just gives clarity as to why Israel has began the operation.

I do agree that there could potentially be more of the Palestinian viewpoint discussed within the lead, however instead of simply stating that this article is in breach of the NPOV rules, good faith should be assumed and the Palestinians POV could be enhanced by adding additional sources.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Regards

Sirkus (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost every time someone adds anything that the Israeli contributors don't like, they remove it. View the article's history. This encyclopedia has become a joke. --130.88.84.38 (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gregcaletta's concerns are very legitimate.--Severino (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• The most important violation of NPOV is the key event which triggered all palestinian factions to launch rockets in the first place, which is an Israeli helicopter killing a 13-year-old boy playing football with his friends - as reported by many news organisations including CNN. That information was removed from the article. It's where the Palestinians start their story. Just before that, Israeli forces had made an incursion as well. --Moemin05 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Rockets were fired into Israel BEFORE this event, the fact you seem to be suggesting the article is biased wthout somehow making this the "starting point" highlights that the current POV tag is unjustified. The article is not biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Source please. And how does that justify killing a child playing football? --130.88.52.213 (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Read carefully - it is biased because that information was removed for no valid reason - much like a lot of other valid information was removed despite being relevant, encyclopaedic and well sourced. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Berated versus Condemned

In the International Reactions section, it was stated that Egypt and Iran berated the Israeli actions when the more appropriate verb condemned should have been used. "Berated" delivers the message that both countries have no right in criticizing the Israeli bombings and that their stance stems from an emotional point of view Asaifm (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What? Sovereign nations do not have a right to express an opinion on major military actions? I trust you will criticise the US for passing comment as well. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I support these countries and that's why I don't prefer the use of the word berated. As for the US reaction phrasing, I find it much more neutral than that of Egypt and Iran Asaifm (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Berate and condemn mean the same thing in this context; they're synonyms, like begin and commence. One comes from Old English and the other comes from Latin, that's all. However, for consistency we should use the same wording for everyone. ~Asarlaí 21:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Add a couple of paragraphs to the Reaction Section

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add the following paragraphs to update reaction sections of Egypt and the United Nations. Asaifm (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
For the United Nations:

On 19 November, Ban Ki-moon visited Cairo to discuss with the Egyptian President the current state of conflict and the efforts made to cease fire. It will be followed by a visit on Tuesday to the Israeli Prime Minister in Jerusalem to stop the operation expansion. Ban will end his Middle East tour by heading to the West Bank, Ramallah to meet the Palestinian president.

For Egypt:

On 17 November, the Arab Medical Union has sent a delegation of Egyptian doctors with aids across the Rafah border. And on 19 November, a group of Egyptian civilians headed to Gaza to aid their Palestinian neighbors in their current tribulation.

I would like to add a row in the table for the Arab League too:

On 20 November, a selected delegation from the Arab League, led by Nabil Elaraby, will be visiting Gaza in solidarity with the Palestinians and to facilitate the efforts of ceasing fire.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Asaifm (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Media Misrepresentation is biased and should be divided into two sections

The Media Misrepresentation section covers only the Israeli side. I would like to see another subsection covering the Israeli allegations against the Palestinians and how they were refuted. An example can be found in this reference. Asaifm (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Media Misrepresentation is biased and and others

OMG , This article is heavily Pro-Israel , the vast majority of sources are related to Israeli media or personel.sourcing international and arab media is scanty. Some points:

1-Why "Hamas executions of Palestinians" made as a major and first part of Palestinian casualities.This has no relation in direct way to the conflict and it is by far less than the casualities because of Israeli airstrikes,it should be in another section . 2-In the analysis section under Palestinian casualities , the source is Israeli "which should be seen as biased" as it is not neutral , then this statement to make it looks awful "Col. Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, said: "The use of the civilian population by Hamas is undoubtedly a war crime because not only are they hiding themselves under a civilian population, they are also putting the civilian population at risk. In my view, if there are civilian casualties, the responsibility does not lie with the IDF, but with Hamas, who deliberately placed them there" , this article should not be commenting on the actions , it should only mention FACTS with relaible sources ,or otherwise there are a lot of Arabic and international who are codemning many things Israeli did in this conflict,so it should be removed or other opposing analysis of the other side added.

3-The section "Media misrepresentation" SHOULD be removed as it is OVERLY one sided in favor of Israel . 4-Lack of Gazan innocent/elderly/women/children dead and wounded pictures , no single one !!

Just to give more evidence to what I am saying : quick search of Word Israeli=572 , Plaestinian "150" those meant to be referring to Israeli/Palesinian (media,casuality,representative).

I think this article should be deleted as it seems it is hacked again by CAMERA and other Pro-Israeli media.

Thanks ,, Cutedoctor (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Casualties (everything about casualties goes here)

I cannot verify the casualty claims via the references

A key bit of information is how many of the casualties were militants, versus civilians. There are claims made about this on the sidebar of the article, with footnotes citing sources from the references. The claim is this information comes from Gaza health. However, I find nothing to validate these numbers when I click on any of there references given.

Can we try and get some sort of authoritative and properly cited reference to the number of casualties who were militants, versus civilians? I note below the discussion on naming them all and presumably classifying them as militant or civilian. That would be one way to do it, but I think what most readers want--side from the notables--is the headline figure, and where it's disputed (surely it is), what each side claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.138.15 (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Civilian Losses/Objectivity Issues

Why are all Palestinian civilian losses denoted as being 'claims' (and rightly so) by each belligerent, but the Israeli civilian losses are not treated the same way? If objectivity is to be maintained, one must assume that anyone can alter their figures, even close allies of the United States. Not to mention, that count came from the defense force. Please keep the parenthetical denotations even across the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Event Nexus (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

73 year old casualty

A 73 year old man died on his way to a bomb shelter. http://www.mako.co.il/news-military/amud-anan/Article-2a4cf3a2e301b31006.htm&Partner=rss Google chrome can translate the article. 213.57.149.188 (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason this hasn't been added to the page yet? 212.29.253.97 (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He didn't die from a rocket - he died of a heart attack caused by a rocket. (a small difference.) Inkbug (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is just stupid. Nobody has died from a rocket. People have only died from shrapenel or the expansion of air, caused by a rocket. This man died because a rocket was fired into his vicinity.

Casualties and losses-Children?

I haven't dealt with a similar article, is it common to put a parenthetical note for how many children died on a side? I'm looking at some things where I know children died like the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) and there's nothing in the infobox listed. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not common. It is a subjective ploy.

A child could be a militant. If, for example, a 12-year-old child was given a weapon and a uniform and asked to attack enemy soldiers that child would be a legitimate military target, and it would make no sense to refer to that casualty as a "child" since that would be demagoguery.

When talking about civilians and militants it makes no sense to discriminate their age or gender.

A child is either a civilian or a militant in this context. The use of children in militias or armies is not unheard of, and any person with a weapon is dangerous.

Bennyman (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently the dead children have been an 11-month old boy, 8-month old girl and 7-year old girl. Militants indeed.VR _talk 05:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Vice Regent

It does not matter. All people are civilians unless armed or stated otherwise. Misplaced Pages does not discriminate based on age or gender.

When you start to talk about "women and children" dying you are using pathos which is an appeal to people's emotions which is subjective, and not objective. You are also justifying the murder of men as more fair and men as lesser beings than women and children.

Bennyman (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

RS report the number of children killed as relevant therefore it is relevant to the article. Dlv999 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Casualty names

Casualties are often named if their names are available. For example, see this article. I'm ensuring that the names of casualties, both Israeli and Palestinian, are included and sourced.VR _talk 05:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that article can serve a guide. The Kandahar massacre was a singular event created by a single soldier. Is there a precedent for including the names of the deceased in a broader military operation? --Jprg1966  05:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the two articles as very similar. I think the differences you mention are rather minor. If we are talking about a "broader military operation", we have this article, where German casualties in Afghanistan war are named.

The names I added are clearly mentioned in reliable sources.

You cited Misplaced Pages:Notability. That guideline is about whether people can have their own articles, not whether they can be mentioned in an article whose notability is proven without doubt. In fact there's a section that says just that.VR _talk 05:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to name the casualties, except for propoganda. Reading through the talk section, it seems there was a user who complained this article was pro-Isreal, when in actuality, it was a fairly balanced article. Today, that has changed and there has been a shift towards the Palastinian POV. Listing all the casualties with names and ages, is propoganda for the Palastinians and has no place in this article. I request that it be removed. -- 152.132.9.132 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Both Israeli and Palestinian casualties have been listed.VR _talk 14:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The names of casualties are not listed in any other military conflict article in Misplaced Pages, and for good reason. Please remove that section.

It looks like you have already expressed your opinion on this in the already open discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Cloud#Casualty_names) on this issue. Opening another thread to repeat your opinion is disruptive, and it is not going to increase the likelihood of your position being accepted. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEMORIAL, and WP:NOTADIRECTORY I have removed the names added in the section and left the total number killed references in place. Yes I see it fine to add info on the notable people and how they died but as an encyclopedia we cant mention every single person killed by name if they are not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's completely undue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I see the consensus is against me, so I'll accept that result.VR _talk 03:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Casualties, casualties, casualties

The article currently lists the number of casualties in three different places and none of the numbers match. For as long as these numbers are subject to constant change, I think the article would be better maintained if the numbers only had to be updated in two places. I think the only uncontroversial option is to remove it form the infobox while leaving the number in the lead and in the casualties section. Capscap (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? There is a "current" tag on the article:

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page, but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

It's fine for the numbers not to match, since the numbers are uncertain. Shall we put the words "at least" in fron to f each of the numbers? (since the numbers will go up with time; not down). Mr G (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I get that it's current and the information may rapidly change, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be internally consistent. If editors are going to not notice or forget to change the casualty numbers in multiple places, I think it would be better with only mismatch rather than two. Capscap (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Mirah Scharf

Mirah Scharf, the Israeli woman who was killed in the apartment bombing, was pregnant. I believe that should be mentioned in the casualties section. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur...if we are mentioning the pregnant Palestinian woman, then the Israeli pregnant woman should be mentioned as well. Please fix this. --98.199.150.149 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I want to fix it, but right now it seems only editors with accounts are allowed to edit the page. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

None are mentioned now. Inkbug (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Hamas militants killed

I have placed tags on this as I feel it goes against consensus reached above, I do not see why we need to include names of those who are not notable. See also: WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:MEMORIAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that civilians should not be named, but known militants that are killed seems a valid and useful information section, considering the stated objective of the military operation. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I think there should not be a list of every militant killed. Not all of them are notable. For the ones that are, I think it'd be better to work them into the text if possible. Jonathanfu (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Knowledgekid87 mentioned his objection to the section on my talk page. Naturally I agree with BritishWatcher that it's important to have this information, and I stated my reasons there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be one of those hide/show boxes ? so that those who wish to see the list can simply click show, and avoids the article getting too long as the list is added to? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevant section is WP:NLIST. The names of each and every militant listed needs to be of sufficient importance to be worth including within the text of the article to be considered sufficiently notable for a list. Especially since this is an ongoing operation and there is bound to be a sizable number of deceased militants by the end of it, I do not see how each and every militant would merit being written into the text. I suppose we could do one of the hat things when the event gets to the stage where there's a "casualties" section. Jonathanfu (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally WP:Undue unless they are well known or major operatives, and then still is just a paragraph in casualties. CarolMooreDC 05:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to remove all the casualty names! I see this is completely wrong, given that all the casualty names of the civilians were removed. This needs to be removed ASAP per consensus.

Mentioning only the militants, while removing all mention of the civilian casualty names is a severe violation of WP:NPOV. It essentially ignores the Palestinian POV that many of their civilians have died in the conflict. Either we mention both, or neither. Names of notable militant casualties, like the Hamas commander should of course be mentioned in the text of the operation.VR _talk 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Its not a violation of NPOV, no civilians on either side should be named, armed militants that have been targeted and killed as part of the operation is very different and notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with only including the names of notable militants and what Jonathanfu said. The notable ones should be worthy of being worked into the text to qualify for a list. Capscap (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. The names of the militants are notable, relevant, and do not take up an undue amount of space in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any argument that some of the militants that have been killed are notable, but not all of them are, and thus are not suitable for inclusion. Given that there is no news coverage besides the articles that tell of their killing, most of the deceased militants are likely footsoldiers, and not particularly notable themselves. Providing a list of IDF soldiers killed in the conflict would be equally unsuitable. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

11-month child killed

BBC story

I was trying to find out more about this, but information is scarce. I don't understand from the pictures what kind of "round" would cause this kind of damage - clearly not HE, so it's unlikely to be an Israeli missile or tank round - perhaps an illumination artillery round, but I don't see why anybody would use one. The most likely explanation might be a part of the engine from a disintegrating Qassam.

According to sources today (18 Nov) there were no shells being used until now. I've not seen any reports mentioning smoke or illum either. Quassams have a solid block of propellant from sugar and potassium nitrate - could it fall out if the welding was subpar? Ketil (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide an official source for that? --Mor2 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quassam details are from WP, it seems the nozzle is welded to the fuel compartment. I think the bit about only air raids until the 18th was CNN or BBC, but I don't have the link. This link claims tank fire on the 17th, though. It seems clear that artillery is now being used, but I don't think we can entirely rule out earlier use, even if it seems unlikely. Ketil (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Searching for this is hopeless, journalists are incredibly sloppy and seem to call anything "shelling" and "artillery". Sigh. Ketil (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps casualties should not be listed at all until they are confirmed by a third party? 80.179.9.7 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt it was a casualty, I'm mostly curious what would have caused it. Ketil (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

His father held him in his arms and described how he was killed, you should watch it. --Moemin05 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very emotional. Although the father's statement is important as such, he was apparently not present, and the evidence looks nothing like any "airstrike" - compare with the pictures of bombed Hamas offices. Ketil (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not Misplaced Pages's role to accuse a child's father, local health officials and unaligned humanitariam organisations of lying, there is no reason to doubt this. It was reported by reputable news agencies --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Except for evidence, and truth, yeah no reason... this is wikipedia, where Hamas lies rereported are more important that facts infront of your face. 80.179.9.7 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are very good reasons to doubt this, the photographic evidence is clearly not from an "airstrike", no matter what the victims claim. I think in any case reports from the victims, no matter how professionally presented, must be considered a POV source. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities, and of course this won't go on an official WP page without credible sources - but I really would like to know the truth, if possible. Ketil (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing violates this encyclopedia's rules on original research. It is not for you to 'check evidence' if reliable sources report something. If it were our role I would start a counterargument (air strikes can kill without hitting directly) but you removed content based on your own opinion and some rudimentary original research --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What exactly are you referring to? What have I done which has violated OR rules, and what did you think I 'removed based on my opinion? Ketil (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

israel- none Casualties ???

3 killed in the israeli side, it's a fact ,what does it mean "According to Israel"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.248.104 (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• The "none" refers to military casualties. Israeli civilian casualties are below it. Not sure what the "accordng to israeli" is for though, sems pointless to me too. (talk)

Not true. There are 1 dead and 2 wounded zionist sailors, after palestinians managed to hit a zionist gunboat with a "Kornet" anti-tank missile (russian make or its iranian copycat) on Friday. The gunboat was shelling Gaza from the very close distance of only 400 meters from the shore.

The above information is much supressed, because the vessel did not sink and returned to home port on the long way, so its damaged side was always pointing towards the open sea, unseen. (The same cover-up tactic was used when a zionist naval corvette got hit by an iranian made anti-shipping missile in 2006, killing several sailors.)

Iranian media also reports the palestinians downed a zionist F-16 two-seater jetfighter on Saturday and captured at least one of its crew. Palestinians now have powerful anti-rank and anti-air lightweight missiles, because supplies meant for the libyan and syrian "rebel" trojans were re-routed to them, via to pan-arabian sympathy. The same story western stupidity as it happened with Stinger via CIA -> anti-soviet mujahideen -> radical taliban / Al-Kaida. 87.97.97.219 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Since When is "Zionist" an acceptable term for "Israeli"? Israel is a country. Zionism is a form of nationalism - love of a land. It has no body, no ships, no anything. 192.114.19.191 (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

13 year old

There is a bit of confusion about this, witnesses disagree on whether it was fire from a vehicle or a helicopter, and whether he was shot in the head or abdomen. IDF denies any knowledge. Could this be elaborated better? CNN Ketil (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Civilian Losses/Neutrality Issue

Why are all Palestinian civilian losses denoted as being 'claims' (and rightly so) by each belligerent, but the Israeli civilian losses are not treated the same way? If objectivity is to be maintained, one must assume that anyone can alter their figures, even close allies of the United States. Not to mention, that count came from the defense force. Please keep the parenthetical denotations even across the board.

PFLP as participant in the action

Someone added the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine as one of the combatants in the conflict. There is a reference to an apparently self-published Arabic website. Can we better verify PFLP's involvement? --Jprg1966  02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no outside confirmation, I'm going to remove them from the list of participants. --Jprg1966  16:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That was me who added PFLP the link is to the offical PFLP website Here is a rough translation "The Brigades of the Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa - the military wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,Continued their responses to the continuous Zionist aggression on our people in the Gaza Strip,"

They then claim responsibility for 17 attacks here is 4 of them (Again rough translation)

• Bombing of Beersheba with Grad missiles Wednesday, 14/11/2012 8.25 pm.
• Shelling Sderot Eshkol with four missiles 1.55 am .
• firing two rockets at settlements east of Khuza'a 10.30 am.
• targeting the military airport in Algostinh with three Grad rockets at 1.25 pm.

I think they belong in the infobox since they claim responsibility for a number of attacks and have provided a very specific timeline of attacks http://www.pflp.ps/news.php?id=3829 Pravdavoin (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

International reactions

In the opening, it says a number of countries including Australia condemned Palestinian rocket attacks and supported Israel. WRONG!! Australia did not condemn Palestine and nor do they support the Israelis, don't just assume next time, fix it.--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Australia did condemn the attacks and express support of Israel here Capscap (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't generalise to "Australia". Julia Gillard's opinion is her opinion, and most Australians would used the word "condemn" at all. Foreign minister Bob Carr said something much less partisan. Mr G (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The reference is to the government, not the people. The prime minister explicitly said, "Australia supports Israel's right to defend itself against these indiscriminate attacks. Such attacks on Israel's civilian population are utterly unacceptable." Also, the fact that it's Julia Gillard making this statement is explicit in the article. I'm not sure how this is an issue. Capscap (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: the opening no longer lists every country so this is not an issue. Capscap (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is Israel in the Reactions section? Shouldn't the actors of the operation be instead in the body of the article? 99.112.213.81 (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The reaction of Israeli politicians is notable and important. I could understand removing the comments of people who are directly involved in the operation (e.g., Netanyahu and Barak), but the opinions of the Israeli political elite as a whole are very relevant. The fact that the leaders of Israel's two largest opposition parties support the operation is important, for example. --Jprg1966  05:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this belongs in the introduction. Rather than (eventually) listing 100 countries in the introduction, I think it makes more sense to just have this in the reaction section. I don't think the UNSC part is even in that section yet. 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that at most only a few countries that are particularly relevant should be mentioned in the lead (e.g. United States, Egypt, etc.). --Jprg1966  07:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why were the other countries removed altogether? I did not start this list, but if there is to be a list, let it be complete. Venezuela, Malaysia and about a dozen other countries condemned this attack and are no longer mentioned! --212.9.126.106 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've heard from a reporter that there has been condemnations of the Israeli attack from Pakistan, Yemen, and Tunisia(Tunisia had sent an envoy to visit a hospital in Gaza). Include these reactions if there is a url with more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OblivionFire (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

User:Logiphile deleted a substantial block of text without explanation. I reverted, and then s/he re-reverted, still without explanation. 1RR forbids me from adding it back in, but I still think this sourced text belongs. --Jprg1966  15:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have highlighted this issue in an Arbitration Enforcement complaint against Logiphile. --Jprg1966  18:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Position

Norge's position has been misstated.

This is what it is - "Israel has the right to defend itself, but notes that the military countermeasures against armed groups in the Gaza Strip should not be a form of collective punishment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.201.25 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Gaza man who faked injury

The section discussing the Gaza man who faked injury was tagged with a better source needed tag. The citations included from TheBlaze and American Thinker seem to be reliable sources. Would the original articles that they cite from Honest Reporting and Arutz 7 be preferable? --PiMaster3 18:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

FOX News now has an article on this, can an editor add more information and cite from the following: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/20/brazen-faking-images-reveals-hamas-desperation/ --152.132.9.132 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting FOX News is a reliable source!? 94.197.127.122 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

presstv citation

this citation is wrong, and this is not a POV question. whether you are zionist or anti-zionist, this is plainly misuse of information. in the casualties box on the right, it says "11 militants killed" and then cites press tv, which claims "At least 25 Palestinians, including a senior Hamas commander, have been killed", below on the wikipedia casualty box, it gives "16 Palestinian civilians killed, 3 israeli civilians killed" and cites ynet which claims: "Three people – two men and a woman – were killed in the morning when a rocket hit an apartment building in the city of Kiryat Malachi." (consistent with wikipedia) and "Medical sources in Gaza said that 10 Palestinians were killed in Israeli airstrikes, including Ahmed Jabari." these numbers do not add up to 25 (and come from different times), and the iranian source does not divide the 25 into civilians and non-civilians (whether labelled "militants" or "soldiers" or anything else). new sources are needed which reflect the current body count as confirmed by some independent source (doesn't the red cross have current numbers?), but even if you are to keep these two citations, the iranian one claims 25 dead and neither the iranian nor the israeli source makes any mention of "militants", either among the dead or just in the abstract.

again i repeat, despite my views on the conflict and despite the fact that others disagree with me, the incorrect usage of those two citations for the information wikipedia is claiming is problematic regardless of which "side" you are on, if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.46.239 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Press TV is not a reliable source and should not be used as one on this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree - neither are the Israeli authorities - but they are used incessantly as a source throughout the article --212.9.126.106 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, this is exactly the point. Regardless of how reliable either of them are or how much wikipedia cites them or doesn't, the numbers giving in the infobox do not reflect either ynet or press tv's numbers!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.46.239 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the edit i made when i added the PressTV source seems someone changed the content and forgot to add a new source And calling PressTV not a reliable source is ludacris when you use theblaze and Americanthinker in the same article. The info is also outdated according to the Gaza Health Ministry 30 have been killed and 280 injured Pravdavoin (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The Blaze and American Thinker are being used as sources, although neither are reliable. I think they should be removed and better sources found.VR _talk 03:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Also Arutz Sheva, the "voice of the settler movement", is cited numerous times for facts without attribution. I don't think it is a suitable source to be used without attribution (see e.g. ). In this case, when we have so many mainstream RS reporting on the topic, I don;t really see the need for resorting to this type of poor quality source. Dlv999 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please remove Artuz Sheva cites , the list of palestinan rocket attacks has Jpost,ynetnews and haaretz all are much better sources for the same event. also in the background there is a slight error by not adding the rocket attacks on the 4'th and 6'th november and only talking about the rocket attacks on October,when there had been 800 rocket attacks since january 2012 (with the same source).

Mossad involvement

This operation seems to be a joint effort of Shin Bet and IDF, but what about the third and the strongest Israeli force --- the Mossad? Is Mossad involved in this operation? Wandering Courier (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is more of a general discussion on the subject and is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. If sources can be found to prove Mossad involvement then these would certainly enrich the article, however speculation without citing references or adding to the article does not fall within the bounds of Misplaced Pages and IMO is more suited for a discussion page on another website.

Regards Sirkus (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012

The figure of "92 rockets fired in October" under the Background section cannot be justified as its reference is not working. It is likely that when this reference was added it was working, but has since been removed or gone offline.

I propose taking out the "92 rockets fired in October", and instead linking the "According to the Israel Security Agency, rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel continually throughout 2012" section of text to the List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012 page, which may help provide more context than a single dead link.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards

Sirkus (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

, , 71.35.139.215 (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

the WSJ and Spectator pieces are opinion/opinion blog pieces so don't meet RS standards for verification of facts. The Christian Science Monitor article is a news report, but it does not mention the 93 rockets figure under discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please improve your understanding of RS and reread the CSM article since it is there. WP:NEWSBLOG (I agree that it should be attributed to at least the IDF since that is where the numbers were pulled from). Sirkus also should take a look at WP:DEADREF and follow other solutions than removal.Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please improve your understanding of RS- WP:NEWSBLOG :"Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")". As I clearly stated the article is an opinion blog therefore not suitable for verification of facts. (Could be used for the attributed opinion of the author, but would be preferable to find a better source). Dlv999 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It can be used with attribution. But you disregard the main point. While you are arguing against a quick search from Google news which resulted in at least 1 perfectly acceptable RS (CSM, which you failed to read correctly) and 2 sources that could be used with caution, I am arguing for editors to stop pretending the information has not been and is now not available. Why are you and Sirkus spending time trying to remove the information that was available from a PS and was obviously included in good faith? Why are you not doing a Google news search to verify the info? Why are you both ignoring the CSM piece? It very well may not be intentional but it could easily be perceived of scrubbing. How about you spend as much time looking for a valid and valuable piece of information for the reader (an uptick or potentially even doubling of attacks in October) as you do trying to gloss over the info?Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you spent more time working on the article instead of worrying about what I am doing you might have noticed that the article now claims there were "116 rockets and 55 mortar shells" fired in October, still with the same single dead link as the citation. Dlv999 (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead link? the link in the reference that comes just after the text you quoted, work.--Mor2 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

relevance?

In the "Pre-operation events" section it stated that: "On 5 November, Israeli soldiers killed an unarmed mentally-unfit 20-year-old Palestinian when he neared the Gaza–Israel border fence. According to Palestinian medics, the man had learning difficulties. On the 5th of November a Palestinian road side bomb exploded and Israeli soldiers were injured."

I am not sure why the victim mental state is highlighted or mentioned at all?! (While it is unfortunate, he died because he entered a military zone and didn't heed warning shots, the soldiers had no of knowing if he had a disability, ak47 or suicide vest) It is the only place, the victim personal circumstance are used(using his mental state in an effort elicit emotion?) either remove it or add the same perspective for the other side, for example in the rocket attack in Israel died 2 family man, working for living, who got blown to pieces because the hamas shoot rockets incandescently at civilian population.--Mor2 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

it is relevant. it means the man was not showing defiance. No one is blaming the soldier. It's a tragic circumstance, and we need these details to appreciate that.--vvarkey (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But why mention it twice and why is his age mentioned(again the only instance such in the article)? How about something like this, which is informative and not biased(at least IMO):

"On 5 November, a Palestinian was killed while approaching the border and failing to heed warnings. According to Palestinian medics, the man had learning difficulties. On the 5th of November a Palestinian road side bomb exploded and Israeli soldiers were injured."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Vvarkey your response highlights exactly why it is inappropriate to include in the text there. You say "it means the man was not showing defiance" , but that is mere opinion. Is it impossible for someone with learning difficulties to show defiance? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparing numbers

The article seems to compare the number of Palestinian victims with the amount of Hamas ammunition used. In what way is the amount of ammunition important enough for the lede, and if it is, why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The number of rockets fired into Israel is clearly a very relevant part of the situation and article. it is appropriate for the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So your point is that it is important because it is clearly important. Right.

Does someone have a better explanation? Why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The rocket fire is clearly one of the primary issues of this conflict, the idea we would leave it out when many media outlets are reporting on the number of rocket attacks on Israel is unacceptable. The introduction does clearly state that there have been hundreds of Israeli airstrikes. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Straw man: I don't doubt that the rocket fire is important, I'm asking why the lede does an inventory on Hamas, but not on Israel. I also doubt that it would be "unacceptable" to leave out a piece of information from the lede, just because it is reported by the media. Please point out the policy stating this (exactly this).

My question remains unanswered: Why is the amount of Israeli ammunition not mentioned? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: Please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

this is not about basic ammunition, this is about the number of actual rocket attacks..which are each incidents, the different types of rockets are notable because they impact on distance etc. I believe the article should clearly reference the number of air strikes carried out by Israel as that is notable too, it currently says hundreds.. but if there are specific figures as we have for the terrorist rocket fire then that should be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the ammount of strikes carried by Israel is notable as well. --Mor2 (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Basic ammunition"? Israeli weapons are much more effective than some rockets from the middle of last century. How many of the Hamas rockets actually did damage? If not all did, why is the number of rockets fired more important than the number of bombs doing actual damage?

Again, Please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The number of rocket attacks is notable, the fact they are primitive and of limited success for hamas is no reason not to include the information. I do not accept your premise that the ammunition is being emphasized over the number of victims. The introduction clearly states the loss of life on both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You again just repeat your claim, and give no reason. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, please don't say anything at all.

The effectiveness of a weapon is of paramount importance. Every child knows the number of nuclear weapons used, and with a short web search you can find the total number of test explosions. How many bullets were used in WWII? How many rifles? If Hamas rockets do almost no damage, their number is meaningless.

The initial number of rockets is in the very first sentence, the total number later, before mentioning any victims they have caused. If that is not emphasizing, what is it? The amount of detail is also noteworthy, the lede implies knowledge over the amount of weapons (not only projectiles) used. ("over 500 mortars")

Again, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What it seems todo is to provide a proper introduction to the topic of the article in the lead. --Mor2 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The obvious question is: Is it proper? --79.223.1.37 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

proper is the domain of point of view. --Mor2 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. I ask again, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So by your logic the 9/11 article "emphasis" planes or "compare" terrorist numbers with victims?! Please don't make ridicules comparisons. That "ammunition" or rather a weapon of terror, that is used indiscriminately to target civilian population, when this is google is my friend is your daily routine, I dont see anything none "proper" to state the amount of "ammunition" they had to suffer before they went to this operation.--Mor2 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there ammunition mentioned in the 9/11 article? Was it even used in the attack? I think I'm not the one making ridiculous comparison. I also am not the one with an apparent POV in this matter. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add to this conversation that every time a rocket attack is fired against Israel, an Air-raid siren is sounded. This gives civilians time to reach bomb shelters. Which means everything must stop in the area, so civilians can run to safety. Therefore, the number of rocket attacks made is noteworthy. Perhaps this background information should be provide so people are not confused about why these numbers are given. 213.57.149.188 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to explain that the attacks are wrong and have a terrible effect on the population. I still don't see why the amount of ammunition used is important enough for the lede. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea. Right now we can't understand from the text the danger and damage those rockets impose, they are regarded as primitive and meaningless, not as something that can disrupt the lives of one third of the Israeli civilian population(several millions), ond daily basis, sending them to the air raid shelters... --Mor2 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But can they be regarded as disruptive if most of them don't have victims, ie. are literally harmless? Why is a similar level of detail to spend to describe the "disruptiveness" of the Israeli attacks? --91.10.26.138 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, somebody firing hundreds of rockets at somebody is notable. Removing this information would be daft. OTOH, I think there's a good case for including the number of missions, air strikes, or similar by the IDF. Any numbers available? Is IDF OK as a source? Ketil (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you just entered the discussion by calling me stupid, and with a straw man. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --79.223.1.37 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call you stupid, but I think your argumentation is. The number of rockets is important, as it is Israel's primary justification for the attacks. That they are "ammunition" or what other conflict articles say, isn't relevant. Ketil (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not see anyone calling you stupid, im afraid that it does appear you are in a minority though. Most seem to have no problem with the introduction stating the figures in question and people who have replied have supported their inclusion. We just need additional stats on Israeli airstrikes etc and they would be worthy of inclusion too. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet again you try to score with a fallacy, ie. lie: Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Also, please point out any other article about any conflict where the amount of ammunition used is emphasized over the number of victims. --91.10.26.138 (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The only fallacy here is yours. Every article on wikipidea about operations, first outline the reason/goals, then outline the result.--Mor2 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to all the above, Hamas's goal in firing all those rockets is hurting civilians. The reason of the relatively few Israeli casualties are the air-raid sirens and the Iron Dome system, neither of which is foolproof. It is not the rockets that are ineffective, (indeed, look what great damage was caused by the few rockets that were not intercepted by Iron Dome) but Israel's defences that are extremely effective. If I am attacked in the street by four armed men but manage to escape through having studied martial arts, it is not the same as not having been attacked. Therefore, the number of rockets launched at Israel by Hamas is relevant. In addition, even when a rocket does not take lives, it destroys buildings - people's homes. And as for the Iron Dome, each of its missiles costs $62,000 (). Thus, when the Hamas rockets don't cause damage, they take a heavy toll on Israel economy. 192.114.19.191 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that their effect is mostly psychological, which is exactly their intended purpose, hamas intentionally target civilians to terrorise them (i.e. terrorist). See also Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Effects. --Mor2 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize that you normally can't use youtube videos as sources, but the IDF has "recap videos" which state how many air strikes they have performed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udmwJ9Wfj5g&feature=share 213.57.149.188 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Should Jerusalem being targeted be in the introduction too?

The introduction mentions that a rocket hit Tel Aviv for he first time since the first gulf war, is it not also notable to include afterwards that Israel's capital Jerusalem was also targeted? etc BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think so. And it should be mentioned that the rocket hit a Palestinian village in Gush Etzion area, see . 213.57.187.181 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why must everyone push their POV?

I dont understand why every time one of these conflicts occurs, everyone has to slant it their way. The fact that we are editing Misplaced Pages, I think, makes us all adults here, whether we are 13 or 90. We are, in a way, a step above the general population. Many of us are veteran, established editors. Others are newer. Some just came on to whack the article with their nonsense. For once, can we be reasonable and not try to make human talking points in every little paragraph. "Mentally disabled shot by soldiers" "pregnant woman killed by IDF or Hamas rocket" (both occurred I think) etc. Who cares. I have a bias in this conflict too, but I am usually able to set that aside for editing. The debate over what to call Hamas operatives? Fighters, militants, soldiers, terrorists? Holy crap. I hear garbage arguments from both sides. They are terrorists. They are soldiers, albeit unorganized. This is ridiculous. Its a freaking word.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I an inclined to think its better to write such articles an year after operation has ended.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Metallurgist, I definitely agree with you that it is ridiculous that people are forcing their POV. However the word terrorist applied to either side is forcing a POV since it's usually a negative connotation. For the IDF and Hamas, we should use the term soldier as it is a neutral term. Derpian (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No we should use the term militant, to seek to try and pretend that the hamas side is a conventional military force is biased and totally unacceptable. Many sources describe them as militants and that is appropriate for this article. It would be POV to call them soldiers. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

lol! good point metal' well made. shame someone can't drop their POV for long enough to see your point, but such is life. Teknotiss (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

HAMAS is the democratically elected governing body of a nation. They have their own military. Who has uniforms, a hierarchy, emblems and flags. Seeing as Israel keeps calling on-duty military deaths of their citizens "civilian deaths from terrorist attacks", you're going to have to make up your mind as to either have Israel labelled terrorists or call the Hamas military exactly what they are...soldiers. I strongly suggest everyone attempt to edit out the use of militant with "soldier" and report anyone who removes that edit. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

I definitely agree, I have done this now but I bet this won't last long. Derpian (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I got most of it. Low on time hoping someone else can help. Derpian (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted. There's another discussion on this talk page already (in fact, the debate was terrorist vs. militant). Google has over 100x more results for "hamas militant" vs. "hamas soldier." Google news has 0 results for "hamas soldier" and 28,000 for "hamas militant." Capscap (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

1RR Reminder and Sanctions under "Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles" (WP:ARBPIA)

Reminder, this a 1RR page and anyone who violates it can be blocked vai Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. If here are editors who avoid 1RR but are repeatedly deleting NPOV properly sourced material in order to favor either side, as I see there are complaints, they may be reported to WP:ARPBIA. (But make sure you've been perfect or you might be blocked too.) Does anyone know how to put the 1rr warning on top of article edit page? CarolMooreDC 06:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Truce between Israel and Palestine 14 Nov 2012 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/2012111316357186271.html

Israel confiscates television broadcast equipment in West Bank, Nov 14 2012 http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/11/israel-throttles-palestinian-television/

Israel kills al-Jabari (who signed the truce) Thursday 15 November 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/israel-assassinates-hamas-military-chief

So who is the aggressor? 77.22.107.82 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum for the discussion of the subject. If you have a RS to cite for the improvement of the article, fine, bring it forward - but do not argue who is right/wrong on this issue - that is not Wiki's purpose. This is an encyclopedia.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not for you to tell him what not to write here. The timeline of events is extremely relevant, and is missing from the article. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

These are MORE than relevant to the article. Include them. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

More unreliable sources?

This blog and this blog entry from honest reporting both don't seem to meet the criteria of reliable sources.VR _talk 06:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything they say should be removed or better sources found. CarolMooreDC 07:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The section they are used in also has WP:OVERCITE issues, and appears to use POV sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The first blog should definitely be removed. However, the report by HonestReporting was directly referred to by mainstream press so should be included.Ankh.Morpork 14:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It also show the raw footage, where you can clearly see the "victim" of an airstrike, walking away unharmed a few minutes later, after the cameras where turned off.--Mor2 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have included the mainstream source that reference HonestReporting.com, but removed HonestReporting.com itself.

This is the logic of not using unreliable sources: if only unreliable sources make an argument, we remove that argument. If both reliable and unreliable sources make an argument, we use the reliable sources and remove the unreliable ones.VR _talk 05:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

15 November

A 8 month old girl was killed on Thursday (15 November) afternoon when her house was shelled by the IDF. Source: .

The material was inappropriately deleted from the article with the erroneous claim that "there is no record of a girl". the section is not consistent with WP:NPOV, three paragraphs are devoted to describing the attacks on Israel and Israeli casualties, while the attacks on Gaza has been reduced to two sentences enumerating the Palestinian fatalities. Restoration of this well sourced information would be a step towards moving the section to NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This was part of several edits, please look at section as whole and yes there was/is no record here of a girl/anyone, dying that day before that afternoon attack. The event was misplaced in the section timeline, repeating events already told later on. We have a record that 15 dead and that two of them were childrem(second/first source) in that specific attack. --Mor2 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Right now it says: "Palestinian sources said that 15 people were killed in Gaza as a result of the IAF strikes, including five militants and two children during the airstrikes.", so what do you want, add that "One of them have been a 8 month old girl" ?! --Mor2 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the whole section and that is what I made my judgement on. Deleting the well sourced details about 11 month old Palestinian girl being killed, but including the details of a 11 month old Israeli that was injured is not neutral editing. Dlv999 (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing todo with bias, I removed the girl because it was repetition and didn't fit the timeline. The other section was unsourced, so I added 2 cite needed request before anything can be dont. Further more I have complained several times on this talk page about the addition of such info, so this has nothing todo with my edit.--Mor2 (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It did fit the timeline, if you had read the source before deleting it you would know she was killed by shelling in the afternoon. Dlv999 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That not how I seen it, can you simply provide a second source that show it was not part of the attacks after 7PM.--Mor2 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The cited source says that an 18 month old girl was killed by Israeli shelling in the afternoon. If we are going to describe that an 11 month old Israeli child was injured we are also going to describe that an 18month old Palestinian girl was killed. Dlv999 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that deleting whatever they don't want to be seen has become the favoured mechanism of several editors on here. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Afternoon as in before 7PM or after? If it was before, you shouldn't have a problem finding a second source to support your claim and then you can easily add that event to the timeline. As for your repeated claim about bias, I said what I had to say in my previous comment. We surely don't lack 'Mentally disabled' and 'pregnant woman' shot by the IDF. --Mor2 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Mor2 - there is no rule requiring more than one reliable source. It is unreasonable to suggest that deleting his contribution is justifiable because 'afternoon might mean later than 7pm'. --Moemin05 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There is if I think that this event is already covered by the next paragraph. --Mor2 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Syrian National Coalition

This organisation has posted a reaction to the conflict, which can be seen here , and I think that the group should be added to the 'international reactions' section of this article. And this - article can be cited as well.--69.119.249.56 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Facebook is hardly a reliable source sort of material - it's also in arabic, this is the English wiki. The Blaze - seems a bit "tabloid" - I'm sure these statements will be reflected in a solid news organization soon enough.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a bing translation that FB provides, and the statement is an official one by the SNC on their social media page.--69.119.249.56 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Interior Minister comment in lede

User: Dlv999 inserted the comment of the Interior Minister regarding Gaza in the lede of the article. This is a gross POV edit. The Interior Minister does not decide defense or military related matters and his comment has correctly not been given the much attention in reliable sources. This belongs in the main part of the article (where strangely enough DLV99 did not bother adding the content). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

lol editconflict, i was just about to post:

"Currently the first paragraph includes the line "Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai stated that "the goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years.",. I do not believe that one persons quote is suitable for the opening paragraph of this article, it could just as easily quote from numerous other Government officials too so why him? I think this should be removed. A needless addition to the intro".

I agree it should be removed from the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He is a member of the Israeli Security Cabinet, so he is intimately involved in the decision making process of the Israeli government in these matters. As an Israeli government minister on the Security Cabinet, who's opinion has been published in numerous RS it is certainly a significant opinion on the topic and merits inclusion in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There are states goals by Defense Ministers, Foreign Ministers, and many other ministers who are move involved and whose comments are more credible. Why would you choose this specific controversial comment and shove it into the lede only? This looks like gross POV editing on your part. I would advise to self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A ridiculous inclusion to the lead; cherry-picking the words of one of various government officials and unduly inserting them in the lead smacks of tendentious editing. This and the views of Morsi should be included in the responses section and not accorded undue prominence. Ankh.Morpork 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For further sources reporting the ministers statement see The BBC, The Independent The Guardian, The Herald Scotland, Global Post, World News Australia, The Toronto Star, Alakhbar, Haaretz, Salon, Maan News Agency. But I get the feeling sourcing isn't the issue here. Our job here is not to run a PR exercise for Israel, it is to represent viewpoints that have appeared in RS. this viewpoint has been widely published and is certainly relevant to the article. I will not self revert as I stand by the edit, nut I am happy to accept whatever consensus develops on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why you chose one minister's comment over the comments of other far more relevant ministers? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a very widely reported viewpoint in RS. The minister is a member of Israel's Security Cabinet so is intimately involved in the decision making process. Our NPOV policy states that we represent all viewpoints per their prominence in RS. So if you are saying my addition is POV, you must show that another quote from another Israeli mister has received wider RS coverage (ie is more prominent in RS) than this particular quote. If that can be shown then I think you would have a case for moving Yishai's comments out of the lead. But so far your arguments aren't based on the source evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should go in the International reaction section, along with other minister comments.Dhawk790 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also it should be noted, it is mentioned in some of the sources that as well as being interior minister, Yeshi is a Deputy Prime minister. Dlv999 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem with his comments being in the article, but they do not belong in the introduction. Does the introduction have a large quote from the Prime Minister? clearly superior to the interior minister? Or the defence minister? It is not valid for one persons comments to be there, unless u also include other comments too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree its clear violation of WP:NPOV to put him in the lead.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking quotes is a blatant example of tendentious editing. Ignoring the statements issued by both the Prime Minister and Defence Ministries in favor of a quote by a lesser official smacks of POV pushing. Poliocretes (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike To state in an edit summary that something is undue for the lead, but then to actually delete it entirely from the article seems odd. Especially as no one here seems to be suggesting that the material should be removed from the article. I wonder if you could explain that to me Shrike.

@Poliocretes, Okay, so know quoting Israel's deputy Prime minister on the aims of the offensive, published in copious International RS is "tendentious". I wonder why that is. Because what he said does not fit the official Israeli narrative, and that means it must be purged from the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It being in the lead was totally inappropriate and has rightly been removed. If someone wants to start a Israeli reaction or israeli govnerment reaction section where different ministers of Israelis government are quoted they can. The important thing is the unacceptable inclusion of one ministers comments has now been rightly removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipidia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Unless you've got an RS that says it represents official Israeli policy rather than the opinion of one member of the Israeli government, it's no more than an anecdote, even if an interesting one. Poliocretes (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not "reaction", a deputy prime minister of Israel and member of the security council stating what Israel's objectives are. The commentator is clearly significant as he is deputy prime minister and member of the Security cabinet. The opinion has been published widely in international RS. A core policy of the encyclclopedia (WP:NPOV, states that we represent all significant views that have been published by RS on a topic, not just the viewpoints that happen to fit with the official Israeli narrative of events. Dlv999 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The deputy prime minister calling on his military to 'send Gaza to the middle ages' is not significant?! --Moemin05 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

One persons comments are not significant for the introduction of an article on a military operation. If any Israeli politician is to be quoted it should be either the PM or defence minister for obvious reasons. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the comments belong in the article, but not in the lede.VR _talk 05:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• On the other hand references to Quran (Surah 105:4) also don't belong in the lede. It would be UNDUE to put something like this in the lede.VR _talk 13:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are there hardly pictures on the page showing bombings in Gaza ?

Most pictures show Qassam rockets which ended up in Israel. Why? There are plenty of pictures showing bombings in Gaza, which could be put on this Misplaced Pages page. The bombings in Gaza caused far more death people and destruction, so it doesn't seem logical that the vast majority of the pictures on the page shown the impact of Qassam rockets. Tijs schelstraete (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There should be more pictures of the destruction in Gaza.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There might not be a lot people in Gaza with stable access to the internet right now. If we can find some, we should post them.VR _talk 05:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If someone have a source for copyright free images of the destruction in Gaza, I hope that they post them, or at least link to them in the discussion, so that others can post them. PerDaniel (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The current map is of strikes during the *last* Gaza conflict. Isn't that confusing? Ketil (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems fixed now. Ketil (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate

Why does the lede picture show just the effects of Hamas rockets? This is completely non-neutral. What we need is a picture that shows the affected areas in both Israel and Gaza. Anything else is one-sided and not appropriate.

For that matter, why does every picture, bar one, have to do with the effects of Hamas' rockets? What about all the damage and far more deaths and injuries caused by Israel's bombing? Seriously, until this is fixed and the images evened out, we should remove most of the Israel images. Silverseren 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather see neither type of pictures, especially not the Hamas made(death shouldn't be use as PR tool). I'd prefer if someone can acquire/make maps similiar to the one in this link which would be far more informative, giving a refernce point to the event in the text. --Mor2 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I entirely disagree, it is totally appropriate for the map to show gaza and the ranges of the rocket fire. That is exactly what this whole article is about. It provides useful information. no objection to additional images showing the impact of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza throughout the article though. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mor2. Until then, I think the current map is OK as it at least shows the entire area of hostilities. And I don't think the pictures are too one-sided, but I do agree there is some imbalance and that there should probably be a picture of a destroyed building in Gaza. Capscap (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the users editing this page in favor of the Israeli narrative are literally being paid to do this by the Hasbara department within the Israeli foreign ministry.

the Wiki admins do not care about neutrality, just who has the most numbers.

--Savakk (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Without accusing admins of bias, I do agree that a more neutral picture should be used for the infobox. What it's showing is the highlighting of areas in southern Israel that come within the range of various types of Hamas rockets and the caption reads "areas affected by the conflict." The Gaza Strip, where the overwhelming majority of the casualties have been is not even highlighted. For now or until a more fitting picture could be found, the current infobox picture should be replaced with a map simply depicting southern Israel and the Gaza Strip. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added that map. The previous map was of gaza alone, this one show both locations and is far more informative, providing reference to the information discussed in the article. What can I say I am no rocket experts or Israel geographer and it helps me. If you have a better map please suggest it in the infobox section above. (Also the initial caption included "gaza" but someone removed it as NPOV thing. I guess you can't appease everyone) --Mor2 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Savakk, do you have any reliable sources to verify these accusations, or is it a gut feeling because when all facts are presented you don't like the picture it paints? -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomæd; Israel doesn´t hide they have tons of people active on wikipedia to change objective information. You can watch on youtube a video of people active in "hasbarah" ("Israeli propaganda") workshops explaining in an interview how they manipulate articles to their zionist point of views. It´s no secret.Tijs schelstraete (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Link? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Tijs, Savakk said that "A lot of the users editing this page in favor of the Israeli narrative are literally being paid to do this by the Hasbara department within the Israeli foreign ministry" which is his opinion. As an Israeli, I can tell you with full confidence that many edits are made by people who actually care about adding facts, or sometimes even showing the Israeli side when they feel like there is a bias issue (which in turn can create more bias to the other side, and I don't contest that). I also haven't heard about Israel "admitting of having tons of people active on Misplaced Pages". Even if that is the case, there is absolutely no way to conclude that any edits that a person with anti-Israeli bias might dislike was made as propaganda or was being paid for it. And in general, "Hasbara" is Explanation or Explaining, and the goal is to present the Israeli side of the story to the world that is very often very anti-Israeli (at least in some parts), not to spew out propaganda, lie or make stuff up. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Update

This article only gives Israeli casualties up through November 15, and the conflict is still ongoing. It needs to be updated. By contrast, the figure for Palestinian deaths and injuries is up through November 18. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because, except for a few dozen injuries, there haven't been any deaths among Israelis, except those three civilians. EkoGraf (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide updates figures and sources for the Israeli casualties? Ankh.Morpork 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find a report that gives a total figure for Israeli injuries, but there are various news reports of individual incidents:

November 16 - 5 injured Ashdod and 4 in the Eshkol area

November 17 - 16 injured between 0900 and 2100

November 18 - 4 injured in Ashkelon , 2 in Ashkelon , 1 in Ashkelon , 1 in Sha'ar Hanegev , 1 near Kiryat Arba and 15 in Ofakim

Shimon Ben-Hamu (23) of Tekoa was killed on Saturday night.

That is a total of 49 injuries. This list is incomplete, but I think the article can be updated to mention Ben-Hamu and say that the Israeli injuries have surpassed 100. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A November 19 Jerusalem post article reported that Magen David Adom treated "over 252" Israeli casualties. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Killed militants

There was a section on the article listing killed militants, the information provided was useful and it was appropriate for this article on a military operation, when clearly taking out militants that are firing rockets is the core reason for the operation. The entire section has now sadly been removed and with it valid and notable information. It has been removed on the claim that there is a consensus no such detail should be provided in this article. I do not believe that is the case. There is a big difference between agreeing not to list individual civilians killed on either side of the conflict,compared to listing based on reliable sourced known militants that are killed, particularly as this operation started with the killing of someone from HAMAS, other individuals who are noted and named in the media seem justified for inclusion in a list too. It would be easier to put all such information in one section, rather than people having to read each days operation update or the casualty section which is going to be focusing more on civilians.

What are peoples thoughts? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this thread is a continuation of Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#List_of_Hamas_militants_killed. And you're right, I don't really see consensus being reached, there's only been like 6 editors providing input and I think 4 against and 2 for, we definitely could use more input. That being said, I stand by my opinion in that thread, not every militant listed was notable. There are probably tens of thousands of Hamas militants, not all of them are notable. Listing the names of each one would be, in my opinion, analogous to listing the names of each IDF soldier killed in the conflict. Unless detailed information is available to support their notability, I think it's fair to assume most are simply Hamas footsoldiers. Besides, given the number of Hamas militants, taking out the militants who fire the rockets is probably not the IDF's priority, I would think they would be targeting the rocket systems as there should be fewer of those. Jonathanfu (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus for removal and there still isn't. Everyone is all worried about the list getting too long. How about we worry about that problem when we get there?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Because per (Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)) that goes against doing that, while yes other stuff is there I do not object to an article that is set up similar to Casualties of the Gaza War if god forbid there are mass deaths on that scale as long as it just covers the people who pass the notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How about a separate page listing victims (or individual strikes with results/casualties - we are unlikely to get all the names)? Similar perhaps for a list of international reactions. Ketil (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

criticism of Israel's PR efforts related to pillar of defense

I just added some well-sourced criticism of Israel's PR efforts related to Operation Pillar of Defense. Specifically, some opinions from reliable sources about their twitter campaign and some about the gamification of the IDF blog. The criticism is well-sourced and I believe of appropriate weight. Feel free to reword it as you feel necessary, but please do not remove it completely without prior discussion on the talk page. (I could add in another dozen high quality sources issuing significant criticism of this aspect of operation pillar of defense. I haven't done so because that seems like it would just be source-stacking... but given how much criticism is being published in reliable sources about it, I think it would be a significant POV issue to not include a mention of it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but I am surprised that you manged to write more on IDF effort to provide legitimate information about its actions, than presented on the Palestinian fabrications and cynical use of dead for PR purpose.--Mor2 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present encyclopedic information that has been relayed by reliable sources. There's a bunch of criticism in reliable sources of Israel's PR efforts, thus they should have a decent sized section here. If you feel the section dealing with Hamas' apparent media deceptions isn't sufficiently detailed, feel free to find some reliable sources and expand it in a neutral way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This article will never reach NPOV because there are Israelis dedicating themselves to keeping it biased. --212.9.126.106 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

"How dare they show pictures of the dozens of children and civilians we've killed, that's complete propaganda".

Oh really? That's the logic you're going with? Israel actively trying to lie and twist it's deliberate actions to make it's war crimes and attacks seem okay is perfectly acceptable but you've got a problem with Palestinians showing news agencies the people Israel has killed?

DON'T KILL ANY MORE CIVILIANS and the problem is solved. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

See, this is a great example of one sided POV and explicit bias. Thank you for the demonstration. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 14:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

Under "Netherlands" it should read either "responsible for" or "guilty of," not "guilty for." I would have edited the page myself, but I understand this can be done only by authorized editors.

Bombs?

I know that this is probably due to the fact that all the reliable sources are not covering it or that Israel isn't releasing the information, but do we have any coverage on the number of bombs dropped on Gaza? It seems like there's very specific coverage of every rocket launched by Hamas, but not of bombs dropped by the IDF. I'm not sure if this is a sourcing issue or something else. Silverseren 04:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if they have the number of bombs dropped. However, the number of air strikes should be available. I believe the latest is over 800.. Not sure if that includes artillery or naval fire. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not as far as I can tell available. I would be surprised if Israel releases it. If I find it somewhere I'll add it though. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of strikes

I found a good one! Here it is.] It reads, "But Israel’s most senior officials appear keen to maintain the approval of Western governments, both by emphasizing that Gaza militants provoked the assault by firing hundreds of missiles toward Israeli communities, and by arguing their answering offensive — more than 1,350 air, tank and warship strikes so far — is both fierce and restrained." The nice part is that it includes all of the strikes, not just the air ones. And I didn't know that there were tank strikes. It's too bad we don't have a breakdown of the three types, i'll keep looking for a source for that.

Can someone who's more familiar with the structure of the article fit in this info and source? Silverseren 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone find a source that explains what does it mean that with 1350 strikes, there are less than 100 dead and at least half of them militants. --Mor2 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Sadallah

I have moved the death of Mahmoud Sadallah to Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#16_November. The phrase says "the boy's mother acknowledged that Palestinian militants may have been responsible". But the source says "Mohammed’s mother, was too bereft to apportion blame. It was possible he was struck by a rocket fired by Palestinian fighters, she said. It was also possible he was killed in an Israeli strike, she added, although nobody had heard the sound of a drone or plane in the sky just before the explosion."

I don't think that the article is fairly representing Sadallah's mother's views.VR _talk 05:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be thoroughly checked. In the Casualties section alone I have found there to be a decent amount of information that was not mentioned by the source, even when there were several sources cited to the claim. There's a little bit of POVish OR as well such as depicting Palestinian health officials as "Hamas" officials even though the sources just state "Gaza official" or "health ministry official". --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I too have found that there's a lot of information in this article that has a citation but is not actually present in the cited source. I've fixed some of it and will work on more gradually. Unless it manages to get in better shape pretty quickly, I feel like the twinkle tag about misrepresenting sources may be needed... Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• The specific details on Sadallah, and other casualties, belong in the Timeline, and not Casualties. The casualties section does not discuss who killed who, or under what circumstances. It also doesn't list names of those killed (agreed above). The Timeline, on the other hand, is for details on attacks, and who was killed under what circumstances.VR _talk 13:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The source states: "But there were signs on Saturday that not all the Palestinian casualties have been the result of Israeli air strikes. The highly publicised death of four-year-old Mohammed Sadallah appeared to have been the result of a misfiring home-made rocket..." This is a comment on the casualties, the clue being in the word "casualties". Ankh.Morpork 13:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not how we organize things. Many sources use the word "casualties" in reference to very specific details about an event. We can't have specific details about an event in the casualties section, otherwise its will basically swell, as there have been tens of Palestinian casualties. A proposed compromise would be to leave a statement saying that the death of at least one Palestinian may have been due to a Palestinian rocket, but the details of how this happened need to be in the timeline.VR _talk 15:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• AnkhMorpork disagrees with my replacement of "Some claims by Palestinian officials regarding casualties have proven controversial" with "One Palestinian casualty is believed to have died from a Palestinian rocket, although this is disputed." I'm open to different wordings. But I do insist that the wording be clear that this was one casualty (not "some").VR _talk 18:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposed wording: "One Palestinian casualty is believed to have been caused by a misfired Gazan rocket, although Hamas maintains the cause was an Israeli airstrike." The rest of the details will be in the timeline, like they are for all other casualties.VR _talk 18:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

non-neutral unsourced sentence fragment

Could someone please revert this edit or rewrite it to be neutral, sourced, and not a sentence fragment? I would do so myself, but I'm the person who deleted it the first time around. I'm sure the meat of the statement can be appropriate integrated in to the article, but as it stands, it isn't appropriate - it's a nonneutral sentence fragment without a reasonable source. (I asked mor about this on his talk page hoping he'd selfrevert and he asked me to just post here instead.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

When I encounter not cited sources, I add {{cite needed}}. You decided to remove it(just as with the other edit), so I added it with a source and I asked you to post here if you have further issues. I am still not sure which part of it you consider uncensored or non neutral, if you an be more specific we can improve it.
Personally, I am not military or rocket scientist, I don't understand between 10, 797 and 2000 rockets.(or later, 46 miles range) So I'd appreciate less math book numbers and more basic info that put that into context.--Mor2 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please go read WP:RS and then go read WP:NOR. The source you added is not, by Misplaced Pages standards, an acceptable source for a statement like that. It is also, literally, a sentence fragment, and written in not precisely neutral language. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I used that source because it is in English, so people here can understand and evulate it. If you look at foot notes, its the info from the Israel official Census Bureau) considering that the only information used from there is the number of population and percent living in the south, I see no POV issues. However, if you want I can find a more "reliable" source than the official Census Bureau, in form of any number of newspapers(like most do).
I still don't understand what do you mean by "not precisely neutral language". Do you mean the part about disruption of live, that people need to go to bomb shelters and that schools are canceled? if so please suggest a more neutral variant --Mor2 (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I used that source because it is in English, so people here can understand and evulate it. If you look at foot notes, its the info from the Israel official Census Bureau) considering that the only information used from there is the number of population and percent living in the south, I see no POV issues. However, if you want I can find a more "reliable" source than the official Census Bureau, in form of any number of newspapers(like most do).
I still don't understand what do you mean by "not precisely neutral language". Do you mean the part about disruption of live, that people need to go to bomb shelters and that schools are canceled? if so please suggest a more neutral variant --Mor2 (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please go read WP:NOR. For a statement like this, we can't use a primary source that says a million people live in South Israel; we need a source that says that a million people living in south Israel have frequently been forced to close their schools and frequent bomb shelters as a result of escalating rocket fire during the time period the sentence is talking about. I'm pretty sure such a source exists, but citing primary census data doesn't count. It also needs to be a complete sentence, and integrated in to the paragraph around it. (I have neutrality nitpicks with it, but the whole "it's an unsourced sentence fragment" is a bigger issue for now.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid a point, I'll get back to you with the info.--Mor2 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here, I found almost a direct quote of what you asked: "Since January, Gaza militants have fired 750-800 rockets into Israel, forcing many of the estimated one million civilians in the Negev to repeatedly head into bomb shelters and close their schools". Other sources to support this: mutilple instance of schools been closed down due to rocket barges, technical site, stating that 15 percent of the entire population are at risk and additional info on how Shelters, Warning_systems and map of alarm zones(regarding the time that they have to duck and cover). I think there is more than enough sourced info here so that we can edit the sentence in more neutral way. If not I can add more to your taste(there isn't really a shortage of documentation) --Mor2 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The facts presented show Israel started it

The facts presented so far in the article, which before JIDF sock puppets start complaining are sourced from the Israeli government themselves for most, show that during a ceasefire in which a truce was being brokered...Israel assassinated the military leader of Hamas and then began bombing civilian areas they claimed Hamas was storing weapons in, despite the fact the ordinances couldn't possibly do anything but harm civilians.

So, okay, Israel broke a ceasefire and assassinated a military leader of their enemy.

Then, according to Israeli sources, Hamas began attacking Israel.

Now from the looks of it, people are desperately trying to portray that somehow Hamas firing rockets BEFORE the ceasefire relates in any way to the reason Israel broke a ceasefire it had agreed upon. And people are even trying to portray the rockets fired AFTER the ceasefire was broken by Israel as Hamas breaking the ceasefire.

Can anyone explain how the article is being portrayed like that when the facts clearly show Israel started the conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.198.176 (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any relevant cease fire (only talk about negiotations, and a 3h one during Egypt's visit) mentioned in the article? Also, I think discussing who "started it" is non-productive, this is an ancient conflict with tit-for-tats over several centuries. Write a blog if you want to pin blame. Ketil (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I added some bits about the ceasefire, it seems there were talks, but it's not clear that there was any actual agreement. After, it says there were no casualties, but I think we should mention rocket attacks and retaliations. The former is listed on WP: ], but I couldn't find anything credible on the latter. Ketil (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see "who started it", see the time line of the conflict and its context see Gaza–Israel conflict, this is about the operation. --Mor2 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue with all of this is that there's details that are impossible for anyone to know (besides Israel and the Palestinians). For example, we do know that Jabari was in the midst of brokering a long term ceasefire/peace treaty with Israel when he was killed. Now, the question is, was this brokering in the midst of a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel? The main response would be no, because rockets were still being fired just before. However, therein lies the problem. Even the article shows that problem. The article says that "Palestinian militants" were firing the rockets and that, as is obvious, is incredibly vague. Was it Hamas who were firing those rockets or one or more of the numerous other terrorist groups in the region that were firing them?

That's what's impossible for us to determine. It's possible that Hamas was abiding by a ceasefire and all the rockets being fired during that time frame were from the other terrorist groups. It's also possible that Hamas was breaking the ceasefire and continuing to send rockets. The problem is, it's impossible for us to know that or to determine which is true. And if Israel knows the truth, there's no way it would acknowledge it, as it would only be hurting it's own position. So...was there a ceasefire or not? No idea. All we know is that a long term ceasefire was under discussion when the IDF killed Jabari in response to rocket attacks earlier that week. Silverseren 10:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

After the previous operation, Hamas has showed real effort to contain any attacks on Israel(its own or terrorist groups). However, in the last couple of years it control became laxed again, even if they do apprehend those responsible, they are released. Additionally they have moved some operations to sini sector(where Egypt control has been shaky for sometime and easier to by pass the military) and continue to target civilian population in Israel, with increasin frequency. Overall whenever I encounter something related to aggression in the middle east section, its always tied up to the Hamas in Gaza, While peace and talking tied up with the PA in west bank. I guess that when you want to shoot you shoot. --Mor2 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Studying incidents shorn of context is futile. Most reportage on this is useless, because it consists of propaganda battles. As it stands, the lead, reflecting the bias of sources, tells the story of Israel as victim, singling out a few incidents, and ignoring the complexities of the unending flexing of muscles, respectively by a regional superpower and an extended shanty town. The fact is that this is one more example of a tit-for-tat campaign in which there is no point to saying 'who started it'?, because these conflicts are continuous with a deep past which is grounded in an ineluctable clash between two irreconciliable designs, between a state that wants all that territory, and a people on that territory that wants a distinct state of its own. Using rush-to-print-with-the-latest- 'update' news sources, we are essentially selecting spin on incidents that, in themselves, have no meaning outside of the long-term conflict. Almost no source notes that most of these rockets from Gaza hit desert land, whereas most of Israel's rocketry is directed by the most advanced teleguided pinpoint weaponry, and hits habitations.

Here are two reflections on the wider historical context by eminent foreign policy analysts.

• (1) John Mearsheimer, 'A Pillar Built on Sand,' at London Review of Books, 16 November 2012.
• (2)Steven Walt, Brain-dead on both sides, at Foreign Policy 16 November, 2012.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I just read both of those and they're really nice overviews on the subject that denigrates both sides for the idiocy of this conflict. You should go ahead and include them in the article. Silverseren 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you seriously just say "most reportage on this is useless, because it consists of propaganda battles", and then offer Walt and Mearsheimer as objective reporting? That's hilarious. Also, please stop blogging your opinion about the "designs" of each side. Didn't you just accuse someone else of doing that, too? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This an article about an operation and the Palestine response to it. Nothing unique about it, it is conducted like any other operation on wikipidea, most of which took place as part of wider conflict. As for your opinion, I find your summary of what the people want very simplistic and biased, which I find very ironic, in light of your intro where you state how complex the situation is. Regardless, unless you have a specific request, a forum might be a better outlet for a discussion. Also it seems that foreign policy analysts grow on trees these days, still you might find some good ones here as well --Mor2 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to Silver seren. As to your comments on my remarks, which synthesize two sources, read your blogging opinions preceding my edit here. It's called the pot calling the kettle black.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is looking a little WP:NOTFORUMy. Especially since the first comment reads like a WP:SOAP.Jonathanfu (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Hamas misinformation"

If we will have a section on Hamas misinformation, it should contain just that. Currently, it contains allegations against pro-Palestinian activists and BBC News, and neither are run by Hamas. Either we change the section name, or we move that material out of the section.VR _talk 13:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What section should it be moved to? A new section? Ankh.Morpork 13:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian misinformation? --Mor2 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Vice has a point. There are the allegations from the one tweet that was of a Syrian person, that information should remain because it was about Hamas directly. But then the last sentence of that paragraph is discussing this other co-opting of photos by some vague pro-Palestinian activists. Even worse, the sentence after that is discussing footage from BBC. Why is that even in the section? Stuff that isn't about Hamas shouldn't be in the section and should be split into some extra "Other allegations" section or something. Silverseren 15:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, the best option is to rename the section "Coverage of Gaza". BBC News isn't a Palestinian source.VR _talk 15:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of both Gaza and Israel is discussed in the "Social media and Internet" section. This section dealing only with allegations of misinformation made by various Palestinian groups. --Mor2 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I think we should expand the ambit of the "Social media and Internet" section to include general media coverage that is not Hamas related. Ankh.Morpork 16:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have content that is not hamas/palestinian related? I noticed you started a new section, called "Media misrepresentation" but both entries there are also hamas/palestinian related. (Personally, I don't really care about this, but if someone want he can hunt the sources for those ) --Mor2 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I was attempting to provide an amicable solution. If you prefer the original format, feel free to restore it. Ankh.Morpork 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a section on media coverage is relevant, it could include the use of social media, as well as (alleged) misinformation (e.g. the IDF has a propaganda video on Hamas misinformation - F16 shot down, gunboat hit, etc). I think we should be careful about implying this is deliberate misinformation (e.g. a heading of "Hamas misinformation" seems POV to me), since a warzone is necessarily chaotic, and it's often unclear - especially on the Palestinian side - who is the source and if it is representing the Hamas government. Ketil (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally aligned with you Asaifm (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeating material

Can AnkhMorpork explain why he is repeating material that he knows is covered in another section? This is a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE, where a story is repeated to advance a certain POV.

This story should be covered in the timeline, like all casualty stories are, and should only be covered there, not in "media misrepresentation"?VR _talk 19:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem, both section suppose to deal with different aspect of the event. As noted in one of the previous section, I think that 'Media misrepresentation' should be merged with 'Allegations of Hamas disinformation', under 'Social media and Internet'. And in the case of the event mentioned by 'Vice regent' the 16 November coverage should be trimmed. --Mor2 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

By your logic we can or should repeat lots of events repeatedly in the article, say, like the killing of 11-month old Omar Mishrawi. We can mention him under November 14 and under a newly created section called "Attack on Journalists".

Secondly, what does the event have to do with media misrepresentation?VR _talk 20:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I reiterate, the information belongs in the timeline. I barely see any misrepresentation beyond the initial Palestinian allegation that it was caused by an Israeli strike. But even that is excused by Telegraph, which points out that "In the chaos, it is highly unlikely that Mr Kandil or anyone else at the hospital suspected that the death was the result of anything but an air strike."

In fact, Palestinian sources, like the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, came forward to publicly reject the Israeli air strike hypothesis. This has little to do with the media.VR _talk 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As there's no further objection, I'm merging the info back in the timeline.VR _talk 04:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Time line dealing with events, while the 'Social media and Internet' and 'Media misrepresentation' extend information on the media aspect and perception of those events.--Mor2 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why 'Mohammed Sadallah' entry in the 'Media misrepresentation' was reverted?(I cant find any mention of him in the whole article) This is one of the prime examples of 'Media misrepresentation'. It was a highly publicized event and widely distributed by the media, blamed on Israel. The Egypt's prime minister shed a tear to the cameras during his visit and CNN called it "a symbol of civilian casualties" and it turned out he was the victim of a crashed Hamas rocket. (Sources others are hiding in the history of the article)--Mor2 (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

While the POV stacking war continues

And this page looks like an IDF print-out with some marginal annotations by al-Qaeda, could some serious editors review the page as a whole. There are numerous whopping errors, many copied and plastered from other bad pages. Here's one.

Following Hamas's violent seizure of power in the Gaza Strip from rival Palestinian group Fatah, after the former's victory in legislative elections in 2007, Israel navally blockaded the enclave,making Gaza's economic and humanitarian position precarious.A UN report stated that Israel’s blockade was both legal and appropriate.

This breaks all sorts of rules, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, etc. but the first sentence is self-contradictory, while the second is deceptive synthesis of an irrelevant fact, sourced to another period.

• (a) The sentence contradicts itself, since it says, Hamas won in the legislative elections in 2007 and then violently seized power from the loser of those elections. That is unbelievably stupid, aside from reflecting an Israeli POV as historical fact.

(b) As David Rose reported The Gaza Bomshell, at Vanity Fair April 2008, Hamas, after winning the election, was threatened with an American-backed PNA coup, and acted to defend the electoral result on the Strip only after learning of the coup. Via Israel Fatah, which had some 35,000 men on the ground in Gaza, was supplied with truckloads of weaponry, refused to place the forces under Hamas control, Hamas had 6,000 men. The impression given by the phrasing, apart from the garbled contradiction, is that Hamas was unilaterally acting in a violent manner, and that the blockade was imposed directly as a result of this. A land blockade was imposed after Hamas won the elections, and preemptively struck to stop the PNA, with US, Israeli and Egyptian support, from overthrowing the results.

• Here this is spun as a violent seizure of power by (terroristic) Hamas, which caused Israel to put a blockade in place which had international legitimation.

• (c) It is also untrue because the naval blockade that was the subject of the UN deliberation here is cited as justifying its legality, refers to the naval blockade Israel imposed in 2009, two years after 2007 (when Israel simply imposed a land blockade).
• In the UN judgement 'Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident here,', cited by our source (the New York Times), Israel itself argued that it had set up the said blockade in January 2009 (p.27)
• Turkey argued that it had been in place since 2007, but the Palmer report supported Israel's argument that the naval blockade was imposed in late January 2009 ('the naval blockade was imposed more than a year later, in January 2009.' p.39). It is that naval blockade which was vindicated as legal, not the land blockade of 2007. Etc.etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• The sentence contradicts itself, since it says, Hamas won in the legislative elections in 2007 and then violently seized power from the loser of those elections. That is unbelievably stupid, aside from reflecting an Israeli POV as historical fact.

  it might sound less stupid if you read about Battle of Gaza (2007). --Mor2 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Too busy as a relative newbie to read policy and discover that wikipedia is not a reliable source?Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Its just faster to link you to an article, than explaining how you sounded making your claims.--Mor2 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In the time you spent putting together your little presentation you could have fixed it yourself and run around the block ten times. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, the line about UN supporting the Israeli blockade is POV. Some UN state the the block is illegal, as does the Red Cross. We need to reflect the multiple viewpoints, not just one.VR _talk 20:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• your info is little outdated here UN report Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal

There are certainly some wording/grammar issues, but i do not except this POV claim. The primary focus of this post challenges a blatant factually accurate statement. Hamas won an election, months later they carried out a violent coup overthrowing Fatah in the Gaza strip. This can clearly be sourced and there is an entire article on it. That is NOT bias! Sadly there are some who seem to just come here and throw around the POV line without seeking to properly just improve the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this part is relevant to the topic: "After winning the Palestinian legislative elections of 2006, Hamas eventually assumed complete power over the Gaza Strip in June 2007. The intervening period had been riven with bloody interfactional conflict, which culminated in a rapid and brutal seizure of complete military control from its rival Fatah, which, though defeated at the polls was reportedly working, with U.S. logistical and technical assistance, to overthrow the democratically elected government." This is not about the Hamas/PA conflict, Hamas POV in that conflict is irrelevant to Israel. Their only concern was that a terrorist Islamist fundamentalist organization, that does not recognize Israel's right to exist and seeks to establish an Islamic state on the entire territory of the State of Israel setup shop on their step looking to arm itself. --Mor2 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And Israel does not recognize the Palestinian right to exist as a people with statehood. It's POV to call Hamas 'terrorist'. As to 'not relevant to Israel' therefore the edit is invalid, well, we are obliged to underwrite a principle of neutrality, and whatever our POVs, we must not represent any one 'actor' in the conflict. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A. its not true. B its irrelevant. Hamas armed take over is the catalyst for this conflict. There is a reason why its called Gaza–Israel conflict and not and palestinian-Israel conflict, its because all armed conflict since then were only with Hamas controlled Gaza. So the take over is important background and your speculation as to why they did it is not important, especially as you only put your POV of the why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So you believe personally that Hamas is to blame for everything. Plenty of sources will back that. Many sources think the world is far more complex than this black/white simplification, and that (Mearsheimer and Walt) both sides are culpable for the present conflict. Again, WP:NPOV demands that editors balance an article for neutrality. Consistently editing for one POV violates a central protocol of wikipedia. I do not speculate. I read books, and notice key elements that are not mentioned by editors, and add them (to find them almost invariably removed).Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said this article is not about Fatah–Hamas conflict, thus hamas motives to stage a coup d'état are not relevant to this operation(you might want to check Gaza–Israel conflict). Also the amount of detail you provided on the Fatah–Hamas situation, which portraying only the Hamas narrative, violates WP:NPOV, only serving to legitimize Hamas actions. --Mor2 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

POV, OR in background section

On the subject of synthesis, can you provide any sources that link the "background" paragraph to the present conflict, as it appears that some editors are using this article to grandstand and present a partisan background presentation without any sources connecting this with recent events. Editors have selectively plucked their favorite Gaza trivia out of the poupourri of history and assembled a disjointed paragraph based entirely on original research. Sources please. Ankh.Morpork 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything specific you are referring to? Or are you saying that all sources mentioned in Background should also mention the present conflict?VR _talk 20:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sources should provide the background, not editors interpolating their personal take of the historical context. I think the destruction of the second temple has some bearing on the rexcent events, can I include it? Ankh.Morpork 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That would require a major purging of the background section, as it seems most sources currently used do not refer to this conflict. I'm all in favor of having sources provide the background, but we need to get consensus here before anyone goes about purging the background of such sources. And once that consensus is achieved, this standard needs to be applied equally to Israeli and Palestinian POVs alike.VR _talk 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Ankh.Morpork 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is that it is WP:SYNTH to provide a background to any breaking event described in a wikipedia article with details not given by the breaking news articles themselves. Were that applied, there would be no background details for any article on contemporary events, for the simple reason that journalism, unlike scholarship, doesn't strive to lose its readership by covering the past. There are, to the contrary, substantial scholarly sources under academic imprint covering all aspects of the events in the background, which are, often misleadingly, alluded to in the froth of rapid reportage. When newspapers note en passant the background details, it is good practice to check them against the ascertained historical records produced by specialist scholarship, and employ the latter rather than the newsrags, which are, in any case, caught up in the pressures of spin, a notable part of all official coverage of conflicts. That is not compatible with the encyclopedic ambitions of wikipedia, which is not a sewage outlet for ephemeral journalistic slants.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ask me my three main priorities for an article and I tell you sources, sources, sources. Stop fabricating an illusory background composed of jaundiced viewpoints and cherrypicked facts of which no source support their relevancy. Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

?Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Some amount of background can be gleaned from news article, even breaking news ones. Furthermore, this conflict has produced a whole host of analysis articles where writers ask "how on earth did we get here" and aim to provide the background.

Currently I see the background section swelling with claims and counter-claims. We need to put a check on that. Can you think of a way to ensure background information is concise?VR _talk 21:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be a pushover if we could link to wiki articles on the background that have been sedulously constructed to provide a balanced picture. Unfortunately few of them are, they are mostly patchy messes, the result of shortsighted POV warring. The only alternative is the art of précis, once the key facts are established. So we need some patience there. My edit, for one, could certainly be whittled down. I made it because the prior edit omitted Fatah, and blamed Hamas. Both reacted violently, enagaging in factional internecine warfare between Jan 2006 and June 13 2007, and I thought that to single out Hamas (the 'terrorists') was tantamount to quietly ignoring the documented fact that Fatah and the PNA (internationally recognized as legitimate representatives despite the shattering of their electoral base) lost the elections, and were directed to stage a coup. The result was a notable 15 months of mutual slaughter. I'd appreciate it if you could have a go at cutting my edit back, while retaining the gist. It's rather late here, unfortunately. Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Without studying diffs and discussions too carefully, I do get the impression that some editors may be adding volumes of POV info daily, without getting "in trouble for reverting" others material. (Of courseee, they may be disruptive in making it necessary for others to waste a revert on their WP:Undue material.)

To what ever extent I am correct, keep in mind the 2008 Israel Palestine arbitration still very much in effect: Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Editorial_process which reads Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited... and the following dispute resolution section reads: Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

So if an editor just keeps adding 300-500 words of a certain POV over and over again, despite discussion here, one might consider taking them to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard (listing a bunch of diffs) and mentioning the WP:ARBPIA case which makes such editing problematic. If the volunteers there also find these edits problematic and the person persists, it could be a reason to ban them from the article. CarolMooreDC 22:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A general background is necessary. But what of the 'pre-operational' section? Am I wrong in thinking this is a complete violation of NPOV? It creates the impression of a vacuum, of a quiet peaceful country suffering continual unprovoked assault from that terroristic ghetto that is Gaza. Numerous studies over 2001-2012 have shown that it is extremely difficult to disentangle the tit-for-tat logic of IDF-and-Gazan conflict. Incidents between the two occur almost daily. To me this editing looks like a rerun of what happened back in 2008-2009, which then became the object of an analysis by Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki (see for example here which argued that the reportage on 'who caused it' in mainstream newspapers was merely meme recycling of a comfortable cliché. Jonathan Cook doesn't deal with the thickets of actions and counter-actions over the preceding several months, but he does outline a snippet of how the Palestinian side might have seen the outbreak of hostilities, in hisWhy Gaza Must Suffer Again at Counterpunch 19 November 2012 (alternatively here at OpEdNews, 18 November 2012. (Some will challenge the source, but there's worse in the article) Can you write such an extensive section as the one we have, with such a singular multiplication of Israeli sources on Palestinian rockets, without mention of what Israel does in its daily operations in the air, off the shore, and on land in its blockade? Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You certainly may when reliable sources opine likewise. A cornucopia of mainstream news articles have accredited the rocket-firing with instigating the conflict. Other circumstances should also be expressly linked to the conflict. Ankh.Morpork 23:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are sources present which touch on many on the items mentioned in the background, such as the occupation, blockade, the previous Gaza war, recent aggressions, etc, and conjoin these items to the current hostilities. That there are sources used which offer further detail upon these items without themselves mentioning the ongoing hostilities is unimportant so long as a source does conjoin them. Sepsis II (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The map

appears to be designed to show the reach of Gazan rockets (of particular interest for an Israeli POV) rather than represent the points of conflict in representational parity. Compare it to the Guardian http://gu.com/p/3bqz6/em map here, which is constructed to show the distribution of verifiable strikes. Perhaps technical wizards could incorporate its results, and make our map more consonant with NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I strong agree. The present map, although informative, does give a false impression that there is only rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. It would be awesome if we could somehow incorporate something like the Guardian map in order to give a better sense of the full distribution of attacks from both sides. 129.63.166.107 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That Guardian map looks really good. The current map is POV, but its better than having no pic at all.VR _talk 22:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the map is biased and contains incorrect features, a simple map identifying the Gaza Strip and Israel would be neutral, albeit boring. Sepsis II (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong support -I agree that a good temporary solution would be to remove the current map, which gives an inaccurate overview of the situation, and replace it with a standard map. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian map looks very informative and unbiased. I agree that it should be used in the article, if possible. The current one appears to only be a map of the Gaza Strip. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Something like what I've posted? Its the guardian map, but with all labels removed (and re-added manually).VR _talk 05:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what version of the map is up at the minute but I'm putting in the caption "that Israeli (should say "superior") ordnance can reach into any part of the Gaza Strip." Let's see if we can at least keep in that kind of caption?

Israeli casualties update

The article only gives the number of Israelis injured between November 14 and 15 (about 70), but the Palestinian casualties are up to date. On November 19, the Jerusalem Post reported that over 252 Israelis have been injured. I think this should be mentioned in the lead and casualties section. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

American Poll

It seems odd to me to have a poll of Americans in the intro to an article about Israel and Palestine. I think that would fit better somewhere else in the article. I know there was a poll done by Haaretz of Israeli citizens opinion of the operation. That might fit better into the intro. Here's the article with the poll: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/haaretz-poll-more-than-90-percent-of-israeli-jews-support-gaza-war.premium-1.478903 . 129.63.166.107 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, such bagatelles should be placed elsewhere. Ankh.Morpork 22:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It was added back in again. I left a message on Tritomex's talk page asking him to join this discussion. Capscap (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Images

Three images display rockets being fired from the Gaza strip. Can we limit this to one and agree on the best image? Ankh.Morpork 22:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I only see one. I'm guessing someone handled this Capscap (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Indian Reaction

Gaza violence: India for direct Israel-Palestine talks NEW DELHI: 'Deeply concerned' at escalation of violence between Israel and Palestine, India today asked both sides to exercise maximum restraint and avoid taking any action that may further exacerbate the situation.

India also said it was necessary that direct talks begin between the two sides without any further delay.

"We are deeply concerned at the steep escalation of violence between Israel and Palestine, focused around Gaza, that threatens the peace and security of that region," the official spokesperson in the Ministry of External Affairs said on the violence in Gaza. Reference : Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.116.181 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please post this with other international reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.116.181 (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

accusations of israeli war crimes

I wrote - and am preparing to import - a section detailing accusations of Israeli war crimes. It's not perfect, and could definitely use some balancing work - I'd encourage y'all to contribute to it. I think that with the number of reliable sources making such accusations a section dealing specifically about them is absolutel warranted, and I believe my initial draft is pretty well sourced.

It may make sense to have a general 'accusation of war crimes' section with one subsection dealing with accusations against Israelis and another subsection dealing with accusations against hamas and other palestinian groups, but I don't have time to implement that structure currently; I may work on it later, and would highly encourage any interested party to beat me to it.

Please don't do anything like just deleting this entire section without first bringing the issue to the talk page. I know my version isn't perfect, but do think a section is needed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Numerous accusations of war crimes and the like have been made against both sides during this conflict, but the section you wrote focuses exclusively on accusations against Israel. I read through it, and it seems to show only one point of view. I don't see the need for a section on war crime allegations in general, especially when the conflict is still ongoing, as there is a separate section for reactions. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the section I wrote focuses exclusively on accusations made against Israel. I would fully support (and will probably eventually create) a comparable section focusing exclusively on accusations made against Palestinian groups. Given the amount of significant coverage of such accusations, I believe a separate section for each is quite warranted. (It also will end up being more readable than the current formatting of the article.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)-p

• Since the section is reliably sourced, it should not be removed. But we should add allegations of Hamas violations of international law - indiscriminate rocket fire kills civilians and is illegal. Otherwise the section is not neutral.VR _talk 05:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that an equivalent section should be developed to deal with accusations levied towards Palestinian groups. I'd suggest one broad header and then one subheader for each side. I started with Israel because I felt that the article as it currently stood was leaning pro-Israeli instead of pro-Palestinian and since I only had time to write one right away, wrote them first. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to be bold and change the section headers to how I think they should read. If you disagree please feel free to revert me with my blessing (and any passing admins: if VR does revert me, please consider it me self-reverting, and not him reverting, at least for the purposes of the 1rr this page is under.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment that adding new content leaning towards one side shouldn't be the way to balance the article; we should be trying to edit and balance out existing content. Else its like stacking new Jenga tiles on top of a Jenga stack instead of rebuilding the base.... Zhanzhao (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of the text in the section is misplaced. The second paragraph (about the media tower) should be under "19 November." The condemnations of the attack that you cited do not allege war crimes. Likewise, the Haaretz article does not allege any war crimes in the current conflict. The part about the Arab League should probably be in the International Reaction section. Capscap (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there shouldn't be subsections separating accusations against Israel and Palestinians, and the combined allegations section (the paragraph about the Al-Dalu family) could be put under Reactions where it may fit in a new subsection. Capscap (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The expostulations to a single strike from a non-notable non-legal body are insufficient to create a new section titled "war crimes." Their response had already been noted elsewhere. As it stands, there is little basis for this section. Ankh.Morpork 09:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I EC'ed with you, and thus didn't see your reply. There are dozens of reliable sources reporting accusations of violations of customary international law on both sides of this conflict. Also, if you don't consider RWB notable, your standards confuse me. (And when I put the section in, their response had not in fact been already noted elsewhere.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)I've realized that RWB's comment was actually noted elsewhere, albeit in extremely abbreviated form. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently too tired to dig through the rather long revision history in the couple hours I've been gone to figure out exactly who snipped what, but it concerns me that a significant amount of well-sourced relevant information to this article that I added a couple of hours ago has been almost entirely removed. (And that which hasn't been removed has been buried in the middle of a poorly organized chronology section so as to be unnoticed.) Tomorrow afternoon, I'll be readding most of the material I previously added, along with a substantial section dealing with similar accusations towards the Palestinian groups involved and fixing some existing statements to match what the sources actually say. It is of significant concern to me that there appears to be a systematic strong effort to whitewash this article to present an entirely pro-Israeli POV, instead of making an attempt at a NPOV. (And I don't just mean the material in this section: huge parts of this article are written in a POV fashion, often misrepresenting sources. Check some of my other recent edits if you want to know what I mean by misrepresenting sources.) If the source misrepresentation continues, and if future attempts to add relevant information from reliable sources are reverted wholesale, then I'm going to start taking this to relevant noticeboards, which will include arbitration enforcement. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make the change, but the WP:Synth talk below this is relevant. RWB didn't accuse Israel of war crimes like you implied. Condemnation is a reaction. Capscap (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll get in to this issue in full detail tomorrow, but yeah, Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire public statements have explicitly labeled the strike conducted by Israel as a war crime. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The RWB press release says: "“Even if the targeted media support Hamas, this does not in any way legitimize the attacks. We call for a transparent investigation into the circumstances of these air strikes. Attacks on civilian targets are war crimes and serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Those responsible must be identified.”". Seems that rather than explicitly labelling the specific strike a war crime, the RWB's response is rather more nuanced. Poliocretes (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrasing your link, how is saying "Israeli warplanes fired missiles on journalists intentionally, firing missiles at journalists is a war crime, we demand those responsible be identified" not the same thing as saying "We believe Israeli forces have committed a war crime"? I guess aliens could have stolen some Israeli F-16's, but short of that, it seems to be a pretty clear accusation that that specific strike was a violation of international law. Certainly, it's phrased diplomatically, but it's still clearly an accusation that one particular incident violated international law. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You've been here long enough, Kevin, to know what WP:BRD means. You are but one of multiple editors, and each has to prove the merits of his/her edits. Let's face it, if you re-add material, you might very well be edited again. We've all experienced this at one point or another in the past. This is not your article to decide what stays and what goes. If you've got evidence of a systematic effort on the part of one party, please provide it. Otherwise, it's a rather offensive accusation. Poliocretes (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier statement and will in fact expand it: this article is experiencing a ridiculous amount of POV pushing, including wholesale misrepresentation of sources, absolutely insane amounts of synthesis (especially in the background section,) and significant efforts to whitewash anything that doesn't look good for Israel from the article. I'm not levying an accusation against any specific person: the edit history of this article is too convoluted for me to do so without a lot of diff hopping. If it turns out to be necessary, I'll have absolutely no problem compiling a large list of diffs tomorrow for an ANI post or AE request showing this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, but I think you will discover that what's currently going on here is rather routine for Israel/Palestine related articles, especially in times of conflict. Poliocretes (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm totally aware that anything covered by the PIA arbcom stuff tends to be a complete mess. That doesn't make anything in my prior statement incorrect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Very true, just because the kind of tendentious editing you have described is commonplace it does not make it right, and it does not mean we shouldn't try to do something about it. Dlv999 (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What I find particularly amusing about this thread is that someone who admits he wrote an NPOV violating section, deliberately focusing on one side, accuses others of POV pushing. The "don't take it out of the article without discussing here first" was a really nice touch. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you merely accidentally misread my words, but I certainly did not admit I wrote an 'NPOV violating section.' (Writing a section focusing on one side, if done in a manner that uses represents points of view published in reliable sources in a way roughly proportional to how they are represented, is not a POV problem. Entire articles are not written at once; by your standard, someone who edited the section about Israeli casualties without also editing the section about Palestinian casualties would be POV-pushing.) Please do not again suggest that I "admit I wrote an NPOV violating section". Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess what got me confused is where you said you thought the article was too pro-Israel, so decided to add a section about allegations against Israel while knowing that sources also make similar allegations against Palestinians. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To avoid POV issues, I would like that any section dealing with war crimes start with actual war crimes and then continue to allegations(that we will probably have to wait several month to authenticate). By international law every rocket fired by Hamas at a non-military Israeli target is a war crime(virtually all of them). Then you can go with allegations of various people who interpret the UN Charter about the use of reasonable force against military.--Mor2 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is not biased, it covers details on both sides including the number of civilians killed by Israel. Im afraid some of those pushing the line the article is bias are infact pushing for the article to be biased in favour of palestinian POV. If people have specific concerns about content then they get discussed and consensus is attempted to be reached. Some people dislike the article title and have been moaning about it being biased.. this has been rejected by most and a clear majority supported the current article title, there are numerous articles about operations named as those operations. Attempts to flood the article with 1 sided accusations of war crimes are of course totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The only way to prove one is neutral, is to consistently edit in material in articles that is both well sourced and not in favour of one's personal POV. I only AGf on this when I see editors willing to do this. It is not commonplace, and virtually absent from this page. What happens on breaking news pages is a flurry of edits by large numbers of editors fresh to the I/P area who stay with the article until the news is no longer on the front pages, ensuring that a government's position dominates. Then, once the emergency has expired, they leave and solid editors step in and try to fix the damage done to wikipedia by editors engaged in defending a political position. By that date, of course, no one is reading it.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Reporters without borders

RWB released a statement saying that Israeli attacks against news organizations were attacks against civilians, and thus war crimes. Many secondary sources have picked up this story. Why can't we report it, including RWB's clear statement that attacks on news organizations are war crimes?VR _talk 06:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The only clear statement was they believe the attacks constitute obstruction of freedom of information and that they called for a transparent investigation. They didn't actually allege that the attack targeted civilians. Capscap (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RWB clearly says "Reporters Without Borders condemns Israeli air strikes targeting news organizations". They further said: "We remind the Israeli authorities that, under humanitarian law, the news media enjoy the same protection as civilians and cannot be regarded as military targets. Even if the targeted media support Hamas, this does not in any way legitimize the attacks...Attacks on civilian targets are war crimes."

If we can't agree on a wording, then we can quote RWB verbatim. But you can't remove RWB's allegations of war crimes, esp. since we have such allegations against Hamas.VR _talk 07:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added a quote. Feel free to edit it if you find it necessary. Capscap (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think what you wrote is fair. Thanks,VR _talk 08:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I edited what you wrote a bit, mostly to include a fuller quote, and to actively identify who actually said it. I'd also like to point out that RWB's statements have explicitly stated that they believe Israel's actions to constitute war crimes this whole time, including their initial statements, despite what some posters in the earlier section said. Also I'm editing from intermittent amtrak wifi, so if I editconflict weirdly or something, it's probably because of that.Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Social media and Internet, Add Carlos Latuff Cartoons

Carlos Latuff has a significant stack of cartoons supporting the Palestinian side and they are all shared on the social media. I would like to add subsection discussing his support. Asaifm (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is this notable? --Jprg1966  16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The neo-Nazi Carlos Latuff is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.81.100 (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYN

I broke up a classic POV WP:SYN section in which every statement that included the words "war crime" in connection to one side was listed, headed by an unsourced sentence "Many people have accused this side of war crimes". In the cases where the statements were duplicated I consolidated them. In cases where they were novel I moved them to appropriate sections. The fact that I dealt with this content rather than deleting it does not mean that I necessarily consider it notable enough for the article or even accurately written. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For reasons I mentioned above, I think your reformatting and edits were necessary. Thanks Capscap (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The expostulations to a single strike from a non-notable non-legal body are insufficient to create a new section titled "war crimes." Their response had already been noted elsewhere. Ankh.Morpork 08:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll discuss this issue in greater detail tomorrow, but for now: if you're going to quote me, please don't misquote me. Thanks. And Ankh, you have a really non-standard definition of notable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The section was almost entirely comprised of the reaction of Reporters with Borders. This NGO is hardly qualified to pronounce on jus in bello and should not form the basis of a separate section alleging war crimes. Ankh.Morpork 10:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Discounting all markup and all text not directly related to cited content, the section was 404 words long. Of those 404 words, 139 of them were directly about RWB. (Another 36 were about the IDF's response to RWB.) The other 229ish words contained information from a Sky News correspondent at the scene, a foreign press asossication statement about the strike, an editorial by Haaretz, a quote from a Knesset member explicitly accusing the Israeli government of committing war crimes, a quote from the Arab League, and a statement (directly cited from an NYT article that stated it explicitly) that unspecified political leaders and human rights advocates described the death of the Al-Dalu family as a war crime. (Most of which has since disappeared from the article - the Al-Dalu bit of especial concern to me.) Out of the eight reliable sources cited in the section, only had to do with RWB. The section as written was certainly far from perfect, but saying "The section was almost entirely comprised of the reaction of Reporters with Borders" is literally objectively wrong. I'm going to sleep now and will be active again here tomorrow. I'm not sure how 34% of a section (and only 1/8 of the sources) could possibly be considered "almost entirely" comprising a section. (I'm not trying to address other perceived deficiencies in the section in this post, just refuting your last post.) Please strikethrough or otherwise modify your last post, as it's literally objectively wrong. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

246 words (61%) were about the RWB incident without any allegation of a war crime (condemnation + call for investigation ≠ war crime). Likewise, the Haaretz column (another 18%) also included no accusation of a violation of IHL and was merely prospective The Arab league part certainly fits better in the reaction section where it is now included. Capscap (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

RWB are notable, but their press releases are rather more nuanced than certain edits suggested, and WP:SYN is still WP:SYN. Poliocretes (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Only one photo of Gaza

There is only one photo of damage in Gaza compared to that of Israel. I think that's really unbalanced. Can someone add a photo of the damage in Gaza?--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk)

I don't know how to do photos, but I think a photo of the explosion (or aftermath) at the media building would be an appropriate addition to the timeline section Capscap (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently, there are four photos showing the impact of the fighting: one of smoke rising from Gaza after a strike, one of a car burning in Gaza, one of damage to a house in Israel, and one of Israeli children running for cover. That seems pretty neutral to me. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Wikicommons category that will lead to you a bunch of photos. If you don't know how to put them in, link here to ones you like and see if someone else will put it in for you. CarolMooreDC 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think Xxhopingtearsxx is right , the casualities/suffereing/impact/death should be represented according to FACTS and numbers .Israel so far has 4 deaths vs. 120 on the palestinian side .No single picture of the many innocent palestinian people who were killed , this is disgusting!! . Cutedoctor (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

media building

The IAF hit four Islamic Jihad militants hiding out in the media building on the 19th. The current entry for this event does not make this clear. Rather, it mentions the attack on the media center as if it were itself the target, and only mentions the dead militant as in an afterthought. Objective presentation would make it clear that the militants, not the building, were the target. Tkuvho (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, its another example of where there is clearly biased wording against Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's propose a wording here so as to avoid risking reverts on the page itself. Do you have a neutral source reporting this? Tkuvho (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article (in Hebrew) that says a foreign journalist said he an his colleagues were upset when they found out militants were using the building and putting them in danger. He spoke anonymously for fear of reprisals. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The current section is an accurate reflection of numerous mainstream English language RS that are the cited sources for the section. If editors are saying there is a significant view that has been published in RS that is not covered, and should be covered, fair enough. But I see no justification for removing well sourced information that obviously represents views published in numerous RS with a material from a single non-English language news source. Dlv999 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here User:Dlv999 may be misrepresenting the situation. There is perhaps only one source reporting that a foreign journalist was upset that militants were using the building as a hide-out. However, there are indeed additional sources that report that the IAF hit Islamic Jihad militants hiding out in the media building. Emphasizing the fact that the building was hit and de-emphasizing the fact that an Islamic Jihadist was the target and was indeed killed in the attack, is tendentious. Tkuvho (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Hello all,
I'am a leading contributor in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Maps. I noticed the following maps and encourage you to keep the 2 first within the article since they are complementary. The first show the threat of Gaza over Israeli territories (Israel POV), the 2nd show the threat of Israel over Gaza territories (Gaza POV). Also, both maps are need to avoid a One-Sided narrative. Last, the 3rd (and 1st one) are heavily biaised and manipulative graphic representation of information since qualitative information is represented without quantitative information. Also, please take these maps cautiously.

• (first image visible) Gaza rockets threat over Israeli territories.
• (2nd)2008 Gaza war's impacts patern of Israeli shelling over Gaza territories.
• 3. Biased graphic representation of information : qualitative representation without quantitative information. 3. Biased graphic representation of information : qualitative representation without quantitative information.

Cheer, Yug (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How is a map pertaining to damage during the 2008 war relevant to this article? Ankh.Morpork 10:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fit in the background section with UN checked facts, qualitative AND quantitative ones, in an easy to understand graphic representation of the 2008 (previous) similar war. Yug (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The first map doesnt show the threat of Gaza, it show the effected territories in the current conflict i.e. Gaza and the areas withing Israel, which are discussed within the article. If we wanted to "show the threat of Gaza over Israeli territories" we would use the third, which is very informative regarding to the type of current threats mentioned in the article(not all of us rocket scientist or understand what 40km into israel means). The second Image show a map from 2008, Gaza war and has nothing todo with article.--Mor2 (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mor2 I notice you made 90% of your 200 edits on Israelo-Arab conflict. Your edits pattern indicate you are an experienced user with a new account. For transparency, may you state your former account name?

Map 1: Let's move on the file:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense.png you designed. Since you design maps, you should have some understanding of the design of information, the meaning of color and color ramp, and than every map is a POV selection. On your map, you repeat from your source(?) the range of Gaza missiles (qualitative information), without any numbers of attacks (quantitative information). There is no display of the range of Israeli weapon, which cover all Gaza, Egypt, and even reach Iran, not display of troups (quantitative), or Israeli shelling of Gaza. Knowing that 60 Gaza people and 3 Israeli people have been killed so far, we can frankly question your map making neutrality. Yet, this map --without source-- is in front page (lead section).

Map 2: As I said, is solidely fact based (qualitative and qantitative), sourced. It indeed fit in the background section with its UN checked facts in an easy to understand graphic representation of the 2008 (previous) similar war, with a focus on Gaza. Yug (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Map1: 1. Don't put words in my moth, you can see what I said about the map in the infobox section above. 2. If you have a better color selection, please suggest it. 3. Like I said this map is not about weapons, but the territories effected in this conflict, we have Gaza in the middle and the territories in Israelis that are effected. What you say about weapon range, make no sense at all, what does it matter if Israeli weapons can get to iran?! will gaza be any more effected? The article discuss Gaza and the areas in israel which are effect and those areas are highlighted.(with the largest population center marked, both in gaza and Israel).--Mor2 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Map2: no one ever questioned it's validity only its relevance. --Mor2 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Map1, refocus : According to your legend, your subject is Gaza weapons and their range affecting Israelis. Not a single word about Israeli weapons, army, their range, and their effect on Gaza/others. [Iran was as you understood an example to display the far larger firepower of Israel.

Map2: yes, yes, the previous 2008 shelling is relevant to the current 2012 shelling (both sides). Yug (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a crude synthesis of past events to the current conflict. It does not portray what is currently taking place and is misleading. Ankh.Morpork 17:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Map1, I think someone have addressed the issues you had(see map caption). If not can you please synthesize your complains into practical suggestion of what you want todo.--Mor2 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

@Mor2: Ok, fair enough, you propose a constructive way. So I can stop my 'anti pro-israeli' push, and let move toward a new map. See below. Yug (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need two maps (ideally given equal weighting in the article). Gaza is much more densely populated than south Israel and has been receiving the bulk of the casualties and damage. Any map that is detailed enough to give a meaningful representation of the attacks on Gaza will not be able to cover the areas of Israel subject to attacks. On the other hand any map (such as the current one in the lead) that is scaled to show all of the areas of Israel subject to attack will not be detailed enough to give a meaningful representation of the attacks on Gaza. Thus, the solution: Two maps. See for instance the BBC's maps of the violence. Dlv999 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Map 2 - Other maps seem like they are primarily focused on the rocket firing.This map works too. NickCT (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This a good idea. --Mor2 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a compromise it show areas effected by the conflict, it mention all the major settlements(and still somewhat readable at 300px) and it had the legend removed to avoid NPOV issues.--Mor2 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Still suggests that everywhere in Israel within range is a target, still only suggests that places in Israel are targets. That is clearly biased, and so unacceptable here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly which element of that map, makes you feel that it "suggests that everywhere in Israel within range is a target" ? --Mor2 (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

For the gathering of sources for a better map / graphics, see section below. Yug (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

More accurate map?

This map is from Reuters. I reccomend merging it with the current map at the top of this article. This is a very good, high-res, and informative map.--24.246.112.51 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed its a very good informational map, is it free? because there is no way I can reproduce it, if someone else can or you can find a free alternative(or something similar in the wikicommons) then maybe we could use it in on of the sections. It would also work for the infobox if we remove everything left of the shore line --Mor2 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an article that describes rocket fire from Gaza. This map would be better placed there. This article is about Gaza and the main map should really emphasis that. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Map resources gathering

Well, these maps are each very partial, we need better, wider, qualitative and quantitative. Please, help to gather map resources below ({citation} template welcome) Yug (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC):

• http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2012/11/15/jours-tranquilles-en-cisjordanie
• the BBC's maps
• http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?ID=207845 : about Gaza missiles, range and types.
• BBC graphic team (2012), Israel-Gaza violence in maps, BBC.co.uk

It seems like what the BBC has is good and helps to preserve a NPOV. Most of these maps are restricted in their direct usage, although we could use the information from these maps to construct or reconstruct maps. The source of the Reuters map can be cited as it is a reliable source- {source}. That URL should contain all of the data used to construct the Reuters map. As for the BBC maps, we also cannot directly use it and will have to copy over the information to a new map and source the map, and luckily that BBC article link does work as a reliable source.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Great map by CBC.VR _talk 05:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sefhi, Simon; Burn-Murdoch, John; Rogers; Stiles, Simon (2012), Gaza-Israel crisis 2012: every verified incident mapped, TheGuardian.co.uk - seems neutral.VR _talk 03:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Only israelian sources

Almost all notices are from israelian sources and journals, included injured israelian people and palestinian missiles number : not a single news of that from relevant sources as BBC, NBC, le figaro, la stampa, the times, or similar.

In my opinion this article is not equilibrate at all and should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.171.210 (talk • contribs)

Well, it probably won't get deleted. If you have specific suggestions though we'd be happy to hear them.

Having a little trouble understanding your English though. I think instead of "equilibrate" you mean equal or neutral? NickCT (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do believe that the operative word intended here was " balanced" - which is certainly an opinion I can not concur with; as there are quite a lot non-Israeli sources used in the article.-Hon-3s-T (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

@Hon-3s-T - Yeah. And lots of Palestinian sources too. Oh no.... wait... that's not right. NickCT (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are quite some in the article.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not good, since Israel is a participant in the conflict.--Ezzex (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

There are a significant number of statements in this article that do not accurately reflect the sources they are cited to. I don't want to run afoul of 1RR and with the recent edit history of this article being so long, I'd have trouble determining which of these misrepresentations were added within the last day. If these sourcing problems persist, I'll be adding {{citecheck}} and other appropriate tags to the article in the near future. For ease of discussion, I'll be bulleting and signing these separately, feel free to reply in line. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• In the introduction, this source] does not support the statement "According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to three events:". I'm sure an appropriate source can be found and added (and have no doubts that the statement is accurate,) but this citation doesn't support the statement. The four sources used to support the next statement also do not support the statement that 'According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to three events." As the paragraph stands, it is inappropriate synthesis. I'm sure it's possible to rewrite this paragraph to avoid synthesis issues, and such should be done. (Also, liveleak is not an appropriate source. It looks like it's primarily a copy of a ynetnews article, which would probably be an appropriate source once the synthesis issues are fixed.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

By defining the article as the Israeli Operation, there is an automatic exclusion of the possibility of explaining the opposing Hamas/Palestinian perspective, which would regard the rockets as a response to several long-term factors, outlined in, for example, Jonathan Cook's Four Guilty Parties Behind Israel's War Criminal Attacks on Gaza, at Al-Jazeerah November 19, 2012. That is why the title prejudges the contents of the lead and the article and must be changed to reflect NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that for reasons of neutrality the title should be changed. My point here was just that the current contents of that paragraph are not actually supported by the sources given - so even ignoring neutrality concerns, the sourcing is woefully insufficient. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the introduction, this source does not support the statement "including rocket launching pads, weapons depots, individual militants, and facilities of the Hamas authority in Gaza" and the other cited source seems to just redirect to jpost's homepage. I'm positive the statement is accurate, but it's sourcing is inappropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• This citation is used to support the statement "The conflict in its current form is ongoing since the Islamic party Hamas won the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election." The citation supports part of the statement - it confirms that Hamas won the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election - but it does not support the first half of the statement. Without a source for it, the first half of the statement as it stands is unsupported original research. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

comment. Cook, and many other sources, would argue that 'The conflict predates the rockets – and even the creation of Hamas – by decades' (see the source cited above). But 'in its current form' is not really objectionable, though it would be better to source it.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• One of the last paragraphs of the pre-operation section - the paragraph that starts "On November 12..." is inappropriately synthetic. The sentence following the sentence about Hamas'/PIJ's stated willingness to discuss a ceasefire reads "However, Palestinians fired 12 rockets at Israel throughout the day." Although the sources for the first sentence do confirm Hamas'/PIJ's stated willingness to discuss a ceasefire, and the sources for the second sentence do confirm that Palestinians fired 12 rockets at Israel through that day, the sources do not discuss the rockets in the specific context of the ceasefire. As the paragraph stands, it's a classic example of synthesis; it combines information from source A (the hamas/pij related source) and source B (the 12 rockets source) to imply conclusion C (that hamas' offer was disingenuous.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Under the casualties section, it says "The Israeli air force says that it avoids harming Palestinian civilians," using this source. The source says that the Israeli air force says that it takes all possible measures to avoid harming Palestinian civilians, not that the Israeli air force avoids harming Palestinian civilians. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Capscap (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't spend a huge amount of time compiling this list, and I think that most of these examples are pretty indisputable. The sourcing in this article is a complete and total mess. Most of the sourcing problems I wrote up here do not represent incredibly significant POV problems, but it amazes and depresses me that out of the first 7 sentences I checked, 5 had inappropriate sourcing. I'll repair some of these myself later once I figure out a way to ensure I don't violate 1rr. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Having looked through more of the article, there are even more problems with misinterpreted sources than I had previously thought. I'm adding a citecheck template to the article. With the examples I've given here and plenty instances of source distortion in the article, I think the template is more than justified. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Coup vs coup d'état

The reading I replaced had coup d'état, which has RS, even David Rose in Vanity Fair to back it. However it is clearly not the vox propria for what occurred. 'Coup d'état' involves the overthrow of the former governing power. Hamas had won the elections but the security apparatus remained in Fatah's hands. The legally constituted power of government lay with Hamas, therefore in overthrowing Fatah's security grip on the Strip it certainly engaged in a military coup, but not a 'coup d'état'. Its reasoning was that Fatah was about to stage a real coup d'état, as documented in Rose's Vanity Fair article, which, after using 'coup d'état' then adds:

'One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup. Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says.

For Fatah it was a coup-d'état, for Hamas it was a preemptive coup. It was, in the proper English sense of the word, not a coup d'état. I therefore have replaced the question-begging term with the more neutral 'coup', with the gloss on preemptive, stating the Hamas perspective which happens to be the reading even of strategic experts hostile to Hamas, and a number of critical historians, and sourced this to an extensive comment made by the relevant paper of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, with an appropriate excerpt in a footnote. Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So this is another case where it's legitimate to question the term RS uses by applying our own interpretation of what the "proper" usage is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations for Japan, Australia and Canada considering Hamas a terrorist organization

This article currently has citations for the US and the European Union considering Hamas a terrorist organization, but not for Canada and Japan (Australia is not mentioned, though it also considers Hamas a terrorist group). Here's some sources for Japan, Australia and Canada , if someone would like to add them. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Australia only considers the Brigades as terrorist, not Hamas. Canada lists Hamas as "associated with terrorism" in order to freeze the assetts of Hamas associated charities for allegedly giving money to the Brigades. Some of these charities have taken the government to court and had the freeze lifted. Canada does not list Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Likewise Japan lists Hamas seperately from terrorist organisations for exactly the same reason. Wayne (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting sources for content that is already a part of this article. Did you read them? They clearly state that Hamas is considered a "terrorist organization" by these countries. Not "associated with terrorism". Can you give reliable sources to back up what your claims? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

European Union and others positions removed from the introduction

Someone has removed the European Union and France from the sentence about what countries supported Israel's right to defend itself and condemned Hamas for rocket fire.. Now all that is left is US, UK and Canada. This looks like a blatant attempt to bias that sentence to make out like it was only those 3 countries. The european Union position and French position are both worthy for that sentence too, as the largest economic block on the planet / 1 of the permanent members of the UN Security council. Russia and Chinas neutral position has also been removed. There is a blatant attempt to waterdown that paragraph to further the Palestinian POV. Totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It should be reinserted. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

+1. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"+1" more. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Media casualities and targeting non-military Hamas offices/personnel

The Israeli strikes at Media buildings and media personnel including Pro Hamas ones are increasing .. there should be a new section with sourced information.The statement and position by "reporters without border" which strongly condemned Israeli actions should be included: Link:http://en.rsf.org/palestinian-terr-pillar-of-defence-or-information-19-11-2012,43697.html

Even media who are Pro of what labelled as "terrorists" are protected by international law. Same thing applies to Banks , public offices , governmental offices ..etc

Cutedoctor (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Two operations ... Article name

If this article is called "Operation Pillar of Defense" then it is primarily about the Israeli operations. Is there a corresponding article about the Hamas' "Operation Stones of Baked Clay"? If not, then this ought to be named "Gaza/Israel conflict of November 2012" or something along those lines. --SVTCobra (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No this article is about the Operation Pillar of Defense" and the responses to it, similarly to any other Operation articles on the wiki. if you would like to create an article about hamas "Operation Stones of Baked Clay" and have enogh notable content please do.--Mor2 (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@SVT Cobra. You are correct. Please add your comments to the requested name change discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Requested_move_to_2012_Gaza_Conflict). Dlv999 (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

False edit summary

User:Mor2 deleted sourced content and said "not said in the source". The content in question was "one UN report stated the blockade was illegal". The source clearly says "Restrictions imposed on the civilian population by the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip amount to collective punishment, a violation of international humanitarian law."

Can Mor2 explain his actions?VR _talk 04:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, in the article text you state "UN report stated the blockade was illegal", Which I was unable to verify in the source you provided the word 'illegal' is shown once in relation to "fishers illegally crossing into Egyptian", the word 'Israel' or 'Israeli' is shown 14 times, none of which in the same sentence as blockade and illegal(or its derivtivs). So your claim is un supported, you have decided to paraphrase or add some conclusion of your own.

Also for the future, if you ask that someone explain his actions, it would make sense to post something on their talk page, so they know about it and can address your concerns, thank you. --Mor2 (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"violation of international humanitarian law" seems to be interchangeable with illegal here. Would you prefer "illegal under international law"? Capscap (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"illegal" is short for "violation of international humanitarian law". Of course, I have decided to paraphrase! It is encouraged.VR _talk 07:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That is acceptable.--Mor2 (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Though after reading it again I have several questions. What is this document and who wrote it? is part of some report? Because in the caption it says "With technical support from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)" and its source stated as "Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO)". However I couldn't find any such publication at the FAO publications, furthermore it does resemble the structure of any of the other official publications there. All references to it, directed at UNISPAL(UN Information System on the Question of Palestine)
So I am questioning its validity, is it an official publication? is it by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.(might make sense as it only discuss and base its conclusion on the Agriculture aspects). If so why would this document from 2010, by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, represented as the UN official position, considering that in 2011 an official publication from the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry, stated it is legal..--Mor2 (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not within the remit of wiki editors to challenge RS of this order by questioning who wrote them. If the document is from Unispal, and sourced to FAO, you can't say the former is invalid because you cannot find the primary document in FAO files (i.e. you are trying to challenge a reliable source by denying it reported correctly a primary source in it). That means you don't understand wiki policy, and you are exceeding your rights in removing, without discussion, sources that meet normal standards of verification. Using the talk page for consensus before making unilateral, and highly questionable edits involving the removal of such RS material is obligatory on pages like this. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In the text it stated that " UN report stated the blockade was illegal, while another a UN inquiry found that the blockade was both legal and appropriate". Which is violation of WP:syn or WP:NOPOV. Assuming that it is an official report published by FAO(not some document in a long chain pre publication), it is not a yet another document, when the official position of the UN as of 2011 is that is legal. --Mor2 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. This is published on the UNISPAL website, and the source seems to be United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (indicated at the top), and technical support came from FAO.

Is your argument that the later source should abrogate the earlier source?VR _talk 14:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The secretary general of the UN spoke at length recently and carefully avoided assigning blame. It would be tendentious to claim that the UN finds Israeli actions illegal, given that different agencies within the UN report conflicting conclusions. Tkuvho (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the UN has given conflicting reports on the blockade's legality. It would be unfair to generalize that the UN considers the blockade as either legal or illegal.VR _talk 16:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's like saying that despite Barack Obama statement, USA policy it inconclusive, because minister of agriculture said something else two years ago. Or better yet, the decision of the Supreme Court is inconclusive because some local judge said something else two years ago.109.64.209.73 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Once you realize it's the mess of an organization called the UN, your scenario doesn't sound that strange. Capscap (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your opinion, at the moment UN official position as released by the Secretary-General office is that Gaza blockade is legal, anything else is a violation of WP:NPOV --Mor2 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ceasefire

I'm writing a section on the ceasefire efforts under way and both parties' demands. I'm surprised nothing like that exists already.VR _talk 04:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

someone please add information about the recent ceasefire that took effect (2pm eastern time) and the fact that there are still rockets being launched from Gaza. (isba) 21 November 2012 8:33PM (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.127.19 (talk)
another source if needed for continued rocketfire from Gaza http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4310174,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.127.19 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The lede is still POV

Currently the first paragraph of the lede reads as:

Operation Pillar of Defense (Hebrew: עַמּוּד עָנָן, ʿAmúd ʿAnán, literally: "Pillar of Cloud") is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Gaza Strip, officially launched on 14 November 2012 with the killing of Ahmed Jabari, chief of the Gaza military wing of Hamas. The stated aims of the operation are to halt the indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilian targets originating from the Gaza Strip and to disrupt the capabilities of militant organizations. According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to three events: Palestinian groups launching over 100 rockets at Israeli civilians over a 24-hour period, an attack on an Israeli military patrol jeep within Israeli borders by Gaza militants, and a tunnel explosion caused by IEDs near Israeli soldiers on the Israeli side of the fence.

There is no mention of the Palestinian POV, even though Hamas has historically always said that it won't end rocket fire until the blockade is lifted.VR _talk 05:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead is the most important part of the article to be NPOV. Of course, since the lead is usually what sets the tone for the rest of the article, and it has the most impact on readers, it will also be subject to most intense efforts for POV-pushing. Currently, it has the IDF pov nicely laid out, and the IDF justifications, but it has no mention of the Palestinian POV at all. You have your work cut out for you if you want to fix this imbalance. Unflavoured (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have added the Palestinian rationale. I'm open to different wordings. I think the "three events" cited are too much detail for the lead. They can be summarized as, "According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to Palestinian rocket fire, and attacks against Israeli soldiers on the Israel-Gaza border."VR _talk 07:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not object to a sentence mentioning the palestinian justification for the rocket attacks, but im not sure about the present wording. The article introduction goes out of its way to use terms like "the stated aim" and "According to the Israeli government". I feel "Palestinian militants cite the blockade of the Gaza Strip, and occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem, as the reason for rocket attacks" is too much like a statement of fact as the "only reasons" for the rocket fire. I think saying "Palestinian militants claim... justify the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians", might be more neutral. But i do accept a sentence is needed there so wont make changes to it unless there is support for any alterations. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Better yet 'Gaza militants' or something of the sort, to avoid confusion with the "West Bank" that take no part in the Gaza-Israeli conflict (or any conflict in the past 5 years?)--Mor2 (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Article getting too long

This article is getting too long and should be divided, according to policy. I'm thinking its best to create a separate section for international reactions and have only a summary here.VR _talk 07:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. If this doesn't end soon, I think the timeline should also get its own separate section. Capscap (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the timeline should get its own section. The timeline is the operation and so we need to cover it. However, I wouldn't mind trimming the timeline down by simply stating things briefly and avoiding redundancies.VR _talk 08:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Brain fart. Capscap (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support It's at something like 192K right now. International reaction is definitely something that can be abbreviated. --Jprg1966  16:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support It's now about 206k. I agree about international reaction. Much of the other information can be moved to sub-articles, but it may be difficult to do it right while the event is still in progress. -ypnypn (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support I've seen multiple long current event articles that used this strategy, such as Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support As per above comments. Inkbug (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Archiving?

At 385k and over 80 sections, I feel this page should be archived. If there are no objections, I'll archive old resolved discussions. Inkbug (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Where discussions have clearly ended. --Jprg1966  16:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now archived part of the page. If I did something wrong (my first time archiving) please tell me. Inkbug (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Separate sections, POV pushing

AnkhMorpork is trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to certain events by giving them their own section. For example, he created a whole new section for the bus bombing. He also a new section for the killing Mohammed Sadallah, even though this has little or nothing to do with the media. There are no allegations from reliable sources that any media organization misrepresented this attack. Both of these are clear attempts to highlight certain events above all others.

If I wanted, I can highlight some other notorious events: like the killing of the Dalu family, or the Israeli attack on news organizations, condemned internationally. But I think in the best interest of maintaining NPOV that no event be highlighted above.VR _talk 16:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A separate section on the bus bombing is appropriate. It is a clear escalation of the events of the past week. The fact that many international bodies responded immediately by condemning this attack against civilians is an indication of notability. Tkuvho (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

VR, AnkhMorpork has contributed a great deal to this article. Can we please try to assume good faith in these discussions and not make everything be about somebody lobbying for a POV? --Jprg1966  16:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Jprg1966, you see my user talk page for all the bad faith accusations AnkhMorpork has made against me. He even filed a false 3rr report against me.VR _talk 16:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Similarly it can be argued that the killing of Omar Mishrawi, son of a BBC employee in Gaza was notably covered. The killing of the Dalu family elicited a response from both human rights organizations, several countries, and even an Israeli Knesset member. The Israeli attack on media buildings has also elicited an international response. Separate sections for all?VR _talk 16:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha, so this is about a personal conflict the two of you are having. Take it off the talk page, if that's the case. --Jprg1966  16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Sadallah was made into a celebrity by the Egyptian president rather than by User:AnkhMorpork. It seems to me User:Vice regent be giving User:AnkhMorpork too much credit. Tkuvho (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you find me a source that connects Sadallah to the Egyptian president?

In any case, the section is about media representation, not Egyptian politics. And Egyptian PM (is that who you meant?) did not make any allegations against Israel in regards to the attack. Nor was any media outlet, not even those biased against Israel, accused of making false allegations against Israel. In short, there is no media misrepresentation. Palestinian sources came forward and clearly said that a rocket was responsible for the death of Sadallah. VR _talk 16:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is already in the page. The Egyptian president said that "the boy, the martyr...is something that we cannot keep silent about," before promising to defend the Palestinian people. This does not seem to be internal Egyptian politics any more than a terrorist attack against a city bus is internal Hamas politics. Tkuvho (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if you would state things accurately. The Egyptian president did not make those remarks. If he did, please find me the source.

The Egyptian PM made those remarks. Can you tell me what about those remarks is untrue? And, since when do the Egyptian PM's remarks count as the "media"? The media refers to BBC News, Al Jazeera, Jersualem Post, etc. Reactions by officials belong in the "Reactions" section.VR _talk 17:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, these things should still be discussed. I don't think Sadallah deserves his own section. But an editor's motives shouldn't be discussed here. That should be left to WP:EW, WP:AE, and WP:ANI. And only if there is substantial evidence to raise a case. --Jprg1966  16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that no motives should be discussed. Nothing personal should be said. But I don't think its unfair to criticize a particular person's edits. (Please feel free to criticize my edits - I'm far from perfect.) Any way, lets get back to the discussion.VR _talk 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, topic at hand. I think it's too early to give the bombing its own section. If a wave of bombings begins, that might be more appropriate. We should definitely be careful since the page is already quite long. --Jprg1966  16:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that neither Sadallah nor the bombing deserve their own section. Nor do any of the events I mentioned. Let's see what others say.VR _talk 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there is no justification for this. We do not have separate sections for any of the individual Israeli attacks that received huge RS coverage. Dlv999 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Individual Israeli attacks against Hamas infrastructures as well as their collateral damage are not comparable to deliberate attacks against civilians. Insisting on equating the two likely emanates from inappropriate anti-Israeli bias. Tkuvho (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get into this whole "moral equivalence" argument, this is not the place for it. Attacks can only be notable if there is significant RS coverage. A lot of attacks (including Israeli ones) have significant RS coverage, so we either give them all a separate section or none. The former option would make this article a mess.VR _talk 17:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

VR, the bombing was explicitly singled out for international condemnation and has been cited as a possible impediment to a truce. Ban Ki Moon expressly condemned it is his speech and even countries such as Russia have criticised this attack. It differ in nature from the regular airstrikes and rocket-firing. As for your AN3 comments, you once again violated 1rr today in your edit-war regarding Sadallah in which no firm consensus has yet developed. You have continued to edit-war your preferred version and made sneaky changes when supposedly simply "moving content". Sources do comment on the media representation of Sadallah as I am sure you are aware, and the fact that I disagree with you should not be construed as bed-faith editing. If you insist I can improve on my AN3 report, but I would much rather focus on article content. It is a pity that you have sought once again to personalise our disagreements and perhaps you should review Bwilkin's comments to you about your disingenuous conduct involving me and AN3. Ankh.Morpork 17:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

(As requested by Jprg1966, I'm going to ignore AnkhMorpork's comments about me)

Firstly, that killing has not been "singled out" for condemnation, many killings have been internationally condemned. If we give one its own section, we have to, per NPOV, give the others too.

Secondly, condemnation of the killing is not misrepresentation. Of course the killing of a 4-year old will be condemned, its wrong no matter who does it. If Russia or Ban Ki Moon accuse Israel of killing Sadallah, only then it would be considered misrepresentation, but even then it wouldn't be "media" misrepresentation. Are there sources that indicated Russia and the UN made false statements?

Can you find me sources that allege that the media falsely presented Sadallah's death?VR _talk 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Like the West Bank protests and the executions of the alleged collaborators have been devolved into separate sections though they form part of the events that occurred during this time frame, the bus bombing act was of particular notability, differing from the regular modality of the attacks, and earning specific international condemnation and press comment. Ankh.Morpork 17:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The West Bank is a separate region. Separation based on geography is not POV. Although, due to article length considerations, that may have to be merged into the Timeline too. But I agree that Hamas executions do not merit a separate section. The details should be in the Timeline and it should be mentioned in casualties.VR _talk 17:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice that User:Vice regent proposes that we not get into this whole "moral equivalence" argument, but then appears to proceed in the assumption of such an equivalence between Israeli defensive actions against terrorist cesspools, on the one hand, and loathsome Hamas attacks against civilians, on the other. On the contrary, he could elaborate his views here so that other editors can form an independent opinion as to the impartiality of his edits. Tkuvho (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to explain my personal views on any of this. All I claim is that RS give similar coverage to Israeli attacks as they to Hamas ones. I would love to debate that latter point.VR _talk 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

So should rockets from Gaza that landed on West Bank villages have a separate section? Ankh.Morpork 17:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. And currently they do not. The West Bank section deals with Palestinian protests and Israeli killing of Palestinian protesters. That is totally unrelated to the military operations of both Hamas and Israel.VR _talk 20:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Listen, it is true that the bombing might have special significance because of the truce efforts. But we don't know that yet. We can mention that right now without creating a new section. If the bombing does create a new round of violence, we can lead with the bombing in that new section, perhaps. It is unlikely that the bombing on its own represents something so special that it deserves a section.

I'm going to also remind editors once again that personal conduct discussions do not belong on the talk page. Take it to a noticeboard. --Jprg1966  18:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Sadallah should be a section. I tried shortening it in the past but it looks like someone added back some of what I deleted. It's not that important and I honestly dont think I've heard about it outside of wikipedia. I don't think it's something that anyone will look up 3 months from now.

I agree that there shouldn't be subsections within the timeline, but I'm fine with moving the bus bombing to spillover. it seems to be equivalent to the protests. And the Hamas executions seem fine in their own subsection. But I think the palestinian deaths from unintentional misfires can be merged into the general casualty section. Capscap (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• As per the consensus above, I have merged the killing of Sadallah back into the Timeline, and deleted the section header called "bus bombing".VR _talk 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Bedouin

A Bedouin civilian was killed in rocket fire that struck the village of Rejwan in the Negev. Is this an Israeli or Palestinian casualty? Ankh.Morpork 19:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Most likely an Israeli.VR _talk 20:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Because? Ankh.Morpork 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bedouin victim, Elian Salam Id Alanbary (29), was a citizen of Israel. See --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Those living in Israel are presumed to be Israeli, unless stated otherwise, and those living in Gaza are presumed to be Palestinian unless stated otherwise.VR _talk 03:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict in sources

133 dead/79 militants in lead. The New York Times now has:-

'The Hamas Health Ministry in Gaza said the Palestinian death toll after a week of fighting stood at 140 at noon. At least a third of those killed are believed to have been militants. On the Israeli side, five Israelis have been killed, including one soldier.'David D. Kirkpatrick, Ethan Bronner and Rick Gladstone, 'Cease-Fire Between Israel and Hamas Takes Effect,' New York Times 21 November 2012

There is a vast difference, and it is not clear that this estimation comes from the Hamas Health Ministry. As phrased, it suggests the contrary. In any case, whose figures are we citing for our text. The source for any newspaper reports must be checked to see if it is the IDF, the Israel Government, Hamas or any other involved authority, or, as in best practice, from more neutral sources that have a reputation for keeping track of names and identities, while steering clear of official bumf.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Reuters is stating:

Air strikes have hit rocket stores, launchpads and suspected Hamas command posts, government buildings and apartment blocks in an eight-day-old assault that has killed 139 Gazans, most of them civilians, including 34 children. Israel says 56 militants have been killed. Rockets fired from Gaza have killed four Israeli civilians and one soldier since the conflict began. 'Factbox: Gaza targets bombed by Israel' Reuters 21 November 2012

Sepsis II (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

So the lead gives us the higehest figure for militants and the lowest for civilians.

According to Gaza health officials, 133 Palestinians had been killed in the conflict by 20 November, of which: 79 were militants, 53 civilians and 1 was a policeman.[

Reuters' figures for militants areour leads for civilians more or less. Total mess.

By the way 'the stated aim (from memory) was to halt indiscriminate rocket fire at civilian targets.' or something like that is in the lead. It is extremely silly to write that, whatever the source says.Any army aims to stop all rocket fire (our phrasing implies Israel would not protest discriminate firing by Hamas, at perhaps the IDF?) The 'aiming at civilians' is again an Israeli POV. Most rockets cannot be aimed with any precision, let alone at civilian vs army installations. This is repeated in the lead:'

According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to three events: Palestinian groups launching over 100 rockets at Israeli civilians over a 24-hour period

The source the Jerusalem Post says no such thing, obviously. It says (from memory) '100 rockets were launched into South Israel'. In any case no one writing narrative English would says an army launched rockets at ..civilians'. You may target places where civilians are, of course. We should follow the source, and not hammer away at the adjective 'civilian'. (The Israeli presentations argues that they never aim for civilians, only Hamas does.)Nishidani (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

When Hamas fires a rocket at Sderot, where there are no military targets, they are firing at civilian targets. Their rockets are indiscriminate by definition since they are imprecise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You are supposed to know that we write according to sources, not according to our preferred deductions. The Jerusalem Post didn't say that. It may be true, but that is not the point, as opposed to the pointy language. Israel ostensibly aims at terrorists. The facts are that a large number of civilians are killed in 'collateral damage'. We do not say they aim at civilians.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone whitewashed "indiscriminate" so I added it back. As you said, by definition it is indiscriminate (or as Nishidani says above, "cannot be aimed with any precision"). Capscap (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So Israel is fine with rocket attacks go long as they are discriminate? It is only the indiscriminate ones they want to stop? Sepsis II (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the indiscriminate attacks that prompted this operation. The rare instances where the Palestinians attack Israelis not indiscriminately do not result in such operations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

+1. And it's not our job to speculate. Capscap (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw that edit before I read your message and knew it had to go, the edit was plain wrong as you point out. I have also fixed the article in regards to your second point about at "Israeli civilians" when it actually does say "southern Israel". Mister nice guy, even if what you said were true, what you say still goes against the sources.

I will let others fix the casuality claims as so many sources conflict still, though at the moment it seems we are standing at the most extreme side for high militant/low civilian ratios. Someone should try to find what the mean across all the sources and use that until the numbers are more confirmed. Sepsis II (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

War crimes

Maybe it should be mentioned in the section on war crime allegations that Hamas rocket attacks in general are considered war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahaha, oh wow. Just wow. I notice you forgot to mention that Israel's use of white phosphorous and it's deliberate targeting with large payload warheads of RESIDENTIAL areas that has killed dozens of civilians and injured hundreds more in the last few days are DEFINED and IRREFUTABLE WAR CRIMES. 58.7.198.176 (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Do 68.6.227.26 argue for more precise rockets ? If so what rocket accuracy to payload weight, will he/she consider not a war crime ? `

I agree. According to the international law an attack against a non-military targets is a war crime. Which makes virtually every rocket shot by Hamas during this conflict a war crime. As for Israel, you need to show that the attack during which civilians were killed, were not justified by military necessity. I am sure that eventually someone will ("necessity" makes this law wide open to POVs) but until that time those are allegations. --Mor2 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding false statements

Capscap has made this edit. The source he adds does not back his edit at all, the source states that " said that more than 139 Palestinians had been killed, more than 70 of them civilians, and more than 900 were injured. In addition, some 10,000 Palestinians had lost their homes, he said, adding there was a critical need for humanitarian aid in the territory." Can someone fix this unscrupulous edit - with the CNN source or a more up to date one, I can not for I have made a revert already today. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to investigate. --Jprg1966  03:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how he arrived at those numbers. I'll restore the previous version. --Jprg1966  03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused; how does the edit differ from the source? Capscap (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the number of civilians involved. That's not what you wrote. It looks like you were synthesizing between what was already in the infobox and what was in the article. --Jprg1966  03:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In response, Israel

In response, Israel < missing in response of what. (in first paragraph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

2 Palestinians killed after ceasefire announcement

The source doesn't actually say when the 2 Palestinians were killed, only that it happened after the ceasefire announcement. We can't put in our own opinions as to when this was.VR _talk 13:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Original research on war crimes

The section on war crimes contains a fair bit of original research. Many of the sources being used neither accuse Israel or Hamas of war crimes, nor defend them. Yet, users have put in these sources anyway to make or defend against allegations of war crimes. This is WP:Original research.VR _talk 13:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Slight innocent mistake

Skäpperöd, I think you made a mistake with this edit . The source you added stated "the Israel Defense Forces publicly reported that it has conducted strikes at more than 1,450 targets in Gaza", but the actual wording in this wikipedia article is "The IDF launched more than XXXX air, tank, and warship strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip during the operation," Your source states the number of targets (1450) whereas this article is stating the number of attacks (1550-huffington post). I hope you see the difference and will correct it however you see fit. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Reaction to the Ceasefire

Maybe there should be a paragraph about the reaction to the Ceasefire. There is criticism about it in Israelץ For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/nov/22/gaza-ceasefire-holds-live

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/for-israels-netanyahu-cease-fire-has-benefits-and-risks/2012/11/22/88a3d5e2-34b2-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html "he domestic criticism started pouring in almost as soon as Israel’s cease-fire with Hamas was inked Wednesday night. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had waved a white flag and left the job unfinished, the opposition howled. A television snap poll found a large majority of the public did not support the Egypt-brokered truce." — Preceding unsigned comment added by K260260 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably 80% of the sources are outdated and a complete review of them required

There is total chaos in the sources used to compile the article. I'ìve looked at several and found severe divergences, perhaps because people add new sources ignoring confict with old sources. In any case,

• a close review of sources is needed
• a substitution of dated sources with those that are now comprehensive and retrospective.

(1) In the source I just changed 55 militants arrested on the West Bank were calculated as Hamas militants in Gaza. The BBC text used did not mention 1 policeman etc. The BBC gives OCHA figures from a Palestinian source (155 dead, 102 civilians, of whom 30 children and 13 women). Now the Associated Press (Associated Press, begins cleaning itself up as truce with Israel enters first day,' 22 Novmber, 2012) is giving 161 Palestinians dead, calculating 71 civilians, and we do not know the source for this estimate. In other words, our sources are totally muddled, and we need great care here before jumping to conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(2)We have this now in the lead (WP:OR)

The Palestinian militant groups fired over 1,456 Iranian Fajr-5, Russian Grad rockets, Qassams and mortars into Rishon LeZion, Beersheba, Ashdod, Ashkelon and other population centers;

A few days ago we had this:-

Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system has intercepted at least 312 of 540 rockets fired into Israel, all but 35 of them falling in open areas.

When a third of the Gaza missiles were fired into Israel, only 35 of them, about 6-7%,fell in or near urban areas. The overwhelming majority fell into open areas. Now, with 3 times that number registered as being fired, every kind of rocket has been fired directly into cities.

No one, except the POV merchants twisting the lead like this, appears to know what is being done by such manipulations. Eventually a source will provide us with a breakdown of all types of rocket used, area of impact etc. But such WP:OR with a POV bent on suggesting Hamas rockets have the precision of IDF rockets has no place in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(3) As to skewed reportage abroad, the media section should take not of Gideon Levy Gaza I did not go, at Haaretz 22 Nov 2012, who writes of his own impressions of reportage within Israel:-

That's how it is that Israel knows almost nothing about what is happening in Gaza. . . . There is almost no tangible expression in the Israeli media of the destruction and death that Israel has sown and the great fear gripping one and a half million residents for a week, without a reinforced safety room, without Code Red alerts and without a shelter. They suffice with short, dry reports at the edges of the news. . . Of course, the suffering in the south should be widely reported - I do it also - but we must not close our eyes to what is happening on the other side, even if it's not nice to see a house blown up with all its residents. Whoever wants to know these days what is happening in Gaza is invited to watch the international networks and read the newspapers of the world: Only there will they bring you the full story. Israel, and some of its journalists, will tell you that it's hostile, slanderous and distorted journalism. They only want you to see Ashkelon and Rishon Letzion. One needs to know what is happening in Gaza in order to know what is happening in Israel. Journalism that fails to do so, and doesn't even protest, is conscripted hasbara. It's nice when a military correspondent in a yellow helmet climbs onto a firefighters' crane to show us the destruction of an apartment block; we can even somehow live with a military propagandist-commentator who only grunts for war. But reading out text messages from the authorities is not journalism. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(4)This has 'dropped' out of the lead, though it provides the necessary balancing POV. Without it we have the Israeli line, and nothing else.

Palestinian militants blame Israel for the upsurge in violence, pointing to IDF actions resulting in the deaths of Gaza civilians in the days leading up to the operation. They also cite the blockade of the Gaza Strip, and occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem, as the reason for rocket attacks.

In restoring it, due attention should be given to the details provided by Jonathan Cook, 'The Four Guilty Parties Behind Israel's War Criminal Attacks on Gaza,' Al-Jazeerah, November 19, 2012, who argues a Palestinian view that the 'inciting cause of the latest confrontation' goes back decades involved the 'progressiv choking of life out of Gaza, destroying its economy, periodically wrecking its infrastructure, denying its inhabitants freedom of movement and leaving its population immiserated.'(b) that Israel 'engineered the confrontion' by shooting a 13 year old playing football on November 8, after a two week lull in tensions (c)a truc was agreeed to on Novmber 2, which held for two days until Ahmd Jabari was assassinated (d) electoral calculations also played a role.(d)Hamas has been systematically challenging the IDF policy of containment by attempting to prevent the IDF from entering at will insid the perimeter, as they had in 3 incidents on November 4, November 8, and November 10th.Too large for the lead, but whoever removed the Palestinian POV has unbalanced the article, and violated NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

1. "Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories: The conflict in Gaza: A briefing on applicable law, investigations and accountability". Amnesty International. 2009-01-19. Retrieved 2009-06-05.
2. "Human Rights Council Special Session on the Occupied Palestinian Territories" July 6, 2006; Human Rights Watch considers Gaza still occupied.
3. Levs, Josh (2009-01-06). "Is Gaza 'occupied' territory?". CNN. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
4. "Ban Ki-moon to meet Netanyahu and Abbas after Egypt talks" at Yahoo! News November 19, 2012
5. "UN chief to visit Israel and West Bank as Gaza ceasefire efforts intensify" at The Guardian November 19,2012
6. "Arab Doctors: We will recruit all of our resources to aid Gazans" at Youm7 November 17,2012
7. "الجزيرة مباشر مصر برفقة الوفد الشعبي المتضامن في غزة" November 19,2012
8. "Arab League delegation in Gaza for solidarity, ceasefire" at Al-Ahram November 20, 2012
9. "As bombs drop around them, a Gaza resident and an Israeli resident speak with Isha Sesay about living among the violence."
10. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6461
11. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57553140/israel-and-hamas-agree-to-gaza-cease-fire/
12. http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=292959
13. LIVE BLOG, Haaretz 18 November 2012
14. Cite error: The named reference toi5a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
15. Gili Cohen and Avi Issacharoff,'Rocket fire on south resumes; IDF: Gaza death toll reaches 95,' at Haaretz 19 November, 2012.
16. "Gaza: Palestinians killed and Israeli soldiers injured". BBC. 11 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
17. "Israel warns Hamas of 'heavy price' for Gaza rockets". 11/11/2012. Retrieved 21/11/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
18. Source "Q&A: Israel-Gaza violence". BBC News. 2012-11-20. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Requested moves