Misplaced Pages

Talk:2014 Gaza War

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WarKosign (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 30 August 2014 (→"the majority of whom were Palestinian civilians"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:40, 30 August 2014 by WarKosign (talk | contribs) (→"the majority of whom were Palestinian civilians")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / Middle East
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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!
In the newsA news item involving 2014 Gaza War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 July 2014.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
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.
Article policies
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 
Toolbox

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:

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

I agree with you. "Conflict" is a serious understatement. But first you need to submit a formal move request.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the above is mainly just to draw people's attention to the necessity. I don't personally want to be active in such a move debate.--ɱ (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Would "Second Gaza War" be the likely title destination? Tandrum (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "Second Gaza War" is currently being used by sources. "2014 Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2014)" will probably be the likely titles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Lead and background

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

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

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

I have previously suggested that, if you want to preserve an article named "Operation Protective Edge" then I would fully support that. But then we must DO that, and move the bloated detail about "OPE" to its own page, replacing it with a synopsis in the 2014 overview. In a day or two I will propose a draft Background section that does not violate the subject matter of the current article.
@Erictheenquirer: As you can see on the top of the talk page (and I have also mentioned this in our earlier conversations), there is a 3-month moratorium on moves on this page, therefore, it has to stay with an unsatisfactory title. I did not move the article, but we are stuck with the title name, unless someone puts in a move review request. However even a casual glance at the article shows that 95% (if not higher) of the article is about "Operation Protective Edge". Everyone in this article has been editing as if this deals with "Operation Protective Edge", not the whole of 2014. Most of the issues were with the lead section, which I have trimmed massively. Right now, I do not see much confusion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:I accept that. Please see my conclusions at Talk: POV Tag Needed for Article Lead above, where I will continue the discussion.

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

Move Review

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

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

I therefore conclude that there are two options:

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

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

There may not be a "cause-and-effect" chain that led to this war, not that we can discern, anyway. I don't think "the historical record" would be distorted by properly focusing this article on the actual war itself, without the "c-a-e" thing. That's a bit of an over-generalization. Hires an editor (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: Perhaps your own envisaged contribution fits here. Kingsindian (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Many thanks for pointing out the precedents for other years. Indeed my envisaged article can go there, but only its summary. As you can see, those previous years had a main article and I cannot think of a better one that "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflicts". Thanks you for pointing this out. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hires an editor:I regret that I couldn't disagree more with your implication that wars start out of the blue. That YOU cannot discern a chain-of-events leading to them is interesting but inconclusive, and should not prevent any other editor from offering detail to the contrary. That you don't "think" that the record would be distorted by focussing just on the war and not also providing the precursor events is obviously a POV. I "think" otherwise but I am furthermore prepared (and fully intend to) to substantiate my "think" by providing full detail in support of my view and to see data offered to the contrary. Selective memory or cherry-picking are not one of my favourite routes to a full historical appreciation - and I hope that I am correct in presuming that that is the objective of such a Wiki article, and not a one-sided surgical excision of anything that does not promote a favoured result.Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: I would ask that if you disagree, you be careful to be civil about it. I certainly don't appreciate that you're accusing me of being clueless ("YOU cannot discern"), nor that I'm pushing a POV here, when really, I'd like to limit the scope of the article, and so far the events leading up to the war are in dispute, and undecided upon. Too many different sources say too many different things regarding why Israel decided to invade at the time that it did. Correlation does not imply causation - this is why I say it's difficult to know. I realize that for other wars it's easy to figure things out, but this particular war it's not the case. I also object to the way you seem to discredit "thinking" with scare quotes. Your sarcasm and arrogance are insulting, and no one needs that. I don't have an opinion about this except that it accurately reflect reality, and this topic finds itself very clouded as it relates to reality, since the various sides/factions/actors/commentators/observers feel so strongly about it, and have different and opposing agendas. Hires an editor (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hires an editor:Admonishments accepted.
Back to process and content. I agree that the facts as to the origin of OPE are cloudy. I also agree that there are many issues and events which may have led to an escalation of tensions and conflict but which cannot be attributed WP:RS to be direct causes of OPE without challenge. But that editorial dilemma is nothing new to Wiki. Some comparable Wiki articles contain such chains-of-events (without direct causative links to the main offensive) within the text of the main article - examples: the Tet Offensive; Operation Desert Storm; United States invasion of Panama; Operation Cast Lead; Yom Kippur War. Others have separate articles concerning the lead-up to major conflicts such as Origins of the Six-Day War; Lead-up to the Iraq War; Events leading to the Falklands War; Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Precursor 'events and issues' are therefore a well-established Wiki precedent, demonstrating that the choice between the options (within or separate) is a question of preference and not of Wiki-validity.
Additionally: Inconsistency 1 - The fact is that the title of the article still is "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict", and that is far more ample that just the bare operation itself. Yet many of my contributions under the actual title have been reverted because they are not specific to OPE, even though they were specific to '2014 Conflict". Hence my frustration and snapping. This anomaly in the form of an existing title that does not reflect what some 'reverting' editors consider the piece should be titled (but is not) is, to say the least, disruptive as we have seen.
Inconsistency 2 - There are certain precursor events which ARE currently in the "2014 Conflicts" article, even though there are also disputes regarding the directness of their contribution. A classic case is the allowance in text of one out of three sets of Teenager killings during the precursor period, with the other two being absent. In strictly rejecting events whose contribution to OPE are not unanimous could mean that there can be only one precursor event to OPE, namely the dramatic increase in rocket fire from Gaza on 7 July. In ruling out earlier events whose direct link to OPE are disputed, we would therefore be obliged to leave out the IDF strike on Gaza of 6 July because it cannot be directly related to OPE, but only to the increase in rocket attacks earlier on the day of OPE initiation. Given this dilemma and the Wiki precedents previously noted, my conclusion was that 2 articles would be warranted: One would keep OPE confined and detailed with specifics, as you suggested, and the other could be "Lead-up to the Gaza War (2014)" or "Origins of Operation Protective Edge", or "2014 Israel-Gaza tension escalation" or .. etc. I am personally amenable to either option, although I have a preference for an (eventual) Operation Protective Edge that is not too bloated.
@Hires an editor: @Kingsindian: @Nishidani: Any comments, particularly on Wiki precedents for wars both 'large' and 'small', as support for a "Lead-up" article, or is the concept accepted? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • How can one say if it is a war or not ? There is warfare going on, but isn't a formal declaration by either side, and least retroactively, needed to call it a war ? Maybe we can use some other term between war and conflict, such as fighting or hostilities until this is officially a war ?
  • Lacking a formal declaration of war, who said that 6th of July is the start date ? Does it not constitute OR to pick a date arbitrarily ? Arguably, there were events before the 6th that are as relevant. One point I see is July 8, when Operation Brother's Keeper ended and OPE began. Since there is no dedicated article for OBK, it can be bundled in as well - then the starting point would be the kidnapping of the teenagers. WarKosign (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You do not have to declare war for it to be classed as a war.Gaza War 2014 is a good neutral title.GGranddad (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with User:GGranddad - also, the Wiki precedents are copious. Regarding the "start", both in the Talk sections on this page and in Misplaced Pages:Move review there is consensus that the moved/renamed article should be directly related to the War. It has been repeatedly emphasised that if conflicts that are not part of the War are included, it opens the door once again to circuitous debate as to which "non-attacks" might be "more pertinent" that others with the risk of the Tyranny of the majority (sensu Olson). The first actual 'noteworthy' attack as such occurred on 6 July. This does not mean that I disagree with you that there are pre-cursor issues that should be recorded in Wiki, just not in this article, and particularly not in detail. There are ample Wiki precedents for this type of a redirect to a "Main" article for the Background summary. And I would suggest that such a summary should indeed correspond to any separate article, but in much abbreviated style. Such precedents in Wiki are provided on this Talk page and in Misplaced Pages:Move review. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on journalists

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

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

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

@Tritomex: Of course a section can be made more balanced by a) expanding some things or b) condensing some other things. If you feel that there should be a separate article on "Attacks on journalists", go ahead and create it. Right now, I see this section as taking more space than "rocket attacks on civilians", "destruction of homes" and "infrastructure" sections combined. This is wildly WP:UNDUE. In my opinion, condensing this section is correct option. Kingsindian (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex:So what's that got to do with the price of fish? Al-Aqsa tv is a propaganda channel for Hamas, just as Arutz Sheva is for settlers, or the New York Times for middle class morons who want to feel comfortable about bad things their government does. It is absolutely pointless trying to use sources to make some idiotic statement like the one you propose. What the US might think of al-Aqsa TV is immaterial and undue. It does not recruit, train and engage in terrorist acts.Who gives a fuck what that government happens to say it thinks (it doesn't) of an hardly notable Arab tv channel?, itself a state that defies international law, consistently subverts other states, has launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, of the 248 conflicts since that date, has been formally condemned for its violation of Nicaraguan sovereignty and has . Even its defenders treat the argument that its behaviour fits its own definition of a rogue state seriously. Not for that do we rush round plastering 'rogue state' refs for every article on the US. As A.B. Yehoshua says, calling Hamas a 'terrorist organization' is pointless. Such attribution of absurdly subjective external 'state' opinions serve only to insinuate trivial nonsense.
If you want to fuss up a full length article, go ahead, and take care to mention both sides. I.e., numerous attacks on journalists and artists protesting the war in Israel. Israel was condemned by Human Rights Watch for unprovoked attacks on Palestinian journalists during the 2012 war. Just as Reporters without Borders has complained of attacks on journalists within Gaza this time round, as they complain of Israel's firing at journalists covering the West Bank. Sayed Kashua has people threatening to break his legs or kidnap his children for what he has written recently on the war, so he has broken with the state in whose language he writes so eloquently, and has felt he must expatriate and learn to write in English. Gideon Levy of Haaretz is under 24/7 armed escort because of numerous death threats from Israeli groups for the way he covered the war: his death has already been forecast by an Israeli activist attorney on Facebook. There are dozens of examples, if you really want to push this.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop soapboxing Misplaced Pages is not a WP:FORUM for your views.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Nishidani, of course is right about the issues, and gives a lot of sources to include in any separate article. However, I want to keep the current section focused on condensing the section in the current article, which is grotesquely bloated. If everyone agrees on that, I will replace the section with a condensed summary, hopefully in a day or so. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Shrike, read WP:NPOV and try to edit accordingly. My views sum the sources given and they were provided to intimate to Tritomex that, as Kingsindian suggested, he's only digging a hole for himself if he pursues expansion, since there is a mass of evidence that could be, but that I for one won't add, on Israeli pressures on journalists, and that jumping at a few articles referring to Hamas and journalism to spin a government line while ignoring these would both violate WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. Lastly, it's often forgotten that this is a global encyclopedia, and that what the US or Canada or others spin is, to billions of people, boring or a sheer hypocritical pretext for the assertion of power interests. Many users have to be reminded of that, because they tend, in their edits, to confuse mainstream information with what a few outlets in interested western countries say. It is not to abuse WP:FORUM to remind editors to drop our provincialism, and read more widely. Meaning here, that Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization by a lot of countries: al-Qaeda expelled the future founders of ISIS because its leaders found them too 'terroristic', and in respect of those two vile organizations, Hamas is, in non-Western terms, quite 'liberal' (Christians live under its sway), as compared to a Western 'ally' like Saudi Arabia. I commend therefore attempts to sum this section up in a few balanced, well sourced lines, that cover complaints about Israel and Hamas equally.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The New York Times or Arutz Sheva is not considered by USA and EU, as "terrorist entity" while Al Aqsa TV is considered as such, and the USA officially declared all Al Aqsa TV operatives as "terrorists" This can be seen from official US government sources mentioned above. I do not take sides on the question whether this Al Aqsa TV operatives are journalist or not, for huge part of world they are not considered as such, and this can not be just left out of the article. For the rest I can fully agree with Shrike, this is not the place to discuss unrelated issues. There are relevant articles and sections where such issues could be mentioned. If eventual Israeli attacks on journalist happened during this war, this must be also added to this section as per WP:NPOV if it is not done yet.--Tritomex (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten the section. I condensed it and removed one clearly undue bit about someone being threatened on twitter, and sorted the information into:
  • one paragraph on journalists' deaths,
  • one long paragraph on Israel's and others' views that journalists are subject to intimidation,
  • one paragraph on views that journalists are not subject to intimidation,
  • one paragraph containing a Hamas spokesperson's comment that it questions journalists, and
  • one paragraph on Israeli attacks on media stations.
-sche (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Needs much more condensing, especially removal of individual names (French journalist, FT reporter, RT reporter). Can't go on enumerating all the cases like this. Are we going to list every reporter Haaretz spoke to, or every reporter that was killed? This is not a correct procedure. A general statement about this should be enough. Also the Hamas spokesperson has a very long quote, it should be summarized, saying that they did not like reporters reporting on military or intelligence matters and they interrogated/questioned/told them about it. If someone else wants to do this, they can, otherwise I will do it tomorrow, because of 1RR restriction. Kingsindian (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No need to remove the names, especially not the reasons and circumstances of the attacks. This are very important issues. In my view this is now fully WP:NPOV and objective as all events and sides were given equal cc space. Additional changes would make it unbalanced and would require additional chamnges.--Tritomex (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: Reasons for not removing the names? As I mentioned already, we can't enumerate all the cases like this. What issues are the names adding? They are all mentioned already (intimidation, threatening of journalists, etc.) Kingsindian (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any reason why not to add specific attacks on journalists. This is the subject of this section. We already went to individual narratives (on less important issues) when we added "Jodi Rudoren, who wrote "every reporter I’ve met who was in Gaza during war says this Israeli/now FPA narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense.” The Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed many foreign journalists and found "all but a few of the journalists deny any such pressure". They said Hamas' intimidation was no worse than they have gotten from the IDF, and said no armed forces would permit reporters to broadcast militarily sensitive information. Furthermore, most reporters seldom saw Hamas fighters, because they fought from concealed locations and in places that were too dangerous to approach." So selective removals are not justified.--Tritomex (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I do not have the text of the piece which quotes Rudoren since it is behind a paywall, but I would be happy to include instead, a generic statement saying that many people disagree with the FPA assessment. I do not know why the Haaretz report is called "individual narrative". Having a section "Attack on Journalists" does not mean one has to enumerate all the attacks on journalists. Obviously we are not listing all the people Haaretz talked to, or all the Palestinian journalists who are killed, or their circumstances. I have put a draft of the section here. It addresses all the issues raised above but is condensed. Anyone can comment or put it up, or I can put it up tomorrow. Kingsindian (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The Rudhoren quote without attribution would look even worse than it looks now. Factual and documented attacks on journalists are much more important for this section, than one newspaper point view based on interview with some unnamed journalist. However, my suggestion was to leave this section as it is. --Tritomex (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: I have removed the Rudoren quote entirely in my draft. As to your second point, you have got it entirely backwards. The quality of the Haaretz evidence is much higher than the individual cases. If you want to know the scale of intimidation etc. of a population of 700 journalists (being threatened etc.), there are two ways of doing it. One is the Haaretz way, talking to a sample of journalists and asking them what their experience was. All of them reported little or no intimidation. The second way is to look at a self-selected sample of journalists who reported intimidation. Neither is a scientifically precise method, but the first is much better methodologically. It is fine to include the concerns raised by the 2nd group, but it is not legitimate to enumerate all of them. Kingsindian (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Your draft is not in line with WP:NPOV , and such huge rewriting of entire section needs consensus per Misplaced Pages rules.

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

@Tritomex: The search for consensus is precisely the reason I made a draft and did not edit in the main space. I hardly rewrote the entire section. I only expanded slightly the first paragraph and condensed the last. The killing of the Italian journalist is already present in the current version. If someone wants to make an argument as to why it should be removed, I am open to it. I have removed the "Palestinian News" source because it is not needed. If he wishes, -sche can state his opinion about whether the draft I made is better than the current version. I will wait for 24 hours for people to incorporate anything from my draft which they see fit. If, at that time, I still consider the section unsatisfactory, I will open an RfC. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I notice your draft combines "Israel has bombed Hamas' Al-Aqsa radio and TV stations" and "Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver" into one paragraph. I'm not sure what the logic of combining those subjects is; I think grouping "Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver" and " Hamas intimidates journalists in Gaza", as the article currently does (due to me) makes more sense. I am fine with moving the "Israel has bombed..." paragraph to be above the "Israel has made foreign..." paragraph (indeed, that makes sense, since it puts it next to the other paragraph on journalists being killed), but I think they should be separate paragraphs. (Perhaps "Israel has made foreign..." and " Hamas intimidates..." should also be separate paragraphs.) I think you did a good job summarizing/condensing the Hamas spokesperson's comments. I'm not sure wholesale removal of the comments by specific journalists is desirable, though I agree that they need to be shortened. There's probably a middle ground between removing them entirely and retaining them intact; I'll take a stab at it in a moment. Have other members of the FPA besides Rudoren (and the unnamed reporters she says she talked to) criticized the FPA's stance? If so, I could see saying "Members of the FPA are divided over the statement regarding Hamas harassment, with one saying the 'narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense'." But if not, then (a) it's not accurate to generalize to "members" plural, and (b) it makes sense to retain Rudoren's name. Your changes to the first paragraph were extensive and I'll give feedback on them in a separate comment. -sche (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm having a harder time than I thought I would figuring out how to shorten the comments by specific journalists. I notice that of the three citations which had been given for those comments, one didn't actually contain relevant information, and the other two have been flagged as having POV problems. -sche (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: Thanks for the comments.
  • There is no real logic in the way I combined the waivers. I just wanted to keep all the criticism against one side together. I had initially put the sentence in a paragraph by itself, but it seemed too awkward. It belongs in a paragraph by itself, I think. It is not directly related to intimidation.
  • Regarding the FPA statement, I just used the title of Haaretz's report: "Foreign press divided over...". The article is behind a paywall and I do not know what details it gives. But the title is indicative of the disagreement with the FPA statement. The quote by Rudoren also emphasises that she has talked to other journalists. We can assume that she is not lying about this.
  • I will add, though this is not relevant to your points, that the inclusion of this particular FPA statement in this section is disturbingly selective. Just take a look at the list of FPA statements in 2014 here. Every statement except this one is criticizing Israel...yet it is the only one included. There is a specific statement on July 23, probably referring to this Avigdor Lieberman criticized Al-Jazeera, and next day, their offices were hit. The statement refers specifically to "incitement" though it does not name the party, all the examples given deal with Israel.
  • Regarding the individual journalists. Firstly, my reasoning was that it would simply be WP:UNDUE to talk about individual cases like this, instead of the issues. If we list all the cases of harassment by Hamas, we have to give perhaps 10 times (at least) the space to list all the cases of killings by the other side, given the severity and the number of violations. Secondly, all the issues raised by the individual journalists, namely intimidation, deportation and interrogation, they are all presented. Adding in the individual cases adds nothing at all to the section, except bloat and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for dropping out of this thread for a while; I got distracted in real life. I see that the information has been split into two sections (seems like a good move) and rewritten (looks fine). Cheers, :) -sche (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Subtle anti-Arab racism

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

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

Agreed. But that is not all. The subsection Talk:"Allegations of UN Bias" is the worst case of bias that I have seen during my (admittedly brief) period as a Wiki contributor. It contains text without references; text written in the passive voice; vague allocations such as "critics" when "Israeli commentators" is a far more specific label; it misquotes references; and when only lesser portions of a reference support the article's bias, the alternative view is not mentioned. Just a few examples are:
  1. Quote: “The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict.” The supplied citation in fact focusses on the anguish of a UNRWA official at the situation in which “the rights of Palestinians – even their children – are wholesale denied”. The only mention of criticism of UNRWA are in uncited third-party references.
  2. The i24 reference is equally appalling, since its lead criticism is based on: “I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll … and I don't see that as a crime.” The same point is raised in another citation as a reason to suspect UNRWA’s trustworthiness. Let us not forget that in the 2006 elections Hamas gained 48% of the vote, probably higher in Gaza due to the number of refugees there. Presumably UNRWA would therefore become more ‘trustworthy’ if it started employing discriminatory hiring practices.
  3. Another Asaf Romirowsky piece is quoted as “casting a shadow” over UNRWA, that wording presumably having been chosen because the cited reference uses the word ‘apparently’ to make its most telling point.
  4. If those weren’t enough, the Claudia Rosett references take the cake. UNRWA is guilty of bias against Israel because it provides social services to Gaza and thereby relieves Hamas of the burden of having to do so. No … I am quite serious, the UN agency is suspect because it provides humanitarian aid.
Furthermore, the section is justified in the Operation Protective Edge article by “During the present conflict the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question”. May I be permitted to introduce a section named “Western Media bias” by starting with “During the present conflict the impartiality of mainstream Western media sources have fallen under question”? I suspect that I will be reverted before I can wipe my nose.

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

Take it all out. The amount of time spent challenging the bona fides of a group that has provided sustenance to the poor for 60 years, educating, clothing and feeding them, not only in Gaza, is frankly obscene. It's WP:Undue also for the fact that if one wanted, for every googlable criticism of UNWRA one could google up hundreds of criticisms of parties actually engaged in militarily supporting one or the other side, and cram the text with it, spamming this article into impossible limits. These articles should be stringently wooed to the facts of what happened, the background, the outcome, established by fairly good reportage.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I will wait for 24 hours to see if someone wants to defend the guilty subsection as it is.Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have read further, and here are some more howlers from the current text and citations:
  1. Next are the missiles discovered at an UNRWA school that was in recess. In detailing UNRWA's 'untrustworthiness' the citation uses words such as 'apparently','presumably' and 'unclear', the Wiki text turning these into supposed fact = rank bad text and/or citation.
  2. Next, the claim that Ocha has been criticised regarding "the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports". The Algemeiner reference provided to support this notes that the sources of the OCHAO data are B’Tselem (an Israeli human rights group established in February 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members), the PCHR (established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists), and Al Mezan (funded by official Dutch, Swiss and Swedish agencies) – "all of which are 'political' NGOs with a less than pristine record on impartiality in Israel-related matters." No mention is made of the fact that the data for Israeli casualties and attacks from Gaza come from the Israeli Security Agency, a 100% Israeli government institution, and that such a source is not required to be subject to any test of 'bias'. This playing-field has a 45º slope.

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

@JDiala, Erictheenquirer, and Nishidani: This has already been brought up here. The whole section needs to be rewritten, at the least or simply dumped. Nobody has yet done so. If you want it to happen, you should be WP:BOLD and do it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The section is well sourced if someone have reliable sources for "western media bias" go ahead and add such section.--Shrike (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Shrike: Sourcing The fact that it has sources is not enough. This section was added more than a week ago, as I indicated above, by I.am.a.qwerty. It is fundamentally flawed, and 6(!!) people have noticed its fundamental flaws. The original poster has made no replies, nor has (s)he bothered to improve it. It is a mass of scattershot statements attacking the UN on mostly silly charges, all of which have been answered, and none were seen fit to be included by the original poster. There is a whole article on all the criticisms and their replies, if anyone wanted to add it. Unless the original poster tries to at least attempt to fix some of the problems, it deserves to be junked. Kingsindian (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Shrike, you reverted without apparently consulting the page or the earlier section where its inadequacy was noted. It's not our burden to perfume POV crap, - I note you haven't trouble to actually improve it, i.e. do some editing on it- the original editor plunking it in there did a poor job, and the best that can be done for it is for it to be excerpted and placed here to be reworked until a consensual version is worked out. This page is already burnt out with bad material, poor organization, over 400 sources, and close to 200,000 bytes which is three times what a comprehensive well-tuned article usually should aim at. So it is self-evident, severe pruning is required, and Eric did so after gaining the approbation of editors on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Shrike: They were editorials written by journalists, and even though Misplaced Pages is open to reporting different viewpoints, if a particular statement which is made is unsubstantiated, erroneous or unencyclopedic, there is no reason why it ought to be included. JDiala (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

@I.am.a.qwerty: First of all, the organizational and structural construction of the UN is not of concern. However, suggesting that the racial and religious aspects of the organizational structure are the cause of the structural bias, and that these alleged casual factors are important enough to be considered encyclopedic is another story. That would require justification of the former point, and also justification that the influence of the Arab countries, who are a minority in the UN, overshadows the influence of non-Arab/Muslim countries. Concerning the usage of the term "racism", I don't find it incorrect. The article singled out Arab countries as the source of the alleged UN bias, even though, for example, India, China and Latin America also consistently vote against Israel in general assembly resolutions. Furthermore, certain groups voting for or against something does not imply "structural bias". Every country, other than the ones who abstain from voting, are biased. However, this has nothing to do with their race or religion. If you invoke ethnic background into the discussion as the cause and the source of perceived bias, then that is racial. The statement had racial connotations; it assumes that Arab and Muslim countries possess some sort of inherent bias or disingenuousness in their treatment of Israel on the international stage only because demographically they happen to have Arab or Muslim majorities. That claim needed to be substantiated, which was never done.
Also, your assertion that it's an ethnic conflict is irrelevant. There is an ethnic role, yes, but ethnicity plays a role in almost all conflicts other than maybe civil wars. Ethnicity is a social categorization. You just defining various subsets within the human species (Arab, Jew) in such a way that smaller subsets(Palestinians, Lebanese, Saudis) are a part of the same larger set (Arab) so you can misleadingly assert things like "Arab countries voting against a Jewish state embroiled in a long term conflict with an Arab minority" without acknowledging the fact that the small subsets have their own unique ethnic identity independent to that of a supposed pan-Arab identity, and that there is no evidence that being a part of a greater pan-Arab set is the cause of alleged UN bias or preferential treatment of the Palestinian minority in the land of Palestine. If this were the case, why has the "Arab" Egypt country practically abandoned the Gazans now? Why have the Saudis not played a major role in any aspect of the conflict?
Were "white" countries the source of "UN structural bias" for, say, the fact that it permitted the War in Afghanistan because the United States is also predominately white? The degree to which race and ethnicity play a role in this conflict relative to other political or social variables is debatable. Furthermore, the statement also mentioned religion. If Indonesia votes against Israel, a country which has historically had nothing to do with the conflict, is it because it has a structural bias because of its religion? Again, that's an unsubstantiated assertion and claiming that race and religion are the prime motivating factors of certain countries to vote for or against a particular country in the UN is inherently racist and prejudicial. JDiala (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the section has been moved to the talk page while there is an invitation to work on it. It needs a lot of work before it can be classified as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Kingsindian (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

UNRWA section. Work out a consensual version

==Allegations of UN bias==

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

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

  • I can't imagine this given the bloated state of the article, running to more than two lines. We all know this is pol-spin crap, and has its due refutations also. But if Shrike wants it, then he should craft a succinct synthesis summing up the charges and rebuttals.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This paragraph contains repetition of the rockets in the UNRWA facilities and the disputed civilian percentage. IMO both can be safely removed. Whatever remains belongs under "Alleged violations of IHL/Military use of UN facilities" instead of a separate section.- WarKosign (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The first three sentences are vague, unreferenced (or in one case lightly-referenced), weaselly-worded aspersions like "Critics allege that..." (when, as noted above, "'Israeli commentators' is a far more specific label"). The sentence "Some critics contend that associated with terrorist groups" may be worth keeping someplace, though I suspect that place is ] and not this article. Everything from "Critics have also pointed..." to "... neutrality in the conflict" and everything from "The UN agency OCHA..." to "...45-55% were combatants" is duplication of content which is already present (and better-placed) elsewhere in the article, as WarKosign notes. And the bit about what two US senators think is undue (and, as was noted elsewhere on this talk page, probably just spin for domestic consumption) and should be removed like the Irish politician's views were removed some time ago. The last sentence, which suggests certain ethnic and religious groups are inherently biased, and nations where a majority of the population is of such ethnic or religious groups are therefore also inherently going to take certain stances, is problematic for the reasons noted a few sections up. -sche (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

References

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

Gazan tunnels

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

@Mhhossein: I have replaced the Gazan tunnels section with the lead for the "Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip" section using Misplaced Pages:Transclusion#Partial_transclusion. The problems with this section are longstanding. See discussion here for the basic discussion. Just search "tunnels" in the archives for plenty more discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: The section makes sense now. You are doing the energy demanding job of taking care of this article. Thanks.Mhhossein (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Gazan rockets

Range of missiles launched from Gaza Strip

The number of rockets used by Gazan militias vary in range, size and lethality. They include the M-302 which is Syrian made (based on a Chinese design), and the locally made M-75 which have the range to target Tel-Aviv. Other rockets include the Soviet Katyusha and Qassams. Hamas has also used a "crude, tactical" drone, reported to be Iranian-made and named "Ababil-1". Palestinian militant groups have also used anti-tank rockets and anti-tank mines against armoured personnel carriers.

Lethality

According to Theodore Postol, the vast majority of Gazan artillery rocket warheads contain 10- to 20-pound explosive loads. Postol states that these missiles are incapable of causing damage to well-sheltered people. Mark Perry states that "Hamas’ arsenal is considerably weaker today than it was in 2012" and that "Hamas’ Fajr-5 guidance system was crude, at best, and its warhead nearly non-existent."

Israel

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.
−
IDF Artillery Corps fires 155 mm M-109 howitzer gun, 24 July 2014

Israel has used air, land and naval weaponry. The artillery includes Soltam M71 guns and U.S.-manufactured Paladin M109s (a 155-mm howitzer). The aerial weaponry includes drones and F-16 fighter jets. Drones are used to constantly monitor the Gaza strip.

Israel's early warning sirens and extensive shelters have been an effective defense against Gazan rocketry. They are less effective against short-range mortars because of less time to react.


References

  1. "Syrian made M302." The Jerusalem Post. Accessed 12 August 2014.
  2. "Long range Hamas rockets." IBTimes. 10 August 2014.
  3. "Hamas firing chia designed rockets." NBC News. Accessed 12 August 2014.
  4. "M75 strikes Tel Aviv." Maan News Accessed 12 August 2014.
  5. "Hamas produces rockets as fighting winds down." The Guardian. 13 August 2014.
  6. "Hamas Rocket Arsenal." Business Insider. July 2014.
  7. Smith, Alexander (15 July 2014). "Hamas' Drone Program Will Not Worry Israel, Experts Say". NBC News.
  8. ^ Perry, Mark (27 August 2014). "Why Israel's bombardment of Gaza neighborhood left US officers 'stunned'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 28 August 2014.
  9. "IDF releases details on Shejaiya battle in which 7 soldiers died". The Times of Israel. July 20 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system is an ironclad success | The Great Debate
  11. Mark Perry (3 August 2014). "Gaza's Bottle Rockets". Foreign Affairs.
  12. http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/israeli-drones-buzz-ghost-towns-gaza-24628058
  13. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140721-gaza-strip-tunnels-israel-hamas-palestinians/
  14. Theodore Postol, Explanation of the Evidence of Weaknesses in the Iron Dome Defense System MIT Technology Review 15 July 2014

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

The lethality of rockets isn't really relevant to the article. I'm sure the families of those killed by rockets and those who live under constant rocket fire would disagree that they are "harmless". Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the section does not call them "harmless". Indeed, since 7 civilians have been killed, they're not harmless. The section only quotes two scholars describing the capabilities and the size of the warhead. One of them calls it "incapable of harming well-sheltered people". That is his judgement, properly attributed. If you have contrary information about the size of the warheads etc., you can add it. The section needs expansion. Kingsindian (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That is essentially what it is saying. That they are basically harmless. Also, it doesn't explain what "well-sheltered" exactly is. Is it a shelter that has a roof or is it a bomb shelter? If it's the latter, then that is the point of a bomb shelter. To shelter people against bombs. The bomb shelter is what saves lives. There's also the opinion that the Iranian Fajr-5's warhead is "basically non-existent". According to specifications, the Fajr-5 has a 150 - 200 kg warhead seen here and here. Unless Hamas purposely takes out the warhead (which I highly doubt), that is not "not-existent". Saying the type of warhead is perfectly fine. But the opinion of how lethal they are is just that, an opinion. I think the name of the section should be changed to "Rocket Specifications", and add things such as range of the rocket, speed of the rocket, size of the rocket, size of the warhead, etc. But the opinions of how lethal they are should be removed. Knightmare72589 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
3 points. I have changed section name to "Rocket specifications":
  • As I already said, this section is about the military capabilities of either side. There is no implication that the suffering of either side is being minimized.
  • Regarding Postol's comment, he explains what "well-sheltered" means in his article. He credits Israel's network of bomb-shelters with reducing the damage by the rockets.
  • Regarding Mark Perry's comment, it is of course an opinion. It is an opinion of a noted military and intelligence specialist, and appears in the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, a very old and very respectable institution. As to the Fajr-5 warhead, if you read the piece, he mentions that Hamas had reduced rocket capability, and a lot of the Fajr-5 rockets were destroyed in the 2012 war by Israel. Also, Fajr-5 is very hard to maneuver. This is why the warhead was very reduced. Your links are from 2013, which is not looking at the capabilities of the rockets which were used in the conflict. Kingsindian (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Improving the "Alleged violations of international humanitarian law" section

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

  • Violations by Israel:
    • Civilian Deaths - an alleged violation is of Principle of distinction and/or Necessity and proportionality.
    • Destruction of homes - ditto.
    • Shelling of UNRWA schools - ditto
    • Infrastructures - ditto
    • Attacks on journalists - I don't see it covered by IHL.I know it's "wrong" to attack journalists, but which law does it violate ?
  • Violations by Hamas:
    • Human shields and its sub-sections - obviously Principle of distinction
    • Intimidation of journalists - same question as above
    • A missing section - use of militants in civilian clothes. It is mentioned in passing as a part of intimidation of journalists.

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

@WarKosign: I am not sure what exactly you are trying to do. IHL has two basic principles. Proportionality and Distinction. That is correct. But what does this have to do with this section? You are not making judgements based on these principles, the various organizations are. One should mention the various areas which are notable and let the various organizations given their opinions in each area. Kingsindian (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I'm trying to find a list of applicable laws and rules. Area being notable or not is subjective. A set list of rules is an objective way to list all the violations. There is this list, for example International_humanitarian_law#IHL_provisions_and_principles_protecting_civilians, but it also doesn't cover UN or journalists. Or, for example Perfidy - is it a violation of IHL ? is it a war crime ? WarKosign (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: As I said, it is not up to you or me to determine which laws were broken. At the moment, there is no comprehensive report of all the alleged violations, like the Goldstone report, for example. One could have used that as a source in the 2008-9 war. Right now, we have to go by notability, and what the different organizations say about each topic. Kingsindian (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Attacking journalist violates the Geneva convention obviously as they are civilians. GGranddad (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is illegitimate, as proposed, it involves WP:OR. We are not in here to adjudicate what international law says and then evaluate these instances. We are here strictly to transcribe what mainstream news sources report. That is all. There is no margin for working our way round or out of what sources state.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not think there is enough space to list all international law issues related to attacks on journalists. For huge part of world, including official US and EU governments, Al Aqsa TV operatives are not considered to be "journalists" but "terrorists" I cited an official US government position, that all employed by Al Aqsa TV should be considered "terrorists". I do not take stand on this issue, and I think no one should take position siding with one or other view. This issue previously raised a huge polemic However this contradictory views on Al Aqsa TV operatives have to be make clear, when they are mentioned in this context.--Tritomex (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The word terrorist is a bit of joke, it is used by state actors to diminish the people who are fighting against them. The Nazis used to call people fighting against them terrorists as well. Also just because America considers someone to be a terrorist does not make it true. Fact is that most of the entire world do not consider Hamas to be terrorists. Anyway these two guys were journalists and deserve the protection under the law.Amnesty and HRW actually considers the bombing of media outlets in Gaza as a war crime.GGranddad (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You have right for your personal opinion and even bias on this issue, outside Misplaced Pages. For Misplaced Pages articles, neutrality of editing and respecting all relevant views is a must. Our opinions are not sources for any claims. The opinion of USA government and EU governments, and others is however something that must be taken in consideration when balanced WP:NPOV, edits on this issue is being made. Otherwise anyone could claim, on any subject, whatever is his/her political attitude. its not upon us to judge on Al Aqsa TV operatives, but to present all relevant views.Tritomex (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, we can put forward that the USA and Israel consider all Hamas media workers and journalists are terrorists while stating that the entire rest of the world does not think so.GGranddad (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, pending that you have reliable source that the "entire rest of world" does not think so.Tritomex (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Tritomex, please desist. When Israel wiped out the 42 graduates of a Gaza police academy in the first hour of the 2008 operation, and then murdered another 200 while bombing police stations, international law experts said that this was a violation of international law. The Goldstone report, to cite one of many that distinguish police from the military in a state, found:

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

To be a member of Hamas is not to be a terrorist, except as a POV. Terrorist organizations do not sign documents, as Hamas just did, which allow the ICJ to bring any of their members to justice, if they are accused, as the US, Eu, and Israel may wish to do, of terroristic acts. As is well known, the US itself has granted exemption from prosecution to many convicted terrorists, and refuses to sign precisely the protocols that would open its own actions in foreign countries to prosecution for terrorism.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no intention to discuss 2008 or 2012 events, nor I wish to take stand what Hamas is. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. I would like to have the exact list of each country standing on this issue, to know exactly what neutral editing on this subject requires. As far as I found only 2 countries outside Arab and Islamic world, explicitly stated not to consider Hamas a terrorist organization (Russia, and China) while inside Arab world, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan banned or designed Hamas as terrorist organization, as did all EU countries, Australia, Japan, United States, New Zeeland, Canada and Mexico, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia) I do not have knowledge about the position of other countries (South American states, Africa, South Korea, and even other Arab countries for example). If someone knows reliable source on this issue, it could be helpful, for all editors.

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

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

55 total Palestinians have reportedly been executed by Hamas

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

@Knightmare72589: There is a section, feel free to add relevant information backed by reliable sources. WarKosign (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
There are reliable sources for at least 3 separate waves of executions and another killing of 20 demonstrators in july and early august.--Tritomex (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, be kind and add it to the casualties template at the head of the article. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It sums up to 88 or 113 people:

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

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

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

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6

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

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

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

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

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

What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Classification of Al-Aqsa

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

@Kingsindian: Why not ? Argument: Israel attacked journalists, which is an alleged violation of IHL. Counter argument: some international bodies, including the US government consider them terrorists, which makes them a legitimate target. WarKosign (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing alleged about it, if you attack journalists then you are breaking the law. I believe Israel killed about 9 journalists in Gaza this time around.Can you show us a link from some international bodies that states that journalists are terrorists? Thanks. GGranddad (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No one, other than ISIS, attacked journalists. A TV station is not a journalist and journalists do get killed in war zones even without being a direct target. To the point -- if ISIS TV station is attacked, certainly, it merits to add that it is considered a terrorist body regardless if ISIS "journalists" are killed in the process. (read: replace ISIS with Hamas -- there's not a huge difference anyway ) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
ISIS? Please try and keep to the topic, this is about Gaza and journalists there. HRW and Amnesty have both accused Israel of attacking journalists and media outlets in Gaza illegally.GGranddad (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: Sure it is alleged. You are alleging it now. Wishing or believing it very strongly doesn't make it absolute truth. Do you have on you undeniable proof that the event happened, that they were indeed journalists and not terrorists in disguise, that they were killed by IDF and that it happened intentionally ? We are not here to decide whether the allegation are correct or not. We are only to report them. We do have proof that such a claim was made, hence this section. WarKosign (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not alleged that it is against the law to attack journalists, it is against the law.You stated that attacking journalists was allegedly against the law, you are wrong, it is against the law.GGranddad (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This from HRW. “Just because Israel says a journalist was a fighter or a TV station was a command center does not make it so,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Journalists who praise Hamas and TV stations that applaud attacks on Israel may be propagandists, but that does not make them legitimate targets under the laws of war.”GGranddad (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

@WarKosign: Your added statement makes no reference to the legality of targeting them. It simply says that the US govt. does not distinguish between Hamas and al-Aqsa television station as terrorist. The relevant policy is quoted by GGranddad, however, that comes from 2012, so it cannot be directly included here. I am still waiting for HRW etc. to write a comprehensive report, but for the moment, I have included Reporters without Borders statement and Al-Haq statement affirming the illegality of targeting journalists even if they are propagandists or belong to a so-called terrorist organization. To MarciulionisHOF, I have ignored you till now, and will continue to ignore you. Please read WP:FORUM. Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I should have stated it was from 2012 but it obviously points out HRW opinion on the law relating to events and the same events happened in 2014 Gaza war.We need to wait for the NGO reports from this conflict of course.GGranddad (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:. Sources "affirming" and "plastering" and all that jazz are indeed foruming. US gov perspective is not foruming, though. I hope these points are clear enough so that no one will ignore them. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Once it established (that some people believe) that Al-Aqsa TV journalists are member of Hamas, attacking them is as (il)legal as attacking any (other) hamas member. This source mentions that IDF believe this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/20/israelgaza-unlawful-israeli-attacks-palestinian-media. I will add it, does it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You cannot add it, it is from 2012 war not this one and so is your link.GGranddad (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Indeed as GGranddad mentions, the report is from 2012. In any case, the Israeli statement about why they targeted the TV stations is already present. There does not need to be anything else. And, as I said, the US position on whether they consider Al Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is not relevant here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Common sense is that a leading global power (read: the USA, not a silly NGO) and Israel, stating a long term perspective on the Hamas PR department (Flying Mosque TV) is most relevant to avoid any instances of plastering affirmation. Adding long-standing, mainstream views is the encyclopedic thing to do. Removing them based on disliking the mainstream views (a gazzillibillion NGOs and their fantastical names put aside) is bad jazz. I do agree, that outside long term perspective of the global powers, sources should show as much relation to the recent dance-fight rather than articles from 2012. However, if an Israeli or US official has a statement, it should be noted (with the relevant time-stamp). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
In between the vast amount of WP:FORUMing one can detect some small argument by MarciulionisHOF. However, it is without basis. The statement by the US Treasury (in 2010) about Hamas ties, says nothing at all about whether it is legal to target Al Aqsa TV station. To put it in this section is wholly WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages wouldn't wish to plaster its articles with worthless/meaningless NGO flamings without some real world notable perspective next to them. Common sense basis, is to include the US view on the Flying Mosque TV station. The initial edit pasted on this topic seemed quite normative to me and objections have been on technicalities, rather than substance. Should there be found a specific source? Where the US talks specifically about a journalist or two that got hurt during an attack in the vicinity of Hamas PR department? Just to counter every NGO out there? That is absurd. The US repeatedly talk about how Israel has the right to defend itself and only counter instances where the case in unclear. In the case of the Flying Mosque TV -- the case IS clear and we have a source to boot. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: "Hamas' station plays a "central role in managing the media battle against the Israeli lies," the Bloc said." --- Journalists, yes? If anything is undue is Reporters Without Borders (a useless organization when dealing with law-less militants like ISIS and Hamas) using something from 1999 to make bogus allegations against a portion of the IDF's statement (ignoring the part about Flying Mosque TV being used to parlay orders to operatives seems relevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) : retouch MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It has to be made clear, per WP:NPOV, when Al Aqsa TV and its operatives are mentioned, that for huge part of the world, Hamas political wing, including organizations run by this wing, (to which Al Aqsa TV belongs) are considered a terrorist infrastructure. We should not take stand on this issue, but we are an explicit claim that the US does not distinguish between "armed terrorists" and Al Aqsa TV operatives does not mean that the US thinks that Al Aqsa TV is legitimate target. Well, this is not correct as the US means exactly that,. as "terrorist targets" are considered legitimate targets by international law. More so, other states which declared Hamas political wing, and all of its institutions as a "terrorist organization" and this includes 40+ countries, legally do not consider Al Aqsa TV as legitimate media, nor they consider its operatives as journalists.--Tritomex (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I need to see some sources directly justifying the targeting of Al Aqsa journalists, not handwaving. All I see right now, is a US Treasury statement saying that Al Aqsa TV and Hamas are intimately tied and thus both are terrorist. Fine, but nobody is denying that. Just being a member of Hamas does not make targeting them legal. Hamas' politicians are not considered militants, for example. (This is why the Washington Post passage added by Tritomex is also irrelevant). Kingsindian (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, There's a mistake in your argument. An operational affiliation with Hamas means you are a legal target. There is not a single reputable source saying that killing Hamas operatives is illegal. As for Flying Mosque TV, Israel made a statement (e.g. used to parlay Hamas orders). The US will, obviously, not address each and every case and, certainly, won't use big words like 'illegal'. They have made a general statement that the Hamas PR department, in charge of "managing the media battle against the Israeli lies", is a terrorist body (which lies under legality definitions even if unmentioned directly). Israel and US views about the Flying Mosque TV are not hand-waving even if the word 'legal' was not dropped in. Hamas' "politicians" ARE considered legal targets by both Israel and the US due to their association with what both consider a terrorist organization. Certainly, countries have a bigger say (or at least, similar article space) than a gazzillibillion NGOs vying for extra prominence through sensationalism and wanton allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

@Kingsindian:, I can understand your concern but disagree with an original research tag (which part of that policy fits here?). The article does not include original arguments, not listed in the references. Certainly, mainstream views on the legal status of the battle station is pertinent to any NGO silliness. While we don't have another source and we remain in disagreement, it might be interesting to hear views on this from more editors on the best way to present the varying perspectives on the legal status of the battle station (i.e. based on mainstream views). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: From WP:OR. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Kingsindian (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, but no one will say "it IS legal to attack XXX". We certainly have (a) reliable source. (b) no new conclusion is implied -- just the basic, mainstream one. (c) directly related to the legal status of the battle station. I hope, even if you disagree, that you can at least see my point. Since I'm not certain you are convinced or that you understand where your demand for a source responding directly to an absurd NGO (usually, even more absurd NGOs do that -- e.g. CAMERA, Honestreporting.com, etc.) is hurting a very normative presentation of the mainstream views. 'JWB say X, the US and Israel see it differently'. I urge you to reconsider. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree, with MarciulionisHOF, no one details the legality of this particular military action, but the designation of Al Aqsa TV as a legitimate media, and its operatives as journalists which is a hotly disputed and polemic issue. Per WP:NPOV, we should not take a stand on this issue, but present all relevant views. This has nothing to do with OR and directly supports the material being presented .Tritomex (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF and Tritomex: I have no idea what you mean by "no one will say it is legal to attack XXX". Of course many orgs specifically render opinions on when it is legal to target and when it is not. Under certain circumstances, it is ok to target press installations. The circumstances have already been mentioned in Israel's justification, namely, if they are transmitting military codes or something. It is fine to mention that. And the press-related and human rights organizations have condemned it on the basis that they have determined (they don't take Israel's claim to have any basis in fact). I have no issue with including anything which is relevant. This Treasury stuff is not relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, The US treasury is an extension of congress. This source can be added: -- basically speaking, the US is a spec more notable than silly NGOs (Can we at least agree on that?). If they have a legal position on something, it is relevant. I hope, the added source helps validate that this is not coming from some pencil pusher in the treasury, but is an official view of the US gov. Btw, current phrasing is problematic. e.g "Journalists are considered civilians and should not be targeted under international humanitarian law." (no attribution given). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I have no idea how that new source (Arutz Sheva) is important. The notability of the US Treasury report has already been established by secondary sources added by Tritomex. I am not disputing that. I am questioning the relevance. So far, no relevance has been established. I need direct relevance, a source directly addressing the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV, as the Reporters Without Borders and Al Haq source do. Kingsindian (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, I've been saying the past few replies that your request is unreasonable because no one says "its legal to ...". NGOs likes to use big words like 'illegal', and states like to use general terms like 'terrorist', which imply legality. The only ones who attack NGO silliness are even sillier NGOs like CAMERA. On occasion, you get an expert who says 'Israel has the right to defend itself', but it is simply unreasonable to expect a one to one ratio between the words 'illegal' and 'legal'. Do we have any other examples where these 'illegal' allegations were met with the word "legal" instead of a more complex term such as "terrorist"?
It's not a position of the government unless it's actually stated by the government. The fact that no statement has been issued means the government has no official position. Saying that it follows logically from previous government opinions is WP:OR and misleading, as it implies that government positions are always logically self-consistent, which is patently false. Governments are not like individuals, who can hold opinions without stating them. The US government isn't "thinking" anything right now. That's why they use such nebulous terms, because they don't want to have an opinion until they have to. In the absence of an actual statement of opinion, no opinion exists. Anything else is WP:OR. 162.157.79.24 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The introduction does not summarize the contexts of the article

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

I fully agree. There is no reason why the two largest paragraphs are simply parroting each other and restating the same information twice (just one being figures provided from the UN and the other being figures from the Gaza government Ministries. both neutral sources, of course...). I would suggest re-writting this without any statistics other than very broad things like "thousands of Palestinians have been killed or wounded and dozens of Israelis have been killed in the conflict. As a result of the conflict hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced." This covers the topic without removing anything except the many figures (which need to be changed by the hour) and also the amazing publicity and advertising it provides for the ongoing UN Gaza fund raising campaign. So be bold but remember W:NPOV and try not to remove valid references whenever possible.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I somewhat agree, that there is lot of duplication in the last 2 paragraphs, though it would be too bold to rewrite the lead directly. See WP:STATUSQUO. I will put up a draft of the lead here (or someone else can do it), and people can make changes on it. With a rough draft which seems a bit better than the current one, we can put it up. Kingsindian (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft of the lead

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

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

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

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

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

References

  1. Arnaout, Abdel-Raouf (9 July 2014). "From 'Shield' to 'Edge': How Israel names its military ops". Anadolu Agency. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
  2. Ghert-Zand, Renee (9 July 2014). "Name 'Protective Edge' doesn't cut it". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  3. Kordova, Shoshana (19 July 2014). "Why is the English name of Operation Protective Edge so different from the Hebrew version?". Haaretz.
  4. Protective Edge by Numbers,' ID 5 August 2014.
  5. Why are so many civilians dying in Hamas-Israel war? By Ashley Fantz, CNN, August 6, 2014
  6. "New Gaza cease-fire begins as Israel withdraws troops". 5 August 2014.
  7. ^ Daraghmeh, Mohammed (10 August 2014). "Israel accepts Egyptian ceasefire proposal". Globalnews.ca. Associated Press. Retrieved 10 August 2014.
  8. "29 rockets in 20 minutes: Israel, Hamas ceasefire breaks down". CNN. 19 August 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
  9. Al Jazeera English, US: 'little doubt' Israel bombed Gaza school
  10. Steven Stotsky (29 July 2014). "How Hamas Wields Gaza's Casualties as Propaganda". Time Magazine. Retrieved 31 July 2014.
  11. Cite error: The named reference blows was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. Cite error: The named reference continues was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference OCHA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. Laub, Karin; Alhlou, Yousur (8 August 2014). "In Gaza, dispute over civilian vs combatant deaths". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 9 August 2014.
  15. "Israeli soldier 'captured in tunnel attack' by Gaza militants named by IDF". Retrieved 1 August 2014.
  16. Josef Federman and Maggie Michael (14 July 2014). "Egypt proposes cease-fire between Israel, Hamas". Associated Press.
  17. Al Jazeera English report; accessed 22 July 2014.
  18. "Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency" (PDF). 5 August 2014. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
  19. ^ "Gaza Emergency Situation Report" (PDF). United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Occupied Palestinian Territory. 3 August 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  20. ^ Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan. "Israel, Palestinians launch new three-day truce." Reuters. 10 August 2014.
  21. ^ ARON HELLER. "Associated Press: Southern Israelis cautiously prepare to head home." Fairfield Citizen. 6 August 2014.
The problem with this proposal is that its not very much different than the current introduction. The Impact on civilian population of Gaza can not take 40% of introduction, when we have 7 other sections which all need to be mentioned equally. My proposal was to give 2-3 sentences about each section. I will try to make a proposal as soon as I will have enough time.Tritomex (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: That counts as a "Duh!":) It is "not very much different" because...it is in fact identical. I just copy pasted it from there to serve as a starting point. Kingsindian (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph suggestion

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

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

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

References

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

Comments

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

But if we do that, we have to say why Israel killed those 6 martyrdom seekers in the first place. My suggestion explains the Israeli claims for a wide-scale "operation". Would it be better if we remove Israel's stated reasoning for recruiting 40,000 reserves as well in the name of avoiding back-and forths that go on to the days of Muhammad slaughtering and beheading the Jews of Yathrib ... because they made fun of him? On point, a few extra rockets are not much of an escalation. The killing of 6 or 3 or 1 whatever on whoever's side are not lead paragraph material, but background material. OK. Assuming you disagree. Let's try to be be encyclopedia -- what do mainstream sources say? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I just added a source (BBC), which in my understanding, uses the same phrasing as I suggested. It does not have mention of any 6 militants - because doing that is C-R-hey-ZEE... kidding. Hope that BBC can be accepted. I remind: my structure is based on the existing structure of Operation Cast Lead, which I'm sure survived many eyes - so it makes good sense to consider it as a good long term structure. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: No, we don't have to do anything. I already said, one hop from each (and no more) is basic fairness and NPOV. If you mention rocket attacks and tunnels, and don't mention the airstrikes, it is not acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
So the BBC is unfair? Misplaced Pages should add a non-notable to the 1st sentence? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether BBC is unfair or not is irrelevant. BBC is not Misplaced Pages. There is no reason to hew to its phrasing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF:: @Kingsindian:

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

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

@Tritomex: The story with the rockets is much more complex than that. See the background section for details. Rockets continued at a very low level all the way after 2012 ceasefire. There was a small escalation after the crackdown in the West Bank, when non-Hamas factions started rocket fire, and a major escalation after the airstrike on July 6, when Hamas itself started. Virtually all analysts single out the July 6 date as important; there was a major barrage. I have already written a separate section giving all references. Kingsindian (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing complex about rockets launched at your 4 year old girl - you pick her up in her sleep and take her to the hallway because you don't have a shelter and the hallway is relatively speaking the safest place in your house. If doesn't matter if its one rocket or more as long as there are rockets. On point -- please provide a few examples of these analysis sources that think 6 unknown Arab Liberation Militants in Gaza are super-important. The BBC's article (here again:) about the ending of fighting does not mention this. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Draft proposal (2)

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

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

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

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

@Kingsindian: @Monopoly31121993:

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

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

Draft proposal (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing wrong with repeating stuff in the lead which is there in the body of the text. In fact, that is the correct practice, per WP:LEAD. The lead is meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole article. Many people just read the lead, and nothing else. So this proposal is not good. Kingsindian (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree with the shortened version that has been posted here. The whole idea of the lead is to summarize what is in the article.GGranddad (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Hamas leaders in hospitals

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

@Kingsindian: I gave precise quote from Washington Post under quotation marks. The Washington Post explicitly says that the "Shifa has become a de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." So this is is exact quotation and not anything even close to original reaserch.--Tritomex (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: I did not fault the edit based on whether you quoted the Post accurately. I asked what relevance does it have to the section on attacks on hospitals. Unless you can find a reliable source to document the connection, it is WP:OR, in my opinion. Or call it WP:UNDUE or whatever. Just that there is no connection at all to the section. (added) Kingsindian (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Well your claim that "it only talks only about political leaders" needs some source. If you have a source that this refer only to "visiting Hamas leaders", which is totally contradictory to what the Washington Post says, I will remove this quote. Second using hospitals as "de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders" is violation of international law, weather they are military or political leaders in question. Third I properly attributed the claim to Washington Post, which means I did not presented it as an established fact.--Tritomex (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I checked it again, I placed this quote in the section detialing aleged violations of international law in Medical facilities. Having headquarter in hospital is considered a serious violation of international law, concerning political or military leaders.--Tritomex (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: Excuse me, the Washington Post article itself only names Hamas politicians vising the hospitals. "The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." It does not state anywhere that Hamas militants have been inside the hospital. I do not need to provide a source, it is your own source which says this. Secondly, the claim that using hospitals is "de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders" is a violation of international law needs to be established by a WP:RS, not asserted by Misplaced Pages editors. Third, there is no third, since I did not raise the point at all. Kingsindian (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: Thanks for the revert while we discuss. Unfortunately the statement left is problematic as well. The article quotes a French newspaper writer who claims to have seen combatants interrogating journalists, though the article was removed afterwards at the request of the author. This kind of evidence is not to be given too much weight. If it is presented, the contrary view, that these allegations are not substantiated should also be presented, and the statement of the director of the hospital quoted. Here are two sources: this and this. Kingsindian (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The report on Hamas interrogation in Shifa, was covered by plenty of sources, all over world, so it has enough weight. If Hamas, or the hospital management responded to this particular incident, I agree that this should be included too.--Tritomex (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this image factual?

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

Do you have another source providing a map ? Do you have a source saying that this map is incorrect ? You can't ask to remove the facts just because you don't like them. Why aren't you claiming that the map of damaged houses in Gaza is propaganda and POV ? WarKosign (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The map of damage in Gaza is from the UN, the map of rocket attacks comes from one side in the conflict,Israel obviously. I think the caption on it should read claimed rocket sites map from the IDF or something like that.Also, just because Israel releases a map does not make the content of it a fact.GGranddad (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of ten images showing the israeli POV, atleast six are taken from IDF blog. The rocket range map was created by original research, while the source of the shelter sign is unknown. Picture of siderot factory is own work and Helsinki protests is from a news source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WarKosign, is that an admission that you made that link, dribbling in a moral judgement to a narrative that must be NPOV? You are obliged not to edit in the interests of a government here, I would remind you. If you think soldiers/militants dressing in civvies is perfidious, I expect in terms of coherence that you will now go and edit all of the articles dealing with the assassination of Palestinians on the West bank by Sayeret Matkal and Yamas, like for example, Abdullah Qawasmeh, the uncle of one of the two thugs who killed the three Israeli teenagers this year, who was gunned down in Hebron, unarmed, by 13 Israeli undercover agents dressed in Palestinian clothes in 2003? What is a standard assassination tactic in the IDF is a perfidious use of human shields in Hamas? You've got a lot of work on your perfidy pushing: there are hundreds of such cases. 'Witnesses said a dozen Israeli troops disguised as Palestinian labourers waited in a van with windows blocked by boxes of diapers and two other vehicles bearing local licence plates, as worshippers left the mosque after Saturday evening prayers. According to local resident Bassam Hassan, Mr. Qawasme “was hit in the leg, ran to the other side of the street, and the Israelis finished him off.” (AFP, DPA, Reuters).' Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: In editing in such a sensitive area, you should never substitute your own judgement. "Perfidy" is a legal term - you are a WP editor. Find a source which says this particular act is perfidy, and add it if you wish. This is the minimum. Of course, as Nishidani says, one can find plenty of perfidy on the other side, which you should consider adding, if one is to follow WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Meshaal's denial

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

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

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

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

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

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

The person who took credit for the kidnapping is also a person in exile in Turkey, isn't he? See here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well if I was him I would not be claiming I was responsible for any attacks at all being as he has just signed up for the Palestinians going to the ICC.Have you ever thought he was not really being honest in that interview for personal safety issues, like not doing 30 years in prison for war crimes?I think the piece about him in the article is fine, it is sourced from main stream media and meets wikipedia standards.Why do you not believe him when he says he did not know about the kidnapping but believe him in the article you posted? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me..GGranddad (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian, yes, as Misplaced Pages emphasizes, without using similar language in reference to Meshaal. @GGranddad, I don't know what you're getting at.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's another source on the power struggles within Hamas.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't second guess sources. A large amount of fabrication, falsification, cover-ups and dubious formal statements characterizes both sides, and much of the press which recycles official handouts. Many Israeli journalists have stated that the way their press, radio etc has fallen in lockstep with government propaganda is disgraceful, and of course we have a huge section ignoring this, but focusing on what those handouts insinuate, and Hamas threats to journalists. I can't be bothered doing such a section, but trying to say Hamas is exceptional in not admitting what an interested party its adversary insinuates, is a bit silly, esp. given the fact that all great powers lie through their teeth, as historians are required to tediously note in books no one reads.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of soldiers + child in the timeline section

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

Ashkelon residents run for shelter during a bomb alert.
I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons so I restored it. What is dubious about it? WarKosign (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Here are some criticisms. Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#WP:CLAIM. Apart from the dubious way in which the photo has been taken, it is best to simply avoid photos from either side. The photo I have given is not contested by anyone and shows the same issue: rocket attacks on Israel. Kingsindian (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I see that the criticism is that we have no way of knowing it wasn't staged or faked. Same criticism can be applied to every single photo. How do we know that the people in the picture you are suggesting aren't actors in a studio ?

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

I think the picture in question of the Israeli soldiers shielding a kid is staged and most pictures taken in conflict come from photo journalists who put their name to them.Is there any name attacked to that picture? I see nothing wrong with replacing it with the other picture or another one.GGranddad (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It was reproduced in defiance of an earlier discussion which cast serious doubts on its authenticity. When in doubt, esp. with the propaganda war also being waged, one is obliged to not touch questionable 'stuff' with a 10-foot pole. I think requests were made for detailed information on who took it, where, and at what time. No one replied. No one replied to the criticisms of what looks to any practiced eye like a staged event. These considerations alone mean no one should put it back unless they can satisfy the suspicions over it.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

@WarKosign: Is there some special reason you want to use this particular photo? The photo is from IDF's Flickr account. As I said already, the photo is demonstrating rocket attacks on Israel. The photo on the right is by Reuters and freely available, demonstrating the same thing. Why not use that? As to staging, there are many questions about the photo. Virtually every photo you will see, will have people lying flat on the ground to avoid rocket fire. The kind of behaviour shown in the photo is very unusual. It is best to simply remove the IDF photo and use the Reuters photo which is better in every way. Kingsindian (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I was just wondering why these Israeli soldiers were protecting this kid supposedly from rocket fire while his mother stood there taking a picture, was she not worried about rockets? Sounds staged to me frankly.GGranddad (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Um. Well, could be true, but that is a very strange account, apart from the oddness of the postures and the lighting. The mother says the 'door' jammed, in a car in which she, her husband and her 4 and a half year old child were travelling. The husband and wife couldn't get out of the car with the 'jammed door', but a door near the child could be opened. That means he was in the back seat. But why is it that both husband and wife had trouble with a 'jammed door', when there are two doors, one for either side of the front seats? Very very strange, as strange as the handkerchief or paper under the soldier's right knee and the curious lighting. Know how long it would take a young dad to dive into the back seat and grab his son as he got out of the car in a situation of threat? About3 seconds. No, the two parents struggled with 'one' of the two doors in the front as their kid managed to open by himself the back door, get out and toddle away. Sure. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What is also strange is that she says she was panicked, sirens going off,jammed doors, rockets coming in,people running for the shelter but she stops to take a picture. GGranddad (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I personally like this picture. There are countless other pictures of people flying on the floor between their cars or taking shelter in staircases inside buildings, but this shows the human element. If there is still a consensus against this picture with valid reference - sure, let's replace it with any of the boring ones.
@GGranddad and Nishidani: No mention of running to a shelter anywhere. "Jammed" probably means "didn't open on the first try". The instructions for alarm while driving is to stop the car, exit it and lay on the floor. Depending on their location, they had between 15 seconds and 2 minutes. She probably panicked about her kid running off by himself, so once she saw him safe she could take the picture. Objectively, lying down doesn't reduce the danger by much. Whenever the alarm caught me in the middle of the road I stopped the car, exited it but remained standing up and looked for a smoke trail in the sky. If I'd seen something as interesting I would've surely try to take a picture. This is probably where most of the published pictures of Iron Dome interceptions (smoke trail ending with a little cloud) came from. WarKosign (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Your disingenuousness began when in reply to Kingsindian's question you wrote above:

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

Out of courtesy I did not note immediately that 2 weeks ago you asked me why I removed the picture, on my talk page. I duly replied with details and a reference to the fact it had been discussed. You did not reply, and it appears, just reintroduced the picture here, surreptitiously, because it did technically require that, given both the earlier discussion and my own answer, it required consensus. Bad, bad manners. The woman admits that the photo was posed, whatever the circumstances, unlike Kingsindian's alternative which is in real time.
In one version it was uploaded by the IDF in this version; it was uploaded by the mother.
If anyone can make sense of the sequence of events in this they are better readers of narrative sequence than me.
(a)It happened yesterday at 1pm, Lee Aviv Dadon – 34 year old, and her husband Barak drove with their child, 4.5 years old, when suddenly an alarm went off, the door was jammed and the parents panicked. Yair managed to get out of the car through another door, and then the couple witnessed an emotional sight, home front command officers grabbed and embraced the son to protect him. The mother took footage of the incident and uploaded the picture, which caused a lot of positive feedback.
(b)“As we entered our neighborhood in Rehovot the alarm went off.” Said Dadon. “We stopped at the side of the road, a vehicle in front of us also stopped, and 4 officers from the home front command exited the vehicle, and instead of protecting themselves they protected my son.” Her husband took the baby out of the car, and asked her wife to help Yair out of the car. “Everyone were hiding in cover, it was very stressful while I struggled with the car door, and when he ran for cover. I suddenly saw two home front command soldiers embracing him, it was simply amazing, and I asked them for permission to photo the moment.” The soldiers who do not know the family, simply acted on instinct to protect the child, and even after the alarm they spoke with the child to make sure he is relaxed and calm. “I thanked them, I was really emotional, Yair was calm”. Immediately after the event, she knew she has to do something, and uploaded the picture, “I wanted everyone to see the true face of our moral and human(e) soldiers who protect other(s) instead of themselves.”
In (b), the husband is outside the car with another baby, and asks his wife to get out of the car to look after Yair. The wife has her door stuck, and doesn't think of getting out of the other. The husband lets Yair wander off. Soldiers protect the child. The mother, with sirens screaming, thinks, 'what a lovely shot' and asks them to 'photo the moment'. I.e. the siren's blaring, her husband is somewhere with their baby, and she asks them to hold the pose. Even that is an admission that the photo is posed, and is not an incidental snap of something as it occurred (she asked permission, as the siren blared, as missiles could be striking etc.) and, obtaining it, calmly took the shot. Pull the other one. None of this makes sense, but even if it is just a confused woman, she admits the snap we have is one that was posed for once she obtained permission.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

@WarKosign: Unfortunately, it is clear to me that no matter what argument I give, you will not agree. So no point in arguing further. I will just note that the picture had been removed earlier and was put back without discussion. This is not the correct way to do it. One is supposed to present arguments for adding disputed content, and failing a consensus, either start an RfC or some other method for adding it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I am not sure if there is a policy based argument for "unusual pictures" as this is very subjective perception. Most of the pictures here are quiet extraordinary and have high probability of being taken exactly because of this reason.--Tritomex (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

What is the policy based argument for removing this picture? Because I do not see any.--Tritomex (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: Policy based argument is simple. Use independent sources, like Reuters, when you can. This is not to say that the other points I raised are not important. Kingsindian (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
WarKosign. The photo we have is not of what actually happened; by the woman's own account, something of this kind happened, and she asked permission to to photograph it, and the soldiers agreed and posed for the photo. It doesn't matter that something like this might have occurred. As anyone with an eye for these things knows, the body positions are all posed. Secondly the woman's photo was uploaded to make a point about the IDF. So it restaged an act and was uploaded to make a propaganda point. Misplaced Pages has zero tolerance of using its mainspace to make propaganda. As Kingsindian notes there are numerous photos of people fleeing or ducking under sirens, and this is not acceptable, as was your behaviour in ignoring editorial concerns. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are hyperenthused about the photo and want it to stick, get a RfC on its inclusion. That is standard procedure.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)to th
Just by way of noting a coincidence, an identical incident occurred yesterday. Instead of a mortar or siren, a couple and their baby child from an area notorious for the most vicious settlement policies and apartheid, the South Hebron Hills, specifically from Beit Yatir(Ariel Bardi, +972 magazine, March 20, 2012) had their car hit in a rock assault. Succour came from other Palestinians who happened to be passing by, who picked up the child and held him while the others extricated the family. No photo op of course: Palestinians do not belong to an army noted for its purity of arms. (Akiva Novick, Palestinians rescue settlers after West Bank attack Ynet 25 August 2014)
@Nishidani: As I already wrote, I agree that I should not have restored the picture when there was consensus on removing it. I expected to see a notice when I got a reply, did not remember whom I asked so I did not check your talk page. Indeed bad manners on my side and I apologize. However, the consensus was based on the assumption that this is a staged IDF photo. We already established that this photo is not by IDF. You are insisting that the author admits staging it. Can you please refer to the quote ? Everything I've read so far says that it was on the spur of a moment. Your analysis of body language or who left the car through which door is pure original research.
The news item - nice, too bad (but understandable) that there is no picture, and of course not relevant to the current article. Maybe you can add it to the general Israel-Palestinian conflict. It's nice to see that some Palestinians don't let their hatred strong (and sometimes justified) dislike of Israelis prevent them from doing the decent thing. I wonder what was there first, attempts to murder drivers by throwing boulders on moving cards, or separate "apartheid" road network. WarKosign (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It's nice to see that some Palestinians don't let their hatred strong (and sometimes justified) dislike of Israelis prevent them from doing the decent thing
(Not relevant to article but that's an disreputable piece of comment, implying there are 'most Palestinians who do' and 'some who' don't, let a putative universal hatred of Israelis, influence them. People who hate, hurt. People who don't hate, settlers included, do the right thing, and that has nothing to do with ethnic origin. I.e.Meir Yehoshua from Kfar Etzion did the same kind of gesture for the Abu Jayada family back in 2012 when their car was firebombed from Bat Ayin.) Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
My analysis is commonsense, and is confirmed by what the photographer says, which is that she saw a scene of IDF soldiers with her child, and got out her camera and asked them if she could take a shot. That translates as restaging an incident, and posing for a photo, not 'on the spur of the moment'. The fact that it might have been taken in those circumstances is irrelevant. The positioning of the soldiers and the boy perfects corroborates that it is a posed shot, since as numerous comments have remarked, you do not in standard procedure in Israel protect children that say (he is not protected). It can't be used because of these significant and confessed facts.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Asking for permission to take a picture and re-staging it is not the same thing. A 4.5 year old isn't likely to co-operate with a staged photo. Anyway, since there is no overwhelming support for my position I switched to the oneKingsindian offerd. WarKosign (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Training manual

The training manual which Israel says was written by Hamas is mentioned in two places in this article (Ctrl-F "manual" and you'll find them). Only in the second place is it mentioned that Hamas has called the manual a forgery. It seems unideal to have two paragraphs in two places about this minor object, and less ideal to include Hamas' response in old only one of those places. -sche (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC) typofix 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: You are correct, I added the (chronologically) second mention of the manual without noticing it was already there. Now I unified the two mentions removing duplications. Feel free to copyedit, my English is far from perfect. WarKosign (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! And, speaking of English skills that aren't perfect — I just noticed a typo in my original post. :P -sche (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

972mag.com is a blog site

@GGranddad: in your edit you used a blog site as a source.

"+972 is a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of journalists, bloggers and photographers whose goal is to provide fresh, original, on-the-ground reporting and analysis of events in Israel and Palestine. Our collective is committed to human rights and freedom of information, and we oppose the occupation. However, +972 Magazine does not represent any organization, political party or specific agenda."

This is a very severe case, if it is true surely there are better sources. WarKosign (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree its WP:UNDUE to use such sources.If it was really important we would see it in mainstream media--Shrike (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is a better source. The Israeli response should be included. Kingsindian (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Another good reason that such sources are better as it at least tries to give all sides of the story including some doubts about the truthfulness of the report.--Shrike (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two sources there for that story and both are good.One is Defense for Children International and NGO and the other one is +927, funny how you do not mention the other source. I could have just put it in with one source but I used two.GGranddad (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not know what the general opinion here is about using 972mag. The reason Israeli response was not included in that piece is given there +972 has approached the IDF spokesperson for comment, which will be added once it is received. As far as I can see, nothing in the piece is factually untrue. The NYT article is quite recent, a day or so old. Kingsindian (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: Usually, one should not use WP:PRIMARY sources for reporting incidents. So DCI is not a good source by itself. Using secondary source is the preferred practice on WP, to establish notability. Attributing the claim to DCI, as you did, is good when using primary sources. Kingsindian (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the NYT report DCI are not the primary source for this, it was reported on Palestine today website and picked up by another NGO from Geneva,Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights.Their report is here . It includes another couple of cases as well.GGranddad (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Blogs are WP:SPS are not acceptable as WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, not quite. Your eye for 'policy' is limited to a dislike slant, Shrike, for you have ignored numerous uses of sources in the article that might be queried on the same grounds (predominantly Israeli fringe sources). Just noting that it has a blog in the link address means nothing. This an numerous other articles created recently refer to blogs (JPost,The Times of Israel, Haaretz, etc.
Not to speak of numerous things that anyone might contest as RS
It depends therefore. I used to believe that, but now believe there are 'blogs', subjective opinionizing sites, and informal groups of journalists of considerable competence, and a career background in mainstream journalism, who provide much of what the mainstream misses. +972 certainly gives opinions, but it also is an extremely useful reference for summaries of Israel press information not translated into English. Mondoweiss for example has had very good coverage at times of key events unreported and intelligent editing should look to each case, and not wave a general rule.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Both +972 and Mondoweiss are highly partisan activist sources that have and should be avoided. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I could say the same thing about all the Jewish websites used on here by pro Israeli supporters.Are we going to get rid of all of them as well? Plus fake terrorist info sites?GGranddad (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
+972 journalists have had their work published in many main stream media outlets including NYT, Washington Post,The Guardian, Haaretz,Reuters,Huffington Post,Le Monde and CNN.Hardly fringe stuff in my book.The people publishing on +972 are professional journalists who have worked for big name newspapers.GGranddad (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Blogs which are run by otherwise reliable news sites are often reliable. That is not a blanket statement of acceptance for all blogs. Per WP:BLPSPS "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." 972 clearly fails this standard as their own website reads "We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels. Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole" and "+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine." further they specifically say they print articles from unsolicited submissions. The NYT also covered the story, use that. and keep it in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Use both. The New York Times has placed the Golan Heights in Israel. They just put an Israeli demographer on the payroll (Arnon Soffer)who wrote that:-

When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.”

If the audience is middle class the NYTs is not reliable. If the audience is the readership of The New York Review of Books, it is highly reliable because it contains the best Israeli reportage, of the kind you get often also in +972.

Proper place for numbers of rockets fired/destroyed and hamas military claims

Currently this outdated information resides in Israeli casualties section, where it definitely doesn't belong.

Number of rockets fired on Israel could go into impact on residents, but what about rockets destroyed/remaining in posession of Hamas ? Similar statistics of numbers of IDF attacks can also be added. Timeline section or article don't fit since this information is a summary, not time specific. Do we want a new section for military statistics ? WarKosign (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Human shields redux

(Unarchiving from talk page)

@Spud770: Regarding your edit here. As I explained in my edit summary, this is duplication and too categorical a statement. The "human shields" claim is heavily contested and therefore has a big section just below discussing all the claims. All the points made in your references, including the Hamas leader's statement are discussed there. All such claims must be attributed and discussed, as is done in the section (Israel, Hamas, UN, EU, etc.) As to activists, that is quite a separate matter. This section is about involuntary human shielding, say by Hamas and others, which is a violation of international humanitarian law. This is totally different from voluntary acts by international activists. Kingsindian (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This section is not (only) about involuntary human shields; it is about Hamas encouraging civilians to act as human shields, essentially as voluntary shields. The sources all refer to both the citizens and the activists as voluntary "human shields." If there are other reliable sources contesting the existence of voluntary human shields let them be provided.
The existence of voluntary human shields is also important as it relates to civilian deaths. Spud770 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Spud770: As I have said already, the claim about Hamas encouraging civilians is already present in the section. And, as I also said already, this is a contested claim and a categorical statement like "civilians acted as human shields" is not correct. As to the activists, you may have noticed the title of this section namely "Violations of international humanitarian law" (IHL). Voluntary acts by activists do not come under this, nor is any source provided which claims this violates IHL. Kingsindian (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The sources all say that civilians acted as human shields. This has nothing to do with Hamas and it is not a contested claim. If you believe it is, please bring other sources. You are correct that volunteering as a human shield is not a violation of IHL. The sub-section is titled "Civilian deaths," even though civilian deaths are not necessarily a violation of IHL either. But the existence of human shields relates directly to civilian deaths is important to include in the article. Spud770 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Spud770:
  • The section on human shields discusses other sources. There are contestations about what counts as human shielding, and whether there was indeed human shielding. As regards to what counts as human shielding, there are issues regarding forcing or urging people to stay in their homes, or firing rockets from near civilian structures etc. These claims are all discussed in the section, all sourced. You can see this.
  • As regards the civilian deaths, you are correct that the relation of human shields to civilian deaths should be presented. Therefore, there is a huge subsection about "human shields" within the "civilian deaths" section.Kingsindian (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Still, the issue of voluntary human shields is quite clear from the sources and deserves mention. It should not be conflated with the issue of urged or forced human shields, which is indeed contested. Spud770 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Spud770: You are not correct that the voluntary human shields has not been contested. For example, the first source quoted refers to the Kaware family, which was investigated by B'Tselem here, which states that it was not a voluntary human shield, but an inadvertent or careless use of an airstrike. This has already been discussed on the talk page (search for human shields in the talk page archives, there is a big discussion and RfC on this). The international activists are quite a separate case, as I mentioned, but as far as I know, none of them have been killed, so their relevance to civilian deaths is dubious. However, I agree on one point, that the heading "civilian deaths" is a bit awkward, because civilian deaths are not by themselves violations of IHL. There have been some other discussions about how to reorganize this section, see discussion here, which was inconclusive but suggestive. Kingsindian (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
B'tselem's account does not appear to contradict what is mentioned in the many NPOV news sources cited in my edit (and there are more) that people willingly used themselves as human shields. (I don't see where B'tselem refers to that event as an 'inadvertent or careless airstrike' either.)
If you wish to separate 'civilian' volunteers from 'activist' volunteers, I have no problem with that (though I question the necessity). Re. the previous discussions on the talk pages: as far as I see, they only dealt with involuntary human shields. The issue of voluntary human shields was never raised in the talk pages nor mentioned in the article, which is why I added it. Spud770 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I should add that there are many other issues with this supposed "human shielding". These are all discussed in an RfC on this. For example, homes are not considered military targets, a point the B'Tselem report also makes. So the claim of "human shielding" does not apply in many cases (including the Kaware case). These are all issues to be considered. Just because an ill-informed reporter calls it "human shielding" does not make it so. Reporters are not known to be international humanitarian law experts. Kingsindian (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Human shielding has a very specific legal definition. I believe that the first sentence in the "human shields" section ("Civilians and activists in Gaza have used themselves as 'human shields' in attempts to prevent Israeli attacks") should be altered or rephrased in some way. The term must be used with caution(similar to words like "torture" and "genocide). The ICRC defines it as "using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations". Stress the word "using". The ICRC concludes that "the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.". Civilians and activists putting themselves in harms way on their own accord is not human shielding unless their presence is being deliberately used by Hamas. It does not constitute a war crime if its not deliberate, and therefore can not be categorized as a form of human shielding.
If a group of civilians decide to voluntarily decide to stay near military as deterrents but Hamas has nothing to do with it then that cannot be defined as human shielding, and human rights organizations concur with me on this point.
Of course, if you disagree with my interpretation or you have separate reliable sources, such as judgements made by legal scholars, that groups of civilians voluntarily staying in combat zones constitutes "human shielding", feel free to bring it up. JDiala (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@JDiala: You are correct in your assessment, in my view. However, I wonder if you have read the above discussion (quite long I know, not blaming you for tl;dr) in which I make the same points, and the reply by Spud770 was that "voluntary human shielding" (very bad term, in my view) should be included because of the section is called "civilian deaths". I do not accept this argument. Kingsindian (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Yes, I agree with you. I thought I'd just bring some sources in. The term "voluntary" human shielding has no relevance as a legal term; it's more of an emotive propaganda thing to portray Hamas as something its not. In my view, the term human shielding has two very different interpretations. One is the legal and scholarly interpretation. The other is the journalistic interpretation thrown around on the internet and media, often accompanied by the defamation of Hamas. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and it must abide by encyclopedic standards; therefore I believe the former interpretation is the one we should consistently abide by. That would mean the near-total removal of the term "human shield", "voluntary" or not, unless it's used in a secondary context (for example, "Israel claims Hamas is using human shields"), because the UN, human rights organizations and other reputable sources have failed to find conclusive evidence as of yet that Hamas has a policy of deliberately using human shields, which would, of course, be the legal definition and also constitute a war crime under IHR. JDiala (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@JDiala: @Kingsindian: Apologies for the delayed response. A Google search of "voluntary human shields" will reveal several legal articles on this subject - this is not a propaganda term. While the status of voluntary human shields in international law is disputed, their existence is not. The news sources cited and many other articles make that clear. Spud770 (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Spud770: This is not good enough, I'm afraid. As I mentioned, the sources listed are only a reporter reporting Israeli claims or making an informal claim which carries little weight. And as I mentioned, there are serious doubts about the Kaware family. And one should keep in mind WP:BURDEN. It is not up to me to give legal sources directly addressing these incidents. The only legal source (B'Tselem) does not support it. The statement as it currently stands is not correct and should be removed, at least while we discuss this. I am not able to revert, because of 1RR restrictions in this area. Kingsindian (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
CNN, Newsweek, and Middle East Monitor sources are not reporting Israeli claims, they are simply stating the existence of voluntary human shields. Nothing in the B'tzelem account contradicts the media reports. Your objections sound like WP:IJDLI. If you have a reliable source that voluntary human shields have not been used in this conflict, by all means bring it. Otherwise the statement should stay. Spud770 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Spud770: Unfortunately, the discussion has gone nowhere, and you have neither listened to any of my arguments, nor removed the edit while we discussed, nor incorporated anything into the text which provides a contrary viewpoint to the bald statement that "civilians and activists used themselves as human shields". In these circumstances, I have no choice but to apply WP:WIKILAWYERING. Since I had reverted the edit in the beginning, per WP:STATUSQUO, you were wrong to reinstate it wholesale unless there is consensus. I ask that you remove it and find consensus, either by opening an RfC or some other method. Kingsindian (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Secondary sources are preferable. Spud770 is right on this issue. CNN, Newsweek, and Middle East Monitor are reliable sources. B'Tselem is an NGO and not legal source.--Tritomex (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Claims of blockade legality that are not in the source and other POV claims from BG sections

a) The Haaretz source nowhere claims that "most of international bodies" see the blockade as illegal, it cites few. So this is WP:OR

b) Flailed to address WP:NPOV as opposite views on legality, and there are many, are not mentioned --Tritomex (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

c) Hamas mounted a counter-coup?

d) The US tried to undone results of elections--This is POV.--Tritomex (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: (a) and (b) The Haaretz source is not meant to establish that claim. See WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. The statement "most international bodies" see the blockade as illegal is a summary from the lead and body of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article. I have no idea who wrote the other page, but the page I mentioned is much more comprehensive. Almost nobody considers the entire blockade to be legal. There was just one UN report, the Palmer report, which found (only the naval) blockade to be legal. There are tons of reports on the other side which declare the naval blockade illegal. So the statement is a correct summary.
(c) and (d) These come from the Nathan Thrall reference and David Rose reference, as cited. Not sure what is POV there. Kingsindian (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This not simple calculation like the policy say you should find a source that explictly says that also this goes against the policy becouse it does advance a certain position.--Shrike (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This is original research, as no source for such claim exists in any of this sources. There are opinions that see it as illegal and other that does not see it as illegal. However claiming that "most international institutions" are saying this, is done solely through self counting=original research. You used for example this source , an internationally recognized expert, Spelman E, 'The Legality of the Israeli Blockade of the Gaza Strip', for another claim. She finds the blockade legal. Many other similar views can be red from other experts so self made calculations can not be used as a sources for controversial claims, reliable secondary sources are needed to back such counting.Tritomex (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Another term can be used then if "most international bodies" term is not acceptable. How about the UN, Red Cross and 50 Human rights orgs believe the blockade to be illegal?

In June 2012, a group of 50 international aid agencies, including the World Health Organization and Oxfam, called on Israel to lift its siege and blockade of Gaza, stating:

'For over five years in Gaza, more than 1.6 million people have been under blockade in violation of international law. More than half of these people are children. We the undersigned say with one voice: "end the blockade now."'. GGranddad (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex and Shrike: I have added the Richard Falk reference about the "overwhelming consensus". Kingsindian (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You can't use source that doesn't even mention the topic of the article its WP:UNDUE and WP:OR in context of 2014 conflict.--Shrike (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Shrike: I do not understand your point. The reference is meant to establish illegality of blockade. It of course cannot refer to the 2014 conflict, since it was written before 2014. How else can I talk about the legality of the blockade without having a source which discusses it? Kingsindian (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:This is solely policy based argument. Richard Falk a) does not even mention "international institutions" and his view would not represent the view of majority of international institutions, anyway. Reliable secondary source which states that the majority of international institutions are saying that the maritime blockade is illegal under international law is needed. Otherwise, this is WP:OR. I have 10 sources claiming that the blockade is not illegal but its not upon me to conclude that this 10 sources are representing the majority f international institutions.--Tritomex (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have already provided a source that 50 humanitarian orgs state that the blockade is illegal, as in against the law plus the UN and the Red Cross. You can use that one if you want to but please do not ask for one when obviously one has been presented to you Tritomex.Also, what are your 10 sources?Let's see them. GGranddad (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Aid agencies are not experts on international law, there are thousands of aid agencies around the world 50 or any number of aid agencies claim can not be translated into "majority of international institutions" without original research.Tritomex (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the Red Cross are experts on International Law being as they deal with the Geneva convention plus Amnesty and others are also experts on International law. Face it,many orgs believe that the blockade is illegal, that is a fact. I am still waiting to see your 10 that believe it is not.GGranddad (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok so the Red Cross has such opinion. We do not discuss here what each of this agencies claimed. Here are dozens of legal experts that claims that the blockade is legal ], although this is also unimportant. The only question is that there is no source to backup the claim that the "majority of international institutions" are saying that the blockade is illegal. We do not discuss the legality of the blockade, but the lack of source that states that the "majority of international institutions " claims that the blockade is illegal. There is no a single reliable secondary source saying this.Tritomex (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not count 10 in your link, I count none actually, they are all wording their replies very carefully and all are dodging the Geneva convention obviously, also I would not believe anything Alan Dervershits has to say, he has been turned over so many times by everyone.If you do not like the term majority of International institutions then that can be changed to hundreds of NGO's, the Red Cross, various UN agencies and uncle tom cobley and all think the blockade is illegal because they do actually think that.I think you are just being picky because of your political stance. The actual phrase that is there now is pretty much backed up by the sources.You really cannot change facts.GGranddad (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: You are looking at the wrong page. They are assessing the flotilla raid, not the blockade. I have asked you to look at the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article, which is much more comprehensive. If you have an alternative phrasing, which shows the disparity of the two viewpoints (as WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE) requires, please give it. I can use "most international law experts" instead of "most international institutions" if you prefer that. The Israeli argument that Gaza is a "hostile territory" is already presented. @GGranddad:: a bit less of WP:BATTLEGROUND please. To everyone: I would be happy with any phrase that reflects the "overwhelming consensus" as Falk puts it. I have not done any WP:OR. See WP:SS and WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. I obviously cannot list every single institution in the world here. Kingsindian (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
As it was said do not one here talked about the blockade, and no links I have to copy&paste here this views.

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of International Law and Diplomacy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that under the law of armed conflict, which would be in effect given Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel and Israel's responses, Israel has "a right to prevent even neutrals from shipping arms to ". Eric Posner, international law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, noting that the raid had "led to wild accusations of illegality", wrote that blockades are lawful during times of armed conflict (such as the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War), and that "war-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas". He compared Israel's blockade to the Union blockade by the Union against the Confederacy (a non-state) during the U.S. Civil War. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the legitimacy of that blockade.

Philip Roche, a partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with the London-headquartered international law firm Norton Rose, also said: "On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza, and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal." The basis for that is the law of blockade, derived from international law that was codified in the 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, and which was then updated in 1994 in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea--"a legally recognized document". He addressed the charge by Human Rights Watch that the blockade of a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against civilians, ostensibly violating Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention, by saying "This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanctions are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own."

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

Having announced its blockade, Israel had no obligation to take the ships’ crew at their word as to the nature of the cargo. The blockading party has the right to fashion the arrangements, including search at a nearby port, under which passage of humanitarian goods is permitted.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel has a right to know – they're at war with Hamas – has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. It's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping ... 3,000 rockets on my people.'"


Alan Dershowitz, professor of Law at Harvard Law School, wrote that the legality of blockades as a response to acts of war “is not subject to serious doubt.” He likened Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza to U.S. naval actions in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which the U.S. had deemed lawful though not part of an armed conflict. I will add more sources later More sources> New York Times UN report Gaza blockade legal ] another view on UN report ] The report takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza. “Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the report says in its opening paragraphs. “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.” The Washington Post ] in the article titled The world discovers the legality of the Gaza blockade says When Israel interdicted a Turkish flotilla seeking to break the Gaza blockade, many international law groups called the blockade illegal. The famous Goldstone Commission report of the year before had similar conclusions. On the other hand, the United Nations’ Palmer Commission Report concluded the blockade was legal. Tritomex (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So, to return to the topic, the question here is the source. There are many opinions about the legality of the blockade and the only way how we, as Misplaced Pages editors can claim, that the overwhelming majority or most of institutions, or legal experts are supporting one or another view is through reliable secondary sources. If Richard Falk is given weight on this subject, other opposite views should be mentioned as well. This is the essence of WP:RS. If there is a majority and minority opinion, both has to be mentioned. I am not sure what is the majority opinion especially as I have found that the UN report found the blockade legal under international law. More so, in this case we do not have even a source that claims anything similar to what has been written in the article. So in my opinion this is WP:OR--Tritomex (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You could try and add some sources that actually state the blockade is legal because none of your sources say that, they say a lot of things and skirt around the subject a fair bit but apart from that,not that convincing.Where as many orgs have come out and stated that the blockade is illegal and presented the law that it is illegal under and that is the Geneva convention, all your so called experts have all ignored the Geneva convention because they know that they cannot argue against it being as Israel is punishing the whole population of Gaza, which makes their blockade illegal.You have a few individual people, we have the UN, Red Cross,Amnesty,HRW and many many many more who state that the blockade is illegal.GGranddad (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Tritomex I will repeat some of my points. Firstly, you have confuse the naval blockade with the total blockade, by looking at the wrong page. Secondly, for any position, you can find people supporting or opposing it. One does not need to present fringe viewpoints in a one sentence summary. Thirdly, who knew Joe Biden was an international law expert? Alan Dershowitz is not one either.
It is clear to me, however, that whatever arguments I give, you will not agree. I suggest you use the WP:DRN or some other mechanism. I will gladly give comments there. Kingsindian (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, they are maybe not experts on international law, but still I have just one basic question, as it is obvious that this question is disputed, Where is the source that the majority of world institutions are considering the blockade as illegal?--Tritomex (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: I have already suggested that I can change it to the phrasing used by Falk, namely that there is an "overwhelming consensus" among "qualified international law experts". Any other phrasing, which reflects the disparity of viewpoints is also acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Please provide me link to Falk claim, as I am not sure that we are speaking about same issue, and if you have any source regarding the disparity of viewpoints, I would be thankful.--Tritomex (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: Source Quote: "In other words, the Palmer Report seems to seriously fault the manner in which the Israeli enforced the blockade, but unfortunately upheld the underlying legality of both the blockade and the right of enforcement. And that is the rub. Such a conclusion contradicted the earlier finding of a more expert panel established by the Human Rights Council, and also rejected the overwhelming consensus that had been expressed by qualified international law specialists on these core issues." Further down: "But to be satisfactory, the report had to interpret the legal issues in a reasonable and responsible manner. This meant, above all else, that the underlying blockade imposed more than four years ago on the 1.6 million Palestinians living in Gaza was unlawful, and should be immediately lifted." Kingsindian (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry but this is evident that this source has nothing to do do with the claim in the text. This is Falk response to UN finding that the blockade is legal according to the intel law. You insist to include the response of Falk, but you are denying the UN official report to be included?--Tritomex (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tritomex: I have already kept the Palmer report in the references. The Palmer report was not set up to examine matters of law. Even assuming it was, the Palmer report only ruled the naval blockade legal. Its findings were contradicted by a UNHRC report as well as an independent UN panel of five experts, led by Falk. As regards the overall blockade, the Red Cross, UNHRC, UN Goldstone report, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the panel of five I mentioned above, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (and many others, a long list) all consider it to be illegal. The phrasing "most consider it illegal" in a one sentence summary is appropriate here. I have already answered the rest of your points above. As I said already, it is clear to me that no arguments I give will convince you. I suggest you find other means of dispute resolution. Kingsindian (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. Cite error: The named reference OCHA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Arnaout, Abdel-Raouf (9 July 2014). "From 'Shield' to 'Edge': How Israel names its military ops". Anadolu Agency. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
  3. Ghert-Zand, Renee (9 July 2014). "Name 'Protective Edge' doesn't cut it". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  4. Kordova, Shoshana (19 July 2014). "Why is the English name of Operation Protective Edge so different from the Hebrew version?". Haaretz.
  5. "Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". ICRC. Retrieved 20 August 2014.
  6. "Rule 97. Human Shields". ICRC. Retrieved 20 August 2014.
  7. Cite error: The named reference autogenerated2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Posner, Eric (June 4, 2010). "The Gaza Blockade and International Law: Israel's position is reasonable and backed by precedent" (Subscription only). Opinion. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  9. ^ "Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?". Reuters. 2 June 2010.
  10. ^ Canada (May 31, 2010). "Israel's naval blockade pitches and rolls with the Law of the Sea". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
  11. Egelko, Bob (June 5, 2010). "Israel's Gaza blockade legal, many scholars say". Sfgate.com. Retrieved June 6, 2010.
  12. ^ Dershowitz, Alan (June 1, 2010). "Israel obeyed international law: Legally, the Gaza flotilla conflict is an open-and-shut case". New York Daily News. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

Concerns about manipulation of Misplaced Pages - exposed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Media_coverage

"In Israel, according to Naomi Chazan, the Gaza war has sparked "an equally momentous conflagration at the heart of Israeli society": attempts to question government policy have been met with severe verbal and physical harassment, incidents of Arab-bashing occur daily, and 90% of internet posts on the war are racist or constitute incitement." --- This is a lie! The Times of Israel article cited says 45%, NOT 90!!!! Even an Iranian like me can see the blatant Electronic Intifada infiltration of Misplaced Pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.39.2 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The source says "many of these are recorded by the Coalition against Racism, which reports that fully 45% of the posts on the war are racist and an additional 45% constitute incitement". I'm guessing they just combined the 45 and 45 and got 90. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
So this is WP:OR racism or (incitement) can not be categorized as same, added together in original research. Incitement can be directed against racist for example.Tritomex (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Naomy Hazan is not notable by name but as a representative of the 'New Israel' NGO. There should probably be an NGO section in the article since there's just so god-damn many of them (a gazzillibillion!) vying for attention and funding. I'm also not sure her political NGO can be used for statistics (read: mangled-up heuristics), but we've allowed so many others', so it requires a wider debate. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone want to change the clearly racist headline of this section? Racism is unwelcome on wikipedia, I believe.GGranddad (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a fan of such plastering titles, I went bold and changed it. No one, btw, uses a term 'paly' as a pejorative (there's plenty of other stuff that's used) -- but I figured, this change is better to focus on the "damning" concerns about NGO silliness (which is indeed a problem). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"the majority of whom were Palestinian civilians"

incorrect; source needed. are you at all aware that hamas activists run around in civilian cloths? when they are killed, most of them are simply tagged as civilians by the government - hamas themselfs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.81.109 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no argument (I hope) that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians. Percent of the civilians among them is disputed and may be bellow 50%, so I changed the statement to say that most of the casualties are Palestinians without referring to their militant vs civilian status here. WarKosign (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: The source you added says "mostly civilians", it doesn't says that they were mostly Palestinian civilians. Please add a source that actually backs up the claim you insist on making. WarKosign (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, according to this, if you apply a simple WP:CALC, percent of civilian palestinians is 49.53%, which is not a majority. WarKosign (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's either 49.53% or 50.9%, they give both 2200 and 2140 as number of casualties. Anyway, I suggest not going into the percent of civilians vs militants in the opening paragraph. WarKosign (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I added more links.GGranddad (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
One of them actually says that the majority or the people killed in Gaza were Palestinian Civilians. The article speaks about people killed in general, including in Israel - so the source still doesn't back up the claim completely. I would rather keep the lead paragraph undisputable, without the need to present different viewpoints. The fact that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians can't be disputed. Percent of civilians can, especially as final numbers will arrive from the different organizations. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually two of them state that and they were.The percentage of civilians is only disputed by Israel. I see no need to remove well sourced factual information, the sources back up what has been written in the article.GGranddad (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Best I am aware, the statistics on age group casualty rates was not the work of Israel. Do you have a source saying otherwise? Here's one not presented by Israel: MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC) added BBC MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Then that makes them civilians. Regardless if whether or not they are politically associated with Hamas, so long as they don't engage in hostilities, they are considered civilians. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/03/qa-2014-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas; "...mere membership or affiliation with Hamas, which is a political entity with an armed component, is not a sufficient basis for determining an individual to be a lawful military target. Israel’s labeling of certain individuals as “terrorists” does not make them military targets as a matter of law, so attacks on such persons may be deliberate attacks on civilians or indiscriminate on the grounds that there was no military target, in violation of the laws of war." JDiala (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I added that statement. In the sidebar are statistics from five different organisations, four of which agree that the majority of Palestinian casualities have been civilians, and the fifth of which, the IDF, gives a ratio of civilians to militants of around 50% (and I don't think it would be controversial to note that they're likely to be biased). If you think the statistics in the sidebar are in dispute, despite the numerous sources there, then they should be addressed there; I merely amended the phrasing to reflect the statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if its better to mention the civilian issue in the first para or not. I'm sure anti-Israelis would love to present it as if ALL the deaths are peace negotiators... but, really, since that's disputed -- including whether or not a Hamas "politician" is considered a legitimate target or not (all due respect to supreme court judge NGO extraordinaire HRW). What do mainstream sources use? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to a serious institute's research: . Based on their fact finding, which is a much more serious process than repeating the Hamas-Healthcare/Muqawama-Foreign-PR-department line and chanting "illegal!!!!", I'd be hard pressed to accept NGO vying for notability being pushed forward, even if there are a gazzilibillion of them. On point -- what do proper analysts have to say about the lists? OK. NGOs too, but gropu them together if they just repeat Muqawama-FPR numbers without looking into them. Sure reminds me of the Jenin "Massacre". Has anyone seen the short (10 min) movie The Truth - by Scandar Copti & Rabih Boukhary? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I have asked you before to stop your WP:FORUMing. Kingsindian (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I don't appreciate scare tactics. Have you read that link? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The vast majority of the sources say and report that of the Palestinians killed, there were overwhelmingly civilians killed and that shouldn't be ignored just because Israel and a few others disputes it. The last view is also in the table and relevants parts but otherwise, the first thing should be accepted as a fact. With regards to the table, it's also weird that IDF's claims about militants killed are there but the ones by Hamas about Israelis killed have been removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM and AcidSnow: The majority view (based on reports of the Hamas controlled ministry of health) is that up to 80% of the casualties were civilians. There is also a minority view that up to 50% of the casualties where in fact militants. Both views are represented both in the infobox and in the casualties reports table. We could present both views in the first paragraph of the lead, or we could avoid the disputable topic and leave only short summary of indisputable information in the lead. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not only figures by the administration in Gaza and that something is disputed doesn't mean we won't report that majority of the killed were civilians, as then you give the other, in this case Israeli position, a much higher representation than it should have. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The “short summary of indisputable information” draws a false equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian deaths. Stating that “Hamas rockets and Israeli air strikes have left more than 2,000 dead” overlooks the highly pertinent point that the deaths have overwhelmingly been on one side. There is no dispute that ~95% of the deaths have been Palestinian or that ~90% of the Israeli deaths were military, and this should be reflected, at the very least. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You are correct, this is why I wrote "mostly Palestinians" and suggested to add ", many of them civilians". I believe there is no dispute that by far most of the casualties are Palestinian, only their civilian vs military status is disputed. Recently the total number of casualties increased while there was no Israeli claim of the number of dead militants, so there is no source to contradict the claim that most of the casualties are Palestinian civilians. Once/If there is such a claim, we can return to this dispute. WarKosign (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question the civilian percentages is done by much more than Israel. BBC and NYT both published research casting doubt on the Hamas numbers Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some questions but as I said, the vast majority reports that most Palestinians killed were civilians, and that is the point we should follow. If they stop believe that, then we can change it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So now WarKosign has removed that most were civilians. What we have now in the lead is that the percentage of how many were civilians is disputed, though the health ministry, UN and NGO's back it up. We are not even given an estimate anymore in the lead but just the total of Palestinian dead and that the number of civilians is disputed. The Israeli side's fatalities is given as a fact. This is a serious POV problem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the recent edits to the section. People were constantly adding more and more pf the casualties information to the lead. It was agreed to keep the lead short and simple. Either you have all the different numbers or you have none. As long as it's something in between people will keep adding the missing critical bit. WarKosign (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The sorry state of the lead -- "I told you so"

Against my insistent warning, for weeks that the lead should only include the basics, and the rest should be in the background section, people have blatantly ignored consensus and started adding stuff to the lead. As I predicted, this has meant that there is a battle on to get as much of the "Background" section into the lead as possible. Do enjoy the task of trimming the lead again. Kingsindian (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think a link to the previous version might be helpful? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph is short and to the point. I think there are only two issues to consider changing:
1. Beginning with the IDF name of the operation - some people consider the name biased and POV, so perhaps the first sentence of the article shouldn't begin with it. Then perhaps we can move the hebrew name and the literal translation into the note about the reason for changing the name during the translation - they are all not of topmost importance.
2. The issue of palestinian civilians being or not being the majority of the casualties - there is a separate thread above on this subject. After these points are somehow agreed upon, we have several more paragraphs to clean.

Second paragraph - in my opinion should be merged into background, assuming there is some material not currently in background.

Third paragraph - continuation of the background (up to August 5th). Then there is a total number of rockets/air strikes etc by both sides - should be kept, and some events from the timeline - should be merged.

Forth paragraphs - casualties and human shields, repetition of into elsewhere in the article.

Last paragraph - duplication of the info from "impact on residents".

In short, I think that after the first paragraph all we need is a short summary of major military events, and then details of the ceasefire.

WarKosign (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's much better now after a couple of edits by me and some refinement by -sche. This is the current state:

  • First paragraph - start time, IDF name of the operation, stated goals, total number of casualties with link to casualties section, claim of Palestinian civilians percent.
  • Second paragraph - short background, summary of military actions and ceasefire efforts

I suggest removing the background from the lead altogether, or more and more background will creep in as people deem this and that item critical to be mentioned as well. Summary of military actions - the numbers will probably be updated, but I think the structure is short and relevant enough. Details of failed ceasefire - I think all we need is a single sentence saying there were several failed attempts, linking to diplomatic efforts with the details

  • Third paragraph - summary of casualties and impact on residents.

I removed the casualties from the lead intending to remove detailed impact on residents as well and replace it with a link to the appropriate paragraph. -sche reasoned in the summary (and I agree with this reasoning) that it makes no sense to have relatively detailed impact without the casualties. However, I suggest to remove both from the lead and leave a single sentence linking to the detailed paragraphs. WarKosign (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to your persistent and IMO mostly correct relocation of non-vital content from the lead to the body, and my efforts in the same vein, the lead is in much better shape. I even thought about removing the "lead too long" cleanup template someone added a while ago, but I'll wait for others' input on that idea first. I do find it amusing that the article is tagged both {{Inadequate lead}} ''and'' {{lead too long}}; that seems contradictory. The former template highlights that some of the background and a basic summary of the conflict's effects should stay — in particular, IMO, the number of people killed and the amount of infrastructure destroyed should stay. (I could see removing the details on how many people were displaced, needed food aid, and took shelter in UN schools, though.) -sche (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you both, I agree that the lede is much improved. I have removed the contradictory tags. I hope this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the lead is much better than before. I have made some further changes in the lead.
  • Changed the France24 phrasing to include the ground invasion.
  • Moved all of the background together.
  • Added the non-Hamas factions before July 6. Added a BBC reference.
  • Removed the airstrike "on home..." on July 6, that is incorrect, it was not an airstrike on a home. It was a on a tunnel.
  • Changed "seven people" to "seven Hamas militants"
  • Added the date of the ground invasion, and shortened the line by wikilinking to the Palestinian tunnel warfare page.
The lead now has a good structure. 1st para: basics and casualties. 2nd para: background. 3rd para: strikes by both sides and ceasefires. 4th para: damages on both sides. Kingsindian (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not see most of the changes you wrote you did.Feel free to change the title of this section on the talk page to match the state of the lead. WarKosign (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have linked to this section in my edit summary, which will be broken if the title is changed. Also, it is best to keep this title as a reminder of what happenned (twice). Kingsindian (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: re "What happenned to the figures from the other side?": it looks like you accidentally removed them yourself in diff. I restored them and also added dates to the other statements of how many attacks had occurred. -sche (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks, regarding the other changes. The Times of Israel source is quoting the IDF. "In the course of the 50 days of the Israel-Hamas conflict, Hamas has fired 4,450 rockets and other projectiles at Israel, the army says." Kingsindian (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, how did I miss that? Clearly I need to drink some more coffee before I continue editing... -sche (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to trim a bit more background out of the second paragraph, leaving only the "most immediate" items, viz. the beginning of the rocket fire by non-Hamas factions, the airstrike on Khan Yunis and the beginning of the rocket fire by Hamas. Diff. Let me know what you think; I am happy to undo that edit if it is not seen as an improvement. But if the edit is undone, redo the small typofix of "on Hamas on the West Bank"→"on Hamas in the West Bank" that was part of it. -sche (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Beit Hanoun photo

@WarKosign: Regarding your edit. WP:NPOV does not mean a mechanical application of "one for this side and one for that". Given the different impacts on the two sides, it is hardly WP:UNDUE to have three photos on the Palestinian side vs two on the Israeli side. The Beit Hanoun photo is meant to illustrate the statement in the section "Beit Hanoun, with 70% of its housing stock damaged, is considered uninhabitable, with 30,000 residents there in need of accommodation." If you are concerned that there are two photos of Beit Hanoun, I suggest that two photos from the "Timeline" section be removed. There are too many photos there anyway. Lastly, please be careful about WP:1RR, though your earlier revert was arguably reverting vandalism.Kingsindian (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Removal of the old Beit Hanoun photo was not a revert since it was not the same photo you added. They are very similar so I don't see point to have two similar images of the same subject near each other. For timeline ideally we need images of both sides in action - there is plenty of photos of IDF soldiers, but probably no photos of Hamas militants firing rockets from their typical sites. WarKosign (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: As I said, if you want to remove a photo, remove the one in the timeline section. (Remove two actually, so that there is no implication of favouring one side). The photo in the impacts section is directly illustrating a statement about the Beit Hanoun housing stock. By the way, I added the old Beit Hanoun photo as well. Kingsindian (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas claims of Israeli soldiers killed? Really?

Is Misplaced Pages a joke now? For real? "Hamas: 1000 soldiers killed"? Are you fucking kidding me?

I hereby claim that in fact, 1 billion Israeli children were killed by Hamas during the operation. I demand that you'll add my claim to the list of casualties. It's only fair. --Anony 09:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't "demand" around here, we consider things by consensus. And log in, for God's sake, you anons! HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
We can't chose side. Why include Israel's claim but not Hamas claim? --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Even with all the relativism popular nowadays Misplaced Pages still has some guidelines for reliable sources. ¤ ehudshapira 13:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This war is between HAMAS and the IDF , if you dont include HAMAS claims then this article is out of balance, If you want you can change the titlw of the article to The Israeli narrative of The 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid almasri (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of date information

The following line in the Casualties (Israeli) section should be removed, it is sourced from the 10th July and clearly out of date:

"According to Magen David Adom there have been injuries to 123 people: 1 seriously, 21 moderately to lightly and 101 from shock."

86.134.51.147 (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A number of sources are claiming the conflict has ended.

Here, here, here, here, etc. Should we officially make today, yesterday, or the day before the official end of the conflict? Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Wait and see. Hamas has broken all the cease-fires to date. Things need to be quiet for more than 48-72 hours. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas began firing rockets on June 29 or June 30

See Reuters from that date. It was not a response to the killing of 6 Hamas members on July 6. For the record, Israel holds Hamas responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza, and warned Hamas on July 4 that "Israel would only be able to sustain militant rocket fire for another 24, or maximum 48, hours before undertaking a major military offensive." Even if Hamas denies this, it is striking how Misplaced Pages parrots the official Hamas propaganda line.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you see a lot of editors who just write something in order to fill space, if they're parroting the homesite, then it's likely in an attempt to be as true to the material as they can. I went to the article that you posted and felt it necessary to point out that a lot of the Misplaced Pages articles, while, of course, of similar content, it doesn't seem to me that it's being copied. Parroted, sure but not copied. Something I'd like to bring up, however, is that you see most of the articles being produced from Reuters. Almost every story has their label on it. This is a larger problem as I see it, and we ought to try to move our focus to expanding where we find our information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree the article has to changed accordingly.--Shrike (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
What Netanyahu says and that he holds Hamas accountable doesn't mean it was Hamas who shot. So the lead is correct now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You could read the article before commenting: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas on Monday of involvement, for the first time since a Gaza war in 2012, in rocket attacks on Israel and threatened to step up military action to stop the strikes...Israeli officials had acknowledged that Hamas had held its rocket fire during a series of flare-ups since the brief war ended, and they blamed such attacks on other militant movements while demanding the ruling Islamist group rein them in."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are other sources reporting from that date, prior to the creation of the propaganda line:
Here's a more recent source:
Note that even the 972 Magazine article debated earlier lists June 30 as the date, and that Hamas was attempting to directly fire rockets into Israel even prior to June 30, as the news reports all mention a failed attack the day before, in which the Hamas rocket squad was taken out by an Israeli airstrike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: Please see the section Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6 where all the evidence about rocket fire is presented. All serious analysts use July 6 as the date when Hamas started rocket fire. JJ Goldberg is indeed an exception in this regard, as I noted there. The 972mag source you give makes no such claim, only reporting the statement of Netanyahu in Reuters.
  • As to the reports you mention, most of them are news reports quoting the IDF. For example the first one, by Reuters says "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas on Monday of involvement, for the first time since a Gaza war in 2012, in rocket attacks on Israel and threatened to step up military action to stop the strikes." and "No group has claimed responsibility for Monday's rockets...". The rest are in this vein.
  • As to the statement that Israel says holds Hamas responsible for all rockets, that may be true or not. But that does not change the facts on who fired rockets. The lead is just stating the basic facts per WP:SS. Kingsindian (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Since when are blogs, the London Review of Books (cited three times), or The American Conservative more "serious" than the news reports I quoted? (Most of the sources you posted above were merely quoting each other; you are using "serious" as a synonym for "anti-Israel".) For the record, as The New Republic source makes clear, July 6 was when "Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel". Just because Hamas did not claim responsibility prior to that date does not mean they were not firing, or that Israel was not actively taking out Hamas rocket squads. Who debunked earlier reports of rocket fire by Hamas? What new evidence emerged on July 6? Absolutely nothing, just the official Hamas admission, which should carry no more weight than what you dismiss as "IDF claims". Why does this article only describe the official Hamas propaganda line as fact, without even mentioning the Israeli narrative? Is it because the more "serious analysts" have persuasive evidence, not yet publicly available, showing that Hamas was telling the truth and Israel was lying?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I read and again, the article doesn't refute the claim at all but speaks about Netanyahu's position. The evidence is clear as Kingsindian refers too. --IRISZOOM (talk)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: To your points: London Review of Books is not a blog, it is eminently RS. There are two authors quoted from there, Nathan Thrall and Mouin Rabbani, both associated (Thrall currently, Rabbani formerly) with the International Crisis Group a totally respectable middle of the road group. One of the other references is from David C. Hendrickson, an international relations expert writing in The National Interest, a journal founded by Irving Kristol (I hope that counts as mainstream and respectable). I do not see the issue with New Republic source, it seems to support the lead precisely. As to the news reports, they all report the Netanyahu claim, without saying anything about whether it's true or not (as news reports frequently do, they report what is said). Kingsindian (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I said you cited blogs, not that The London Review of Books or The American Conservative are blogs. Your sources report a Hamas official statement. My sources report Israeli official statements. You have no policy-based rationale for only mentioning the former as undisputed fact while totally omitting the latter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I misread the blog part, sorry. As to the rest, these analysts are not "reporting Hamas official statement", but their own analysis. I have already responded to the rest of the points. Kingsindian (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This quibble is odd. I noticed it only now. There is nothing wrong with the text as it is or was.If anything the Netanyahu claim is accompanied by text that says Hamas had not broken its agreement since Nov.2012, 'involvement' means not holding to the terms of its agreement in November 2012 to police groups firing rockets. As to the period preceding this, Israel and Palestinian militant groups struck each other constantly throughout June, Israel continued its policy of assassinating militants by missile strikes. Hamas was not held responsible for the missiles, which were charged to the Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Does this help matters or not? (I am happy to undo that edit if it is not seen as an improvement.) -sche (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: The edit is ambiguous. It can mean Hamas retroactively took responsibility for the past rockets, which is not correct. Kingsindian (]) 18:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

-sche. There are so many bad editors pushing a POV without looking at what the effect is here )that the text you tried to emend was not good. Your own edit screwed it up further, no doubt inadvertently. All of this hinges on Thrall. See below. I might add that this article has managed to avoid the unilateral Israelocentric POV drafting that characterizes throughout the sister Timeline article, which has made no pretentions to present both sides, but seems to be drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Odd that that's the language used in the sources. I have no idea if Nishidani's convoluted rhetoric is an attempt to deny that the Israeli claims linked to above exist, but in any case I will let the sources speak for themselves when I edit this article accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what you're planning to do, but it was decided many times that the lead must be kept basic and short per WP:SS and WP:LEAD. Any details can be included in the background section. There is no "Israeli claim" and "Hamas claim" here. The sources are all neutral. So far people seem to be fine with the current version. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thrall is an overview by an analyst, and until more such papers come in, we should be using synthetic overviews by specialists rather than individual articles which are then used, per WP:OR as TheTimesAreAChanging appears to want to do, to overturn what the specialist sources say. Most of the Israeli sources are giving IDF paraphrases or dropping Shin Bet hints. Let's look at it.
  • Throughout June Israel and non-Hamas factions exchanged airstrikes and rocket fire.
  • (Israel did not observe the ceasfire terms, nor did non-Hamas groups)
  • Until the 30th Israel made no claims Hamas was behind rocketry. No one doubts Israel was continuously striking the Gaza Strip as no one doubts non-Hamas activists were firing mortars and rockets over the border. There was a conflict in which the ruling Gaza Authority was recognized by Israel as not being involved.
  • On the 30th Netanyahu claimed Hamas was involved. The sources say he said this after the IAF struck and killed a Hamas operative who, according to the IDF/political view, was ‘planning to attack Israel with a rocketry/ mortars’. Hamas protested saying the man was at a monitoring point on the border (we no nothing of the truths on the ground here)
(Firing by Israel and non-Hamas groups continued after that)
On the 6th for the second time Israel struck Hamas, this time killing 7 militants.
Re the 6-7th, Nathan Thrall writes:

When the rocket fire increased, they(Hamas) 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.

As said repeatedly in the past, as as repeatedly editors pushing a POV have tried to get round, this statement is ambiguous, and can only be reliably reported by quoting with attribution.
'The day after 7 Hamas militants were killed in an IAF airstrike, Hamas began to assume responsibility for rockets fired at Israel, and Israel then launched Operation Protective Edge.'
The essence of Thrall's point is on the 7th., after taking casualties of its own, Hamas took responsibility for all rockets, abolishing the distinction it, and Netanyahu drew, between Hamas, the governing authority, and the wildcard militants, the former till the 7th July, the latter until the Ist July (though equivocally. Netanyahu's words can be read as saying Hamas which had managed to 'suppress' rocketry since Nov.2012 was not doing so any more, or was present, or actively allowing rockets to be fired in protest against Israel's violent actions on the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Israel in Lede

In the lede, the following sentence is - I believe - problematic: "The IDF has stated that "Hamas chooses where these battles are conducted and, despite Israel’s best efforts to prevent civilian casualties, Hamas is ultimately responsible for the tragic loss of civilian life. Specifically in the case of UN facilities, it is important to note the repeated abuse of UN facilities by Hamas, namely with at least three cases of munitions storage within such facilities." This is a two-sided conflict and to include an editorial statement by one of the belligerents in that conflict in the lede is startlingly NPOV. Either this should be balanced by a statement from the other belligerent (the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades or Hamas), or it should be omitted entirely. DocumentError (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no such statement in the lead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ha - thanks, I left this in the wrong entry (I had two different tabs open). With your permission, I'll delete this entire thread to avoid confusion. DocumentError (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The conflict has ended

Since the conflict has ended/stopped (no fight since August 26th), I think it would be appropriate to change the date of the conflict in the infobox from the current "July 8 2014 - present" to "July 8 2014 - August 26 2014". 69.196.168.233 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox

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

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.

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)

Images in the article

I would like to clean up the images through the article.

  • Infobox - there were two images, now there is a collage, which is simply 4 pre-existing images mashed together. Can someone think of a kind of a single image that could represent the conflict ? If not, the minimum number is 2, one per side. Do we really need all 4 in the collage ? If the answer is yes, They should be images not used elsewhere in the article.
  • Background - background talks mostly about the violation of the previous ceasefire. On one side there is the blockade of gaza, with the map that represents it (own work, based on OCHA reports). There is no image representing rocket fire from Gaza during this time in this section. Perhaps some image of rocket shards or damaged houses ? I'm sure there are IDF-released images, is there a more neutral source ?
  • Immediate events - seems ok, 2 images of events during Operation Brother's keeper
  • Operation timeline - 2 images from each side. There are 2 maps of Gaza: one of launch sides (by IDF) and one of attacked locations in Gaza. On one hand it makes sense to have two maps near each other. On the other hand I think the map of launch sides belongs in the alleged human shields, "use of civilian infrastructures". If it's agreed that I move it there I will put another image of damage in Israel instead.
  • Impact on residents - 3 images for Gaza vs 2 for Israel, 1 of the 3 is another map of damaged sites in Gaza. I suggest moving this map up instead the one in the timeline since it shows the whole Gaza strip and not only a part of it.

Image of the wounded girl's caption is very long - is her story notable ? Is it important that she was injured in her uncle's house? The fact that Israel is treating her in Jerusalem is somewhat notable, but I don't think it belongs in the caption.

  • Reactions - ok, 2 equivalent pictures, same order as the text
  • Alleged violations - at the moment only one violation has an image, destruction of homes has a picture of people standing under an excavator, with the caption saying they are retrieving the dead during a ceasefire. Do we want a single image for each violations ? If not, how do we pick which ones get images ? I can think of the following images for violations
  • Civilian deaths - plenty of images of the dead or the wounded. How graphical and explicit should it be ?
  • Warning prior to the attacks - there probably exist be IDF-released images of the papers that IDF dropped on Gaza before attacks.
  • Destruction of homes - sure there are destroyed and damaged houses. Best find one that can be proved to be destroyed intentionally and not as collateral damage while attacking something else.
  • Shelling of UNWRA schools - there was an image of an UNWRA school as it was used for shelter. Perhaps there is an image of the holes that are "consistent with shelling" ?
  • Infrastructure - is there anything related to infrastructure ? A line of people waiting to receive water rations ?
  • Attack on journalists - don't think there is anything to show
  • Human shields by Israel - there is a single alleged case, with an image of the note that he supposedly wrote while in IDF's prison. Probably not in public domain.
  • Killing of collaborators - there are images in the news of militants aiming at hooded people, probably not public domain
  • Use of civilian structures for military purposes - the rocket launch site map from above
  • Medical facilities and personnel - the ruined ambulance from the collage. We can't know if it was used for military purposes and its caption does not make any claim. The section says that it is illegal to attack an ambulance unless it's used for military purposes, so I think the image demonstrates both cases.
  • Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes - there is an image of people sanding on the roof that IDF released.
  • Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians - something that displays the damages, again ? I think this and destruction of homes above can be skipped.
  • Militant use of UN facilities - don't think there are public domain images at the moment. If UN or IDF releases something we make consider it. Hamas will surely not release anything of the kind.
  • Intimidation of journalists - ditto
  • Military weaponry and techniques - seems ok to me: 3 images, one of rocket ranges (gaza) one of a howitzer (IDF) one of a soldier looking on a tunnel (both)

Please respond to my consideration, if there is agreement or apathy I will being cleaning it up. WarKosign (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Categories: