Talk:2014 Gaza War

POV

What's the point of adding POV?--Anton^Talk 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no sign that equal voice is given the two parties in the conflict. It sounds so far like an IDF version of events, and indeed an IDF blog has been used, and when I removed it per failure to pass RS criteria, it was immediately restored by an editor who thinks a specialist journalist in Jerusalem, writing for the Christian Science Monitor was pushing 'propaganda' for stating as a matter of record that Hamas has reined in rocket fire since November 2012, as per the cease-fire agreement, and only assumed responsibility for rockets fired from the Strip today. You'd never guess this from the article being patched up today, and it's evident the majority of contributions show zero interest in WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Using POV is not going to solve the NPOV unless you edit, correct or talk with the user(s). I do not like to see the articles just hang with "POV". As per {{POV/doc}}, I encourage you to point the issue rather than giving general idea. --Anton^Talk 16:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

How does one edit an article when one's first addition is automatically reverted at sight with a false edit summary? Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is almost no elbow room for any experienced editor who has been reverted to restore improperly removed material, or further remove things like the IDF blog which is in direct contradiction with the given data from Bryant and happens to use a unilateral statistic from a belligerent in the conflict while eliding all mention of the alternative perspective? Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your point. Why don't you intervene with editor(s)? --Anton^Talk 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll notify here that for one, User:Galatz, whose been round for 5 years, cannot alter the existing text for a day. He broke the 1R rule in ARBPIA articles with the edit summary ‘Undid propaganda’ (false edit summary also) here, removing citation tags uynder false pretenses, since they were entered because the IDF blog is not usable and here. Normally, this merits an automatic suspension or sanction, but I'm not personally going to worry admins for the moment. All red-ink editors and others should study the rules on reverting and fashion their edits in such a way that they do not revert the given text more than once, except to correct obvious vandalism.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is just nuts, unless something is done what we are going to have is a POV tag sitting around for months. My suggestion is to take this whole thing back to arbcom and ask that well established editors be allowed to at least have 2RR or something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing your tag - you are using the TP as a WP:SOAP - so far, everything is properly cited.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course this article is Pov. A lot of IDF-people work on it. Not many Palestinians.--Ezzex (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're using "IDF" as a euphemism for "Jew" (as in your recent edits) it's still unacceptable. If you think any individual editor has an unacceptable COI, you should address it. Otherwise, address the issues, not the editors. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I use the term jewish people in the sense that they usually are more emotional connected to this conflict than non-jewish Brits, Americans, French etc. They should therefore stay away or be more aware of the problem of subjectivity.--Ezzex (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Address the issue, not ethnicity or editor. Wiki does not encourage such complain. --Anton^Talk 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree with that. Ethnicity is sometime relevant, especially here. By using that name on the article, Operation Protective Edge, you already feel that the director is IDF and it's henchmen.--Ezzex (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor, not like your own restriction, which is against to Wiki. Do you have Wiki reference to say "Jewish editors should not don any edits on this article"? --Anton^Talk 08:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't "forum" this discussion with asking for some non-existent Wiki policy - your first comment was enough to make the point. The Administrator is already watching and will act accordingly again if necessary.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about policy in debates. I've been on wikipedia for years and will express my opinions as i wish.--Ezzex (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I sat in the pov-tag. This article is simply too much from a israeli viewpoint.--Ezzex (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I strongly protest the use of all the Israeli/jewish sources in this article. This is outrageous and a proof that english wikipedia have sunken to a level that is beyond any belief. You have finally became a tool for Israel.--Ezzex (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What are "Jewish sources"? sources that eat kosher foods? And maybe you don't notice the many links in the article to Al-Jazeera and Maan News i.e. "Arab sources". Yuvn86 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I also strongly object to the distinct pro-Israeli bias introduced into this article, and will make it my mission to strive to a more level playing field. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Casualties

Should the Israeli count be updated from none to one? The woman who died in Haifa was running for shelter at the time she collapsed. I haven't heard a cause for the collapse, but to me this implies its indirectly related to the rocket fire from Gaza. - Galatz (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would lean toward yes but it would be better to had a source saying 1 dead Israeli or first Israeli dead. --JFH (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually can't find any that specifically say that, everything I am finding just says that she collapsed and died. - Galatz (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's probably misleading to count people who die from heart-failure as having being 'killed' by the conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, that was my concern. It could be argued that the heart issue was indirectly related to the operation, but that probably cannot be concerned. I think for now it makes the most sense to leave it at zero, especialyl since neither side is claiming its the first death.Galatz (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If she did die from a heart attack as a result of rocket fire, why wouldn't it be added? In the Gulf War article, it highlights Israelis who died from heart attacks as a result of Scud missiles fired from Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

100s of people are dying of heart-attacks every day. The direct cause is heart-disease, and the stress (such as is caused by air-raid sirens) is merely a trigger.Avaya1 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

after the end of the war i will quote the latest up to date number for casualties and how many are civilians from reliable sources but i will not doit now because it needs daily udate and i dont have the time, so keep lying and searching for the best numbers that suits you propaganda for now but i will settle this soon.Zaid almasri (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC) the isralis who died of heart attack or while running for shelter must be counted , if you object then mention the cause between quotations.and also the two israelis who died in the west bank must be counted also.Zaid almasri (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Background

The New York Times did it better than you and the section should be revisited.

"This latest confrontation has roots in the kidnapping and murder last month of the three Israeli teenagers by men in the West Bank who Israel alleges belong to Hamas, followed by the kidnapping and murder of the Palestinian teenager, reportedly by members of an anti-Arab group of supporters of the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team known as La Familia." -http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/israel-steps-up-offensive-against-hamas-in-gaza.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Such as how? Your anonymous IP statement is far to vague to be of any value.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what was vague about it. An rs provided a perfectly concise paragragh reflected in most other sources while the background here ignored the common narrative to focus on people bein arrested. It looks like someone else agreed and restructured it. If a background section returns then it should follow the example shown in the Times (obviously without ripping it off). I was especially surprised to see no mention of La Familia. Is that clear enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.152 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your one point about La Familia is good. Simply providing an RS without context is of little value for specifics of what needs to be changed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you want context then look at the Times paragraph vs the previous background section. It was a joke. Stop playing coy and just do better at editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

1) I didn't edit the lead. 2) If you want something changed, you need to be specific. Apparently most editors on here were more or less happy with the information you wanted amended, so it is your responsibility to provide what changes you'd like to see OR why not just register and do so yourself? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My concern was already addressed so there is no need to bicker, friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.164 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm writing to prepare an extended "Background". There should be a separate "Background" section due to its importance. This section includes an explanation on short term and long term pretexts of the war and investigates the roots of the current conflicts in Gaza. Mhhossein (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on your talk page with the concerns over your addition and follow-up edits. The copy right needs to be respected. Please edit heavily or remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw the comments and acted according to the Admin'd view! no heavy edition is required. Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• How if we add this line to the background?

According to Al Jazeera, Israel hopes to disenfranchise the Palestinian national unity government between Fatah and Hamas by this assault.

Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

As we read in the lead section manual of Style, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. But, the lead section here, mainly focuses on the background and does not reflect other parts of the article. So, there should be a "Background" and the lead should be edited to contain all important points. Mhhossein (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It should also be free of citations, but the article is too new and the event has not yet settled down, at which point more refinement of the article will take place.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It likely won't. These articles tend to be over sourced since there is so much contention. The lead will not meet the MoS unless there is a constant attempt to follow the style guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@HammerFilmFan:I found it in lead section manual of Style:"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Mhhossein (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Days of the week

As this has continued more than a week, I would suggest it is time to cull the references to days of the week (e.g., "Over Monday night ... and by Tuesday", in the lede, etc.). And refer simply to dates. Except for those instances, if any, where the day of the week is relevant (e.g., the Sabbath). --Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --Malerooster (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well :) --Universal Life (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Move request 1

Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict – I moved this article from the incredibly biased use of the official IDF designation, to what most sources actually call it: 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza The lead should be changed accordingly, but a random Israeli IP reverted me.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC) How is the new page name not biased ? Israel is under attack by rocket fire from Gaza, yet your title implies that Israel attacks Gaza. At very least the title should be about bi-directional violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But that is what practically all sources refer to this as: Israeli offensive on Gaza. It is up to you to prove otherwise. Furthermore, your argument doesn't make sense in relation to the new title, since the former title, the official IDF name, solely focused on the offensive as well. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• 2014 israel offensive on gaza - 60 millions hits on google.
• 2014 gaza offensive on israel - 60.5 million hits on google
• 2014 gaza israel violence - 65 million hits

How exactly are you determining what "practically all" sources refer to ? The article's name doesn't have to be IDF's operation name, but it can't be refering only to the reaction ignoring the original violent action. This is as biased as you can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Your second example is fallacious, since you need to keep the order of the words used in mind. Use citation marks in your next search to get the correct order. Anyway, anything would be better than then official IDF name. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine, with quotation marks:

• "2014 israeli offensive on gaza" - 7 results (not 7 millions).
• "operation protective edge" - 4.5 million
• "2014 gaza offensive on israel" - 60 millions
• "2014 israel defense against gaza" - 53.8 millions
• "2014 gaza israel violence" - 65 millions.

IMO the last one is the least biased, since it indicates there is violence between two sides without assigning fault. If you prefer, I can live with "gaza offensive" or "israel defense". Current title is the most irrelevant and most biased of the lot.

All the articles about the previous operations in Gaza are also called by the operation name. The move is clearly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.218.244 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

They aren't. And the fact that some of them are shows we have more to fix after this one. Wikipedia is neutral, remember? Also, you should read: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists Furthermore, your search results are not reproducible. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the WP:SOAPBOXING. Keep the soapboxing off the page and focus on making policy based content decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Aww, it served more as an embarrassment than anything though. As for search results, most sources obviously don't use the year in the name when they refer to this as the "Israeli offensive on Gaza", so the year needs to be kept outside the citation marks. Oddly enough, the first result is from FoxNews, a friend of Israel: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/09/israeli-military-says-palestinian-rocket-attacks-decline-on-second-day/ "Israel's Gaza offensive" 2014 also gets many hits. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC),

Previous conflicts of the Gaza–Israel conflict are named:

• Operation Rainbow (2004)
• Operation Days of Penitence (2004)
• Operation Summer Rains
• Operation Autumn Clouds (2006)
• Operation Hot Winter (2008)
• Gaza War (2008/9) IDF name "Operation Cast Lead"
• March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes IDF name "Operation Returning Echo"
• Operation Pillar of Defense (2012)

So why would you think that "Israeli offensive on Gaza" in is any way unbiased on representative of anything other than your own view? Also it clearly ignores that there's an exchange of violence between both sides, with hundreds of missiles fired from Gaza on Israeli cities. I suggest naming this either "Operation Protective Edge" as it was originally called, or find something more unbiased like "2014 Israel-Gaza Fighting" or whatever. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

See: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists Those titles should all be changed as well. They are extremely biased. And yet again, even FoxNews refers to "Israeli offensive on Gaza", and that's hardly an anti Israeli source. We go by what most reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not an IDF propaganda mouthpiece. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You are stating your own opinion on a convention/consensus of Wikipedia articles dating from 10 years ago until today. They are not biased because they are articles about a military operation that has a name. Calling it "Israeli offensive on Gaza" is biased since it places one side as the aggressor and another as the victim while ignoring that there is an ongoing conflict between two sides. This is the definition of bias. Also, nobody cares how "even FoxNews" referring to it, especially considering that there is an Israeli offensive on Gaza, and a Gaza offensive against Israel happening in the same time. Wikipedia is not a place for you to shove your own opinions about political/military conflicts, same as it is not an IDF mouthpiece nor a Gazan mouthpiece. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I repeat what I said above: your argument/objection doesn't make sense in relation to the new title, since the former title, the official IDF name, solely focused on the offensive as well, not on Hamas rockets. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The former titles talks about an operation which is both offensive and defensive. You may rename the article to something unbiased, but don't just come and rename it to something one sided just because you feel like it. At the least, use the Talk page to suggest a move, get suggestions and votes, and move then to a new name that is acceptable upon everyone. And at any rate, this article is about "an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, launched on 8 July 2014." which is named Operation Protective Edge. It's not about a so called "Israeli offensive on Gaza" which does not represent anything but a very specific bias. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The current title is less biased than then old one. Naming the article after the official IDF name is akin to naming the Iraq war article "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which was the US army name. And yet again, most sources call this a Israeli offensive against Gaza. That is a fact you need to deal with. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a fact, this is your (very biased) opinion, and you are clearly not in consensus. Most sources do NOT call this an Israeli offensive as I showed above, but you chose to ignore this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How come I can not reproduce your search results? Is FoxNews biased against Israel? Look at the sources used in this article. They mostly call it Israel's offensive. And what is it on? Gaza. The exact sequence of words is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

ETTENTIO PLEASE

"Israeli offensive on Gaza" has 348,000 results in google

"Operation Protective Edge" has 4,530,000 results in google

LOOK HERE IF U DONT BELIVE

IT IS THE REAL RESULTS BECOUSE ITS INCLUDE Apostrophes IN THE SEARCH CODE

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=%22Israeli+offensive+on+Gaza%22

https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=OlfGU_raKIyh8wep4oDoBg&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Operation+Protective+Edge%22

46.120.172.91 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

All sources obviously don't have "Israeli" directly in front of "offensive on Gaza", as this is inherently known by the readers. 2014 Israeli "offensive on Gaza" gives 1.490.000 hits, for example. There are many combinations, that give the same general title. Anyhow, consider the Iraq war analogy again. IDF operation names are biased towards Israeli POV. And please tell me how FoxNews is anti-Israeli. FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying the same as FoxNews. Is FoxNews anti-Israeli? FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Either the article is mainly about IDF operation called Protective Edge, or the article is about the current round of violence between two sides. Either way, just calling it "Israel's offensive" implies that there is one side to the offensive while the other side is a quiet victim - which is very biased and plainly wrong.

FunkMonk's POV change of the article seems to have been reverted, but I still see the wrong (changed) article name. Anyone understands what is going on ? 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been reverted, only the intro. My "POV" is apparently the same as FoxNews', deal with it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that if your POV is same as Fox News', you're probably wrong ;) -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you are not willing to discuss, only to force your biased POV. I suggested several alternatives, you are not willing to consider any opinion but your own. No point talking further, only to repair the damages you are making to the page until an administrator resolves the problem.

2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, anything is better than IDF operation names. Gaza conflict or whatever is better. But we need more opinions. So far, only Israelis have commented. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How about "July 2014 round of violence between Israel and Gaza" ? It avoids IDF's name of the operation and shows that both sides hold part of responsibility for the damages. At the very beginning of the article both side's names for the event should appear. 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Round of violence" would imply something much milder than what we're seeing now. Like simple street clashes or something. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Violence, attacks, offensive - pick any word, as long as it applies to both sides. 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the current title ('offensive' is commonly used by sources), though I think it should have been moved through a proper RM. The use of "between Israel and Gaza" is incorrect, the violence is between Israel and Hamas, and Gaza is paying the price. Your proposed title, IP, doesn't reflect the real damage on the civilian population. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Current title implies that the offensive is unidirectional, which is very biased and simply wrong. Hamas is Gaza's elected government, so any attack initiated by Hamas is attack by Gaza. I can live with "July 2014 offensive between Hamas and IDF in Gaza and Israel", although technically it is not correct. 2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving the title to something completely POV without even discussing in the talk page is out of line in my opinion. As many people have stated most articles are under the Operation name because thats the best way to relate to it. Your title includes everything from 1/1/2014 to 12/31/14 however this is about a 10 day period thus far. We need an admin in here to revert this back unless an agreement can be made on something else. Your change has gone against the way Israeli Palestinian conflicts have been captured here for 10 years. Plus only Pro-Palestinian newspapers would call it Israel offensive in Gaza because Israel considers this is defending its citizens. Your move is 100% POV. - Galatz (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

+1, 100%. This move is 100% POV, misleading, unprecise and uncorrect. 95.224.3.17 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• It seems most commenters here are Israelis, so of course you all think the title is POV. But obviously focusing on the IDFs own designation is extremely POV. So we need a compromise, and we need opinions of non-Israelis as well. Otherwise we can just go head and retitle the Iraq War article "Operation Iraqi Freedom". FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not Israeli so there you go, you have my opinion. Its 100% POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This should be resolved be sampling high quality reliable sources. Google counts are worthless. No one should even need to voice their opinion about whether a title is neutral. Neutral here is by definition "what most reliable sources say" as FunkMonk said way up the top of this section. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Let me offer an outsider perspective from someone that doesn't edit any on Middle East topics. I'm neither Muslim, Christian nor Jewish. The current title (2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza) is amazingly POV and inaccurate, just using the sources as it makes it sound like Israel just up and invaded Gaza the other day. Whatever you change it to, the current title is completely unacceptable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I support the current title of the article, this is a fierce Israeli attack targeting civilians in primarily. We should not lose sight of this.--Uishaki (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the fierce attack by Hamas on Israel ? Hundreds and thousands of rockets fired on civilian population without any prior provocation. What makes you think that ignoring this is NPOV? NPOV would be acknowledging that that attack is going in in two directions, and letting the reader decide based on the facts which side began and which side is at fault.2A01:110:10:1008:D9E9:BBE7:D672:40A0 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• So now the article was moved back with the rationale "Move was contentious, caused blocks and a firestorm" Erm, the person who was blocked was in favour of the IDF title, so how can the move be blamed for his misbehaviour? And an invasion of IPs (not regular editors) is a "firestorm"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who dislikes the Operation Pillar of Defense title can explain to me rationally whats not POV about it. Its the name of the Israeli operation yes, but Hamas doesn't have a name for it. Plus even Maan seems to call it that. A quick search of their website shows it http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=711222 none of the articles on Maan seem to call it what you are proposing. I don't actually see Al Jazeera calling it that either. Please provide evidence of how virtually all are calling it that. - Galatz (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Should we rename Operation Barbarossa to 1941 Germany-Russia conflict?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we rename "Iraq War" to "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Agree, should be moved to a more neutral name.--Ezzex (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. A two-sided conflict needs a two-sided name for NPOV. – Ypnypn (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The POV of the current title is far worse than the weak POV of which entity is named first in the proposed title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Israel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew into "Operation Protective Edge" to give the operation a more defensive spin: "The name of this operation ["Protective Edge"] was modified in English to give it a more defensive connotation," says Israeli military spokesman for Arab Media Avichay Adraee. (http://www.timesofisrael.com/name-protective-edge-doesnt-cut-it/). Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is the name used in the media. BlueHorizon (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The name is referred to in the media, when mentioning Israel's offensive, but the 'conflict itself is not called that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Move request 2

Operation Protective Edge → 2014 Israeli offensive on Gaza – First of all, this is how the majority of reliable sources describe it. Per some points in the above discussion, we should avoid official one-sided names like IDF ones. There is much more to the story than this operation. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support You can not compare the Israeli attacks and airstrikes that has resulted in killing dozens of people with the amateur and domestic rockets of Palestinian groups killed one person so far.--Uishaki (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It certainly needs a move, but it is more likely that there will be consensus for a title like 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not about who has the bigger guns and who has the better defense. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (A) The title "Israeli offensive on Gaza" is a POV, putting one side as sole aggressor and another side as victim, while the situation in reality is part of an ongoing conflict between two sides (Israel and Gaza) in which both sides attack the other, each for their own reasons that are justified in their own eyes. A more NPOV would be something like 2014 Israel-Gaza Violence (or something of that sort).

(B) I haven't seen that this is "how the majority of reliable sources describe it". I've seen various references, but nothing consistent. The only consistent references I could find is the mention of the IDF operation name ("Operation Protective Edge") in various international sources. (C) Almost all of the previous clashes in this conflict are using the IDF operation names, mostly because other than the ongoing tit-for-tat, the significant rounds of violence started when IDF declared its going to retaliate against rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli cities. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A Using the name of the article is consistent with how the vast majority have been referred to, unless there is a clear cut other name. Additionally the person who changed it keeps saying "how the majority of reliable sources describe it" however I see now proof of this. The only constant I see the operation. Operation Brother's Keeper was not called that because there was another clear name that could be used, there is no other clear name.

B The proposed name signifies a year's worth of violence, however this article is about what is currently a 10 days escalation. Pages already exist for that, showing attacks from one side at the other C The proposed name clearly shows a one sided offense, when this is not the case. The only reason Israel does not have more deaths is due to the Iron Dome. - Galatz (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Galatz, point C. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The title must either not mention the attacking vs attacked side at all, or mention both since there is offensive going on from both sides. Number of victums is irrelevant - Hamas's use of human shields vs Israel's defense systems is the reason for difference. If one of hamas' "crude home-made rockets" managed to hit a kingergarten and kill tens of children - would it change the situation in any way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.144.105 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the convention Wikipedia uses for naming these articles. --Dweller (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per much of Galatz's rationale. This is a war. Hamas are using missiles imported from Iran and Syria which are targetting Tel-Aviv and beyond. Iron Dome is stretched to its technical limits in intercepting them. Hamas are attempting to hit Israel with full force. Hamas commenced massed rocket barrages in the last days of june, which was an act of war, targetting population centres without any attempt at discrimination. In fact a war crime of the first degree, or in old skool terminology, terrorism. Using your logic, we could just as plausably term it Hamas offensive on Israel 2014. The name of the operation should be retained as title at this point. Irondome (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The politics behind the nature of the offensive perhaps should be covered in other relevant articles or its own article - this article was begun as an article on the military operation. In fact some of the "article creep/bloat" could be cut from it and used elsewhere. P.S. FutureTrillionaire's rationale ^ is blunt-object logic, also. It's just a name for a military operation - trying to read too much into it is unproductive. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others above. Faizan 14:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support – The present title fails WP:NPOV entirely. While there are problems with the proposed title, it is better then what we have now. No one can deny that this is an "offensive". "Protective edge" itself clearly implies that it is an "offensive". RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose One-sided POV, just like the current title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support – The current title is 100% one-sided. 3bdulelah (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others above. Flayer (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Wikipedia should use the name used in secondary sources, i.e. not Israeli military. Current name is no more than propaganda.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

In my opinion, the current state of the article is not written from a neutral point of view.

• It is not mentioned at all why this operation was launched, i.e. to stop the rocket attacks. Since the beginning of 2014, around 450 rockets were launched from Gaza before the beginning of the operation Protective edge (compared to around 36 in 2013). The last days before the start of Protective edge, the intensity was approaching 100 rockets per day. Moreover, increased rocket fire was already before the abduction of those 3 israelis. The current version looks like "Israeli army invaded Gaza and started killing civilians". In fact, more than one third of the rockets and rocket launchers has already been distroyed and the goal is clearly not to hit civilians but to weeken Hamas ability to hit Israeli people. This can be found in a number of sources but not here.
• It is never mentioned in this article that Hamas and Islamic jihad are targeting civilians (including the international airport, which is a "school-book" example of international terrorism), while Israel is targetting military objects, munition, Hamas members and selected houses after warning the civilians. The word "terrorism" is not mentioned in this article at all.

I'm not saying that the palestinian viewpoint should be excluded from the article, but currently it seems to be the only one (in most parts of the article, if not in all). Franp9am (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point about flight disruptions from Ben-Gurion, and the potential danger of neutral fatalities is valid. We can discuss that. However on the whole this article is developing well. Do not mistake consensus for agreement ;). We have a core group of true wikipedians of differing POVs who are keeping it from walk-away-from-it stressful chaos. Please pitch in and help, but leave your POV at the door as much as possible, as all eds of G.F are attempting to do here. Irondome (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that firing at Ben Gurion is valid and definitely important to include. I would include it if you can find an RS that states Hamas took credit credit for aiming at it. When the article was original built it had facts like the 450 you mentioned and the 8,000 fired since the beginning of the operation, however most have since vanished. Again if you can find a good RS that has those stats, its probably good to add into the Long Term background section. - Galatz (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this work? [2], it doesn't say Hamas aimed for the airport, per se; rather, that it intends to do so. Strygalldwir (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, it does say they claimed at least one rocket was fired at the airport. Strygalldwir (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please IMPROVE the article with Reliable Sources material rather than throwing a tag on it. Everything in the article is well-cited at this time, and it is obvious to me why the military mission is taking place from the article. I'm going to remove the tag - this article has been worked on by many editors and I see no bias at all at this point. Of course, personal feelings and the pro/con's of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of some editors are seething under the surface, but that is the domain for blogs and op-eds, not an encyclopedia. Remember, the article requires solid RS's to be used and if they don't support one's POV, that's just life. Wiki uses Verifiability not Truth as it's SOP.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answers. I have to admit that at least the introduction looks a bit better than yesterday. Please keep an eye on this article and I will try to help when I find some time. Franp9am (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fix the Map

South Sudan is missing from the map. There needs to be an updated one that includes the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xonden (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

+1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ground offensive

The BBC are reporting that the Prime Minister has ordered ground operations. That's it at the moment. My wording is virtually the BBC report at the mo. Irondome (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Update http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28359582 Irondome (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, am I missing your edit, mate? I rewrote the July 17th paragraph about this, using Ynetnews.com[3] as source. Let me know if I messed something up. Strygalldwir (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries mate. I saw your edit and just minutes later I saw the beeb report. I didnt want to mess up any potential eds you were doing re those incredibly stressful edit conflicts :/ Irondome (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, much obliged. Feel free to go on and rework it per the BBC report, if anything's off :) Strygalldwir (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Glued to BBC news24 at mo. Its minute by minute stuff literally. I wouldnt be able to keep up. I am ssllooww still. Would be my first major I/P edits on a ongoing event, and I find the prospect daunting frankly. I will attempt some stuff, but if they screw up, please bear with me and AGF as Im sure you all would. In the meantime, please get it out there everyone. Dont wait for slowcoach. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The story will certainly develop by tomorrow and we will most likely need a new article. Perhaps we can create 2014 Israeli ground offensive on Gaza and ignore the above RM? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Or you can call it 2014 Israeli defense against unprovoced attacks from Gaza. Or you can keep the current title until there is another NPOV title that can be agreed upon.84.111.144.105 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the topic be named Gaza War (2014)? I would say the ground offensive brings the operation to "war" status and must be distinguished from the 2008–09 Gaza War. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the name of the article, these events are just taking place, its better to wait some days and see whats happends next. But the Operation could last longer or have different phases. However i see this far from finished, the mobilization of over 40k men was a clear indication the IDF was ready from a aground ocupation of the Strip. Hope no more people get killed.200.48.214.19 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaza War is still a bad title for the previous fight but operational names by one of the belligerents became a cry for NPOV over common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"45% were women or children"

Why are women grouped with children? Maybe say 27% were children. "Women or children" is a strange way to group people.135.0.167.2 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I whole heatedly agree with your notion that at this point shouldn't even be considered "progressive". RS uses women and children combined since women are typically no combatants in that region and because it adds shock value.

Background

I am removing a signifigant amount. It was still too close to the original plagiarized piece in structure. The paragraph also used sources predating the conflict to justify an assertion made in the copy righted opinion piece which lead to a form of original research. An attempt to disrupt the combined government might very well be part of the reasoning behind the conflict (I don't know either way) but it did not deserve that much weight. Plagiarism, original research, undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No one should be tampering grossly with the lead or background without first addressing the talk page. The lead summarizes the article and yet the second major paragraph has no connect with the background, in fact it contradicts it.

By 7 July, 100 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israeli territory, towards Beersheba, Ashdod, Ofakim, Ashkelon, and Netivot, and Israel struck several sites in Gaza.[10][11][12] Overnight, Israel hit 50 targets in the Gaza Strip,[13] and by 8 July, Palestinian militants in Gaza had fired over 140 rockets within 24 hours into Israel, as far north as Hadera, beyond Tel Aviv. Israel's counter-rocket defense system, the Iron Dome, intercepted about 30 of the rockets. Israel also thwarted an infiltration from the sea.[14] Israel commenced the major military response on 8 July. On the same day, Hamas declared that "all Israelis" had become "legitimate targets".[15][16].

The background showed once that exchanges of IAF attacks and Hamas rocketry had been going on for a week before the decision to conduct an operation against Gaza. That is nowhere in the lead, as opposed to the background. Instead we have a list of Hamas actions provoking Israel. It violates WP:NPOV by following the IDF Israeli official line, and is a disgrace.

This also, in the background, is POV pushing:

however, Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said that he can neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping of the three Israelis, and congratulated the abductors

('however' here is editorial nudging to suggest 'whatever Hamas says, they wouldn't come clean'). Meshaal's statement was made to stress that, since they had (their public position which is all that counts for us) no knowledge of the incident despite Israeli accusations of responsibility, they could neither confirm or deny the facts. In several statements Hamas and other groups said they were reading the kidnapping as something staged by the IDF to provide a pretext to hit Gaza. Silly, but that is one impression they had, given some credibility because everyone knew that the government pretended the boys were alive for three weeks in order to provide the ratio for a massive crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, a crackdown that, in strategic terms, left Hamas in the dilemma of either not defending their own, or retaliating. Hamas formally broke its Nov 2012 agreement with Israel after an IAF attack on one of its rocket squads on June 29, by relòeasing a rocket barrage on June 20. Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe any of your suggestions are related to my edit so all I can say is be bold and fix what you see needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.160 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They are all related to your edit. You removed substantial text that had been stable, and then alerted the talk page. One is not supposed to do that. This is supposed to be a (ha!ha!) consensual drafting, not an obiter dictum followed by an executive expunging of text no one till you found problematical.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It was by no means stable. The edit went through by a single editor before the ground operation started and we saw increased traffic on the page. It was reported to a noticeboard within 24 hours of the original insertion since it was in obvious violation of copyright. Pardon me for being dense, but I still don't see anything I removed as being at all remotely related to your tl;dr personal blog/attempt to start a debate for the fun of it/diatribe. I'm not engaging in an argument with you. Fix it or don't. Just make sure to not copy and paste a single source in then add unrelated sources throughout in an attempt to make a point. Have you even looked at the dif from the edit or were you too busy trying to convey your own point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I expect rational discussion to make analyses, compare them to relevant policy issues, link to relevant noticeboard discussions, etc. You haven't done that here. You made assertions. Document them closely and they will be examined.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Wording/Tone

Many of the sections on each day end with a phrase along the lines of "By day's end, Israel had struck # targets in Gaza, resulting in # deaths. From Gaza # rockets were fired toward Israel, resulting in # deaths." - this phrasing just seems a little off, especially seeing that it regularly uses "...0 deaths..." as supposed to "...zero/no deaths...". Additionally, the repetition/grammar of the phrase just seems a little propagandistic to me - I'm not that familiar with the MoS, but thought I should point it out for a more experienced editor to have a look at. - Stephen1133 (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It comes straight from the New York Times, which has a pro-Israeli spin. If you are worried about propaganda (no one else seems to be), the whole article is more or less that, particularly the lead, since the assumption of drafters and of most RS is that there is a state actor under attack from non-state 'terrorist' rockets. Hamas 'militants' are simply soldiers defending their homeland, or what remains of it, yet we obligatorily stick to that dubious contrast because almost all RS use that language. It is quite impossible to edit this rationally, because the title says it is about what Israel does, not about, unlike the Gaza War, how both sides call the conflict and saw it.

Most of the sources are Israelocentric. The whole article illustrates the success implementation on wikipedia of the fact that so far So far, Israel has done a far better job than the Palestinians making a case for war even when it's the occupying power. This is reinforced by the ABC-type western news media, that shows Israel defending itself against the aggression of the besieged Palestinians, even when the evidence or images tell otherwise.

• 'Due to the consistent rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, the Israeli government closed all summer camps within 40 km (24 miles) of Gaza and universities canceled their final exams.'

No balancing statement. Several teenagers in Gaza also missed their final exams because they were killed by bombs launched on their homes.

• This was followed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu instructing the IDF to "take their gloves off" against Hamas and instructed them to take any means necessary to restore peace to Israeli citizens.

No balancing statement, except for the next para:'Late afternoon, Hamas announced that all Israelis are now legitimate targets.' I.e. Israel is engaged in restoring peace (by initiating a devastating bombing campaign on an occupied country): Hamas in targeting Israeli citizens'(while defending itself from the devastating bombing campaign). Nice, lads.

• 'targeted retaliation,'.

This like 'human shields' is as hasbara meme. Israel retaliates when Hamas attacks. It never initiates military strikes, though it does so as frequently as Hamas.

• the home of senior Hamas member Abdul Rahman Juda, who was using his home as a control and command center. The only scientific study of Israeli-Gaza interactions in terms of cause and effect completely deconstructs this meme:Johannes Haushofer, Anat Biletzki ,Nancy Kanwisher, 'Both sides retaliate in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. August 25, 2010, yet it still dominates hasbara-filtered reportage in RS (systemic bias).

In any case, the statement should have been with attribution 'Whom the IDF says was using his home as a control and command center,'.

• 3 paragraphs then follow with details of rockets and guerillas attacking Israel

No details of such strikes as those where 8 members of the Kaware'a family killed, or 6 members of Hamad family killed, that day. We get this in day 3, wrongly, two days late:

'Eight of those killed were members of the Kaware family. Israel announced that although the family was warned, and they did leave the house, they returned after the warning shot hit the house.'

IDF propaganda. The warning 1.30. They obeyed it and waited for 1 hour 20 minutes outside, then saw a missile (the roof knock destroy their solar panels. They waited still, and then went to check the damage, and precisely at that moment, with Israel's excellent drone video's watching the street and house, were hit. B'tselem stated after detail research that the family was contacted by the Israeli military to leave the premises at 1.30 pm., and they evacuated it, gathering outside. At 2:50 pm, a drone missile struck the solar water tank on the roof, and after several minutes, the family went back inside, and 4 were on the roof, while several were in a stairwell or courtyard when the 3 pm missile struck.

On 8 July 2014, at around 1:30 P.M., the military called the Kaware’ home, informed the family that the house was to be bombed, and instructed them to leave the premises. The three-story building, owned by Ahmad Kaware’, consists of seven apartments belonging to Kaware’ and his sons. One son, ‘Odeh Kaware’, is an activist in Hamas’ military wing. At first, the family members obeyed the instruction to leave the house, but they gathered outside it with dozens of other persons. At approximately 2:50 P.M., a missile fired from an unmanned aerial vehicle struck the solar water tank on the roof of the building. Several minutes later, family members and neighbors began to go up to the roof. At 3:00 P.M., a missile was fired at the building from an F-16 fighter jet. At that stage, four persons were on the roof and other people were in the stairway or in the courtyard, on their way to the roof. The roof collapsed under the bombing, killing eight people, six of them children. Another 28 people were injured, ten of them sustaining severe injuries.

The IDF then reported that Hamas had ordered them back in to act as 'human shields', which our text loves to assert as well.

Para 2 is the same.

One or two passing mentions of a few casualties, then numerous mentions of Gaza rockets aimed at Israel.Note that numerous Israeli cities are named, whereas the IAF's numerous strikes of Khan Yunis, Gaza City, Rafah, Beit Hanoun etc., remain vague without geographical specificity.

Para 3.

• What is junk like

'Four US Senators Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, Kelly Ayotte, and Chuck Schumer, put forth a resolution expressing support for Israel as it defends itself against Hamas and ensure the survival of the State of Israel. Additionally, it condemns the unprovoked rocket fire at Israel, calls on Hamas to immediately cease all rocket attacks against Israel, and calls on Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the unity governing arrangement with Hamas and condemn the attacks on Israel'

appropriate to a responses section if barely notable since these kind of things are utterly predictable, and only ask that per NPOV, one line up a dozen global prominent analysts declaring that it is just another example of shooting with bazookas into a fish bowl? Neither the latter nor yawningly proedictable boosts from the US senate should be in this narrative.

In the early afternoon, at an IDF checkpoint on Highway 5, a car with Palestinian plates carrying Palestinians Arabs was stopped. The car contained two cooking gas tanks connected to what is believed to be a detonation device. Shin Bet is investigating the incident that is believed to be a car bomb.[91] One of the two suspects later confessed they intended to perpetrate a terror attack

This datum is correct, but there is no balancing mention that the same day three families were hit, the Malaka, al-Masri, Hamad, al-Nawasra, Qannan families, with 16 children and 10 women identified by name hit in strikes that same day. Whatever details fits the terror pattern for Israel is selected: whatever details reflect the Palestinian perception of being hunted by a war machine is elided, swept under the carpet, or glozed over. On that Wednesday,the IAF targeted a beach cafe where 13 young men were watching the world cup semifinal was blown up by a missile, killing 9, no mention.

These are just a few sparse notes on just the reportage of the 3 days. All I can see here is a successful reproduction of Israel's point of view, systematically suppressing the other narrative on the ground to highlight Israel under attack. Editors should be awarded medals by the Israeli Foreign Office for their excellent reproduction of the official line, even if it is all done unwittingly. Given the huge quantity of newbies and IPs constantly editing here, sane NPOV description is all by impossible. But in wikipedia we have a pillar called NPOV which in active page editing means that each section must be carefully assessed, when two parties are in conflict, to assure the neutral representation of both versions of a common interlinked story, and there is no trace of awareness of that pillar here. It was probably demolished during Operation Pillar of Defense.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Human Shields

Our text currently reads that "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. " and "In response, Israel claimed that many civilian casualties were the result of Hamas using the Gazan population as 'human shields' at alleged missile launch targets,[196] an allegation denied by Hamas."

This text seems incorrect, as Hamas has on multiple occasions acknowledged using human shields,both during this conflict, and in general, and praised those who use that tactic as martyrs. (Although they have in other contexts denied it as well) How should we correctly describe this part?

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri: "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes."

"We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be"

• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729#.U8kvA_nP3z4
• http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/hamas-encourages-civilians-to-ignore-warnings-act-as-human-shields-video/
• http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12019

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Better source : http://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-gaza-residents-acting-human-shields-israeli-forces-258223Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sami Abu Zuhri does not use the term "human shield". Besides, the video refers to practice that some Gazan residents have adopted where they would stand on the roof of targeted homes in hopes of preventing its bombing by Israel attacks, which is quite different from the conventional definition for human shield. Nevertheless, Israel continues to use such vague terms and explanations to defend its assault. Naturally, we would have to include the perspective of the other side as well. Hence the video cited for Hamas' denial. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How is that different than the conventional definition of human shield? That seems EXACTLY the definition to me? From the lede of the article you linked "placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Homes are not "combatant targets". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would normally say that is a fair point, except for them being used repeatedly as launch sites for rockets, and the place where the combatants and leaders are. However, in the interest of compromise, is there a way that we could flesh out the current text? Something along the lines of "Hamas has denied used human shields, but has encouraged/praised people to/who go on roofs of homes and buildings to discourage them from being bombed by Israeli forces"? OR some other wording you think accurately captures Zuhri's statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the bombing of the rehabilitation center for the severely disabled that killed 4 patients and their nurse, and it turns out the alleged Hamas member was not even home at the time? I think sentence you proposed is suggestive, and possibly violates WP:SYNTH. Note that the video has been discussed earlier at Talk:Operation_Protective_Edge#Human_Shield. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to justify any side, but what you do is sort of cherry picking. Most of IAF strikes are against legitimate targets (at least according to IDF intelligence), sites that are used as launch sites, hideouts or missile and weapon caches. Once in a while there are mistakes and wrong or unrelated target are being hit, and these do not represent the vast majority of airstrikes. According to IDF, more than 1500 airstrikes were used, and only very little of these actually hit these targets in which "disabled patients or children: were hit. This is a very small number by any means, although these are the only cases that are being shown in the social media, to provoke emotional responses. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"pal watch" is not reliable source, but Washington Times is [4]. However, we all must respect some basic rules, including that this is not a place for discussion, who is to blame for this war. Our personal oppinions on this war are irrlevant for Wiipedia, we must edit without bias. Beside that, there are few other rules 1) 1rr, 2) WP:NPOV, that needs to be respected.--Tritomex (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. My original point was that a statement by the hamas spokesperson about is surely notable and relevant enough for inclusion. Readers can determine how to interpret the statements from the various sides on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Current article text reads "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. ". Some sources [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] have pointed out a video of an interview with Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri which he is quoted (translated) as saying "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes" .

Should this quote or a brief summary of the sources discussing these statements and quotes be included in the context of the allegations of use of Human shields?

Survey

• include as proposer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• include. The uncharacteristically bitter and POV tone of your reflections are not helping your cause, N. You usually contribute a well-balanced argument. However, I remain to be ultimately convinced, based on sober language and some bloody good RS. I did not expect the poor argument below from you. That's me editing after 6 cans of Strongbow Cider at 3am. You can do better than that. Please completely rework your argument, and avoid terms like Hasbara. Engage me, don't make me wince. Respectfully, Irondome (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include When I read the quoted sentence, the only message I get is that people are really defenseless and are using their last weapons (lives) to protect their homes, and that, people who are not afraid of death may do every thing possible and hence do every thing to protect their homes. Don Juan says:"When one has nothing to lose, one becomes courageous. We are timid only when there is something we can still cling to." To me, it does not mean that they are encouraged to make a human shield against the planes but to do every thing they can for their homes and not to fear death. Mhhossein (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include. It's relevant and sourced... why not? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include A vague statement encouraging people to "oppose Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone" is nowhere close to a definition of a human shield. It can just as well be read as a defiant attitude towards Israel. There has to be actual evidence of people either forced to, or explicitly being deliberately placed so as to shield combatants from attack, or to shield combat targets, to qualify as human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• 3 of the four sources you cite are RS only in the sense of the abbreviation for rat ####. Please read Human shield esp.this section and Neve Gordon and Nicola Peruigini, On 'human shielding' in Gaza Al-Jazeera 18 July 2014. Calls by Hamas to stay on and not flee are identical to the calls by Yishuv leaders to Jews in Kfar Etzion and Jerusalem to stay there and not flee. To spin this, as the IDF press handouts have repeatedly as compelling unwilling people at gunpoint to get killed, while militants hide behind them is, frankly, obscene. There are numerous examples from Masada right down to the present day in Jewish history, and world military history, of what is being spun here as a coerced stay-behind behaviour of civilians. Of course, it would be easier for Israel to request that all Hamas fighters emerge from their tunnels and play by the rules of war, as drones and F4 Fighter planes, and satellites pinpoint them, and the ultra-sophisticated guidance systems of tanks and drones liquidate them. That's the premise. Hamas militants are cowards, whereas the whole army shooting at a safe technological distance of miles is heroic, defending the fatherland while killing what remains of the adversary's.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, there are sources that are not rat ####, and in the other articles, we discuss the actions by Israel in a similar context. So your !vote is an include then? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Washington Post just picked up the hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. No one is editing in significant elements of the damage to the civilian population while people like yourself appear to be avid to press home a known piece of hasbara that implies all civilians deaths are forms of coerced suicide. Israel has, as anyone in the West Bank can tell you, consistently used kids as shields over the last 20 years, it has been condemned by Israel's Supreme Court for doing so, and persists. It now had the shamelessness to accuse Hamas of the very unmanly act its own troops have often employed, even in the last invasion of northern Gaza.

My point is that this is an IDF meme, not an element of the battle front, and the function of the meme is to suggest to readers that the casualties in Israel's onslaught, despite 10 documented cases in the Ist three days which look like war crimes because strike after strike whole families were wiped out, are not Israel's fault, but a result, as the IDF put out in the Kaware's case, of Hamas constraining people to expose themselves to the 'innocent' destruction of houses of human habitation. The article is (I could write 20 pages on this) already like an IDF handout, and further attempts to 'screw' the other POV, almost invisible, are unacceptable, esp. since editors here are wholly disinterested generally in any other story than the one spun by the 4th most powerful army in the world and its ally, (the United States of Amnesia), whose purity of arms every two years consists in massacring a captive population. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

IDF headquarter

Some information. IDFs headquarter are located in central Tel Aviv. The largest city in Israel. In Gaza there are difficult to find locations for military equipment that are unpopulated or densely populated, simply because of its limited size.--Ezzex (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian Man with Boy photo

2 comments on the photo. First the source of the photo appears to be here: https://news.vice.com/article/palestinian-death-toll-reaches-125 so does this violate copyright? Second the photo is from the 12th so if its ok to keep the photo up I propose we move it to that date so its more relevant. - Galatz (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is also that of 4 photos, the infobox photo is of a rocket explosion in central Israel, the second of damage done by a rocket in Sderot, the fourth of a hit on Beersheva. We are not supposed per WP:NPOV to do this, esp. when the overwhelming superiority of strike numbers by Israel on Gaza is controverted by 3 photos proclaiming Israel is the one suffering strikes, and nothing of damage to the Gaza Strip. Further proof that this article is a reproduction of something one would expect from Israel's Foreign Ministry. Editors are failing their job, and there is no oversight on this continual violation of WP:NPOV protocols.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The photo was uploaded by the photographer to his flickr [10], and released under CC, so there is no copyright issue. To Nishidani's point, we do need to balance photos of both sides, although as mentioned above, the Palestinian side is generally not publishing photos in a manner that Wikipedia can use, so we are somewhat constrained. However, to counter his argument, we should be reflecting the weight of coverage in reliable sources, not the percentage of strikes being performed. Fairly or unfairly, the reliable sources coverage focuses more on the Israeli damage than the Palestinian. In any case, there is no policy reason not to use this photo, and a good NPOV reason to use it (Although the original filename and caption (by the photographer) certainly had neutrality issues, but that has been fixed already Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

to counter his argument, we should be reflecting the weight of coverage in reliable sources, not the percentage of strikes being performed. Fairly or unfairly, the reliable sources coverage focuses more on the Israeli damage than the Palestinian.

Nope. RS are not defined as Israeli and Western mainstream press articles. There is an abundance of information on Palestinian casualties in Reuters, B'tselem, Associated France Presse, Al-Jazeera, Ma'an News Agency, which is not being harvested (predictably, I've seen this on several occasions) on this page, compared to the casualties page. That means, editors are picking their information to drive the Israeli POV, and in fact the POV tag should be re-introduced, because, any section by section analyse shows the slanting, and my indications from the first three paras have not been addressed.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is this a joke? 300 dead Palestinians, and all the images in this article show smoke in Israel?! FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No joke. Two maps about Hamas's fire range, reduplicating each other. The one Palestinian photo removed, and two photos of Israel reeling under Hamas's rockets. Per NPOV, both images should be removed to this page, until an adequate balance between photos of the damage Israel does, and the damage Hamas does are found, and the info box requires a split photo showing both sides of the equation. It won't be done. Bad editors have the numbers to keep this farce going.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Should not use Arab media as references

Editors should avoid using arabian newspapers as references. There are a lot of articles about this issue in British and US newspapers. This article have far to much references from Arabian sources. There are over 100 references and over 50 % seams to be arabian/muslim. Examples: Al Jazeera, The Gulf Today, Ma'an News (terrorist hate site). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.107.191 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Idiotic. Sorry, but that's exactly what your blanket-statement is. If the source passes RS muster, it is valid.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ma'an News (terrorist hate site). Translation:'Ma'an reports the bare facts and details of Palestinians who are killed in war and under the occupation, and these occupied people are by definition 'terrorists' because, like the fathers of most of Israel's elite, they fight to obtain independence for their country. All of the Biritsh-denominated 'terrorists' of the Irgun and Stern Gangs were awarded medals as heroes of the struggle for independence afterwards, and several became Prime Ministers.No such parity is permitted to Palestinians who imitate the lesson, nor to organs that describe neutrally the facts of their 'evil' struggle.Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani: The original comment didn't justify a rational response. Your time would have better spent educating the new editor or simply ignoring.

186.93.107.191: Please see WP:RS and point out specific sources that are biased. Arab media is valid. A larger concern should be Western blogs attempting to mimic RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, please don't post your anti-Semitic hatred on Wikipedia. I strongly advise you to stay off of Jewish articles. Arab media is the worst sort of media. See Antisemitism in the Arab world. Posting links to Arab media should be regarded as vandalism. By the way, your comparison of the Jewish resistance to genocidal Islamic terrorists is putrid and defamatory. The goal of Hamas is to exterminate all Jews. They indiscriminately fire missiles at innocent civilians and use their own people as human shields. The Jewish resistance to British occupation did not kill people indiscriminately.

Using the background section to focus on a single assertion

I appreciate that he copyrighted material was not reintroduced. However, the background is continuously being used to assert that the conflict is based on the Palestinian factions uniting. That is a valid point per some RS but it is far from the primary reasoning according to most RS. Go ahead and write a line or even a paragraph but the background section needs to stop leading the reader to the conclusion that it is the mos prominent reason for the fighting. Kids got killed and fire was exchanged. That is clear. Some sort of conspiracy of political maneuvering needs to take a back seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not focusing on a single assertion. In fact, killings effectively triggered the flames of war but the background should not be ignored. Please notice that, the long-term pretexts are even more important as the WP:RSs say. However I appreciate your attention on the issue and would like to keep on the discussion and suggest you to continue using a registered account. Mhhossein (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The background material is supposed to capture the key events preceding the escalation that broke out into war on July7/8. What are most RS and some RS is an impossible thing to determine. The major events from the establishment of the Unity government and Netanyahu's dual attempts to smash it (appealing against it to the US and the EEC, the using the Qawasme murderers as a pretext to destroy Hamas as responsible when that association is deeply problematical ) are relevant. Despite the media hullaballoo these events continue in the context of political and strategic calculations, and this is no historical anomaly, and the reader had a right to see the background from both POVs.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the argument has been made and love to see it in. However, it is given too much weight with a long and possibly synthy paragraph. It overshadows information more commonly considered the primary reasoning by rs. 1-2 lines and a link to the specific article would work.

It's normative for these articles. See the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which is huge compared to this, and still needs work. I haven't the time at the moment, but it would be very easy to source this background even more thoroughly, and one can expect analysts' studies will be forthcoming in abundance quite shortly. What everyone knows, from Norman Finkelstein to Yuval Diskin, is that this is a war dictated by political calculations and infighting within Israel's Likud alliance, intimately connected to the fall of the elected Egyptian government and the replacement of Morsi by al-Sisi, who has shared geopolitical and business interests with Israel, and has nothing to do with the pursuit of its public claims. I think the wise thing however is to wait for the specialist essays on this. It is not a bad start, in my view.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

you are jumping all over the place. It would be better to stay on task. You do seem to agree with my request. A long winded paragraph that shovels synth into the artcle should be removed until more sources go into detail.

Two editors disagree with your impression, which you have not justified by evidence and argument. So, the suggested edit has not consensual warrant. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Down below you express your concern with the short term/long term style and in this very section you mention the need to hold off until deeper analysis is provided. So it really still sounds like you agree with me.

regardless of that, I will be removing all of the lines only supported by refs that predate the conflict. I'm likely not going to list them here as your evidence of synth since you can check the yourself. Furthermore, your consent isn't required to ensure that the section is within Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

UPDATE: I actually am going to provide a list of references used. I assumed that I could reduce the size of the paragraph while still keeping the initial theme in the section. However, not a single source currently provided actually discusses any link between the unified government and the current conflict (I recall seeing one. Where did it go or did I miss it?). This is WP:SYNTH and forbidden per the policy No Original Research. Specifically: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." So someone needs to find RS to make the attempted assertion or it needs to be removed.

• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• predates the conflict
• makes no mention of a link

Range map accuracy

I would be interested to know where the sources for the missile ranges came from. Unless I'm missing something obvious, it seems to me that each line of maximum range ought to be equidistant to points along the Gazan border - which obviously isn't the case on this map. Does someone want to have a look at this? 2.218.251.15 (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing something obvious. Put a drawing-compass at each point along the gaza strip, and turn it. The collective furthest points will make something very close to approximating those curves. The lines would only match the general outline of Gaza, if one could only shoot perpendicular to the line, but they can shoot in all directions. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Images Only 1 from Gaza

Whole article has just 1 image from gaza compared to 3 others. This needs to be fixed. 39.55.51.201 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It can only be fixed with free/legal images, as has been stated about a dozen times on this TP already. This is not 'bias,' this is copyright law. If someone has images, submit them to Commons and we'll incorporate them (up to a limit).HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

there are CC licensed images available39.55.51.201 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"CC licensed"? Anyway, point us toward said images.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I came here to comment to this same fact.

Why on earth or there more images of the horrible situation in Gaza than the horrible situation Hamas inflicted on Israel?

Hamas is the perpetrator of this war, they were the one's who started it, and they were the ones who did not accept the cease fire.

And I don't give a damn how many Palastenies were killed versus how many Israelis were killed. Less Israelis were killed because - frankly - they are better at it than Hamas. Hamas, if it had the power to, would wipe Israel off the map. And Israel, HAS the power to wipe the entire Gaza strip off the map yet refrains from doing so because it actually values humans life.

Additionally, I am unsure how biased cartoons made it's way onto this page. Should we place every cartoon that is going around these days? You might as well just insert a link to Google images.

The fact is that whoever inserted that cartoon was seeking to interject their own one sided baise.

WP:Summary style example

According to The Forward, Brigadier General Moti Almoz, the chief spokesman of the Israeli military, used an unusual language for a military mouthpiece and said: “We have been instructed by the political echelon to hit Hamas hard,” showing how politics triggered an unintended war in Gaza

This is (a) misplaced, because it refers to July 8, but is placed before the kidnapping events (b) is too long. It should conclude if retained the final paragrpah of the Background, and read something like this

The IDF was instructed by the political echelon "to hit Hamas hard".

I'd do it myself, like a lot of other obvious changes, but the anal reading of 1R, in the wrong hands of those who track editors whose work they dislike, is such that if I make more than one retouch a day, I'm dead at AE. I hope editors will look into this.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Chronological and logical place should maintained in each paragraph. Don't consider both of them together, because the first refers to the long-term pretexts and the second one refers to the short-term pretexts. Mhhossein (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Long term/short term are strange devices introduced here (long term would mean 1917 and the Balfour Agreement, or at least the Israeli colonization of 25% of the Gaza Strip with a handful of settlements, the Intifada, and Israel's transformation of the place into a Middle eastern version of the Warsaw Ghetto (the metaphor is that of an officer serving in the IDF in 2001). By the simple change I advocated, both form a seamless narrative chronologically and narratively, from April until July 2014, and the text ris itself of useless verbiage.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

However, what you said about Long-term/Short-term is an idea against which some opinions do exist. Read this article to get familiar with these two titles. Mhhossein (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Link to Marwan Bishara's article (thanks) shows he is thinking of long term and short term prospects, whereas I was commenting on the past. 'Background' concerns the past and has distant and immediate elements in a causal chain. 'Short' and 'long-term' in Bishara and your comment refer to the objectives sides hope to obtain in the future. This background section deals with the chain of incidents and events that informed the decision to go for war. Of course, the decision for war in turn has possible short and long term calculations of cost/benefit, which Bishara analyses. These political calculations, in so far as known rather than inferred (as the probable reasons for war), are appropriate to para 2, not one, since they inform the rationale for adopting a war resolution in the immediate prelude to July 8: Israel jumped at the chance to play the terror card to sink all possibiities of a peace settlement, and Hamas broke its truce (under bombardment) to place the PNA in a position of being Quislings, to secure terms that would enable it to survive as the legitimate authority in Gaza, and of course, get the funds to pay its monthly stipends to its men, which Israel thwarted after the solution was found in the April Unity Government.Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you when you say :"'Short' and 'long-term' in Bishara and your comment refer to the objectives sides hope to obtain in the future." But why should not we regard these objectives as the elements of the background for this war. Para2, mainly focuses on political causes of the war and helps the reader to understand the fact that besides the recent kidnappings and killings, other factors should be taken into account although there might be, as you said, other reasons rooting from the past events. For including further analysis we can replace the title (background) with another suitable one and write things like what you said in your last 4 lines. Mhhossein (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As I read it the 'background' means events from the April Unity Government down to the kidnapping of three teenagers (omitting the immense rage felt throughout the West Bank that the Beitunia killings of two youths in cold blood by the IDF caused on May 15, which can't be yet cited because we deal only with Israeli motivations, since that is all that appears to interest most sources, Israeli and Western. The next para deals with the killings of the youths and the chain of events leading down to the decision to go to war. Thus you have the large background and the immediate background contextualizing the war in chronological order. That these two together form the long and immediate background in two short paragraphs appears to me to be orderly, logical and immediately relevant as per sources.

Other things enter into calculations but are not yet on the general record: the big picture of the Sunni sweep through Iraq to Syria, means the Sunni Palestinians are interpreted by the paranoid politicians as possible pawns in a pan-Islamic encircling of Israel; Egypt's return to a pro-Israeli military government and the shared hostility to Muslim Brotherhood; Egypt's dread of the increasing Bedouin destabilization of the northern Sinai; Netanyahu's refusal to take John Kerry-Martin Indyk's American lead peace proposals seriously because it means giving up the real biblical real estate for nothing but 'peace'; and having to share the West Bank water sources equably which would be a major net loss for Israel, and the fact that in any case that the 1.8 million people in the Gaza Strip will have no water by 2020, unless the repeated pattern of smashing their infrastructure stops to allow them to develop the area, which might translate into major relocation of the refugees from the Gaza Strip (Jordan? the historic area the integralist camp in Israel has always aspired to resolve its internal Arab population 'threat')- these all enter as well, but RS are far too focused on the thrill and tremor of slaughter and fear to mention them.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Deaths

Is there any reason to break out the Jew vs Bedouin death? I know they are all Israeli citizens however Hamas' goal is only to attack the Jews. The Bedouin who died was not their target. - Galatz (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's of course an Israeli death, specifically Bedouin, and must be classified as such. By the way, you made a terrible slip in your comment. Hamas did not say it was attacking Jews: it said all Israelis were targets, which means even Palestinian and Bedouin Israelis. That is evidence of intent to commit a war crime, because it does not distinguish between soldiers and citizens. Israel, more aware of the legal sanctions that may (but never do) follow from public statement, formally makes the distinction in all of its handouts, but of course is completely indiscriminate in practice, since, as on the West Bank, it consistently refuses to apply the rule of war and shoots civilians indifferently, and that, as B'tselem is documenting constitutes evidence of war crimes. Both parties ought to be hauled before the International Court of Justice, and be made to respond legally for their insanity.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is reasoning if RS provides the context. I assume the rocket was intended for the Jewish population but that is how killing people works sometimes. Ignore the reasoning and potential implications and follow the sources.

Help

I am a new user who still quite ignorant on Wikipedia policy, though I'm trying to learn. Needless to say, I found this link regarding munitions found in a UN school, is it okay to add, and if so, could someone more experienced help out? Link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/unrwa-investigating-20-rockets-empty-gaza-school-palestinian Direwolf484 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Direwolf484

Why are there claims of how many IDF soldiers were killed according to Hamas, but not the claims of how many civilians killed according to Israel?

It's not a very NPOV if only one side's view of how many civilians are killed is expressed, is it?

IDF's policy is not to release information about casualties until the families are informed, in this case it took a while to recognize all the soldiers so there was no official IDF statement. Now the article is more updated. There is more information being released about the exact events. As far as we know there were no civilian casualties today.WarKosign (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Field hospital

Hello. As you can see, my English sucks. Therefore I ask you to write that the IDF opened a field hospital to treat wounded Palestinians in Gaza. Here are some sources: http://www.haaretz.com/1.606129 (12PM section) http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/IDF-sets-up-field-hospital-at-Erez-border-crossing-for-injured-Palestinians-363541 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/idf-to-open-field-hospital-for-gaza-civilians/2014/07/20/

I know that all of those are Israeli sources, but I can see that you allow using Haaretz.

I'm sure a photo will pop up as it did at Qalandiya checkpoint, before being removed, where Israel regularly shoots demonstrators and provides medical care for some of those who survive.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source

I see that RT.com is used as a source. Is this really a good idea considering the nature of this network? Eik Corell (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• What is wrong with RT? It has not been wikibanned as others have. It is therefore valid until otherwise decided by committee.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Presstv is also a terrible source, I suggest removing it

Percentages?

Can someone do the math and convert the 68% Civilian casualties into a number, for militants and civilians.

It'd be better to grab a number from a news article or somesuch. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Q. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Image vandalism

Someone keep an eye out please. [11][12]Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Tineline section

This is just horrendous for a quality article. Let's move the timeline to another page and put some encycloaedic prose here. Better than a daily logLihaas (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

+1

according to hamas?

I was unaware that OCHA was speaking on behalf of Hamas. nableezy - 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Media claim shouldn't be attributed to Israel

We have a number for casualties which we are calling an "Israel claim" when it is actually being reported by Haaretz without being qualified as an Israeli claim. --JFH (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Involvement of PFLP/DFLP

The PFLP and DFLP are listed as combatants, but what is their involvement in the conflict? I think perhaps there should be a source, for their inclusion in the wikibox. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Their involvement will be the same as other Palestinian armed forces i.e. participation in the fighting and the ceasefire negotiations. See [13][14] for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a citation, in the wikibox. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Sean. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)