Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 23 September 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead and background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

,--Tritomex (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA section. Work out a consensual version

==Allegations of UN bias==

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

See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@JDiala: I could agree with you if Hamas made some effort to stop the rocket fires, or even payed some lip service. Instead it continues praising the heroic action of firing on civilians. How many people were arrested in Gaza for firing on Israel during the ceasefire ? This article says they made some effort, but is there a single result they can show ? Is there a single statement by Hamas that it's wrong or at least that it's against "the Palestinian interest" at the moment ? WarKosign (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peripheral stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bold change to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:BEGIN, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". Operation Protective Edge is not the page title, but I believe (and I think most of the people agree) it should be. We are stuck with the current title for now. There was a complaint that the first sentence lacks the word 'military', so a reader may think it was some different kind of operation, perhaps medical or environmental.

A statement that it was launched in response to goes into the middle of the background in reverse order, it would be much clearer to begin at the beginning - whatever it may be. How about something like "... launched by the IDF following Operation Brother's Keeper with the stated aim..." ? WarKosign (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign. At what particular hour of the night did Operation Protective Edge begin (first airstrike?). I'd appreciate it if you can look at the Hebrew press as well.

-sche Perhaps you can prepare a draft to remodulate para 1? I'm sure you have the confidence of editors otherwise yawningly identified as being on 'opposite sides' here. Once one has something like that down on the screen, one can see the effect of individual changes more clearly, than is the case with suggestions in a long discursive thread. Your first suggestion strikes me as sensible.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I did not find a specific mention of the time of the first airstrike, the earliest mention that I found was at 02:28 here. This is from 2:40. Why is the exact time important ? WarKosign (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

2:01 here. WarKosign (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for that courtesy, and apologies for the bother. Many reports usually speak of overnight, and in my own readings, I try to establish the precise times. It's of no significance, but I wanted to be sure that the 8th, rather than the 7th (11.59 pm) was correct. Newspapers are habitually lose with usage and I have found many instances of 'overnight' or 'this morning' actually referring to the late evening. It is of no real relevance, just a personal favour, and I thank you for checking.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to the editor who took the time to actually discuss properly and was not a private eye. You have my blessing, if others show they accept, to reinsert the change you agree with together with your slight change. I'll wait a bit longer to see how people feel about that one before moving on to the other stuff. Side note about blue cheese spread. I still hope to see some respect from people (wrongfully) lecturing others. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I dare the private eye to revert this bold edit to the "stable" lead. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I am afraid I could not revert the edit because of 1RR. I have at least 10 edits on this page which I want to revert. You are free to revert that edit yourself. As to the rest of your points, I am afraid, there is nothing for me to respond to. You are new, so I will repeat this: nobody is forced to listen to you, let alone reply to your points. I would appreciate it if you stayed off my talk page, and discuss things here, whether I reply to you or not. Kingsindian (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: @Kingsindian:, If discussion is personal (i.e. asking for clarification on what you call 'stable') and doesn't directly relate to content, it is disruptive to do it on the article talk page. Yes. It is. As for the edit in discussion. Please elaborate if you agree with -sche. If we can at least agree on one change, that would be very nice. We can talk all the other points over later. Of course, if you don't want to talk about them, you don't have to. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ping MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already said I do not mind copyediting if it is limited to improving the flow. Removal of information is not acceptable. I do not know exactly what -sche is proposing. As an aside, I am going to make a change to the lead which was improperly removed. I will be unarchiving the discussion for that particular edit, people can comment there if they wish. Kingsindian (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: -- please see comment signed with 20:44, 19 September 2014. I do believe there shouldn't be much hassle over this edit -- but I'd like to make sure beforehand. Let me know. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties (a note)

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

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

Who's to blame here? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't deal in blame, that's something POV editors are good at seeing implied, or needing to be implied, everywhere. We deal in the precise notation of relevant data and viewpoints.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the viewpoints then and is it relevant? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have bolded the relevant word you ignored. In English, and is not a logical connective but simply agrammatical connective, and does not connote entailment. You may know this, intuitively, if prompted but your persistent questioning of obvious remarks looks as though you desire to waste time. Please desist.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted to get to the bottom of your post here... I do believe it was you who opened it. Yes. I'm sure of it. Thus, the question about viewpoints and relevance to this article are quite proper. Now. Assume I still have not understood why (perhaps because it was not explained). Feel free to reply in this voice. Still. Answer what was asked. What are the viewpoints then and what would you like written in this article (i.e. how is it relevant)? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ping MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert request

Can someone revert this edit? Kingsindian (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Isn't there some policy that forbids asking for reverts, since it can be seen as an attempt to play 1RR/3RR ?WarKosign (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Haven't heard of anything like that. These kind of mindless edits should be reverted on sight, but I am handicapped by 1RR, which is a technical problem. So I asked here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a vandalism-only account. I've put a warning on the user's talk page. WarKosign (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wounded Israeli civilians

The article says "According to Magen David Adom, 837 civilians were injured — 10 seriously, 26 moderately or lightly; 18 were hurt in traffic accidents when rocket-warning sirens sounded, 159 injured while running for bomb shelters, and 581 were treated for shock." 10 serious injuries plus 26 moderate or light injuries is 36 injuries. How badly were the other 801 (837 minus 36) civilians wounded, if not "seriously", "moderately", or "lightly"? Are the "10" and "26" figures perhaps very out-of-date? -sche (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the source for these numbers. One guess - perhaps those wounded less than lightly received some treatment and were released from the hospital, thus not being counted as injured anymore.

This source (google translate is useless because of a nasty popup) speaks about total of 2,271 wounded. It says that between 7th and 20th of July 438 people were treated in hospitals. It then classifies people by severity of injury and hospital, in total 69 serious, 121 moderate, 1439 light, 204 shock (which sums up to 1833). 1833+438 sums up to the mentioned 2271. I still don't know what to make of it, why are the first 438 people separate. WarKosign (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The source above mixes up soldiers and civilians. Here (translation) is a source that quotes MDA. They treated 842 civilians: 5 dead and 37 injured by rockets shards (1 critical, 10 serious, 6 moderate and 20 light). In addition, 33 injured by shards of glass and debris from rocket explosions, 18 of car accidents during alarms (including 1 seriously), 159 from falling or otherwise hurt while running for shelter and 581 treated for shock. Total of 5 dead + 37 by rockets + 33 by damage to buildings + 18 by car accidents + 159 by running + 581 by shock = 833. 9 more were injured in terror attacks (supposedly in reaction to the fighting): 1 stabbed in Maale Adumin, 7 injured in a tractor incident in Jerusalem (one died later from his wounds) and one person wounded by gunfire on the Scopus mountain. WarKosign (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest removing the classification by severity since we don't have it for all the injured, and instead classify them only by the source of injury - rocket or rocket debris, building debris caused by the rocket, traffic accidents, falling, terror attacks, shock. Classification by severity also changes over time, so different reports may be contradictory depending on the time they were made. WarKosign (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And here is the primary source with the same info (plus numbers of injured during regular, unrelated car accidents during the same period). WarKosign (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for locating those sources! The suggestion of organizing injuries by cause rather than severity seems reasonable to me (especially because the severity data is so incomplete) and I have enacted it. -sche (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: You wrote "and 9 in violence in the West Bank", which is not correct - Maale Adumim (1 stabbed) is in the West Bank, but Mount Scopus and the tractor incident (Shmuel HaNavi Street) are in Jerusalem. I'd go with "and 9 in violence in Jerusalem area" or "in Jerusalem and Maale Adumim".

Another issue in the text you touched is "fell apart or expired". Ceasefires don't just fall apart, they are violated by one side or the other. Are there any claims about IDF violating any of the ceasefires during this conflict ? There are claims that Hamas violated many ceasefires, would saying that all the violations are claimed to be from Hamas side be factually correct or POV ? WarKosign (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here and here are Israeli claims of Hamas violating ceasefires. And here and here Hamas claims the opposite. How about "... ceasefires were violated with both sides blaming each other" ? Is it any better than the vague "fell apart" ? WarKosign (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"fell apart" is a shorter version of "ceasefires were violated with both sides blaming each other". Obviously ceasefires fall apart because something happens. I see no issues with that, if we are not assigning responsibility. For instance, see the timeline section for the August 1 ceasefire for different versions of who violated the ceasefire. Kingsindian (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps just "were violated or expired" to be as short and a bit more exact ? WarKosign (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Were violated" begs the question of "by who?", and is IMO likely to prompt well-meaning (and possibly also less-well-meaning, more tendentious) people to repeatedly add "by Israel" or "by Hamas". That would then have to be qualified in a way like Kingsindian suggests ("by Israel according to Hamas or by Hamas according to Israel" / "with each side blaming the other") in order to be neutral, at which point we'd be devoting too much space to expressing the simple fact that the fighting didn't actually stop until the date that we report it stopped on, 26 August. The reasons I think a mention of previous ceasefires belongs in the lead at all are that Israel withdrew its ground forces after one of them, and they provide an introduction for the final, successful ceasefire. But the circumstances under which they fell apart are specific to each ceasefire, and contentious (and a magnet for POV edits), and hence best left in the article body, IMO. -sche (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived discussion about explosives

The recent edits by Monopoly31121993 are problematic. I have fixed the first part but mostly what's needed now is the other one which was deleted about the situation in the West Bank. Just behind the info is behind a paywall doesn't mean we can't include it. Thirdly, don't add a fact tag without any reason given at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Merging from below)

@Monopoly31121993: You made three edits to the lead. One of them has been reverted at the time I write this, but I will still try to address all of them.

• edit1 You add "dubious" tag based on "Hamas" claims. Firstly, the claim comes from the Ministry of Interior and is attributed there. It was also reported by Channel 4 news, as indicated in the second source, again with attribution. The dubious tag should be removed for these reasons alone. Secondly, there is little reason to doubt the 20,000 figure. For example, see this source (I included it in the article afterwards), which quotes an estimate that 10,000 tonnes were dropped from the air alone, a figure which does not include tank/artillery shells.
• edit2 - There is no requirement for having a source which is not behind a paywall for verifiability. See WP:PAYWALL. Use Resource Exchange to verify the information or use the Talk page etc.
• edit3 - You added a POV tag. For placing a POV tag, one has to open a discussion on the talk page, detailing what is not neutral. Otherwise, anyone can remove the tag. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that you can find the cached version of the Haaretz articles by searching on Google so you don't have to pay. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All of the edits should be reverted for the reasons stated here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM:@Kingsindian:The Ministry of Interior's claim provided no information on how it arrived at that figure and it clearly seems to be fabricated and probably qualifies as a fringe theory. Just think about this. There were around 5,000 Israeli strikes on Gaza. The average bomb weighs 500 pounds therefore the average strike consisted of 16 bombs hitting a target. The biggest bombs weigh 2,000 pounds so in that case the average strike would have been 4 massive bombs hitting a target. Does that sound reasonable or fabricated? We've all read the news reports of these strikes and never have I read a report of 16 500 bombs falling on a target, even shelling normally consists of between 1-2 and 10 shells. I have also read reports of even smaller bombs than 500 pound bombs being used against targets. Without some sort of transparency, I would certainly call this claim dubious. Why something so clearly biased and unsupported by neutral verifiable facts needs to be introduction is unclear.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Your calculations, even if they were correct, would be WP:OR. As it happens, they are not correct. In just one arena (Shujaiyya), 7,000 high explosive shells were dropped. Also, I have already given a "neutral" estimate of 10,000 tonnes dropped from the air alone in the military section. As to transparency, I would have taken that argument seriously if you also had tagged the IDF numbers in the lead, which are just as opaque. If we report the IDF claim, we report the Palestinian claim, which has been quoted by Channel 4 news, and a partial estimate quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald. Kingsindian (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: It's not WP:OR because I never even suggested that I was putting it into the text. All I was doing was demonstrating how anyone could see how such a claim was obviously fabricated. Btw I don't think the channel 4 report which cited an unnamed and now deceased bomb disposal expert as its source meet Misplaced Pages requirements of a verifiable source. I think we can all agree that cable TV news anchors will say whatever they want to get ratings. Also, just so you know this is the largest artillery in WWII Krupp K5, its shells weighed around 500 lbs. A typical shell today weighs about 50 lbs. (see,M101 howitzer). As always Kings, I'm willing to discuss this with you but this seems to be blatantly fringe theory/ propaganda produced by one of the governments fighting a war and looking to get as much support as it can.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: The guy was unnamed but he was identified as the head of the bomb disposal squad in Gaza, and he is named in the other source I cited. Anyway, the fact that you added the dubious tag based on your calculations is what is wrong and WP:OR. If your argument is that media will report anything to get ratings, then let's start by deleting half the article which is based on media reports quoting the IDF, including the sentence just before this one. And I again note the source I mentioned earlier, which is neutral, saying 10,000 tonnes were dropped from the air alone, a figure which does not include tank/artillery shells. If you have other estimates of bombs dropped on Gaza, feel free to discuss them, but this kind of handwaving and second-guessing of sources is not sufficient. Kingsindian (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the unexplained removal from the lead. Also, the dubious tag has not been explained, except for a feeling based wholly on WP:OR calculations. Kingsindian (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:This does not belong in the lead. It is a completely one sided statement of unverifiable facts from the Hamas government in Gaza. I kept the information and even added the Gaza government's remarks about how many bombs and shells were fired (WHICH YOU REMOVED...). Just to be clear here. I deleted nothing. I moved the content to the bottom the page and expanded it with additional information. Please revert your edit immediately and by the way you have just reverted 4 items on this page in less than half an hour. Slow down.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I have only reverted twice, as far as I can see. The other one was an IP which does not count. (still I have self-reverted for now). As to your arguments that it is "one-sided", I am not sure why you don't apply that to the IDF figures which form the sentence just before this. I have asked you twice and you never responded. For some reason you continue insisting that these figures are dubious, even after I added a neutral estimate of 10,000 tonnes dropped which only counts the aerial bombing. If you feel it is dubious, you need to provide sources which claim otherwise. This kind of reasoning that it comes from the "Hamas govt. in Gaza" so it is automatically dubious will not do. Kingsindian (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)— Kingsindian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Kingsindian: There is no balance in terms of figures of bomb tonnage and therefore this only belongs in the Weapons section and not in the introduction. Also it needs to show the entire claim of 70,000 artillary shells (1.5 per minute for the entire conflict) and 7,000 bombs (20 per hour). The claim is dubious strait away. Your denials here looking more and more like Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: You can keep insisting without evidence that it is dubious, however, that counts for precisely nothing. Regarding your point that there are no figures for bomb tonnage for the Israeli side, that is totally irrelevant. The previous sentence, which you studiously continue to ignore, is wholly based on IDF figures, and gives the number of rockets fired. Each rocket obviously weighs less than a ton, and as mentioned elsewhere most carry an explosive load of 10-20 kg, so a tonnage figure would give something vastly less. I find it very strange that you don't see a long sentence wholly quoting the IDF and using their terms of reference (strikes vs rockets) -- even though a strike can drop multiple bombs -- while a Palestinian source quoting tonnage (backed by an independent estimate) is automatically dubious and POV pushing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(Unarchived discussion)

I can't find Israeli statements on the total amount of explosives used. This claims that by from the beginning of the operation by 9th of July total of 400 tonnes was dropped. 200 tonnes per day, extrapolated to 50 days (both probably way too high, since the bombardment wasn't as heavy for the whole time as during the first days, and of course didn't last for whole 50 days) gives a total of 1000 tonnes, far cry from the claimed 20,000. A video of an demolition of a tunnel using 11 tonnes of explosives was widely distributed as something out of the ordinary - but even supposing that this is the amount used for each of the 32 tunnels, it gives a total of only 352 tonnes. Unfortunately my guestimates are good only to get the feeling that the numbers of both sides aren't likely to agree. WarKosign (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this spokesperson for a violent militant group as a good enough reliable source for writing in the lead without disclaimer -- I do believe they were rejected for the info box (yes they were) on account of ridiculousness of their statements. Plus, I disagree with hypocritical abuse of ideas (even if I disagree with said ideas). You cannot say the lead is stable, rejecting others' edits, abstain from explaining what you consider stable -- and then insert your preferences in there without proper discussion. At least abide by your own theory about the so called 'stable' lead (even if I think it is a bad theory and will pursue this discussion further within the wikipedia community in the future in order to persuade that it is wrong). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I am not sure of your point. The estimate was quoted by Channel 4 news, and comes from the bomb disposal squad. It is correctly attributed. Also I gave another source given above, in particular the Sydney Morning Herald, which estimates that 10,000 tonnes were dropped from the air alone. This does not count tank/artillery/naval shells. About the tank/artillery shells, there are other estimates: this says just the land forces used perhaps 60 percent of the 5,000 tons of ammunition given to them, again a very preliminary estimate. There are also other partial estimates, like this one which says that 3,000 tons were dropped in the first 15 days. Here is another AP source, again quoting the Interior Ministry for tank/naval/artillery shells, estimate is 10,000. To Marciu, there is no reason to simply remove the figure because one dislikes the source. Kingsindian (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I think the statement is genuine and is correctly attributed, so it should be represented. At the moment there is no numbers by the other side, but my point above was that they are likely to appear and to be lower. Here "according to the military analyst Alex Fishman, about 3,000 tons of explosives have been dropped on Gaza in the first 15 days of the conflict" - this is not a complete number, but seems to point towards a lower value. Once there are complete estimates/details from IDF they should be mentioned to balance the 10K tons figure. I don't think this source is reliable enough to mention but it gives an opinion on how the numbers of artillery shells are over-estimated.WarKosign (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Ok, that is good. As to the 3,000 figure, that refers to only stuff dropped from the air: see this. Extrapolating from 3,000 in 15 days to the total 50 days campaign, the 10,000 estimate by Sydney Morning Herald is pretty good. We don't know the estimates of artillery/naval/tank shells other than the ones quoted by AP and Channel 4 news, attributed to the Palestinian interior ministry. Kingsindian (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I don't think linear extrapolation is correct here. Last 2 or 3 weeks of the operations there were nearly no airstrikes, so even assuming that the high rate of bombardment of the aerial phase continued into the ground invasion phase it still can't be more than 6-7 kilotons total. Either way, both our attempts to extrapolate is pure OR and useless. WarKosign (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I only gave the extrapolation as a rough estimation. The 10,000 figure is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald. Kingsindian (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the blown up head of bomb disposal the same as "Ministry of Interior" just because his department is part of the Ministry? Also, why would we use Hamas figures as if they qualify as a normative figure when there's so many examples that figures and casualty analysis are used by Hamas as a weapons? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: If there is a reliable source (at least as reliable as Hamas controlled MoI) that comments on correctness of these numbers, it would be most appropriate to add it. Otherwise, why not include this claim as long as it's properly attributed and referenced ? It is not WP:POV if it's attributed and especially if you can add a balancing comment by the opposing POV, and it's not quite WP:FRINGE since it is reported by multiple (clearly pro-Hamas) sources. Note that a source that only comments on how Hamas has the habit of manipulating numbers and not on this specific number is not good, since it would be WP:SYNTH to imply that that commentary applies to this number as well.WarKosign (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: Please read WP:POINT. It is not permissible to disruptively edit to make a point. I have given multiple estimates, some independent, some based on Ministry of Interior figures, above, and the statement in the lead is accurately attributed. This is the second time you have reverted based on flimsy grounds, against consensus. The ministry of interior is the agency which put out the information which came from an estimate from the bomb disposal squad. These estimates are already present in the military section below. I invite you to self-revert. If not, I will be reluctantly forced to escalate this to WP:AE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, as usual. You turn to threats to (try) gain an upper hand. On point: Where on this thread has anyone other than you said this source was a good idea? I see quite a discussion but no clear consensus. Reinserting Hamas claims into the 2nd paragraph, without proper disclaimer that they officially use numbers as a weapon (your own source has a clear example of this: "in 45 days you only manage to kill women and children"), is quite problematic and there was good reason their numbers-abuse tactic was rejected for the info box. Another important note: I looked at both sources used and the people in the Hamas explosives department (fantastic euphemism) are not "Ministry of Interior" ("from the head of Gaza's bomb disposal unit") but only a small department. You want to start an AE thread right after promoting the use of a cartoon for history and failing to properly cite from your source? (forget about consensus building -- you want to use AE as a weapon to impose your view). To the actual material: If WarKosign sees it as fitting, I will concede and allow it being mentioned -- albeit, notice who you are citing. It is not the "Ministry" that's giving the numbers. At least not in the two sources you provided. Use sources properly. Build consensus. Stop gate-keeping behavior. And for god's sake - reconsider your idea that a cartoon based on 50 year old stories is a good source for a history article "If you find other sources contradicting the facts" (facts = 50 year old stories that make Israel look bad and the comic-"journalist" himself says "that people are confused"). Last but not least, I remind that you should strive to gain consensus. Don't make threats when you don't. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Good news

http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/220955 -- MarciulionisHOF (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To those not fluent in Hebrew - the murderers of the three teenagers likely were killed in an attempt to arrest them. I do not think these news belong here since this event (arrest/assassination of the murderers) is not directly connected to OPE. It surely belongs in the kidnapping article, but I prefer to wait for more information before rushing to add it there. WarKosign (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is an English article, with Hamas confirming their death. WarKosign (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Good news aside, it is high time we frame the article's subject by calling it with its proper name. Agreed? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a 3 month moratorium on moves. I agree it should be renamed, but let's raise the issue in November. WarKosign (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. In the meantime, I'd like to see certain gate-keepers stick to their own definitions. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Pages at move review