Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 Gaza War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Hamas began firing rockets on June 29 or June 30

Latest comment: 10 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

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

I think that you see a lot of editors who just write something in order to fill space, if they're parroting the homesite, then it's likely in an attempt to be as true to the material as they can. I went to the article that you posted and felt it necessary to point out that a lot of the Wikipedia articles, while, of course, of similar content, it doesn't seem to me that it's being copied. Parroted, sure but not copied. Something I'd like to bring up, however, is that you see most of the articles being produced from Reuters. Almost every story has their label on it. This is a larger problem as I see it, and we ought to try to move our focus to expanding where we find our information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article has to changed accordingly.--Shrike (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What Netanyahu says and that he holds Hamas accountable doesn't mean it was Hamas who shot. So the lead is correct now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You could read the article before commenting: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas on Monday of involvement, for the first time since a Gaza war in 2012, in rocket attacks on Israel and threatened to step up military action to stop the strikes...Israeli officials had acknowledged that Hamas had held its rocket fire during a series of flare-ups since the brief war ended, and they blamed such attacks on other militant movements while demanding the ruling Islamist group rein them in."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are other sources reporting from that date, prior to the creation of the propaganda line:

Here's a more recent source:

"On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over. Israel was forced to retaliate for the rockets with air raids."

Note that even the 972 Magazine article debated earlier lists June 30 as the date, and that Hamas was attempting to directly fire rockets into Israel even prior to June 30, as the news reports all mention a failed attack the day before, in which the Hamas rocket squad was taken out by an Israeli airstrike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Please see the section Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6 where all the evidence about rocket fire is presented. All serious analysts use July 6 as the date when Hamas started rocket fire. JJ Goldberg is indeed an exception in this regard, as I noted there. The 972mag source you give makes no such claim, only reporting the statement of Netanyahu in Reuters.

As to the reports you mention, most of them are news reports quoting the IDF. For example the first one, by Reuters says "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas on Monday of involvement, for the first time since a Gaza war in 2012, in rocket attacks on Israel and threatened to step up military action to stop the strikes." and "No group has claimed responsibility for Monday's rockets...". The rest are in this vein.
As to the statement that Israel says holds Hamas responsible for all rockets, that may be true or not. But that does not change the facts on who fired rockets. The lead is just stating the basic facts per WP:SS. Kingsindian (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when are blogs, the London Review of Books (cited three times), or The American Conservative more "serious" than the news reports I quoted? (Most of the sources you posted above were merely quoting each other; you are using "serious" as a synonym for "anti-Israel".) For the record, as The New Republic source makes clear, July 6 was when "Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel". Just because Hamas did not claim responsibility prior to that date does not mean they were not firing, or that Israel was not actively taking out Hamas rocket squads. Who debunked earlier reports of rocket fire by Hamas? What new evidence emerged on July 6? Absolutely nothing, just the official Hamas admission, which should carry no more weight than what you dismiss as "IDF claims". Why does this article only describe the official Hamas propaganda line as fact, without even mentioning the Israeli narrative? Is it because the more "serious analysts" have persuasive evidence, not yet publicly available, showing that Hamas was telling the truth and Israel was lying?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I read and again, the article doesn't refute the claim at all but speaks about Netanyahu's position. The evidence is clear as Kingsindian refers too. --IRISZOOM (talk)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: To your points: London Review of Books is not a blog, it is eminently RS. There are two authors quoted from there, Nathan Thrall and Mouin Rabbani, both associated (Thrall currently, Rabbani formerly) with the International Crisis Group a totally respectable middle of the road group. One of the other references is from David C. Hendrickson, an international relations expert writing in The National Interest, a journal founded by Irving Kristol (I hope that counts as mainstream and respectable). I do not see the issue with New Republic source, it seems to support the lead precisely. As to the news reports, they all report the Netanyahu claim, without saying anything about whether it's true or not (as news reports frequently do, they report what is said). Kingsindian (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I said you cited blogs, not that The London Review of Books or The American Conservative are blogs. Your sources report a Hamas official statement. My sources report Israeli official statements. You have no policy-based rationale for only mentioning the former as undisputed fact while totally omitting the latter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I misread the blog part, sorry. As to the rest, these analysts are not "reporting Hamas official statement", but their own analysis. I have already responded to the rest of the points. Kingsindian (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This quibble is odd. I noticed it only now. There is nothing wrong with the text as it is or was.If anything the Netanyahu claim is accompanied by text that says Hamas had not broken its agreement since Nov.2012, 'involvement' means not holding to the terms of its agreement in November 2012 to police groups firing rockets. As to the period preceding this, Israel and Palestinian militant groups struck each other constantly throughout June, Israel continued its policy of assassinating militants by missile strikes. Hamas was not held responsible for the missiles, which were charged to the Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this help matters or not? (I am happy to undo that edit if it is not seen as an improvement.) -sche (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: The edit is ambiguous. It can mean Hamas retroactively took responsibility for the past rockets, which is not correct. Kingsindian (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

-sche. There are so many bad editors pushing a POV without looking at what the effect is here )that the text you tried to emend was not good. Your own edit screwed it up further, no doubt inadvertently. All of this hinges on Thrall. See below. I might add that this article has managed to avoid the unilateral Israelocentric POV drafting that characterizes throughout the sister Timeline article, which has made no pretentions to present both sides, but seems to be drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd that that's the language used in the sources. I have no idea if Nishidani's convoluted rhetoric is an attempt to deny that the Israeli claims linked to above exist, but in any case I will let the sources speak for themselves when I edit this article accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you're planning to do, but it was decided many times that the lead must be kept basic and short per WP:SS and WP:LEAD. Any details can be included in the background section. There is no "Israeli claim" and "Hamas claim" here. The sources are all neutral. So far people seem to be fine with the current version. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thrall is an overview by an analyst, and until more such papers come in, we should be using synthetic overviews by specialists rather than individual articles which are then used, per WP:OR as TheTimesAreAChanging appears to want to do, to overturn what the specialist sources say. Most of the Israeli sources are giving IDF paraphrases or dropping Shin Bet hints. Let's look at it.

Throughout June Israel and non-Hamas factions exchanged airstrikes and rocket fire.
(Israel did not observe the ceasfire terms, nor did non-Hamas groups)
Until the 30th Israel made no claims Hamas was behind rocketry. No one doubts Israel was continuously striking the Gaza Strip as no one doubts non-Hamas activists were firing mortars and rockets over the border. There was a conflict in which the ruling Gaza Authority was recognized by Israel as not being involved.
On the 30th Netanyahu claimed Hamas was involved. The sources say he said this after the IAF struck and killed a Hamas operative who, according to the IDF/political view, was ‘planning to attack Israel with a rocketry/ mortars’. Hamas protested saying the man was at a monitoring point on the border (we no nothing of the truths on the ground here)

(Firing by Israel and non-Hamas groups continued after that)

On the 6th for the second time Israel struck Hamas, this time killing 7 militants.

Re the 6-7th, Nathan Thrall writes:

When the rocket fire increased, they(Hamas) found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge.

As said repeatedly in the past, as as repeatedly editors pushing a POV have tried to get round, this statement is ambiguous, and can only be reliably reported by quoting with attribution.

'The day after 7 Hamas militants were killed in an IAF airstrike, Hamas began to assume responsibility for rockets fired at Israel, and Israel then launched Operation Protective Edge.'

The essence of Thrall's point is on the 7th., after taking casualties of its own, Hamas took responsibility for all rockets, abolishing the distinction it, and Netanyahu drew, between Hamas, the governing authority, and the wildcard militants, the former till the 7th July, the latter until the Ist July (though equivocally. Netanyahu's words can be read as saying Hamas which had managed to 'suppress' rocketry since Nov.2012 was not doing so any more, or was present, or actively allowing rockets to be fired in protest against Israel's violent actions on the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian says that only Goldberg qualifies as a credible source, but he is a credible source, and the question is really a red herring: No-one has debunked the Israeli claims, and even if Israel was almost universally believed to be lying it would still be POV to simply omit their rationale from the narrative altogether. A news report is more than sufficient for an Israeli claim, if secondary analysts like Goldberg repeat it later all the better. The notability is established because it is a claim by an interested party, just like Hamas' July 7 statement. There may be ambiguity about whether or not Hamas had attempted to fire rockets prior to June 30 or the degree of Hamas responsibility for rocket fire from other groups, but Israel unambiguously stated that Hamas directly fired rockets on June 30 and the conflicting dates from the respective interested parties should both be presented.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are problematic in several ways. You remove that an Israeli airstrike killed seven Hamas member and the quote associated with it. And as noted by Nishidani, the claim is not made by Israel or Hamas here but neutral parties. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the SPI against you has no merit and that I should respond even to sockpuppets, where do you draw the line? Israel says Hamas stopped enforcing the ceasefire well before then, causing a huge spike in rocket attacks, and that Hamas was directly firing the previous week. Hamas says the rocket fire on June 30, if they did it, was a response to the killing of a Hamas member the previous day, who Israel in turn says was moments away from launching an attack. If we mention the July 6 airstrike, should we also mention Israel's warning on July 4 that continued rocket fire would necessitate a strong response within the next 48 hours? My edit was the most bare-bones, just-the-facts summary I could think of.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit made by TheTimesAreAChanging is not acceptable. As already stated multiple times, there is no "Israeli claim" and "Hamas claim". The statement is made by neutral third parties. There are two references cited there, Nathan Thrall, which Nishidani notes is slightly ambiguous, and the BBC which is not ambiguous. I have already mentioned in a separate section all the other commentary by analysts other than Thrall, almost all of them (except Goldberg) date the Hamas rocket fire after July 6. I did not say anything which implied that only Goldberg is a credible source. I said that the weight of the evidence is against the assertion that Hamas rocket fire began on June 30. If one wants to quote the Thrall statement with attribution, it is fine with me. But none of this stuff will do. Kingsindian (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What you want to believe and respond to is up to you.

This is about when Hamas launched rockets. That seven were killed on that day when they began firing them according to those sources is relevant. That Israel warned Hamas before has no relevance to the argument that the killing of Hamas members preceded their rocket attacks. And you are not adressing the second point, which is that the claim is not made by Israel or Hamas but by neutral parties. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

.TheTimesAreAChanging. You are editing against the results of past discussions, using WP:OR and overriding both sources and several editors to get your point over. Contentious articles can't get to minimal levels of quality with this approach.

to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions had begun following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank (sparked by the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by Hamas members),[28] and which Hamas itself began on either June 30 (according to Israel) or July 7 (according to Hamas).[

This result is totally, utterly inept. And it is inept because whoever helps or assists this kind of pathetic prose is writing not according to sources but rather in order to make some point, or dole out the kind of responsibility he or she wishes to pin on a side. It is WP:OR also.

the subject of 'and which Hamas itself began' is rocket fire from Gaza.

'Israel' on June 30 must mean an official statement. Netanyahu's single claim that Hamas was 'involved' or that the obscure incident in which one Hamas member died constitutes the 'beginning' of Hamas firing (where are the claims that Hamas was firing rockets on 1,2,3,4,5,6th of June, in a press allusion does not permit editors to translate this into a statement of the kind 'according to Israel'.

Secondly, the 7th is not 'according to Hamas' (a pseudo-balancing statement): it was 'according to several sources' who are not enrolled in the IDF or Hamas. Making deductions (WP:OR)from POV-spinning breaking news media to disrupt what independent analysts state as the sequence is not how things are done here (and those serious analyses can of course change over time). (The same crap happened on the Al-Aqsa Intifada page where battles were fought to try and get over the idea that the death of 1 Israeli soldier before that incident blew up was part of the cause of the uprising. It wasn't at the time, nor in history books later, taken seriously apart from one mention by Anthony Cordesman, who always recycles without checking IDF press handouts).

And what is 'thereafter' doing there?

We had a fairly carefully crafted introduction and now we have a mess.

I suggest the text be reverted to the earlier version.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you and Kingsindian are incapable of editing from a neutral POV and that neutral arbitrators would not support your misleading edits. Beyond that, all I can say, Nishidani, is that I will not allow you to blame me for "pathetic prose writing" or word choices ("thereafter") that were not in my edit at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: You are free to believe anything you like. Multiple times, you have ignored consensus and tried to put in your version of the lead. Earlier you changed "non-Hamas" to "Hamas", which directly contradicted the source. While there is no consensus on the edit, I have restored the status quo. You can use WP:DRN or an RfC or other methods to get consensus. But please do not change the lead like this. Kingsindian (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I know, and I intend to. Nishidani and you, however, do not have a clear consensus, and I have made only one bold edit after patient discussion. I do not know why you are so incapable of representing sources or edits honestly, but your description of the unrelated edit you just linked to is patently deceptive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Al-Aqsa

Latest comment: 10 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion

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

@Kingsindian: Why not ? Argument: Israel attacked journalists, which is an alleged violation of IHL. Counter argument: some international bodies, including the US government consider them terrorists, which makes them a legitimate target. WarKosign (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing alleged about it, if you attack journalists then you are breaking the law. I believe Israel killed about 9 journalists in Gaza this time around.Can you show us a link from some international bodies that states that journalists are terrorists? Thanks. GGranddad (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No one, other than ISIS, attacked journalists. A TV station is not a journalist and journalists do get killed in war zones even without being a direct target. To the point -- if ISIS TV station is attacked, certainly, it merits to add that it is considered a terrorist body regardless if ISIS "journalists" are killed in the process. (read: replace ISIS with Hamas -- there's not a huge difference anyway [1]) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS? Please try and keep to the topic, this is about Gaza and journalists there. HRW and Amnesty have both accused Israel of attacking journalists and media outlets in Gaza illegally.GGranddad (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: Sure it is alleged. You are alleging it now. Wishing or believing it very strongly doesn't make it absolute truth. Do you have on you undeniable proof that the event happened, that they were indeed journalists and not terrorists in disguise, that they were killed by IDF and that it happened intentionally ? We are not here to decide whether the allegation are correct or not. We are only to report them. We do have proof that such a claim was made, hence this section. WarKosign (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not alleged that it is against the law to attack journalists, it is against the law.You stated that attacking journalists was allegedly against the law, you are wrong, it is against the law.GGranddad (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This from HRW. “Just because Israel says a journalist was a fighter or a TV station was a command center does not make it so,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Journalists who praise Hamas and TV stations that applaud attacks on Israel may be propagandists, but that does not make them legitimate targets under the laws of war.”GGranddad (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

@WarKosign: Your added statement makes no reference to the legality of targeting them. It simply says that the US govt. does not distinguish between Hamas and al-Aqsa television station as terrorist. The relevant policy is quoted by GGranddad, however, that comes from 2012, so it cannot be directly included here. I am still waiting for HRW etc. to write a comprehensive report, but for the moment, I have included Reporters without Borders statement and Al-Haq statement affirming the illegality of targeting journalists even if they are propagandists or belong to a so-called terrorist organization. To MarciulionisHOF, I have ignored you till now, and will continue to ignore you. Please read WP:FORUM. Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have stated it was from 2012 but it obviously points out HRW opinion on the law relating to events and the same events happened in 2014 Gaza war.We need to wait for the NGO reports from this conflict of course.GGranddad (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:. Sources "affirming" and "plastering" and all that jazz are indeed foruming. US gov perspective is not foruming, though. I hope these points are clear enough so that no one will ignore them. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Once it established (that some people believe) that Al-Aqsa TV journalists are member of Hamas, attacking them is as (il)legal as attacking any (other) hamas member. This source mentions that IDF believe this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/20/israelgaza-unlawful-israeli-attacks-palestinian-media. I will add it, does it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

~~You cannot add it, it is from 2012 war not this one and so is your link.GGranddad (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)~~Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Indeed as GGranddad mentions, the report is from 2012. In any case, the Israeli statement about why they targeted the TV stations is already present. There does not need to be anything else. And, as I said, the US position on whether they consider Al Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is not relevant here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is that a leading global power (read: the USA, not a silly NGO) and Israel, stating a long term perspective on the Hamas PR department (Flying Mosque TV) is most relevant to avoid any instances of plastering affirmation. Adding long-standing, mainstream views is the encyclopedic thing to do. Removing them based on disliking the mainstream views (a gazzillibillion NGOs and their fantastical names put aside) is bad jazz. I do agree, that outside long term perspective of the global powers, sources should show as much relation to the recent dance-fight rather than articles from 2012. However, if an Israeli or US official has a statement, it should be noted (with the relevant time-stamp). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In between the vast amount of WP:FORUMing one can detect some small argument by MarciulionisHOF. However, it is without basis. The statement by the US Treasury (in 2010) about Hamas ties, says nothing at all about whether it is legal to target Al Aqsa TV station. To put it in this section is wholly WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia wouldn't wish to plaster its articles with worthless/meaningless NGO flamings without some real world notable perspective next to them. Common sense basis, is to include the US view on the Flying Mosque TV station. The initial edit pasted on this topic[2] seemed quite normative to me and objections have been on technicalities, rather than substance. Should there be found a specific source? Where the US talks specifically about a journalist or two that got hurt during an attack in the vicinity of Hamas PR department? Just to counter every NGO out there? That is absurd. The US repeatedly talk about how Israel has the right to defend itself and only counter instances where the case in unclear. In the case of the Flying Mosque TV -- the case IS clear and we have a source to boot. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: "Hamas' station plays a "central role in managing the media battle against the Israeli lies," the Bloc said."[3] --- Journalists, yes? If anything is undue is Reporters Without Borders (a useless organization when dealing with law-less militants like ISIS and Hamas) using something from 1999 to make bogus allegations against a portion of the IDF's statement (ignoring the part about Flying Mosque TV being used to parlay orders to operatives seems relevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) : retouch MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It has to be made clear, per WP:NPOV, when Al Aqsa TV and its operatives are mentioned, that for huge part of the world, Hamas political wing, including organizations run by this wing, (to which Al Aqsa TV belongs) are considered a terrorist infrastructure. We should not take stand on this issue, but we are an explicit claim that the US does not distinguish between "armed terrorists" and Al Aqsa TV operatives does not mean that the US thinks that Al Aqsa TV is legitimate target. Well, this is not correct as the US means exactly that,. as "terrorist targets" are considered legitimate targets by international law. More so, other states which declared Hamas political wing, and all of its institutions as a "terrorist organization" and this includes 40+ countries, legally do not consider Al Aqsa TV as legitimate media, nor they consider its operatives as journalists.--Tritomex (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to see some sources directly justifying the targeting of Al Aqsa journalists, not handwaving. All I see right now, is a US Treasury statement saying that Al Aqsa TV and Hamas are intimately tied and thus both are terrorist. Fine, but nobody is denying that. Just being a member of Hamas does not make targeting them legal. Hamas' politicians are not considered militants, for example. (This is why the Washington Post passage added by Tritomex is also irrelevant). Kingsindian (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, There's a mistake in your argument. An operational affiliation with Hamas means you are a legal target. There is not a single reputable source saying that killing Hamas operatives is illegal. As for Flying Mosque TV, Israel made a statement (e.g. used to parlay Hamas orders). The US will, obviously, not address each and every case and, certainly, won't use big words like 'illegal'. They have made a general statement that the Hamas PR department, in charge of "managing the media battle against the Israeli lies", is a terrorist body (which lies under legality definitions even if unmentioned directly). Israel and US views about the Flying Mosque TV are not hand-waving even if the word 'legal' was not dropped in. Hamas' "politicians" ARE considered legal targets by both Israel and the US due to their association with what both consider a terrorist organization. Certainly, countries have a bigger say (or at least, similar article space) than a gazzillibillion NGOs vying for extra prominence through sensationalism and wanton allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

@Kingsindian:, I can understand your concern but disagree with an original research tag (which part of that policy fits here?). The article does not include original arguments, not listed in the references. Certainly, mainstream views on the legal status of the battle station is pertinent to any NGO silliness. While we don't have another source and we remain in disagreement, it might be interesting to hear views on this from more editors on the best way to present the varying perspectives on the legal status of the battle station (i.e. based on mainstream views). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: From WP:OR. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Kingsindian (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, but no one will say "it IS legal to attack XXX". We certainly have (a) reliable source. (b) no new conclusion is implied -- just the basic, mainstream one. (c) directly related to the legal status of the battle station. I hope, even if you disagree, that you can at least see my point. Since I'm not certain you are convinced or that you understand where your demand for a source responding directly to an absurd NGO (usually, even more absurd NGOs do that -- e.g. CAMERA, Honestreporting.com, etc.) is hurting a very normative presentation of the mainstream views. 'JWB say X, the US and Israel see it differently'. I urge you to reconsider. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, with MarciulionisHOF, no one details the legality of this particular military action, but the designation of Al Aqsa TV as a legitimate media, and its operatives as journalists which is a hotly disputed and polemic issue. Per WP:NPOV, we should not take a stand on this issue, but present all relevant views. This has nothing to do with OR and directly supports the material being presented .Tritomex (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF and Tritomex: I have no idea what you mean by "no one will say it is legal to attack XXX". Of course many orgs specifically render opinions on when it is legal to target and when it is not. Under certain circumstances, it is ok to target press installations. The circumstances have already been mentioned in Israel's justification, namely, if they are transmitting military codes or something. It is fine to mention that. And the press-related and human rights organizations have condemned it on the basis that they have determined (they don't take Israel's claim to have any basis in fact). I have no issue with including anything which is relevant. This Treasury stuff is not relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, The US treasury is an extension of congress. This source can be added: [4] -- basically speaking, the US is a spec more notable than silly NGOs (Can we at least agree on that?). If they have a legal position on something, it is relevant. I hope, the added source helps validate that this is not coming from some pencil pusher in the treasury, but is an official view of the US gov. Btw, current phrasing is problematic. e.g "Journalists are considered civilians and should not be targeted under international humanitarian law." (no attribution given). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have no idea how that new source (Arutz Sheva) is important. The notability of the US Treasury report has already been established by secondary sources added by Tritomex. I am not disputing that. I am questioning the relevance. So far, no relevance has been established. I need direct relevance, a source directly addressing the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV, as the Reporters Without Borders and Al Haq source do. Kingsindian (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I've been saying the past few replies that your request is unreasonable because no one says "its legal to ...". NGOs likes to use big words like 'illegal', and states like to use general terms like 'terrorist', which imply legality. The only ones who attack NGO silliness are even sillier NGOs like CAMERA. On occasion, you get an expert who says 'Israel has the right to defend itself', but it is simply unreasonable to expect a one to one ratio between the words 'illegal' and 'legal'. Do we have any other examples where these 'illegal' allegations were met with the word "legal" instead of a more complex term such as "terrorist"?

It's not a position of the government unless it's actually stated by the government. The fact that no statement has been issued means the government has no official position. Saying that it follows logically from previous government opinions is WP:OR and misleading, as it implies that government positions are always logically self-consistent, which is patently false. Governments are not like individuals, who can hold opinions without stating them. The US government isn't "thinking" anything right now. That's why they use such nebulous terms, because they don't want to have an opinion until they have to. In the absence of an actual statement of opinion, no opinion exists. Anything else is WP:OR. 162.157.79.24 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Anon contributor. Re-read, and click on the provided links which establish the opposite of what you say. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion/query

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

A truce has been called. This article is, as is inevitable in real time international 'incidents' articles where edit-warring to push a national POV attracts large numbers of editors, and interference in normal editing is disturbed by political interests, a poor digest violating WP:Undue in many sections, and WP:NPOV. Since news is not flowing in, I suggest that we try to find some highly experienced article writer, with no bone to gnaw on the I/P area, to revise it from top to bottom. If such a volunteer is available, it would mean editors now working the article would desist as the review took place. (Is there any mechanism for this?)Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Support While I'm unaware of such a tool or option, I think it generally sounds like an excellent idea given the current state of this important article, which has essentially turned into a scrapbook. I suppose this could be accomplished by (1) arriving at a consensus for such an editor, and, (2) requesting full protection be applied for 3 days to give said editor a chance to refresh the article. For instance, OrangeMike is a tenured WP admin with no edit history on Israel that I can identify. Could we request he (or someone with like characteristics) conduct a cursory refresh during which time other edits would be suspended? DocumentError (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment A review sounds good, but as the conflict ended a flow of reports will begin. More and less biased organizations will publish their reports which should be incorporated into the article. It may undo the work by this neutral reviewer. Wouldn't it be better to wait a certain period? WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Before we paint the house, we need to hose the dirt off. DocumentError (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My thought exactly. Before fine-tuning the POV balance and writing style, get all the facts straight. WarKosign (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I don't think you understand. DocumentError (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@DocumentError: I assume you meant it's best to balance the tone/neutrality/style and then add new information. I'm saying the exact opposite, since adding new information would throw the article off balance again. Anyway, I'm not casting a vote either way. WarKosign (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians - proposed new section

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I've seen about 50 interviews with Palestinians in Gaza and all of them basically said the same thing: 'we support fighting Israel.' This should be placed in the article as the majority view (I'm sure there's mention that Israelis wanted to wipe Hamas off the map).

Here's one source (Others should possibly be added here before we start writing this into the article):

"האזרחים העזתים תומכים באופן מלא בזרוע הצבאית של החמאס ובמאבקה נגד ישראל. ... אני מבטיח לך שגם אנשי שמאל בעזה תומכים בעז א־דין אל־קסאם" -- [5]

Translation: "The civilians in Gaza fully support Hamas military wing and its fight against Israel ... I promise you that left-wing people in Gaza support the Az A-Din al-Qassam"

"Like the other families that were harmed by the terrible bombardment of Shuja'iyya, they emphasized their support for the resistance" [6]
"Khaybar, Khaybar oh Jews – Khaybar Khaybar, oh Jews – The army of Muhammad has begun its return. Resistance, resistance – we are all with the resistance."..."(the resistance is preparing) for the liberation of our Palestinian land." [7]
- Analysis "Palestine" replaces Israel

-- MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ++ MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The section title is blatant POV pushing. 'English people in WW2 were unanimous in supporting attacks on German people' is how it translates: you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic what is a natural national consensus to defend oneself against what is perceived as a hostile occupying power. So? Most people are patriotic. 94% of Israelis support the IDF, most Gazans support Hamas. Secondly all that information is in English sources. One doesn't document the obvious, and the page already has too many editors trying egregiously to make wikipedia a forum for one POV. Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, the above personal attack is unfounded and unacceptable. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading you created. Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone holocaust denier, or cry-baby Muslim (or Jew) is fantastic cheese-head behavior, which has no place here. Cheese heads think it is good conduct when they make nasty unsubstantiated and personal allegations. There's nothing in the title that talks about antisemitism. I did mention antisemtism in an earlier threat, but that was in regards to the classic "Jews slaughter children for using their blood" sloganeering (I think the source involved was a spokesperson for an NGO extra-extraordinaire) and not in regards to Gaza's residents and what they support. Hamas may be blatantly antisemitic (look-up Osama Hamdan on CNN or their Hamas TV poetry section), but that is irrelevant to this thread, and I have not mentioned it in the "evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading" (No. There is no evidence there). So. Let's not promote cheese-head behavior. Focus on bringing the article forward. I've linked a few sources where Gaza residents support the militancy against Israeli civilians. More sources on this public view might help bring a well cited paragraph (I'd hate to use too few samples and meet "resistance"). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What personal attack? DocumentError (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure really. Maybe you should re-read it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

YNet is one source. What are the 49 others? DocumentError (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The conflict has ended

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

I think we waited long enough. There is edit warring going between IP and inexperienced users. Current summary is maybe adequate but lacks sources.

I found these sources:

I suggest to write "Open-ended ceasefire, both sides claim victory" just like in Operation Pillar of Defence. Can someone think of a short summary of the ceasefire terms that can be put in the infobox ? Perhaps a new section for the ceasefire terms ? WarKosign (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, the current summary seems to be adequate but lacks sources. I'll just add them. WarKosign (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

References

On "Claiming Victory"

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Naturally both sides will claim victory. However, I don't think we should conclusively say what the result of the conflict is. At this point, I think "Return to status quo", "Inconclusive" or "Ceasefire negotiations ongoing" would be a good place holder. Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Only Hamas is claiming victory (they also claim to have been massacred - oxymoron?). Israel is claiming to have "handed a heavy blow" to Hamas and that "non of Hamas demands were met" (albeit, Israel will increase fishing areas and possibly give more things Hamas wanted -- no airport though, duh!). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

According to this, both sides claim victory. Although people in Israel say that Israel didn't go far enough. Knightmare72589 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This source poses a problem. On one hand, they are (best I am aware) what should be considered a reliable source. On the other, nowhere in that speech did Netanyahu say anything about victory. He said precisely what I said in my above comment. I don't know what the protocol is in this type of instance. What do other sources say? This one (best I am aware) is accurate.

This is unrelated but I'm too tired to open/edit another section. Do me a favor (someone) and add it to the relevant talk section. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are sources saying that both sides claim victory. Netanyahu is quoted saying that all the goals of the operation were achieved - isn't it the definition of victory ? WarKosign (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit complicated, but I've decided to allow others resolve this one. Certainly, if there are sources -- we should consider them seriously. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to make a post about this all. I think this is a classic problem with Wikipedia today and citing both sides. The easiest thinng would be to cite the results in the Egyptian Peace Agreement as the results of the war. Now I've been spending the last 30 minutes trying to find it and I am unable. Does anyone have the actual contents somewhere? Also we must remember that both these governments survive de facto on this war and both have achieved their objectives of staying in power. Any traditional war would seek the occupation, at least temporarily of Gaza. Israels government never sought this. While Hamas knows this and was thus willing to sacrifice any number of people until the anticipated withdrawl happened. Bad people... 79.136.64.95 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dead links

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

@Wlglunight93: This edit is not acceptable. There is no requirement for a dead link to be fixed immediately or the content to be removed. I would urge you to read Wikipedia:Link_rot and WP:PRESERVE again. The correct link could have been found by Googling for it, as I did in 2 seconds. I would appreciate it if you put back the perfectly sourced information with the correct link. Here it is. Kingsindian (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I will. But those who put the sources should be more careful when writing the links. We are talking about recent articles, not events from several years ago whose links may be lost due to the passage of time. This political POV claim also needs proper citation, since it's not an infallible truth. Other much less controversial statements are better quoted in this article. Besides, it's not true that only 3% of rockets hit populated areas. I think another sentence is necessary to counterbalance this claim, don't you?--Wlglunight93 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant for this issue. Removing sourced content like this is unacceptable. If you think something is wrong with the content, it advances a particular POV etc., then you should make edits and give edit summaries based on that. This kind of behaviour, if repeated, will be seen as WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAMING. Kingsindian (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If this kind of behaviour by several parties on this page persists, I think they should all be reported at the AE case regarding WarKosign, who is amenable to discussion, studies the rule and generally does not fly in the face of commonsense, to have their behaviour examined. They should be there, not him, and en bloc. Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

From the data currently in the article, 4.9% of the rockets fired from Gaza hit populated areas in Israel, 16.1% were intercepted by the Iron Dome, 6.1% or more fell in Gaza (this number is from another source so can't be used in the article) and the rest either failed to launch or was ignored by Iron Dome and allowed to fall in empty areas. The article claiming 3% is from July 29, so either it uses outdated data, uses a source other than IDF (which?) or is simply wrong. Perhaps it's best to mention the unreliability of this number while leaving the argument intact - 4.9% is almost as low as 3%. WarKosign (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All these figures are evidently provisory, even the 4.9% one. Much depends on what you mean by 'populated areas'. And you would not expect much statistical variation between the first three weeks and the subsequent three weeks on Hamas rocket efficiency. If anything, one would expect a deterioration. I don't know how one gets to 4.9% with such precision. I'm not prepossessed by the point however. I just don't think the IDF has much credibility on matters like this. That's why I prefer outside experts. Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I took the numbers from the Iron Dome statistics and divided the 735 intercepted rockets by the 4564 fired projectiles and rounded it to 4.9%. Assuming these numbers are final, they should be correct - it's not just some guy watching the sky and counting rockets as they fly by, but results of automatic system tracking objects on radars and classifying them by trajectory. All the data is surely recorded for future reviews. By 'populated areas' I mean areas that the Iron Dome is configured to protect. It surely includes a safety margin to account for inaccuracy of the rockets, so these populated areas are somewhat larger than the actual areas people live in. An outside expert would need to have specialized radars located strategically to be able to record all the rocket launches - which is something nobody but the Iron Dome operators have. Hamas could potentially know the number of rockets launched, if it could collect the data from all the militants that were launching - including those killed mid-action by the IDF, but even then they wouldn't know what happened to each rocket after the launch. WarKosign (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"the majority of whom were Palestinian civilians"

Latest comment: 10 years ago51 comments10 people in discussion

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

There is no argument (I hope) that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians. Percent of the civilians among them is disputed and may be bellow 50%, so I changed the statement to say that most of the casualties are Palestinians without referring to their militant vs civilian status here. WarKosign (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: The source you added says "mostly civilians", it doesn't says that they were mostly Palestinian civilians. Please add a source that actually backs up the claim you insist on making. WarKosign (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, according to this, if you apply a simple WP:CALC, percent of civilian palestinians is 49.53%, which is not a majority. WarKosign (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's either 49.53% or 50.9%, they give both 2200 and 2140 as number of casualties. Anyway, I suggest not going into the percent of civilians vs militants in the opening paragraph. WarKosign (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

~~I added more links.GGranddad (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)~~Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One of them actually says that the majority or the people killed in Gaza were Palestinian Civilians. The article speaks about people killed in general, including in Israel - so the source still doesn't back up the claim completely. I would rather keep the lead paragraph undisputable, without the need to present different viewpoints. The fact that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians can't be disputed. Percent of civilians can, especially as final numbers will arrive from the different organizations. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually two of them state that and they were.The percentage of civilians is only disputed by Israel. I see no need to remove well sourced factual information, the sources back up what has been written in the article.GGranddad (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Best I am aware, the statistics on age group casualty rates was not the work of Israel. Do you have a source saying otherwise? Here's one not presented by Israel: [8] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC) added BBC MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Then that makes them civilians. Regardless if whether or not they are politically associated with Hamas, so long as they don't engage in hostilities, they are considered civilians. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/03/qa-2014-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas; "...mere membership or affiliation with Hamas, which is a political entity with an armed component, is not a sufficient basis for determining an individual to be a lawful military target. Israel’s labeling of certain individuals as “terrorists” does not make them military targets as a matter of law, so attacks on such persons may be deliberate attacks on civilians or indiscriminate on the grounds that there was no military target, in violation of the laws of war." JDiala (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I added that statement. In the sidebar are statistics from five different organisations, four of which agree that the majority of Palestinian casualities have been civilians, and the fifth of which, the IDF, gives a ratio of civilians to militants of around 50% (and I don't think it would be controversial to note that they're likely to be biased). If you think the statistics in the sidebar are in dispute, despite the numerous sources there, then they should be addressed there; I merely amended the phrasing to reflect the statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Here's a link to a serious institute's research: [9]. Based on their fact finding, which is a much more serious process than repeating the Hamas-Healthcare/Muqawama-Foreign-PR-department line and chanting "illegal!!!!", I'd be hard pressed to accept NGO vying for notability being pushed forward, even if there are a gazzilibillion of them. On point -- what do proper analysts have to say about the lists? OK. NGOs too, but gropu them together if they just repeat Muqawama-FPR numbers without looking into them. Sure reminds me of the Jenin "Massacre". Has anyone seen the short (10 min) movie The Truth - by Scandar Copti & Rabih Boukhary? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have asked you before to stop your WP:FORUMing. Kingsindian (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I don't appreciate scare tactics. Have you read that link? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources say and report that of the Palestinians killed, there were overwhelmingly civilians killed and that shouldn't be ignored just because Israel and a few others disputes it. The last view is also in the table and relevants parts but otherwise, the first thing should be accepted as a fact. With regards to the table, it's also weird that IDF's claims about militants killed are there but the ones by Hamas about Israelis killed have been removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM and AcidSnow: The majority view (based on reports of the Hamas controlled ministry of health) is that up to 80% of the casualties were civilians. There is also a minority view that up to 50% of the casualties where in fact militants. Both views are represented both in the infobox and in the casualties reports table. We could present both views in the first paragraph of the lead, or we could avoid the disputable topic and leave only short summary of indisputable information in the lead. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not only figures by the administration in Gaza and that something is disputed doesn't mean we won't report that majority of the killed were civilians, as then you give the other, in this case Israeli position, a much higher representation than it should have. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The “short summary of indisputable information” draws a false equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian deaths. Stating that “Hamas rockets and Israeli air strikes have left more than 2,000 dead” overlooks the highly pertinent point that the deaths have overwhelmingly been on one side. There is no dispute that ~95% of the deaths have been Palestinian or that ~90% of the Israeli deaths were military, and this should be reflected, at the very least. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, this is why I wrote "mostly Palestinians" and suggested to add ", many of them civilians". I believe there is no dispute that by far most of the casualties are Palestinian, only their civilian vs military status is disputed. Recently the total number of casualties increased while there was no Israeli claim of the number of dead militants, so there is no source to contradict the claim that most of the casualties are Palestinian civilians. Once/If there is such a claim, we can return to this dispute. WarKosign (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question the civilian percentages is done by much more than Israel. BBC and NYT both published research casting doubt on the Hamas numbers [10][11] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

@IRISZOOM: Let's avoid repeating all of the precise numbers of Palestinian and Israeli and Thai civilians and combatants twice in the space of the lead's four paragraphs (and then a third time in the infobox). The lead's fourth paragraph is where the casualty data are summarized; it already contains the note that "Between 2,000[22] and 2,143[19] Gazans have been killed [...] and between 10,895[21] and 11,100[20] have been wounded, while 66 IDF soldiers, 5 Israeli civilians and 1 Thai civilian have been killed[14] and 450 IDF soldiers and 80 Israeli civilians have been wounded." The ellipsis marks the spot I just moved the data on child casualties to. -sche (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I wanted to restore that most were Palestinians civilians, as this was removed with no basis. It looks good now. The source on the number of Palestinian children killed can be seen in the sources in the lead, with the exception of The National. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Algemeiner says that "Israel Says Gaza Death Toll 1:1 Combatant-Civilian Kill Ratio", which I take as claiming that 50% of the Palestinian casualties are civilians, which already makes them non-majority. If you add casualties in Israel and Gaza together the number of Palestinian civilians is definitely bellow 50%. At most you could say that "so and so casualties, most of them Palestinians and many of them civilians" or "so and so casualties, according to some sources most of them Palestinian civilians". Anything that is short and does not contradict reliable sources will do. WarKosign (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We already know Israel gives a figure around that, which is noted in the table and infobox. Palestinian officials, UN, NGO's and hundreds of media reports back up the claim that most were Palestinian civilians and that's why we use their wording. This is a clear majority view. So it's totally reasonable to write that most killed have been Palestinian civilians. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is totally reasonable to write that there are two different views. Your counting of the sources is OR. If there is a source saying that one view is in majority it's also reasonable to write so. Doing otherwise would violate NPOV. WarKosign (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, just because Israel and some others dispute the numbers doesn't mean that we don't report the overwhelmingly view which is that most of the dead were Palestinian civilians. It is not OR at all, I can't see how you reached that conclusion, because no doubt the view that most dead were Palestinian civilians are in clear majority. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot ignore one side's POV, and pick the side based on your bias. Either both sides are represented per NPOV or neither is. WarKosign (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not ignored, their position is stated in relevant sections of it. But that doesn't mean we can't state as a fact that most were Palestinian civilians. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly means that you cannot state a disputed claim as a fact. Why not take any other disputed claim in the article and write it as a fact in the lead as well ? WarKosign (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. There are many disputes about numerous topics and claims. Merely being disputed doesn't mean we can't state something as a fact. As I have said repeatedly, there is a clear majority who say that most dead were Palestinian civilians. That can be stated as a fact. For example, you wrongly say that East Jerusalem is "in Israel" here below, but clearly the rest of the world doesn't agree and that's why we say it's occupied though Israel and some others dispute it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT, one cannot state a disputed opinion as a fact. It is OK to mention both opinion or even to claim that one is more popular than another. WarKosign (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, per WP:POINT, since there is consensus that lead should be kept short and to the point, we should not include both versions in full detail in the lead. Hence the only option that I see is to remove the disputed statement from the lead. More than 2100 casualties, most of them Palestinians, many of them civilians. Unless someone can come up with another indisputable statement, this is more or less what the lead should say. WarKosign (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest: In the first paragraph: "2100 casualties, mostly Palestinians". In the last paragraph, something like this: "Gaza Health Ministry, UN and human rights orgs give 70-75% civilians. Israel states 50% militants." A short statement, including Israel's position, but making the relative positions clear. Simply saying "exact number is disputed" is too weak a statement. Kingsindian (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -sche, any preemptive copy-editing before we put it in the article itself ? WarKosign (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingindian's suggestions sound good to me, too. I might expand the second sentence a bit, to: "The Gaza Health Ministry, UN and human rights groups say 70-75% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians; Israel states 50% were militants." I wonder (a) where in the fourth paragraph it's best to put that sentence, and (b) if it might make sense to give both sides' civilian %, or militant %, rather than mixing them as "Palestine says [one number] % were [one thing], Israel says [a different number] % were [a different thing]". -sche (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Both the exact number of people killed and the percentage of the dead who were civilians has been disputed." - do we still need this first sentence of the fourth paragraph ? The percentage of civilians will be discussed better and the exact number of casualties while slightly different is not really disputed. I think it's understandable that it will take some time for the lists of casualties to finalize. I suggest this as the fourth paragraph:

Between 2,000^[1] and 2,143^[2] Gazans have been killed (including 495–578 children)^[3]^[4]^{[dubious – discuss]} and between 10,895^[5] and 11,100^[4] have been wounded, while 66 IDF soldiers, 5 Israeli civilians and 1 Thai civilian have been killed^[3] and 450 IDF soldiers and 80 Israeli civilians have been wounded.^[6] The Gaza Health Ministry, UN and human rights groups say 70-75% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians; Israel states 50% were civilians^{[citation needed]}. On 5 August, OCHA stated that 520,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (approximately 30% of its population) might have been displaced, of whom 485,000 needed emergency food assistance^[7] and 273,000 were taking shelter in 90 UN-run schools.^[8] 17,200 Gazan homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes have suffered damage but are still inhabitable.^[3] In addition, it stated that during the war, the IDF killed 23 Palestinians in the West Bank and wounded 2,218 others, 38% of them by live fire, while dealing with protests.^[9] In Israel, an estimated 5,000^[10] to 8,000^[11] citizens fled their homes due to the threat of rocket and mortar attacks.^[10] WarKosign (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I agree that now that the various estimates of casualties and of civilian-vs-militant percentages are spelled out, the current first sentence ("Both the exact...") can be dropped. -sche (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't at all say so, WarKosign, as that refers to opinions etc. I don't oppose the changes suggested here but again wan't to say that we still can't, and shouldn't, not state it as a fact in where it's relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Too many negatives in the last sentence for me to parse. At least one seems to be a false negative. (wan't). Just a joke. In my opinion, there was a case for simply stating it as a fact, rather than "both sides", but it would have involved too much bother for too little and uncertain gain for the cogency of the lead. Anyone else wants to take up the "fight", feel free. Kingsindian (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I think it's very important to have a text as good as possible when it comes to perhaps the most notably issue in this conflict, which is the deaths of civilians. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point, all we have is preliminary figures, as the UN itself stresses. Afterwards, there will be investigations by human rights orgs like B'Tselem and international orgs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (they are currently waiting to get into Gaza for conducting investigations). For the moment, too much is uncertain. Though it is not in my own mind, but it exists. It is good to reflect the uncertainty for now, and let the reader make up his own mind. Kingsindian (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:, why did you keep the dubious tag? It makes no sense when the whole criticism there is addressed in the whole section now that it got changed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: I don't know had put it there and why. Doesn't it refer to the whole article ? WarKosign (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean the one which was introduced here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion and the changes were about percent of civilians, while the tag is about the total number of casualties. Maybe Blizzisme (talk · contribs) can elaborate. WarKosign (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That is absurd. Saying that the crediblity of the numbers given here is acceptable when coming to percentage but not the total is like moving the goalpost. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Because of your weird unwillingness to remove it, I have now done it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Iron Dome

Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

We should specify in the introduction how many rockets fell in open areas, in urban areas and how many were intercepted by the Iron Dome, like in the lead of Operation Pillar of Defense. We could also add some information about the important performance of this defense system during the war.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A good idea. Work based on other, long standing articles is good form. Here's a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciulionisHOF (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We need a better source than an image by IDF spokesperson on twitter, something in quotable textual form. Some people^[who?] say that the low number of Israeli casualties is due to the rockets not being fatal. This article claims Iron Dome isn't working at all. WarKosign (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I added two reliable sources to describe Iron Dome's performance, including an article of the Aviation Week contradicting the analysis of Ted Postol (he's a physicist who doesn't know anything about military issues). Remember that Hezbollah fired 4,000 rockets in 2006 and killed 44 Israeli civilians (plus a number of reservists).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The aviation week article simply quotes the Israeli ~~spokesman~~ Defence Minister and an unnamed Israeli senior official, together with a person from Rafael, who were the manufacturers. Hard to call that independent verification. One could read this in any news media. It adds nothing at all of any interest. Kingsindian (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Many sources (including newspapers) state that Iron Dome intercepted 735 rockets. Few rockets landed in populated areas in comparison. Aviation Week is not the only one. Numbers don't lie: firing the same amount of rockets, Hezbollah managed to kill 44 Israeli civilians in 2006, while Hamas killed 6 (mainly with mortar shells, which in general can't be intercepted by ID).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: What kind of independent verification would you expect to find ? I'm sure the system specs and rocket trajectories are kept secret so not to help Hamas find ways to overcome them, so no uninvolved 3rd party can verify the claims. WarKosign (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That comparison doesn't work fully, which is what Theodore Postol also has said, pointing to warning system and shelters that the Israelis has improved. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the IDF spokesperson source for this information. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Of course military matters are not easy to discern. This is why you need qualified specialists talking about them, not people mindlessly repeating claims. This is a better source, though even this is unsatisfactory. Kingsindian (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Postol's claims don't make sense. He has an obsessive agenda against missile defense systems (perhaps motivated by certain economic interests, I don't know). Again, I repeat: 735 rockets headed toward populated areas were intercepted by Iron Dome. There are plenty of sources confirming this number. Besides, civil defenses in 2006 (warnings, shelters, etc) were nearly the same.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You can argue with Postol if you like. It is useless arguing with me. I am not a military expert. Kingsindian (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a technical issue contaminated further by the failure to produce usable data by the IDF both in earlier operations and in this war, and my deep-seated interests in that technology's success. Subrata Ghoshroy, 'Israel’s Iron Dome: a misplaced debate,' Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, also writes that US reports are highly focused on Hamas rocketry. This is true and can be verified. Google 'gassam'/'Fajr'/etc.+Hamas+Gaza and you get results in the millions. Google a similar combination of 'Soltam M71 guns'/Paladin M109 howitzers/ Hellfire missiles/ Merkava tanks/Dvora/ and Sa’ar gunships/Apache helicopters/F-16/GBU-28+Israel+Gaza and you get miserable results. There are strong commercial interests involved as well since Gaza has long been Isael's laboratory for testing (and selling on the basis of results) all sorts of military technology. We should only be looking at independent technical analysis, not dependant on a side's partial and unverifiable claims (that goes for Hamas too) in order to avoid these traps, and Postol for one, use attribution by all means, is independent, qualified specifically in this area, and neutral as well, since he made similar claims against U.S. defence missile systems. The article by Uzi Rubin calling him 'amateurish' is farcical and self-interested.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Same person criticizing both Israel and the US doesn't make him neutral - or you can say that Iran is neutral. WarKosign (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, here is an idea for Hamas: stop giving IDF reasons/excuses to operate in Gaza and this will mess up testing of weapons and hurt Israel's weapons sales. WarKosign (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is, he is an expert in missile defense, and considered such by the American Congressional Committees in their investigations and by his peers in the field (b) editors have no understanding of the technicalities and should desist from pathetic attempts to criticize the kind of expertise our sources provide (c)the two examples are examples only for analogy by hyperbole, and the point of simile is lost when hyperbole is used. As to the last point, Hamas's respect for ceasefires has never stopped the IDF from bombing Gaza, (any more than the PLO's respect for the brokered ceasefire in 1981 stopped Israel's political decision to invade Lebanon, ostensibly to protect its north from rocketry) or running across it at night regularly to create sleep-deprivation tramatizing sonic booms.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

To call him an expert on missile defense is giving him too much credit. In reality, he isn't taken very seriously by his peers. He is almost teetering on conspiracy theory. He bases almost all his conclusions of missile defense on amateur video or poor quality videos, dating all the way back to the Patriot Missile Defense. Not to mention that he believes that MIT is trying to suppress him. Somehow, he's tricked media into thinking he is an expert in missile defense. One of his colleagues, Richard Lloyd, who regularly backs Postol up on his criticism of the Iron Dome has a stake in the game, because Richard Lloyd is trying to get his type of Tamir missile for the Iron Dome picked up by the IDF. Basically, the types of missiles the Iron Dome uses is being made by Richard Lloyd's rival. Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea at all what the discussion is about. I see lot of soapboxing. What is the issue? Do you want to get Postol out of the article? Then the answer is no. He has been quoted by Reuters, MIT tech review, BusinessWeek and Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Any criticism you want to make of his methods are not relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I said he somehow got the media to think he's an expert on missile defense when he's really not. Not to mention his methodology is faulty and unscientific. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: getting quoted on a bunch of news-medias means some type of notability. It doesn't mean reliability (anyone remember Saeb Erekat promising 500+ "massacred" on CNN and later being confronted on this lie by Wolf Blitzer?). So, in the hypothetical case where someone is notable but heavily criticized (is this guy notable enough to be heavily criticized? *brain freeze*), then there's real problem on how/if to include such point of view/claims. Might be good to get a wider opinion on a "generic" non specific case from a band of Wwikipedia long-time contributors rather than run 50000 arguments about this every other Monday. Even if you two come to agreement, two weeks from now, two others will pop in and redo the same argument. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Executions by Hamas

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

@Kingsindian:You have put an undue tag on a paragraph in a section dealing with Hamas executing civilians. Two reasons why I think it is not undue:

A source for one of the execution cases says clearly that the bodies where brought to a hospital to be counted as civilian casualties of Israeli's operation. There is no source for this happening in this case, but since there is no mention of Hamas' own victims in the "Hamas-controlled Gaza Health ministry" casualties report, it seems reasonable to assume they became a part of the civilian count.
This killing happened during the conflict and arguably because of the conflict - humanitarian situation created the need for food handouts and therefore tension and scuffles. Whether or not the killing was unavoidable or not is a question. A creative reporter can write an article on how this killing is Israel's fault. WarKosign (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Regarding your 2 points:

~~No, it is not "reasonable" to assume such things unless there is a source which states that these are counted as civilian casualties.~~To clarify, I have only added the undue tag for the last sentence, about food handouts.
Of course many things happen due to the conflict. I am sure there are some old or sick people in Israel, or old or sick people in Gaza who died or had problems due to the conflict. That is very different from getting killed in the conflict, or getting killed as a collaborator. Kingsindian (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Given that there is no source that says one way or the other, at least not for all the casualties, either way we count the casualties is an assumptions. One assumption is that they are reduced from the civilian numbers published by the ministry, another assumption they are included in the number. How do you pick one ? The default seems to be counting them towards Israel until there are official reports stating otherwise, but it is factually incorrect. Did people in Gaza stop dying from natural causes during the conflict ? WarKosign (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I do not get your point. Of course people died from natural causes during the conflict. It is not sufficient to say, "oh we don't know" maybe they are included. If there is some source which says they are included, it should be provided per WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, the sources should be used and attributed, as is done. There is a long methodology section which talks about the various organizations. It does not say "let's count all those people who died in this period and blame Israel". Kingsindian (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with points made by Kingsindian. This does seem undue. DocumentError (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you rate reliability of this source ? Does it deserve a mention ? "It identifies itself as a nonpartisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank for international and domestic policy, based in New York City" WarKosign (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable. Anyone can identify themselves as anything. Given the criticism the Gatestone Institute has received, and the people involved (e.g. John Bolton, Zuhdi Jasser, et. al.), it should not be seen as anything other than an editorial board. DocumentError (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Or this one: "Human rights groups acknowledge that people killed by Hamas as collaborators and people who died naturally, or perhaps through domestic violence, are most likely counted as well" WarKosign (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two tags, one for the whole section, I do not think the section has too much detail, though it could be better organised. At some point it may even need to be split off, and have a summary here instead, but there is no sign of that at the moment.

The question of the shooting over food handouts is separately tagged as "undue". The salient part of the "reason" field said

What do food handouts have to do with the conflict or collaborators?

Clearly they have nothing to do with collaborators, I would have thought equally clearly, a lot to do with the conflict. The section is titled Killing of suspected collaborators. I have therefore moved the sentence, and the previous relating to killing of protesters to the following section Killing of Gazan civilians. I have left the {{Undue}} tag, for the moment. It seems to me that a government killing its own citizens is a very significant matter, therefore I propose to remove it unless any convincing argument can be given not to.

Arguably Killing of suspected collaborators should be a sub-section of Killing of Gazan civilians.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

Without even having seen your comment, I arrived at the same conclusion that "Killing of suspected collaborators should be a sub-section of Killing of Gazan civilians" or at least, the former should follow the latter, so I did this. I think the section is not too detailed anymore (it was until I cleaned it up a day or two ago). -sche (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The Gatestone institute is not WP:RS; however the NYT is fine (it is already quoted in the article in the methodology section). The issue is not whether there are errors in the statistics or not. Of course there are likely errors. The statement in the NYT is not saying that all incidents of natural deaths etc. are included. It is saying that that it is likely that there are some natural deaths which are included in the statistics. All figures are preliminary, and then UN and human rights orgs etc. conduct their own investigations, in the methodology. This has nothing to do with whether a police action resulting in killing of two people deserves to be included in war casualties. These are not military incidents. Kingsindian (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign and Rich Farmbrough: The section is labeled "Alleged violations of International Humanitarian law". The incident with the food handouts is a police action. There was a scuffle and during the altercation, police opened fire and two people were killed. Whatever we may think of this, a police incident like this is not a violation of international humanitarian law. This is much different from rockets falling on your citizens, or killing suspected collaborators, which are military actions. Kingsindian (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Agreed, the killing itself does not look like a violation of IHL. The fact that (per NY times) the victims of executions are counted as casualties should be in the casualties section, I'll edit the last paragraph of the methodology section. WarKosign (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas accused of abusing Fatah members during Gaza war

I believe this source is relevant to the execution of suspected collaborators, but not sure which parts. Is beating relevant ? Is suspected collaborators being members of the Fatah relevant ?

There is also this source that MarciulionisHOF found:

Hamas fires at sick Gazans trying to leave for medical treatment

Sounds like mis-treatment of gazan civilians, potentially relevant, but not no evidence of actual murder. WarKosign (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to how long Mashal has lived in exile

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

@TheTimesAreAChanging:, can you tell me where you see Yahoo making the point that Mashal has lived 37 years in exile? Secondly, you broke the 1RR, so think about discussing first instead of rushing to revert. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR means you are given one revert, not that no reverts can ever occur. Yahoo mentions that he lives in exile, here is a source for how long.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That said, the number cited in that 2014 article may be wrong. I believe Meshaal has lived in exile since 1967, which is supported by this source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You made reverts earlier. But it's good you have started to discuss the issue.

So I was right, and not a "liar" as you unacceptably called me because I disagreed with you, that the article doesn't make that point. Not either the original article in Yahoo that they refer to (Hamas leader: Don't compare us to ISIL). Read about WP:SYNTHESIS. That he has lived in exile has no connection to the citations you added. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Meshaal, who has lived in exile for 37 years, has denied being involved in the 'details'" sounds very much like synthesis. It sounds as if his living in exile is related to him not being involved in the details, while neither his quote nor the article make this claim. There are sources for the denial, there are sources for exile but no sources for them being related. Why not "Meshaal, who's favorite pizza topping is ZZZZ, has denied ..." ?WarKosign (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In the same spirit, "On 20 August, a Hamas official in exile in Turkey, Saleh al-Arouri, claimed responsibility for the kidnapping and the murder" - an exile is not mentioned at all in the sources. Even if there are sources for the exile, do they claim any relevance to him claiming Hamas's responsibility for the murder ? WarKosign (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo explicitly makes the point that he has headed Hamas' political wing from exile. If IRISZOOM was really concerned merely about the details of his exile, not whether it was attested to by the source, he would have amended the text to better reflect what the source does in fact say rather than deleting it completely. The obvious goal is to discredit Saleh al-Arouri based on Meshaal's propaganda, even though Meshaal also claims not to know anything about any Hamas terrorist attacks, ever. Finally, IRISZOOM believes all edits are reverts and thus one can only make one edit a day, a bizarre view very similar to that espoused by GGranddad, providing more evidence he may be a sockpuppet.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't change the goalpost. We were talking about if the article mentions how long Mashal has lived in exile. That he has lead the political movement in exile since 2004 is true, and is well-known by him being their highest leader, and doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, and the latter is also true about Saleh al-Arouri.

No, you reverted JDiala and then me. So it was not normal edits. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not going to feed the troll by engaging with you any further.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Iriszoom. I'd ask a third party. I always get IR wrong, and when in doubt ask a competent admin. If you are dead certain, then it should go to AE, since this page is harassed by poor editing which it can ill-afford.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean asking about the 1RR? --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani added sources for Saleh al-Arouri's exile. The questions remains - is the exile of either of Hamas's leaders important enough to mention? Is putting it in the same sentence with the claim they are making implies connection between the exile and the claim? WarKosign (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is important, since the range of contacts available to people in exile with their home networks (esp. in the intercepted world of communications) is restricted, as are their contacts with each other. And this, in an extremely factionalized world, means jumping to generic cause and effect reverse reasoning (Hamas member, ergo Hamas, ergo Hamas Arouri, ergo Meshaal) Kingsindian mentioned on my page an important transcript in Arabic discussing this, which we need a faithful translation on, as it might throw some light on the issue. The exile and the claim are mentioned together in sources, and there is no reason to separate them.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Massive destruction in Beit Hanoun

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Beit Hanoun is a small city north in Gaza with some 32 000 inhabitants. About 70% of homes were uninhabitable after the war[12]. I think that the article should have more about this, and some pictures.--85.166.157.97 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Except for the fact that that the article provided by this IP address user only mentions Beit Hanoun briefly and quotes its mayor as the person making the totally unverifiable claim. Without providing any evidence and since logically, his claim would mean that (if the average house hold had 10 people living there) 2,000 homes were destroyed or suffered such levels of destruction that they are uninhabitable. I think the mayor's comments need a neutral source before being taken seriously.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The statement about 70% etc. is already present in the "Impact" section. Kingsindian (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we really going to add how many Israeli soldiers Hamas has claimed to kill again?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

First of all, it's an absolutely farcical claim. Secondly, the sources are hardly reputable. Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC that so far seems to lean towards not including it. WarKosign (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Killings in the West Bank

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

@-sche: I noticed that you moved the killings in the West Bank to the "Reactions" article. I do not think this is correct. The affair started in the West Bank with the kidnapping/murder of three teenagers etc. which is mentioned in detail in this article. And of course, West Bank is part of Palestine, just as Gaza is, with about the quarter of the people in Gaza having family in the West Bank. All throughout the conflict and even before there have been demonstrations there and the killings there are certainly notable and directly related. It should be present in this article, instead of simply as reactions like pro-Palestine or pro-Israel protests around the world. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different. Kingsindian (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The details of the West Bank killings are still present in this article, in #Reactions. The paragraph in the #Casualties section which had repeated the details was both redundant and IMO not well-placed, in that West Bank casualties seem (to me) to by definition not be "Israel-Gaza conflict casualties". (I still left an informative mention of them in the Casualties section with a link to the Reactions section.) How do RSes, and how does Israel, treat the killings — as part of the military conflict, or as part of regular containment of protests? Not all killings, even killings by parties which are involved in the conflict, are part of the conflict — hence the discussion above about whether or not to mention that Hamas shot people who were fighting over food handouts.
If the information on the West Bank killings is deemed necessary to include in the Casualties section, I think it should be removed from the Reactions section. It can't be both a part of the conflict and a reaction to the conflict, can it? -sche (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The food handouts issue is totally separate. The issue there was that it was a domestic matter involving police, and not an international matter involving military. As to RS about West Bank/Gaza, here are two, including an official PLO response one and two. Probably I can find more if I search. Kingsindian (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it should not belong in "Reactions". I had initially put it in a separate section by itself and someone moved it to "Reactions" and somehow I never followed it up. Kingsindian (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox says that belligerents of the conflict are Israel and Gaza Strip. Even if we include the west bank as a belligerent for this argument, controlling violent demonstrations is policing and not a military action. By Kingsindian's logic, casualties of a policing action are not casualties of the conflict. WarKosign (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I already said why that logic does not apply. This is not an internal police matter. West Bank is not Israel. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a report by Human Rights Watch on the matter. Kingsindian (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR. Comment: The West Bank is disputed territory. Some consider it "part of Palestine"[13][14][15], some consider it "part of Israel"[16], some consider it a place where Jews and Arabs can come together to play Yahtzee (Winner gets to shout "Yahtzee!"). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who consider the west bank a part of Israel aren't likely to condemn killing of Palestinian protesters, so for the issue of considering whether the killing of protesters is a policing action or a part of the conflict we must assume the west bank is not a part of Israel. WarKosign (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the many killings on the West Bank should be in a reactions section. The West Bank protests were against the war, and the same military fighting in Gaza, shot up the demonstrators. It is an Israeli POV that this is 'policing'. Most modern police do not put down demonstrations by shooting protestors reguarly, and the West Bank is policed by units forming part of a military institution. It is of course not an 'assumption' that the West Bank is part of Israel. It is not so under Israeli law, which applies, at its convenience, Jordanian law or Ottoman law there, and hasn't even formally annexed East Jerusalem. These are elementary facts, long exhaustively discussed here over a decade and should not be recycled as subjective opinions.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a terrible idea to use big words like 'I think', 'many' and 'regularly'. Less Osama Hamdan based mythology, more encyclopedic citation based content. Yes. Indeed. As for how to describe the results of clashes in the Israeli-Miltary administered parts of the West Bank (Area C?), Wikipedia should see what mainstream sources say rather than promote a wiki-user's favorite. “With blood and fire, we will redeem Palestine,”-peace-activists have died. Not in this example. But here, Molotov cocktail throwing de-facto-pro-peace militants supreme resulted in two casualties (said spokespersons for the shadow organization called "Palestinian medical officials" -- lazy reporters couldn't get a name or at least a job title?). I'd appreciate a source for the above "Israeli POV" statement. There's a lot of blue cheese dressing in a statement made on behalf of an entire democratic country (which had both Effi Eitam and Azmi Bishara as MKs if you can believe it). Find a source to make it Cheddar. Or better yet, avoid the cheese. Less calories. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do you think this event belongs: in reactions, in timeline or not in the article at all ? It happened in East Jerusalem which is arguably a part of the west bank, and apparently violent clashes between Israeli and Palestinians in the west bank during the conflict are a part of the conflict. WarKosign (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits are problematic

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

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

(Merging from below)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Most international institutions consider the blockade to be a form of collective punishment and unlawful"

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

There is a very long list of references, I did not see any of them being some form of research comparing statements by the different international institutions. There are definitely "many" such institutions, but to wrote "most" you need a source that claims that.

BTW, is there a way to have the background diff-able ? At the moment it is very hard to tell what is being changed because of the <onlyinclude> tag. WarKosign (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

International institutions, within the context of this discussion, would imply organizations such as the UN, NGOs, the ICRC, the ICC, and human rights organizations. The opinion of these institutions is almost unanimous: the blockade is illegal under international law. Regardless, if you have an issue with the word "most" it can be changed to "many". JDiala (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's easily fixed but to do so only makes the ref list uglier. What you are questioning is 'most'. 50 international organizations have condemned the situation in Gaza. Change to read (adding the extra references:

Over the years, there is an "overwhelming consensus" shared by 50 organizations, among them some of the most respected institutions internationally, such as International Committee of the Red Cross Amnesty International, CARE International, several UN agencies, a UN fact-finding mission, many experts in international law and human rights organizations consider the blockade a form of collective punishment or illegal, and the European Quartet (UN, European Union, Russia and the United States) has repeatedly called for an immediate end to the blockade.^[12] ^[13]^[14]Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You are listing some very respectable institutions. Saying that they are "most" respective is a subjective statement. While I personally believe the statement is true, it lacks a source. "many" would be more technically correct and is supported by the fact there are many sources. I wonder how many of the same institutions consider rocket fire on civilian population illegal as well. WarKosign (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

'most' is in one of the added sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Judging by where you're from and your edit history, I am inclined to wonder whether or not the Israeli government is paying you to spout Israeli propaganda. I'm going to use your reasoning, just apply it the other way around. Find one international institution that doesn't believe that the blockade is illegal. And by blockade, I'm referring to the whole blockade, not just the naval blockade, so you cannot use the Palmer report.

Wikipedia represents the mainstream views. Not partisan, pro-Israel apologetics. The mainstream legal, academic and scholarly consensus of the international community is that the blockade of the Gaza strip is illegal under international law. Therefore, we will take care to explicitly mention that fact. JDiala (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish the government did pay somebody to correct the obvious pro-Palestinian bias in many pages. Comparing the number of Arabs with the number of Jews in the world, it's a miracle the article for Israel isn't called Zionist Entity. But enough soapboxing. WarKosign (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A silly comment. Arabs, certainly Palestinians, have close to zero presence in wikipedia's I/P articles, as opposed to Israelis. The suspicion is of course that the few non-Israeli/non-Arabs who do pitch in have problems with anti-semitism. The premise there is, that careful reading of Israeli newspapers and scholarship, and its use as RS is anti-semitic. The conflict here is quite simply an infra-Israeli/Jewish dispute, and that goyim find the Israeli/Jewish critical literature more comprehensible, more 'empirical' than the nationalist literature, which is all about solidarity and "us", from which, by definition, they are excluded.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: With all due respect, the entire world, bar the United States and Israel, have what you perceive to be, a pro-Palestinian bias. This is simply the reality of the situation. The facts that this article lays out may not conform to your preconceived ideological belief that Israel's actions are perfectly good and just, and that its defending itself against the evil Arabs. Again, let me reiterate my point: Wikipedia represents the mainstream views. And the mainstream view among practically all international institutions is that the blockade is illegal.

You have been doing this on numerous sections. You repeatedly complain about various things which you perceive to be "anti-Israel". If you have a particular viewpoint, you, by all means, have the right to bring it up. However, partisan, WP:SPA individuals who care more about having the article reflect their own person ideological views rather than attempting to abide by certain encyclopedic standards are not appreciated. JDiala (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala and Nishidani: Just out of curiosity, have a peek at the Google-translated Arabic and Hebrew versions of the article. I am making an assumption that the Hebrew version is dominated by editors with an Israeli bias while the Arabic version is dominated by Palestinian bias. Count the pictures depicting the damage to the other side. One side chose to have exactly zero pictures showing the damage to the other. The other has put two pictures at the lead, just like in this version of the article, and more through the article - perhaps less than here. Even with the lacking translation you can observe which subjects are discussed and which are avoided in each version. WarKosign (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: This has been discussed here. The "most international institutions" is a paraphrase of Richard Falk first reference "overwhelming consensus". One can directly use Falk's phrase if needed. Kingsindian (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

50 International institutions does justify 'most', which is moderate actually because only Israel (as opposed to many Israeli observers and scholars) as an official government stance, naturally denies that international law is being violated there. Falk's phrasing is actually better, so I have adjusted my suggested version.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems finished. I'll remove the failed verification claim. JDiala (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93: This section is the justification for the edit that you reverted. If you have some argument, here would be a good place to make it WarKosign (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference partfour was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference jihad121 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference OCHA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference ministry was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference PCHR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference OPE-Israeli-wounded was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Gaza Emergency Situation Report" (PDF). United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Occupied Palestinian Territory. 3 August 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ "Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency" (PDF). 5 August 2014. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
^ Gideon Levy 'The IDF’s real face,' Haaretz 30 August 2014.
^ ^a ^b Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan. "Israel, Palestinians launch new three-day truce." Reuters. 10 August 2014.
^ Heller, Aron (6 August 2014). "Southern Israelis cautiously prepare to head home". Associated Press. Retrieved 31 August 2014.
^ 'UN agencies join in shared call for end to Israeli blockade of Gaza,' 14 June 2012
^ 'Statement: Legal experts and human rights defenders demand international community end Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza,' Mondoweiss July 28, 2014
^ Imogen Foulkes,'ICRC says Israel's Gaza blockade breaks law,' BBC News 14 June 2010.

ANI

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nishidani, Kingsindian, JDiala, Knightmare72589, WarKosign, -sche, Tritomex - There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have restored this comment since it was eaten in an edit conflict. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There are far too many instances of incompetent or POV-pushing editors ridding the page of things they dislike. Since it occurs frequently and can't be automatically reverted because of 1R, I think we need a section like this to keep track of the damage, so that the game being played (make so many tumbling edits of this kind, and quite a few will stick because no editor can keep up). Any editor who catches this kind of behaviour can plunk their examples here. (above comment by Nishidani) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that such a thing is necessary, I would suggest doing what I proposed (though I later changed my mind) here. In a nutshell, this section should list only the disputed edits, with the discussion taking place in their own sections. I had initially suggested including edits which include both added and removed material. Kingsindian (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for messing with your section. That is not a disputed edit. It is blatant suppression of a properly sourced stable piece of text on a pretext, to get rid of a disliked piece of information. I've been catching that frequently. All one is seeing here is an impudent gaming of 1R, not serious editing.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits

edit, section Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rosenfeld.2FDonnison

In favor of Hamas

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Write the benefit of Hamas and Israel presents the conflict and carries guilt Gaza injury, not only is this not true or is misleading readers. Hamas is responsible for the conflict, is it shoots innocent people and then say that the Israelis react too spicy - how America would behave if it were firing missiles and kill people through tunnels attack? נהוראיי מבורך כחלון (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is meant so that editors can discuss changes to the article. I'm not following which changes you wish to make. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

[partfour-1] Cite error: The named reference partfour was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[jihad121-2] Cite error: The named reference jihad121 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[OCHA-3] Cite error: The named reference OCHA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ministry-4] Cite error: The named reference ministry was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[PCHR-5] Cite error: The named reference PCHR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[OPE-Israeli-wounded-6] Cite error: The named reference OPE-Israeli-wounded was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[OCHA1-7] "Gaza Emergency Situation Report" (PDF). United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Occupied Palestinian Territory. 3 August 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[OCHA2-8] "Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency" (PDF). 5 August 2014. Retrieved 12 August 2014.

[9] Gideon Levy 'The IDF’s real face,' Haaretz 30 August 2014.

[mughrabinidal-10] Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan. "Israel, Palestinians launch new three-day truce." Reuters. 10 August 2014.

[israelsouthhomes-11] Heller, Aron (6 August 2014). "Southern Israelis cautiously prepare to head home". Associated Press. Retrieved 31 August 2014.

[12] 'UN agencies join in shared call for end to Israeli blockade of Gaza,' 14 June 2012

[13] 'Statement: Legal experts and human rights defenders demand international community end Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza,' Mondoweiss July 28, 2014

[14] Imogen Foulkes,'ICRC says Israel's Gaza blockade breaks law,' BBC News 14 June 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]