Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Hamas Controlled?

The lead sentence of the article says "On 8 July 2014, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched Operation Protective Edge...in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip". What exactly does "Hamas controlled" mean? That's a vague statement. Is it governance? Hamas governs the Gaza strip; however, it hardly controls it. Israel has absolute control over the Gazans' freedom of movement (ie border crossings), the crossing of goods, the airspace, the population registry, the tax system, the coastline, overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade and, of course, is currently besieging the region. It is seriously disingenuous to state that Gaza is Hamas controlled. At best, it must be acknowledged that the situation is more complex than a single entity "controlling" the entire region; Hamas and Israel control it in different ways. After all, Israel is still considered the occupying power of Gaza by most international institutions and human rights organizations. JDiala (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because Israel controls aspects of Gaza such as airspace, borders (Israel doesn't control the Egypt/Gaza border), etc doesn't mean Hamas doesn't control Gaza. During the Afghanistan War, the US effectively had control over Afghanistan in the same respect as Israel does to Gaza, but there were parts that were considered Taliban controlled which is in the same respect as Hamas with Gaza. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with "Hamas-governed", if that is more precise. Kingsindian (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I thing governed is fine. WarKosign (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Make that 4. I agree, also because it is customary in sources. Münevver Cebeci, Issues in EU and US Foreign Policy, Lexington Books, ‎2011 p.147; (b) Sara Roy,Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector,‎ Princeton University Press (2011) 2013 passim, but also p.239 etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem with 'governed' is that just recently there were some hard to follow unity chess-games between Hamas and Fatah. To avoid this confusion, which I'm sure even Palestinian "legislators" and "spokespersons" like Osama Hamdan or the shadowy "Palestinian medical officials" (hurray to shabby journalism for never getting a name or a job title even) can't follow, it IS best (and most certainly not "seriously disingenuous" -- what?!) to go with 'Hamas-controlled'. They control the strip itself, while Israel and Egypt apply a US-Quartet sanctioned blockade. That is a very basic and neutral summary of what reliable sources say. All the hubbub about what's exactly controlled by who (e.g. Hamas controls the media and local tax mechanism (Fatah controls the global one, which includes import taxes) and tunnel making and the public executions, etc.) belongs in a whiny section about the economics and how the "illegal" blockade prevents it from growing (that and the spending on 3km tunnels and air-drones (ffs!) to "resist" and "defend" and take back Palestine as imagined by Hamas -- rejecting past agreements and repeatedly attacking a country with a capable army while very few of your allies are willing to help out[1][2][3] doesn't help either). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
All that is pointless, and not the way wiki editors work. We use sources, preferably academic, reliably published ones.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There is little argument that Hamas is the elected government in the Gaza strip. As you can see there is argument regarding the degree of control it has. The purpose of this sentence in the lead is to say that the conflict is not between Israel and the Gazan people but between Israel and the authority that claims responsibility for what happens in Gaza (a.k.a. government), and for that "Hamas governed" is precise enough. It is indeed questionable how much control Hamas actually has. In some aspects it has less control than a typical government, being cut-off by the blockade and depending on Israel for infrastructures such as water and power supply; and in some aspects much more control than a typical government, being opaque in almost every regard and performing massive executions of opponents and protesters. I do not believe that every homeowner willingly agreed to store ammunition in their house, knowing that it makes the house a legitimate military target and puts the family at risk - but Hamas did it anyway. WarKosign (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Commendable judgement. I would beg to differ only with the statement:'massive executions of opponents and protesters'. However deplorable that kind of institutionalized thuggery, 'massive' is inappropriate. Clinically examining the period without partis pris, Hamas executed 25 Gazans, Israel has shot dead in what it calls 'riot control' a similar number (32 since June 13, but if you start from July 7, the number is approximately in the mid-twenties) of Palestinians it governs under military law in the occupied territories. Those wounded by IDF gunfire in the West Bank during the Gaza war number 1,397 which means the 'riot control' methods are similar to those that sparked the Al-Aqsa Intifada. And it too is 'opaque' in every regard to the circumstances of each of those deaths. A neutral bystander (not perhaps myself) would think the analogy precise, and perhaps draw similar conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There were more than 25 executed, at least 88 by my count during this conflict, and it is not the first time for Hamas. Arguably shooting and even killing violent protesters is more reasonable than executing hand-cuffed and hooded prisoners in cold blood. WarKosign (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Arguably, but of course none of the people Hamas 'liquidated' were children, whereas many children on the West Bank are []http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/palestinian-shot-dead-during-west-bank-raid-201481185550149212.html 'summarily shot dead',] and in democracies civic protests, even if tough, are not put down by shooting people. But we can drop this.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign, it is a misconception that Hamas is the "elected government of Gaza". They were not elected to govern Gaza. They were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council and won the most seats. They ultimately kicked out the rest of the Palestinian Legislative Council, so they are hardly the "legitimate" government in Gaza. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It is pointless arguing against sources, which establish usage. If you want to know what really happened, they didn't 'kick out' the PLO. The PLO was being paid to stage a coup, and a counter-coup by Hamas preempted it (See Sara Roy's book above p.43)

Discussion seems to be meandering from the original course. If nobody objects to "Hamas-governed", I will change it. (Or anyone else can). It says the same thing without any issue of vagueness. Kingsindian (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, Read it again. "Governed" is wrong on a number of levels. Hamas-controlled is not only correct, but used by a source I linked to earlier on this talk page when discussing the lead. I guess, editors might like to compile a list of sources to see what is more a common naming convention these days. But, really, it is a matter of accuracy and Knightmare72589 said it well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I can cite several sources which describe Israel as the occupying power with a large degree of control. This, for example, by B'tselem, a reputable Israeli human rights organizations. [1] International organizations explictly describe it as an occupier. The large degree of control Israel has over the Gaza strip is indisputable. Two of your sources were YouTube videos, and the other one was an editorial, and editorials from a partisan Israeli news website (Jpost) are generally considered less reliable than conclusions made by reputable organizations and experts in the field. Also, the editorial you cited didn't even mention the words "control" or "govern. It's absurd. Israel is considered the occupying power of the Gaza strip. It controls it. Quoting Dov Weissglass, an Israeli lawyer heavily involved in the supposed "peace process":[in reference to the Gaza blockade] "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger". If that's not "control", then what is it? JDiala (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip". B'Tselem. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
One of my fav. NGO extra-extraordinaire supreme. Not the most mainstream source, but a source non-the less. Jpost, btw, is certainly a proper source. I'd like less blue cheese dressing and more cheddar here. Now that one NGO is used to say something vague about what Israel supposedly does to the Gaza strip with it's blockade -- which means nothing regarding who's in control inside Gaza -- I'd like to see more sources. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is "inside" Gaza a prerequisite? That's arbitrary. During the siege of Leningrad, the Nazis were hardly physically within the city, but they unequivocally controlled it. No, control of a particular region doesn't necessitate physical presence "inside" that region. If you want more sources, there are seven citations concerned with the nature of Israeli control in the second sentence of the "background" section. I'm not saying JPost is inherently unreliable. I'm just saying that it is less reliable than the opinions of reliable, mainstream organizations and expert/scholarly opinion. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP JDiala (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree that "Hamas-governed" is a good descriptor, and simpler and more neutral than "Hamas-controlled". Regarding the first criticism of "Hamas-governed", viz. that Hamas took over the government illegitimately: setting aside consideration of whether that claim is POV or not, it doesn't change the fact that Hamas does govern the Strip. Regarding the second criticism, viz. that Palestine is governed by a unity government: that also doesn't change the fact that Hamas governs the Strip. North Dakota's governorship and the majority of seats in both houses of its legislature are held by Republicans, so it is accurate to say North Dakota is "Republican-governed", even though the United States is governed by a mix of Democrats (in the White House and Senate, and some other state governments) and Republicans (in the House and some other state governments). -sche (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The unity issue is so complex I wonder if Palestinians follow. For example, who is the Prime Minister?[4] Who pays salaries? Hamas insisted on keeping control over this while Fatah fought back, trying to retake 'control' over the strip. More mainstream sources -- not silly ones -- tend to use control words rather than municipal ones. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I can also use your same logic. Several sources refer to it as governs; examples being: [5] (Al-Bisan Park is run by Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that governs Gaza); [6] (What are the goals for Hamas, the organization that governs Gaza and is considered a terrorist organization by many Western powers?); [7](...the political demands of Hamas, the militant organization that governs Gaza and that Israel has been targeting since the latest hostilities broke out two weeks ago.)
Considering the fact that the two terms, "govern" and "control" are more or less interchangeable within the media, it is up to us to solve this dilemma. Which word is more precise? Which word is less vague? Which word describes the situation better? Which word is more accurate as per WP:WTW? JDiala (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Who says there has to be a Prime Minister in a government? Let them play the politics and manage their government however they like. One problem I have with "Hamas-governed" designation is that the word "governed" has largely positive connotation, while "controlled" is neutral. There are other neutral synonyms: administrated, managed, regulated, supervised. WarKosign (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Fatah has essentially no control in Gaza and most of sources I have seen refer to Gaza as Hamas controlled.--Tritomex (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If there wasn't this ridiculous "unity" occurrence, "governed" would have similar encyclopedic value. But, a problem starts when the current PM is from Fatah (best I am aware) as well as other people who "govern" the strip -- but Hamas still does what they want. They "run the show", launch military campaigns, etc. It is best to avoid this complexity in the lead. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Gaza is "governed" by a united Fatah-Hamas government, but "controlled" by Hamas, so the terms are not interchangeable. WarKosign (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hamas does not "control" Islamic Jihad and other groups in the Strip. That is of course the rhetoric post April, but since 2007 it does govern the Strip, as it governed elsewhere after the 2006 elections (Jacob Lassner, Selwyn Ilan Troen, Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real, Rowman and Littlefield 2007 p.x:'Hamas,the Islamist movement that presently governs the Palestinian Authority'.)
POV-terrorist obsessives wish it otherwise but we are required to be neutral. 'Control' insinuates that its governance is coercive,(Israel controls (militarily)its border, Hamas 'controls' its territory etc.) and the newspapers that adopt this language do so for a purpose. It is a rhetorical voice employed to accentuate the meme that Hamas are nothing but terrorists, and not a governing body, which however a great number of serious sources state, noting that it runs (a) the civil administration (b)the school system (c) the public health system (d) the judiciary and (e) basic utilities. Together with Münevver Cebeci's, and Sara Roy's study (the latter being one of the foremost academic authorities on Gaza) add
These are specific studies by scholars, who are required as analysts to avoid the incendiary orwellianism of skewing language to get over a POV.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I simply ignore most of what MarciulionisHOF says. The quality of arguments presented do not deserve such replies as Nishidani gave. Too much soapboxing for a simple phrase change, which is utterly reasonable. I will not make any more comments. Kingsindian (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Too harsh a comment based on frustration. I will only say that the phrase change is totally reasonable, the unity govt. notwithstanding. Nobody doubts that Hamas governs the Gaza strip. The analogy with the Republican/Democrat is good enough. Kingsindian (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear, I share your policy and ignore the fellow. My notes were addressed to WarKosign. No sensible objections to 'governed' have been presented. Let's move on.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Here and here Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas presents an objection. He says that Hamas is "running the Gaza Strip" while "The national consensus government can't do anything on the ground." Being the president, he should know who governs the strip, and apparently it is not Hamas. WarKosign (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I am confused. How does "Hamas is running the Gaza Strip" mean that "apparently it is not Hamas" who governs the Gaza strip? Do you mean "apparently it is Hamas", instead of "apparently it is not Hamas"? Kingsindian (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Direct quote: "Abbas accused Hamas of running its own “shadow government” in the Gaza Strip. “They have 27 directors-general of ministries and they are running the Gaza Strip,” he said. “The national consensus government can’t do anything on the ground.”".
My interpretation: The national consensus government (Hamas + Fatah) is the official government, but Hamas's unofficial ("shadow") government is the one that controls ("runs") the strip instead. If this is true, Hamas does cannot govern since it is not the official government. WarKosign (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, Kingsindian, JDiala, Knightmare72589, WarKosign, -sche, Tritomex

  • "Hamas-controlled" - The issue of the recent unity government was presented (governing body is mixed, Hamas controls everybody inside the strip and is seen by global powers as the one responsible) and I would like to get a clearer view on how close we are to a consensus. Please respond. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
"Hamas-controlled". As President Abbas said, Hamas runs the strip while supposedly unity government of Fatah and Hamas governs it. WarKosign (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(WarKosign)That is using 'the shadow government', an 'accusation', not a 'descriptive term' introduced by Mahmoud Abbas just a few days ago. One has to look, not idioms that change from day to day. We are describing what Hamas does in Gaza since 2006, i.e., an 8 year period over which it has 'administered', 'run', or 'governed' the Strip. The PNA itself is, per its constitution, illegal as a government since it has failed, for a variety of reasons, to run in elections, the mandate expiring in 2009. What is sauce for the goose (Hamas) gooses the gander (PNA)
How about "Hamas-run"? Kingsindian (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hamas-run is factually correct, but less used: there are slightly fewer google results for '"hamas-run" gaza' than for '"hamas-controlled" gaza' WarKosign (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The point is simply that "controlled" has some other connotations. "Hamas-run" will convey the same thing without those other connotations. If they have roughly the same usage, why not use it? Kingsindian (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
IMO "Hamas-controlled" is the most correct, "Hamas-run" is acceptable, "Hamas-governed" is factually incorrect. I wonder which word Abbas used in the original quite, assuming this is translation from Arabic.WarKosign (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Here he used the word "تقود" which apparently means "to lead". Doesn't seem to help us, "Hamas-lead" doesn't work in English. Anyone here who knows Arabic and can help with literal translation of the quote, in case google translate messes it up ? WarKosign (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Hamas-controlled" is the best term. This phrase is used by many (I would say most) medias and beside that it seems to me as the best reflection of factual situation in Gaza which has both political and military aspect. -Tritomex (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Tritomex. Stating an opinion is meaningless. Usage in wikipedia is based on evidence-based (RS) sourcing, and appropriate arguments.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we are making far too much heavy weather of this. The suggestion of 'control' is unacceptable (mind control, control society (Foucault), etc.) One who governs, administers or runs 'controls' utilities etc, and the term in political usage implies the right that comes from governance, as an administrative prerogative. Asking for 'control' while challenging the political function (administration, governance, rule) from which control flows is just POV pushing.
'Hamas, therefore,came to administer sole power within the Strip,' Paola Caridi, Hamas: From Resistance to Government, Seven Stories Press (the original in Italian is authoritatively published by Feltrinelli 2009) 2012 p.56
'Hamas relies on these funds mostly to continue to administer the Gaza Strip.' Joshua L. Gleis, Benedetta Berti, Hezbollah and Hamas: A Comparative Study,JHU Press 2012 p.143
Israeli newspaper usage is not a good guide to NPOV, since they are embedded in the political conflict, and we should choose from respectable academic sources, which suggest that 'govern', 'administer' and 'run' is fine. The technicalities of who rules, or governs are completely confused, since the PNA has less legitimacy even than Hamas.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said most of medias refer to Gaza as "Hamas controlled. The New York Times says " Hamas, the militant Islamist movement, wrested control of Gaza in 2007". [8] Gaza is specifically defined as "Hamas controlled" in other NYT articles [9] Even Al Arabiya defines Gaza as "Hamas controlled" [10], The Washington Post [11],BBC also refer to Gaza as "Hamas controlled" [12], so does CNN [13] ABC [14], RT (formerly Russia Today) [15] virtually all medias.--Tritomex (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why are we seeing sources from 2 years ago when a new government was selected a few months ago this year? As for mainstream Israeli sources, there is no exceptional terminology which should raise red flags. Less blue cheese spread, more cheddar please. Better yet. Avoid the cheese. Less calories. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the sources I showed are all related to the last conflict.--Tritomex (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I see no consensus for this edit, why did you change it? And what on Earth is that huge footnote doing there. Where on Earth did the rockets come from? I see nothing about rockets in this section. Kingsindian (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have another issue: I don't know what parameters WarKosign used, but I find "Hamas-run" Gaza 198,000 to have more results than "Hamas-controlled" Gaza 175,000. I find Google searches like this meaningless anyway, but still, it is curious. There are plenty of sources which use both, and I don't see anybody disagreeing that "Hamas-run" is accurate. Why choose a word like "controlled" when a neutral "run" is available? Kingsindian (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why its neutral?--Shrike (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. Is something not neutral about "Hamas-run"? Kingsindian (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you claim the other one is not?--Shrike (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Uh, this whole section is about that. You can start reading from the top. Some people have problem with "controlled", nobody has problem with "run", why not use it? Kingsindian (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Read the thread, it is explained in detail. There are editors who keep pushing for their original viewpoint, and editors who negotiate a compromise. That between Kingsindian and WarKosign is a compromise, and that is why it is superior.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
These are the queries I ran last time, now I got same numbers as you did. Last time I think I got slightly more hits for 'controlled'. For 'governed' I now got 20,500 results, so it far less used. I think both run and controlled can do, but the word 'run' has too many different meanings,while 'controlled' has fewer, the first of them being "the power to make decisions about how a country, an area, an organization, etc. is run". WarKosign (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Of course, "run" can mean many things, but it only means one thing here. Nobody can assume it means that Hamas is jogging in Gaza. Kingsindian (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
"To move fast on feet" - probably not. "to bring or take something into a country illegally and secretly","to be a candidate in an election for a political position" "to make something lose power or stop working" "to crash into somebody/something" "to use up or finish a supply of something" - all these are somewhat relevant to Hamas in Gaza, but I believe reasonable readers will be able to figure it out. Does anyone object to Hamas-run ? It's not my first choice, but it is good enough. WarKosign (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It's inferior to 'administered', which no one has taken seriously, though it is a standard term in the scholarly literature. But I don't object to 'run', and in grammar, context elides the ambiguities a dictionary is obliged to cover in defining a word's uses abstractly.
Okay. Hama-controlled doesn't work because 'control' also implies mastery of events. As numerous sources, familiar to everyone who reads this stuff, one of Hamas's difficulties was 'controlling' several groups, one of them with a strong autonomous militia, Islamic Jihad, so that they wouldn't infringe the cease-fire Hamas had signed. In its rhetoric Israel held Hamas 'responsible' for rocket-launchings, meaning it was obliged to control such things.

The IDF was checking the possibility that the rockets were launched by radical Salafi fighters who do not recognize Hamas rule, or as an act of defiance by the terrorist group Islamic Jihad (8,000 militants, Nishidani), which earlier Sunday announced that it was suspending ties with the ruling Hamas government.The rift came after a confrontation Saturday between Hamas policemen and a senior Islamic Jihad member that the police were trying to take into custody for interrogation. The suspect was killed in the standoff, with Hamas alleging that he had committed suicide.“Islamic Jihad today suspended its contacts with Hamas after police opened fire yesterday on one of the commanders of the Al-Quds Brigades, Raed Jundiya, 38, inflicting serious injuries from which he died this morning,” AFP quoted a leader of the extremist group as saying. ' 'Israel hits Gaza targets in response to rocket fire,' The Times of Israel 24 June 2014.

Thanks to source bias, which insouciantly ignores what the scholarship says, and has the reflex 'rockets=Hamas' narrative twist beloved of our unserene editors here , the significant breakdown over June between Hamas and such militant groups, is being ignored. Most sources state that non-Hamas groups were behind the June Gaza side of the escalation (abetted by Israel's escalation on the West Bank). Fail to observe that are you fail to see the importance of distinguishing 'control' from 'run'/'administer' etc. But, as this and many other incidents of Hamas officials arresting members of groups for rocket launching show, it did not 'control' these significant militias. Its administration tried to control them, which is another matter. Hamas certainly ran or administered the Strip in the more general sense of running its institutions, and representing Gaza in negotiations with Egypt, the PNA and others.
Another nice POV twist is to repeat the official handouts that invariably generalize about rockets 'fired into Israel', invariably aimed 'at Israeli citizens'. A very large part of the mortars, rockets shot hit open areas (google=Most of the rockets hit unpopulated areas and you get 84,000 hits). This is particularly true of the July 2 rockets.Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Rockets that are aimed at cities in Israel are targeting civilians. If they were aimed at military targets, even if missed and hit civilians, it would not be a violation of IHL. When they fired on a city, they could say "we are targeting this military base near this city". Hamas doesn't bother making this excuse, as Abu Zuhri said: "All Israelis have now become legitimate targets." They do not hit unpopulated areas intentionally, or they would be aiming all the rockets into the Negev desert or the sea. Israel is also accused of firing indiscriminately, but so far the demographics of the casualties and high correlation of rocket launch/storage sites with damaged areas in Gaza contradict this claim. WarKosign (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
My point is one that suggests a defect in reportage that that influences our composition of this article, not an assertion the text must note it. 'Intentionally' begs the question. Israel always specifies that as 'the most moral army in the world' it intends only to strike militants, 'ticking bombs', etc. yet statistically most victims are not militants (since 1987). As the Israeli analysts allow, Hamas fought a war with the militarily ineffective technical means at its disposal, fully aware of its inadequacies. A large amount of the June rocketry was 'demonstrative', and the same is true of that used in the war. Like the declaration, the launchings had an instrumental value to disrupt Israel's economy and cause Israelis to panic, not a military value.
(a) I know the area all along the border very well, inside Gaza and on the Israel side. It is predominantly agricultural, sparsely populated and that is where most Gaza-launched rockets/mortars strike. The rhetoric of Israel's citizens targeted has been invariant since 2001, and yet down to 2008 the vast majority of these explosives were just lobbed over the Gaza frontier line (Byman below) (b) sources make no distinction between major rocketry, medium rocketry (lamp-posts converted into 'qassam rockets') and mortar fire (short range), subsuming the latter under the former (for the historic percentages, 2000-2009) see Daniel Byman, A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism, Oxford University Press 2011 p.183); an overwhelming percentage of Israeli missiles, rockets, artillery. mortars hit with precision the object targeted: an underwhelming percentage of Gaza rockets and mortars (10%) strike somewhere in the vicinity of a city or town. This is spun as 'Hamas targets civilians', 'Israel only targets militants' whereas statistically 1200-1,600 civilians were killed by Israeli fire, 6/7 civilians were killed by the combined force of Gaza rocketry/mortars (I exclude soldiers inside Gaza where direct firefights typical of war caused casualties). That is very simple arithmetic, and that's why all the journalese we are citing for articles has no realistic value for describing the war, which, in my view, should be analysed neutrally strictly in terms of military logic. not the minute-by-minute panic mode hysteria characteristic of war journalism, which has, as you can see in the article, successfully managed to describe farting as a sonic boom, and predominantly dud armaments as an existential threat far more menacing than the massive ultra-efficient pin-point arsenal deployed by Hamas's adversary.
Of course editors are quite in their rights to continue patching this stuff in from 'mainstream newspapers' but the value is zero, apart from the spin effect on a wiki readership. When the strategic, military and historic scholarship starts to come out in terms of what the military conflict entailed, most of the effort here will be, like Gaza, rubble.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You are (deliberately?) mixing intention, method and results. The intention of the rocket/mortar file is to terrorize civilians and disrupt day-to-day life of civilians in Israel ([16]) by creating a threat. The method is firing largely ineffective rockets aimed at civilians. The result is a low (relatively to the number of rockets) number of casualties. This number is reduced further by the iron dome, which in a way helps Hamas achieve their intended goal while making the result less deadly and thus making the attacks appear less severe. The fact that the rockets aren't likely to kill someone is irrelevant to the fact that they are fired on civilian population and therefore violate IHL.
Fanatical terrorism cannot be analyzed with military logic. Hamas cannot win by use of force, the logical action for them is to recognize Israel (that is, to declare that under certain conditions they could agree to coexist peacefully beside the state of Israel), negotiate the details and live happily ever after. After the unilateral disengagement was the perfect time to do that.
Instead they chose to continue the rocket fire, with the stated goal of destruction of Israel. The actual result is bothering Israel a little and bothering civilians in Gaza a lot. As long as Palestinians hate Israel more than they love themselves, they will continue to suffer.WarKosign (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah sure, yawn. You just about exhausted the hasbara printout sheet there, the talking points mechanically listed for anyone who likes to talk without taking the trouble to think of the implications of what he is taught to recite. I especially loved the allusion to Golda Meir's 'Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.' Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
If both Nishidani and WarKosign agree, I will collapse the above discussion, which seems to me tangential to the point. The section is already too long, and I want to keep it focused on "Hamas-run" vs "Hamas-controlled" vs "Hamas-governed". Furious debate on the internet has taught me that nobody changes their mind about anything related to politics. But we can still write WP together. Kingsindian (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, correct call again. This has strayed and you are quite right to keep this focused. Apologies. I would note that people do change their minds. 4 productive editors, Kingsindian, JDiala, Warkosign ('I thing governed is fine.' WarKosign 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)) and -sche, (I agree that "Hamas-governed" is a good descriptor, and simpler and more neutral than "Hamas-controlled". User:-sche|-sche 20:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)) found that 'governed' was a fair precise and neutral term. WarKosign, after some indifferent and distractive editors (Tritomex,MarciulionisHOF,Knightmare72589) dug their heels in with blague-ish objections insisting there is no alternative to 'controlled', changed his mind. A reasonable number of alternatives was then offered: 'run, administered,' and we still have the same stubborn refusal to budge. This (numbers) is not how wiki works. If not 'govern', then neither 'control'. So the option is one of the other terms, already amply surveyed, and attempts to get one's way are just that, attempts to avoid an amenable compromise.Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian, Shrike, WarKosign, Nishidani.
Even before making my first contribution, I've learned that a number of editors here choose games and blue cheese spread over anything else. Implicating anyone here as reciting from a printout sheet[17] is, certainly, another aspect of this, and in my own humble opinion, a big no-no even if someone pisses you off by saying (well...) obvious things about what is wrong with the side you prefer in the Israeli-Arab conflict (i.e. you don't need a sheet to state the obvious). On point, Kingsindian, I'd like to massage my brain with relevant mainstream sources to see if it can see the value of "run" vs "controlled" (honestly, I feel there's no justification for governed after the unity gov. was selected -- but I'm willing to listen if you still insist that one is more accurate somehow). For the moment, I am leaning towards control because of a few things: (a) I've seen it far more (text and tv), either implicitly or with variations e.g. "which has de facto control of Gaza" (RT -- link cited on current version[18]), "The Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank, and the militant group Hamas has controlled Gaza" (CNN citation - perhaps, this entire explanation should be on the article note); (b) the Gaza strip is a disorganized mess. No one "runs" it. Hamas runs "the show" (figuratively and literally) and controls the people (read: Gaza) through methods of payment and teaching/indoctrination and intimidation (no one argues against this, Hamas themselves say it is one of their ways) -- groups that "negotiate their terms" under this control suffer results -- a thought came to mind: which word is used in articles about Gang leaders? 'control', 'run', other?. (c) Best I can tell, the terms 'control', and 'run' are not interchangeable in this case and a simple Google search, certainly doesn't address the issue of true usage. For a counter example against 'control' Google counts, I've seen a version which used 'controlled' on the Hamas PR department (a.k.a. Flying Mosque TV) and not about the Gaza strip. This of course, occurs multiple times in the case of "Hamas run" as well. Certainly, if they run rocket production or tunnel production or tax collection inside a biscuit/candy/disability-aid factory -- the term will usually not be 'control' in such an instance. In this respect, a Google count makes absolutely no sense once you consider all the false-positives. This said, an open mind for what mainstream sources say is required. If there's substantial evidence for the 'Hamas-run Gaza' version in mainstream sources (after unity gov selection), then reconsideration is a reasonable request. So, please link to examples if you see substantial evidence for this. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: First of all, I am not amused by your inserting "governed" in the middle of the discussion, while adding a humongous footnote which had nothing to do with the discussion. You should revert it. Coming to your points: of course "run" and "control" are not interchangeable; why would be having this discussion otherwise? The point about Google searches was illustrative: "Hamas-run" is a widely used phrase, so is "Hamas-controlled". The issue is what should we put in an encyclopaedia. As to recent sources using "Hamas-run" see: Yahoo News, JPost, Al Jazeera, Times of Israel, Forward, Voice of America, Business Week. Who controls what is messy business: the borders are controlled by Israel and Egypt, isn't that a form of control? The internal affairs are run by Hamas: this everyone agrees on. Abbas himself is lamenting that Hamas still is in charge. Why not use the neutral word instead of the controversial word? Kingsindian (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the note -- which is most certainly and without a doubt connected with discussion here. A note is the best choice to show that this 'Hamas-controlled' issue is complex. The demand you make here is not only unsubstantiated but, considering I've waited 3 days for a response, is uncivil (putting it mildly). As for the word 'huge', a line and a half of text doesn't qualify as huge under almost any requirement (apologies if citations appear large, but url size cannot be controlled). That said, rephrase suggestions, certainly when backed up by sources, are the way to go if you are unhappy with my efforts. To your links -- I've taken the time to inspect the sources. To be honest, I don't think you've inspected any of them. The first two use 'Hamas run' as a concept of what might happen in the future if Hamas obtains legitimacy. The first link even clarifies this and uses the term 'control' (per "donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there"Yahoo) for what is currently going on, and discusses 'run' as what donors don't wish to contribute to. The second one, an Israeli minister is talking about concerns that Gaza will become Hamas run (if nothing is done to change that -- he's been advocating wiping the Hamas control system, not Gaza itself, off the map). These first two sources were not the end of it. From the 7 sources provided only 2 qualify as (almost) clearly supporting 'Hamas-run Gaza' terminology (al-Jazeera, and Times of Israel). Another, for example, talks about the Hamas' running of the Gaza tunnel construction (they certainly do run in them) as in 'they constructed them before the unity government and "run Gaza <tunnels>" for militancy purposes'. Even the Times of Israel calls it Hamas-run in close context with rocket launching, and most everyone (not repeatedly using sources from 2012 and earlier) agrees Hamas runs that show. I've put in effort to read the whole 7 provided sources which only further substantiate the fact that 'Hamas controlled' is the mainstream view of what is currently going on. We can inspect more, but editors should bother to inspect their own provided sources rather than end up bringing material more material to further bolster the current version than the changes they'd like to see. I am willing to add to the note that there is a concern that Hamas will become a pseudo-legitimate ruler among donors, but honestly, that seems like extending the note too much and could be handled in its own whiny section about who runs the show in Gaza (Hamas, Israeli Mossad Sharks[19], or other) and how everyone sees it as fantastic or disastrous. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I made clear my opposition, one does not have to respond to each point over and over again. If someone doesn't respond, you can't assume that they agree with you. Reading your descriptions of "Hamas-run" and you stating that I didn't read the links I posted, it is clear that no answer I give will convince you. Therefore, I will remove the footnote, leave "Hamas-controlled" in place because that was the way it was before. I will open an RfC to decide "run" vs "controlled". Enough bickering about this. Kingsindian (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, do not remove the citations. That would be rubbish in any situation where the citation is what is used to support the text. As for recent discussion, my apologies I didn't see your suggestion on the recent poll of status as clear objection. Honestly, is seemed more like agreement that 'governed' has source-based issues. Inquiry for objections followed ridicule and 'I didn't hear that' behavior.[20] I trust no one would appreciate this type of shenanigans and poor participation. As for inspecting sources -- please. I'm keeping an open mind. Do explain to me the first source you linked to -- "donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there"Yahoo -- why, based on it, anyone. ANYONE. is supposed to believe the mainstream source-based view is that 'Hamas-run' is more appropriate than 'Hamas-controlled'. Apologies in advance for being inconceivably inconvincible no matter what you do (read sententiously). Though, relevant mainstream sources that say what you want them to say might help convincing. Apologies for somehow making you feel this is not the case. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC) mainstream-based. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I have stated already the rationale. There was no footnote on "Hamas-controlled" at the beginning. Nor does it need any - it's a widely used two-word phrase. I have simply gone back to the stable version while the RfC is going on. After the RfC is finished, there can be discussion on whether it needs a footnote or not. Kingsindian (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, How can there be no need for citation if you need an RfC because you "prefer" a different phrasing? (ffs!) If you do not return the note, this clueless behavior (removing citations that support text) will be mentioned repeatedly until the end of time (read: until someone who knows proper Wikipedia etiquette takes the time to review it properly and weighs in). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Description of Gaza in the lead

A consensus was reached on a compromise "Hamas-ruled"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Gaza be described as "Hamas-run" or "Hamas-controlled" in the lead?

Some discussion about this here. Some people say that one is not acceptable, some people say that both are acceptable, but prefer one over the other. Indicate your preference and say if other is not acceptable. 08:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This presentation of the issue as a request for "preference" is somewhat clueless.
(a) Since when does Wikipedia work by user-preference? Tomorrow, other users will log in and a new preference could be reached. RfC is not to cross fingers (or do worst) and hope the "right" users log in.
(b) I've given examples on how Google counts are pointless for either terminology - Hamas 'runs' the tunnels, 'controls' the PR department (a.k.a. Flying Mosque TV), Street executions[21], etc. Terms like 'de facto control' and 'Hamas led' are neglected as well. After a mindless Google-harvest resulted in "as Hamas remains in control"[22] to support 'run'(?!), Kingsindian obfuscates with removal of citations[23] and a misrepresented RfC.
(c) The reason there was/is a growing consensus for 'Hamas-controlled' is not because of user-preference, but because this is the most dominant terminology in relevant citations - after the formation of the unity government a few months ago. See note.
Fantastic. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Due to recent comment moving I am now opening a dispute resolution thread. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Prefer Hamas-run, other not acceptable: Both phrases are widely used. Hamas-run Hamas-controlled. Main issue is that "control" has connotations that are disputed, because Hamas does not control the borders. While everyone agrees that Hamas "runs" the Gaza strip: even after the unity govt, Hamas is in charge. Best to use a neutral and accurate word. Google search gives slightly more results for Hamas-run, but not much. Kingsindian (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Controlled As Hamas is the sole and de facto government within Gaza, they control its internal affairs totally. Controlled has the appropriate connotations given the absolute power of Hamas within the Gaza Strip, they do not 'run it', they 'control it' in every meaning of the word. Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hamas-controlled -- (a) See note. (b) A mindless Google-harvest is a disturbing methodology that ignores context. Hamas 'runs' <in> the Gaza tunnels, 'controls' the people and media (["Hamas militants killed seven Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel in a public execution in a square in Gaza City on Friday, witnesses and a Hamas website said." http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/crowd-gathers-watch-executions-suspected-collaborators-gaza-n186716]). Terms like 'de facto control', 'Hamas led' are neglected as well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC) m MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hamas-controlled is unacceptable (a) Sources and international law say (see below) both Israel and Hamas control the Gaza Strip simultaneously. It is therefore misleading to attribute to Hamas alone 'control'. This problem does not exist for the alternatives (i)Hamas-run' (ii) 'Hamas-administered' (Israel used to 'run', used to 'administer' the strip, but no longer does, hence these alternatives are unequivocal). Wiki guidelines requires both WP:NPOV (dubious for 'control'), accuracy and unambiguous usage. I don't mind which term is used of the several suggested, but control is unacceptable. It is even factually wrong, since the second strongest militia there, Islamic Jihad, acts independently and has refused to bow to Hamas on numerous critical occasions.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Controlled Hamas control every aspect of Gaza life moreover Hamas of course control the borders of Gaza as he decide who goes through Egyptian/Israeli border. Of course Israel/Egypt controls their own border in similar way Canada controls its own border with USA.Though USA may allow some citizens leave the country to Canada. Canada is not obligated to accept them and that is in no way diminish the control of USA government.--Shrike (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please desist from forming a rooting squad and wait for neutral third party outside comment. Vote stacking and wild caricature, let alone praising Shrike's comment which reflects his ignorance of international law as applied to the Gaza Strip, is disruptive.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies from the "Israeli ministry.:)".[24] Please address my raised question.[25] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Your style or lack of it (without giving secrets away) totally fails the complex 'profile' test I'm afraid, and thus consider yourself excluded from that innuendo.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nishidani:, Do you say 'secrets' and 'excluded' like this? Fabulous. On topic: I added a source to support a source-based evaluation. Try to deal with it without being disruptive. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Prefer Hamas-controlled, Hamas-run is acceptable. Run has slightly positive connotations while controlled has slightly negative. Their way of handling the civilians it's more about controlling the strip rather than 'running' everything smoothly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs)

Threaded discussion

The status of the border posts is largely irrelevant in determining whether an entity controls an area. ISIS controls the area it occupies, but has no border posts. Likewise the Assad government in Syria controls areas with very little control on the inflows and outflows of people, there is a war on. The same argument applies to Hamas. They excersise absolute authority on the strip, judge jury and executioner. They control all areas of life and politics in Gaza, they control Gaza completely. Just my 2 cents on the 'border argument' Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't find that analogy persuasive at all. There are of course check-points all over Syria. And the border can shift, based on relative power. The borders here are determined in a totally different fashion, because the relative power basically means just one side. Israel has, for its own reasons, kept to the border, and carries out operations within Gaza periodically. As to controlling all areas of life and politics in Gaza: how can one do that without controlling the borders? Part of the electricity comes from Israel, as does much of what goes in. And there are other militant groups which are not in its control within Gaza, though Hamas has a lot of control overall. Kingsindian (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is pointless arguing with editors who ignore the simple, elementary terms of the only sources that determine things like 'borders' 'control' etc. The legal situation is set forth, to citre one of dozens of book sources, here.

The Goldstone Report (a) p.49 section 187

Under the disengagement plan, however, the Israeli armed forces continued to maintain control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, . . In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, after the implementation of the disengagement plan, Israel continued to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the population registry, and the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory while the inhabitants of Gaza continued to rely on the Israeli currency.

(b)p.74 sections 278-9. Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and Access163) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore, Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.

279. The ultimate authority over the Occupied Palestinian Territory still lies with Israel. Under the law and practice of occupation, the establishment by the occupying Power of a temporary administration over an occupied territory is not an essential requirement for occupation, although it could be one element among others that indicates the existence of such occupation.164 In fact, as shown in the case of Denmark during the Second World War, the occupier can leave in place an existing local administration or allow a new one to be installed for as long as it preserves for itself the ultimate authority. Although Israel has transferred to the Palestinian Authority a series of functions within designated zones, it has done so by agreement, through the Oslo Accords and related understandings, keeping for itself “powers and responsibilities not so transferred”. When Israel unilaterally evacuated troops and settlements from the Gaza Strip, it left in place a Palestinian local administration. There is no local governing body to which full authority has been transferred. In this regard, the Mission recalls that the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, regards the transfer of powers and responsibilities by Israel under various agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as having “done nothing” to alter the character of Israel as an occupying Power.

Given the overwhelming extent of Israeli control, the word can hardly be used of Hamas, which administers, governs or runs whatever is left to manage. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
All this "overwhelming" belongs in a whiny section about Gaza's economy. Despite the not at all possibility of it, Hamas controlling Gaza is mentioned in a multitude of current mainstream sources (See note). Israel and Egypt controlling the US-Quartet sanctioned blockade doesn't change this. I hope to one day say thank you that you've finally stopped using sources before the unity government. On point, mainstream media talking about the latest Israel-Gaza conflict don't call it "Israel-controlled Gaza". They DO they call it Hamas taking control many, many, many times. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Clarify with sources. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I looked up the word control in a thesaurus and the best synonym for control seems to be rule. Just call it Hamas-ruled and be done with it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I like Hamas-ruled. I think it is as neutral as Hamas-run without sounding awkward. In fact, there are 264,000 google hits for that, more than for Hamas-run or Hamas-controlled. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Just listening to it, I'm not sure. I'd like to see a few of those Google hits (time stamp is important as well -- since, currently, there's a joint Fatah-Hamas rule while Hamas is in control -- I raised a thought -- what is the language used regarding Mafia leaders?). I've already shown that is a terrible methodology for any terminology. e.g. Hamas made many rules on what people are allowed to do. Does this translate as "Hamas-ruled Gaza"? Hardly. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am happy with Hamas-ruled. Kingsindian (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me as well. Since there is a POV-clash, some compromise term is the order of the day. Just insisting on one's personal preference is pointless to what this kind of exercise aims to secure, a consensual compromise.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Six months from now (or less), other users will look at a citation-less (i.e. unsupportable), emotion based language and our entire discussion will repeat itself with renewed vigor. Mainstream sources. An explanatory note that the government was changed prior to the Israeli terrorist-targeting operation. This is the best way to ensure longevity. The other POV regarding the blockade belong in blockade discussions. Pushing it as negating use of basic terminology is easily shown as invalid with multiple mainstream sources. As a side note, it is worth-while to note that there is a clear difference between 'rule' and 'control'. The clear difference is why use of the latter is more common. No matter how happy the current participants are with it, unless current mainstream sources show otherwise, the 'rule' language cannot be considered long-term terminology. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Unless someone shows some real body of sources that use Hamas-rule in the proper context, this RfC is a waste of time. A compromise would be nice -- but only if it can be supported by sources. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
A single sample: "Lieberman questioned ‘Abbas’s leadership status, suggesting that, at best, he represents “only half the people” since Hamas rules the Gaza Strip" here. You can review as many uses as you like here.WarKosign (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike, Valiant Patriot, and MarciulionisHOF: Can you indicate if you feel that "Hamas-ruled" is an acceptable compromise? If so, the RfC can be closed. Kingsindian (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

'Hamas-ruled' would be an acceptable compromise, yes. Thankyou for conducting this RfC. Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Valiant Patriot, WarKosign, Kingsindian, Shrike, and Knightmare72589: (those in discussion)
That sample is outdated. Hamas 'rules' not benevolently and wisely but through 'control'. This is why when I narrowed the search to the relevant time frame (June 2, 2014 till now), there were less than 5 "Hamas runs <Gaza>" results from mainstream media (I saw 3[26][27][28], but there's probably a couple more). In contrast, 'control' has a wide base of support[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36](list goes on and on) in this time frame. As stated above -- this RfC, if users use "preference" that can't be backed by sources, is a waste of time. 6 months from now (or less), other users will change the citation-less compromise based on what they like. Mainstream sourced citation is the only proper way to go forward. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
See this list of "10 world worst dictators". Most of them are described as "ruling" their countries. The word 'rule' is neutral - one can be a kind and wise ruler, or a dictator who rules the people with an iron fist. WarKosign (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems too there is already a consensus.So I think its ok.--Shrike (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment: While the comparison to dictators is interesting, a gang of many disorganized militants (who's in charge? maybe even the Mossad sharks don't know) resulted in mainstream media using a more accurate and reasonable (read: "not neutral" in this voice) description. A few editors think Wikipedia should not use words like 'terrorist' (except when we're talking about the September 11 attacks) because it is "not neutral" (read in previously mentioned voice). Mainstream media tends to agree and sighting that word takes some special circumstances. This is such a special circumstance where one term is overwhelmingly used, while the other is scarcely used (because it is vague and misleading). Five editors might agree today, but another group might change it 6 months from now (or less) because "Hamas ruled" cannot be properly supported by references. Are you here to make long-standing versions or ones that will last for a few weeks (with luck)? ... Time will tell if this RfC was a waste of time or not. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding stuff in the header of the RfC

@MarciulionisHOF: Please read the guidelines for RfC, in particular point 3: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template". You statement is talking about all kinds of stuff like Google searches, which is nowhere mentioned in the original statement, and why "Hamas-controlled" is superior. This kind of stuff won't do. This is why there is a separate section for discussion there. Please move it back there. Kingsindian (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't find the statement of the issue neutral. Citation removal is at the core of the problem.[37] Another issue derives from the appeal to emotion ("Indicate your preference"). Six months from now, other users will look at the citation-free emotion based language and our entire discussion will repeat itself with whoever happens to be logged on and watching. This is rubbish and clarification is required to anyone naive enough to not understand this. Reinsert the citation that explains the complex situation and shows many mainstream sources use variations of 'Hamas controlled'. Make a note that decisions should be based on mainstream sources for longevity, not personal preference -- and I'll happily remove my clarification that the RfC is poorly constructed. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Numbers in the infobox

@Avaya1: re your question here: it was Zaid almasri in diff who changed the other numbers in a way not supported by the citations, at the same time as edit-warring the Hamas figures back in. I don't know why; perhaps Zaid can tell us. -sche (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Zaid can't tell us, the user was blocked.- WarKosign (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

8200 letter

@Nishidani: Here you added a paragraph about the IDF intelligence officers (actually reservists) signing a letter condemning civilian casualties caused by IDF bombing on targets that they helped identify. I added a response by the IDF spokesperson and an undue tag, yet I have several problems with this paragraph:

  1. It does not belong in the Civilian deaths section since it does not give any details regarding the deaths.
  2. It does not belong in the reactions section (actually sub-page) since they began collecting signatures for the letter "nearly" a year ago, so those writing the letter and a large part (possibly most) of those signing it did not do so in reaction to OPE.
  3. The letter is already covered in detail in a special page dealing with all such letters by IDF soldiers.

I believe this paragraph should be removed, maybe leaving a short sentence linking to the main article from the Reactions section. WarKosign (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone forgot to insert the Israeli view? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's WP:undue with only tangential relation to the current conflict. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It should be removed altogether. This letter has been over a year in the making. The release of the letter pretty much happens to be a coincidence in timing. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Its clearly doesn't belong here. The source quite clearly says it was prepared well before the war and have nothing to do with it.--Shrike (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
But Shrike, "[your] ignorance of international law"[38] and "mass civilian deaths"[39]. Naytaining good faith, I hope to learn the latter note was source based. In the meantime, I nominate these two recent posts for 10 Million Theoretical Dollars. Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This editing behaviour, of lockstep naysaying, is close to reportable.
One argument of relative substance has been made, where WarKosign argues that it is perhaps in the wrong section. I can be removed to another section on this page, not shifted out of sight onto a subsidiary page. Most of the 5000 odd targeted strikes are, according to sources, done via the Unit 8200 operational headquarter's information. It plays a key role in any war undertaken by Israel, and it is therefore perfectly approach for the present instance.
The rest of the comments are spurious.
WarKosign's assertion that I inserted a 'paragraph' is patent misrepresentation, setting up a WP:Undue claim. It is a short sentence, and can be further abbreviated by eliding excess contextualization of the Unit.
Knightmare's argument that it is irrelevant, having been drafted a year ago, is false. The primary draft was made a year ago. As the page states, it was retouched in the light of rising casualties in Gaza, and was withheld until after the latest war. Published some weeks after, it refers to the collective punishment of residents in Gaza. Another stated that the latest episode was 'just another chapter in this cycle of violence,' which their action hopes to interrupt.
Plot Spoiler says it's tangential, a subjective judgement (much in the page is 'tangential' in any case). It turns out not to be tangential. See also the testimonies provided in Hayden Cooper,'Israeli soldiers from elite wire-tapping unit refuse to use 'extortion', 'blackmail' on Palestinians,' ABC News 13 September 2014, which, by the way, in contradistinction to what the page tries to assert, shows how easily mistakes are made, because the vaunted civilian/militant criterion is often, where decisions are made, vitiated.
Marciulionis's reference to a lacuna has been resolved by WarKosign's balancing edit.
Distaste is not an argument. Block voting, without proper individual judgements, does not constitute a consensus. It constitutes evidence (the second time on this page) that a POV push may be active, and rallies on crucial questions. If this continues, we'll will have to take it to arbitration.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

2 Questions to activate the imagination and work on accomplishing a source based consensus:

  • Where has anyone used "distaste" as an argument? (I will hand out 10 million theoretical dollars for the most creative answer)
  • Where is there a mainstream source connecting this supreme letter writing (and all the responses) to the best Operation Defensive Shield?

Fabulous. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If the letter is in the wrong section, it could be moved to the correct section. I have long thought that the stuff about reactions inside Israel and the West Bank should be inside this article, not the "Reactions" article, which is mostly about pro-Israel/Palestine demonstrations and statements by foreign leaders. The first time I added it, someone moved it to the Reactions section, and I forgot about it, and it was moved to a separate page afterwards. I will move the section back here (condensed, there is too much detail), and perhaps this letter can be included in that section? See also discussion here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph vs sentence - you are right. You inserted a sentence which became a paragraph after my attempt to balance its POV. We seem to have an agreement that if it belongs anywhere at all in any form, it would be as a short (yet balanced) sentence in the Reactions section (which is at the moment the transcluded lead paragraph from Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). The two remaining questions are:
  • Is it factually correct that this letter was written (mostly) in response to OPE ? How many of these who wrote and signed the letter actually participated in OPE?
  • Assuming that it is, is it due weight ? With all due respect to the 8200 officers, how notable are they ? There are plenty of other IDF soldiers who were involved more directly in the operation, are we representing their opinions as well ?WarKosign (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
(a) Who said that it was written in response to OPE? Not I. It was, according to sources, drafted before, and then slightly modified during OPE (though I'd like further sourcing for this point than what we have at the moment). As I just edited in at the other page, while none of the signatories were involved in the Gaza war, several avoided service in Operation Protective Cliff, when called in from the reserve, by using pretexts. That establishes a direct nexus, the reasons given in the letter account for their refusal to work in OPE. Secondly the major testifies that very many of his colleagues agreed with the letter, but baulked at signing it because it would be detrimental career-wise. (b) America is rocked when one of its NSA agents blows the whistle, and the 'conversation' rages for years. These guys, like it or not, have done something in unparalleled numbers for the first time in Israel's intel history, and numerous sources are discussing this now. My simple view if, we must cut down our subjective likes and dislikes and simply look at whether sources think the info is important or not. They do, and the interviews make no doubt that a connection with what Israel did in Gaza does exist.Nishidani (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Except the obvious WP:UNDUE issues there is WP:SIZE problem the article already is already too large we should trim it instead bloat it more by WP:UNDUE staff.--Shrike (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The letter is only tangentially related to the article subject matter and has no place in the article. Valiant Patriot (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, there is no direct reference to Operation Protective Edge in the letter anywhere. The authors admit that they wrote the bulk of it many months before OPE. Several also admit not participating in the operation "by using pretexts", hence their views on the operation hold no more value than of any other non-participant. This letter is not a response to OPE, even in small part, hence it does not belong in this article in any way. It is notable enough to be represented together with other similar letters elsewhere. WarKosign (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I require clarification on 3 issues. (a) Where are the interviews where "several avoided service in Operation Protective Cliff"? (b) Where has anyone used the Napoleonesque "distaste" as an argument? (c) Israel did a lot of things, good and bad, in Gaza over the years. What is the relevancy to this article? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Not only there is no direct reference, here one of the authors says "We’ve been thinking about it for maybe a year" "We didn’t want it to be interpreted only in this context. We decided before the recent war to do this. For me there wasn’t any particular trigger. It was a long process of realising" - they say it clearly that the letter is essentially unrelated to OPE and they don't want it to be seen as related. @MarciulionisHOF: "All three are now on the active reserve list and have said they will not do reserve service relating to the occupied Palestinian territories." - I believe it answers your issue (a). It also indicates that they can't have first-hand knowledge of alleged violations of any kind during OPE, rendering the letter even more WP:UNDUE.WarKosign (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Please read both the text and those sources closely, without choosing some bits and ignoring others. (b) please reply to my specific points which were elicited by various editors' comments or doubts.
  • We are not talking only of the letter, but the collection of documents and testimonies attached to it in Cooper (not The Guardian but ABC News). You picked the wrong source. To single out the letter because it doesn't mention specifically this war, but, according to interpretations, may allude to it, and use that as a reason to exclude it from the article, is special pleading, given other considerations. I.e.
  • Even the Guardian interviews, construed correctly, underline its relevance. You yourself cite:

We didn’t want it to be interpreted only (не . . только . . . ) in this context.

In English prose this is the absolute simple form of the не только . .но и construction. only here means 'we wanted it also to be interpreted in terms of this conext, but the intention was far more general'. I'm bemused by this looking past the obvious meaning of the sentence. But this is the English wikipedia, and precise construal of source language is obligatory. only is exclusive grammatically, but in such combinations with negatives, has an inclusive function, and here that inclusive function refers to the present war.
  • The letter does explicitly mention the collective punishment of residents in Gaza. This statement is generic, and, since the letter was retouched according to a source after the the outbreak of these hostilities ('it was modified in response to the rising number of civilian casualties in Gaza'), the generic reference must be taken normally be taken as not excluding the Israel-Gaza war in its latest, third stage.
  • Therefore, your construal that 'they say it clearly that the letter is essentially unrelated to OPE and they don't want it to be seen as related' is contrafactual, given the sources, and by recourse to the adverbial essentially you are misconstruing it towards the idea, which is again denied by sources, that they did not have that war in mind, when the published it immediately after the war ended. One interviewer says this war was illustrative of a more general principle in being 'just another chapter in this cycle of violence.'
  • While the illustrations used do not relate to this war, the above evidence shows the connection, one that is confirmed by the fact that several of the signatories refused to comply with their call up by adopting excuses to justify what was in fact, plainly, a refusal to serve in the war. That admission, alone, that several signatories 'dodged' service in the war means again, that a connection is established.
  • 'It also indicates that they can't have first-hand knowledge of alleged violations of any kind during OPE.'
This is immaterial. Nowhere in that sentence do I refer to, or make an argument about, 'first-hand knowledge of alleged violations during this war'.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I had added this earlier, but I forgot to save. Oh well. I am really surprised by the reasoning that since they refused participation due to political reasons by using pretexts, their views have no more value than any other non-participant. They are veterans of intelligence service, talking about their own experience: their view (properly contextualized) is much more relevant than the tons of trash based on gossipy news stories in this article. Please start by removing the trash if you feel the concern for WP:SIZE.
  • Regarding WP:UNDUE, one has to take the following into account. This will necessarily get a bit WP:SOAPBOXy, because to argue about undue weight, one has to get meta. The letter makes many points, including a "culture of impunity" that exists in the military intelligence service, a point already made in the text regarding the army investigation, and B'Tselem having refused participation with the army on this. (again, this is not talking about whether B'Tselem is right or wrong). In the interviews, the person says that they don't want it to be seen as "just" a response to the war. It is silly to read this to say that it is totally unrelated to the conflict. Also, there is a big section about collaborators currently in the article, and this aspect is specifically mentioned in testimony and interviews. I noted before the issue that direct confessions from militants have been included in the article, without any caveats at all.
  • To repeat, whether or not you feel that the people involved are right or wrong, that is not relevant to the issue here. Kingsindian (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Thanks for the translation, I believe my understanding of the source is adequate without it. Their statement of 'not only' is the reason I wrote 'essentially' and not just 'unrelated'. You are making a very good argument why the letter and the opinion of the people who wrote and signed it is notable in the context of the whole Israel-Palestine conflict, I completely agree that it should be represented, and there is a very nice article dedicated to just this kind of refusal letter.
We are discussing the relevance of this letter as a response to OPE. There are a few points against it:
  • It was written well before the operation began. Even after the modifications OPE is not mentioned, at most it is alluded. How are we supposed to understand that collective punishment refers to OPE and not, say, the blockade ?
  • The authors say in an interview they do not want the letter to be as "only" referring to OPE, but to the whole conflict.
  • The authors did not participate in the conflict in their military role, rendering their opinion of it (however much of it is represented in the letter) no more valuable than any other left-wing activist (former IDF officer, if you prefer) in Israel. There are many interviews with soldiers who personally fought in Gaza, let's quote interviews with them. We had a quote of Avi from Golani, let's reinstate it and his friend's testimony as well.
Something about this letter can be included in the reactions section. In my opinion, it boils down to "Reserve soldiers of 8200 who wrote a refusal letter several months before the operation refused to serve during the operation and published the letter in slightly modified form after the operation ended." These are the facts that are somewhat relevant to OPE.WarKosign (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Your English is excellent, but you still misconstrue both just and not only, the latter in particular cannot be interpreted as 'essentially', as you would affirm, and I think I did explain why. I'll repeat the Guardian passage

For a couple of months friends [have been] joining and [it’s been] growing slowly … most of them are still active. We’ve been thinking about it for maybe a year. It was a difficult dilemma. We were worried that this action would be seen only as a response to the war in Gaza and it is important to us to make it clear this is about the ‘normal’ situation [of the occupation]. A: We didn’t want it to be interpreted only in this context. We decided before the recent war to do this. For me there wasn’t any particular trigger. It was a long process of realising

There is no way that can be construed as not being connected to the war (and it was sent just to weeks after the ceasefire). They decided before the war on the letter, wishing to make a general statement of Unit 8200's role in the occupation of the Palestinian territories, but withheld it as war broke out. It was retouched in the light of the war (evidence given). It was communicated to the relevant heads two weeks after the war, when the ceasefire was holding. When punished they then specified:'Don't read it as a protest against the war in Gaza only: we wrote it before that war, the war obviously is part of our concern in making the protest, but the protest is far deeper, and regards not just 'the collective punishment of Gazans' in that war, but the normal 'collective punishment' in Gaza and the West Bank over time.
The declaration is one of the several element listed which indicate a direct connection to the war.Most of our sources come from people who did not participate in the war. Finally, but most importantly, the premise that the letter must have an explicit reference to OPE in order to warrant its citation in the article would destroy the page, since much of the material covered in the background (as is usual) is sourced. Take notes 50-56 to cite but one example (cf.Note 56 Hillel Neuer says Gaza 'not occupied'; UN disagrees,' January 2012, Jerusalem Post), which all predate the time when this letter began to be drafted. I'll be away abroad a few days. I don't think your proposed draft reflects sources (perhaps:’ Two weeks after the ceasefire, 43 reserve officers in Israel's elite Unit 8200 which provides targeting information informed senior political and military figures, in a letter mainly drafted before the war, they would no longer performed their surveillance functions in regard to Palestinians. They cautioned that letter is not only a response to the war in Gaza, but a larger critique of Israel’s military actions in the Occupied territories. Official responses, including those of many of their colleagues, were unanimously dismissive of the charges made..’). I'll leave it in the meantime, hoping a fair compromise can be ironed out for a one sentence reference to this item on our page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't find any mention of "not just 'the collective punishment of Gazans' in that war, but the normal 'collective punishment' in Gaza and the West Bank over time. " that you are quoting or paraphrasing. Where did it come from ? Even assuming that they indeed say that, it is only one interpretation. What makes you think they meant this any not something else entirely ?
"Not only in the context", in my opinion, obviously means that the letter refers to the whole conflict and they see OPE as a part of the conflict, and given the timing their letter would be likely misinterpreted as referring (mainly) to OPE while it refers to the whole conflict, OPE being one of the events in it. They intentionally make it abundantly clear that the letter is not about the operation despite the timing. WarKosign (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This is fully unrelated to this conflict and WP:undue as the majority of participants in this debate noticed. 5 editors and myself (6 editors altogether) shared the same opinion, so the inclusion of this information is clearly rejected by majority of editors. This article needs to be shorter and specific to the subject. --Tritomex (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Once again, Tritomex. This is not a voting booth, and opinions particularly unfocused ones ('the majority of participants here'), are quite useless unless they underline the fact that there is a clear majority siding for one POV on key issues, without troubling to take other editors' comments seriously.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the letters' authors and the commenters above that the letter is only tangentially related to the conflict, and hence I agree it should not be mentioned in the article. -sche (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The letter does not belong to this article per undue. Besides, the main content of the letter is not even related to this particular war.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: You keep reading not "just" related to the conflict as "not related to the conflict". I have given multiple reasons above as to how this is relevant, the main being that they dodged military service in this conflict due to political reasons, and I will not repeat them here. To Tritomex, WP:DEM. Kingsindian (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There are clear consensus that the letter should not be included please readWP:IDHT.--Shrike (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I keep reading 'not only' as 'not referring only to the last operation, but to the whole conflict', presumably equally. Obviously they are not saying 'our letter does not refer at all to OPE', but they are also not saying 'the letter refers to OPE more than to any other event in the conflict'. I did not yet see any reason to believe that they are treating OPE in any special way in the letter, they do not mention it in the letter at all and are specifically saying otherwise in the interviews. Their refusal to serve during OPE is notable in relation to this article, and this is why I mentioned it in the mock draft. The letter itself is not notable in relation to this operation and should be only mentioned essentially as "8200 people who wrote that letter refused to serve during OPE" (obviously after proper rephrasing). WarKosign (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Land expropriation

@KingsIndian: Please explain what it has to do with the conflict?And how does sources discuss the connection?--Shrike (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave the connection. The EU called it terrible timing and warns of renewed violence in Gaza. It is mentioned in the "Timeline" section (post-conflict). I also gave the connection with the three teenagers killed which started this whole business. Finally, this is part of the settlement expansion as detailed in the PLO report. The sources are all there. I can add more if needed. Also see this discussion about the West Bank. Kingsindian (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing RfC for "Hamas run, controlled, governed, ruled, whatever"

Closed the RfC since the consensus was clear for "Hamas-ruled". Any further discussion can be done here. Kingsindian (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Question in hopes to get a long-standing version: If Hamas runs it. What exactly does the unity government mean? The Prime Minister is from Fatah, and Fatah gives the money for salaries (and many other activities). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The operative point here is the status at the time of the operation. At that time, Hamas "ruled" the Gaza strip, and still does, as of this date. As to salaries, they were not paid for several months, even after the unity govt. Kingsindian (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I see the word 'control' twice ("Hamas seized control", "The Hamas-controlled Finance Ministry") but don't see 'ruled'. *so confused* Is this source the one you propose to use for explaining this issue? What do other sources say about the unity government complexity? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The source was simply used to talk about the salaries issue. I will not be responding to anything else here. Kingsindian (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this the source you will be using? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I will answer just one more. I assume that are talking about the source for "Hamas-ruled". I will not be using any source. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations. Statements in the lead do not require any citations in general. It is a widely used phrase, that is sufficient. Kingsindian (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It is NOT "a widely used phrase"[40] so what would be sufficient does not exist. This is what happens when editors "simply ignore" the what sources say. On point: What exactly does the unity government mean? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Government of the strip is complicated and we do not want to go into the details in this article's lead. There is a whole other article dealing with it. What if "Hamas-ruled" was to link there, would it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not about my personal preference -- not even in sources (my sense of humor is not mainstream fitting). Let's say I agree and you add the link. What stops 2 editors from changing it 2 weeks from now to "Hamas commands mastery over Gaza"? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I find "Hamas-ruled" a reasonable, neutral wording. "Controlled" continues to be too inaccurate and has too many overtones to work. The above comments requesting "sources" appear to proceed from the erroneous notion that sources are required or relevant when deciding matters of style such as questions of which of several attested, denotatively largely synonymous wordings to use in prose to express a cited fact (viz. that Hamas governs Gaza). -sche (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas ruled/controlled/etc are all fine and any issues with them are equally applicable to all of them imo. Whatever influence Fatah/Unity has affects all of those terms, likewise whatever control Israel is exerting. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gideon Levy or OCHA

@Wlglunight93: Are you suggesting with this edit that Gideon Levy could be lying that he got the figures from OCHA? If so, please remove all the newspaper sources on this page. Kingsindian (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying that an opinion article written by a controversial individual like Gideon Levy can't be used as a source for facts. If is true that OCHA released those statistics, I'm sure you won't have any problem to find the original source.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I tried looking for any source providing these numbers and couldn't find one.WarKosign (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wlglunight93: Have you heard of "fact-checkers" used by newspapers? Gideon Levy is a longtime journalist with Ha'aretz. Why would he fabricate numbers from OCHA, which can be easily checked? Please use some common sense. Moreover, it is not the correct procedure to cite OCHA, which is WP:PRIMARY, but a WP:RS reporting on the statement. This is why you see "according the IDF" sprinkled all around the article, but it is citing a newspaper source. Kingsindian (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The numbers don't have to be fabricated to be incorrect. It could be a honest mistake. The article uses primary sources for casualties numbers, so why trust a single journalist on this one ? WarKosign (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: That is a strange standard. So any source quoting the IDF or Gaza Health Ministry, or OCHA elsewhere should also be attributed to the reporter instead to the IDF etc.? It is silly to assume that a reporter is so "controversial" that he can't relay simple figures in his own newspaper. Kingsindian (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Because this is not opinion piece.The numbers from the news reports are OK but the problem with opinion piece they can be manipulated to better support the opinion of the author. --Shrike (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The "opinion" part is when Levy states that this is the "real face of IDF". That is an opinion. The figures from OCHA are facts. If you have any contrary data, feel free to include them. I regard this as simply an attempt to shoehorn Gideon Levy with his supposed "controversy" into the article. Kingsindian (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Levi is an exceptional case. There's been articles attacking his poor fact checking (and it's commonly noted that he never learned Arabic). There's multiple cases of massive public outcry about him (and other writers of Haaretz, but mostly him). I recently saw a friendly interview of him by Shay Shtern (not this show, but he's on chapter 27 here), where he smilingly responds to a question on how far he is from consensus by saying he'd probably lose a vote in his own home. In the episode 27 (which I checked briefly) he calls a purchased home "stolen property" and compares it to knowingly buying a stolen BMW. Not exactly a good source for anything other than his own extremist views. On the same level, I'd advocate to make an effort to avoid a source using terms such as "bloodthirsty <insert race/denomination>" for any statistics since it is an extremist source that is hard to take as generally reliable. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: You mentioned that you did not find data which Levy is quoting. Here it is. Just one data point: Report before Operation Protective Edge, says 17 killed in 2014. Latest report says 40 killed in 2014. 40 - 17 = 23. The reports also mention how many are injured, and the number by live fire. Anyone who wishes can check them. Can we please now quote OCHA? WP:CALC? Kingsindian (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Thank you, I think this is a reasonable calculation so with these sources and a comment, at least in the wikicode, on how the calculation was made the numbers can be attributed to OCHA. Is there a reliable source for the fire percentage?WarKosign (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: The reports give all the counts, killed, injured, injured by live fire. Kingsindian (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I still can't find it in the report. What am I missing ?

The report currently appears twice, once transcluded in "international reactions" and once directly in "reactions in Israel and the west bank". The problem is that the international reactions is transcluded from "reactions" article, where it is reasonable to have it, so it would be wrong to just delete it there. WarKosign (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: First point: from the report I linked: "These operations triggered violent clashes with Palestinian residents, which resulted in the injury of 32 Palestinians, including six with live ammunition and 18 with rubber-coated bullets". This can be done for all reports. But that is not the point. This is what journalists are paid for. Let them do the work and use them as WP:RS. The issue is simply that the citation should be verifiable. As to the second point, it can be easily handled by using "noinclude" tags. I will do it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Gideon Levi has a problematic reputation so it's hard to trust facts that he publishes without some verification from another source. WarKosign (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Citing CAMERA for anything is very silly. Most of the stuff on that page is simply CAMERA's interpretation of what it says is wrong. There can be mistakes, sure. Ha'aaretz has a fact-checking department and can issue corrections if discovered. This is in fact one of the main attributes of WP:RS. It is not legitimate to second-guess sources like this. I am not paid to track down every source for Wikipedia. I did it this time, in exasperation. If people have a problem, use WP:RSN for this. Kingsindian (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A board member that writes whatever he wants on a weekly basis since the 1980s is not the best source. "Levy had violated articles of the ethics code that mandate fact-checking, objectivity and loyalty to the truth"..."Haaretz’s editors had not made sure the facts were checked"[41] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Per the above discussion, I have added, after the citations of the secondary RSes, also a citation of the OCHA data. I added an HTML comment to make clear that Wikipedia doesn't even need to CALCULATE the "23" figure, etc, because the secondary RSes already do that math, the OCHA citation is just there to confirm those RSes. -sche (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Um

The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions began following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank after the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members,[38] and which Hamas took responsibility for on 7 July' (launching 40 rockets),[39] after an Israeli airstrike on Khan Yunis killed seven of its members.[38][40][41]

I didn't know Hamas took reponsibility for the murder of 3 Israeli teenagers on 7 July. Who's the clunk responsible for this shit, which, despite the parenthesis, insinuates that implication (which properly referring back to rocket fire from Gaza by non-Hamas factions, a nonsense by contextual entailment?Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I rephrased it to that, to clean up this messy edit. I think the "and" (in "and which Hamas") prevents your interpretation of it as saying Hamas took responsibility for the kidnapping. I've dropped the stray comma after "(launching 40 rockets)". Frankly, the entire parenthetical clause could be dropped, and that would make the sentence even easier to follow, IMO. -sche (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The sentence looks really awkward. Too many parentheses and commas. The previous version was much easier to follow (though even that is a monstrosity), and did not have the ambiguity that Hamas took responsibility for the kidnapping on 7 July. As to the "mainly among borders" etc.: that is from the source. One can argue whether it is undue or not. Kingsindian (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think, -sche, your challenge re 'border areas' odd. It is not a POV. It is a well-known, but 'unreported fact', and the journalist I cited it from is particularly meticulous in registered what therather more POV-slanted mainstream press ignores. When you have every other source, and almost every mainstream newspaper, ritually repeating 'rockets into Israel' , and find a very good source that is not copying and pasting text, but knows the subject and takes care to report with precise detail, you should choose the latter. Details are not POV. Ignoring them for generic memes certain bears a much higher risk of POV.
A to my edit being messy. My concern was to eliminate conceptual confusion by providing conscientiously the relevant additional facts to a screwed-up text. I normally don't elide what I consider to be bad or messy edits by others, but try to rewrite the mess with an eye to what sources actually say. That precision of order, and detail, has been constantly under attack.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
For the moment, I have restored the original non-ambiguous version, without the "mainly along the borders" part. Which can be discussed further if needed. Kingsindian (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tower Demolition

Towards the end of the Operation, Israel decided to take down a couple towers. I haven't seen any input on this in the article. Here's a couple sources - [42], [43]. Hamas response: [44]. And aftermath: [45] -- MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: Sounds like you have everything you need to make a bold edit to the article and add this section. It could fit either in the timeline (note that it's a different article then) or in "Destruction of homes". WarKosign (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm waiting to see what else others might like to add. Perhaps a personal attack? Why deny someone this privilege? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I know the story, and I considered adding something on it myself: however, I was not sure what to add. A section on highrises is not needed, since it only happenned on one day I think. I'm not sure, but it was not the widespread practice, usually apartments were targeted, not highrise offices etc. Kingsindian (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
From what I've read it was residential apartments that according to IDF were used as "command and control posts" (and according to the neighbours contained electronic equipment that Hamas abandoned once the operation began) and IDF destroyed the whole building. The fact that it was highrise may have been the reason for Hamas to use it (as an observation post), but this is my speculation. Otherwise it seems to be to no different from the rest of the residential buildings IDF destroyed or damaged. WarKosign (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
What WarKosign said. Knightmare72589 (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The towers were a relatively big deal in mainstream media as was the killing of a 4 year old just prior to it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation timeline section

@TheTimesAreAChanging: The operation timeline section transcludes (see WP:TRANSCLUDE) the "overview" section of the other article. Any changes must be made there, and they will be visible here. I have added a comment in that section for future reference. Kingsindian (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA section. Work out a consensual version

==Allegations of UN bias==

See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

During the present conflict, the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question. Critics allege that the agencies have lost their neutral standing and question their position as unbiased parties. The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict.[1] Some critics contend that the UN agency lacks accountability and transparency with regards to the distribution and use of foreign funds in the Strip and the hiring of individuals associated with terrorist groups.[2][3][4] Critics have also pointed to the three instances during the present conflict where missiles were discovered in UNRWA schools and the agency's subsequent handling of the weapons as casting a shadow over the organization's neutrality in the conflict.[1][5] U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) called for an investigation into the UNRWA's role during the conflict; the U.S. government is UNRWA's leading source of funding.[6] The UN agency OCHA has also been criticized following its publication of causalty figures; critics question the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports.[7] Presently, Israel and the OCHA dispute the number of civilians killed during the conflict. The OCHA has reported that approximately 70% of Gazans killed were civilians,[8] Israel disputes this and maintains that 45-55% were combatants.[9] Critics also point to structural biases in the UN; Arab and Muslim countries number over 50, ensuring a broad coalition criticizing Israel.[10][11]

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

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

References

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

Revert request

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

Done. Isn't there some policy that forbids asking for reverts, since it can be seen as an attempt to play 1RR/3RR ?WarKosign (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Haven't heard of anything like that. These kind of mindless edits should be reverted on sight, but I am handicapped by 1RR, which is a technical problem. So I asked here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a vandalism-only account. I've put a warning on the user's talk page. WarKosign (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties (a note)

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

A 2012 report published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said that 111 civilians, 64 of whom were children, were casualties to unexploded ordnance between 2009 and 2012, reaching an average of four every month in 2012.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Who's to blame here? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
We don't deal in blame, that's something POV editors are good at seeing implied, or needing to be implied, everywhere. We deal in the precise notation of relevant data and viewpoints.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What are the viewpoints then and is it relevant? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I have bolded the relevant word you ignored. In English, and is not a logical connective but simply agrammatical connective, and does not connote entailment. You may know this, intuitively, if prompted but your persistent questioning of obvious remarks looks as though you desire to waste time. Please desist.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted to get to the bottom of your post here... I do believe it was you who opened it. Yes. I'm sure of it. Thus, the question about viewpoints and relevance to this article are quite proper. Now. Assume I still have not understood why (perhaps because it was not explained). Feel free to reply in this voice. Still. Answer what was asked. What are the viewpoints then and what would you like written in this article (i.e. how is it relevant)? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ping MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold change to the lead

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

"crafted over many discussions"[46] is an quite the edit summary for a non-stable article (read: public plea to be a WP:DICK). Read the edit summary: follow WP:LEADSENTENCE. Please read it. Then read the text and explain what you are objecting to (changes were pretty simple) -- or you can also "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert.". MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the only thing that bothers you the "non-Hamas" thing or is there anything else? The lead was a disaster. I'm not the only one to state this sentiment on this talk page. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Bold changes to the lead that has been edited, discussed, tinkered with, and generally stable, are simply not acceptable, Don't repeat this behaviour. Your manner of engaging on the talk page itself is problematical. Please desist.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: The non-Hamas thing bothers me yes. As to the other things, I have indeed read WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:DICK. I however, don't see your point, so please be explicit. The lead is pretty awkward, sure, but in contentious areas, there has to be some sacrifice of cogency for other issues, like NPOV. It can be improved, and copyediting is always welcome. However, one cannot just remove some portion of the stuff while copyediting, nor should one fix things which are not broken. I would prefer if you just wrote a different version either here, or use WP:Drafts. Kingsindian (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
While the rest of the article is a patent POV mess, the lead at least must strictly conform to WP:NPOV and simple arrange the main thematic elements, with equal weight to the positions of both parties. That cannot be done under the conditions of continual edit-warring, and is the reason why suggestions to alter its substance or significant parts, should be done by copying the lead as it is, and then opening a discussion, or outlining an alternative that meets the above conditions and finds consensus (not in numbers, which is the major defect here of discussions) but by a mutual acceptance by those who have taken care to get each side duly represented. In ideal conditions, that would take some days, perhaps a week. In the present editorial atmosphere you are looking at a month or so.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I think "On 8 July 2014, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge [...]" is a better phrasing than "Operation Protective Edge is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation [...]". I also think that having one paragraph and indeed one sentence that conveys the complete thought "The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which [began after XYZ...]" is clearer than splitting that thought across several places, such that one paragraph says "[the operation was] officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the stated aim of ending Palestinian rocket fire from the Gaza strip into Israel, [and] later expanded to include the aim of destroying Gaza's warfare tunnel system", and then only after another subject has interpolated itself does another paragraph handles the increase in rocket fire. (PS note the missing "and" I've supplied in square brackets and italics.) I also think the information on the sequence of who acted when (wrt rocket fire) is important enough that it should be retained. However, I think the last of the changes is an improvement, particularly if we can add a few words to (IMO) improve the flow of the new sequence. -sche (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


Per WP:BEGIN, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". Operation Protective Edge is not the page title, but I believe (and I think most of the people agree) it should be. We are stuck with the current title for now. There was a complaint that the first sentence lacks the word 'military', so a reader may think it was some different kind of operation, perhaps medical or environmental.
A statement that it was launched in response to goes into the middle of the background in reverse order, it would be much clearer to begin at the beginning - whatever it may be. How about something like "... launched by the IDF following Operation Brother's Keeper with the stated aim..." ? WarKosign (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
WarKosign. At what particular hour of the night did Operation Protective Edge begin (first airstrike?). I'd appreciate it if you can look at the Hebrew press as well.
-sche Perhaps you can prepare a draft to remodulate para 1? I'm sure you have the confidence of editors otherwise yawningly identified as being on 'opposite sides' here. Once one has something like that down on the screen, one can see the effect of individual changes more clearly, than is the case with suggestions in a long discursive thread. Your first suggestion strikes me as sensible.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nishidani: I did not find a specific mention of the time of the first airstrike, the earliest mention that I found was at 02:28 here. This is from 2:40. Why is the exact time important ? WarKosign (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
2:01 here. WarKosign (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for that courtesy, and apologies for the bother. Many reports usually speak of overnight, and in my own readings, I try to establish the precise times. It's of no significance, but I wanted to be sure that the 8th, rather than the 7th (11.59 pm) was correct. Newspapers are habitually lose with usage and I have found many instances of 'overnight' or 'this morning' actually referring to the late evening. It is of no real relevance, just a personal favour, and I thank you for checking.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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


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

@MarciulionisHOF: I am afraid I could not revert the edit because of 1RR. I have at least 10 edits on this page which I want to revert. You are free to revert that edit yourself. As to the rest of your points, I am afraid, there is nothing for me to respond to. You are new, so I will repeat this: nobody is forced to listen to you, let alone reply to your points. I would appreciate it if you stayed off my talk page, and discuss things here, whether I reply to you or not. Kingsindian (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: @Kingsindian:, If discussion is personal (i.e. asking for clarification on what you call 'stable') and doesn't directly relate to content, it is disruptive to do it on the article talk page. Yes. It is. As for the edit in discussion. Please elaborate if you agree with -sche. If we can at least agree on one change, that would be very nice. We can talk all the other points over later. Of course, if you don't want to talk about them, you don't have to. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ping MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have already said I do not mind copyediting if it is limited to improving the flow. Removal of information is not acceptable. I do not know exactly what -sche is proposing. As an aside, I am going to make a change to the lead which was improperly removed. I will be unarchiving the discussion for that particular edit, people can comment there if they wish. Kingsindian (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: -- please see comment signed with 20:44, 19 September 2014. I do believe there shouldn't be much hassle over this edit -- but I'd like to make sure beforehand. Let me know. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good news

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

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

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

Good news aside, it is high time we frame the article's subject by calling it with its proper name. Agreed? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a 3 month moratorium on moves. I agree it should be renamed, but let's raise the issue in November. WarKosign (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. In the meantime, I'd like to see certain gate-keepers stick to their own definitions. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping of the teenagers, with or without Hamas' leadership

@JDiala: The paragraph in the lead does not state if Hamas leadership knew about the kidnapping/murder. It specifically says that the kidnapping was by Hamas members and not by Hamas, because the subject is complicated and it is discussed in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Immediate events and in the kidnapping article whether or not the management knew, who claimed what and when. Adding the disclaimer that Hamas leadership didn't know in the lead is POV since it represents only a single version of the truth. Adding both versions would be NPOV, but would clutter the paragraph. It was agreed on this and on other arguable issues to leave only simple factual statements in the lead, leaving anything that can be disagreed upon to the rest of the article. WarKosign (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. But the WP:LEADCLUTTER argument also applies to the excessive citations you're using for the Hamas claim. There are six. I think they should be reduced to four, since the latter two, by Haaretz and Ynet are more or less the the same as the ones before JDiala (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
There do not need to be lots of citations in the lead, one or two are enough. As to whether to put Hamas denies X or not, didn't we already have this discussion here? It was decided to put "Hamas members" without saying anything further. High level, low level, can be discussed in the article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I've trimmed this and several other instances of wp:Citation overkill. (At the risk of veering away from the original topic,) the line "...is a form of collective punishment and illegal" in the background section is supported by no less than four Reuters stories about the views of different UN figures; do they really all need to be cited in this article (as opposed to a dedicated article on the blockade)? -sche (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It's good to limit the clutter, but once in a while an editor decides that a statement currently in the article is not backed up properly by the existing sources - just like what happened now with JDiala, this is why I added the extra citations. Perhaps the citations can be hidden in the wikicode, to be available for the editors but not cluttering the regular text ? WarKosign (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Gaza_War/Archive_11&oldid=1000446400"