Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Analysis of numbers of casualties in Gaza

There are several sources looking into lists of casualties reported by Gazan ministry of health.

• http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/Data/articles/Art_20695/E_134f_14_1598950107.pdf
• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/world/middleeast/civilian-or-not-new-fight-in-tallying-the-dead-from-the-gaza-conflict.html?_r=0
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28688179

They say that the ratio of young males who are most likely to be combatants is very high among the reported casualties relatively to their numbers in the general Gaza demographics, indicating that Israeli attacks are not as indiscriminate as Hamas is trying to present them.
Where do you think this information belongs ? With the casualties figures under "Impact on residents" or under "Civilian deaths" in "Violations of international humanitarian law" ? I believe it should be a new section under "Civilian death" titled "Differences in counting of civilian casualties". - WarKosign (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of civilian deaths disputed

Can someone incorporate this BBC article: If the Israeli attacks have been 'indiscriminate', as the UN Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed so many more civilian men than women” 5.28.159.18 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this section by an IP user above, moved it here - WarKosign (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source, with more details of number manipulations employed by Hamas. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/hamas-list-of-casualties-includes-those-who-died-twice/2014/08/07/ @Kingsindian:, you previously reverted an addition by @טבעת-זרם: for being too POV. How would you phrase this information, or would you argue that it's unimportant ?

Here is another source:

• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4556773,00.html Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign, Tritomex, and Knightmare72589: Please see Casualties of the Gaza War for the background. As you can see, counting civilians and militants is a highly contested business. Right now, as the BBC report,, which also referenced the NYT report, mentioned in the edit I reverted mentioned, there needs to be "caution" in interpreting the figures. All figures are preliminary, as has been mentioned already. After the 2008 war, there was detailed checking of background of the people killed by B'Tselem, PCHR, Al Mezan etc. This, of course takes time. I reverted a statement saying that "Credibility of parts of the data has been doubted or shown to be incorrect". Which part is doubted, who is doubting them, and which part is shown incorrect? This is no way to summarize a complicated situation like this. Final figures can only be obtained after sufficient time. Until then, we have to make do with preliminary figures, from various sources, all of which have been mentioned here. Kingsindian (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I recently had an edit reverted by a user who claims that since the Gaza Ministry of Health only states civilian deaths in the report that all other deaths must be combatants. He/she makes the same argument for the IDF's figures which only report "armed militants killed" but no numbers for civilians or unknown. To me this is blatant introduction of bias into the article based purely off assumption. What's even more concerning is that the editor not only reverted my edit that had said "no figure given" instead of the assumed calculation but he/she has now expanded the table to include a new column to show his/her assumed percentage figures for civilian deaths.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993 First, I'm a he. Second, if you bothered to check the edit history you would see it was not me who added the civilian percentage column to the table but a totally different editor [1], which I think is totally unnecessary, but if it didn't bother the other editors so be it (it obviously bothers you). Also, if you bothered, you would see that most of the percentage figures that the other editor put in that column are sourced (far right side), guess he was not assuming. In any case, you jumping to conclusions about me and accusing me of pushing my own assumtions (POV-pushing?) by making an edit that wasn't even mine is boderline violating WP policy on Good Faith and Civility. Third, the PCHR and the IDF have consistently referred to ether civilian or combatant fatalities, never mentioning a third category (unidentified). And I would once again refer you to WP policy on this issue at WP:CALC. EkoGraf (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi EkoGraf, I'm sorry if you felt my comments were uncivil. I can see that you work very hard on articles and I apologize if I came off as being negative toward you. I would like to work this out with you because I think we can reach a conclusion to this. Here is my argument: If the IDF and PCHR haven't mentioned any other category than "armed militants" in the case of the IDF or Civilians in the case of PCHR then it is not up to us as editors to guess how those organizations classify the other casualties that they have recorded and made public. We would be guessing since we have no evidence that those organizations don't have lists of casualties that they hadn't made a decision on yet. I don't see anything on the WP:CALC that would allow an editor to assume that those organizations make a decision on every casualty immediately as either being a civilian or a combatant. If you agree with that then I would propose we simply put "no figure given" in the chart for these organizations.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the percentage to the table, so I could remove redundant repetition of the numbers from the paragraph following the table. For 3 sources out of 5 there was a percent given, in two others I calculated it per WP:CALC and marked the value as (calculated). I believe that if there is no number given then the source presumes to know about every single casualty if it's a civilian or a militant. It is already stated above that the numbers from any of the sources are error-prone and not final. I don't see benefit in adding "no figure given". - WarKosign (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, "I don't see anything on the WP:CALC that would allow an editor to assume that those organizations make a decision on every casualty immediately as either being a civilian or a combatant." WarKosign, you jumped into this conversation (which is fine) and stated that you are willing to assume that they do make a decision and don't have any undecided figures at all. I see absolutely no reason to believe that that is the case and since you provide no evidence/sources that it is you still have failed to meet the verifiability check which is the basis of inclusion for stats in Wikipedia. The burden of evidence here is on you to prove that the IDF considers these to be civilians deaths (which i doubt they do) or that the PCHR considers all non civilian deaths to be combatants (again, which I doubt). I'm changing this back to "no figures given" and will keep it that way until you or some other editor 1) provides a rationale for these figures per the rules and definitons in WP:CALC or 2) someone provides evidence that PCHR or IDF has classified these unidentified deaths as civilians or combatants. I don't understand the extremely persistent desire to include these assumed statistics when the chart already shows statistics for these categories that WERE provided in reports from 3 other organizations which actually stated all casualties for "civilians, combatants, and unknowns."Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: IDF did not provide a number of penguins killed. Why not add a column called "penguins" with "no figure given" ? So far we have 5 sources using either of two formats: one consists of (total,civilians,militants) and another consists of (total, civilians, militants, unknowns). It is quite obvious that if the unknown is not provided then it is equal to 0 - unless civilians + militants not equals total. If you insist - go ahead and write the pointless "no figure given", but imo it serves only to reduce readability. - WarKosign (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:, thank you! and in fact we have three formats, (total, civilians, militants, unknowns), (total, civilians, unknowns) and (total, militants, unknowns). Fortunately no one has yet to include the penguins so we don't have to worry about that just yet, just creative counting of civilians and combatants for now.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I did, however, re-instate Israel official's estimation of percent of militants. It's wrong to say "no figure given" when a figure was given. - WarKosign (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: yes, except you put it in the % of civilians category and per our discussion above that's not information we have. Sorry, we can't make up stuff here. I think the chart is still good. It gives plenty of other sources who do make such claims.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Name change?

This is a war. I propose moving the article to Gaza War (2014) (in consistency with Gaza War (2008–09)).

In the archives of this pages discussion you'll see what can be summed up as: unless reliable sources are by and large calling this a war, can't call it that. But I agree, this is most definitely a war. Hires an editor (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Military forces and technologies employed/Gazan rockets

@FutureTrillionaire and I.am.a.qwerty: The section is supposed to be a stub for military forces and technologies required, not just Gaza rockets. This kind of section is present in pages for previous conflicts as well. The current part is no more than a start, and needs expansion. This is why I had tagged the section like this. Unfortunately FutureTrillionaire had changed the section heading making it too narrow and NPOV in scope. This section needs expansion, not removal. The current version is not supposed to be definitive or complete. Also, it is not clear to me what you refer to when you say that one source is not WP:RS. Which one? Kingsindian (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

The current caption for the first image reads "Iron Dome shooting down a rocket from Gaza". In the image, only one rocket is visible. Any thoughts? --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 14:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Usually there are no cameras high in the air where both rockets meet. The current title is correct: The picture shows Iron Dome in action of firing an interceptor in order to shoot down a rocket from Gaza - WarKosign (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Shooting down" implies that an interception has taken place. We can change the caption to "Iron Dome in operation" to better reflect the image--Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 07:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, "shooting down" means an interception is taking place (present tense, not past tense) — and that is (arguably) what is happening, an Iron Dome rocket is on its way towards a Gazan rocket (or if it's not, the system screwed up). What do you think of "Iron Dome shooting at a rocket from Gaza"? Alternatively, bare "Iron Dome in operation" is somewhat opaque (how does Iron Dome operate? i.e. what does it do? is it a system for firing rockets at Gazan houses?), but would "Iron Dome missile defense system in operation" be OK with everyone? -sche (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "...missile defense system in operation" --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ — Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusing and/or deceptive wording in the introduction.

The introduction to this article is either deceptively or erroneously constructed so as to portray this conflict as having been initiated by Israeli air-strikes into Gaza. It makes no mention of easily accessible information such as this : http://mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/pages/palestinian_ceasefire_violations_since_end_operation_cast_lead.aspx which demonstrate that rocket fire from Gaza into Israel did not begin with the operation in the West Bank but was in fact ongoing since June of 2013 and only increased in June of 2014. Rocket fire therefore never ceased but rather increased and this is an important fact to mention. It is also worth clarifying that the rocket fire was not in response to Israeli air-strikes but was in fact an increase after the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers. Rocket fire then increased again when Israel retaliated for the first increase in rocket fire. These facts are all easily established through careful reading of the news on the subject in a chronological fashion. In a conflict already so rife with misinformation and which generates more interest than any other in the world, it is of the utmost importance that wikipedia be as accurate and unbiased as possible. As it is written now, the narrative falsely paints Israel as the aggressor when the facts do not establish this, and in fact point in the other direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistriwen (talk • contribs) 09:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are also alleged violations of ceasefire by Israel, and people repeatedly try to add them into the lead paragraph or the background. I think it would be best to define where chronologically this article begins, what should be in it, and where should the rest go. As long as this page is called "2014 conflict", anything that happened in 2014 and wasn't in perfect harmony fits. I think this page should deal only time period of Operation Protective Edge (with or without it being the actual title), from the beginning to the final ceasefire agreement. There is already an article dealing with Operation Pillar of Defense, and what's lacking is a list of alleged violations in between. It can be either on a separate page, or in the Israel-Gaza conflict timeline. - WarKosign (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A government source puts over a government viewpoint, as that is determined by politicians. Numerous observers, as cited in the text, contradict what that official source states. One can add that as Israel's official POV, but it cannot outweigh the statistical evidence provided by multiple sources from non-government analyses. All you are saying (Alistriwen) is that Israel's official view happens to be the truth of the matter. I don't care where the narrative goes in terms of assigning priority or blame: all I care for is the use of sources that state what is verifiable in reliable sources, and Nathan Thrall has more independence, his job depends on it, than the mfa, which ignores what its own officials and intelligence organizations admit. Thirdly, wars are started by one of two or more parties. If this is ascertainable, it does not violate NPOV to state the fact. Whether this is the case here is another matter. So far authoritative observers note the sequence, and comment that the war was not initiated by a Hamas assault on Israel. The background is there, to be tweaked, if there are different versions of thed sequence of events than the ones given.

WarKosign. This is not about what Israel did in a military operation. This is how a conflict, crystallized by that operation, is perceived by both sides, and analysts. Much of what would be a narrative has been gutted from the page already, and your proposal is to proceed further in making it basically about Reactions and impacts. There is almost nothing, proportionately, on the details on that operation and Hamas's response, and continual forking into subpages looks very odd.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The source I listed is governmental and yes it is only one but are you actually intimating that the government of a country which has purview to all events going on within that country is less reliable than independent people with agendas who have no real way of ascertaining facts on the ground? The proof of rocket attacks between the last operation and the current one is in the rockets that landed in Israel. There is photographic evidence which is also widely available so what exactly passes your criteria for reliability? A great number of people do not understand how Wikipedia operates and take its articles as absolute fact and therefore as an organization Wikipedia should strive to provide all relevant information in as unbiased a manner as possible. As written, the article seems to indicate that Hamas and other Gazan militants never launched rockets into Israel until Israel's West Bank operation which is simply untrue. If we are not going to accept any information presented by the Israeli government who exactly is supposed to give their version of events? There are a great deal of entities which are hostile to Israel and will always paint a biased narrative and those sources are far less reliable but nonetheless accepted. Moreover, what end would it serve for Israel to lie about these attacks ? No operations were conducted in Gaza until rocket fire reached a certain level but this information was on a variety of websites between June of 2013 and 2014. Who are these "authoritative" observers? If they are not living in Israel, nor Gaza their authority is circumspect. Even more questionable is the fact that even the most anti-Israeli newspapers did not report events in that order, as they were happening, so I am not sure where this information is being drawn from other than Hamas mouthpieces. I am also disturbed by how greatly the article relies on the Guardian newspaper as a source. This publication has a noted anti-Israel, even vehemently anti-Israel slant and is known for publishing nonsense for example that Robin Williams was gay etc. Using the Guardian repeatedly is akin to using Iranian or Syrian state press as a reliable resource and it is shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistriwen (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In the background section, allegations that both the parties violated the ceasefire are clearly mentioned. There is no reason why government sources are in any way more "reliable" than independent sources or the Iranian or Syrian state press. Nishidani has explained why it s not a good idea to use primary sources. --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 12:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

September attack

I am a little unhappy with a modification (to something I wrote!!!) but I'm not going to change anything myself. A previous version included the widely repeated report that the tunnels were intended for a massive Rosh Hashanah attack. Since the sources were unnamed (or citation needed) I added for balance the report (from an unnamed source but on Israel army radio) that all targets were military. That second bit of information stayed in without the first. In a way that unbalances things in the other direction. I don't think we know what the intention was nor how easily it might have changed depending on conditions. But with a sensational claim (September attack!) which readers might come to look for, it is worth saying "not well substantiated."

Of possibly greater concern is that the spun off section Timeline_of_the_2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict includes the September attack claim but not the second claim. Gentlemath (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

LATER I moved the "only military" claim to keep it with the "Rosh Hashanah attack" claim. Both are from quality outlets and quote unnamed sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlemath (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Publicising RfC

Not sure if it is appropriate to publicize RfCs here. But people might be interested in the the one here, an article which is linked/spun out from this page. Kingsindian (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Journalism

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4390.htm http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4391.htm

Reality according to Hamas: Hamas fighters are civilians http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12298

Hamas claims to have executed over 30 collaborators with Israel Source: Palestine Press news agency‎, July 28, 2014 http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=1045 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.5.88 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Got any reliable sources? // Liftarn (talk)

Undue weight to propaganda - Maan News agency and Palestinian claims

This edit is all wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=621743183&oldid=621698099

What Ma'an calls, 'biscuit factory', we all know could be a rocket storage or worse. Ma'an has silly habits, like calling militants "resistance fighters" and repeating their text, or the text of the people they interview as facts devoid of prejudice is just as bad, if not worse, than posting an unverified image such as this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANishidani&diff=620953788&oldid=620951733 77.127.5.88 (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Added refeence to Telegraph article here. Kingsindian (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualties from Rockets

Possible inaccuracy in the passage (Impact on Israeli residents) Despite Israel's use of the Iron Dome missile defense systems, 3 civilians were killed including a Jewish Israeli, an Arab Israeli and a Thai worker. - of these casualties the Thai migrant worker was killed by a mortar shell, the Jewish Israeli was also killed by a mortar shell and the Arab Israeli killed by a rocket. It is important to distinguish between these munitions because the Iron Dome cannot intercept short range mortars but has a much higher interception ration on longer range rockets towards larger population centers like Ashkelon. In the case of at least one of these casualties, the Bedouin Arab Israeli, their dwelling lay in a zone classified as an 'open area' and therefore not protected by the Iron Dome. In this sense the casualties were not killed 'despite the Iron Dome' but because they were in areas that the Iron Dome was not set up to protect. If there are no objections I will go ahead and make some minor accuracy alterations here and there and try and farm out some of the non-WP:RS that have snuck into the article (including the Daily Mail online article that was used for this passage. KingHiggins (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

POV Tag Needed for Article Lead

The article lead (specifically, following paragraph) is extremely POV, and also qualifies as WP:Synth and parts of it qualify as WP: OR

"The fighting followed a series of events,[38] which included the continued blockade of the Gaza Strip by the Egyptian and Israeli governments (the latter in violation of the November 2012 ceasefire),[32][39] the continued incarceration without trial of prisoners in Israeli jails,[39][40][41] continued land, sea and air attacks by Israel on Gaza,[32][42][43] continued rocket attacks from Gaza, the formation of a unity government by Fatah and Hamas, the subsequent collapse of American-sponsored peace talks, the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers (for which Israel blamed Hamas),[44] the subsequent kidnapping and murder of a Palestinian teenager, and the arrest by Israel of nearly all of Hamas's West Bank leaders.[32][38][39][45]"

Arguments:

1. The list is a random synthesis by users of events that preceeded the conflict. The definition of WP Synth. Who can argue that I would be wrong to say that the conflict was preceeded by the continued Hamas construction of terror tunnels? Or by the continued Hamas support of violence to achieve its goals (or refusal to renounce violence)? Or the continued refusal of Hamas to recognize previous agreements between Palestine and Israel? I could provide dozens of sources for these, and they are all true, and they directly preceeded the conflict and they are relevant (or as relevant as many of the events listed above)
2. The order in which these these 'events' are listed is random (i.e. not chronological) and POV. i.e. why isn't "continued Hamas rocket attacks on Israel" the first 'event' in this list, before continued blockade etc? Because of the POV of the author, that's why. Either we find an RS that lists the reasons in a specific (i.e. chronological) order, and we stick to that, or this paragaph must be flagged as POV.
3. It is not clear that any of these reasons are related to this conflict, i.e the killing of a Palestinian teenager. Yes, it happened and it preceeded the conflict, but I doubt we can find an RS that relates it to this event. Right now this is WP OR
4. WP OR: "the continued Israeli blockade...[is] in violation of the November 2012 cease fire". Unless a source specifically says this, it is WP:OR to claim this as fact. I read the economist source, it states there should be a gradual lift of the blockade. It is 100% OR for a wikipedia user to decide how quickly the blockage ought to be lifted for Israel to meet this part of the agreement.
5. WP: OR and POV "continued land, sea and air attacks by Israel on Gaza".

• a) POV - That the attacks were 'on Gaza'. Israel probably has a different interpretation of their target (i.e. the attacks according to them would be on targets).
• b) POV and OR - that the attacks were 'continued'. I read through the source, the strikes described occured immediately preceeding Israel's start of the operation, following the kidnapping of three Israeli teens. The source uses the word "continue" as in continue from yesterday/recent reporting. This is deliberate misuse of a source for POV.

I realize we are not going to fix these issues quickly or anytime soon. So a POV tag is needed in the lead until we can reach some consensus.

Kinetochore (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree the lead seems to like one big WP:OR and WP:POVPUSH.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone has to change this obvious POV pushing in the lead, WP:POVPUSH is exactly what it is.--Tritomex (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed a big chunk of the lead based on the reasoning here. It seems to cover what Kinetochore had in mind. The parts removed are all discussed in the background section in detail. Kingsindian (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that the lead is not in accordance with the title of the article. The article is titled 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict while the lead is about "Operation Protective Edge." it starts with "On 8 July 2014, an escalation of the Gaza–Israel conflict began when Israel launched Operation Protective Edge" and then we have "The stated aim was to stop rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip...". More over, I think the first part of the lead is POV. Mhhossein (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The article is indeed about "Operation Protective Edge". The current name is the result of a confusion. Some people did not like the IDF name so it was proposed to be moved to a neutral name. However, the new name was overly broad, but without consensus, an uninvolved admin mistakenly moved the page. Afterwards, another admin put a moratorium on moves for the next three months to stop disruption. After the 3-month period, it will probably be moved to some neutral name, covering the conflict (this is of course only my opinion) -- like Gaza War (2008-09). Kingsindian (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully support Mhhossein's view. This is a synopsis of the 2014 Conflict, and the claim that it is "in fact" an article about Operation Protective Edge has reached the stage of becoming obstructive [see also Talk: [[2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Lead_and_background]. If so many people are determined that this is "in fact" a misnamed article as Kingsindian suggests, then for heaven's sake change it back, and I will initiate an article entitled "2014 Israeli-Gaza Conflict", because what I am NOT going to be party to at any stage is a Wikipedia that just has "Operation Protective Edge" in splendid 2014 isolation as though it were something that dropped from the sky with no history, no lead-up and not affected by any preceding 2014 events, other than the kidnapping and killing of the three Israeli teenagers. Let us get that one clear - 2 articles - and then get "Admin"'s involvement and fix this mess. If someone knows how to do that, be my guest.Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer and Mhhossein: I have left a message on the move closer's talk page about the title name. Kingsindian (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:I accept your explanation of the issues and appreciate your contact with User:Timrollpickering. As such, my further editing of this article is largely a waste of time given the changes that will be brought about by the move reversal, and the inevitable maintenance that will be required in order to 'sanitise' the resultant "Operation Protective Edge" article. During that process and/or once that task has been completed, I will edit where I see necessary.

In the meantime I will prepare a full draft for a 2014 timeline on the topic "2014 Israeli-Gaza conflict - cause and effect", which will provide detail which should match (a synopsis of it) in the "Background" section of the "Operation Protective Edge" article (if it has one - the absence of which would be questionable?), and which will contain a summary (albeit a critical one) of "Operation Protective Edge". As I mentioned I object to leaving Wiki with a sprinkling of articles related to 2014 and its conflict, but nothing to provide an overview or the glue to paste together a logical timeline and cause-and-effect chain. I sincerely hope that you will contribute to the new article and help to make it a robust and fair contribution. Many thanks in the meantime. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that a move is appropriate. I don't think that this should be "Operation Protective Edge". As I have stated in another topic on this talk page, I believe it's a war, but there aren't enough RS that say so. As it relates, neither do many RS call this conflict "Operation Protective Edge". Also, it's problematic to explain what triggered this war to begin with: I've seen sources that have said that Israel is unhappy that Hamas and Fatah getting back together in unity was the real reason, but I don't know if those are RS, either. As far as it goes, I don't think that the general press knows, and Israel is unlikely to give a truthful reason, for their own national security/propaganda reasons (and which is totally reasonable when you're at war). So really, we'd have to say that we don't know why Israel decided to invade, and the press has speculated based on (un)reliable information from Israel and other sources. All we know is that there are some events that happened in advance of the invasion, and they may or may not be related. Hires an editor (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor: I did not say I favour the move to "Operation Protective Edge". I said I favoured a move to a neutral name which clearly defines the scope of the article, which is the events starting July 2014. Right now there is confusion about the scope. The topics which you mention are all present in the "Background" section. About the issue of the unity govt. there are multiple WP:RS which make the argument. They are cited there. Kingsindian (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I believe that there's no clear boundary line between these two issues. You'll have a hard job then! However I think one of the title or the context must change. The title is easier to change. Mhhossein (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:I submit that the boundary is quite clear between "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict" and "Operation Protective Edge". As User:Hires an editor, who does not favour that the resultant article should be named "Operation Protective Edge", noted above, this article should be restricted to July 2014 onwards. That is pretty much in line with what User:KingsIndian and others have said, except they are specific that it be about OPE. The resultant article will/should have a Background, but that is by nature of a summary nature. So, that being the case, where does the detail of the pre-7 July 2014 events get presented, and where can they be strung together to provide a timeline to give a continuum of the chain-of-events involved in the tension build-up. I see this as the solution to User:Hires an editor's dilemma of there not being one single cause for the Gaza invasion, and the reason is that we have a "straw breaking the camel's bacl" situation of a cumulative build-up which reached breaking point. Should this build-up not be detailed, then I am afraid that we are all going to be guilty of cherry-picking at best, or ignoring historical reality. I don't intend to be a party to that. I still intend to provide a 2014 Timeline is the revamped artical's detail starts on 7 July. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:The real problem, I reckon, is not to find the main cause of war, although there might be no single cause and although some RSs such as this one have mentioned Hamas-Fatah reconciliation as a reason. The problem is that the title is not in accordance with the article (at least the lead) or one might say, the lead is not in accordance with the title. Mhhossein (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:Apologies for ascribing a viewpoint to User:Hires an editor when it was your thought, Mhhossein. I agree there is not single cause for the outbreak of the conflict; they were multiple. But does that mean that they should not be specifically aired on Wiki as such. If they are only to be represented in a Background section to an article that focuses on Operation Protective Edge (OPE), then any prior cause of tension that cannot be firmly linked to OPE disappears from the historical narrative, and those that remain are to do so only in a summarised form. I really object, and from your post, so do you, to a single event being pointed out as being the start of a conflict - a classic example would be the barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza in early July - without asking the question as to WHY that sudden departure from the pattern of the previous 19 month occurred. It is my mission to document the entire panorama of tension development in 2014 and not to cherry-pick personal or majority favourites in establishing the Wiki narrative. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I tried to look at the issue of having another article from your point of view. But some questions stroke my mind. I believe that the causes of the conflict must be presented in detail, but in its suitable place. Also, I believe that some parts of the background would better be moved to another broader article. But somehow direct factors such as 2nd reconciliation between Fatah-Hamas should stay as a cause for OPE. Mhhossein (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:We appear to be slowly progressing towards agreement. We agree that the causes of the major conflict need detailing, but what is a 'suitable place'? That is indeed the question that stubbornly remains unanswered. We have some of that in the Beitunia killings and in the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers. There may well be more lurking under the carpet. But where is Second Palestinian Unity Government; where is 2014 in the Blockade of the Gaza Strip; why is Operation Brother's Keeper hidden under a title 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers? Where is an overview of attacks, deaths and injuries up until end-June 2014? If all of these can be incorporated into one article, namely Operation Protective Edge, then I won't quibble about the excessively specific name, and I will be willing to go along with it. But the moment there is a 'revert' because one of the posted sub-topics is not directly related to OPE, then I will immediately start a separate article with topic the Conflicts and tensions in 2014. I doubt whether this will prove to be practical in the long run, but am willing to give it a try.

So, with that in mind, where do we fit the following in decent detail into the OPE article?

(numbering for convenience)

1. Violations of the 2012 ceasefire during 2014
2. Continuation of the Gaza Embargo by Israel
3. Development of the Palestinian unitary government plus third party reactions
4. The three cases of murders of Teenagers, both Israeli and Palestinian
5. Operation Brothers Keeper and the duping of the world about their early deaths
6. The increases tension regarding Israeli prisoners, including the nature of 'Administrative Detentions'.
7. The First-strike in Gaza
8. The subsequent barrage of rockets from Gaza
9. Media reaction

If the answer is that their detail does not belong in the revamped/transferred OPE article, then where does the chain-of-events belong?

Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: Almost all the points you list are already present in the background section, including 1, 2, 3, 4(does not include the Beitunia killings), 5, 7, 8. They are included because WP:RS have connected them with the conflict OPE flowing in a logical manner. Finding WP:RS to connect the others should not be hard, if you wish to do it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Excellent!! It seems that we are going the route of one article only with the proviso that all tension-building issues, lesser clashes and events, even if only political, will be present in detail. I will ensure that this is done. With that in place, all my reservations are answered. I note for one final time that no reverts will be allowed that have as their basis that there is no documented link to OPE; a contribution to the Israeli Palestinian tension will be accepted as being fully sufficient.Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: To clarify, I did not say that all the points you made should be present in the background section. I said that if you wish to include them in this article, you should find WP:RS connecting them to OPE, not the conflict in general. How much space and weight they should be given, can be discussed. Kingsindian (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:In which case we are back at square one and I cannot be a party to the "one article for the entirity of the 2014 Israel Palestine tensions and that article is titled Operation Protective Edge" brigade. I thought as much. As soon as the name has changed back to Operation Protective Edge, I will be creating a new article. To repeat my position, there is far more to the 2014 conflicts and tensions between Israel and Palestine that just those which, as you put it, can be connected with WP:RS to the OPE. I welcome your acknowledgement that there are other sources of influence to "the conflict in general" that are not specific to OPE. I want to add those onto Wiki's repertoire of articles so as to make it complete, and I will be posting about ALL of the contributions to conflict, not just cherry-picking those which can be WP:RS'ed to OPE. I am sure that you will agree that such cherry picking with a claim that one article can represent all of the panorama of 2014 has been shown to be impossible. Furthermore a 'timeline structure' will go a long way to providing the verifiable historical facts of the 2014 chain-of-events. Cordially, Erictheenquirer (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer, Mhhossein, Hires an editor, Shrike, Kinetochore, and Tritomex: I have opened a move review for the page title here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the change of intentions for this article - being specific to Operation Protective Edge (with an appropriate title change) - I will alter the Background so as to extend through to end-June 2014. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Handful of journalists"

@WarKosign: The quote "out of 710 foreign journalists, only a handful..." comes directly from the article and is not WP:OR. I have reverted the edit here. Kingsindian (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is evidence enough to be added. It's making the assumption that because "only a handful" have come out, that no one else has had this experience. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: The article does not make any such assumption. And that is not the correct question anyway: you should not invert the burden of proof. The burden is on someone who wants to demonstrate censorship, not someone who wants to demonstrate absence.

In any case, if you read the article, it interviews a large sample of journalists including from the New York Times and European press, with almost all of them saying there was little or no censorship. It gives all the details of why there was little censorship, because many of the high fighting areas were too dangerous for journalists to go into anyway. And even otherwise, Hamas fighters were almost never seen because they were afraid of getting caught by Israeli drone and video surveillance. So they mention that it was not possible for Hamas to censor news, because they were not present on the ground. Against this, the article discusses the Israeli govt. allegations of Hamas censorship within the article. There are very few journalists who have reported censorship. Claims of censorship should be reported, but only given its due weight. At the moment, most of the evidence of censorship is from a "handful" of journalists and Israeli govt. sources. And that is how it should be presented.

One final point: the sentence you have added that some people "refuse to comment because they plan to go to Gaza" is not proof of censorship. The source talks about only one reporter who claims that there was censorship. The sentence and the source does not belong in the section because giving one report its own paragraph would be WP:UNDUE Kingsindian (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"The article does not make any such assumption."

Yes it does. That is the point of the article. It is saying that since a "handful" have reported this, that the issue is non-existent.

"In any case, if you read the article, it interviews a large sample of journalists including from the New York Times and European press, with almost all of them saying there was little or no censorship."

One can easily use the same terminology from their own article. There wasn't a "large" sample. It gave a few individual examples. This could be called "a handful" of journalists. They certainly didn't get the opinion of all the other ~700 or so journalists. I counted around 8 or so journalists opinions in that article. About the same amount of journalists who claim they were threatened.

"There are very few journalists who have reported censorship."

Exactly. Those who have reported. There are journalists who have said they were censored said they were able to say so because they were out of Gaza. There are journalists who are still in Gaza. Another article said that other journalists refuse to comment on it because they plan to return to Gaza.

"At the moment, most of the evidence of censorship is from a "handful" of journalists and Israeli govt. sources. And that is how it should be presented."

Only a "handful" of journalists claiming this does not mean there are not more. I'd hate to make this analogy, but for police to make the claim that domestic abuse reports are low because of what was reported does not mean those are all the examples. We all know that these kind of cases, much of the time, they are not reported for fear of retribution. So to make this claim of threatening journalists seem that since only a certain amount have reported it does not mean that it doesn't happen more often.

"One final point: the sentence you have added that some people "refuse to comment because they plan to go to Gaza" is not proof of censorship. The source talks about only one reporter who claims that there was censorship"

False. It said and I quote: "The Jerusalem Post attempted on Thursday to contact ten journalists who reported from Gaza in recent weeks. Of the few who responded most declined to be interviewed, even on condition of anonymity, as they plan to return to Gaza to report." The part I added in the article was not about the journalist later in the JPost article. It is entirely POV to make it seem like since only a few have reported it, that others not experienced it and not to document those that have. This section should have individual claims from each side, not make it seem like a numbers game. The overall point I'm making, is that in that article, only a handful of journalists claim they weren't threatened, as did only a handful of journalists who claim they were. The other ~700 or so journalists have not stated their opinion, so to make it as though their silence means they side with those who haven't been threatened is POV. Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: I agree that the quote can be misleading, so I have rewritten the section. As to your other point: people not willing to comment is not evidence of censorship, exactly as I stated. I don't know why you quoted the line back to me when I said exactly that. Anyway, you can see this edit. Perhaps it is acceptable to you. If not we can discuss it further. Kingsindian (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think that is acceptable enough. Saying "many foreign journalists" is incorrect. As I stated before, about the same amount of journalists claim they weren't threatened as those who said they were. And the edit you made seems like it says Haaretz interviewed the remaining ~700 or so. It doesn't make that claim. It only says that out of the 709 that were in Gaza, a handful have come out and claimed they were threatened. The Haaretz article says "all the foreign correspondents interviewed for this piece insisted that it doesn't exist, and not because they wouldn't have liked to obtain such pictures." It's talking about those that are mentioned in the article, not that they interviewed all 709. As you said, the quote is a bit misleading. I think either the section should contain around an equal amount of claims from both sides or the "handful" comment should be clarified that most of the journalists have not given their opinion. Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: That is not the way it works. The weights of the different evidence is not the same.

• Let's assume for the moment that there are the same number of journalists who claim they were threatened as the number of people interviewed by Haaretz. Neither is strictly scientific random sampling, but they still are of vastly different weight. The former group is by self-selection, it only contains people who are threatened. The latter group is a sample of journalists, who are not initially known whether they were threatened or not. They were then asked whether they were intimidated. The second sampling procedure is much better than the first. If such a group says there was no censorship, it carries much more weight.
• The piece discusses various reasons as to why the claims of censorship do not make much sense. I have already made these points in the first response. Kingsindian (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This second-guessing sources is unacceptable. 710 journalists were present: only a few made the comments about feeling intimidated. The source is impeccable, and that therefore is what we say (handful/few) until reportage on the theme or meme changes. It is pointless trying to argue around or under or over what excellent sources say. So stop the nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"A few of the journalist did not report being intimidated by Hamas" - this must mean that the rest were intimidated, right ? The fact that even one journalist was intimidated is important and casts reliability of all the reports made from Gaza in a different light - WarKosign (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, @Nishidani: You guys are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill in terms of those who said they were not intimated. The facts are the facts. About the same number of journalists who said they weren't threatened is about the same amount who said they were threatened. You cannot claim that those who said they weren't threatened is "many" while those who said they were is a "handful". Haaretz did not interview all 709. They only interviewed the number that they quoted in the article. Silence on the part of the vast majority of journalists who did not comment is not being in agreement with those who said they weren't threatened. You're purposely distorting the facts and subtly pushing a POV. As I suggested earlier; either compile a list of journalists from each side, or highlight the fact that the vast majority of journalists have not given their opinion. Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I have removed your edit here per WP:UNDUE. The paragraph already has enough detail about intimidation, right at the first paragraph. This paragraph is an adequate summary of the situation, no need to add details from each individual case. Kingsindian (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:I think this case was important because it demonstrated that the reporter remained intimidated even after leaving Gaza, and what exactly the intimidation was about - showing Hamas operatives in action.

On another subject, I have a problem with Haaretz quote: it says that many foreign journalists and found that "all but a few of the journalists deny any such pressure". The link doesn't let me see the quote unless I register. Is it valid for a reference to not be verifiable ? I think it showed more of the article last time I looked and it did say "all but a few" or something alike, but I do not remember seeing a claim that they interviewed enough people for it to be representative. - WarKosign (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

• As to why I removed your edit, the first sentence of the paragraph: "Photographers said that they were questioned, threatened or had equipment confiscated after taking pictures of Hamas operatives preparing to shoot rockets from within civilian structures, or fighting in civilian clothing" already makes the same point. No need to add details
• You can see the Google Cache here. The "All" in "All but a few" of course refers to a subset which they interviewed. They did not interview all 700 journalists. As I have explained already, this sample is neither strictly scientific nor large enough, but it carries much more weight weight than an equally small self-selected sample of journalists who report intimidation. And the Haaretz source is impeccable and it is a very detailed article with reasons presented. Kingsindian (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, @Nishidani: The Foreign Press Association has made a statement about this. "Hamas is using threats and pressure to prevent journalists from providing objective reports, the Foreign Press Association in Israel and Palestine said in a statement Monday. The organization said it "protests in the strongest the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in Gaza over the past month. "The international media are not advocacy organizations and cannot be prevented from reporting by means of threats or pressure, thereby denying their readers and viewers an objective picture from the ground," the FPA added. According to the FPA, several members of the foreign media in Gaza were harassed, threatened or questioned about stories they reported. "We have received strict orders that if we record that Hamas fires rockets or that they shoot, we will face serious problems and be expelled from Gaza. Also Sunday, Hamas said it will require foreign journalists covering Gaza to provide information about Palestinian translators and fixers, as well as the address where they are staying."

I suggest you change the text in the article. You are pushing a POV and distorting the facts. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you get off your highmare, and look at the evidence. I wrote:-

The source is impeccable, and that therefore is what we say (handful/few) until reportage on the theme or meme changes.

The source http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Foreign-Press-Association-blasts-Hamas-for-threatening-journalists-370755 statement you introduce is interesting, and contradicts what several sources, state. The Anshel Pfeffer source said 3 days ago:-

Of the 710 foreign journalists who crossed into Gaza during Operation Protective Edge, only a handful have claimed they were intimidated by Hamas or produced hitherto unpublished footage of rockets being fired from civilian areas, such as the pictures filmed by Indian channel NDTV, which were shown at the Netanyahu briefing. Maybe such footage will still emerge — all the foreign correspondents interviewed for this piece insisted that it doesn’t exist, and not because they wouldn’t have liked to obtain such pictures. Reporter after reporter returning from Gaza has spoken of how, with the notable exception of spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas fighters melted away during the warfare, even abandoning their regular checkpoint at the entrance to the Strip from Erez, so no one was checking the journalists’ passports. “I wasn’t intimidated at any point,” says one seasoned war reporter. “I didn’t feel Hamas were a threat to my welfare any more than Israeli bombings. I’m aware some people had problems, but nothing beyond what you would expect covering a conflict. Hamas’s levels of intimidation weren’t any worse than what you occasionally experience at the hands of the IDF, which didn’t allow access to fighting for most of the conflict either. As a rule no armed forces permit you to broadcast militarily sensitive information.”

Paul Mason, Truth and propaganda: the other two foes in Gaza’s war The Guardian 10 August 2014 wrote a day ago.

If an advanced society ever gets into the kind of war Gaza has been through, I would expect tighter controls on information: strict censorship on what can be tweeted, partial switch-offs of the internet and restrictions on reporters' movements. The absence of these things on the Gazan side made the war reportable through social media.'

When the Jerusalem Post, with the inevitable hand of the Gatestone Institute's Khaled Abu Toameh, comes up, caution is required.

Jodi Rudoren, a very pro-Israeli journalist for the decidedly pro-Israeli New York Times immediately tweeted in response to it:

Jodi Rudoren

@joshmitnick Every reporter I've met who was in Gaza during war says this Israeli/now FPA narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense 5:30 PM - 11 Aug 2014

The New York Times has been noted repeatedly for having an anti-Israel bias. The assertion that it is pro-Israel is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistriwen (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The FPA statement is new, must be registered, but does not decide the issue. We have source conflict, and even, in the case of the FPA, a senior correspondent of the NYTS based in Jerusalem dismissing it as crap. The FPA statement is still fingering only a handful of people.

According to the FPA, several members of the foreign media in Gaza were harassed, threatened or questioned about stories they reported.

This does not contradict what Haaretz and now Jodi Rudoren and Paul Mason have stated. A final two points. It is by no means clear what the complaints are about. Are they generic, or Hamas objections to immediate twitter and facebook photos and reports of them firing rockets, or of photos of them dressed as civilians as they emerge. These are issues of maintaining militant identities and their zones protected as operations are underway. I hope further analysis as this becomes topical, as it must, will clarify this.

Finally, since Israeli strikes killed 8 journalists covering the war in Gaza as of 31 July. Several days later the International Federation of Journalists vigorously protested stating that 13 Press operatives had been killed by Israeli bombings. The list is here Have we these two bits in our article? (How many did Hamas kill?) If you wish a section development, why not also note that several Israeli sources have complained of how Israeli journalists have marched in lockstep in reporting only one side of the war, and that Gideon Levy 's life has been threatened so that Haaretz has been forced to hire a 24 hour bodyguard watch on him? (Uri Avnery The Gaza conflict: losers and consequences Redress Information & Analysis August 08, 2014). I've no problem with a full expansion of all this. Go ahead, but with all angles covered.

In sum, in the fog of war, and propaganda, complexity is the norm, nothing is as it seems, and editors dedicated to NPOV should not be pressing home some truth advantage. The section requires careful attention to all of the various sources existing on this, and should start by stating 710 accredited journalists were there, state several have complained, adding names if you like, and then showing the source conflict between Haaretz, the Guardian, and the Jerusalem Post, while adding also the number of journalists killed and wounded.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I included the IFJ statement on killing of 8 journalists earlier. This was one of the reasons I was not in favour of going on and on about this. There is something strange in having one line for the killing of 8 journalists, and a paragraph on the intimidation of journalists. Kingsindian (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for missing that (it's now 13). Articles that are so relentlesly edited are a nightmare, and one usually just waits until people get bored, and then fixes them. WP:WEIGHT violation then. I.e. editors must not allow one party's POV focus to dominate. There is no room here for a paragraph on journalist intimidation in any case.

Once again, I expect you to change the article. Change the terminology with the Hararetz article from "many" to something else. As I've pointed out countless times, around the same amount are on each side, and the vast majority of journalists have not stated their opinion. You cannot put more weight into one side than the other by subtly changing the terminology. You also cannot discredit an entire organization saying their employees were being threatened just because it goes against your POV. You are very clearly pushing a POV. Tell me. What constitutes "many" for journalists who claim they weren't threatened? 1? 10? 100? How about those who claim they were threatened? And I expect excerpts from the article from the Foreign Press Association to be added. Knightmare72589 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not responding to the issues raised. We don't second guess articles but wondering what the 'silent majority might really think'. Articles are grounded in Rs, not in our dissatisfaction with reliable sources. We simply have no remit to rephrase what they say because we are unhappy with things we expect to be in them, but are not. Your 'expectations' are fine, but you are obliged to convince other editors that they are reasonable. So far, you are trying to undercut a simple statement in Haaretz you dislike and overplay a POV you think is true.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You just said you don't get to second guess articles, yet complain about the NYT, etc being "very pro-Israel". I will say it once again. You need to change the terminology. No where in the Haaretz article does it say "many". About the same number for journalists are on each side, while the vast majority have not given their opinion. Saying "many" while it's the same amount on each side is pushing a POV by making it seem like more than there actually is. It needs to be a more neutral term, such as several. My issue is not with Haaretz, it's with you pushing your POV by distorting what actually happened and what was actually said. Knightmare72589 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Second guess means you were criticizing an article (rs) for failing to say what you expected it should have said in your view of the reality. Check any dictionary. I didn't second guess anything. What I said of both Jodi Rudoren and the New York Times is documented in articles by their colleagues. Jodi Rudoren is a member of FPA, and she has dismissed that note as 'nonsense'. So there's a mystery. So bide your time until some light is thrown on this obscure story. Repetition is not an argument. You are asking for expansion of a section that is already, according to Kingsindian, undue, and thus violates NPOV. If that is inserted, everything I noted above has to be inserted with equal weight and the section becomes several paragraphs.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the FPA has recently condemned the IDF'S assaults on journalists, in demonstrations earlier, and on July 23:

The FPA strongly condemns deliberate official and unofficial incitement against journalists working to cover the current warfare under very difficult circumstances as well as forcible attempts to prevent journalists and TV crews from carrying out their news assignments. While we do not condone the use of invective by any side, outright attacks on journalists are absolutely unacceptable.On Tuesday, IDF forces aimed live fire at the Al Jazeera offices in Gaza City. The offices are on the 11th floor of a known commercial centre. The IDF apologised claiming it was in error and said they would investigate the incident.Also Tuesday, FPA member Firas Khatib of BBC Arabic was physically attacked and abused in the midst of a live feed on the Israeli side of the border. July 23, 2014

I.e. put your point in, and immediately one is obliged to give the rest of what FPA said.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll add some fuel to your fire: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/20699 "During the first days of Operation Protective Edge Hamas forged a policy for media reports to be implemented by local and foreign correspondents covering the fighting. Its objectives were to prevent reports that would prove Israel's claims of Hamas use of Gazan civilians as human shields, and to reinforce the propaganda theme that Israel deliberately attacked civilians and committed war crimes." "During Operation Protective Edge local journalists were careful to follow Hamas' policy guidelines, among other reasons out of the concern for their own safety" "Hamas never allowed foreign correspondents access to military sites attacked by Israel, whether they were bases, rocket launching sites or other targets. The organization's dead and wounded operatives were not photographed and therefore, from a media point of view, they do not exist" "Third, it was obvious that Hamas was firing rockets from civilian areas, but Hamas operatives forbid camera teams from filming them, because they did not want to reveal the tactic or the locations of the launch sites" - WarKosign (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The source Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is not reliable, since as the name indicates its stated policy is to view the people Israel occupies according to all observers, as 'terrorists' whenever they oppose, as they are legally entitled to manu militari or otherwise, that occupation. This plays in the US but is not taken seriously outside by analysts who, as editors should, prefer factual details to colourful language. Area journalists of great distinction and with no Pro- Palestinian brief, contradict the report, in any case. They all say that they never went near Hamas operational sites because that would have been suicidal, as would it have been for Israel to have embedded reporters cover the Shuja'iyya or Khuza'a operations where soldiers were under fire.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is more detail on this in an article by Matthew Kalman [Foreign press divided over Hamas harassment] Haaretz 13 August 2014, which has grist for anyone's mill. We should note that opinion is divided among journalists, if we want to avoid creating a long section with the inevitable balancing of 'no's and 'yes's'. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This section is still hugely unsatisfactory. The intimidation part takes over half the section, while the killing part is only a couple of lines. It is wildly WP:UNDUE. One part needs to be drastically condensed, or the other expanded. Kingsindian (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Still hugely unsatisfactory, in fact worse than before. Kingsindian (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Photos

B'Tselem has a photo blog containing lots of photos about the conflict, all free to use under CC license. Someone can upload to commons and take from there. I have already added one from Beit Hanoun. It contains some photos of rocket attacks on Israel as well. Someone was talking about not enough photos from Israel in the casualties section. Here is an option. Kingsindian (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza Health ministry?

The phrase we use in this article is highly problematic and misleading. Gaza is not an independent state and does not have its own health ministry. Its eighter Palestinian health ministry if it represents the Palestinian Authority/Sate of Palestine or Hamas health ministry, eventually Hamas affiliated health ministry if it represents Hamas. The current description is misleading as no one understands whom Gaza Health ministry represents.--Tritomex (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That objection's already been discussed and dismissed.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Here is the discussion. The consensus was to call it "Gaza Health Ministry". Kingsindian (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, however I think official institutions, have to be named properly according to WP rules. If this institution represent PA/State of Palestine, as it seems to be the case, it has to be named as Palestinian ministry of health.--Tritomex (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Shelters or air-raid shelters?

@Monopoly31121993: Regarding your edit, I don't believe the UN schools serve as air-raid shelters, which, as the page indicates, is something completely different. They are just shelters in the sense of "people have taken shelter there". Kingsindian (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

if the word is being used as a noun in that sentence and not a verb then it means air raid shelter.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: That is a very strange inference. How did you reach it? Air-raid shelters, as the page describes, are shelters designed to withstand, at least somewhat, attacks from the air. There is no sense in which the UN schools meet this definition. Nor is there any source which uses the term "air-raid shelter" as far as I have seen. Kingsindian (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Background

The 2012-13 subsection contains data relating to 2014. I will created a "2014" subsection for "Background" and move the 'offending' data there. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I was raised in an age when reading 200 pages a day was normal, and it seems young readers need to break things up constantly into snippets and sound bytes. What's the problem, can't one just have 2012-2014? That's the simplest solution, and succinct summary prose.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I have reworded the heading and removed this artificial division. Things like the blockade and Netanyahu's comment in March 2014 in the earlier section also refer to 2014. The division in December 2014 is artificial anyway. Best to keep it together, though it can be condensed. Kingsindian (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of military forces section

@Avaya1: It is extremely rude to remove a whole section with a wholly inadequate edit summary. "incomplete...clutters up" -- what kind of reasoning is this? At least have the decency to discuss on the talk page before removing stuff wholesale. Not to mention that this has already been discussed before. Kingsindian (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a couple of random paragraphs about rockets into the middle of article, doesn't constitute a section, let along one which warrants the title 'Military forces and technologies employed'. Arguably we should have such a section, if someone actually writes it. But as it currently stands, you are cluttering the middle of the article with a couple of randomly chosen paragraphs about rockets. As for such a section (should one actually be written) look at precedent - no other comparable articles have this in the middle of the article, but there are some which have it at the end. (e.g. Vietnam_war#Weapons). Although most don't have such a section (e.g. 1982 Lebanon War) - the talkpage archive indicates that I'm not the first editor to remove the section. Avaya1 (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with @Avaya1:. If there is such a section, it should contain a list of all the rockets and mortar shells employed by Hamas, detailed discussion of the tunnels, and of course details of IDF's technology including the Iron Dome, planes, bulldozers and guns used. Since there are already very detailed articles on these subjects, if we need a section here at all it should only contain relevant links. The stub that Avaya1 deleted was there was pointless and did not deserve the 'technologies' title. All it served was to promote a POV saying "hamas rockets are not too bad if you are prepared to live in a bomb shelter" - WarKosign (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree.

Arguably we should have such a section, if someone actually writes it. But as it currently stands, you are cluttering the middle of the article with a couple of randomly chosen paragraphs about rockets

.

I.e., the objection was to the underwritten section that is otherwise thought necessary. Well, that means, the removing objector could improve it, or ask it be improved. Taking it out, means that the thin content is lost to editors. The simplest solution would have been to excerpt it and place it in a section here so it could be refined, rather than chucking it down the gurgler, which means editors who might improve it have to start from scratch. Editing like this just makes life hard for everyone, and is irrational. This article has bloated details on irrelevancies, and guts many things that is important by making links to sub-pages which by definition the majority of editors miss or do not follow up on.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Avaya1: I am glad that you have explained your actions here. However, the reasons don't make any sense. If you thought it should not belong in the middle of the article, why not move it to the end? There is already a section on tunnels down below, why not combine it with that, which would address WarKosign's point somewhat? The previous editor who removed it, himself added the details about the rockets afterwards. I had recently added some details about Hamas drones. There was a small start for the Israeli side, with the picture of the artillery corps and mention of bomb shelters. The section had a big "needs expansion" tag on it. Is it really illegitimate to have a section on weaponry used in a war? Instead, you unfortunately chose to trash the whole section. Kingsindian (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

25% of rockets landing inside Gaza?

@WarKosign: This edit. Do you really think that the sources are adequate for this extraordinary claim? The first one is an opinion by one person, based on no evidence at all, published by Breibart.com, a partisan rag. The second is a blog post. I have talked to you earlier about depite having lots of good edits, being careful about WP:NOTADVOCATE. You should also take a look at WP:OPPONENT. Is this really the sort of evidence you would accept, coming from your opponent? Kingsindian (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: There are many sources that say that Gazans rockets sometimes malfunction. IDF has the most accurate information from Iron Dome radars, but can hardly be considered neutral. Also, as the conflict progresses Hamas progressively runs out of "good" rockets, so the malfunctions will occur more and more often, resulting in different values over time. 25% sounded high to me, but the other source mentioned "more than a third". Here is the IDF's blog, http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/07/31/hamas-launches-rockets-civilians-gaza/ that does not give a number. An ITIC's report mentioned that more rockets fell short in Gaza than were missed by the Iron Dome and hit populated areas in Israel. You are very welcome to find a more reliable source with different numbers. I think the main point is the fact that some rockets do fall short and do kill Gazan civilians, and (and for this point I do not have a source) these casualties are counted as if Israel killed them - since nobody counts "Gazan civilians killed by Hamas"- WarKosign (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: If there are such sources from IDF or ITIC, they should be used instead, and clearly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Also, I am afraid that it is not up to me to find better sources with better numbers, per WP:BURDEN. Kingsindian (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Ok, removed 25% and added IDFblog as a source. This paragraph needs more work, I'll get to it later. - WarKosign (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I have commented out the other two sources, and attributed the claim to IDF. That is of course not the end of the matter, since there are other hurdles to cross including WP:V and WP:UNDUE based on how third-party sources treat this claim. The IDF blog is usually not, by itself allowed as a source. Kingsindian (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Reactions section

Please see this for an explanation for where the reactions section went. A very bold edit, but reasonable I think. If anyone has any issues, we can discuss them. It was a strange thing, half the reactions on this page, and half on the other page. Kingsindian (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Linkrot

Still lots. 142.204.42.75 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@142.204.42.75: Thanks, I have fixed at least some of them. Kingsindian (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Background too long

I think the background section is too long. Events going back to 2011 while certainly part of the over-arching conflict are not directly related to this topic. Each of those paragraphs should be condensed down to a sentence or two with the entire "old" background being one or two paragraphs. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I agree that the whole article, not only the background section, is too long. I am not sure if it needs to be condenses quite so much as you say. The 2011 section can certainly be condensed a bit. I have done a bit of condensing in the article, here, here and here, but most of the work remains to be done. Unfortunately, every time one condenses, people get annoyed about a) removing their work b) introducing bias c) demanding consensus on removing stuff...so it's going to take some time. Kingsindian (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that -sche has done some great work in this area of condensing stuff while retaining all the information. I am not so conscientious, and my edits involve removing undue stuff often. This of course leads to friction, which is understandable and legitimate. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the main reason for the length of the Background section is the insistence that the 2014 Conflicts all be contained within an article which, despite its name "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict" is seen to in fact be about "Operation Protective Edge". There is a move request to rename the article. As a result, not only does the pre-2014 background have to fit in, but also all the lead-up to OPE. I too find this to be ridiculous and have long been pleading for a separate article that takes over these tasks, ironically, an article about the 2014 Israel-Palestinian conflicts. I find the current situation to be artificially restrictive, but there is a powerful lobby the make Operation Protective Edge representative of the entire 2014. Until this changes, we will have to live with a bloated Background. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations numbers start from 35

Citations numbers start from 35. I'm unsure why, or how to fix it. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Yaakovaryeh: You can see the issue by searching for "[1]" and "[2]" etc. There are some references like the Sudarsan Raghavan one, which are not well formatted. Just see the one I fixed just now, it may give the clue as to how to fix others. Kingsindian (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I did the rest, but it doesn't seem to have helped. Even before your fix, there were some numbers that were not on the page (ex. 5 & 9) now there is no 1,2,3,4 either, and the page still starts at 35. What am I missing here?Yaakovaryeh (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

After a bit of poking around, I figured out what was going on: the missing citations are hidden in the collapsed "supported by" sections of the "Belligerents" section of the infobox. If you expand those sections and then Crtl-F "[1]", "[2]", etc, you'll find all the citations, I think. -sche (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Yaakovaryeh and -sche: -sche is of course right, which I independently discovered and was just coming to the talk page to discuss, but it seems that it was too late. :) Kingsindian (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The rocket barrage in March

@Erictheenquirer: I have condensed your paragraph about "alternative version" and added a reference. It seems there is no alternative version since they both agree on the facts: the firing was in response to an incursion east of Khan Yunis. Kingsindian (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Many thanks. Much better. Plz excuse my n000bishness. I added a 3 word clarification that the 'incursion' was into Gaza territory. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Members or militants?

I have noticed in many places "members" is being used. This might of course be problematic since not all Hamas members are combatants. I am not sure what the correct usage is. I read somewhere else that "militants" is the accepted compromise. Not sure if it applies here. Kingsindian (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Human shields redux

@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. Wikipedia 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)

Separating out the kidnapping of three teenagers

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Can you please not change a stable lead massively like this without discussion? I would appreciate it if you restored to the previous version while we discuss.

• Why have you added the the kidnapping of the three teenagers? There was a consensus that we will keep only immediate events in the lead, and put the rest in the background. If one goes to this route, each side will battle to add stuff till we will end up like a monstrosity of a lead like this.
• Your other point is separate. The removal of "non-". Which source claims that the groups were "Hamas-affiliated"? And "safe haven" is your own interpretation. The earlier phrasing was "non-Hamas factions". I am not sure how "non-Hamas affiliated factions" came into being. But it should be changed to "non-Hamas factions". Kingsindian (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot mention the crackdown without mentioning the kidnappings. There was a massive number of abduction attempts by Hamas members in the West Bank culminating in the kidnappings. Israel cracked down in response. Why should we only mention the effect, not the cause?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are now two issues being discussed here. I think it's best if we keep the focus on the original issue of two understandings of the same source. I posted the original above. Is there anything in that text that leads anyone to believe that when Hamas claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks that it was only claiming responsibility for those attacks that took place after 6 July? If not, there shouldn't be any real argument here about changing this.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993 and TheTimesAreAChanging:

• I agree with Monopoly that there are two separate discussions. I have moved this to a separate section, to prevent confusion. If you want to comment on the other matter, please write in the section above.
• As to the "cause and effect" cycle, we can go back eternally for this. Was the crackdown in response to the kidnapping of the three teenagers, or was it just a pretext to undermine the unity govt.? Who kidnapped the teenagers? Should the murder of the Palestinian youth be included? What about the blockade, etc. etc.? It is best if we simply keep to the immediate events in the lead, and leave the arguments to the background section. I showed you what happens to the lead if we go down this slippery slope. I again ask you to please consider restoring the original version while we discuss this. Kingsindian (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning the blockade--although we should be careful to present the Israeli view that it is self-defense from a terrorist organization that seized power in a violent coup along with contrary sources calling it an illegal act of collective punishment on the population of Gaza--but I'm not sure there is any cause to mention the killing of the Palestinian youth. It's no less a crime, but I don't believe it played an important role in starting this war. Still, I know not to take any ownership on articles related to Israel/Palestine.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I again ask you to revert to the earlier version while we discuss. What you believe or not believe is beside the point here. There were multiple events leading to the escalation, as multiple sources mention. The Nathan Thrall article, the Economist article, the David C Hendrickson article, Mouin Rabbani article etc. Our job is not to order the lead based on our personal opinions, but what the sources say. The proximate cause of the flare-up was Hamas firing rockets in response the to the crackdown, first in the West Bank, then an air strike in Gaza. They did not fire in the previous 18 months, as the sources make clear. The rest can be (and is) explained in the background section. Kingsindian (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The kidnapping's crucial significance is attested to by a wide variety of sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Kingsindian that the crackdown was the cause of this phase of the conflict.Israel rounding up hundreds of Palestinians and trying to destroy the Unity government is what caused the rocket attacks. In the crackdown as well they were targeting Hamas members and just before the rocket attacks started the Israeli airforce bombed Gaza killing a few civilians.I do not think the actual kidnapping of the Israeli kids comes into it that much, that was just an excuse used by the Israeli government to put in place their plan of messing up the Palestinians again. GGranddad (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is immaterial to me that GGranddad agrees and TheTimesAreAChanging disagrees with me about the causes of the conflict. I am not talking about it here. I am talking about a consensus, to have in the lead only the immediate causes of the conflict and not the whole back-story, which has been disregarded by TheTimesAreAChanging in his edit. After asking 3 times already, I will not ask again to revert his edit, but only suggest to him to think about what he's doing. Kingsindian (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Unity Gov.

There's a silly mention in the lead about the unity gov. ploy by Hamas and Qatar as if there was a unity gov. in Gaza. This should be moved to the background section. I'm not sure if just saying 'Hamas governed' can be accepted since the situation is "murky", but using the word "unity" is down-right nonsensical. What are your thoughts/relevant sources? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I have read there was a unity government formed between Fatah and politicians who represented Hamas but were not actually members of Hamas. It certainly is not a ploy,it actually happened, it was a move forward by the Palestinians to be unified after so many years apart.The Hamas government I read stepped down in Gaza officially many weeks ago and then of course Israel started the war by cracking down on Hamas members in the west bank to try and undermine the new unity government process.If you need sources for that information I am sure a google serach would render many good ones.GGranddad (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link and piece from the Israeli news about the unity government and Hamas stepping down. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and his "cabinet" in Gaza have resigned, Hamas spokeswoman Israa al-Mudallal said, "paving the way for the new ministers of the consensus government." Haniyeh welcomed the new cabinet as "a government of one people and one political system." "We're leaving the government, but not the nation. We're leaving the ministries but not the question of the nation," Haniyeh said in a televised speech. Hamas and Fatah swore in a "unity" government earlier Monday, despite last-minute tensions which almost prevented the Palestinian Arab reconciliation. The joint government elected Palestinian Authority (PA) official Rami Hamdallah as Prime Minister.[2]

Rockets before July 8

(Issue for Third opinion is the edit here)

Collapsing to prevent confusion for 3O

@Monopoly31121993: Regarding your edit here. The source is the first one cited, by Nathan Thrall. "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." Kingsindian (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: The new phrasing is not correct. The text is saying that Hamas began claiming responsibility for rockets which were fired starting 7th July. Not that it claimed responsibility for rockets earlier. Kingsindian (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The article states:" 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." --- To me that doesn't mean Hamas began claiming responsibility for the rocket attacks that they began launching on July 7, I believe that it means that they started to claim responsibility for all rocket attacks which they may or may not have already been conducting prior to that date.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: While we discuss this, could you please restore the previous version, which was stable for a long time? Coming to your point. Can we agree that: pre-July 7 rockets were not fired by Hamas. Post July 7 rockets included rockets by Hamas. This is what the text said earlier. "The stated aim of the operation was to stop rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, which several non-Hamas affiliated groups had engaged in launching in June in response..." and "After an Israeli Air Force airstrike killed 7 Hamas members, Hamas itself fired rockets into Israel." This is the essential point, and it should be like that in the lead. All the nuances about "responsibility" can be mentioned in the background section. Kingsindian (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not going to revert it. It reflects what was said in the article. If Hamas claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks then they claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I have asked for a WP:3O. Kingsindian (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec)You have deliberately falsified the plain meaning of the sense, and, having been warned, persist in the error. This is a reportable offence, and such behaviour on this page, which is under strong sanctions because of the bad editors the topic tends to attract, has zero tolerance of WP:OR falsifications like these. You can be reported, so reconsider. The text in any case must be reverted compulsorily, because it distorts what the sources say. Hamas assumed responsibility for the rockets it fired from that date. It did not assume responsibility for rockets fired earlier which, it should be specified, were fired by other groups in protest against the West Bank crackdown. Even Blind Freddy and his dog can see that in the sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, when I checked the sources I thought the same thing Monopoly did. The point is that Hamas, which provides safe haven to a variety of militant groups, allowed these attacks on Israel. They did so to avoid being seen as sell outs like Abbas and Egypt.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think they provide "safe haven" for a variety of militant groups at all. I believe the fact is that Hamas cannot control some of the groups and they have had regular crack downs on them as well, example being the 2012 ceasefire in which Hamas did not fire any rockets but some other groups fired a few.I am not sure where you are getting that Hamas allowed other groups to attack Israel,these groups act independently of Hamas, they always have done. GGranddad (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: I will address the issue in a moment, but @Kingsindian: as four editors have taken part in this discussion, please note that MarshalN20's decline was correct and your relisting was out of process. Also please note that it is inappropriate to "Collaps[e] to prevent confusion for 3O". Do you really think that a 3O volunteer will be confused by that one post or that a 3O volunteer would fail to read the whole thread, including any collapsed part?

Now to the issue. I have only checked the Thrall source, since that is what you raised. If others sources add or clarify, please identify which sources and how they do so as you progress this discussion. The current version* of the article is clearly inconsistent with the Thrall source, since the article is currently saying "which several Hamas affiliated groups had begun launching in June", whereas Thrall calls them "non-Hamas factions".

However, about what Hamas started taking responsibility for on 7 July, Thrall is simply ambiguous, and any attempt to interpret him either way is WP:OR. Thrall says, "The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets." That's all. He doesn't say which rockets (the earlier ones or only later ones), and he doesn't say whether taking responsibility for rockets meant firing rockets. So both of you are reading more into the Thrall source than what he says. Stfg (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: the "current version" I referred to above is this version, but including it in the template breaks the template :( --Stfg (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg: Thanks for the reply. To your points

• Main point first: The phrase "responsibility" etc. was inserted in the edit being discussed. The original phrasing simply said, that non-Hamas factions were firing rockets before July 6, and Hamas started fire after July 7. Even if one agrees for the sake of argument that the phrasing source is ambiguous, it would not matter for my point. In my opinion, the edit should be reverted to the previous phrasing.
• The "non-Hamas" part is separate and is discussed in a separate section (below). I did not ask for a 3O on that, but I am glad you agree with me :)
• I only collapsed the earlier part because it referred to a separate edit, and I did not want there to be any confusion about which edit we were talking about. I clearly marked the section as collapsed and gave a title. I apologize if you feel it was inappropriate in some way, though I don't see why it is so.
• Regarding MarshalN20's delisting, I had already left a note on the talk page about why I thought that 3O still applies here. In a nutshell, there are still two "camps" so to speak, and the core dispute is the same as before the other two editors joined in. If I have misunderstood the policy, perhaps you can elaborate. Kingsindian (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: In order of your bullets:

• The Thrall sources doesn't say that Hamas started fire after July 7, it only says they took responsibility for the rockets (not saying which) on 7 July. You are reading more into it than what it says.
• Sure, but this isn't a 3O. It's a 5O, which has much wider scope ;)
• 3O asks for comment on the whole discussion. You can't limit what a 3O volunteer might see fit to address.
• WP:3O states clearly, several times, that it's two editors. Not two camps, two editors.

Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg:

• Do you have a suggestion on the phrasing of the lead about "responsibility" etc. -- Just limiting yourself to the Thrall source for now.
• Regarding your second last point, perhaps someone should update this. Kingsindian (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:

• The only thing you can do with an ambiguous statement is to quote it, and it's hard to see the justification for doing that. I think you need to use other sources to explain how and when Hamas became involved.
• Not really. In this thread I don't see that the request was "negotiated on the talk page by summarizing the two viewpoints clearly in advance and agreeing that the parties prefer a third opinion as a light-weight process to use", nor do I feel that the two (now three, but it was two at the time) other viewpoints can be described as having "contributed only a few technical clarifications". --Stfg (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg: Thanks again for your time. You are of course correct that the conditions for the FAQ are not really met here in a satisfactory way. I will keep this in mind for the future. Kingsindian (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The stated aim of the operation was to stop rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, which several non-Hamas groups had begun launching in June and which Hamas claimed responsibility for on 7 July following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas members in the West Bank.[35][36][37][38][39] The crackdown was a response to the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers by Hamas members, which Hamas leadership praised but did not take responsibility for until August 20.[40][41]

(a) As this reads, the 'which' in 'and which Hamas claimed responsibility' means that Thrall said Hamas took responsibility for the rockets fired by non-Hamas groups in June. As the discussion shows, this is not in Thrall, but an inference from the source:-

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.

The next day means Hamas, which had officially sought to suppress rocket fire (Thrall), at that point assumed responsibility for rocket fire from all factions in the Gaza Strip (i.e. gave them a green light).

(b) which Hamas leadership praised but did not take responsibility for until August 20.

This is the second extreme distortion of sources. Aruri is not the Hamas leadership, and the detail of his claim does not belong to the lead. Khaled Mashal is speaking for the leadership on August 22 when he, in response to Aruri, denied that the leadership had advance knowledge. The lead as it stands therefore has two pro-Israeli pov spinnings of sources that falsify them, and requires immediate correction. I suggest

An Israeli crackdown on Hamas members and institutions on the West Bank, sparked by the kidnapping of 3 Israeli teenagers by known Hamas militants led to rocket launchings in solidarity by non-Hamas factions from the Gaza Strip in June. Israel retaliated on July 6 by bombings that killed seven Hamas militants within the Strip. The following day Hamas assumed responsibility for rockets fired from that territory. Israel held Hamas responsible for the kidnappings. The Hamas leadership, while praising the act, denied knowledge of it, a position repeated by Khaled Meshal on August 22.

One point people might object to. The link to the kidnapping and murder article is glossed only as 'kidnapping'. That has to be made for the simple fact that publicly the Israeli government maintained, while blaming Hamas, that they had been kidnapped, not murdered, as we know they knew from the outset. As early linked, the text has been saying Hamas praised the kidnapping and murder, which is untrue. They praised the kidnapping and were, it appears, unaware of the murders. It's the third example of devious manipulation in just one line of the lead.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)