Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Time for a Wikinews sister link?

Wikinews:Israel attacks Hamas leadership targets in the Gaza Strip
The page was started 30 July 2014.
199.119.232.209 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My homie fixed the issue below, but what about this?199.7.156.143 (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"The homes of 900 homes"

"138 schools and 26 health facilities have been damaged, the homes of 900 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged and the homes of 5,295 families have been damaged but are still inhabitable."
Someone might want to deal with this redundancy too.
199.119.232.212 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. A bit of googling confirms that it was an error for "900 homes" (the other possibility I considered was that it might be an error for "homes of 900 families"). Fixed. -sche (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
my pleasure.199.7.156.143 (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Turns out he wasn't kidnapped

Obama calls for release of Hadar Goldin, captured Israeli soldier
Soldier believed captured by Hamas was killed in action, says Israeli army
199.7.156.143 (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Images not verifiable

All the images that are not coming from WP:RS are not verifiable we have no way to know where they where taken and if the captions are true.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits which were due to alleged WP:SYNTH

@Mhhossein: I am not sure what you mean by WP:SYNTH in the two cases mentioned below:

  • Edit: The whole paragraph is based on the Nathan Thrall reference in LRB. Not sure how it counts as WP:SYNTH; what two sources am I synthesizing, when there is only one source cited? And how is it WP:OR? The whole argument comes straight from the source.
  • Edit: How is that sentence WP:SYNTH? The argument is that Israel conducted its operation to disrupt the unity government. This whole argument is made by both Marwan Bishara and David Hendrickson. I am not taking something from one source and another thing from another source. And how will moving the sentence from one paragraph to another avoid WP:SYNTH? Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Hi! These are only some points considering WP:SYNTH. POV may arise from the removed paragraph. However, at the moment, we are discussing WP:SYNTH, so I'd like to take your attention to the following points:
  • Second Hamas–Fatah reconciliation subsection, using WP:RS, Is trying to express how the reconciliations could trigger the conflict. The paragraph you added had no direct relationship with the reconciliation and its effect on the conflict (I'm not talking about the source, but about your edition). So, it seems that you are trying to make a connection between the fact that Mohammed Morsi was ousted and the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
  • On the other hand, as you know, this subsection is not trying to say why Hamas and Fatah started the peace talks and this article is not a suitable place to explain these issue. So, there's no need to have such a paragraph in this subsection.
  • Without using the statements by Marwan Bishara and David Hendrickson, I'm doing OR because other sources are just saying that Israel opposed the peace talks and none of them made connection between this reaction of Israel and the current conflicts in Gaza. To conclude that Hamas-Fatah reconciliations was a cause for war, a source exactly claiming this fact is required, one of which is that of Marwan Bishara. In Fact, without them, this is me who is analyzing not the sources.
So, as I said before, you can have another subsection dealing with the effect of Egypt's recent upheavals on the current war using suitable sources and considering WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Mhhossein (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein:
  • You make some good points. I was only confused because you gave the reason as WP:SYNTH. This is not the case. I am not synthesizing any sources. I am only using one source. The LRB article by Nathan Thrall is the one which argues that that the coup in Egypt and Syrian civil war were major factors in Fatah-Hamas reconciliation.
  • Your second reason is more to the point. You can argue that the reason for Fatah-Hamas reconciliation is not relevant to this section. Perhaps you are correct in that. I will need to think a bit more; I will leave it like this for now. Kingsindian (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Thanks for your polite reaction. It seems that the LRB article is a very good source which would better to be used in articles related to Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Mhhossein (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. It is the most comprehensive background piece to the conflict, directly analysing all aspects of the conflict, so far flagged. It could well supply all of the information we have variously sourced, save that from the Guardian. The writer's credentials are impeccable. The details can be used in other articles of course, but the essential reconstruction of the 'background' should be summarized succinctly here, esp.

As it became clear that unrest in Egypt wouldn’t lead to Sisi being ousted or to the return of the Brotherhood, Hamas saw only four possible exits. The first was rapprochement with Iran at the unacceptable price of betraying the Brotherhood in Syria and weakening support for Hamas among Palestinians and the majority of Sunni Muslims everywhere. The second was to levy new taxes in Gaza, but these couldn’t make up for the loss in revenue from the tunnels, and would risk stirring up opposition to Hamas rule. The third was to launch rockets at Israel in the hope of obtaining a new ceasefire that would bring an improvement in conditions in Gaza. This prospect worried US officials: it would undermine the quiescent Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and disrupt the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that John Kerry had launched in the same month as Sisi’s coup. But Hamas felt too vulnerable, especially because of Sisi’s potential role in any new conflict between Gaza and Israel, to take this route. It was sure that the peace talks would fail on their own. The final option, which Hamas eventually chose, was to hand over responsibility for governing Gaza to appointees of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, despite having defeated it in the 2006 elections.

y the way what is that stupid link and content from Alan Johnson's blog doing there. It just expresses his personal opinion about one aspect of the thesis, and is way below the quality we usually expect. There is no evidence or reasoning in it, except a dopey smiley quote from Ariel Sharon that is contradicted by numerous scholarly books on what Sharon's real purposes consisted of.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

At the end of the first paragraph, I noticed the sentence quoted. "All israelis are legitimate targets". After reviewing the source, it seems more appropriate if it's read "All Israelis have now become legitimate targets for the resistance". The legimate targets appears misleading because it suggests they are targetted without a common / national cause. "...for the resistance" is an important qualification intentionallly made in the original statement. Mezaanx (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't fully see why "for the resistance" would be added, as neither of the articles refer to Hamas as "the resistance". They merely mention Hamas..... Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
They are calling themselves "the resistance", so all it means is "all Israelis have now become legitimate targets for us" - I think it's obvious from the original quote. Using the word 'resistance' only legitimizes a terror organization. - WarKosign (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
So you are in agreement that it shouldn't be added? Jab843 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of homes/financial damage

@Nishidani: I have moved some of your edit to the "Financial Impact" section and kept the part which gives number of people rendered homeless. Kingsindian (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sensible move. I'd thought of it myself, but needed a nap.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
You might be interested in consulting the World Bank report just issued, which has an extremely low figure for housing damage, based on dated reports perhaps but well sourced. When I see round figures (10,000/40,000) I am always sceptical: bombing runs, even intense ones, never leave a landscape with round figures. Its figures jar with those given from Gaza sources, which therefore must be referred to with attribution, (as possibly 'rubbery') Mind you, the World Bank has no good reputation, but at least half of its Palestine-directed funding does go to the Strip.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014

IDF: 700–900 militants killed since ground invasion Spaskiba (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

//As of 5th of August IDF spokesman Moti Almoz declared the number of dead militants is between 700 and 900 since the ground invasion. He said this on Israeli Channel 2 News between 20:00 and 21:00. Please note these numbers are estimated since the ground invasion of IDF.

Any 'guesstimate' whose margin of error is in the area of 25% is not worth reporting. The IDF have very specific techniques for putting names to their enemy-soldier count, and since all the casualties are being studiously listed by a variety of independent organizations, if they can identify anything there as a militant, they would have a closely proximate figure, which the figure cited isn't. So it's just, for the moment, spokesmannish rubbish, and unusable.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on journalists

@WarKosign: Regarding your edit here, the second source attributes the claim of "Hamas threatening journalists" to Israeli officials. In the first source, the threats are from other people on Twitter, and not Hamas. The original phrasing of the statement "Israeli officials have stated that Hamas is threatening reporters in Gaza critical of Hamas with retaliation" was correct. Kingsindian (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The first source quotes the journalists directly, so while the original phrase is not wrong, it's not as exact as it can be. It's not just a claim by officials, it is what the journalists themselves say (assuming jpost is reliable, of course).

Again, fiddling pretence to use a source while inserting WP:Or

In the time line the phrase:'it is widely accepted ' is not in the source (Griff Witte and Sudarsan Raghavan,here) Nothing like that is in the source which gives both versions: ('Hamas insists the incident occurred before the cease-fire took hold and that it was Israel that broke the terms of the truce.'), and the phrase has apparently been screwed in to create a 'factoid' to buttress the Israeli version of events. It should be removed immediately, just as editors should control sources and signal similar problems.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to eliminate the weasel words by attributing the claim to "several news organizations" and then citing two of them: [1]. -sche (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: The CNN source attributes the 90 minute claim to the Israeli military.

The pause appears to have eroded after about 90 minutes in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, with the attack on Israeli soldiers. The soldiers were working to destroy a tunnel built by militants to breach Israel's border when a militant emerged from it and detonated a suicide bomb, Israeli military Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told CNN's Wolf Blitzer

As far as I know, all news organizations attribute the claim to Israel. There is no independent verification. Kingsindian (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I found a source that attributes the claim to Israel even more directly/clearly than that CNN article, and I have inserted it. Curiously, it says the attack was at 9:20 (the truce was at 8:00), which is actually only 80 minutes. -sche (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

About Israel having their Shin Bet, military facilities, etc near civilian areas

It's being argued that it's undue weight, which I agree. It's irrelevant to bring this up because even if Hamas wanted to specifically target military facilities, their rockets are incapable of doing so. This isn't comparable at all. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: If you read the source cited (article by Amira Hass), it makes this exact point. Does co-locating military and civilian structures become ok if the enemy can't hit you precisely? If anything, it would make even more logical sense to locate these structures still farther from civilian populations, if the accuracy of the enermy is lower. And, suppose if Hamas did have the ability to bomb them, and then by accident hit the shopping mall next to them, then it would be ok? This is the logic which is being used to justify, rationalize or mitigate the civilian casualties. Kingsindian (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Except even if Hamas had the ability to do it, they would target the civilians either way. The fact that Hamas knows they are using inaccurate weapons shows that they do not differentiate between civilians and soldiers. Like I said, it's not comparable at all. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything except assertions I'm afraid. There is plenty of evidence of Hamas not targeting civilians and prefering military targets, like the tunnels. No civilian has been attacked through a tunnel. Here is one article for the motives. If you just want to assert the opposite, it is hard to argue in any meaningful way. Kingsindian (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone arguing that Hamas doesn't target civilians. Also, I don't know why you are bringing up tunnels. And please read your own source. It says "Asked whether Hamas’s goal might be soldiers rather than civilians, an army spokesperson said, “We expect that they are trying to abduct or kill civilians but will make do with a soldier, too.”" Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You are free to not take me seriously. I have indeed read my source. Obviously you want to take Israeli army spokesperson at face value and not read what the intelligence source is saying, the exact point made in the article. Moreover, you have managed to completely miss the point. The point being made was that Hamas showed discrimination between military and civilian targets when it had the capability, like if someone emerged through a tunnel. The point being asserted by you, without any evidence whatsoever, was that it doesn't matter, because Hamas doesn't care at all, and will randomly kill civilians or military, whichever they lay their hands on. And here is another example of Hamas going into Israel, and waiting for 6 hours to ambush a military convoy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Windbaggery and war propaganda by either side is useless. Kingsindian (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, you should read your own source. It goes on to say: "The source made clear that Hamas operatives are not opposed to the killing of civilians and that the random rocket fire into Israel over the past three weeks is more than ample expression of that fact; he also noted that intent aside, any infiltration represents a grave risk to civilians, but indicated that, for reasons of prestige, Hamas, which appears to be striving to emulate Hezbollah in all elements of its combat doctrine, seeks a soldier and not a random civilian." He is saying, that they want to appear legitimate, but still would kill civilians. And it's not too surprising, that during a conflict such as this, killing soldiers benefits them in the short term, since it is the soldiers they are fighting.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/all-israelis-will-be-targeted-says-hamas-as-israel-ratchet-up-offensive-in-gaza_945928.html
"The Khan Yunis massacre... of children is a horrendous war crime, and all Israelis have now become legitimate targets for the resistance," the AFP quoted Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri as saying.
And if you want to listen to unnamed security sources, maybe you'd want to hear this one.
http://www.jta.org/2014/07/28/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/report-hamas-planned-rosh-hashanah-attack-through-gaza-tunnels Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in fighting with you. I have indeed read the source and it says exactly what I claimed. You said this in your first reply: "Except even if Hamas had the ability to do it, they would target the civilians either way" which is flatly refuted by the article and more importantly, the practice. When Hamas had the ability to discriminate, like the tunnels, they always targeted soldiers, never a civilian. Rest of your stuff is blowing smoke and merits no comment. Kingsindian (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

False, it was not refuted. You assume I said they would only target civilians. Your own source says they attack both. As for your tunnels, if you want to take serious one unnamed security source, then you need to take serious another unnamed security source that says the tunnels were planned to be used in a massive attack on civilians. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding hamas fabrications in the infobox

@Johorean Boy: Please stop adding the numbers that hamas makes up. Presstv is not a RS. Electronicintifada is not a RS. Once you have a reliable source, please go ahead.

Militias is a neutral term. Terrorists or freedom fighters is not. Do not engage in an edit war if you don't want to be blocked again. If you have something constructive to say on the subject, please do it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs)

@WarKosign: I have started a section on WP:RSN on whether PressTV is reliable. As far as I can see, they are just reporting the claim from Hamas about the number of soldiers killed. If there is some fabrication, it is from Hamas, and PressTV is simply reporting their claims. I am not sure if anyone really doubts that "Hamas claims 145 people killed". It is another question whether Hamas claims belong in the infobox or not. Kingsindian (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: There were several discussions, including this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#Casualties_infobox, but there was no clear consensus. What is the proper way to proceed in your opinion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs)

@WarKosign: If there is no consensus, the usual procedure is to open a Request for Comments. Kingsindian (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and WarKosign: If I remember correctly, it was determined, that overall, pressTV is not a reliable source. Also, it is common knowledge that it is both owned and run by the Iranian government. Jab843 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed state-owned media, but theoretically independent. How independent, I don't know, probably not much. Anyway, the issue here is not its overall reliability, but its reporting of the claims of Hamas regarding number of soldiers killed. Is there some other source which disputes the reporting? As far as I know, nobody in English reports Hamas's claims. Perhaps someone who knows Arabic can check their site. Kingsindian (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

At what point do we consider this conflict over?

If at the end of this 72 hour ceasefire, the fighting has subsided, is it the beginning of the 72 hour ceasefire or the end of the 72 hour ceasefire that is considered the end date of the conflict? Knightmare72589 (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Today is the day they might pull out completely from the Gaza strip [1]

--Bdwolverine87 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The article's title says '2014', so there is still time. Seriously, once the operation is officially over the article should be renamed. So far the only available official name is Operation Protective Edge, but there are some talks about announcing that it was a war. - WarKosign (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hugely annoying removal of content by Plot Spoiler

@Plot Spoiler: Regarding your edit here. Are you aware that there is a big discussion on the talk page about the background? Yet you come in and remove a huge portion with no justification at all, except for your assertion that it is tendentious and POV. This is hugely annoying, when one works on a page for hours and someone just parachutes in and removes a big portion in one fell swoop. Editing in ARBPIA, I am afraid to revert such things, because I am afraid of getting blocked. I have 3 other edits which I am afraid to revert for just this reason.

Your reasons in the edit summary are also without merit. Even in the section, there are other sources, like the Nathan Thrall article which notes that in the first three months, there was almost no rocket fire from Gaza, while there were a lot of incursions from Israel. The figures in the Ben White article come from OCHA and are partly compiled from media reports, as mentioned in the article itself. Kingsindian (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's pointless framing your remonstration like that. Plot Spoiler is a serial revert/deletionist specialist, rarely visits talk pages or ignores them, and simply uses false edit summaries to remove good and bad sources indifferently. He's one of the major problems of the I/P area, and the only recourse is either to gather evidence of his consistent misuse of policy in false edit summaries for a report to A/E or to simply bide one's time and revert the damage he does. It is a mystery as to why his presence is still tolerated here.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Тhis opinion pieces we can't use it for statements of facts--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
If either Plot Spoiler or yourself believe that version of policy, you would have both removed Alan Johnson's hilariously dumb comment, which however survived Plot Spoiler's scissors. Must be a coincidence that it blathers on about Ariel Sharon's wonderful vision of happy people in Gaza. The fact is that Ben White's reconstruction for Al Jazeera is fine as attributed, but the Monitor citation is dubious. No discrimination was used, unless to save the pro-Israeli comment by Alan Johnson from the scythe. It's a typical POV-pushing edit, ridding the text of what you dislike while ignoring material that violates the principle cited when it favours your own POV.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I only commented about the removed opinion pieces by PS I if there are similar opinion pieces they should be removed

too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Re: your point, the statements are not asserted as facts, they are correctly attributed to Ben White in the first paragraph, and Middle East Monitor in the second paragraph. The second paragraph is more debatable than the first, for sure. The picture in the first paragraph, attributed to Ben White, is basically same as the picture given by the Nathan Thrall reference. Nobody disputes the facts themselves, because they are true. As I said already, the figures in the Ben White article come from OCHA and a compilation of media reports on the truce violations. Kingsindian (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The opinion pieces are essentially WP:SPS and in my opinion shouldn't be used at all.If the facts come from WP:RS we rather use them and not opinion piece--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of unverified claims by Hamas

There are numerous claims by Hamas reported by sources affiliated with them, such as presstv or electronicintifada. Other media sources often report that Hamas did make these claims, but do not approve the information itself. Here are a few examples:

Some users repeatedly insert these false claims into the infobox. I believe the fact that Hamas makes false claims should be reported somewhere in the media section, but the claims themselves cannot be used as facts since they lack a reliable source. Any opinions ? - WarKosign (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If the sources are RS, it can inserted like "So and so claimed/stated" in the body of the article. We cannot say any thing about the "truthfulness" of a claim. If there are RS stating the claims are false, it can be inserted subsequently. For infobox we need RS. Are there any RS quoting the source of the claims? --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ4 10:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think there is no problem to include Hamas claims as we include IDF claims too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I added a section in the article detailing those claims. My original question was - should these claims appear anywhere else, such as in the infobox ? - WarKosign (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: You have put too much detail into the request. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues especially point 3. You have raised so many different issues that it is hard to comment on them. If you want to create a request for comment about the infobox, in my opinion, you should only include a short statement, "Should Hamas claims for Israeli soldiers killed be included in the infobox". That is the only part at the moment which is controversial and is leading to edit-wars. Kingsindian (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
If someone wants to insert this material in the subsequent paragraphs, and say that they are claims made by Hamas and organizations linked to Hamas, then that's fine. But to put it in the infobox is wrong. It should not be inserted in the infobox. There are NO OTHER REPUTABLE RELIABLE journalistic organizations that come up with those figures. If there are 1,000 journalism organizations reporting about the war including Press TV, and 999 do not report those stats, then there's obviously an issue with the legitimacy of the figures claimed by a propaganda organization like Press TV. Can any person here supply even ONE reliable source other than a political organization connected with Hamas that can verify those claims? Guduud (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Human shields

Some evidence to consider:

Hi, the Finnish reference is already present in the "human shields" section. There are already other mentions by other reporters in the same section that Hamas fired rockets from near civilian structures. Kingsindian (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There's also al Jazeera journalist Nicole Johnston who was startled by a rocket being fired next to her. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
IDF's Youtube channel has tons of examples, like IDF Soldiers Find Mosque with Weapons and Tunnel Openings, 12 Examples of Hamas Firing Rockets from Civilian Areas, Terrorists use ambulance for transportation in Gaza (successfully preventing an IDF attack), ect. This video supposedly shows Hamas beating Gazans who heeded Israeli warnings, although the motive for the beatings cannot be verified. I don't want to get too involved with Israel articles, because from what I've seen anti-Israel editors can be incredibly vituperative to anyone less sanctimonious than they, but its worth noting that Hamas leaders chose Shifa Hospital as their headquarters. More here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As IDF is a part in the conflict they can not really be considered a reliable source. // Liftarn (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014

The section labelled "2005 withdrawal" is ill-sourced and advancing an unorthodox theory, and should be removed or altered. The guardian article used as source is from 2005 and thus cannot support the conclusion that in the Guardian's view the **current** conflict stems from alleged ill intent from Israel in the 2005 withdrawal. Furthermore, this is very much a non consensus/editorializing opinion that runs counter to the prima facie thrust of Israels withdrawal, and thus should not be figured prominently in an encyclopedia entry. 2601:6:7F00:3C1:3589:43C5:9E8D:CCEE (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"please change X to Y" so am removing. Brought up earlier on the page, has had little dispute, and the reasoning is per policy.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Background for discussion on this. Kingsindian (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with the IP's analysis above, and hence agree with this (second) removal of the section. -sche (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Thetwentieth (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualties in the West Bank

We should include the events on Jerusalem, the bulldozer attack on a Bus and the shooting of a Soldier on the west bank.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/04/world/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Maybe more attacks could take place, dont know we should have a section of violence related to the Gaza offensive on the west bank.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the 3 attacks on israelis on the West bank is mentioned in the article, we should mention them, since are contemporary events.200.48.214.19 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of homes

@WarKosign: Regarding your edit here and here. You must surely be aware that there is a whole section devoted to human shields, which contains all the claims you include here and their responses? Why are you repeating the arguments from there, and moreover, doing it in a clear POV way? Why are you only including claims of "human shield", weapons storage, and Hamas directing people to stay in their homes, and not including the contra arguments?

If you want to repeat stuff from that section, you need to provide a neutral summary. Not a one-sided culling of facts. When I created that section, I only provided the barest summary because these issues about human shields are already discussed above.

You have done many good and fine edits. But please keep in mind that this is not a place for advocacy. This is a long term pattern of your edits on this page. I will just document a few of your past edits on this page in the same vein. I do not say all the edits are wrong, but they show a clear advocacy, pushing the POV of one particular side, minimizing the effects of one side and maximizing the other:

  • edit edit edit They are of course all "relevant facts", each of them just happens to favour the Israeli claims. The relevant facts from the other side are not included, as mentioned in the human shields section.
  • edit Most of the section is talking about Israel's attack on journalists, yet you rename the section "Hamas attacks on journalists"? Also, the Jerusalem post source is not saying that several reporters claim Hamas is threatening journalists. Those are just tweets they received on social media. Nowhere do they claim that Hamas is sending those tweets. You against changed a direct attribution to Israeli officials to "several journalists"
  • edit you first remove a statement quoting the economist source and then add edit "since Hamas did not keep the previous ceasefire" based on no source at all.
  • edit Fixing a spelling error, that is fine, but rewording a claim attributed to Israel ("Israel claimed tunnels were destroyed) to a statement of fact ("after destroying the tunnel network")
  • I have already discussed on the talk page about the edits adding of the tunnels to the violations of international humanitarian law section.

Again, there are many other edits which are fine. You have discussed many things on the talk page, which is again, good practice. We all have biases. But, this kind of advocacy based editing will not do. Kingsindian (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @Kingsindian: It's hard to separate the violations of international law (real and alleged) into clean separate categories. Destruction of homes is caused by use of homes for military purposes. Killing of civilians in the homes is caused by urging/causing civilians to stay (human shields) and destruction of homes. Now that I wrote it I see a way to organize the section: list each violation separately, detailing only this violation, and linking to other relevant violations that cause/are caused by it.
  • IMO destruction of tunnel network is not a claim but a fact backed by many independent sources. Do you think otherwise ?
  • Someone added to the background the argument that the violence was caused by the blockade. The blockade in turn was caused by the violence, which I added. A source was indeed needed - but now the point is moot as the background was rewritten, as I'm sure it will be several more times.
  • I try to keep neutral POV, but just as there are pro-hamas editors using terms like 'resistance' for 'terror organization' I may not be completely objective. There are other people to try to keep balance. So far the balance seems to be on the pro-terror side.
  • As for 'relevant facts' favoring Israel - the section is already full with unfavorable claims/facts. I added some neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 08:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosignn: A general comment:You should read WP:NPOV again, especially the section on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance. NPOV does not mean that if there are 5 unfavourable facts about Israel, you add 5 favourable facts to balance it out. It should be based on the actual situation. Now to your specific points:
  • Of course the violations cannot be separated out into clean separate categories. That is not the issue. The issue is when you add the "human shields" reference and the "weapons stored in civilian structures" reference and "Hamas encouraging people to stay" reference, there is a whole section dealing with these things. You cannot just add these things from that section. If you want to include "human shields" you need to write a summary neutral NPOV, with arguments from that section of all sides, given due weight. A simple way to see this is just consider your own edits as a section in itself. Would that count as an NPOV summary of the "human shields" section?
  • The edit about the Hamas not maintaining the ceasefire, is from the lead, not the background. And you say that you know the source was indeed needed. Well, you don't add statements based on your own thinking. You find a source for it, and only then add it. What you did is the definition of WP:OR.
  • Regarding the tunnel edit. It was only a minor point, but illustrative: The issue is not what you believe, but what the source says. The source says: "Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, an Israeli military spokesman, confirmed the bulk of ground troops had been pulled out of Gaza after the military concluded it had destroyed most of the tunnel network." You have no way to know that the tunnels are destroyed or not. Just report what the source says.
  • You did not respond to my other points. I did not criticize your edit for changing "resistance" to "militant" and so on. I think that was a proper edit. Not sure why you bring that up.

Again, many of your edits have been fine and proper. But, as I said, editing like an advocate will not do. Kingsindian (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I have removed all details except the barest claims. And linked back to the other sections, as you suggested elsewhere. Perhaps this is not the perfect solution, we can discuss it further. Kingsindian (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding POV and unbased information in the infobox

@Johorean Boy: You added unsourced information in the infobox, again. The article already lists all the claims that hamas made here, this information does not belong in the infobox. Information by emergency relieve coordinator is based, but it belongs in the "impact on residents" section, and there was a link from notes that you deleted.
Unless you can explain how your biased and unsourced edits improve the article, they will be removed. If you continue edit warring, your account will be blocked. - WarKosign (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:Please refrain from removing contents without providing a strong reason. --Johorean Boy (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Johorean Boy: Since you refuse to provide any commentary to your edits, I can only treat them as vandalism. - WarKosign (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign is correct. If Hamas claims are not sourced or the source is unreliable, don't put it in the info box. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Updating what?

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Care to explain this edit? What exactly are you updating? All I see is removal of sourced content. Kingsindian (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced, previously tagged sentence along with the claim that Israel had presented "no evidence" of Hamas involvement (beyond the claim that the kidnappers were Hamas members), while adding the news from a few hours ago that the organizer of the attack has been arrested and stated it was financed by Hamas members.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging:My mistake, I did not see the part below. Kingsindian (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, this is a minor point, all things considered, but why do we need some journalist's statement that Israel did not immediately and publicly disclose all of its evidence regarding the possibility of Hamas involvement? Would you expect otherwise? If this article was not documenting recent events, would the article really frame the narrative that way? Isn't it enough simply to present both sides without that type of interjection?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: I am not sure I understand you. What journalist's statement are you talking about? The fact that Israel, before the war, did not divulge any evidence of Hamas involvement in the kidnapping is surely relevant. This is why I put it back again. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a criminal matter--what would you have expected them to say? The kidnappers were Hamas members, Netanyahu said the tactics were similar to Hamas. Why do we need that sentence?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: I already said why I think we need that sentence. Let call "fact": "Israel did not provide evidence of Hamas involvement in the kidnapping, before the war". This "fact" has been noted by multiple sources here, here, here and here, among many others. I included this fact, because it is notable and relevant. My own thoughts are beside the point, but I would have preferred that Israel announce on July 11 that they had arrested this man. They waited one month, till the war was over. But I stress, my thoughts are beside the point here. Kingsindian (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas rockets

This source on Hamas' rockets should be used somewhere. Kingsindian (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece. The author thinks it's ok to live when rockets (crude and inefficient) may injure and kill you or your family at any moment. People in Israel think otherwise. Is there some information in this article that is not covered elsewhere ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup. The point of the Qassam rockets is that they are easy to make, relatively cheap, and quick to set up and launch. This way, they can make a bunch of them, and fire them off simultaneously. Instead of being a sniper rifle which is precise, the Qassam is like a shotgun, spreading out to try and hit as many things as it can. The purpose of Qassams is obviously to kill people, but it has many other goals. To disrupt daily life, to cause panic, to cause anxiety, etc. Hamas would like to have more sophisticated and powerful rockets, but they know Israel can stop them from coming into Gaza because of the blockade or Israel can destroy where they are being stored. As the saying goes, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't decided how to use this source. This was more or less just meant as a note to myself and any others who might be interested. It is of course an opinion piece, and not a news piece. The author is a well-known scholar of Hamas and PLO and has had many formal and informal contacts with both factions. It appears in Foreign Affairs, a very reputable and mainstream journal put out the Council on Foreign Relations. Kingsindian (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed duplicate section

I have removed the duplicate section "Militant use of mosques schools" etc. All the information there is already present in other sections, namely the "human shields" section, "using civilian structures for military purposes" section and the "united nations" section. They are discussed there in much more detail and with all sides of argument presented.

There is one sentence from this section, which I was considering to include in the "human shields" section. The report that that Al-Shifa hospital is being used as "de-facto headquarters" of Hamas. I have not included this for the following reason: The washington post is talking about ministers from Hamas. There is no suggestion there that those were bringing weapons into the hospital etc.

See this link for a discussion on this topic. Kingsindian (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you deleted important information. Use of human shields and use of civilian infrastructures are two separate violations of the international law, and it is possible to commit one without the other, so since there are claims (and counter-claims) for each of them, both should appear. Since many violation are related I suggested to list them, detailing them one by one and only linking to arguably related violation. Specifically for the hospital - why not include the claims that you deleted followed by the counter-claims from this link ? - WarKosign (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: I don't understand your point. I said that the section duplicates information present in 2 other sections: "human shields" (and its subsection "using civilian structures for military purposes") and the "united nations" section. Kingsindian (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: at the moment "human shields" and "Use of civilian structures for military purposes" are subsections of "civilian deaths". This implies that they are violations because they cause civilian deaths. This is not correct: both are violations even if they do not cause death. Causing the death of civilians is a violation, but only when done intentionally. "Warnings by Israel" is also a subsection, but is not a claim of violation but rather a counter-claim for intentional targeting of civilians. It also contains some information that actually belongs in "urging or forcing civilians to stay", which should be merged with "human shields"
I think each of the alleged violations should be listed on the same level, with claims and counter-claims detailing each of them separately. The fact that they are related can be reflected by listing links to other violations relevant for each of them. If there is a agreement on this framework I can suggest a list of violations and we can argue over it. Once agreed, we can talk about the content of each and links between them. - WarKosign (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: It seems to me that you are mixing up two issues here. First is "Does this section duplicate content from elsewhere? The answer to me, is yes, for reasons mentioned above. The second issue is whether the organization of the section "Violations of international humanitarian law" is good, or it can be improved. I will answer those comments in the other section. Kingsindian (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I think it mostly duplicates, with some information that should be recovered. The duplications will be resolved the moment there is a clean and unique section for each violation, and then we can recover the missing info. - WarKosign (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictures removed

I noticed that the article was littered with pictures tagged with no sources. Wikipedia is not a gallery of loose images WP:NOTGALLERY. If you want to make a photo gallery and cite the pictures feel free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I do not know wikipedia photo policy, but this issue has already been discussed here. There are few photos available due to copyright, so people upload to commons and editors take from there. It is almost impossible for anyone to verify that "this really happenned". See also Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. Kingsindian (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of pictures in the article already, just because someone uploads some to the commons does not automatically make them free to post on Wikipedia. Pictures on commons get reviewed and this can take a bit at times so it is important to get photos that are indeed free use. As for captions that is policy as I pointed out as this is an encyclopedia and not a photo gallery. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: I am very confused. Why did you remove the pictures, exactly? Are you concerned about verifiability or copyright? You said that you removed pictures based on "citation needed" tags. Shrike put citation needed tags (edit here) based on verifiability, not copyright use. Kingsindian (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Per discussion above. I am restoring the photos. Kingsindian (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of David Norris

Here is the analysis of David Norris about the conflict, as expressed in a speech at the Senate of Ireland: Video on YouTube. Maybe this could be used a a source for the reactions in other countries?

Sedarr oup gr (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the photos of the destruction in Gaza ?

There is almost no photos in the article of all the destruction in Gaza because of this war. I think it's fair to say that 95% of the damage where in Gaza.--88.91.235.110 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And wheres the NPOV in that? Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa!! I think the Israeli finth columns needs a Barnstar for such a important work they have done erasing all the evidence of the Gaza bombardement.200.48.214.19 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's best to keep Neutrality in articles like these, as this is a current and ongoing conflict. Secondly all the pictures of the destruction in Gaza are biased and depict the IDF as the antagonist in this conflict. --Prabash.A (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course most of the death and destruction was in Palestine. DUH !!! -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's not NPOV to not show the photos of the destruction of so much of the Gaza strip. Or, stated another way, it's definitely POV to not show those images. There is a serious issue of proportionality. If we show "equal amount of photos from both sides", then we grant undue weight to the side with the less damage, as if they had more. Also, I disagree that images of destruction in Gaza are biased by their very nature ("All the pictures", as quoted above), and neither do they depict anything but destruction. The images can't paint Israel or the IDF more specifically as aggressors. That's false logic. Hires an editor (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The page used to have lots of photos of all kinds, but they were removed (I hope) due to a misunderstanding. I have restored the photos. See this section for details. Kingsindian (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Attack on UN installation in Rafah on 3 August 2014

This needs to be mentioned in the section on UN. Someone should do it. I might get around to it at some point. Kingsindian (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Announcement from the Ministry of the Interior in the Gaza Strip

There is a report by ITIC [2] that the Hamas-controlled ministry of the interior in the Gaza Strip issued a warning not to divulge information about terrorist operatives killed in Operation Protective Edge. This is done so more of the killed military operatives would appear in the casualties list as civilians rather than militant. I think this is very notable and important, but don't see where exactly to add this information. Does it belong before/after the casualties table ? Media ? Separate section ? - WarKosign (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't find this information in any RS. Definitly not notable. --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ4 11:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the Ministry of the Interior Facebook page. Translated it says:
"Calls upon the Ministry of Interior and National Security, the children of our people and the resistance factions to the attention concerning the dissemination of information and pictures martyrs of the resistance and the details of martyrdom and places targeted, as the occupation is collecting all this information and testimonies and used as evidence to justify its crimes against civilians and the destruction of homes, as well as benefit the security of it, and singled noteworthy activists of social networking and media of the resistance factions, have been spotted during the past few hours many of the advice that provide sensitive information harmful to our people and their resistance, though stated Championships martyrs and Mqaomina should not be a reason to make a greater harm, because the battle of our people with the occupation is still ongoing." Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

More journalists are reporting being threatened or intimidated now that they are out of Gaza

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4556016,00.html

Now that they're out of the Gaza Strip, the reporters are revealing what Hamas tried to prevent the world from seeing. An Indian reporter, for example, documented how Hamas militants launched rockets from a post right outside the window of the hotel where he was staying in the Gaza Strip, shortly before the ceasefire came into effect. The video aired only after the reporter left Gaza. When asked about it, he replied: "There's a conspiracy of silence rooted in fear – no one want to report in real-time".

Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati also told the truth about Hamas once he left the Strip, no longer under their threat. In a tweet, Barbati said: “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamasretaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday (yesterday) in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.” He added: “@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not #Israel behind it.”

Another foreign reporter said that it is an open secret that Hamas uses Al-Shifa hospital as its command center, but that reporters in Gaza would not report that out of fear that it would endanger them.

However, not only foreign reporters were afraid of Hamas' potential revenge. Palestinian reporters also suffered threats when they attempted to criticize the terrorist organization and give truthful reports.

Local Palestinian reporter Radjaa Abu Dagga, for example, reported that he was summoned for questioning at Al-Shifa hospital, where armed Hamas militants attempted to determine whether he writes for an Israeli newspaper. Abu Dagga said that his passport was taken from him, and he was prohibited from leaving the Gaza Strip. Later he published an article in French newspaper Libération, but was forced to remove it after receiving threats.

Reporters in Gaza were subject not only to threats but also to Hamas' manipulations. The Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan detailed how the organization's men staged the IDF attack scenes: he said that he was taken to photograph a mosque that had been bombed, and discovered that someone had "prepared" the scene and placed a prayer mat and burnt Quran pages.

He later reported that it was obvious that someone had put them there to create empathy for the Palestinian struggle.

The CBN news website said that apart from mosques, Hamas is also using church compounds to launch attacks. In his report, journalist George Thomas said that Gaza's most prominent Christian leader, Archbishop Alexios, "took CBN News to the roof terrace outside his office to show how Islamists used the church compound to launch rockets into Israel."

The Archbishop explained that "Islam is the rule of this place and whatever Hamas says we must obey or face consequences," Thomas added.

I think the parts in this article about journalists need to be cleaned up. There are bits and pieces about journalists all over the place despite there being a section about journalists. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2014

you forgot to mention the tunnels in the introduction as a reason for the operation 24.246.75.72 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The tunnels were not a reason for the operation. The rocket attacks were. Once ground operation began, IDF used the chance to remove the tunnel threat, with other terror infrastructures. If you think otherwise, please provide a source. - WarKosign (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop changing the info box with unreliable information

Can someone warn Johorean Boy. He keeps changing the info box to include unreliable information about Israeli tanks being destroyed. He is using this website as his source. It's an unreliable source, the dates are inconsistent since the article is dated July 12th, yet the ground invasion did not start until the 17th. The pictures he's using are also supposedly dated from before this conflict found here. Knightmare72589 (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

He also keeps adding Hamas claim that it killed 161 IDF soldiers. There is no source that verifies this claim or anything near it, all the other sources contradict it absolutely. There is a section with all the other less-than-perfect-truth claims that hamas made, and this is where it belongs, definitely not in the infobox. - WarKosign (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Zionist can not fool all of the people all of the time. [3][4][5][6] --Johorean Boy (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Johorean Boy: I suggest you do your homework. None of those videos show the tanks being destroyed. The anti-tank missiles were actually intercepted and destroyed by the Merkavas Armored Shield Protection-Active Trophy (also known as Windbreaker) as shown here and here. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Protests against Hamas in Gaza

Hello can someone please provide video/photograph in regards to protests against hamas in Gaza?. these two sources are referenced to such claims [7] and [8], both of them cite undisclosed sources and provide no evidence (other than font of text of accusation). Can anyone provide any actual evidence and if not can the subject of protests agaisnt hamas in gaza be placed for review?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.169.29 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol this is a big lie. 3bdulelah (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few sources
Don't expect to find much media coverage, considering how Hamas was reported to threaten journalists and how it evidently treated protesters. - WarKosign (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
--Johorean Boy (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-organization of the 'Violations of international humanitarian law' section

Currently the section is not organized clearly, with sub-section arranged without any apparent order and containing duplicate information. I suggest to have each sub-section deal with a single alleged violation by a single side, linking to other violations that are potentially causing or are caused by it. For example these could be some of the section names with these causality links:
=> means 'claimed to cause', <= means 'claimed to be caused by'

  • Rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians
  • => use of civilian infrastructure
  • Use of civilian infrastructure for rocket attacks
  • <= Rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians
  • => destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure
  • Destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure
  • <= use of civilian infrastructure for attacks
  • => attack on civilians
  • Urging and/or forcing Gazan civilians to remain at homes
  • <= Use of civilian infrastructure for rocket attacks
  • Attack of Gazan civilians by Israel
  • <= Use of civilian infrastructure for rocket attacks
  • <= Urging and/or forcing Gazan civilians to remain at homes

Opinions ? - WarKosign (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who's sockpuppet you are as a 2008 sleeper account (who empied its talkpage today; hint: look for other contributors), but this attempt to divert the warcrimes to the receiving party, we should not take too seriously. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I partially agree with Wickey-nl. The proposed restructure is too biased and puts blame on Gazans remaining at home, storing weapons in civilian areas, etc. No mention of violation of human rights by the aggressor. Also your current scheme of =>/<= is confusing. --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ4 14:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The example is partial and is not intended to represent the content, only the structure. Looks like you don't find it easy to read. How about this:
  • Violation 1 by ...
  • Claimed to be caused by:
  • Claimed to cause:
Details of violation 1 with references

As for being a sleeper account - I don't owe anyone an explanation. I rarely edited in the last few years, and then didn't bother to log in until this page got semi-protected. You are welcome to look at the previous version of my talk page, there was nothing except some threats by a terrorist supporter. Who are you sockpuppeting for ? - WarKosign (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wickey-nl: Please do not resort to personal attacks. If you have any evidence of sock-puppetry, report it.
@WarKosign: I agree with some of the substance of User:Wickey-nl and User:Stannic tetramuon. I will answer your points made here and elsewhere.
  • When you say "civilian deaths" are not violations unless they are intentional, this is not correct. Disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks resulting in civilian deaths are also unlawful.
  • The "human shields" and "using civilian structures for military purposes" are the reasons given by Israel for the civilian casualties in the section. This is why they are sub-sections.
  • The destruction of homes section refers back to these sections, and there is a case of making it a sub-section of "civilian deaths". I am inclined not to do it, because there are other issues there. As mentioned there, destruction of homes has been condemned as collective punishment, which is a separate issue. And the second reason is that in the early part of the war, Israel destroyed homes based on them being "suspected militants". After they were criticized for collective and disproportionate punishment, they made another claim that they are "command and control centers" etc. This part has been linked to the section above. See the source quoted there. The other part about "command and control" etc. falls into the using civilian structures for military purposes, this is why I linked to that section.
  • The reporting about al-Shifa hospital (in particular the Finnish reporter) is already included in this section. Kingsindian (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: There is circular dependency between violations, so it would be a very long argument why each proposed structure that puts one violation under another won't do. See my reply to you in another thread as an example. In order to avoid these arguments I propose to list each violation separately, at the same level. Relation between them can be maintained via links and not via hierarchy. Here is one possible list of violations, each should be duplicated for each side as applicable:
  • Intentional or indiscriminate attacks of civilians
  • Intentional or indiscriminate attacks of civilian structures
  • Use of civilian infrastructures for military purpose (including UN facilities)
  • Forcing or urging civilians to remain in danger
  • Attack of UN facilities
  • UN providing military support to either side
  • Attacks and threats of journalists
  • Use of children under the age of 18 in military actions
Before someone accuses me of bias - this is by no means a complete and final list, only a draft. Please respond with corrections and/or completely different lists. Obviously many of these items can be argued to be caused by others, but this causality should not affect the structure of the list, only the links between the items. - WarKosign (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
No responses so far, I began work on the re-organization as a separate sub-page. Once there is a reasonable consensus on the content there, we can replace the current section with a link. Everybody are very welcome to contribute.- WarKosign (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I completed the initial creation of the new violations page. There are very little additions/deletions, mostly moving the statements around into sections that seem far more clear to me. Please check it and say what you think. I would like to switch to the new page as soon as possible, to avoid merging modifications from this page to the new one. - WarKosign (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign:
  • I already said that I am not in favour of reorganization like this. Just having "links" between different sections A caused by B etc. is not a sufficient way to discuss the context.
  • There is no duplication at the moment, currently, if we move the "destruction of homes" into the civilian section (that should be separate in my opinion, but we can discuss it).
  • What happenned to the "Infrastructure" section?
  • The violations need to be put in context, this is why I had made one big section with "human shields" and "using civilian structures for military purposes" etc. It discusses all the issues in one place. For example even if there are say, sites near hospitals used to fire rockets, I quote (amnesty or hrw, I forget) saying that there is still no justification for hitting hospitals. Moreover, all the response needs to be "proportionate" and should follow "distinction", the basic principles of international humanitarian law. These things should all be mentioned in one place, not like this. Kingsindian (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: My main problem is with putting one violation under another. This implies that the top one is worse or more important than the one inside, which is a matter of opinion. I can argue that the use of human shields should be at the top level, with attack on civilians and hospitals underneath it since human shields are the root cause for the rest. In order to not have these arguments, I listed all 3 at the same level, and they can reference each other without implying importance or severity of each violations. I don't think there is evidence of specifically targeting infrastructures, so I bundled damage to them with the rest of attack on civilian and civilian structures, but if you see a reason to split them - I don't mind. - WarKosign (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: There is no question of prioritizing violations. They are put in one section because they are all related in a fundamental way I made this point many many days ago. They cannot be isolated without losing all sense of context, or duplicating information. This is why I put the arguments concerning human shields and "using civilian structures for military purposes" in one place. That is the key part and the most contested and is the largest section by far. I do not see any question of it minimizing or prioritizing the violations. Kingsindian (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

@Monopoly31121993: Regarding your edits edit1 and edit2 and edit3

  • Let's start with the easiest, edit3: I am not sure why you put citation needed tags for each of the statetements. The source for the whole paragraph is the OCHA report, cited at the very end of the paragraph.
    • Every sentence, especially in the introduction needs to have citations. Things get added/removed and moved around all the time so there's no way to have it without citations. That's why I did that.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding edit1 and edit2, can I ask you, on what basis do you determine that the quote "There is no safe place for civilians in Gaza" does not belong in the lead, while you determine that a long elaboration on "human shields" belongs in the lead? The reason you give in the edit summary for edit1 is: "removed a quote from an OCHA spokesperson from the introduction, it belong in the text on Palestinian civilians". Keeping in mind that there is a whole section below on "Human shields" wouldn't this argument apply with even greater force to your added content in edit2? WP
    • WP uses NPOV in its text so subjective statements like "There is no where to run to, no safe place to hide, etc." don't belong in the introduction of WP articles. This is clearly the opinion of one person, even though he's a UN employee. Without balance the statement shouldn't been in the introduction.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead is already too long. It should contain no more than a summary of various events. Moreover, you should not be changing the lead by a significant amount before discussion on the talk page.
    • I added a neutral perspective to the topic of human shields. The UN and EU's reporting the storage of weapons in civilians areas and condemning calls for civilians to serve as human shields is perfectly reasonable to include in an introduction to this topic.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Solution suggested: The lead already mentions the allegations of "human shields" and Hamas' denial. It should stay that way, without this added content of edit2. Regarding edit1, the quote by the OCHA spokesperson "There is no safe place for civilians in Gaza", should be reinstated. It is a short, pithy quote, accurately summarizing the situation in Gaza, and carries no undue weight. All the "citation needed" tags in edit3 should be removed, as I mentioned in the first point. I would have dealt with all of this myself, but under ARBPIA sanctions, 1RR applies. If you could revert/modify your edits yourself, it would be good. Kingsindian (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think removing the UN and EU's perspectives and just keeping Hamas' denial is a balanced POV at all. I will keep try to check as many of citation need marks right now but it takes time to fact check every unreferenced sentence so please be patientMonopoly31121993 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I tried very hard to work on this right now but there are A LOT of problems with paragraph as it currently stands. whoever wrote it clearly had an agenda and they introduced a lot of bias into it. Frankly the whole thing should probably be deleted and re-written but I was able to added a little bit of citation and I'll keep working on it later. When you're 24 hours are up feel free to go back and actually check between what is written in that report and what is currently written in that paragraph, you will see very quickly that they are hardly the same thing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:
  • I do not know where you got the idea that every sentence in the lead should have a citation. Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations.
  • NPOV is not the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All your reasons are based on "I don't like it" and no other reasons. NPOV means giving all points of view their due weight. A short statement by the OCHA spokesperson accurately describing the situation in Gaza is not undue weight. A very long edit describing "Human shields" is indeed undue weight. What is undue weight finally is decided by consensus, not just unilateral decisions by an editor just because he feels there is bias for some reason he can't explain.
  • I will be reverting these edits tomorrow, if I don't hear any better reasons before then, or they are not changed by someone else. There is already a section on the lead in the talk page. You can discuss your proposed changes there, instead of making large scale changes like this. Kingsindian (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My above comments were a bit harsh. I will address one of the points you made which deserves a response. The rest of my response stands.
  • Regarding edit2: You say, removing UN and EU's perspective and keeping Hamas' denial is wrong. First of all, Hamas' denial was already present, and it is still present after your edit. Secondly, you have not answered the point I have made above. Recall that your the edit summary for edit1 was that the OCHA spokesman's statement belonged in the Palestine section and not in the lead. By the same logic, why should the human shields part belong in the lead when it has its own, very long section? Thirdly, you only quote the statement critical of Hamas in the section there. The UN statement is available here, as you can see, it contains much else. Fourth, if you look at the human shields section, it contains a lot of discussion about pro- and con- for each side. Do you really believe that the edit you made (every sentence you added was critical of Hamas) is a fair summary of that section? Kingsindian (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian remember to assume good faith. I'm working very hard to check this information and to add citations. I have had to change significant amounts of the text of that paragraph because the information was WRONG. Example: 1) report states that 1.5 million are affected by a lack of water NOT 1.8 which was written there when I placed the [citation needed] tag. If you're upset that there are [citation needed] tags then I encourage you to do the same thing as I am and check the source for yourself and see if you can actually verify the information currently in the text.
Also, your claim that the UN and EU statements are "critical of Hamas" is not at all correct. Neither quote even mentions Hamas...
Finally, the anecdotal statement that "no one is safe in Gaza" by the UN coordinator is not something that any neutral editor would say exhibits enough NPOV to include in the introduction to an article but in the interest of keeping information in the article I have moved the quote to the appropriate section. More generally I suggest you calm down and assume good faith.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I have of course assumed good faith. I have only responded to your points so far. Your response above does not address any of the points raised

  • It is fine to correct errors, nobody is challenging that. From 1.8 to 1.5mil is fine. I did not challenge that. I said, the whole paragraph is footnoted right at the end, with the OCHA report. One does not need to footnote each single sentence to say that the whole paragraph is from a source. I do not know where you got the impression that this needs to be done.
  • You say the UN and EU statements you cite are not critical of Hamas since "don't even mention Hamas". Oh it's true they don't mention Hamas...by name. Let me quote them in their full:

n 17 July UNRWA strongly condemned "the group or groups responsible" for placing the weapons in one of its schools[43] and on 22 July the European Union condemned all "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields."

  • The main issue with the "human shields" part which you quoted is it is not a NPOV summary of the "Human shields" section in the article itself. The lead is supposed to be a summary, not your own research. You do not address this at all.
  • Your response to the OCHA spokesperson's comment "There is no safe place in Gaza" is pure WP:JDL. The fact that you don't like it is not important. It is sourced, concise, notable and described accurately the situation in Gaza. Being NPOV is not the same as being blind or bland. Kingsindian (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I reverted your revert of my edits. Like I mentioned in my edit summary the OCHA quote was moved to the section in the article on Palestinian Casualties and Loses. It is still in the article and doesn't add anything but a very clear anecdotal POV to the introduction. Considering that we already have nearly half of all content in the introduction from OCHA, I think we have their perspective well covered. And your edit also reverted the UNRWA and EU quotes which DONT even MENTION HAMAS. You have not provided any reason why that is biased against Hamas and frankly, a statement of facts by the UN or EU is impossible to claim as biased. To me your edit could easily be seen as vandalism.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993:
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of statements which are repeated in the article. I have been telling you to read WP:LEAD and it is clear from your points here that you have not read it.
  • The important point for the human shields claim is that it has a whole section devoted to it. You cannot pick two arbitrary points from that section and put it in the lead.
  • Your arguments are not consistent. If the OCHA statement does not belong in the lead because it is there in a section below, then the other part should also not be in there. The rockets in UNRWA school also has a whole section devoted to it.
  • The part you quoted from UN/EU does not mention Hamas (BY NAME). But it is obviously talking about them. Are you telling me that a statement condemning putting rockets in schools and using population as human shields is not criticizing Hamas? Who is it criticizing then?

Kingsindian (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I have no idea who put weapons in a school. That doesn't change the fact that it happened and was condemned by the UNRWA or that the EU observed a call or calls to use civilians as human shields and condemned it. The summary is a statement of facts and to me those are clearly neutral facts made by third party sources without any specific reference to Hamas or anyone else. Since I can see that we have a a tough disagreement here I think the only solution is to either request a dispute resolution or a third opinion. If you agree please go ahead and add this to the talk page on one of those pages. Thanks for taking this seriously and being polite in your many comments. Hopefully we can sort this out that way quickly.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Monopoly31121993: I have added a request on the third opinion page here.Wikipedia:Third_opinion Kingsindian (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

More Hamas executions

Starting to think Hamas executions deserves it's own section if this keeps happening. Knightmare72589 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

POV fork

Why is there a separate Operation Pillar of Defense‎ article? FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably because they are separate operations? Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoops. Hard to tell one euphemistic IDF operation title from another. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Egypt listed along USA for aiding Israel?

Although no source claim that Egypt provides any military or financial aid to israel, so this listing is absurd. More so, a fuss note was left bellow asking not to remove specifically Egypt "until the discussion on talk page is ongoing" There was no discussion on this issue, as even the source does not claim anything related. The question of political support is debatable, yet we do not list there the political views of all 200 states. Please, someone to remove this absurd and unsourced claim regarding Egypt.--Tritomex (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Any party that is not providing military aid should be removed. I think that includes Turkey as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well, there is no point in having countries listed as simply "politically supportive" of one side or the other. If we were to do that, we'd have to list just about every country in the world. Not to mention that a lot of countries have, at times (including the US), condemned actions taken from both sides. -- Kndimov (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well and i think we should delete both US and Egypt as allies or supporters.barjimoa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose deleting the US as an ally of Israel. They send billions of dollars in military aid to the country every year and have served as the country's guardian angel in the UN Security Council for decades. -- Kndimov (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

They SEND billions of dollars and they have SERVED as their guardian angel. . In this 2014 conflict they are playing a mediation role, arent they? barjimoa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Civilian fatalities statistics are mis-referenced in the introduction

I just read the actual reference for the "OCHA" civilian fatalities claim that is in the introduction. It appears in the original report with an footnote stating "Data on fatalities and destruction of property is consolidated by the Protection and Shelter clusters based on preliminary information, and is subject to change based on further verifications." None of this was mentioned in the article until now. Also it looks like the source "Protection and Shelter clusters" is not the actual name of any organization but perhaps a misspelling of Protection Cluster [9] or Global Protection Cluster[10]. Ether way I don't think this information is meets the Wikipedia standards of reliable information especially since neither of these groups has a Wiki page currently, since OCHA misspelled their name to begin with and since we have no idea how they actually collected this information.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Can I ask how you determined that they were quoting protectioncluster.org or Global Protection Cluster?
  • The figures are present in the OCHA report, they should be attributed to OCHA. The report itself mentions that the figures are compiled in collaboration with other humanitarian organizations. Presumably they have a process there for collecting the information.
  • I have many other problems with your edit to the lead, for that a new section Kingsindian (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The OCHA report statement is given above. It says that their data comes from "Protection and Shelter clusters." I don't know who that is but since it's capitalized I assume it's the name of an organization. It's not OCHA giving these statistics and therefore it should not be attributed solely to them, to do so would be deceptive.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Monopoly31121993: If I understand you correctly, you just took a guess that the organization mentioned in the UN report is this particular organization. This is the definition of WP:OR. All the figures are mentioned in the OCHA report. They have their own way of compiling the figures. If they put it front and center, it means they are giving their authority to it. These figures should be attributed to OCHA, not some organization which we are not even clear is the same organization. Kingsindian (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: How is including the name of the organization that OCHA is quoting original research??? If someone at the UN decided that it was correct to accept this information from this source then there is absolutely no reason why it can't be made clear on Wikipedia that it is the source of these statistics. If I understand you correctly, you believe the best solution would be to misrepresent the information by claiming that it comes directly from the UN even though in the UN report itself on its first page places an asterisk and a footnote next to the statistic and states that the information is "preliminary" and comes from a third party. I believe I have improved the sentence significantly. If anything, it would probably have been justifiable to remove the statistics since the text does not properly describe the given source. Moreover the information has difficultly meeting verifiability requirements since there is no mention of how the statistic is actually derived, and, like I said earlier, the source is not widely known. By keeping the statistic and including the additional information on its source and status my edit provides clarity and balance.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Monopoly31121993: I can only repeat my points. As I mentioned above, we have no evidence that this particular organization (protectioncluster.org) is being used by UNRWA. This is what I said is the definition of WP:OR. All information OCHA puts out in emergency reports is preliminary, I am fine with including it. The figures are prominently displayed on the front page of the report. OCHA of course works with many organizations on the ground, as they state in the report. But the figure is put out by them. They should be attributed to OCHA, not some organization that you have no evidence is putting out the figures. Kingsindian (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Thai farm worker mentioned under 'Casualties and losses' was killed 23 June, which was before the conflict according to the articles date (8 July 2014 – present). Please see this link for clarification: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/victims%20of%20palestinian%20violence%20and%20terrorism%20sinc.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@MONDARIZ: "Jul 23, 2014 - Narakorn Kittiyangkul, 36, from Nan's Pua district in Thailand was killed by a mortar fired from Gaza while working in a greenhouse in one of the Israeli communities in the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council." - where did you see 23 June ? - WarKosign (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire violations in 2012-2013

@Knightmare72589: I have removed two things which you added to 2012-13 section and modified a third. Please note that there were many many violations of the ceasefire. The aim of the section is to provide a summary, not to list every violation you may have discovered. You cannot arbitrarily pick points which you like (like tunnels and supposed Iranian rockets going to Gaza) and list them in this section. See this list for an overview of more than hundred violations of the ceasefire, all of them from media reports. To pick a couple of points arbitrarily is to give undue weight. If you want to list ceasefire violations, do it in an NPOV manner, giving due weight to the number of violations and the severity (there were many people killed on the Palestinian side, surely this deserves some weight compared to an Israeli claim of a spy satellite that some ship was going to Gaza)?

  1. edit1: The first addition is pure WP:SYNTH, the source does not say anything about Hamas stopping rocket attacks because of Iranian situation. The second source does not say anything about three tunnels. It only talks about one tunnel and it says it was not filled with explosives. I have modified this to reflect what the source said.
  2. edit2 Undue weight, as discussed above. Kingsindian (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It was the third tunnel discovered this year. The previous two were packed with explosives, the IDF said. - http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-terror-tunnel-found-running-from-gaza-to-israel/ Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Knightmare72589: My mistake. I have restored that part. Kingsindian (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas' rocket fire on Israel

Why is it not mentioned in the lead that Hamas has not fired back since 2012? Hamas operatives launched rockets for the first time on June 30 in responce to Israeli airstricks and the arrests in the West Bank. I think it's highly important since the lead makes it seem like they never stoped, hence misleading. AcidSnow (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: This is mentioned in the background section. The lead is a mess right now, especially the first paragraph. If you have any comments about it, please leave them here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that makes sence. But what does not makes sence was the removal of the "Anti Palestinian/Arab sentiment" section. But this should not be disscused here but the section above (here). AcidSnow (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hamas is not the only group in Gaza to launch rockets. To make it seem like no rockets were fired at all because Hamas did not fire any would be disingenuous. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It's true that Hamas is not the only group in Gaza. However, I would not call it "disingenuous" since other fractions rockets have usually been prevented by Hamas.[11] AcidSnow (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/israeli-army-announces/1297276.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Gaza_War/Archive_4&oldid=1090467776"